Major Good News from Pakistan!
For a long time now I have been worried that war with Pakistan, which for most of the War on Terror was offering de facto shelter to the Taliban and hence behaving as a hostile Power, was becoming inevitable. Such a war would, of course, be a Very Bad Thing for America: Pakistan is a traditional American ally, and its defection to the enemy would
( Read more... )
Name one *war* where the US armed forces have
1) fought without allies
2) fought an enemy of comparable military capability, and
3) achieved victory.
There are none, because America is very good at
(1) recruiting allies,
(2) military quality, and
(3) military strategy.
You look at these as accidents: instead, they stem from our nature. For instance, our ability to recruit allies comes from our generally-benevolent international behavior toward the peaceful; our military quality from our open society which allows free criticism of mistakes allowing us to learn from them.
If we went to war with Iran, we would try to recruit allies; failing this, we might very well limit the war to an air campaign. Iran is also not in our league regarding military quality (or quantity).
The Terrorists have been notably less successful at recruiting allies (they have mostly only gotten other previous Terrorist States, or those with a history of funding such States, on their side). In fact, we've picked up allies along the way -- in 2003 France and Germany were both hostile to our war in Iraq, while both are now neutral to supportive of these endeavors; Libya has essentially sued for peace on terms and drastically cut back her support for international terrorism. The only gain on the Bad Guy side has been Venezuela.
The Terrorist States are also historically inept warfighters. It's bad enough that they are weaker; they are also less competent, which is one of the big reasons our losses have been so light.
As I said, things are looking good for our cause.
Reply
(2) military quality, and (3) military strategy.
Except of course in reality, where USA has major problems getting -- and keeping -- reliable allies, where the quality of its troops is mediocre, and the ineptness of its generals is close to legendary.
For instance, our ability to recruit allies comes from our generally-benevolent international behavior toward the peaceful
Back in the late 1940s -- early 1950s, maybe. Since then, USA mostly finds its allies among the belligerent.
our military quality from our open society which allows free criticism of mistakes allowing us to learn from them.
I can't tell if you're trying to pull my leg here. USA in 2008 does not welcome criticism whether domestic or foreign, and you and your cronies are always ready to condemn everyone who dares to even suggest that US policies are less than perfect. Just recently you called me a "foul antisemite" owtte for pointing out facts about Israel that didn't suit your fancies.
Then again, in the post above you call Musharraf a dictator. Only months ago you berated me for questioning that Pakistan was to be considered a democracy. I suppose it's just wishful thinking to expect you to be consistent in your opinions.
Reply
(2) military quality, and (3) military strategy.
Except of course in reality, where USA has major problems getting -- and keeping -- reliable allies, where the quality of its troops is mediocre, and the ineptness of its generals is close to legendary.
You're rather living in a fantasy world here. America's allies include most of the Western world; the quality of American, and Western, troops has proven itself superior on the battlefield in most battles since 1945; and if American generalship is so poor, why do we tend to win?
Reply
Well, NATO has an impressive membership roster, but it's getting harder to recruit even the Brits for gratuitous campaigning nowadays. Also, what do countries like Latvia and Slovenia contribute that balances the increased strategic obligations their membership imposes?
the quality of American, and Western, troops has proven itself superior on the battlefield in most battles since 1945
Western troops yes, American troops no. The average tier of European troops consistently outperform at least those American troops that are stationed in Europe.
if American generalship is so poor, why do we tend to win?
American victories depend mostly on an outstanding ability to sustain losses until the enemy has expended himself, not on generalship. USA can hardly be defeated in a conventional war, since no invading fleet can hope to reach its borders in sufficient force (hence the panties-in-a-bunch US reaction when USSR proposed to supply Cuba with missiles and the similar reaction to the Saudi terrorist attacks in 2001).
To turn the question around: if American generalship is so good, why do you tend to fail to win? Nobody expected USA to lose against the Taliban or the Iraqis, but the fact that Talibani forces are still strong enough to require at least 10000 more troops just to stop them from going on the offensive is shows how incomplete the so called victory was. Note that even your leaders admit that they haven't won in Iraq: they only claim that USA is winning.
Reply
???!!!
That sounds like that was posted from an alternate history. Seriously, you've just described the antithesis of the American way of war, which could far better be described as "an outstanding ability to expend ammunition to avoid sustaining losses." You will note that in practically every war we've fought from around 1898 to the present day, we've taken very light losses compared to the other side, largely because of our use of artillery (and, later on, air and sea power) to obviate the need to take losses.
To turn the question around: if American generalship is so good, why do you tend to fail to win?
Because we set ourselves ludicrously high standards for "victory." Most of our "losses" would be considered "draws," and most of our "draws" clear victories, by most combatants.
Reply
Um, no. Until the Vietnam war, US army losses were a lot higher than what comparable armies had. After Vietnam, USA tried to figure out how to wage war without heavy losses, leading to a lot of unresolved conflicts. Since 2003, these attempts seem to have been abandoned in favor of limiting media coverage and discouraging protests. The "support our troops" meme also lets the generals snooze away happily, knowing that GIs come cheap.
(Yes, indiscriminate use of firepower also means that the enemy -- and the civilian population -- suffer even higher losses than the US army does, but that's still not an indication of strategic prowess.)
Reply
Um, no. Until the Vietnam war, US army losses were a lot higher than what comparable armies had.
That's not true, unless by "comparable" you mean "the German." But the German Armies of the World Wars were tactically and operationally brilliant, to a degree surpassing the Western Allies.
After Vietnam, USA tried to figure out how to wage war without heavy losses, leading to a lot of unresolved conflicts.
The artillery- and air support-heavy mode of fighting I describe became pretty much standard during World War II: when used against the Germans it enabled us to hold our own with equal numbers of frontline troops against a tactically-superior foe; when used against anyone but the Germans, it gave us the tactical advantage. Post World War II, American forces using such tactics and operational techniques tended to win even when outnumbered. Post Vietnam, the appearance of smart munitions meant that American forces tended to win even when seriously outnumbered.
Notice the attrition ratios of both Korea and Vietnam. In both wars, Americans took far less losses than their foes, despite the fact that in Korea we were usually outnumbered and in Vietnam facing possibly the best guerilla army ever fielded -- an army better than that possessed by any of the Terrorist factions in the current war.
After Vietnam, USA tried to figure out how to wage war without heavy losses, leading to a lot of unresolved conflicts.
???
The only one of that "lot" I can think of offhand was Somalia, 1993, and that was "unresolved" largely because of Bill Clinton's personal fecklessness.
Since 2003, these attempts seem to have been abandoned in favor of limiting media coverage and discouraging protests.
Again, what are you talking about? Our losses in the current war have been exceedingly light, by the historical standards of multi-year fighting. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we've taken something like 5000 KIA, which is less than 1000 per year -- a trickle compared to any other major or even medium-sized war.
In perspective, if we'd enjoyed such good results in Vietnam, we would have lost only 1000 instead of over 50,000 dead in the course of the whole war. Or, put the other way, if we'd been taking losses at a rate equivalent to Vietnam, we'd have lost a quarter million KIA by now.
The "support our troops" meme also lets the generals snooze away happily, knowing that GIs come cheap.
Again, it's as if you're writing from some other reality: one in which the loss of less than 5000 dead and a few tens of thousands wounded over 6 years constitutes massive, Russian Army style casualties. Your reality is peculiarly detached from the history of warfare.
(Yes, indiscriminate use of firepower also means that the enemy -- and the civilian population -- suffer even higher losses than the US army does, but that's still not an indication of strategic prowess.)
Most of the true civilians dead in the current conflict have been murdered by Terrorist bombs, which were deliberately targeted at large concentrations of civilians.
Reply
Reply
unless by "comparable" you mean "the German."
Mainly them, yes.
The artillery- and air support-heavy mode of fighting [...] Terrorist factions in the current war.
AFAICT this analysis is correct. I wrote earlier that "American victories depend mostly on an outstanding ability to sustain losses until the enemy has expended himself, not on generalship." I should probably rephrase that.
American victories do not depend on superior generalship, but on the ability to make the level of generalship of the enemy irrelevant. It's the Pyrrhic model: it doesn't matter if the enemy can beat you up if he is weakened every time while your own strength remains mostly the same or increases.
Regarding unresolved conflicts: I'm thinking of Lebanon, Kuwait (while the objectives were reached, later developments suggest that conflict wasn't fully resolved), Somalia, and the various Former Yugoslavia conflicts.
Our losses in the current war have been exceedingly light
This kind of off-hand attitude is a good example of what I'm talking about.
it's as if you're writing from some other reality: one in which the loss of less than 5000 dead and a few tens of thousands wounded over 6 years constitutes massive, Russian Army style casualties.
Some 5000 dead and a few tens of thousands wounded in a situation that your leaders emphatically claim *isn't a war* is remarkably massive. Compare 1100 dead in the security forces in Ulster since 1969 to 3300 US soldiers killed since Saddam was captured. To me, those figures suggest a criminal level of negligence on the part of your leadership.
Reply
Reply
I certainly make mistakes now and then. However, I can't find the place where I misuse the term. Could you point it out for me?
Reply
Leave a comment