Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: The Ratio of Forces to Insurgents

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2

    Default Thank you everyone

    Thank you to all those that have responded to my request and especially to “Infanteer” for the source on Forces to Population ratio and to “Jedburgh” who led me to the “Tie down ratio”:

    Much nonsense is heard on the subject of tie-down ratios in guerrilla warfare--that 10 to 12 government troops are needed to tie down a single guerrilla, for instance. This is a dangerous illusion, arising from a disregard of the facts.[4]
    I understand completely that it is a crude measure to use in arguing that troop deployment is inadequate in Afghanistan. I was planning on using a few different measures to get a handle on what the number should be versus what a politician may or may not want to defend.

    Another crude measure is the forces the Soviet Union had available only to loose. But my main focus on the article I intend to write is “Lessons learned from Vietnam” and in particular McNamara’s lessons list:
    1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
    2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
    3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
    4. Our judgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
    5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine.
    6. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
    7. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
    8. After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.
    9. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
    10. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
    I would argue that almost every single item on his list is once more being forgotten in Afghanistan, the main item being “winning the hearts and minds”. In our quest to kill the insurgent leaders we destroy villages and kill the locals. So just like Vietnam we win all the battles but lose the war. It boggles my mind that we are once again being driven by politicians who have no clue about winning the war and feed us propaganda on how we are apparently winning “the just cause”.

    The picture of the world's greatest superpower killing or seriously injuring 1,000 noncombatants a week, while trying to pound a tiny backward nation into submission on an issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty one.
    Memo from Robert McNamara to US President Lyndon Johnson, May 1967[/I]

    Don’t get me wrong, I think we should be in Afghanistan. That said, we shouldn’t be there if we don’t try really hard to actually win it. That requires a different strategy than trying a technology fix (e.g. sending predators into Pakistan), troop surges and propping up a corrupt government.

    Why aren’t we using some of the lessons learned in previous wars? Why are we not living with the locals in their communities (like a model from the Vietnam war)? Why are we trying to shove our version of “Democracy” on them when it just doesn’t resonate. Why are we expecting the local police and militia to work for less money than the Taliban offers? And on and on…

    TJ
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 03-03-2010 at 09:50 PM. Reason: Quote marks replaced use of italics. PM to author with advice.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •