Re: Combat Power
Posted by Tom Savoie LTC USA Ret on 12:27:32 09/11/08
In my opinion, we need to fight wars with an eye towards a quick endgame and fight it in a way that allows us to use our strengths. We need to shelve some of our predilection for wars of attrition, and wars fought hoping to convert countries to our democratic ideals, nation building etc.
Wars should be entered on a last resort basis, but then fought with an eye towards overwhelming firepower and an annihilation of the enemy force. Then we need get out. Instead, we go in with fuzzy or unrealistic goals and are inevitably drawn into a protracted pseudo-military operation with ridiculous ROE and missions unsuited to a force whose job it is to inflict violence on an enemy. After two or three years, we lose the will of the American people. We are a country that expects/demands quick results. So we need to fight in a way that produces that end.
We need to go in, get it done, then move aside and let the United Nations and the State Department do the nation building. Of course, this would mean that insurgencies and counter insurgencies will need to be fought differently, too. Instead of getting bogged down, we fight the war against the strategic power feeding the insurgency. For example, in Iraq we ought to be holding Iran directly accountable for their complicity. They are the center of gravity. In Vietnam, it was Hanoi. In Afghanistan, it is the Waristan region of Pakistan.
I know this sounds draconian, but I really think it's the way to go. Once rogue countries realize we will punish them for their proxy wars, and that we will hold them directly accountable, we will see less protracted combat that chaffs the American will. We need to stop half-stepping. In the end, it will save lives and enhance our international standing.
- Re: Combat Power - Jack Heslin 12:29:04 09/11/08