US Army: long intersting "Economist" report

[Battlefront.com]

John,

I should have thought that a large number of self-employed people provide daily evidence that they can function perfectly adequately as product developer, project manager, salesman, accountant and receptionist all at the same time.

You're kidding, right? What proportion of the populace of any country has the inherent skill set to do this? Very small percentage. Then, how many of those actually do their jobs well enough to succeed? Even smaller. For example, in the restaurant business most are owner operated and about 95% of them go under the first year of operation.

So yeah, I am saying that the majority of the population are ill suited to be jack of all trade types. With intensive training and long term experience that can change, but to expect someone in the service of an Army for 2-4 years to be equally adept at fighting as well as keeping the peace is quite a stretch of the imagination. At best you'll get someone that is marginal at both, at worse horrible at both.

Forces must be general-purpose in nature so as to be able to respond flexibly to sudden and unexpected changes of situation. You can do things differently if you like; this generally results in what military specialists call "losing horribly".

I'd love to see some evidence to back that up.

Bad luck if you need to fight the three-block war, then. There won't be time to re-train and re-structure when incidents from entirely different parts of the spectrum of conflict are happening in adjacent city blocks at the same time. If an army wants to enjoy any measure of success in these circumstances, it simply cannot afford the rigidity inevitably entailed by the excessive degree of specialization you advocate.

I don't agree. Long term stabilization calls for a different strategy than the short term three-block war concept (which I am quite familiar with). It is all about emphasis. During a long term stabilization project, say more than a year and probably around 5-10 years, the day to day skill sets needed are not generally military in nature. So why have the military do it? Why not have professionals trained in these other disciplines take over and use the military as a tool for a specific job instead of trying to kid oneself that a Swiss Army Knife kind of organization can do all things equally well?

Straightforward indeed it is. Your officer has obviously still failed to understand the elementary point that when he is dishing out sweeties to kiddies he needs to change his Kevlar pot for a soft had, lose the mirror shades and Ninja Turtle body armour, and maybe even learn a few words of the kids' language. If he looks like an Imperial Stormtrooper, he can't be surprised if the locals treat him as one

No, the officer I spoke to has to deal with the fact that if he takes off his ninja turtle outfit he will likely be killed because he's effectively in a war zone. The forces in the south of Iraq are in a TOTALLY different day to day environment than the one US forces find themselves in to the West and center of Iraq. Your suggestion is, therefore, irresponsible and impractical in those areas. If British soldiers were being shot at and blown up every day, day in and day out, I doubt they would be walking around with nothing more to protect themselves with than floppy hats and teabag desert camouflage. In short, the concept of dressing down only works if the level of violence is relatively small. To think that dressing down will lower the violence is recklessly naive.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Your suggestion is, therefore, irresponsible and impractical in those areas. If British soldiers were being shot at and blown up every day, day in and day out, I doubt they would be walking around with nothing more to protect themselves with than floppy hats and teabag desert camouflage.

Take a look at photos of British troops in Northern Ireland over the years, you may be surprised at what you see.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:

In my opinon the Brits are fundamentally more professional than their US counterparts. This is based on around ten years experience of trainng US and UK 3 and 4 star officers in joint and combined operations. And yes, I am a Brit.

Could it be that our professional standardfs and yours are different? And yes, I am an American, and a soldier.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

Take a look at photos of British troops in Northern Ireland over the years, you may be surprised at what you see.

For the most part things were quiet in Northern Ireland, more like things are in Basra. Not safe, but a world apart from what is going on in places like An Anbar and even Baghdad. As peter said on the previous page, when the Brits were moved around to help support the crushing of the widespread uprisings in 2004, they didn't have their "nice" uniform on.

Also, remember that protective gear for the average individual soldier consisted of cloth and a helmet until the 1980s. So yeah, I'd be shocked to see the average British soldier in Northern Ireland wearing Nija Turtle gear. And after the 1980s things were much calmer so the need was dramatically reduced even if the stocks of equipment were made available.

The Gulf War was, IIRC, the first war with widespread use of body armor. And that was largely reserved for frontline troops, not the guys in the rear. The US even went about OIF with the same mentality of armor the front and leave the back exposed. Really, really bad idea.

Tell you guys what. Those of you who think wearing a beret and exposing the torso to enemy fire is the way to win the war in Iraq, do the following. Get Tony to send over 100,000 British soldiers without body armor and helmets to join up with the forces already in Basra area. Then have them march up into the center and West of Iraq to relieve the US forces. In return, 3/4 of the US troops will go home and the remaining 1/4 will go down to Basra area, shedding their helmets and armor. Perhaps things will go better since the Brits are hated quite as much as the Americans, but I think after the first couple hundred mutilated British soldiers you guys might rethink the impact a beret really has in Iraq compared with the regional differences of Iraq.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

During the early stages of the insurgency in Iraq, many US commanders made deals with local power brokers. A tit for tat sort of relationship was developed. "You want power restored to your neighborood? How about stopping the outgoing mortar rounds from there first?". With each exchange things got better and more relaxed between the local oppupation force and the locals themselves. It worked fairly well until the thugs came in.

The local power figures now found themselves in a no-win situation. If they sided with the US forces they got themselves killed, or at least family and friends would go missing. If they sided with the insurgents then the level of violence went up and the ability, and willingness, of the US forces to play nice was reduced. Like many criminal organizations, the thugs have the upper hand because their hands aren't tied. They can make threats and carry them out at a very personal level. The US can't offer a counter to that. Unfortunately, this all plays into the hands of the insurgency.

It's all a complex mess.

Steve

[Sergei]

But don't all kids LOVE Imperial Storm Troopers? They have the coolest body armour of them all... except Darth Vader's even cooler!!! I'd loved to have been given candy by Lord Vader when I was a kiddo.

Hmm, did I miss someone's point? :confused:

[Battlefront.com]

Funny thing is I once had a picture of a Stryker soldier in one of those fedayeen "Darth Vader" helmets he found in a warehouse. He put on an Iraqi gasmask and bing, badda boom... Darth Vader in US 3 Color Desert camouflage Can't find that picture now... dang it!

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.shinycapstar.com/NI%20Misc.jpg

Flak Jacket (the 1970s version of the Ninja Turtle), rifle and ... soft cap.

(No real point to this, but now that Sergei is here, that's kind of what the whole thread has become anyway... )

[Gpig]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4603136.stm

More fuel on the fire . . .

ba-FWOOOOM!!!

This whole inter-species rivalry/competition/bickering that goes on between the U.S. and the U.K. has long legs. I read Eisenhower's autobiography and he described on MANY occasions how frustrated he was with the strains brought on by this kind of thing. More so at the beginning of the U.S. involvement than towards the end of W.W.II.

Sort of like a married couple fighting about which exit to take off the freeway . . .

Gpig

[ January 11, 2006, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Splinty:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:

In my opinon the Brits are fundamentally more professional than their US counterparts. This is based on around ten years experience of trainng US and UK 3 and 4 star officers in joint and combined operations. And yes, I am a Brit.

Could it be that our professional standardfs and yours are different? And yes, I am an American, and a soldier. </font>

[Imperial Grunt]

Here is a video by the BBC about 1st Bn, 8th Marines in Fallujah.

BBC-Fallujah

[Bigduke6]

LTC West,

I think your comments about what British and U.S. infantry units are best at are outstanding.

But...I'll take issue with your remark:

"There is nothing that can stop the US Army, much less defeat it militarily in a land campaign."

Me, I think the US military would be unable to sustain a land campaign in Asia against a major opponent, i.e., China, India, Russia. All those countries can manufacture basic precision-guided munitions in some quantity (the Chinese may well outstrip the U.S., I dunno) and the ability of each country to sustain casualties has got to be greater than the American, by several orders of magitude.

Heck, I am not so sure the U.S. could prevail in an intervention against a well-armed and more or less competent second rate power, for instance Brazil, Pakistan, Iran or (I am admittedly stretching here) Vietnam or Indonesia.

Without getting political, I think is only fair to point out that even remnants of the Iraqi secret service, plus a bazillion disorganized insurgents, have pretty much achieved a statemate against the vaunted U.S. military. Sure it wins the battles, but the war?

I'm not arguing the U.S. doesn't have a qualitative superiority, nor am I saying U.S. skills at combined arms operations is not the best the world right now. Certainly it is. But would that be enough to kick (say) Russian forces out of the Maritime Provinces, or (say) to prevent a Chinese invasion of Laos?

There are limits to U.S. military capacity, so I would take issue with an absolute statement implying the U.S. will always win. There is such a thing as biting off more than you can chew. Germany and the Soviet Union, the Wehrmacht's focus on the tactical and operational at the expense of the stratigic, etc. etc.

There's that famous exchange between Colonel Summers and the Vietnamese Colonel:

In July 1974 he returned to Vietnam as chief of the Negotiations Division of the Four Party Joint Military Team (FPJMT). The main task of the U.S. delegation was to resolve the status of those Americans still listed as missing. During one of his liaison trips to Hanoi, Harry had his now-famous exchange with his North Vietnamese counterpart. When Harry told him, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield," Colonel Tu responded, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

[Peter Cairns]

The great Princes bride, Quote,

"And Never Never, Start A Land War In Asia".

Peter.

[Ant]

Originally posted by LtCol West:

Reading all of the posts got me going, so I had to vent.

[/QB]

I have to say that that's one of the most eloquent and enlightening vents I've ever read.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

Without getting political, I think is only fair to point out that even remnants of the Iraqi secret service, plus a bazillion disorganized insurgents, have pretty much achieved a statemate against the vaunted U.S. military. Sure it wins the battles, but the war?

I'm sure LTC West was specifically talking about a conventional conflict, which is why he said "defeat it militarily in a land campaign". As such I think he is totally correct. However, unconventional and long duration "insurgency" scenarios are different and fall into another category of conflict. And that is the big problem the US military and political machines still need to address. The US has an outstanding record for defeating military forces in the field, but a poor record of winning the peace, as do most other nations that have engaged in conflicts since the end of WWII.

The US military is unlikely to lose any conventional war it sets its mind to enter. Even against China, IMHO. Russia... no problem IMHO. Wars against these two nations are extremely unlikely to begin with, but in both cases would likely be fought out in a proxy state, perhaps culminating in direct conflict, such as Korea in the 1940s and 1950s. I don't think there is any scenario worth mentioning that would involve the US invading Russia or China, no matter what the circumstances are. If it gets that bad I think the dust will be blown off the strategic arsenal of nukes, not a conventional land war. So the likely unlikey wars against Russia and China would be waged on someone else's turff. If it were bad enough to happen, then the mindset of the average American would likely be more like that of WWII than that of Somalia.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

So Steve,

just for a arguement/discussion, lets say in the next 10 years the pro chinese elements in Taiwan seek unification and invite the Chinese in.

The pro US elements ( including the army) ask the US to intervene.

Now I know the US could stop any Chinese invasion, but do you think it could invade, and "liberate" taiwan once the ~Chinese were in.

Peter.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

So Steve,

just for a arguement/discussion, lets say in the next 10 years the pro chinese elements in Taiwan seek unification and invite the Chinese in.

The pro US elements ( including the army) ask the US to intervene.

Now I know the US could stop any Chinese invasion, but do you think it could invade, and "liberate" taiwan once the ~Chinese were in.

Peter.

If the political decision was made to liberate Taiwan from 10 Chinese divisions that crossed the straits before the 7th Fleet arrived in theater, there is no doubt as to whether or not a US effort would prevail. It might cost alot, and there would be a ton of collateral damage, but those Chinese units that were on Taiwan would be annihilated and there would nothing that the manland forces could do about it.

But this purely from a military point of view. War is an extention of politics. If China was able to get a coup to take place in Taiwan to topple the government and establish a new one. And if that new government "invited" those same Chinese division into Taiwan, then they could cross the straits in yellow rubber ducky boats right under the guns of the 7th fleet.

And the Chinese would not allow any media see how their "counter-insurgency" effort would work against the Taiwanese resistance. This would make it very difficult for the US to intervene, unless a completely unilateral decision was made. But for the US to form a coalition and pass a resolution through the UN against a soveriegn nation that is reclaiming a break-away province, whose "new" government is begging for help, just would never happen.

So it would be up to the US and UK and the Aussies to deal with that situation. The initial invasion would probably go well, but things would eventuall bogg down in high-intensity urban combat, which in my opinion, it would, and the results of the fighting will begin to be broadcast everyday back home and throughout the world. Many leaders will say that it is not worth it, and the political opponents to the cause will do the very same thing they are doing to erode support for the war in Iraq. France will oppose it politically saying that war does not solve anything and again more actors will move there, since the US is such a warmongering nation.

If the Chinese could last longer on Taiwan than US/UK/Aussie political will, then, just as in Vietnam, who won all the battles is a moot point. The Chinese will have won the war for Taiwan.

[Imperial Grunt]

And apparently I have lost the ability to make complete sentances. Must have been the promotion and the frontal-lobotomy that went with it....

[Canuckistani]

The posts in this thread which argue either that the British or the Americans are better occupiers are extremely depressing. Some of these posts seem as if they were written by weird machines incapable of moral judgment. As they work out their banal definitions and "rational" equivalences - they remain immune to meaningful questions. Invading a country for its oil (not to mention blatantly lying about it) is contrary to the supposed principles of our modern democracies. The invasion of Iraq is a warcrime - it doesn't matter if the British or the Americans are better at it, more effecient, or more "professional". The war is unjustifiable and wrong.

[PseudoSimonds]

Uh, by that logic there'd be nothing we could discuss on this forum. And what would that leave us with? The <font size=1>Peng</font> thread? No one wants that.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Canuckistani:

The posts in this thread which argue either that the British or the Americans are better occupiers are extremely depressing. Some of these posts seem as if they were written by weird machines incapable of moral judgment. As they work out their banal definitions and "rational" equivalences - they remain immune to meaningful questions. Invading a country for its oil (not to mention blatantly lying about it) is contrary to the supposed principles of our modern democracies. The invasion of Iraq is a warcrime - it doesn't matter if the British or the Americans are better at it, more effecient, or more "professional". The war is unjustifiable and wrong.

I respectfully disagree that the war is simply to take Iraqi oil. Oil definetly is a strategic interest of the US and the UK (and the entire world for that matter), but it was not the "secret agenda for the invasion".

Calling the war a "war crime" is absolutely wrong. The US and UK had every legal justification to go to war. In fact, in a legal manner, one could argue that the Persian Gulf War never ended, since Saddam's regime never abided by the cease-fire agreements.

If you oppose war morally, that is absolutely fine and you have every right to do so. But do not label the properly elected leaders of the US and the UK and their entire military's as war criminals, putting them in the same lot as the Nazi SS and the like. There is quite a difference.

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

I think you are artificially limiting the possible war scenarios because if you don't, the bottom falls out of the theory that U.S. force is absolutely superior to anything, on the planet. That's hubris.

I intentionally avoided the scenario of a Taiwan invasion because that involves U.S. naval capacity, and so maximizes the importance of technical advantage, and as far as that goes of air power. I don't see an automatic Chinese win there. No question the U.S. can bring dramatic force to the table in a conflict like that, but more importantly, so can Taiwan. Taiwan is no backwater ally, they are preparing to fight China without the U.S.

The assertion I am taking issue with is the absolute. There are, indeed, possible scenarios where the U.S. could do nothing except flap its gums, and if it were to intervene the odds would be so stacked against it as to necessitate a U.S> failure. For instance, were the Chinese to invade Laos, Myrnmar/Burma or Butan. That's not China, that's "some one else's turf." A U.S. attempt to prevent that kind of attack might be able to place a bit of high-tech force in theater, but the environment, terrain, and proximity to the Chinese heartland make any kind of sustained U.S. effort a laughable proposition. 25th Division and maybe a couple of National Guard brigades, against three or four Chinese field armies, plus all the reserves they can bring to fight.

This is not some rag-tag force, not Iraqis drafted into Saddam's army, but a major nation with military tradition, a general staff, and a pool of educated warm bodies to stick into the ranks factors larger than the U.S.

Interdiction is not so easy; the Chinese don't just import anti-aircraft missiles, they make them. The Chinese have traditionally fielded tough infantry strong on field craft. Not a lot of nice roads, open areas, and vehicle-friendly conditions in those three states. You know what wet, rain, and mud does to thermals. So do the Chinese.

Do you really see automatic U.S. victory in a scenario like that? I certainly don't. I haven't forgotten the Chosin Reservoir; not because I think U.S. forces are inherently bad, but because U.S. infantry has a history of unwillingness to divorce itself from its vehicles and machines, and a smart opponent can take advantage of that. And yes, Korea 1950-53 was a fight "not on their own turf", for both major opponents.

Here's another one: Russia invades Tadjikistan on whatever pretext. The place is swarming with tribesmen, a prext isn't a problem. Again, what is the U.S. going to do? That's some one else's turf, although if you ask people in the Kremlin they might tell you different. What's the Joint Chiefs to do? Throw B-1s at the Russian air defense network? Use its base in Kirgizistan to stage troops into Tashkent? (I kinda doubt that one, the Russians have their own air base in Kirgizistan).

Or maybe send 82nd Airborne and a Marine Division at the end of a ridiculous logistical tether, and tell them to kick the butts of 1-9 Russian air desant divisions; never mind the two or three Spetznaz brigades Moscow could throw at a problem like that.

You can say what you want about the Russian army, but how effective would a U.S. ground force be against infantry armed with first-world AT weapons, able to take casualties in a way the U.S. cannot countenance, and capable of disputing air superiority with the U.S. if not in terms of quality, then certainly in terms of quantity?

Russian science led the world in alot of ways 15-20 years ago, and that is a tradition that does not go away overnight. Are you positive Russia has no modern version of the T-34 up its sleeve?

And let's not forget the Russian infantry. Think Falluja. Now, replace the Iraqis with Russian infantry. What does that do to the U.S. casualty count? Now let's remember the Russians are smart enough to figure out, and to field in mass quantities, bullets designed to punch through Kevlar. :eek: Yikes! How long could the U.S. sustain combat against an opponent like that? Would U.S. "victory" come before they ran out of machines?

How long could the U.S. infantry stand and fight, if shorn of support, and so on more or less equal terms with an opponent? Me, I think the Marines could take it, but a U.S. National Guard infantry unit? I dunno, call me an old biased regular, but I think the prospect of sending second-grade U.S. forces against a first-rate opponent, without back-up, is a recipe for disaster.

And that is precisely what would be necessary in a conflict against a major power. They have a draft. The U.S. does not.

All of these questions do not, naturally, exclude a U.S. victory, perhaps in time, certainly with losses. But automatic U.S. victory, all the time, everywhere?

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that the US would get into a shooting match with China over pretty much anything, including Taiwan. An economic and oil embargo on China would ruin the country within a very short period of time. To use crude analogies, China is a parasite on the Western economies. It lives and even thrives on them. Arguably, it also does a lot of harm to them in the process. Cutting off China from trade with the US alone, not to mention Europe, would be extremely painful for the US economy, no question about it. But it would not colapse and there would be no revolution. China, on the other hand, would colapse and there would almost certainly be a revolution, sicne economic prosperity is the main reason why there hasn't been a revolution or at least serious reform movement.

In short, China has a LOT more to lose than to gain from a serious conflict with the West. Doesn't mean at some point Chinese politicians won't do something near suicidal, but it doesn't appear likely. The big fear of China is sucking up the world's resources to make completely useless disposible consumer goods for false economies (i.e. living on credit) of the US in particular, but the West in general.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

How long could the U.S. infantry stand and fight, if shorn of support, and so on more or less equal terms with an opponent?

Which is exactly why the US lost WWII

The US has been involved in several bloody, long term wars in the last century and managed to stick it out. One of them, Vietnam, was even widely unpopular at home. Korea and even WWII weren't all that popular at home, at least not at first. Arguably the US wouldn't have gone to war against Germany if Hitler hadn't been fool enough to declare war first.

I don't see any support for the notion that the US can only fight short wars against enemy forces that are vastly inferior and take next to no loses in the process. On the contrary, the US has done most poorly against technolgically and numerically inferior forces. Meaning the historical record suggests that the US would have more success against a modern day China or Russia than it would against Iran or Syria. At least long term and ignoring the reasons for going to war in the first place.

Remember, the US spent decades metally preparing itself for an all out war of Armageddon. I grew up in that environment. It was only after the Cold War that the notion of quick and fairly bloodless wars were possible. Iraq has shown, I think, that it was a bubble and not a trend.

Therefore, I stick by my statement. I think the US can knock out any conventional force on the planet, in any circumstance, anywhere in the world if it should choose to engage. The latter is the real issue, not the theoretical capability. As I just said to Peter, I don't foresee a realistic scenario where the US would go toe to toe with China, nor do I see one where direct conflict with Russia is likely. So whether or not the US could really beat them, conventionally speaking, is rather moot. It gets back to the old "my daddy could beat up your daddy" debate between kids.

Steve

[ January 14, 2006, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I broadly agree that China has more to lose than gain, but not with the parasite bit, if anything it's now become symbiotic.

US consumers live beyond their means buying cheap Chinese goods, this boasts Chinese growth prioits and wealth. In normal Times the US currency would fall and the Chinese rise. But the Chinese prevent this by doing two things.

One, the lock their currency artifically at below market rates to the Dollar, and secondly they buy huge amounts of Dollars on the currency markets and the bond markets.

In effect the US government deficet is currently being financed by the profits China makes selling to the US. It can't go on for ever, as there is a limit to how much debt the US can have, but it would hurt both as much as each other.

Oh and as China just recalculated it's own GDP and found it 20% higher than it thought due to far higher domestic spending and activity, it's growing domestic consumer economy is making it less dependant on the US.

As to oil, in five years it will have a pipeline to Russian and is already negotiating to create links to both India ( which has some oil but not a lot) and the former southern Soviet republic.

It is now in partnership with India to join invest, including ( you'll like this one) only last month buying one of the largest oil companies in, yes you guessed it, SYRIA...

Add to that the atractions to both Venezula (?) and Iran of doing long term deals with China, and you have to ask would the US risk domestic and global melt down for Taiwan.

Peter.