Started By
Message
Do we need to change our outlook on how and when we use our military?
Posted on 9/7/21 at 11:18 am
Posted on 9/7/21 at 11:18 am
I was reading an article, link to be provided below, that argued that we have a fundamental disconnect between what our military is built and trained to do... and what we primarily use it for.
Our military is built for the "peer" level opponent. Fight and win a war where the very existence of the nation could be in danger. When we have gotten someone stupid enough to go toe to toe with us (first Iraq war) we've mauled them. The US military will F*ck you up in a stand up fight.
This is a good thing. I am sure we are all in favor of making sure that if China throws down with us that we are the ones standing at the end of the day. Being the biggest bad arse on the block has effectively allowed the US to prevent a war between major powers.
The problem is... we ask our military to fight small wars a lot more often than we ask our military to fight the big ones. The Civil War, the World Wars... they get all the attention but we are far more likely to be fighting a low intensity conflict (The Seminole War lasted a decade for example).
We could swear off the small wars, and we've tried to do so many times... and failed. Or we could possibly consider creating a designated force (a division maybe) that is trained and equipped just to fight these little pissant wars we keep finding ourselves in.
Having a military built entirely around winning a big war has the side effect of meaning our military is not very good at fighting the small wars. We probably, as much as folks don't like it, are going to keep fighting small wars.
Do we change the nature of our military to excel at low intensity conflicts but risk losing an existential war to a peer? Do we continue to concentrate on winning the big one while accepting we are probably going to be stuck fighting a lot of brushfire wars we aren't prepared for? Or do we go with a hybrid system where we continue to mostly concentrate on beating the big boys but also develop a fighting force that can handle these smaller conflicts?
LINK
Our military is built for the "peer" level opponent. Fight and win a war where the very existence of the nation could be in danger. When we have gotten someone stupid enough to go toe to toe with us (first Iraq war) we've mauled them. The US military will F*ck you up in a stand up fight.
This is a good thing. I am sure we are all in favor of making sure that if China throws down with us that we are the ones standing at the end of the day. Being the biggest bad arse on the block has effectively allowed the US to prevent a war between major powers.
The problem is... we ask our military to fight small wars a lot more often than we ask our military to fight the big ones. The Civil War, the World Wars... they get all the attention but we are far more likely to be fighting a low intensity conflict (The Seminole War lasted a decade for example).
We could swear off the small wars, and we've tried to do so many times... and failed. Or we could possibly consider creating a designated force (a division maybe) that is trained and equipped just to fight these little pissant wars we keep finding ourselves in.
Having a military built entirely around winning a big war has the side effect of meaning our military is not very good at fighting the small wars. We probably, as much as folks don't like it, are going to keep fighting small wars.
Do we change the nature of our military to excel at low intensity conflicts but risk losing an existential war to a peer? Do we continue to concentrate on winning the big one while accepting we are probably going to be stuck fighting a lot of brushfire wars we aren't prepared for? Or do we go with a hybrid system where we continue to mostly concentrate on beating the big boys but also develop a fighting force that can handle these smaller conflicts?
LINK
3
Posted on 9/7/21 at 11:28 am to Arksulli
Fezzik : I just figured why you give me so much trouble.
Westley : Why is that?
Westley : do you think?
Fezzik : Well, I haven't fought one person for so long. I've been specialized in groups, battling gangs for local charities, that kind of thing.
Westley : Why should that make such a
[squashed painfully]
Westley : difference?
Fezzik : You use different moves when you're fighting half a dozen people, than when you only have to be worried about one
[falls unconscious]
Posted on 9/7/21 at 12:23 pm to Arksulli
I don't think it properly describes the issues.
I'm not going to get into a long rant here, but a large majority of the military is done for profit, not for the enemy.
I'm not going to get into a long rant here, but a large majority of the military is done for profit, not for the enemy.
Posted on 9/7/21 at 12:57 pm to Arksulli
We had trouble in the past adapting to asymmetric warfare. We've done a pretty good job of it over the past 50 years (and especially the last 20 years), and we could win the asymmetric wars if our military was allowed to wage them correctly. We even have the combat units that you speak about who are trained to fight asymmetrically and to train indigenous people to assist. Many of our special forces are trained just for this. You also have to accept and understand that the reason behind asymmetric warfare or proxy warfare (much of the time) is to keep us out of larger conflicts with more traditional enemies.
For instance, Vietnam was waged to keep communist China and the USSR (to a lesser degree) at bay and to stop communism's spread through Southeast Asia. Had the spread gone unchecked, you would have seen it spread through Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, leaving no buffer for Australia. It could have also easily spread into India. Taiwan and Japan would have been isolated, as well.
Afghanistan was a different ball of wax. It started as a punitive expedition and turned into a nation-building chore. It eventually suffered the same fate as Vietnam, and for many of the same reasons-see below.
However, politics and big money get in the way. Inconsistent ROE, political maneuvering, and the profitability of forever war prevent us from winning these asymmetric conflicts.
For instance, Vietnam was waged to keep communist China and the USSR (to a lesser degree) at bay and to stop communism's spread through Southeast Asia. Had the spread gone unchecked, you would have seen it spread through Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, leaving no buffer for Australia. It could have also easily spread into India. Taiwan and Japan would have been isolated, as well.
Afghanistan was a different ball of wax. It started as a punitive expedition and turned into a nation-building chore. It eventually suffered the same fate as Vietnam, and for many of the same reasons-see below.
However, politics and big money get in the way. Inconsistent ROE, political maneuvering, and the profitability of forever war prevent us from winning these asymmetric conflicts.
This post was edited on 9/7/21 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 9/7/21 at 1:01 pm to 3down10
If we look deep at Afghanistan and the stupidity of argument against "Nation Building"
The US did this all wrong. The English performed a raw materials survey in the early 1900's .... The wealth underground is reason enough to take the China route involving a nation along the line of Afghanistan. China had lost their contracts on the Cooper mines in the mountain ranges.
Focus on creating a new country based on the wealth of the raw material mining and focus of the destruction of any rebels in the neighborhood. Stop protecting outlying cities and make that mountain region profitable. Imagine some of the largest raw material corporations bidding for the material wealth and employing thousands of Afghans to work the mining operations ...... soon ragheads no longer want to fight for 72 raisons they want a new 62" TV in the nomadic tent surrounded by belly dancers and his Lambo parked outside.
The US did this all wrong. The English performed a raw materials survey in the early 1900's .... The wealth underground is reason enough to take the China route involving a nation along the line of Afghanistan. China had lost their contracts on the Cooper mines in the mountain ranges.
Focus on creating a new country based on the wealth of the raw material mining and focus of the destruction of any rebels in the neighborhood. Stop protecting outlying cities and make that mountain region profitable. Imagine some of the largest raw material corporations bidding for the material wealth and employing thousands of Afghans to work the mining operations ...... soon ragheads no longer want to fight for 72 raisons they want a new 62" TV in the nomadic tent surrounded by belly dancers and his Lambo parked outside.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News