in another thread:
(much like the modern USA army -- they might not be the *best* trained, and they might not have the absolutely *best* equipment available -- but they have great equipment, great training and great team tactics -- which makes them very hard to handle).
I am not up with the times for modern military thought. Who is the "best" in these categories?
in another thread:
I am not up with the times for modern military thought. Who is the "best" in these categories?(much like the modern USA army -- they might not be the *best* trained, and they might not have the absolutely *best* equipment available -- but they have great equipment, great training and great team tactics -- which makes them very hard to handle).
I thought america's military was the best because of its size mixed with it's overall versatility. I know the brits have longer(if not better) training than we do, the israelis have better small-group tactics. I know we spend the most on shiny boom booms, but I think the germans (or someone in that area) have better individual toys.
as far as the best. Their are many catergories.
Best Funded: America Hands down
Best Trained: Germans or Brits with Israel following very close
Best Number AKA Largest China, No contest. They can lose 3X the amount of any other single nation in terms of army strength and STILL have them out numbered.
From my time in the US navy I had some exposure to a forign navy and as far as best looking: the germans feilded the best looking studliest guys I have ever seen. They complained about our alchohol laws, lack of anything fun to do but the said the food was great and the women were hot. I said welcome to norfolk where the city council legislates fun out of everyday life at every turn.
See theirs lots of Bests you just have to pick which one.
The other problem, you run into is: what does "Best" mean?
Most successful in accomplishing their leader's objectives?
From this standpoint, the Taliban may prove to be the most effective miliatry in the world today.
Given the relative level of resources, that sounds like a pretty awesome military to me.
|
Most successful in accomplishing their leader's objectives? From this standpoint, the Taliban may prove to be the most effective miliatry in the world today.
The U.S. is leaving Iraq, with will become a basket case in short order.
The U.S. is being slowly driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents.
The Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents. Given the relative level of resources, that sounds like a pretty awesome military to me.
Interesting Assessment. I suppose from that measure you would consider the capacity to wage a war of attrition makes the best army which means you are looking at the three priorities of Warfare:
1. The ‘FOG OF WAR’. The Fog of War is the confusion of the battlefield. Do you target your own troops? For the Taliban this would be a NO, but for the USA this has been a YES. They took out a bunch of Canadians and the Australians are complaining about a lack of rapid intel sharing in the Field. So this is still a problem for the USA.
2. CONTROL AND COMMUNICATION - This is two very different ideas. For the Taliban it is the ability to pass targets to individual Cells or Groups of Cells and that cluster will carry out an objective. For the USA it is the capacity to communicate directions and changes in real time. For the US, it is a problem because intel goes as Far as the US troops with a reduction in trickle through to Allied Troops.
3. THE FRICTION OF WAR - mostly this is psychological stresses over prolonged field exposure, It can be stress, it can be deterioration in equipment and supplies, It can be drop off in support quality. Basically everything is reducing in effectiveness and quality. The USA can keep throwing money at this problem and only the Human factor will decline in quality. making the Human Factor the bottleneck of any future problem. For the Taliban, they simply need to raid your stuff and live off what they take in conflict that gives them more than the minimum resources they have access to.
PSYCOLOGICAL - The Taliban is at a psychological advantage simply because they can support their activities Psychologically with Religious Reasoning. The US troops are not in a Psychological Position to do this. They have nothing more than Nationalism to validate their actions as a group Psychologically - and because what they are doing in a foreign state is constantly questionable - even to their own troops they are at a Psychological Disadvantage.
MATERIAL - Suicide bombers can use your own bombs against you. Hand Grenades can be hung in Netting above a street with fishhooks on lines to snag and trigger on a soldier walking down a laneway in the dark. Trip wires can be set up to fire machine guns at anyone who trips a wire drawing the attention of any support.
TACTICS - Setting up a killbox where all shooters attacking a US convoy shoot over a civilian crowd into the US Troops can distress them psycologically. US Troops take fire from the dircetion of the Crowd and return fire.
Optionally the Taliban are likely yet to use US Equipment against the US Troops but consider an encounter with Taliban dressed in the Uniforms from US Troops using US Weapons. There are Psychological Issues about firing on your own that US Troops may be unprepared for in such an encounter.
Interesting perspectives. I'd say the US military(and those who organize their military along such lines) have problems with guerilla warfare tactics, such tactics are what the achillies heel of such a military structure. Hey, they worked well enough against the British!
3. THE FRICTION OF WAR - mostly this is psychological stresses over prolonged field exposure, It can be stress, it can be deterioration in equipment and supplies, It can be drop off in support quality. Basically everything is reducing in effectiveness and quality. The USA can keep throwing money at this problem and only the Human factor will decline in quality. Making the Human Factor the bottleneck of any future problem. For the Taliban, they simply need to raid your stuff and live off what they take in conflict that gives them more than the minimum resources they have access to.
PSYCOLOGICAL - The Taliban is at a psychological advantage simply because they can support their activities Psychologically with Religious Reasoning. The US troops are not in a Psychological Position to do this. They have nothing more than Nationalism to validate their actions as a group Psychologically - and because what they are doing in a foreign state is constantly questionable - even to their own troops they are at a Psychological Disadvantage.
Your points 1 and 2 don't really matter.
Your point 3 is what I was really getting at.
Winning a war is about two things:
The U.S. was actually doing a pretty good job of destroying the Taliban/Al-Qaeda's ability to fight. Then the U.S. leadership at the time got confused about why we were there and invaded Iraq.
By making Afganistan the "forgotten" theatre, the U.S. government squandered any progress that the troops had made (which has to be demoralizing) and allowed the Taliban/Al-Qaeda to recover their own resolve.
This is why the U.S. effort in Afghanistan may now be "unwinnable".
Interesting perspectives. I'd say the US military(and those who organize their military along such lines) have problems with guerilla warfare tactics, such tactics are what the achillies heel of such a military structure. Hey, they worked well enough against the British!
How the military is organized is an issue in this kind of non-linear warfare but not the major one. The major nations involved in these bushfire wars have the capability to fight them. The basics of training and reasonable equipment for doing so.
What they don't have is the will to fight such wars. Generally speaking the government wins a guerrilla war if it lasts more then 15 years and the rebels win if the conflict lasts less then 15 years. That is the historical average when looking at all such conflicts.
Such a conflict is pretty much all about staying power. Usually neither side has the means to win such a conflict but both are perfectly capable of loosing it. The Government has the advantage of being the organization in actual control and if they can hold on then that advantage begins to play out. Simply waiting a generation for the most fervent of their enemies to essentially grow to old to to keep up the fight is the basic plan.
Winning Hearts and Minds helps in that it slows the rate of recruitment among the resistance and probably lowers the number of years the resistance can keep things up but its not absolutely essential. If you don't do Hearts and Minds then savage levels of brutality are your next best option.
Generally speaking I think the west should avoid such conflicts unless its willing to actually spend 30 years at it.
Interesting perspectives. I'd say the US military(and those who organize their military along such lines) have problems with guerilla warfare tactics, such tactics are what the achillies heel of such a military structure. Hey, they worked well enough against the British!How the military is organized is an issue in this kind of non-linear warfare but not the major one. The major nations involved in these bushfire wars have the capability to fight them. The basics of training and reasonable equipment for doing so.
What they don't have is the will to fight such wars. Generally speaking the government wins a guerrilla war if it lasts more then 15 years and the rebels win if the conflict lasts less then 15 years. That is the historical average when looking at all such conflicts.
Such a conflict is pretty much all about staying power. Usually neither side has the means to win such a conflict but both are perfectly capable of loosing it. The Government has the advantage of being the organization in actual control and if they can hold on then that advantage begins to play out. Simply waiting a generation for the most fervent of their enemies to essentially grow to old to to keep up the fight is the basic plan.
Winning Hearts and Minds helps in that it slows the rate of recruitment among the resistance and probably lowers the number of years the resistance can keep things up but its not absolutely essential. If you don't do Hearts and Minds then savage levels of brutality are your next best option.
Generally speaking I think the west should avoid such conflicts unless its willing to actually spend 30 years at it.
I hope saying this doesn't come back to haunt me, but I think that savage brutality is the best option in such conflicts. Hearts and minds imoo really doesn't work when you consider culture clash, let alone culture shock. Again, I am in no way in favor of war, violence, grinding bones to make bread, etc. But you really can't kill an ideology. You have to kill the people who subscribe to it in such a fashion that others who might have been sympathetic see that it really isn't worth it.
God. I feel sick.
|
I hope saying this doesn't come back to haunt me, but I think that savage brutality is the best option in such conflicts. Hearts and minds imoo really doesn't work when you consider culture clash, let alone culture shock. Again, I am in no way in favor of war, violence, grinding bones to make bread, etc. But you really can't kill an ideology. You have to kill the people who subscribe to it in such a fashion that others who might have been sympathetic see that it really isn't worth it.
God. I feel sick.
Sick or no, you're absolutely right, Freehold. The Geneva convention, while well-intentioned, has really neutered the ability of its adherents to wage war. War is hell. There will always be collateral damage...the trick isn't to avoid it all together but to minimize it and, when it does occur, have it occur in such a way that your enemies are to blame. If the enemy fires at you from behind a group of civilians, open fire--it wasn't your decision to put those civilians at risk, it was your enemies.
I remember reading awhile back about how Hamas' leader, an old crippled guy in a wheelchair, was inciting violence against Israel. You know what Israel did? They sent in an attack chopper and blew his ass out of his wheelchair w/ a GD missle. Hamas elected and announced his successor. You know what happened to that SOB? Blown away by a missle. Hamas layed low for awhile after that.
Then there's General Blackjack Pershing. Around WWI there were attacks by Muslim extremists on the US. The General found 50 that were responsible, shot 49 of them, dumped them in a mass grave and coated the bodies with pig's blood. The 50th? He let him live to spread the tale. We didn't have a terrorist attack until the 1993 WTC bombings.
We need to quit being pussies and wage WAR, not a f@*+ing PR campaign.
|
|
I hope saying this doesn't come back to haunt me, but I think that savage brutality is the best option in such conflicts. Hearts and minds imoo really doesn't work when you consider culture clash, let alone culture shock. Again, I am in no way in favor of war, violence, grinding bones to make bread, etc. But you really can't kill an ideology. You have to kill the people who subscribe to it in such a fashion that others who might have been sympathetic see that it really isn't worth it.
God. I feel sick.
Sick or no, you're absolutely right, Freehold. The Geneva convention, while well-intentioned, has really neutered the ability of its adherents to wage war. War is hell. There will always be collateral damage...the trick isn't to avoid it all together but to minimize it and, when it does occur, have it occur in such a way that your enemies are to blame. If the enemy fires at you from behind a group of civilians, open fire--it wasn't your decision to put those civilians at risk, it was your enemies.
I remember reading awhile back about how Hamas' leader, an old crippled guy in a wheelchair, was inciting violence against Israel. You know what Israel did? They sent in an attack chopper and blew his ass out of his wheelchair w/ a GD missle. Hamas elected and announced his successor. You know what happened to that SOB? Blown away by a missle. Hamas layed low for awhile after that.
Then there's General Blackjack Pershing. Around WWI there were attacks by Muslim extremists on the US. The General found 50 that were responsible, shot 49 of them, dumped them in a mass grave and coated the bodies with pig's blood. The 50th? He let him live to spread the tale. We didn't have a terrorist attack until the 1993 WTC bombings.
We need to quit being pussies and wage WAR, not a f~@*ing PR campaign.
Meaning what exactly?
Also, just curious, but are you serving or once served or just another chickenhawk who's really keen to wage bloody war as long as you don't have to fight in it?
[EDIT] And to answer the original question, I believe the statement was "Canadian soldiers, British officers, American weapons, with German quartermasters and French chefs".
|
|
Meaning what exactly?
Also, just curious, but are you serving or once served or just another chickenhawk who's really keen to wage bloody war as long as you don't have to fight in it?
[EDIT] And to answer the original question, I believe the statement was "Canadian soldiers, British officers, American weapons, with German quartermasters and French chefs".
8 years in the military-4 years Air National Guard, 4 years Active Duty Army (in that order). I was not infantry, I was medical.
If we were to wage an actual war, and not this "hearts and minds" PR campaign BS, it would be bloody, but it wouldn't be bloody on our side.
I'm currently watching >The Art of War< on the History Channel on YouTube.
|
|
Most successful in accomplishing their leader's objectives? From this standpoint, the Taliban may prove to be the most effective miliatry in the world today.
The U.S. is leaving Iraq, with will become a basket case in short order.
The U.S. is being slowly driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents.
The Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents. Given the relative level of resources, that sounds like a pretty awesome military to me.
You are aware the Taliban wasn't formed until a few years after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, right? Like 1994?
You are aware the Taliban wasn't formed until a few years after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, right? Like 1994?Most successful in accomplishing their leader's objectives? From this standpoint, the Taliban may prove to be the most effective miliatry in the world today.
The U.S. is leaving Iraq, with will become a basket case in short order.
The U.S. is being slowly driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents.
The Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents. Given the relative level of resources, that sounds like a pretty awesome military to me.
I thought there was evidence to support that their formation as an unnamed organization pre-dated this by several years?
I thought there was evidence to support that their formation as an unnamed organization pre-dated this by several years?You are aware the Taliban wasn't formed until a few years after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, right? Like 1994?Most successful in accomplishing their leader's objectives? From this standpoint, the Taliban may prove to be the most effective miliatry in the world today.
The U.S. is leaving Iraq, with will become a basket case in short order.
The U.S. is being slowly driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents.
The Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents. Given the relative level of resources, that sounds like a pretty awesome military to me.
I'm not sure. Show us the evidence?
I hope saying this doesn't come back to haunt me, but I think that savage brutality is the best option in such conflicts. Hearts and minds imoo really doesn't work when you consider culture clash, let alone culture shock. Again, I am in no way in favor of war, violence, grinding bones to make bread, etc. But you really can't kill an ideology. You have to kill the people who subscribe to it in such a fashion that others who might have been sympathetic see that it really isn't worth it.
God. I feel sick.
Sick or no, you're absolutely right, Freehold. The Geneva convention, while well-intentioned, has really neutered the ability of its adherents to wage war. War is hell. There will always be collateral damage...the trick isn't to avoid it all together but to minimize it and, when it does occur, have it occur in such a way that your enemies are to blame. If the enemy fires at you from behind a group of civilians, open fire--it wasn't your decision to put those civilians at risk, it was your enemies.
I remember reading awhile back about how Hamas' leader, an old crippled guy in a wheelchair, was inciting violence against Israel. You know what Israel did? They sent in an attack chopper and blew his ass out of his wheelchair w/ a GD missle. Hamas elected and announced his successor. You know what happened to that SOB? Blown away by a missle. Hamas layed low for awhile after that.
Then there's General Blackjack Pershing. Around WWI there were attacks by Muslim extremists on the US. The General found 50 that were responsible, shot 49 of them, dumped them in a mass grave and coated the bodies with pig's blood. The 50th? He let him live to spread the tale. We didn't have a terrorist attack until the 1993 WTC bombings.
We need to quit being pussies and wage WAR, not a f%&~ing PR campaign.
Whoa whoa WHOA! I'm not saying its time to get rid of the Geneva conventions. I don't think we've come to that yet. Making warfare bloody and ugly doesn't mean it's time to resort to the level of brutality suggested by a lack of Geneva Conventions. And yeah, I dont' buy the Blackjack Pershing story on face value anymore than I buy that George Washington snapped King George's neck after facing him in single combat.
|
|
I thought there was evidence to support that their formation as an unnamed organization pre-dated this by several years?You are aware the Taliban wasn't formed until a few years after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, right? Like 1994?Most successful in accomplishing their leader's objectives? From this standpoint, the Taliban may prove to be the most effective miliatry in the world today.
The U.S. is leaving Iraq, with will become a basket case in short order.
The U.S. is being slowly driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents.
The Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents. Given the relative level of resources, that sounds like a pretty awesome military to me.
There may have been a kernel of an idea, but to claim the Mujaheddin were "Taliban" is incorrect on a large scale.
Furthermore, as a military force, the Taliban wouldn't even have been able to keep the Northern Alliance at bay without massive support in manpower and materiel from Pakistan.
Nor would they be able to stand up to us now without the same. Pakistan (especially now that Musharraf has stepped down) is the real power behind the Taliban; without Pakistan, the Taliban would have failed long ago. In fact, I find it interesting that the Taliban were more or less finished as an effective force until Musharraf was forced to step down, and now, magically, have renewed vigor and military capacity.
I look into my crystal ball, and I... I see...
Flames... Flames, and... and...
A war... A war of flames... A "flame-war..."
Oh, yeah, this is going to be great.
And not what I meant wanted or feel is warranted by this thread. Please let us keep this one civil.
The political context of war is far more important than the military action (i.e. killing people) as it always is throughout history. Military action is always a means to a political end. So, asking whose army is best is kind of only a partial-question that needs political context.
Example:
In 1975, with U.S. Military support all but gone in Vietnam, Saigon finally falls to the North Vietnamese Army. At the end of the war, U.S. Colonel Harry Summers meets with North Vietnamese leaders to negotiate the American withdrawal. In his meeting with Colonel Tu, he probably got a little angry at what was going on and snapped to the colonel, “Well, the truth is you never beat us on the battlefield.” The Vietnamese colonel looked at him and said, “That’s true, but it is also irrelevant.” And there you have it …
Reminiscent of things happening today in other parts of the world.
Reference: >Strategic Communication<
I thought there was evidence to support that their formation as an unnamed organization pre-dated this by several years?You are aware the Taliban wasn't formed until a few years after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, right? Like 1994?Most successful in accomplishing their leader's objectives? From this standpoint, the Taliban may prove to be the most effective miliatry in the world today.
The U.S. is leaving Iraq, with will become a basket case in short order.
The U.S. is being slowly driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents.
The Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents. Given the relative level of resources, that sounds like a pretty awesome military to me.
There may have been a kernel of an idea, but to claim the Mujaheddin were "Taliban" is incorrect on a large scale.
Furthermore, as a military force, the Taliban wouldn't even have been able to keep the Northern Alliance at bay without massive support in manpower and materiel from Pakistan.
Nor would they be able to stand up to us now without the same. Pakistan (especially now that Musharraf has stepped down) is the real power behind the Taliban; without Pakistan, the Taliban would have failed long ago. In fact, I find it interesting that the Taliban were more or less finished as an effective force until Musharraf was forced to step down, and now, magically, have renewed vigor and military capacity.
I think the Mujaheddin thing is what I was going for. I think also we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. The Mujaheddin as an organization- or even just people willing to train others- were fertile ground for something like the Taliban.
Everything else, I agree with, however.
The political context of war is far more important than the military action (i.e. killing people) as it always is throughout history. Military action is always a means to a political end. So, asking whose army is best is kind of only a partial-question that needs political context.
Example:
In 1975, with U.S. Military support all but gone in Vietnam, Saigon finally falls to the North Vietnamese Army. At the end of the war, U.S. Colonel Harry Summers meets with North Vietnamese leaders to negotiate the American withdrawal. In his meeting with Colonel Tu, he probably got a little angry at what was going on and snapped to the colonel, “Well, the truth is you never beat us on the battlefield.” The Vietnamese colonel looked at him and said, “That’s true, but it is also irrelevant.” And there you have it …Reminiscent of things happen today in other parts of the world.
Reference: >Strategic Communication<
Fair enough.
|
|
I thought there was evidence to support that their formation as an unnamed organization pre-dated this by several years?You are aware the Taliban wasn't formed until a few years after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, right? Like 1994?Most successful in accomplishing their leader's objectives? From this standpoint, the Taliban may prove to be the most effective miliatry in the world today.
The U.S. is leaving Iraq, with will become a basket case in short order.
The U.S. is being slowly driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents.
The Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents. Given the relative level of resources, that sounds like a pretty awesome military to me.
There may have been a kernel of an idea, but to claim the Mujaheddin were "Taliban" is incorrect on a large scale.
Furthermore, as a military force, the Taliban wouldn't even have been able to keep the Northern Alliance at bay without massive support in manpower and materiel from Pakistan.
Nor would they be able to stand up to us now without the same. Pakistan (especially now that Musharraf has stepped down) is the real power behind the Taliban; without Pakistan, the Taliban would have failed long ago. In fact, I find it interesting that the Taliban were more or less finished as an effective force until Musharraf was forced to step down, and now, magically, have renewed vigor and military capacity.
I think the Mujaheddin thing is what I was going for. I think also we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. The Mujaheddin as an organization- or even just people willing to train others- were fertile ground for something like the Taliban.
Everything else, I agree with, however.
The Mujaheddin, by and large, formed the ISA (Islamic State of Afghanistan), the government the Taliban overthrew in '96. Mujaheddin was a catchall phrase used to cover all of the resistance fighters who challenged the Soviet Union and their puppet communist government in Kabul.
The Taliban were originally a student organization that promoted a very strict application of Sharia law, and, before they got involved with Bin Laden, actually worked against rapists, pederasts, opium growers, etc. Not saying they were nice people (they were most strict in the application of Sharia towards women, for one), but they were definitely fundamentalist Islamic idealists.
Most of the original Taliban, with the exception of Mohammed Omar, were far too young to have fought against the Soviets. Omar fought with the Mujaheddin group he was involved with during the war against the Soviets during the collapse in '92 (when the various Mujaheddin groups fought for control of Afghanistan, causing the collapse of the ISA), then struck off on his own in '94 and formed the Taliban.
The chronology of the history of the Taliban is pretty well documented, there really isn't any argument.
|
|
Actually the American CIA helped create the Afghan insurgents who succeeded in bogging down the Soviets for a decade. While the Taliban may have been a relatively recent creation, it's roots go back decades.
You are aware the Taliban wasn't formed until a few years after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, right? Like 1994?
That's like me saying the roots of Fred Phelps' movement can be traced back to Saul of Tarsis.
Omar formed the Taliban in '94 after having a dream (or so he says). That he was Mujaheddin, or that the C.I.A. funded the insurgents, is pretty much irrelevant. Now, Pakistan providing funding to the Taliban to maintain their hegemony in Afghanistan (and keeping Afghanistan unstable and in a constant state of turmoil) is much more relevant than anything the C.I.A. did nearly a decade earlier.
|
|
And, as to the Taliban's effectiveness as a fighting force: they were done two years ago. Barely a threat. After Musharref was ousted, we haven't been fighting the Taliban, we've been fighting the new Pakistani government by proxy. The Taliban was more or less finished as a fighting force a few years ago, the people we are fighting now are most likely Pashtun Pakistanis who have taken up the Taliban mantle.
|
|
Whoa whoa WHOA! I'm not saying its time to get rid of the Geneva conventions. I don't think we've come to that yet. Making warfare bloody and ugly doesn't mean it's time to resort to the level of brutality suggested by a lack of Geneva Conventions. And yeah, I dont' buy the Blackjack Pershing story on face value anymore than I buy that George Washington snapped King George's neck after facing him in single combat.
Sorry, i didn't mean to try and put words in your mouth. I just feel that if we are fighting a force that doesn't play by the same rules as us, we will be hard pressed to win. Therefore we should adjust our tactics to match their rules.
As for George Washington snapping King George's neck...i LOLd.
I like the Chess and Go analogy in that History Channel thing.
Whoa whoa WHOA! I'm not saying its time to get rid of the Geneva conventions. I don't think we've come to that yet. Making warfare bloody and ugly doesn't mean it's time to resort to the level of brutality suggested by a lack of Geneva Conventions. And yeah, I dont' buy the Blackjack Pershing story on face value anymore than I buy that George Washington snapped King George's neck after facing him in single combat.Sorry, i didn't mean to try and put words in your mouth. I just feel that if we are fighting a force that doesn't play by the same rules as us, we will be hard pressed to win. Therefore we should adjust our tactics to match their rules.
As for George Washington snapping King George's neck...i LOLd.
A friend of mine actually drew a HILARIOUS picture of George Washington beating his chest and shouting "THIS IS MAH HOUSE!!!" with one foot on the late King George's chest. I wonder if he still has that.
The Swiss are the best because no nation on earth can fight off 300 of the best banks in the world.
Whoa whoa WHOA! I'm not saying its time to get rid of the Geneva conventions. I don't think we've come to that yet. Making warfare bloody and ugly doesn't mean it's time to resort to the level of brutality suggested by a lack of Geneva Conventions. And yeah, I dont' buy the Blackjack Pershing story on face value anymore than I buy that George Washington snapped King George's neck after facing him in single combat.Sorry, i didn't mean to try and put words in your mouth. I just feel that if we are fighting a force that doesn't play by the same rules as us, we will be hard pressed to win. Therefore we should adjust our tactics to match their rules.
As for George Washington snapping King George's neck...i LOLd.
Actually, I don't disagree with you on most levels with respect to who we're fighting and why and how we need to fight them. I just think we're using the wrong fighting force and philosophy here.
I'm currently watching >The Art of War< on the History Channel on YouTube.
I will have to check this out at a later time.
The Swiss are the best because no nation on earth can fight off 300 of the best banks in the world.
Except that a year ago they almost got black listed, and ended up caving in.
this is an asside, but
one problem with waging a war with high levels of collateral damage, civilian casualties, extra-judicial killings and torture, asside from the legal implications, is that you find yourself acting as a recruitment tool
"look at these nasty americans/brits.UN peacekeepers - they are killing poor ordinary people, you need to fight them"
from the other side, look how millitary recruitment surged in the US following the World Trade Centre attacks
however, when fighting in Muslim countries, this is particularly keen - there is a principle in Islam that "all men are your brother, all women are your sister" - your own family first, then all muslims, then all humanity
by carefully showing the tragic deaths of, say, civilians and in particular children, the AQ-inspired radicalisers can say to young men
"look at what these terrible americans/british are doing to your brothers"
now, a good Imam can argue against all the points a recruiter will use - but, their argument will frequently be dry and, well, religious (such as drawing on the the circumstances that must be met before a muslim is allowed to take up arms(Jihad Bil Saif)) and might not compete with the passionate arguments of the recruiter. in the UK, the government has spent money on helping youth groups educate young people to counter the arguments themselves, but with questionable results
You have summarized >Strategic Communication< very well. This aspect of war must be a part of the planning process, especially now when the internet is still free.
' ... a US officer returning from Iraq said privately:
“We plan kinetic campaigns and maybe consider adding a public affairs
annex. Our adversaries plan information campaigns that exploit kinetic
events, especially spectacular attacks and martyrdom operations. We aren’t
even on the playing field, but al Qaeda seeks to dominate it because they
know their war will be won by ideas." '
I'm just going to point out that Sweden hasn't lost a war since 1809. ;)
It depends on the situation the Question is too broad...
The US, China, USSR are overwhelming in their capacity compared to other nations. No mater how well trained your troops are on the battlefield a smaller nation or coalition of small nations going up against one of these giants will lose.
On the other hand where one of the above is forced to occupy a smaller nations territory and the resistance forces with in that nation has sufficient support to maintain a guerrilla war against the occupier there is a good chance through the attrition of will that any one of the larger nations will loose eventually.
There is a reason the Spartans worried about going to war... It meant that they were training the enemy. Every encounter taught the enemy what worked and what didn't. Eventually the Thebans (although I give credit to Iphicrates the Athenian) worked out how to beat the Spartan phalanx.
In a situation where the US, China or The USSR go to war then it will be interesting, I wonder how long before we start to see tactical then strategic mushroom clouds... It doesn't seem to matter too much about troop ability then either.
A discussion on the quality of troops over the last 110 years would probably be better.
The Russians didn't pay much heed to the Geneva Convention when they went in, but they didn't have the resolve to carry through.
China, on the other hand, has been proven to be quite amoral when it comes to conquest. They'll move millions of their own people in, take the land, make the natives second class in their own lands, and then disarm them and kill them if they resist. Plenty of conflict with the Muslims in their own western lands because of this, and it isn't like Tibet wants them there, either...or the Mongols.
==Aelryinth
I'm just going to point out that Sweden hasn't lost a war since 1809. ;)
Tends to happen when a country hasn't been in a war since 1814. Not sure it speaks towards the quality of their army.
As to the OP:
America's got the best all-around military.
America's got the best hardware.
Britain's SAS are considered the top Special Forces. They are basically SEAL's with extra Intelligence and anti-Terrorist training.
Israel's military is considered to have the best fighting spirit and average level of training per soldier. You just don't mess with the Jews.
Russian Spetsnaz are considered the most ruthless of the major armies.
America's military projects force best around the world. Crucial to this is that we're the only nation with multiple functioning carrier groups...we've got by far the strongest navy, and air force. Nations compete to buy planes a generation old from us!
America's military is by far the best funded and adaptable in the missions it can carry out.
==Aelryinth
|
|
This is why the U.S. effort in Afghanistan may now be "unwinnable".
THe War on Terrorism is unwinable because indiscriminant targeting of Civilians recruits more to their cause. For the US, The only way to stop the Terrorism is to exterminate all the Survivors and their relatives (Civilian or otherwise) and that kind of behaviour will just make the US Position look even more Axis of Evil that it already does.
The Fact is that we could end this War in a Year without another life Lost in Open Millitary Conflict.
1. Suspend Sovereignty of Afghanistan. Declare it a UN Protectorate.
2. Build a Technologically Advanced Maximum Security City in Afghanistan for all the Women and Children.
3. Give that City State a UN Seat.
4. Build a second city - this time it will be a Work Farm where individual Males over the age of 14 must grow massive amounts of Food to feed themselves and the city full of women and children.
5. Deport All males to the Workfarm city when they reach the Age of 14.
I hope saying this doesn't come back to haunt me, but I think that savage brutality is the best option in such conflicts. Hearts and minds imoo really doesn't work when you consider culture clash, let alone culture shock. Again, I am in no way in favor of war, violence, grinding bones to make bread, etc. But you really can't kill an ideology. You have to kill the people who subscribe to it in such a fashion that others who might have been sympathetic see that it really isn't worth it.
God. I feel sick.
Bolded for emphasis.
Cathars.
|
|
The Russians didn't pay much heed to the Geneva Convention when they went in, but they didn't have the resolve to carry through.
China, on the other hand, has been proven to be quite amoral when it comes to conquest. They'll move millions of their own people in, take the land, make the natives second class in their own lands, and then disarm them and kill them if they resist. Plenty of conflict with the Muslims in their own western lands because of this, and it isn't like Tibet wants them there, either...or the Mongols.
==Aelryinth
You don't think the Chinese could have learned that off the American treatment of the Native Americans and the British treatment of, well, pretty much everybody, do you?
You don't think the Chinese could have learned that off the American treatment of the Native Americans and the British treatment of, well, pretty much everybody, do you?The Russians didn't pay much heed to the Geneva Convention when they went in, but they didn't have the resolve to carry through.
China, on the other hand, has been proven to be quite amoral when it comes to conquest. They'll move millions of their own people in, take the land, make the natives second class in their own lands, and then disarm them and kill them if they resist. Plenty of conflict with the Muslims in their own western lands because of this, and it isn't like Tibet wants them there, either...or the Mongols.
==Aelryinth
Nah. we learned it off them. They've been doing it for 3000 years! We've only been doing it for a couple hundred...and the Geneva Convention didn't exist that far back. We do try and be better about such things nowadays, you know?
==Aelryinth
I hope saying this doesn't come back to haunt me, but I think that savage brutality is the best option in such conflicts. Hearts and minds imoo really doesn't work when you consider culture clash, let alone culture shock. Again, I am in no way in favor of war, violence, grinding bones to make bread, etc. But you really can't kill an ideology. You have to kill the people who subscribe to it in such a fashion that others who might have been sympathetic see that it really isn't worth it.
God. I feel sick.
Bolded for emphasis.
Cathars.
Amongst others.
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
No hearts and minds to win there.
Wake up.