The Counterrevolution in Military Affairs

The Weekly Standard ^ | Ralph Peters

[Cannoneer No. 4]

There is, in short, not a single enemy in existence or on the horizon willing to play the victim to the military we continue to build. Faced with men of iron belief wielding bombs built in sheds and basements, our revolution in military affairs appears more an indulgence than an investment. In the end, our enemies will not outfight us. We'll muster the will to do what must be done--after paying a needlessly high price in the lives of our troops and damage to our domestic infrastructure. We will not be beaten, but we may be shamed and embarrassed on a needlessly long road to victory.

[No Longer Free State]

Ralph Peters becomes increasingly irrelevant with every piece he writes lately.

Apparently we need to abandon fighters, bombers, cruisers, aircraft carriers, M1 Abrams, Bradleys, Strikers, Paladins, LAVs, and every other weapon system we have and convince a few marines to become suicide bombers.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Only, I hope they pick him to convince the Marines to commit suicide and not me, 'cause I can't run that fast any more.

[usafsk]

Barbarian. Do you really view Calley as a model? Do you suggest we adopt his tactics, massacres of innocents, including obvious non-combatants, in cold blood? Children?

Ususally those that spout such ideas have little experience with death or combat.

[Recon Dad]

The one bright spot in the piece that our leaders should ponder is the point about the biggest fight could be between Sunni and Shia. You have to look at this as very exploitable at least in the strategic view.

I would hate to think what this gentleman's advice would be to Israel.

[Lazamataz]

Does that happen with everything you read?

No, just with horribly gloomy articles explaining why -- no matter what -- I am doomed, DOOMED I say.

[reluctantwarrior]

Peters isn't advocating less weapons he is advocating a larger number of capable systems vice a very few expensive systems

He is right and you are only doomed if you wish to be.....

RW

[Tyche]

“suicide bombers are only an attractive option because *nothing else works* against the US military”

I would argue that the status quo of the Muslim Terrorist is the suicide attack. Not only against us but also against a lot of enemies.

They first used that against us by getting high of kef and attacking us in the Philippines. Also, the FLN used this method of attacking the French. I would expect nothing less from them.

Some of the things that need to be addressed are how do you fight an enemy that does not use uniforms or obey any international laws.

The key thing the author pointed out was why would you face the worlds most powerful military by conventional means. It is up to our leaders to determine if we change our doctrine to adapt to it.

[tonycavanagh]

re :Some of the things that need to be addressed are how do you fight an enemy that does not use uniforms or obey any international laws.

By chipping away at his base support.

In Iraq there have been a spate of suicide bombings, and most of the victims have been Iraqis.

This has led to a flood of local intelligence pouring into the Alliance security forces on the location of insurgents leading to the small local victories that are published on this very web site now and again.

In wars of this nature it is not what your enemy is doing that is of prime importance but what the effect is on the target population that both sides claim to represent

[Tyche]

I know you guys (SAS)UK and such got it done in Malaysia. I hope we "reenforce success" and copy most of the methods and use them in Iraq.

[Lucky Dog]

The one bright spot in the piece that our leaders should ponder is the point about the biggest fight could be between Sunni and Shia. You have to look at this as very exploitable at least in the strategic view.

You have hit upon one of the strategic keys to winning the current conflict, albeit, a political/diplomatic one versus a military one. Dividing the enemy and fomenting internal conflict is the surest way to divert resources and will away from attacking the Western World. Unfortunately, this is not a quick solution.

A condition such as noted above raises the issue of national political will on behalf of Western countries, a question that is yet to be adequately answered. The initial results from the US Democrat Party and a number of European allies are disappointing, to say the least. Consequently, one prong of a strategic offensive such as you propose must involve a dedicated effort to convince our own political parties and allies to forego attempting to use our enemy’s efforts for internal political power acquisition.

Additionally, your proposal requires a well established and extensive humint collection network (something we lack at the current time) as well as effective and ruthless application of covert force options. Covert force capabilities we have, although in inadequate supply, and the necessary ruthlessness is related to the political will question raised earlier. Most importantly, your proposal requires a cooperative, or at least, a non-antagonistic, press.

Finally, there must be at least a reasonably effective counterforce and economic effort to prevent Western society from being overwhelmed before long term strategy can be effective. This counter effort need not be 100% effective if supported by, again, a cooperative, or at least, a non-antagonistic, press.

[Mr Rogers]

Haven't read the article yet - I need to leave for work in a couple of minutes, and this author is an idiot who usually makes me spitting mad by his stupid analysis.

If he has written an intelligent piece, it will be his first.

I'll respond tonight when there is time. For the record, I'm a strong proponent of numbers being a part of strength - but it isn't everything. And the threat we face in 10 years may very well NOT be a terrorist.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

His main point is that have advanced technology is not the ONLY means to victory. I agree, however, we should strive for that advanced technology. The USA has a population one-fourth of China's. The keys to military victory is technology, training and dedication. Through out history this has been the case. The Romans routinely defeated Barbarians when outnumbered 10-1. Caesar defeated the Gauls at Alesia with 1/8 th of their numbers. His forces were better trained and had slightly better technology. Also, the Roman military tradition was based on winning. Alexander the Great defeated the Persian Empire at Guagmela (SP) with vastly inferior forces. We don't need to outnumber the enemy.
As for suicide bombers, like the Kamikazes, they will fail. Suicide bombers only delay our victory.

[Khurkris]

Excellent read. This compliments the essay by the Brit General of last week or so. Revised thinking is constantly needed.

[verity]

Will this be a Preface to Ralph's new book? lol

[LS]

Sorry, but Peters is way off base. Suicide bombing is a sign of hopeless weakness, not "innovation" or strength. Victor Hanson is right here. They can never beat our military, and now largely don't even try. They go straight for the political will.

And it's a straw man to attack the "revolution in military affairs," which has long been outmoded. The new thinking is to constantly get inside the decision loops of terrorists, and we are doing a phenomenal job of this. Peters obviously was struggling for a topic.

You would be better off to consider my forthcoming book, "America's Victories: Why Americans Win Wars and Will Win the War on Terror." And we will do so with minimal casualties, not excessive casualties as Peters prophesies.

[LS]

This is true but it undercuts his other thesis that suicide bombing is effective. In fact, the suicide bombers are hopelessly ineffective, reduced to ONLY seeking to change political situations in foreign countries because they cannot affect the MILITARY situation in their own---and the media plays a role in that.

[Dan(9698)]

America is the country that reduced Dresden to ashes...

Not that it makes any difference to a propagandist, but Dresden was bombed by British bombers.

The point of fighting a war is to win and end it.

Just like the Civil War could have gone on for many years except the South was convinced with Sherman's March to the Sea, that there would be nothing left if they continued.

With Germany, it had to come to the point that there was not an ability to continue or it would have drug on.

The Battle of the Bulge demonstrated that Germany could still fight. It was dicey for a while, and if they had continued, they would have split the Allied Army when they got to the Netherlands. It is easy now to say they could never have done that, but if they weren't still effective, there would have been no "bulge".

With Japan, they still had a large army, and a lot of airplanes. They also had to be convinced that there would be nothing left if they continued.

To end hostilities, someone has to win and both sides recognize who won.

In Korea, there has been a stalemate for over 50 years. The job will still have to be done, and at a much higher cost than if it had been finished 50 years ago.

Israel has been fighting to a stalemate for years. Now they are entering a very dangerous time. Hamas thinks they have won. Maybe they have.

[robowombat]

Many of us have struggled to grasp the unreasonable, even fanatical anti-Americanism in the global media--including the hostility in many news outlets and entertainment forums here at home. How can educated men and women, whether they speak Arabic, Spanish, French, or English, condemn America's every move, while glossing over the abuses of dictators and the savagery of terrorists? Why is America blamed even when American involvement is minimal or even nonexistent? How has the most beneficial great power in history been transformed by the international media into a villain of relentless malevolence?

There's a straightforward answer: In their secular way, the world's media elites are as unable to accept the reality confronting them as are Islamist fundamentalists. They hate the world in which they are forced to live, and America has shaped that world.

It isn't that the American-wrought world is so very bad for the global intelligentsia: The freedom they exploit to condemn the United States has been won, preserved, and expanded by American sacrifices and America's example. The problem is that they wanted a different world, the utopia promised by socialist and Marxist theorists, an impossible heaven on earth that captured their imagination as surely as visions of paradise enrapture suicide bombers.

U.N. pushing to end nation-states: Plan drafted to end disease, poverty, war
WorldNetDaily ^ | 1/30/06 | WorldNetDaily


Posted on 01/30/2006 5:54:00 AM PST by wagglebee






The U.N. has a plan to make every Miss America Pageant contestant happy by bringing about "world peace."


All it will take, says the draft of a visionary proposal by the U.N. Development Program, is to getting rid of all the pesky nations of the world.


In fact, the plan endorsed by prominent world figures including Nobel laureates, bankers, politicians and economists to end nation-states as we know them is also designed to end health pandemics, poverty and "global warming." So far, the U.N. hasn't mentioned whether the proposal will do anything for obesity.




The U.N. says an unprecedented outbreak of co-operation between countries, applied through six specific financial tools, would serve as pretty much a cure-all for the world's ills and generate an extra $7 trillion in economic growth.


The authors of the ambitious report don't expect nations to fold up and take the hint any time soon. But the idea is to start the ball rolling – and maybe years or decades from now the world will actually be ready to listen.


Most of the focus of the U.N. plan is on global warming – a climate change phenomenon some consider to be more theory than reality. But it seems to be the central component in the U.N.'s globalization scheme for the future – the very organizing principal behind the push to eliminate borders, sovereign governments and autonomous nation-states.


If the scheme seems far-fetched, consider that it already has the backing of the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, according to the London Independent.


The U.N. plan includes six immediate action steps:



Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through pollution permit trading;


Cut poor countries' borrowing costs by securing the debts against the income from table parts of their economies;


Reduce government debt costs by linking payments to the country's economic output;


An aggressive campaign of worldwide vaccinations;


Tapping into the vast flow of money from migrants back to their home country;


Aid agencies underwriting loans to market investors to lower interest rates.

It's not the first time the U.N. has come out openly to suggest global government is the only solution to the world's problems. "Our Global Neighborhood" was a 410-page final report of the Commission on Global Governance, and was first published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. That 28-member "independent commission," created by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt, developed the following strategy, as reported in the EcoSocialist Review: "To represent a shot-across-the-bow of George Bush's New World Order, and make clear that now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty to democratic transnationalism."


Then-U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed the commission, and the U.N. provided significant funding. The plan calls for dramatically strengthening the United Nations, by implementing a laundry list of recommendations, including these:



Eliminating the veto and permanent member status in the Security Council;

Authorizing global taxation on currency exchange and use of the "global commons;"

Creating an International Criminal Court;

Creating a standing army under the command of the secretary-general;

Creating a new Economic Security Council;

Creating a new People's Assembly;

Regulating multinational corporations;

Regulating the global commons;

Controlling the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms.

And none of those recommendations were new. All had been proposed in a variety of documents for decades by various groups and individuals. However, this did mark the first time the comprehensive plan for global governance was published with the approval and funding support of the United Nations.





To justify the sweeping changes proposed by the commission, a new concept of "security" was offered. The U.N.'s mission under its present charter is to provide "security" to its member nations through "collective" action. The new concept expands the mission of the U.N. to be the security of the people – and the security of the planet.


Thus, in their speeches to the U.N.'s Millennium Assembly in 2000, both Secretary General Kofi Annan and President Bill Clinton made reference to this new concept, saying national sovereignty could no longer be used as an excuse to prevent the intervention by the U.N. to provide "security" for people inside national boundaries.


To provide security for the planet, the plan called for authorizing the U.N. Trusteeship Council to have "trusteeship" over the "global commons," which the plan defines to be: " ... the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life."

[robowombat]

This is an important article in spite of what I see are some significant deficiencies.Peter's rambles over too much territory here. His writing style in discussing terror bombers is much to florid and he is more impressed with the phenomenon than I am. His is correct about the deep seated irrationality of the armed Islamacist movement. Intellectuals (even if their ideology is religious fanaticism) with guns are always a volatile and generally dangerous mix as they aspire to be a coercive elite. In the case of the fanatics we are currently fighting I think the real danger is in some sort WMD attack not in suicide bombers. The big reason that there have been no major Islamic terror attacks in the US since 9-11 is that AQ and friends are trying to mount something really big within the US. The mechanism may be, probably will be asymmetric but the goal will be a mass casualty event to put 9-11 in the shade. After all how many years and how much effort went into the 1993 attempt on the WTC and then on 9-11. Peter's no where mentions the danger to the US from an AQ-Iranian nuclear axis. I do not believe that AQ being almost entirely Sunni in anyway deters practical collaboration between these two deeply hostile forces against the US. The question is how to get the WMD's in place to carry off (if possible) simultaneous mass casualty attacks maybe using both some sort of radiation weapon and chemical agents.

Where Peter's gets it right is his diagnosis of why western media and intellectual elites side with the terrorists and what a strategic problem that can be for the US and the massive military problem China will be for the US in the future. The way I see things is the US ids facing first a nuclear armed terrorist state (Iran) that has fair geographic depth and a pretty large population and a national decision making style that we have few clues as to how it actually functions. Beyond Iran looms a period of confrontation with a China that is not interested in only making money and expanding an export driven economy as the Japanese were before their bubble deflated. The Chinese are determined at the highest levels of their regime to try and become if not more powerful than the US at least as powerful politically and militarily as well as economically. Their ambitions remind one German under Wilhelm II and the restless ambitions of the Kaiser Reich to achieve its 'place in the sun'.

The 21st Century is shaping up to be possibly as stress filled as the 20th.