Excerpt from an excellent new op-ed by MG HR McMaster (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/the-pipe-dream-of-easy-war.html)
QuoteWe engaged in such thinking in the years before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; many accepted the conceit that lightning victories could be achieved by small numbers of technologically sophisticated American forces capable of launching precision strikes against enemy targets from safe distances.
These defense theories, associated with the belief that new technology had ushered in a whole new era of war, were then applied to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; in both, they clouded our understanding of the conflicts and delayed the development of effective strategies.
Today, budget pressures and the desire to avoid new conflicts have resurrected arguments that emerging technologies — or geopolitical shifts — have ushered in a new era of warfare. Some defense theorists dismiss the difficulties we ran into in Afghanistan and Iraq as aberrations. But they were not aberrations. The best way to guard against a new version of wishful thinking is to understand three age-old truths about war and how our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq validated their importance.
First, war is political. As the 19th-century Prussian philosopher of war Carl von Clausewitz said, "war should never be thought of as something autonomous, but always as an instrument of policy."
In the years leading up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, thinking about defense was driven by ideas that regarded successful military operations as ends in themselves, rather than just one instrument of power that must be coordinated with others to achieve, and sustain, political goals. Believers in the theory known as the "Revolution in Military Affairs" misinterpreted the American-led coalition's lopsided victory in the 1991 gulf war and predicted that further advances in military technology would deliver dominance over any opponent. Potential adversaries, they suggested, would not dare to threaten vital American interests.
The theory was hubristic. Yet it became orthodoxy and complicated our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, where underdeveloped war plans encountered unanticipated political problems. In Afghanistan, proxy forces helped topple the Taliban, but many of those militias and leaders then undermined efforts to rebuild an Afghan nation as they pursued narrow personal or political agendas. In Iraq, from 2003 to 2007, coalition strategy failed to address adequately the political grievances of minority populations, most notably Sunni Arabs and Turkmen.
worth reading the rest
Interesting, though I think it could be summed up more succinctly: Infantry is the queen of battle.
Western nations do not have the fortitude to win wars.... only battles... IMO.
This would all change however, if it was us getting bombed and shocked and awed.
so if Artillery is the King of Battle, doesn't that make you his bitch? ;)
I mean, you guys are the ones taking powerful shots from the long, hard guns of the cannoneers? 8)
i was thinking along those lines when i joined our fine artillery. plus i was quite certain that my country would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever need those guns anyway.
ever?
I mean you do have some very fine pikemen.
^^ I think they just pretty much say "don't f*&^ with us or we'll tell everyone exactly how you made your money and where it's all hidden"
Quote from: Keunert on July 22, 2013, 03:15:55 PM
i was thinking along those lines when i joined our fine artillery. plus i was quite certain that my country would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever need those guns anyway.
... just keep the powder dry.... just in case
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 22, 2013, 03:13:30 PM
so if Artillery is the King of Battle, doesn't that make you his bitch? ;)
I mean, you guys are the ones taking powerful shots from the long, hard guns of the cannoneers? 8)
Well in all fairness, that IS generally what we do on a battlefield...just watch the movie Gettysburg for proof :). But where there are NO cannons we rule...unless tanks show up in open terrain...