War Tactics.. Now and Then

Wars from the time of the Roman Legion have been fought by men dressed in military uniforms appearing on a field to do battle. Until our own revolutionary war little thought was given to cover or protection. Only those defending castles or cities had the protection of buildings and walls. That was done more to protect the city and the civilians in it, and not the soldier.

Our revolutionary war changed that. We took cover and fired weapons from behind trees and rocks. By the Civil war we were constructing battle field protection for soldiers. WWI found armies digging trenches to protect soldiers. Hitler used armored tanks to protect and provide mobility. Mobile protection was an added paradigm of WWII.

However in nearly all wars, troops wore uniforms. You could tell the players with out a score card. Armies could tell friend from foe in an instant. Both sided could determine non comabtants. There were exceptions, but soldiers out of uniform were universally condemmed as spies.

Korea reintroduced the surrogate fighter to the world stage. The Romans had tried it. It eventually failed when the surrogates found out they could defeat the Romans and the Hun determined that the surrogates would not die for Romans. Russia and China used North Koreans to fight us. When that failed the Chinese used their own troops to turn defeat into a draw.

In Vietnam the use of surrogates was perfected. This time the Surrogates had a stake in the outcome and all the support they needed to win. They won. In this war new way of fighting was introduced. Charlie used troops who did not have uniforms. Last night's North Vietnamese soldier was today's South Vietnamese farmer. You could not tell the soldiers by looking for uniforms alone.

The guerilla war paradigm has not been lost on weaker nations. The guerilla war methods were used by the Taliban to defeat Russia. Russia attacked Afghanistan with conventional troops dressed in uniform. The Taliban did not respond in kind. The taliban used the terrain to defend them. In fact the terrain won.. not the Taliban.

We are about to enter into a new way of waging war. We have only called up troops for our home defense. Yet we say there will be a conventional war component to our counter attack. That can only mean surrogates. Can you doubt we will be using Arab surogates to fight. But I doubt if that is our main thrust. We will be likely using terrorist tactics against the terrorists. If bin Laden can kill 6,000 plus Americans on a budget of a half million dollars, how many of his side can we kill with 10,000 times that budget. The Taliban think they are safe behind their Maginot line. Their Maginot line worked just fine against Russians. We are not Russians.

The Taliban defeated the Russians by screaming "Here Come the Russians up the valley.. Shoot to kill." This time they may have to scream "Here come some Arabs... are they for us or against us?" It changes the nature of the war. It can negate the value of terrain. They can not communicate fast enough on foot. And we will interdict their re-supplies. We have stopped the Russians from supplying the Syrians who were to supply the Taliban. Syrians will find it dangerous to handle weapons. Electronic means of cummunicattions can and will be compromised. In our new war paradigm the other side will never know who they can trust and their supplies will arrive very slowly if at all.

You can bet our surrogates will have something in the outcome for them. The lessons of the last 200 years of war are understood. They will be applied.

In a nation where the prevailing wage is 31 cents an hour, 20 bucks an hour buys some wicked assassins. Paying people to steal in a hungry nation is not a difficult task. In this war the Taliban will never know who is for them and who is against them. It is likely to be the same story in Syria and Iraq ... just to name two. Can Lybia be far behind?

The nations that foster and support terrorists are in for a new ball game. We will subvert their followers. No Syrian or Iraqi goverenment offical below the very top, will ever again go to sleep knowing if his guard is his protector or his assassin. Many will not awake to find out. The key word in Bush's address last night was clandestine. We are adopting new and very inovative tactics for war. We are not the British. We will not wear Redcoats and fight in the open.

We will hold our casualties to next to nothing. We will destory our enemies ability to defend himself. WE will do it from within. It will be apparent to all, when the other side has lost the ability to attack us. It will take time, but eventually they will lose all ability to defend against us.

The British did not react to our new tactics in the Revolutionary war. That cost them the war. Bush has reacted to new tactics and taken them several steps further. The key words are surogates and clandestine.

The left will eventually cry that this will destroy the stability of the middle east. There is one incontrovertable fact. Only stable nations attack. Unstable nations are using every force they have to try to get stable.

Reagan had it right in the Iraq/Iran war. His plan was to support which ever side was losing. Ron used to say that when your enemies fight help which ever one is losing at the moment. He knew that of it took all they had to fight each other there was nothing left to fight us. Both sides dad to sell all the oil they could at whatever price they could get to pay for their war. That was good for us. Congress could not wait to bring that excellant strategy to a halt. The failure to continue that policy has had dire consequences for our nation and safety.

At the end of this conflict many nations will still hate us. But all will fear us. Gew if any will dare to do anything more than complain.

At the height of the Roman Empire it was said a Roman could walk thru any part of the known world in complete safety. No person or cause could afford the price of a single Roman death.

It is about to get very costly to kill an Amercian.

Ahh, another dumbed down version of history written by those who have not studied it well. Uniforms? Actually they started with the first civilization in Mesipitomia...but those dastardly barbarians just wouldn't wear any....or cloths half the time. Fortifications during battle? Ever heard of the Roman seige works, built just as often to defend the legion in the field. Armor? Ever heard of that for protection? Why hide in buildings when you wear enough metal to be a small tank and besides the main killer was the sword not the bow.

As for Guerilla tactics, all armies have used them since time immortal...skirmishers are a prime example. The British used them in the form of allies and locals...the indians and rangers or the loyalist marauders.

As for "The guerilla war paradigm has not been lost on weaker nations. The guerilla war methods were used by the Taliban to defeat Russia. Russia attacked Afghanistan with conventional troops dressed in uniform. The Taliban did not respond in kind. The taliban used the terrain to defend them. In fact the terrain won.. not the Taliban. "

Please get the facts straight, the Taliban didn't exist at that time. And the Russian army also used local Afghans to fight and sent in disguised Spetsnaz that hunted down the Islamics...problem is, short of genociding the whole of the population, it was just never going to stop...why Russia pulled out.

I seem to remember Americans saying the same thing to the French who were on their way out of Vietnam and the Americans on the way in...

Yes that was bob McNamara who invented the "Just enough Force Doctrine" whose whole career can be summed up as "having failed to defeat General Motors, McNamara took a hike up the Ho Chi Men trail."

The Bush family is never to in until you are ready to apply overwhelming force and achieve total victory.

We are just going to use clandestine methods to kill Arabs until Israel climbs our frame for being to hard on the poor little fellows.

Arafat is not the only ARAB who will give blood for killing americans.

Russians always stand by their friends. Just ask the Serbs.

The Taliban/ Serbian situations prove it is safer to be a Russian enemy than a Russian friend.

I once asked a German what Russians are good for and he said "Target Practice."

for in the next Democratic administration or the one after that, the woman who is appointed to the position of Secretary of Homeland Defense is going to be using those tactics to hunt us.

It does not matter. The law is whatever the Judges say it is. What is on paper does not matter, what has been done before does not matter. It only matters what the public will tolerate at the time.

We picked up every Japanese Amercian and put them in concentration camps at the outbreak of WWII. We kept them in confinement for over 4.5 years. No judge, no court, no charges, no evidence, no conviction, no citizens rights, just confinement for the duration of the war. That is what all Japanese Citizens got. They didn't need no stinkin day in court was the public view and they didn't get one. What law or part of the constitution authorized that kind of treatment? Why hasn't it ever been done again? Why was no one punished for doing it?

You believe that bull sh*t they teach you in school is true. It ain't. The truth is any president can do anything the public will let him do at the time he does it. What is written down on paper isn't worth a Haebeus Corpus ruling during the Lincoln Administration.

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.