7 ms·

>>"[..] typical of modern war the politics of the fight constrain the weapons choice much more than the tactical situation. " That's a luxury that you only can

>>"[..] typical of modern war the politics of the fight constrain the weapons choice much more than the tactical situation. " That's a luxury that you only can afford when the asymmetry of force is huge and you are going to win anyway.

el_benhameen 8y ago
I'm not sure that I agree. I guess it depends on what you mean by "win". If you mean win that particular engagement, sure. But if by "win" you mean accomplish the objective, which in this case included not having the local population hate you for obliterating their city, then I don't think it's a luxury nor do I think you can win without such considerations. And really, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that the US has "won" either of the two major asymmetric wars it's been engaged in for the last 17 years, even with all of the political constraints they've ostensibly tried to follow.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  By "win" I mean to kill the opponent in that specific battle. >>"[..] I'm not sure that it's fair to say that the US has "won" either of the two major asymmetric wars it's been engaged" In order to know if the US has won, we would need to know what were the goals of those wars in the first place. I'm not sure we know that.
- bitexploder 8y ago
  The decay and destruction of their infrastructure was basically a foregone conclusion when we started the wars. Without our intervention and continued presence the damage would have been much higher. This in no way excuses or justifies us starting the conflicts to begin with, but, our rules of engagement are very strict and err heavily in favor of preventing civilian casualties, too a fault, many soldiers would say. This also means minimizing. Look at the battle of Ramadi. We /definitely/ won there. Then we lost it, and won it back. So it is quite possible to win these wars, but they require advanced warfare skills at a tactical and strategical level and the political will to not back out. We only last Ramadi because of politics.
  - SiempreViernes 8y ago
    Politics, in the large sense, is also the only relevant actor in a conflict: the military victory at Ramadi (either one) was rather inconsequential for the larger goal of bringing peace.
    - bitexploder 8y ago
      True. I guess the point was we can win wars and battles, our combat machine is unparalleled. Political will and decisions decide if we win or not.
ivanhoe 8y ago
And asymmetry of military budgets, because using a $100K rockets to kill a single low-rank enemy combatant would simply be too expensive for majority of countries...
- jandrese 8y ago
  Using a $100k rocket to avoid losing 5 soldiers that end up costing a million bucks each when you factor in training, salary, healthcare, death benefits, etc... makes a lot of sense. Human wave tactics only work well if your army consists of poorly paid conscripts with no benefits, and even then they aren't terribly effective. One of the big takeaways I got from the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary series is that it really was a war that nobody could win. The NVA was completely outmatched and would have been crushed if the US wasn't trapped behind political barriers like the 17th parallel. At the same time the US couldn't win because the South Korean government and army was hopeless. All the US could do was "accidentally" walk into ambushes and try to kill as many North Vietnamese as possible in the hope that the government would become so weak that even the South Vietnamese army could take it. The big takeaway is never get involved with someone else's civil war.
  - RobertoG 8y ago
    >>"if the US wasn't trapped behind political barriers like the 17th parallel." The NVA would have been crushed if the USA crossed that barrier and nobody else get involved in the conflict. The low probability of that happening is the reason for not crossing, so, it's actually a military barrier. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Actual_objective_of_the_Vietnam_War:_Containment_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Actual_objecti...: "The memorandum begins by disclosing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China." >>"The big takeaway is never get involved with someone else's civil war." It seems that, more than a civil war, it has the characteristics of a proxy war. from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Role_of_the_United_States_in_the_rise_of_President_Diem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Role_of_the_Un... "As acknowledged by the papers: We must note that South Vietnam (unlike any of the other countries in Southeast Asia) was essentially the creation of the United States."
jandrese 8y ago
Like Vietnam?
- RobertoG 8y ago
  I'm not sure we can call the Vietnam war an exercise in contention: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal#Cambodian_deaths_caused_by_U.S._bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal#Cambodi...: "U.S. bombing of Cambodia extended over the entire eastern one-half of the country and was especially intense in the heavily populated southeastern one-quarter of the country, including a wide ring surrounding the largest city of Phnom Penh. In large areas, according to maps of U.S. bombing sites, it appears that nearly every square mile of land was hit by bombs with roughly 500,000 tons of bombs dropped. [..]"

el_benhameen 8y ago

I'm not sure that I agree. I guess it depends on what you mean by "win". If you mean win that particular engagement, sure. But if by "win" you mean accomplish the objective, which in this case included not having the local population hate you for obliterating their city, then I don't think it's a luxury nor do I think you can win without such considerations. And really, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that the US has "won" either of the two major asymmetric wars it's been engaged in for the last 17 years, even with all of the political constraints they've ostensibly tried to follow.

RobertoG 8y ago
By "win" I mean to kill the opponent in that specific battle. >>"[..] I'm not sure that it's fair to say that the US has "won" either of the two major asymmetric wars it's been engaged" In order to know if the US has won, we would need to know what were the goals of those wars in the first place. I'm not sure we know that.
bitexploder 8y ago
The decay and destruction of their infrastructure was basically a foregone conclusion when we started the wars. Without our intervention and continued presence the damage would have been much higher. This in no way excuses or justifies us starting the conflicts to begin with, but, our rules of engagement are very strict and err heavily in favor of preventing civilian casualties, too a fault, many soldiers would say. This also means minimizing. Look at the battle of Ramadi. We /definitely/ won there. Then we lost it, and won it back. So it is quite possible to win these wars, but they require advanced warfare skills at a tactical and strategical level and the political will to not back out. We only last Ramadi because of politics.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  Politics, in the large sense, is also the only relevant actor in a conflict: the military victory at Ramadi (either one) was rather inconsequential for the larger goal of bringing peace.
  - bitexploder 8y ago
    True. I guess the point was we can win wars and battles, our combat machine is unparalleled. Political will and decisions decide if we win or not.

ivanhoe 8y ago

And asymmetry of military budgets, because using a $100K rockets to kill a single low-rank enemy combatant would simply be too expensive for majority of countries...

jandrese 8y ago
Using a $100k rocket to avoid losing 5 soldiers that end up costing a million bucks each when you factor in training, salary, healthcare, death benefits, etc... makes a lot of sense. Human wave tactics only work well if your army consists of poorly paid conscripts with no benefits, and even then they aren't terribly effective. One of the big takeaways I got from the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary series is that it really was a war that nobody could win. The NVA was completely outmatched and would have been crushed if the US wasn't trapped behind political barriers like the 17th parallel. At the same time the US couldn't win because the South Korean government and army was hopeless. All the US could do was "accidentally" walk into ambushes and try to kill as many North Vietnamese as possible in the hope that the government would become so weak that even the South Vietnamese army could take it. The big takeaway is never get involved with someone else's civil war.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  >>"if the US wasn't trapped behind political barriers like the 17th parallel." The NVA would have been crushed if the USA crossed that barrier and nobody else get involved in the conflict. The low probability of that happening is the reason for not crossing, so, it's actually a military barrier. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Actual_objective_of_the_Vietnam_War:_Containment_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Actual_objecti...: "The memorandum begins by disclosing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China." >>"The big takeaway is never get involved with someone else's civil war." It seems that, more than a civil war, it has the characteristics of a proxy war. from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Role_of_the_United_States_in_the_rise_of_President_Diem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Role_of_the_Un... "As acknowledged by the papers: We must note that South Vietnam (unlike any of the other countries in Southeast Asia) was essentially the creation of the United States."

jandrese 8y ago

Like Vietnam?

RobertoG 8y ago
I'm not sure we can call the Vietnam war an exercise in contention: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal#Cambodian_deaths_caused_by_U.S._bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal#Cambodi...: "U.S. bombing of Cambodia extended over the entire eastern one-half of the country and was especially intense in the heavily populated southeastern one-quarter of the country, including a wide ring surrounding the largest city of Phnom Penh. In large areas, according to maps of U.S. bombing sites, it appears that nearly every square mile of land was hit by bombs with roughly 500,000 tons of bombs dropped. [..]"