6 ms·

"However, all wars must eventually be won with boots on the ground." Can wars even be "won", in this sense, any more? Modern war is asymmetric. If the enemy is

by jpm_sd 7y ago

"However, all wars must eventually be won with boots on the ground." Can wars even be "won", in this sense, any more? Modern war is asymmetric. If the enemy is a radicalized percentage of the civilian population, hiding in plain sight, when do you "win"? Who surrenders? Who signs a treaty?

convery 7y ago
The only vector I can think of would be improving society for the general public to the point where there's no reason to support the militants. i.e. so they end up being viewed the same as biker-gangs / outlaws rather than representing anyone. The boots being used to protect such work from interference.
- oldmanthrowit 7y ago
  It doesn't work that way. At that point, they cease being militants and become warlords.
- rayiner 7y ago
  That's not how it works. For example, fundamentalist extremism/terrorism has ramped up in Bangladesh in the last decade, even as the economy has been growing at 5-7% annually.
- Jill_the_Pill 7y ago
  Isn't that sort of the way the remnants of the IRA have gone?
mcguire 7y ago
I was watching a talk on YouTube last night about the end of WW2 with Japan. According to the speaker, one fear was that the emperor would surrender, but the military units individually would refuse to follow the order, meaning the army would have to pacify the country in pieces. That sounds like modern warfare.
- ljp_206 7y ago
  I was impressed but not too surprised to find that the phenomenon of 'Japanese holdout' has it's own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout The fanaticism of Japanese soldiers may have nuances when compared to the guerrilla and insurgent wars of today, but the potential for fighting to drag on for decades seems to have been demonstrated.
  - gibspaulding 7y ago
    Hiroo Onoda has a biography about his time as a Japanese holdout in the Philippines. I just read it this summer and found it fascinating. I'd definitely recommend it! https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/194440.No_Surrender https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/194440.No_Surrender
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Which a hard line group of Japanese officers tried to do and stage a coup to stop the surrender.
ptah 7y ago
in a lot of cases, the war causes the radicalization in the first place
aportnoy 7y ago
You win when the other side thinks they lost.
jimbob45 7y ago
The US brought the Taliban to the negotiating table and have seen mixed success. The goal is not to kill the radicalized sect. It's to compromise with them and get them to assimilate back into the population.
- Udik 7y ago
  I was under the impression that it was the Taliban who brought the US to the negotiating table.
  - 8note 7y ago
    and offering the same thing they did in 2001
    - A2017U1 7y ago
      In 2001, they offered Osama Bin Laden to be trialled in a third country for the thousands of deaths he caused with 9/11. The US administration refused. Just typical warmongering by a country who is economically dependant on war, death and misery. Such a shameless people entirely out of step with the rest of the developed world.
      - jjeaff 7y ago
        You should advise Trump. That sounds like the kind of depth of analysis and rigorous process that he looks for in an advisor.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  And they're not going to do that. They know the lessons of Vietnam and the Soviet-AFG experience: chill out, wait for them to leave, then roll in and take over.
SuoDuanDao 7y ago
I would say so, but it's more of a political than a kinetic displacement process. You win when the population would unilaterally have you in charge. I think the major challenge of 21st century warfare will be building better infrastructure in the middle of a war zone.
andrewla 7y ago
It's a question of setting what the strategic objectives of the war are. The first gulf war, Operation Desert Storm, was deliberately limited in scope -- liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control. Its predecessor, Desert Shield, as similarly scoped, to prevent an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. Both were successful by the metrics set out for it. Bush Sr. got a lot of flak from the burgeoning neocon movement for not driving through to Baghdad, a decision which in retrospect was incredibly correct. Afghanistan and the second Iraq war, and the various "police actions" undertaken since then, have objectives that are unclear or are metric-based and do not easily translate to a simple objective that can be reasoned to be a stable endpoint. In this, it seems that the military is following suit with general industry trends towards vaguely defined metrics and objectives that allow for technical "success". This approach was pioneered, really, during the Kennedy administration with our approach to Vietnam and the "domino theory".
- devoply 7y ago
  > liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control Saddam was willing to leave. > Both were successful by the metrics set out for it. Because they were beat downs. > Afghanistan and the second Iraq war, and the various "police actions" undertaken since then, have objectives that are unclear or are metric-based and do not easily translate to a simple objective that can be reasoned to be a stable endpoint. i.e. not beat downs. America is good at beat downs, any idiot with a gun is good at a beat down because as the Beastie Boys said it takes a second to wreck. It takes time to build. Remote wars then are bad because they facilitate beat downs. Because America has big guns, lots of money, and little actual intelligence of how to fix or change anything. It's funny all these people saying oh well the CIA doesn't do anything it's those stupid people who are fighting with each other because of their ideology. And then look at how Russia with a bit of money screwed up American politics and how badly they reacted to this little bit of interference.
  - tro7ghor4 7y ago
    Did Russia screw up American politics or did American media unrelentingly obsessing over Russia screwing up American politics screw up American politics?
huntie 7y ago
This isn't a modern problem. If you read Thucydides you'll find that cities were often betrayed by a small, radicalized percentage of the civilian population hiding in plain sight. Their solution was sometimes to kill all of the men and enslave the women and children. Obviously this wouldn't fly today, but I imagine that a nation like China might simply surveil everyone, sending anyone suspicious to concentration camps. That seems like effectively the same win condition; making it effectively impossible to resist.
- GFischer 7y ago
  Oh, yes the old method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measuring_against_the_linchpin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measuring_against_the_linchpin
austincheney 7y ago
The history of warfare is littered with decision makers failing to accept how out of dating their thinking is in face of current technology. This why the US civil war and WW1 were so damn bloody. In this current age of instant communications, global logistics, and rapid deployment people are again failing to accept how strategy must change in response to these technologies. Ever since Vietnam the world has entered the age of long war. War can be won, but not when people lack the necessary patience, persistence, and drive to win. For the home team to win all they have to do is remain vigilant. They don't have to win a single battle. They just have to remain militant longer than the opposing force has patience. Game over. For an invading force to win they must be able to have a quick and decisive invasion that results in a clear military victory and then must hold the ground, in cooperation with supporting elements, as long as it takes for the defending forces to cease military action. COIN (counter-insurgency) is rarely taken seriously, but is so incredibly essential. All of this could take decades. That is a hard win since most people in a first-world country understand warfare about as well as they understand poverty or astrophysics. Everyone seems to think they are an expert in these matters despite all evidence to the contrary and their clearly never working with or in proximity to the field of study.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  It doesn't help that the political leadership keeps telling the population that these wars will take a couple weeks and cost a pittance.
  - goodcanadian 7y ago
    When George W. Bush did his infamous "Mission Accomplished" stunt,[1] he was sort of right. The "war" had been won. The trouble was that there was no plan for what to do next. The occupation was managed poorly and the insurgency had a chance to grow turning what really was a quick victory into a protracted "war." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished_speech
    - agapon 7y ago
remarkEon 7y ago
>Modern war is asymmetric No, the recent wars we’ve fought have been asymmetric. There is no reason to think that won’t change.
- graphitezepp 7y ago
  Which is why I suspect all the talk about moral issues and bull, and they just want the tech just in case it comes to a "real" war.

by jpm_sd 7y ago

convery 7y ago

The only vector I can think of would be improving society for the general public to the point where there's no reason to support the militants. i.e. so they end up being viewed the same as biker-gangs / outlaws rather than representing anyone. The boots being used to protect such work from interference.

oldmanthrowit 7y ago
It doesn't work that way. At that point, they cease being militants and become warlords.
rayiner 7y ago
That's not how it works. For example, fundamentalist extremism/terrorism has ramped up in Bangladesh in the last decade, even as the economy has been growing at 5-7% annually.
Jill_the_Pill 7y ago
Isn't that sort of the way the remnants of the IRA have gone?

mcguire 7y ago

I was watching a talk on YouTube last night about the end of WW2 with Japan. According to the speaker, one fear was that the emperor would surrender, but the military units individually would refuse to follow the order, meaning the army would have to pacify the country in pieces. That sounds like modern warfare.

ljp_206 7y ago
I was impressed but not too surprised to find that the phenomenon of 'Japanese holdout' has it's own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout The fanaticism of Japanese soldiers may have nuances when compared to the guerrilla and insurgent wars of today, but the potential for fighting to drag on for decades seems to have been demonstrated.
- gibspaulding 7y ago
  Hiroo Onoda has a biography about his time as a Japanese holdout in the Philippines. I just read it this summer and found it fascinating. I'd definitely recommend it! https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/194440.No_Surrender https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/194440.No_Surrender
C1sc0cat 7y ago
Which a hard line group of Japanese officers tried to do and stage a coup to stop the surrender.

ptah 7y ago

in a lot of cases, the war causes the radicalization in the first place

aportnoy 7y ago

You win when the other side thinks they lost.

jimbob45 7y ago

The US brought the Taliban to the negotiating table and have seen mixed success. The goal is not to kill the radicalized sect. It's to compromise with them and get them to assimilate back into the population.

Udik 7y ago
I was under the impression that it was the Taliban who brought the US to the negotiating table.
- 8note 7y ago
  and offering the same thing they did in 2001
  - A2017U1 7y ago
    In 2001, they offered Osama Bin Laden to be trialled in a third country for the thousands of deaths he caused with 9/11. The US administration refused. Just typical warmongering by a country who is economically dependant on war, death and misery. Such a shameless people entirely out of step with the rest of the developed world.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      You should advise Trump. That sounds like the kind of depth of analysis and rigorous process that he looks for in an advisor.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
blaser-waffle 7y ago
And they're not going to do that. They know the lessons of Vietnam and the Soviet-AFG experience: chill out, wait for them to leave, then roll in and take over.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago

I would say so, but it's more of a political than a kinetic displacement process. You win when the population would unilaterally have you in charge. I think the major challenge of 21st century warfare will be building better infrastructure in the middle of a war zone.

andrewla 7y ago

It's a question of setting what the strategic objectives of the war are. The first gulf war, Operation Desert Storm, was deliberately limited in scope -- liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control. Its predecessor, Desert Shield, as similarly scoped, to prevent an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. Both were successful by the metrics set out for it. Bush Sr. got a lot of flak from the burgeoning neocon movement for not driving through to Baghdad, a decision which in retrospect was incredibly correct. Afghanistan and the second Iraq war, and the various "police actions" undertaken since then, have objectives that are unclear or are metric-based and do not easily translate to a simple objective that can be reasoned to be a stable endpoint. In this, it seems that the military is following suit with general industry trends towards vaguely defined metrics and objectives that allow for technical "success". This approach was pioneered, really, during the Kennedy administration with our approach to Vietnam and the "domino theory".

devoply 7y ago
> liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control Saddam was willing to leave. > Both were successful by the metrics set out for it. Because they were beat downs. > Afghanistan and the second Iraq war, and the various "police actions" undertaken since then, have objectives that are unclear or are metric-based and do not easily translate to a simple objective that can be reasoned to be a stable endpoint. i.e. not beat downs. America is good at beat downs, any idiot with a gun is good at a beat down because as the Beastie Boys said it takes a second to wreck. It takes time to build. Remote wars then are bad because they facilitate beat downs. Because America has big guns, lots of money, and little actual intelligence of how to fix or change anything. It's funny all these people saying oh well the CIA doesn't do anything it's those stupid people who are fighting with each other because of their ideology. And then look at how Russia with a bit of money screwed up American politics and how badly they reacted to this little bit of interference.
- tro7ghor4 7y ago
  Did Russia screw up American politics or did American media unrelentingly obsessing over Russia screwing up American politics screw up American politics?

huntie 7y ago

This isn't a modern problem. If you read Thucydides you'll find that cities were often betrayed by a small, radicalized percentage of the civilian population hiding in plain sight. Their solution was sometimes to kill all of the men and enslave the women and children. Obviously this wouldn't fly today, but I imagine that a nation like China might simply surveil everyone, sending anyone suspicious to concentration camps. That seems like effectively the same win condition; making it effectively impossible to resist.

GFischer 7y ago
Oh, yes the old method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measuring_against_the_linchpin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measuring_against_the_linchpin

austincheney 7y ago

The history of warfare is littered with decision makers failing to accept how out of dating their thinking is in face of current technology. This why the US civil war and WW1 were so damn bloody. In this current age of instant communications, global logistics, and rapid deployment people are again failing to accept how strategy must change in response to these technologies. Ever since Vietnam the world has entered the age of long war. War can be won, but not when people lack the necessary patience, persistence, and drive to win. For the home team to win all they have to do is remain vigilant. They don't have to win a single battle. They just have to remain militant longer than the opposing force has patience. Game over. For an invading force to win they must be able to have a quick and decisive invasion that results in a clear military victory and then must hold the ground, in cooperation with supporting elements, as long as it takes for the defending forces to cease military action. COIN (counter-insurgency) is rarely taken seriously, but is so incredibly essential. All of this could take decades. That is a hard win since most people in a first-world country understand warfare about as well as they understand poverty or astrophysics. Everyone seems to think they are an expert in these matters despite all evidence to the contrary and their clearly never working with or in proximity to the field of study.

Consultant32452 7y ago
It doesn't help that the political leadership keeps telling the population that these wars will take a couple weeks and cost a pittance.
- goodcanadian 7y ago
  When George W. Bush did his infamous "Mission Accomplished" stunt,[1] he was sort of right. The "war" had been won. The trouble was that there was no plan for what to do next. The occupation was managed poorly and the insurgency had a chance to grow turning what really was a quick victory into a protracted "war." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished_speech
  - agapon 7y ago

remarkEon 7y ago

>Modern war is asymmetric No, the recent wars we’ve fought have been asymmetric. There is no reason to think that won’t change.

graphitezepp 7y ago
Which is why I suspect all the talk about moral issues and bull, and they just want the tech just in case it comes to a "real" war.