4 ms·

> the classic western doctrine "few and well armed" have failed the real life test. I'm really not seeing where or how you've come to this conclusion. Desert S

by kcb 5y ago

> the classic western doctrine "few and well armed" have failed the real life test. I'm really not seeing where or how you've come to this conclusion. Desert Storm and Iraq show the uselessness of low tech boots on the ground. Not even just the Iraqi side, most Western troops went on a long unoposed jaunt through the desert rather than fighting an enemy. I really don't see how an adversary is going to stay motivated after something like the air war before Desert Storm. Utter helplessness on the ground as 100s of aircraft and standoff munitions hit their targets. Sure guerilla war may continue but it remains to be seen how well guerilla warfare will work with 100s of advanced drones loitering overhead.

wolverine876 5y ago
Few and well armed win the initial combat, but what were the outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan and why?
- nradov 5y ago
  The outcome of the 1991 Iraq war (Desert Storm) was that they had to leave Kuwait. Which was exactly what was intended. And as a side effect their military was degraded enough that they no longer posed a threat to other US allies including Israel and Saudi Arabia.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    I'm talking about the 2003 invastion of Iraq. Desert Storm was won by many and well-armed, not few and well-armed, and a political solution was planned from the start: Kuwait's former government would run Kuwait, and Saddam Hussein would run Iraq.
kkfx 5y ago
> I really don't see how an adversary is going to stay motivated It does not "stay motivated" it became motivated by extreme anger and suffering. Iraq government was defeated, yes, and then? Most of Iraqis I bet now hate USA more than Saddam during the war and not just USA government but all citizens, lifestyle, culture a real hate that will last for decades. The USA, as a country, lost the Iraqis war. Only few benefit from it because war means private profit, as reconstruction thereafter. But the country at a whole lost the war a Iraqis lost the war. If that's the target, just very few benefit for themselves against their own people interest ok, hi tech have proved to be effective, but a war between countries, especially not that asymmetric, is another thing.

by kcb 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago

Few and well armed win the initial combat, but what were the outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan and why?

nradov 5y ago
The outcome of the 1991 Iraq war (Desert Storm) was that they had to leave Kuwait. Which was exactly what was intended. And as a side effect their military was degraded enough that they no longer posed a threat to other US allies including Israel and Saudi Arabia.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I'm talking about the 2003 invastion of Iraq. Desert Storm was won by many and well-armed, not few and well-armed, and a political solution was planned from the start: Kuwait's former government would run Kuwait, and Saddam Hussein would run Iraq.

kkfx 5y ago

> I really don't see how an adversary is going to stay motivated It does not "stay motivated" it became motivated by extreme anger and suffering. Iraq government was defeated, yes, and then? Most of Iraqis I bet now hate USA more than Saddam during the war and not just USA government but all citizens, lifestyle, culture a real hate that will last for decades. The USA, as a country, lost the Iraqis war. Only few benefit from it because war means private profit, as reconstruction thereafter. But the country at a whole lost the war a Iraqis lost the war. If that's the target, just very few benefit for themselves against their own people interest ok, hi tech have proved to be effective, but a war between countries, especially not that asymmetric, is another thing.