# How the US will fight - if it is able.



## Kirkhill (21 Sep 2012)

Foregoing all reference to strategy, operations and tactics this article caught my interest because it suggests to me that the US shortage of funds is driving its sense of how it will fight into a vision that is closer to the capabilities and needs of its allies.  And, I believe, has the potential for making the US a more effective force.  

From WW2 the US has had the luxury of buying its victories with treasure.   Buy what you need.  Take your time. Build up overwhelming force.  Engage the enemy's centre of gravity.  Crush the little buggers like ants. 

Problem.  Ants' nest easily destroyed.  Ants? Not so much.   Hang around too long and the ants will take you apart in an exceedingly painful manner.


Good news.

The US can now no longer afford to buy their way into trouble nor can they afford to hang around for very long.  If they are going to exploit the military avenue of approach to diplomacy they will have to deal with the realities overcome by the other great commanders of the past.    My two modern heroes are Slim and Sherwood Forrest.

The US Army now hopes to establish FUPs where the enemy is not and then act before the enemy knows it is there.  This demands taking a gamble and acting with what you can make available (Slim) in the shortest possible time (fustest mostest).

Canada's army has excelled in working with what it has.  If their politicians and diplomats don't over-reach.  Now the US will be facing the same challenge.

Defense-Aerospace



> The Army Is Ready to Fight But Can DoD Get It There?
> 
> 
> (Source: Lexington Institute; issued September 20, 2012)
> ...



As a side note one of the more noteworthy aspects of this is the need for exactly those assets that the Air Force (C-17s) and the Navy (MLPs, RoRos and JHSVs) have side tracked.

Perhaps the case needs to be made for a NEW (yes more bureaucrats squabbling for dollars) NEW COS co-equal with the Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard  (and SOF?) responsible for long range mobility.  The existing squabblers don't seem to be quite getting the job done.  Maybe one more will do the trick?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2012)

Putting more people in the Chain of Command and creating more bureaucratic empires would have quite the opposite effect, Kirkhill.

The military and their political masters need to focus their energy and resources, and I suspect the coming cutbacks will do so far more than anything else to date. Like our Armed Forces, the US military has a inordinate "tooth to tail" ratio and a standing army of military headquarters, bureaucrats and civilian employees where the cuts could come from, without affecting the fighting power all that much. (You could make the argument that eliminating a lot of the overhead and streamlining operations would actually _increase_ the utility and effectiveness of the fighting elements...)

Actual capabilities would need to be defined via doctrinal analysis, but much of the technological thrust seems to be driven more by contractors and a heavy element of "gee whiz" techno-magical thinking (something we all seem to have a tendency to fall into from time to time). The disconnect is quite strong in the US; in the recent past they identified the need to be able to move brigades and divisions across oceans in a short time frame, but then blew billions on things like the FCS program, and are now back to where they started.

As for long range mobility and the ability to do the things suggested in the article, strengthen the hand of the USMC, since going in and door crashing is what they are about anyway.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> .....
> As for long range mobility and the ability to do the things suggested in the article, strengthen the hand of the USMC, since going in and door crashing is what they are about anyway.



The Marines, Thuc? But then what would the Army DO?   The angst is actually over finding a role for the Army - Apparently a future as 2nd Echelon Marines doesn't turn their cranks.  And the really Special guys (all 71,000 of them or 5 Divisions worth?) have got all the other stuff covered.

And I get the antipathy to extra bureaucracy but it seems the kids in the sandbox have difficulty getting along as it is.  Maybe a new kid would change the game?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (21 Sep 2012)

Even better idea, amalgamate them, then they will HAVE to work together  >


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2012)

There is a school of thought which states that a Navy and Marine force is all a proper Republic needs; the Navy to patrol the sea lanes and protect oceanic trade, and Marines to invade, punch the right people in the face, then leave with a warning not to do that again or they will be back. (both the USN and USMC provide their own air cover).

A standing army is more of a tool for an Imperial power, which needs to occupy territory for long periods of time. In the old days, this was to ensure the occupied payed taxes to the Imperial metropole, today we see this as a tool of "nation building" (although arguably the military shoudl just be part of a suite of tools needed to do the building, and historically the USMC did a pretty good job of directly running small nations during the "bannana war" period, but not so well on the handover).

As for the "really special guys", one could argue that they are, in fact, the future of the military. Units like Force Recon, the SEALS and SOAR represent the new and imprved way of doing things, and given the numbers, they would actually be a pretty impressive Army in their own right.


----------



## Breezybree2002 (2 Mar 2013)

I think the U.S. "special guys" needs to take an example from Canadian forces and not talk about their missions or write books. That would go a long way in keeping with their national security. Also, they need to spend more time not trying to be the big brother in the world and getting their own country and finances back on track. 
   Just a thought


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Mar 2013)

Breezybree2002 said:
			
		

> I think the U.S. "special guys" needs to take an example from Canadian forces and not talk about their missions or write books. That would go a long way in keeping with their national security. Also, they need to spend more time not trying to be the big brother in the world and getting their own country and finances back on track.
> Just a thought



The world is a messed up place and needs us to clean it up.


----------



## Breezybree2002 (2 Mar 2013)

Zellum sir...the Canadian forces don't write books intoning the operation or planning. They know the enemy will read it...I think some things just need to be hush hush for safety of the men and women involved..
   Again just a thought


----------



## MikeL (2 Mar 2013)

Books that are written by USSOCOM members are vetted to ensure there's no OPSEC/PERSEC violations, etc.  Some members have skipped this step though, example "Killing Bin Laden" 

There are also a few books written by Canadian Forces members about operations in Afghanistan,  none written by the SOF community(AFAIK) - there are a couple books about JTF2 though.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Mar 2013)

It's clear that now, like many other countries, the US and allies like Canada will have to formally acknowledge a state of ongoing conflict - or permanent war - and organize themselves for the long haul.

For example, the only year that the UK did not have some poor sap KIA was 1948, I think.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (3 Mar 2013)

"The world is a messed up place and needs us to clean it up."

Sometimes you have to tidy up your own house, before going next door to help the neighboor.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (3 Mar 2013)

And when you have yards that are very close together (which is everywhere in the world today), sometimes you have to clean out the neighbour's yard so you can put up the scaffolding to fix your own house.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Mar 2013)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> And when you have yards that are very close together (which is everywhere in the world today), sometimes you have to clean out the neighbour's yard so you can put up the scaffolding to fix your own house.



Right. I was going to suggest too that worrying about doing the dishes while the neighbor is about to throw a rock through your window is going to leave you a bigger mess to clean up.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (3 Mar 2013)

Point taken, but the only thing that is going to destroy America is America. Not a guy with an AK 15000km away. Yes I know a guy with an AK attacked and killed thousands of Americans but it didn't destroy America. It did give them a right too attack them, but continuing to hurl themselves into trillions of debt... To get the guy with the rock, they won't be able to afford to get the guy coming with the bulldozer.


----------



## Sythen (3 Mar 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Point taken, but the only thing that is going to destroy America is America. Not a guy with an AK 15000km away. Yes I know a guy with an AK attacked and killed thousands of Americans but it didn't destroy America. It did give them a right too attack them, but continuing to hurl themselves into trillions of debt... To get the guy with the rock, they won't be able to afford to get the guy coming with the bulldozer.



So you think they should just sit back and soak up hundreds or thousands of casualties every decade or so?


----------



## UnwiseCritic (3 Mar 2013)

No, but they should focus on their budget and just use SF that won't write a book about it to fight there enemies. I am not even sure if there was ever an unconventional war won by conventional troops in the history of war. So you spend more and put more at risk too lose the war.


----------



## SeR (3 Mar 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Just use SF that won't write a book about it to fight there enemies.



So if they don't write books they win the war?


----------



## UnwiseCritic (3 Mar 2013)

No they win the war becuase they put an indigenous face on the war and use indigenous forces as a front so people will believe that they won the war and not America. Becuase if they believe that they might trust and support their army and choose sides and not just play like italians. Also if nobody knows what SF are up to the journalists aren't going to go there and write about it themselves and spin it to make us look like the bad guys. Which we sometimes are.


----------



## SeR (3 Mar 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> No they win the war becuase they put an indigenous face on the war and use indigenous forces as a front so people will believe that they won the war and not America. Becuase if they believe that they might trust and support their army and choose sides and not just play like italians. Also if nobody knows what SF are up to the journalists aren't going to go there and write about it themselves and spin it to make us look like the bad guys. Which we sometimes are.



I can honestly say that I have no idea what you are trying to get across. That makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Mar 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> No, but they should focus on their budget and just use SF that won't write a book about it to fight there enemies. I am not even sure if there was ever an unconventional war won by conventional troops in the history of war. So you spend more and put more at risk too lose the war.



I'm sure the US war machine spends way too much money on weirdo DARPA projects.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (3 Mar 2013)

Successful counter-insurgencies (English Speaking)
Rhodesia
Malaya
Ireland
Oman

All of which were kept under wraps at the time, 2 of which required a putting a local face on the war. Also none of which used very many conventional troops, and usually when they did they weren't acting as conventional soldiers.

My previous post argues give someone there freedom and they will abuse it/not fully understand it. Make someone fight for their freedom and it will be more precious. Doesn't mean you can't help them but let them largely believe they won it themselves. Eg all the Arab uprisings, they loved us then/now but no not when America went into Iraq.

So now in a world with instant information writing books about a war if it is still ongoing will attract the attention of the media. When the media gets involved they like to spin the truth for a better story and they hinder our troops ability to do what's necessary to win. They may also claim that we do all the fighting in which case the locals may begin to distrust the local force that is going to be left behind once the west pulls out. 

Back to my original point, if they distrust the local army/militia they won't support them as much. Especially if they believe the the otherside will takeover the country again once the west leaves. (Current situation afghanistan) And if you don't have support from the locals you won't win anyway.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Mar 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> No, but they should focus on their budget and just use SF that won't write a book about it to fight there enemies. I am not even sure if there was ever an unconventional war won by conventional troops in the history of war. So you spend more and put more at risk too lose the war.


By conventional troops, if you mean armies structured to fight a conventional war, then you have a point. However many conventional armies adapted to the requirements of unconventional war and prevailed. It is important to stress that unconventional wars largely are won by adopting a relevant strategy and defeating the enemy by winning the war of public opinion as well as running down the enemy's resolve in the field. The classic example is the British campaign in Malaya.

If you are interested, and I suspect you may well be, get a copy of John Nagl's _Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam_. The 2005 edition is available in an inexpensive paperback edition.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Mar 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Successful counter-insurgencies (English Speaking)
> Rhodesia
> Malaya
> Ireland
> ...



Rhodesia is now Zimbabwe - If I am not mistaken its a thugorcracy, so that, to my little pea brain is not a successful COIN op

And I enjoy reading the books read by former SF Personel.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (3 Mar 2013)

I enjoy reading them as well, doesn't mean that they should be written. At least while the war is ongoing.

Eating soup with a knife, first read that in seven pillars of wisdom. Also a good read for anyone interested, as it's from the guerrillas themselves. Perhaps the inventor of modern guerilla warfare.

Yes rhodesia is now Zimbabwe, mostly due to political betrayal.

I will look into that book


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Mar 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> I enjoy reading them as well, doesn't mean that they should be written. At least while the war is ongoing.
> 
> Eating soup with a knife, first read that in seven pillars of wisdom. Also a good read for anyone interested, as it's from the guerrillas themselves. Perhaps the inventor of modern guerilla warfare.
> 
> ...



I disagree with SF pers being forbidden to write a book. Freedom of the press is guaranteed in our Charter and to ban this is against the spirit of the Charter IMO. If 'Bob JTF2 ' guy wants to write, I say let em.

Claiirify "political betrayal" to me from your last statement. 


Thanks


----------



## UnwiseCritic (3 Mar 2013)

It started well before the war with England and such, it is hard to put it all in a paragraph. There is a book called the Great Betrayal by Ian Smith. Though in the end when Rhodesia was left to stand on its own they did lose.

And I am quite certain sf personnel waive some sort of right when they sign on.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Mar 2013)

I am not certain if SF pers sign waivers.

What I do know is that Rhodesia was handed over as a functioning nation and is now a thugocracy.


----------



## IRepoCans (3 Mar 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'm sure the US war machine spends way too much money on weirdo DARPA projects.



You'd be surprised how inspired the US Military is by the Novel; Starship Troopers.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Mar 2013)

IRepoCans said:
			
		

> You'd be surprised how inspired the US Military is by the Novel; Starship Troopers.



And, interestingly enough, while he was writing it Heinlein was apparently influenced by watching the Canadian Army train at Ft Lewis for the Korean War.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Mar 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, interestingly enough, while he was writing it Heinlein was apparently influenced by watching the Canadian Army train at Ft Lewis for the Korean War.


That's really interesting.


----------



## IRepoCans (3 Mar 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, interestingly enough, while he was writing it Heinlein was apparently influenced by watching the Canadian Army train at Ft Lewis for the Korean War.



Now that is something interesting to note, curious as to what the Canadian Army did there that influenced his concept of Mobile Infantry.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Mar 2013)

Military history, traditions, and military scienceThe Korean War ended only five years before Heinlein began writing Starship Troopers, and the book makes several direct references to it, such as the claim that "no 'Department of Defense' ever won a war."[20] Heinlein also refers to the American prisoners of war taken in that conflict, including the popular accusations of Communist brainwashing.[21] After the Korean War ended, there were rumors that the Chinese and North Koreans continued to hold a large number of Americans.[22] Rico's History and Moral Philosophy class at Officer Candidate School has a long discussion about whether it is moral to never leave a single man behind, even at the risk of starting a new war. Rico debates whether it was worth it to risk two nations' futures over a single fellow soldier who might not even deserve to live by some standard, but concludes it "doesn't matter whether it's a thousand – or just one, sir. You fight."[23]

Several references are made to other wars: these include the name of the starship that collided with Valley Forge; Ypres, a major battleground in World War I; the starship Mannerheim, a reference to the World War II-era marshal of Finland; and Rico's boot camp, Camp Arthur Currie (named after Sir Arthur Currie who commanded the Canadian Corps during WWI). A brief reference is also made to Camp Sergeant Smokey Smith, named after a Canadian recipient of the Victoria Cross in World War II. The airport was the location of the U.S. Army Air Corps' Walla Walla Army Air Base in World War II. The 91st Bomb Group lays claim to being the first Army Air Forces outfit to use that base. Another World War I reference was the phrase "Come on, you apes! You wanna live forever?", which comes from Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly at the Battle of Belleau Wood (although instead of "apes", Daly said "sons of bitches"). This phrase, however, has been attributed to various people throughout military history, including perhaps the earliest documented citation by Frederick II of Prussia when he was meant to have said "Kerls, wollt ihr ewig leben?" (tr. "Men, would you live forever?") at the Battle of Kolín. The starship corvette Rodger Young was named after the World War II Medal of Honor recipient, and lines from the chorus of Frank Loesser's Ballad of Rodger Young are used as the ship's recall signal. Another war reference, this one from the War of 1812, involves some implications of the court-martial of Third Lieutenant William Sitgreaves Cox, which are discussed in some detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2013)

Starship Troopers is on the USMC reading list as part of their professional development program.

Weirdo DARPA projects are only a small fraction of US defense spending, and have the potential to push the state of the art way beyond anything that exosts today, although since this is speculative R&D, the vast majority of the projects are doomed to fail. R&D is like that, so there is no reason not to continue, prepare to cut your losses and move on.

Streamlining the US military bureaucracy and headquarters structures will have much more of a positive efect on spending and efficiency than any other real or proposed reform. Read Robert Kaplan's books Imperial Grunts and Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea, and on the Ground to see various examples of how things are done today and some observations from the men and women on the ground about where they think the future will lead.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (4 Mar 2013)

The Germans in WW2 had an equivalent of darpa it made the first long range rockets and subsequently jet powered aircraft. As well as the first useful helicopter, the first guided missiles, another aircraft with "stealth" capabilities the b2 bomber is almost identical. All stuff that normal science was not  pursuing on a serious level. Those are only a few, there is the weird side of UFO's and all too.

Maybe starship troopers is not all that far off


----------



## Breezybree2002 (18 Mar 2013)

While I agree that books about missions seem a little weird....I don't think anyone will win a war against a country just from reading one. I just think it is bad form to speak or write about missions...spec ops is supposed to be silent warriors. However....in the other side of that coin...if a soldier needs to talk about it to get it off his chest....then by all means let's help him to recover from what he saw or had to do. Because sometimes they do what they have to do...not for political reasons or morality but to save theirs and their comrades lives....and deal with the emotional costs later. 
   Just a thought or two


----------



## Sythen (18 Mar 2013)

Breezybree2002 said:
			
		

> While I agree that books about missions seem a little weird....I don't think anyone will win a war against a country just from reading one. I just think it is bad form to speak or write about missions...spec ops is supposed to be silent warriors. However....in the other side of that coin...if a soldier needs to talk about it to get it off his chest....then by all means let's help him to recover from what he saw or had to do. Because sometimes they do what they have to do...not for political reasons or morality but to save theirs and their comrades lives....and deal with the emotional costs later.
> Just a thought or two



I don't think its up to us to decide whether a SOF member is a "silent warrior" or not. He has earned his place and frankly, as long as it doesn't break any laws, I don't care what books he writes.  If he writes a book to cope with what he saw, or purely for monetary gain.. Good on him either way.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Mar 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Successful counter-insurgencies (English Speaking)
> Rhodesia
> Malaya
> Ireland
> ...


Malaysia used significant amount of conventional troops and police. Their job was to hold ground while the SF troops patrolled deep into the jungle to disrupt the CT’s. Each step was fairly well thought out and had several elements that were critical. A few unique features was the revolt was almost purely in the Chinese community, the initial leader of the CT’s was a double agent that hampered their growth until he was exposed and replaced. The brits were able to cutoff supplies to the CT’s by the use of the “Briggs Plan” something that Chin Peng (Leader of the CT’s) acknowledge was a key component of their defeat. Also the brits succeeded in isolating and then turning CT’s who were then released back into the jungle to collect information, even those that were not turned were released, but then information would be leaked that they had been, upon which the CT’s would execute them on the spot, soon the CT’s were busy killing off each other to plug leaks. Combined with excellent EW against their communication grid, forcing them to rely on runners. 
Plus close support by the RAF both transporting troops, supplies and ground attacks also maintained the constant pressure on the CT’s. another factor was the ability of the Malay government and Brits to reach out with peace offers. Chin Peng had fought the Japs alongside the Brits and as part of the peace talks his former brit colleagues were used to build up a relationship that eventually ended the emergency.  The CT’s never did receive the support they thought they would get from Beijing, who did have a “domino plan” but felt the conditions in Malaysia were not conducive to success. Interesting enough around 200 former Japanese soldiers fought with the CT’s until I think the first peace talks, where upon the CT’s murdered the Japanese as they would be an embarrassment to their cause.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Mar 2013)

We always hope that these lessons will inform future actions but, as we learn from history, lessons like this are not always implemented: 

What America Learned in Iraq
By JOHN A. NAGL

THE costs of the second Iraq war, which began 10 years ago this week, are staggering: nearly 4,500 Americans killed and more than 30,000 wounded, many grievously; tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis wounded or killed; more than $2 trillion in direct government expenditures; and the significant weakening of the major regional counterweight to Iran and consequent strengthening of that country’s position and ambitions. Great powers rarely make national decisions that explode so quickly and completely in their face. 

It may seem folly to seek a silver lining among these thunderclouds. But there are three flickers of light that offer some hope that the enormous price was not paid entirely in vain. These coins offer a meager return on our enormous investment, but not collecting them would be an insult to the memory of all that we have lost. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/opinion/the-silver-linings-of-iraq.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130320&_r=0


----------

