Hi JC,
I'm not going to comment on current US Army training since I am woefully ignorant in that area, but I did want to make a couple of remarks on your last two points.
Originally Posted by
J.C.
Fifth, war changes. Do we still have a peer competitor out their on the horizan beyond China who is so wrapped in up our economic system that it would be suicide to fight us. Do we not have forces on both sides of Iran!!! Furhter, can North Korea even full supply, equip, and move a sizeable force for a long period of time.
If by a "peer competitor" you mean someone who will fight an industrial age (3GW) war against the US, then the answer has to be "no". China would never be stupid enought to fight a 3GW against the US - there are much easier ways for China to shift the balance of power any time they feel like it and they certainly don't need infantry and / or armour divisions to do it.
As for Iran, if the US went in with full UN and Nato backing, specifically including Chinese troops, I would give about a 30% chance of "winning" within 20 years. The initial 3GW combat would be over in about 10-12 months, the COIN operation would last a generation or more. There are *much* smarter ways to get Iran to shift their stance and become a more open society, but they are not 3GW operations.
As for North Korea, well, let's go back to the last Korean War. The key was China then and it is China now. No individual country can win a conventional war against China and you don't even want to think about the type of insurgency operation they could run! It is imaterial whether or not North Korea can maintain their forces for "a long time", although they have done so for the last 50 years. All they have to do to "win" a conventional war is to gurentee that China will come in on their side if they are invaded and about to loose.
Originally Posted by
J.C.
Sixth, are we really conducting COIN operations in Iraq or are we just putting stuco on a 3GW platform. I don't know what more to say. If we keep telling our selves these lies and keep trying to fight WW3 then the Somolias, Iraqs, and Afganistans will continue to go badly. Moreover, if I sound upset, you bet I am upset. Lets try to get this one right and really look at our threat matrix over the next few years. Then maybe we'll see that we don't fight trench battles anymore, or charge with troops on line, nor do we need deep battle and an over inflated Air Force to solve our problems. What we need is smart tactically, physically, and mentally trained leaders and soilders who will fight and with that force I'll go to war any day.
I must say, I like the stuco image . Honestly, I don't know if *anyone* knows what the war in Iraq is - conventional, COIN, civil, or just plain gang style fighting. In my more morose moments, I think that it is almost inevitable that future operations will go poorly. I find the words of Yates flowing through my brain
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
To my mind, the core problem that we, in the West, face is one of meta-epistemolgies. Loosely translated into specifics - "we" are fighting for a general belief that individuals should have the right to be who they wish to be with a concommitant belief that the sole role and responsability of the state is to provide a secure place for indivisuals to do so. This is opposed by a general belief in a "one true way" - what I call a "theological meta-epistemology".
The problem is not the actual conflict, the problem is to identify who actually supports which side.
Originally Posted by
J.C.
If you don't agree you can e-mail my AKO any time.
I'd far rather post here and get into a discussion
Marc
Bookmarks