SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Small Wars Participants & Stakeholders > Trigger Puller

Trigger Puller Boots on the ground, steel on target -- the pointy end of the spear.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-07-2013   #1
Mipeck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 6
Default Why America Can't Win Mountain Wars

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/baccad18e1db
Mipeck is offline  
Old 11-08-2013   #2
Dayuhan
Council Member
 
Dayuhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
Posts: 3,136
Default

This kind of jumped out at me:
Quote:
Mountainous regions are majestic and beautiful, and often they are perceived as strategic because like Afghanistan, they site astride trade routes, or there are political and emotional attachments, such as between Pakistan and Kashmir.
I wonder why people keep saying that Afghanistan sits astride a trade route? What trade route exactly is this? What goods of note, other than drugs, have passed through Afghanistan in human memory?
__________________
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

H.L. Mencken
Dayuhan is offline  
Old 11-08-2013   #3
Bill Moore
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,957
Default

Based on the author's analysis the mountainous terrain had little to do with our short comings, and he fails to make an argument that we lost in Italy (last time I checked we won, albeit at a great cost), and we succeeded in keeping the communists from uniting Korea. All conventional armies find mountainous terrain challenging, but on the other hand how many truly strategic objectives are in the mountains?
Bill Moore is offline  
Old 11-13-2013   #4
AmericanPride
Council Member
 
AmericanPride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
Posts: 962
Default

Afghanistan is more like a roadblock to potential trade routes. This analysis from the Real Institute Elcano highlights the geo-economic dimensions of the Central Asian region. There are five ways out of Central Asia: Russia, China, Afghanistan, Iran, and the Caspian. Three are closed to US control (Russia, China, Iran), one is about to close (Afg), and one is in dispute (Caspian).

The quest to open new corridors that undermine Russia's geographic and infrastructure monopoly in Central Asia (originally) looked to Afghanistan as an opportunity alongside routes through the Caspian. The Afghan conflict obviously makes it necessary to look elsewhere in the interim.
__________________
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
AmericanPride is offline  
Old 12-09-2013   #5
TV-PressPass
Council Member
 
TV-PressPass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 21
Default

I enjoyed reading it, but I didn't really take away a strong link between Italy, Korea and Afghanistan other than that the author happened to choose them for this article.

I find when I read War is Boring, I generally prefer David Axe's writings.
TV-PressPass is offline  
Old 12-13-2013   #6
Dayuhan
Council Member
 
Dayuhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
Posts: 3,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
Afghanistan is more like a roadblock to potential trade routes. This analysis from the Real Institute Elcano highlights the geo-economic dimensions of the Central Asian region. There are five ways out of Central Asia: Russia, China, Afghanistan, Iran, and the Caspian. Three are closed to US control (Russia, China, Iran), one is about to close (Afg), and one is in dispute (Caspian).

The quest to open new corridors that undermine Russia's geographic and infrastructure monopoly in Central Asia (originally) looked to Afghanistan as an opportunity alongside routes through the Caspian. The Afghan conflict obviously makes it necessary to look elsewhere in the interim.
The briefly proposed Afghan pipeline project would have had a very minimal capacity and was never a serious effort to undermine Russian dominance of Central Asian hydrocarbon export routes. The US of course cannot "control" Central Asian exports, and never could. Since the US doesn't need to control them, it's not a matter of any great relevance. I don't think the US interest in Afghanistan has ever been about controlling trade.

The Russian dominance of Central Asian export routes will of course eventually be broken by China, a process that has already begun. That's not something the US needs to be much concerned with.
__________________
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

H.L. Mencken
Dayuhan is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
dissertation help please! US military culture and small wars. xander day RFIs & Members' Projects 67 01-27-2010 02:21 PM
A precursor to America small wars Culpeper Historians 3 03-16-2008 07:01 PM
America Says Let's Win War SWJED Politics In the Rear 30 05-21-2007 07:34 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation