Interesting. Comes back to the question of "what is a small war"?
Grenada, the Falkland Island campaign were both small wars, but very conventional.
Iraq and Afghanistan both large wars, but with a mix of activities. As was WWII and WWI for that matter (uh oh, getting into the equally messy reality that Asymmetric Warfare is nothing new either.}
You could have scenes of Armor and Artillery units rolling up guideons and disbanding; while officers from the same units then migrate to Leavenworth to write manuals on Counterinsurgency and Irregular Warfare, et al.
I guess as good of definition as any is that a small war is one where the populace at home has no real stake as to if the conflict is won or lost, and goes on about its life with business as usual before, during and after; win, lose or draw. Sadly, we can all draw dozens of images of how to picture that.
(and after writing this, realize that once again I have determined that the critical perception is that of the affected populace. "size" is determined by how important the populace thinks the war is, not by number of troops engaged, area covered, casualties incurred, tactics employed, etc, though all contribute to that perception.)
Next post will be from back in Kabul, packing up the computer and getting ready to head out.
Originally Posted by Red Rat
.
.
Bookmarks