Posted on 01/29/2006 11:45:42 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
"Can't we just all learn to get along!!!!"
No. Not in a million billion years. It does no good to fool yourself.
In other words, he draws a straight line between countering terrorism and a war of attrition with the Chinese, posits that all armed conflict lies somewhere on this line, and QED the Revolution in Military Affairs Crowd (RMA) are wrong and undone.
But this is wrong on both ends and everywhere in between. First, only the old army is trying to fight a land war of attrition on the Asian mainland with China. Even McArthur wrote that one off. If the Chinese want to have a war on the Asian mainland, they are going to have to fight it alone. We don't rely on the army to defend us against China. We rely on 6,000 miles of Pacific Ocean backed up by the the Navy and Airforce, and if it were to come to that, a nuclear strike force. And what the H does quantitative incompetence mean?
On the other end he puts words in everyone's mouth. No one has ever claimed that technology is a complete substitue for humans in the war on terror, but it is a fallacy to state that it is an either or proposition. And my flesh and blood looking to join the military when he is older likes the idea of having a lot of high tech stuff between him and some terrorist. Come to think of it, so do I.
This guy misses a lot. High tech can help defeat suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do not act in a vacuum. They require an extensive support network, and one can undo the support network very effectively, partly through intelligence provided through technology. The British figured out the underground bombing pretty darned effectively using a lot of technology and a lot of gumshoe work. At least London is not quite as vulnerable to a few lunatics as Peters would have everyone believe.
He also lumps together journalists, intellectuals, and the revolution in military affairs crowd. He is wrong. Effective military leaders have always been men of genius, and he only shows off his own shortcomings when he wants to counter deadly threats with human bodies.
But never forget if it wasn't for Germany bombing Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't have gotten involved in WWII.
First, who do you think provided the coordinates to drop the JDAM? Second, just how many Spec Ops guys do you think it would take to surround a site and effectively neutralize all of the terrorists? Third, I'll bet the cost of insertion, extraction, and logistics support of that small army of Spec Ops folks would cost a hell of a lot more than the cost of the air strike. Forth, what do you think the cost of a JDAM is, anyway, compared to the cost of brinking back the bodies of paying off the insurnace on, providing rehabilitation for, and training the replacements of all of the Spec Ops soldiers you are planning to kill off to save a JDAM?
I don't think you understand what SpecOps folks are actually trained to do and where they are really effective.
This is a fundamental fallacy. A JDAM is not multi-million dollar technology, and we are not going to run out any time soon. That is why we use them, say unlike a Tomahawk missile which is multi-million per copy and which we could easily run out of. We can afford to trade JDAM's against enemy soldiers all day long.
"What needs to be done is obvious and simple."
Is it simple enough to summarize in a couple of sentences?
Careful. This is a swindle. Peters argument is aimed not at leftists, but at the revolution in military affairs crowd in the Pentagon, many of whom wear uniforms and many of whom got promoted over ol' blood and guts Peters.
What knocked us out was the incompetence of our political and military leaders. In chosing to back what was a crumbling French colonial regime we were not on the right side. In addition to that little bit of strategic bungling, destroying the livelihood of peasants by things like carpet bombing did not win a lot of converts to our side either. Sure made a hell of a racket though.
To claim that all we're doing is using 'kinetic' (are there any other kind) air strikes displays a profound lack of understanding of everything else we're doing.
Even then, airstikes have their place, too. For example, while a recent one in Pakistan missed al Zawahiri, it got four of his closest buddies. That wouldn't have happened with a 'non-kinetic' air strike.
I would argue that it is LESS likely to happen again PRECISELY because of Vietnam . . . but you'll just have to read my book, "America's Victories: Why Americans Win Wars, and Will Win the War on Terror," to find out why :)
Hint: I have a chapter called "Protestors Make Soldiers BETTER," and show that in fact the Vietnam protestors may have cost us one war (a turnover) yet given us four consecutive vitories (four TDs).
You act like the bomb was something special. If we hadn't had the a-bomb, and still had to invade Japan, you would have seen marked changes in tactics after Okinawa and a conventional bombing campaign that would have made the Tokyo fire-bombing look like a Cub Scout campfire.
I learned all kinds of stuff over there.
At the risk of being called a liberal or pansie since I disagree with you, I'd say the answer is somewhere between reforming the military to meet the challenge and the status quo--rather than a choice between ACLU and kiling every Muslim man woman and child.
Your certitude about the efficacy of genocide, war and bloodshed makes me believe you've never actually experienced it.
Moreover, it is a MYTH that we "cannot defeat the terrorists militarily." This was the line used about Japan too, but in fact, when they run out of men, you have won.
No armed force in history---EVER has sustained the % level of losses that the Islamic "insurgents"/terrorists have sustained and won. There is also a new study of Japan ("Downfall," by Richard B. Frank, that uses Japanese documents) that shows that the A-bomb had several levels of effects. Yes, it had what we all know as a "diplomatic" impact, by convincing the Japanese that any further holding out would be useless. But he shows it also had a MILITARY effect, by showing that even their by-then dispersed military forces were helpless. They already could not get any more kamikaze volunteers.
So there is a pretty good argument that when the bad guys all die, you have won "militarily."
They can never beat our military, and now largely don't even try. They go straight for the political will.
I see Peters message being; -- we cannot reason with fanatics, either secular or religious , -- nor can we defeat them in the military sense.
Thus they must be defeated by political will.
-- This can only be done by putting our own house in order by waging a propaganda war for Constitutionalism, and against ALL types of fanaticism.
But see, if you READ the actual Army Docs (not to mention the Marines' docs) you will see that they emphasize "full-spectrum warfare," which includes political, information, military, social---it IS warfare across all fronts. That's why it's frustrating that someone who should know better---Peters---only has to look at "On Point" (the Army's history and "lessons learned" about Operation Iraqi Freedom) and you can see GOING IN that they knew what the score was.
Peters isn't making the point that Iraq can't be defeated militarily. We can do that. He's saying we can't defeat fanatics & fundamentalism worldwide.
Moreover, it is a MYTH that we "cannot defeat the terrorists militarily."
Muslims, communists, fascists, anarchists, -- fanatics of every stripe still abound in this world. We will never defeat such terrorists in a military sense.
This was the line used about Japan too, but in fact, when they run out of men, you have won.
Japan never ran out of men, it ran out of a will to fight.
No armed force in history---EVER has sustained the % level of losses that the Islamic "insurgents"/terrorists have sustained and won.
There are hundreds of millions of potential Islamic terrorists. Whats their percentage of loss?
There is also a new study of Japan ("Downfall," by Richard B. Frank, that uses Japanese documents) that shows that the A-bomb had several levels of effects. Yes, it had what we all know as a "diplomatic" impact, by convincing the Japanese that any further holding out would be useless. But he shows it also had a MILITARY effect, by showing that even their by-then dispersed military forces were helpless. They already could not get any more kamikaze volunteers. So there is a pretty good argument that when the bad guys all die, you have won "militarily."
All the 'bad guys' in Japan were dead? -- I'd grant that they lost their fanatical devotion to the cause, because we were ready to invade & kill em all; -- can we invade the muslim world & kill em all?
The Japanese ran out of kamikazes.
As I say, the new studies don't support you. SOME of the generals wanted to fight, but there was widespread understanding that the Japanese military was helpless. Note that Kurita and other admirals turned tail and gave up at Leyte Gulf rather than stage suicidal attacks on the U.S. forces. Hanson argues that, to an extent, the fact that the Japanese were trapped on Okinawa drove their strategy there, but even then, it was the first stage of trying to raise the casualty cost to such a level that we wouldn't pay it.
That's the point that Peters misses: Americans RARELY pay that cost because we quickly figure out other ways to achieve the objective without "dying for your country." Heck, Patton figured that out.
Moreover, the difference between a "fanatic" and someone who can be "reasoned with" can often be just one more casualty. I don't know the number, but at SOME NUMBER, Japanese "fanatics" decided they no longer would be kamikaze pilots. Many one-time Nazis ("fanatics") after the war later went on to be respectable Germans who led productive lives. In short, there is a marginal level at which remaining "fanatical" becomes less and less attractive. Yes, there will always be a handful of "bunker-types," who will commit suicide rather than surrender. But there is a much, much larger number of people who are less committed and who can, with consistent pressure be forced into not only surrender, but some pretty normal activities after the war.
The quickest way to defeat fundamentalism worldwide is to defeat it militarily, because fanatical Islam (not the relatively "average" American Muslims that I know) is a religion/code based on SHAME AND HONOR, and the most dishonorable thing a Bedoin can do is to lose a war. That's why I think Abu Ghraib actually HELPED us, because whatever we thought of those pics, it sent a message to the Islamofascists that if you cross the Americans, they will humiliate you, even to the point of having their WOMEN dominate you! Once you are winning militarily, you strengthen the (dominant and majority) peaceful factions of Islam and marginalize the small minority of violent whackos. This was EXACTLY the policy followed in the Filipino War in the early 1900s, with almost the same ratio of troops to terrorists, and with very positive results for us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.