Posted on 01/27/2009 2:08:15 PM PST by neverdem
During the 1990s, the U.S. defense debate was dominated by those who argued that advances in technology, particularly information technology, had revolutionized military affairs and changed the nature of warfare. Under former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, this view -- now called transformation -- came to characterize U.S. military planning. Based on the example of the 1991 Gulf War, advocates of transformation argued that our technological edge would allow American forces to identify and destroy targets remotely, defeating an adversary at low cost in casualties.
Though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have largely discredited staunch transformation advocates, a heated debate still rages about the shape of the future U.S. military. One side, the "Long War" school, argues that Iraq and Afghanistan are characteristic of the protracted and ambiguous wars America will fight in the future. Accordingly, they say, the military should be developing a force designed to fight the Long War on terrorism, primarily by preparing for "small wars" and insurgencies.
Critics -- often labeled "traditionalists" or "conservatives" -- concede that irregular warfare will occur more frequently in the future than interstate war. But they conclude that such conflicts do not threaten U.S. strategic interests in the way large-scale conflicts do. They fear that the Long War school's focus on small wars and insurgencies will transform the Army into a constabulary force, whose enhanced capability for conducting stability operations and nation-building would be purchased at a high cost: the ability to conduct large-scale conventional war.
This debate is relevant to all Americans, since its outcome has implications for both national security policy and civil-military relations. It raises two related questions. First, given its global role, can the U.S. afford to choose one path and not the other? And second, to what extent should military decisions constrain policy makers? In...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Screw flexible - let’s go back to being the most lethal army in history...
But the important war is the conventional one. Losing Iraq to irregulars is less destabilizing than China taking Taiwan by force, and thereby demonstrating that it can do the same to Japan and others.
“Screw flexible - let’s go back to being the most lethal army in history...”
Especially since China fully intends to be as big a bully as they can get away with. That will be our next large-scale armed struggle.
Colonel, USAFR
People act all surprised that the enemy always chooses to fight where and how it is most advantageous to them. We must be prepared to first deal what is most lethal to us, and then second deal with what is most likely.
We also need an increase in high time over target air assets, such as AC-130 gunships and Apache Longbows, which can stay over the battlefield pouring fire on the enemy for an extended period of time, as opposed to strike aircraft which swoop in, drop bombs, and disappear. But we shouldn't try to achieve this goal by reducing the number of strike aircraft.
If it sounds like I'm advocating a military buildup which would cause defense spending to eat up a greater percentage of the national budget than it presently does, that's because I am. But it's good for the economy too, as proven by the military buildups of the 1940s and 1980s. To a considerable extent, our military is still living off of the 1980s buildup. It's time for the next one.
We can train and equip to be excellent in one type of war and fairly good in the other. We can’t train and equip to be great in both. It sure would be nice if we had a crystal ball (100% accurate) so we’d know what was coming.
Old Army axiom: “When the first shot is fired, all plans are out the window”.
Gen. Tommy Franks: “The Enemy has a vote too”.
Can’t go wrong keeping these in your thoughts.
That said, the US Army is in the process of trying to reformulate some of it's capabilities (brigade combat teams, MIT teams etc".
There are really outstanding men and women in our armed forces. Unfortunately the leadership is far too political. Then there's 0bama et al.
> Especially since China fully intends to be as big a bully as they can get away with. That will be our next large-scale armed struggle.
(sigh) It’s going to come down to that, ay. Then (on the assumption the US wins) it will be Russia.
While we agree to have long, irregular wars, we’ll have seemingly unending, police vs. guerrilla wars and the demoralization that goes with them. If we defeat the source of the enemy’s strength (Iran), we’ll have a more intense war that will be done quicker and higher morale.
Our trade imbalance regime will continue the shrinkage of our manufacturing base, our fear of high freight fuel prices and ongoing guerrilla wars. We’ll continue to get weaker, until our foolish global paradigm is corrected by poverty, a very low dollar and east Asia rising on its supply and demand growth (manufacturing and consumer spending going up there and in other previously third-world areas).
We’re fat, lazy, corporate nitpickers (homosexuals and family-haters vs. working class cigarette smokers, etc.) with no will to really fight. Our fathers knew better. We need a president who is a man but haven’t seen such a man for several decades.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the next war is right here between blue and red states.
Yes, but which side would Jack Bauer be on?
We’re damn good. But “the most lethatl army in history” rode for the Khans.
Yep. The next real war will be a World War.
I don’t think that we can have guns and butter too. I am not sure that this nation is ready to voluntarily give up the butter. ( They may do it due to the financial quandary which we find ourselves in due to being lead by idiots.)
Lets hope that the people in the green and blue suits are working the problem with out PC considerations. We need the capability to smash any potential enemy on at least two fronts simultaneously.
One thing which becomes conspicuously obvious to the most casual observer is that our personnel in the field are severely hindered by the legal eagles which inhabit the rear echelons in this country. External to this country many non combatants are sticking their nose into how we should conduct ourselves during an armed conflict. These trends bode ill for this country.
“We’re damn good. But “the most lethatl army in history” rode for the Khans.”
Sorry. I meant all time most lethal army able to fight a war with all their means and trying to kill the enemy. With all due respect to Mr. Kahn et al, they would be camel meat in 12 mins or less...as should anyone who kills Americans or their allies...
“But it’s good for the economy too, as proven by the military buildups of the 1940s...”
Better than FDR and his boondoggles were...someone has to make the arms and they do get paid and then buy stuff and invest and lend it to their brother in law, the lazy SOB...why build an army f you aren’t going to use it...better yet, why build a military and then announce you aren’t going to use it...
Let’s see. Largest land empire in the history of the world. Conquered: China, Russia, everything in between, Afghanistan, all the ‘stans, Iran, Iraq. Made tributaries of Burma, Viet Nam, and Korea. Undefeated in battle from 1211-1260. First defeated at Ain Julat [south of the Dead Sea].Defeated the armies of Poland, Bohemia, Austria and Hungary in one camapign, while outnumbered at least two to one. Not too shabby.
As another alternative, let’s not waste our military on doing stupid things like guard duty, international disaster relief, and keeping tribesmen with spears from fighting each other. Our people are too good to be squandered on tedious and never ending missions like that.
Instead, let’s go the cheap route, and create a light infantry American Foreign Legion, sort of modeled after the French Foreign Legion, but run by a company like Blackwater Security, with its officers and NCOs being prior-US military service.
Put it off shore, probably on an island in the Caribbean, so they can employ the best of the non-US citizens, proven fighting men like Gurkhas. As with the British Gurkha Regiment, it is a matter of honor with them that they are loyal and good soldiers. Only the best need apply.
Such a legion would be a LOT less expensive than a US military light infantry unit of the same size, much lower tech, and the US military would provide both transportation and logistical support to them as well.
And because they are a private company, they could not be compelled to go on a mission they did not care for. So some foolish president like Jimmy Carter couldn’t order them to kill all the rabbits in Australia, or something equally stupid.
It would save the US billions of dollars, the loss of our military’s training edge while sitting on its thumbs, and possibly the blood of our sons and daughters in some hell hole like Somalia.
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.