Posted on 05/12/2008 2:40:36 PM PDT by DesScorp
An epochal shift in the immemorial cycle of war is under way, writes retired major general Robert H. Scales, the former commandant of the Army War College. The infantry is back. America’s enemies have learned that they can’t win blitzkrieg- age wars, so they no longer fight them. They have moved the battlefields to cities, jungles, and mountains, where the U.S. military’s techno logically superior ma chines are ineffective.
“The enemy chooses to fight as infantry because he can win the infantry fight,” Scales says, and America’s experience in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that the nation has no choice but to meet its opponent on uncongenial terrain.
In recent wars, he writes, infantry soldiers have suffered four of five combat deaths even though they make up less than four percent of U.S. military personnel. In wars waged with armor, airpower, and other heavy armaments, the kill ratios were skewed in America’s favor: In the World War II Pacific campaign, 13 enemy soldiers died for every American killed; in Europe against the Germans, the ratio was 11 to 1; in Korea, 13 to 1. But in the second battle of Fallujah, in November 2004, the ratio in close combat nar rowed to 9 to 1, and for soldiers fighting inside buildings, the ratios were “much closer to parity,” Scales writes.
(Excerpt) Read more at wilsoncenter.org ...
The Iraqi front is now primarily being engaged by the Sniper. “Trigger Men” is an excellent read and provides a look at the modern Iraqi battlefield.
1. "The contest is always man to man, to end up with; everything in national defense is designed for that purpose and it has got to be that" - William Mitchell
2. And now for a song...
The Infantry, the Infantry, with dirt
behind their ears
The Infantry, the Infantry, can drink their
weight in beers;
The Cavalry, the Artillery, and the God-
d@mmed Eingineers
Can Never beat the Infantry in a hundred
thousand years
Why no choice. Think outside your Infantry box General.
In recent wars, he writes, infantry soldiers have suffered four of five combat deaths even though they make up less than four percent of U.S. military personnel. In wars waged with armor, airpower, and other heavy armaments, the kill ratios were skewed in America’s favor: In the World War II Pacific campaign, 13 enemy soldiers died for every American killed; in Europe against the Germans, the ratio was 11 to 1; in Korea, 13 to 1. But in the second battle of Fallujah, in November 2004, the ratio in close combat nar rowed to 9 to 1, and for soldiers fighting inside buildings, the ratios were “much closer to parity,” Scales writes.
So General Scales wants to continue fighting the way the enemy chooses to fight? You don't win wars fighting on the enemies terms, or if you insist on fighting that way, and winning, the cost in lives will be high.
Much better to kill the enemy wholesale rather than retail. That doesn't meant you don't use infantry, it means you support them with as much heavy weaponry that you can bring to bear on the problem. Today that means using the infantry to find the enemy, and then using precision guided munitions, either artillery or air delivered, to kill him, preferably in wholesale lots. Just as in previous wars, you attack not only the enemy fighters with your troops, but his logistics "tail". And even guerrilla/jihadist fighters have a logistics tail. The current one leads straight to Iran. When we have not gone after the emeny's rear area and his logistics tail, we have at best fought to a draw. I'd just as soon avoid that in this case.
As much as I would agree that the infantryman should be well-compensated, I don't think that increases in compensation will lead to significantly more recruits. I just don't think that those who enroll in the infantry are driven by dollar signs.
Seems to me that every time somebody has ever predicted that a certain weapon or tactic was obsolete for future combat... they’ve been wrong. People have predicted the obsolescence of heavy armor, artillery, and infantry at one time or another. And they’ve been shown to be wrong.
Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a resurgence in the use of sword and shield for close-quarters combat. Put a little fear into the insurgents, for sure... :-)
Beautiful pic of the Navy Hellcat. Quite a plane.
I read somewhere that, statistics wise, the Hellcat had one of the best records of WW2.
want a song? Turn up your speakers
http://www.west-point.org/greimanj/west_point/songs/RodgerYoung.htm
Some other nice ones around there also.
God Bless the Infantry!
My old crossed rifles mean more to me than my college degrees.
damn fine song...my old man and I used to drink beer and sing it at the kitchen table...Pop was an infantryman, a decorated Korean War vet (one of the Frozen Chosin)...thanks for posting this...
You are most welcome.
I really like this one for some odd reason.
http://www.west-point.org/greimanj/west_point/songs/bloodontherisers.htm
Very nice. What a great sound. Thank you
You don't have to slaughter whole cities. It's what systems like Excaliber, small diameter bomb, and other precision guided weapons are for. You isolate the enemy fighters, and then blow up the building they are in. Yes, you'll probably a get few of their own women and children, but whose fault is that. It's most likely more effective in terms of sorties per insurgent killed. And a lot more effective in terms of insurgents killed per infantryman killed or maimed.
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.