Skip to comments.The End of Counterinsurgency and the Scalable Force
Posted on 06/05/2012 11:30:09 AM PDT by arthurus
y George Friedman
The U.S. military for years has debated the utility of counterinsurgency operations. Drawing from a sentiment that harkens back to the Vietnam War, many within the military have long opposed...There is of course another dimension of asymmetric warfare, which encapsulates guerrilla warfare and special operations warfare. This is warfare by which highly trained light infantry forces are deployed on a clearly defined mission but are not dependent on the local population.
(Excerpt) Read more at stratfor.com ...
FID/UW - two sides of the same COIN - so to say.
If you know that he knows that you know that he knows.........
No matter what side of the table you are standing on - you are still looking at the same map.
I don’t get his point, what is new about this?
Go in. Kill everybody that needs killing. Leave.
Repeat as often as necessary.
Let the locals take care of their own problems. don’t try to solve them. don’t import the,
Do what George Crook did with the Apaches. Use mules, whatever. Get the load the troops carry light. And then chase ‘em ‘til they’re dead, or on the reservation.
"Hearts and Minds" and "Nation Building" might work in some circumstances or countries but will NEVER succeed in any "Islamic Republic" as their "Religion of Pieces" trumps all and we will not overcome that barrier.
Bush made a huge mistake when he approved both AfGan and Iraq to form new Constitutions with Sharia being "controlling." This guaranteed neither country would ever be true allies, nor would any of their peoples enjoy what W had envisioned: rights, freedoms or liberties.
As a Nam Vet, I'm sick and tired of our Community Agitator using our Warriors as pawns and his ROE's are causing unnecessary casualties.
WORSE yet is our DOD which has become politicized, is now populated by a cadre of JCS who have never served in harms way and those REMF are complicit in pandering to O'Bummer's delusions of grandeur while abandoning those they command.
Time to bring them ALL home, now!
That concept has been fought for more years than either of us have lived. S.L.A. Marshal wrote the book on it (The Soldier's Load and The Mobility of a Nation (1950))
The problem is that there is always some "leader" who is more than willing to pile on one more piece of lightweight equipment.
I think we should explore the idea of taking territory from our enemies and COLONIZE IT PERMANENTLY.
You wanna support a terrorist strike on the USA? We retaliate by taking away part of your country. For example, we take over the enemy’s seaports and police what goes in and out. Maybe we collect tariffs on food and other goods shipped through the port to pay back the cost of conquering them.
Oh, they don’t like that and attack our colony? We retaliate and EXPAND OUR COLONY.
Genghis Khan would have understood.
Democrat presidents always purge the military of competence in favor of paperpushers and suckups. Clinton did it the most overtly and the most violently, but Carter did it, too. The reason is that the Left never trusts the military and always fantasizes military coups against their utopia. Clinton's purge is why it took so long to get Iraq in hand. The surge was not what made the difference though it surely helped. The combat experienced and smart junior officers had finally bubbled up through the ranks and we had a competent competent command structure once again. That has all been tossed in the dumpster again by this Democrat and it will take another real boots on the ground war to develop another layer of competent and inspired command. It is probably for the best that we are withdrawing from everywhere now. We don't have the officer corps that can fight on he ground again.
Just by-the=way Left mistrust of the military is why the assault on America is being entrusted to a Civilian Defense Force and an armed EPA. The military will not be employed against the citizenry unless the Left alternatives are unable to complete their assignments.