How Close is 'Close Combat'?

[Red Rat]

I think you muddle the tactical/operational and strategic levels (or at least don't differentiate between the aspect of 'war' and 'warfare').

I probably am muddled!

Tactically/operationally our Soldiers are engaged in close combat.

I agree.

I think what you are highlighting is the inherent problem with a conflict in which one side is engaging in limited war and the other in total war. We are tools of policy and that policy will dictate to what extent violence is applied.

I disagree. What is at issue is not the level or extent of violence brought to bear here, more how that violence is brought to bear and what that says about us. Warfare is a human endeavour involving passions and emotions, it is not merely a technical affair about what technical systems we use or not. It is not an issue of ROE, it is perhaps an issue of limited v unlimited (war) in how much political risk a government is prepared to accept vis a vis casualty rates. My gut feel remains that in small wars especially, there is a moral element where you have to demonstrate conclusively that it is impossible for the other side to win militarily. At the micro level that involves bringing the fight to the enemy in a way that the enemy recognises and respects; bringing the fight to the enemy and beating him.

It does link into limited versus unlimited warfare in that we are fighting a limited war where we are not only limiting the means we bring to bear, but also the risk we are prepared to take. I think there is a powerful message we are sending by not physically allowing our troops to close with the enemy(either because we weight them down with so much kit, constrain them with TTPs or make commanders casualty intolerant). IMHO we are saying that we are prepared to fight, but not fully. We are saying that we have a limited moral commitment, are prepared to take a limited risk with it. All the other side has to do is recognise that and match or better our limited commitment.

There are a myriad of reasons why ISAF are engaging in limited war,

in means yes, but also in terms of moral commitment. We do not seem to be in this to win.

but I would not have any reservation in stating that US forces are both willing and able to unleash violence of action if called upon to do so (you may have a different vantage from the UK).

As are UK forces, who are still routinely engaged in heavy combat. It is not the level of combat that takes place or the amount of force brought to bear, but how we go about doing so and what that says about us.

Nor should we abandon the necessity of close combat as it would be our ultimate undoing as a military profession and 'managers of violence.'

I violently agree!



I think that the character of any given conflict is the product of the societies involved in that conflict. In cases where the nature of the societies are so very different (such as AFG and the West) the 'how' we fight is important. If we are fighting 2 different types of war neither side may recognise or accept that the other is winning, possibly in a physical sense and certainly in a moral sense.