MikeF:Every war is an anomaly. No two will be alike.Should we treat these wars as anomalies and go back to tank gunnery and seizing airfields or should we train for big and small wars?
Train for the big stuff; it is easy to adapt down to the slower tempo and lower combat capability demand of small wars, it is not nearly as easy to adapt upwards.Not tough at all. Easy to take a mobile element and make it static, not much training required; all you have to do is gear it down -- and that's pure leadership. OTOH, taking a static element and trying to make it mobile requires different equipment and training as well as even better leadership...Should we assume they'll be in static FOBs or return to vehicles and mobile assembly areas? That's a tough one.
Bill Moore:In order: Not partial, wholly; they told me never to fight fair ; agreed; agree -- but there are still some who are overly DA oriented...partially correct punch below the belt; however, as you well know from your days with the OSS during WWII and then with SF in Vietnam War that UW is only one of our SOF missions, and not one that SOCOM leadership embraced warmly during the early days of the conflict. Most folks are wiser now.Agree but they're dumb enough to ignore.It is my impression that many are pushing SFA as "the" indirect approach.
Indirect approach / asymmetric warfare -- all same thing, get thar fustest with mostest, hit em where they ain't, punch below the belt,
Bookmarks