Replies

By and large, intellectually the services have been pathetic for decades about less than total warfare. Since WWII ( at least ) wars have been in low rent, politically messy, population rich third world countries. The military bureaucracy just doesn’t want to think about it. They’d much rather have Army Times discussions for a year about a new uniform change, or Regiment structure.

Since WWII ( at least ) wars have been in low rent, politically messy, population rich third world countries. The military bureaucracy just doesn’t want to think about it.

Can you blame them? Who could have war gamed Iraq into Vietnam V.2, including the rats de facto aiding and abetting Al Qaeda for domestic political gain? Nobody could have planned an adequate Phase IV of the invasion of Iraq in which everything that could go wrong did go wrong, IMHO.

This type of warfare was much discussed back in the late '70s. At that time it was referred to as "Low Intensity Warfare"...for lack of a better term. The concept was 'new' to the American military way of thinking. Of course, although the value of small unit 'hearts & minds' operations had been shown for a couple of decades, it was still a very radical consideration and mainstream mil brass hats were still determined that the standard 'European' theater type conflict was the way it would always go.
Basically they just hated the idea of giving up direct 24/7 hands on control that was/is the nemesis of small unit ops.
Then along came the Central American dust-ups and slowly the mind-set began to change. Along with the retirement of the top brass hats.

From 'Low Intensity Warfare' the name has changed several times, new acronyms as new people toss-in their "new best ideas" and things evolve. But smallish wars in dirty places fought against politically messy factions who have the benefits of blending in with the fishes are whats been on-tap for 25 yrs or so and will be a part of life for the present and future.

Fight 'em like you have to.