h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Novo, you use the word "outmoded", and then complain that we're bringing up history? I was trying to point out that "outmoded" wasn't what I would use, since guerrilla tactics have been around and succesful long before "modern warfare". How can I do that without referring to history?

I disagree with your premise that the IDF failed. You've oversimplified dramatically. But if you want simple words and no historical context, your premise is wrong, and heavy armour and airpower are not outmoded.

WW# will not be fought on the internet.

Good morning Arnie,

I will accept that outmoded was perhaps the wrong word. Let us try almost redundant" instead?

You can of course disagree that the IDF have failed. I think you are wrong. They certainly have not succeeded. And a photo' in today's Times (UK)of an IDF soldier returning from battle , with the comment that "war brings out the best in men to do the worst in men" is deeply movng.

No Arnie , the IDF did not win,

I would have to accept that fire power of the US and friends destroyed the Iraqi army. It didn't stop the fighting though, unlike WW2 or Korea and I cannot think of another recent episode where fire power of itself achieved a victory.

I merely postulate that the threats we face need less heavy weight and more finesse. Oh, and BTW I didn't mean WW3 would be fought as internet games, rather that disseminated knowledge by and for certain groups, and the huge financial disruption that it is possible to achieve, could make us impotent.(militarily of course )

Novo

Hi Novo

I don't think the IDF won. I just don't think they failed. Real failure would have been something else than the current situation (e.g. repulsed with massive losses, most planes shot down, etc.). Also, I think its too soon to see whether they failed - if the real goal was to get the 2 Israeli soliders back, and stop the rockets from Hizbulluh.

I don't think fire power stopped solely the fighting in WWII or korea ... there was also massive ground troops present in both of those conflicts as well. In Iraq, there have been multiple, repeated statements before and after the "war" stating that the US would have/should have deployed 250,000 soliders (as compared to the initial 100,000 and current # ?? [125,000?]). So I think it's tough to compare to korea and WWII. On the other hand, in Vietnam, pouring more troops in certainly didn't solve the problem...

I think you're absolutely right about more finesse being required, but I think that "finesse" should be non-violent. Diplomatic, emabargo's, etc. For embargo's, really enforcing them. I don't like the idea of trusting any government with furtive military action. But that's unrealistic.

Hi Arnie.

Then semantics apart, we pretty well agree!

Good to debate with you.

Novo NOT Budweiser!

cheers!! And thanks for the non-budweiser. When I want a pilsner, I'll drink something from the Czech republic

>>"Also, I think its too soon to see whether they failed - if the real goal was to get the 2 Israeli soliders back, and stop the rockets from Hizbulluh."

But that does run the risk of some people claiming military success if the soldiers are eventually returned, even if they end up being returned as part of a process which could have happened (as it previously did) without military action, or even if the returns could have been faster in the absence of military action.

True, but how would you dis-entangle those results? I mean, from this point on, I don't know how you could have any process, and say it won't be affected by the current/recent conflict. Even if it's a process that was happening before, surely the stances of all the invovled parties has been changed dramatically?

Um, a few things:

Military technology is useless if not applied correctly. look at Vietnam. Speaking of Guerrilla warfare, look at haiti. In the early 1800s they fought their way to indepedance against an superpower that was neither uncaring about their real estate, nor too busy to resist. Napoleon wanted to keep his foothold in the Americas, but lost it even while holding a large technological advantage.

Firepower is also useless unless it can be brought to bear. Say the IDF has 10,000 troops to Hes.'s 1000. However, Hes. is using it's troops to run small skirmishes with a hit and fade style, while the IDF is marching (or moving more like) just to secure the land. The IDF can only try and prevent Hes. from attacking by knocking their land bases (residential areas) out from under them instead of attacking their troops directly because Hes. is a Guerrilla army, not having a standing army in plain sight. That means, for a limited time, while their safe areas are still partially open, they can choose where and how they want to strike, the terrain (which they know much better, as it's their home), and they can bring all avalible hands with them, as they know where the skirmish will be. The IDF, on the other hand, has to stand and look in all directions while inflicting minimal casualties (in relation to their full fire power) and slowly taking land areas. They can't move all their manpower into a skirmish and that limit's their Avalible fire power. Finally, the real threat they want to destroy are the rocket attacks, which cannot be acomplished by taking a 2 km strip of land. If the rockets are hitting Haifa then 2 km won't do much. The air assult is turning strategic victories out, but, since it's killing civilian after civilian and destroying infrastructure, it makes the world (esp. the Islamic Bloc) very very mad, polarizes the population of Lebanon against Isreal (recruitment boost for Hes.), and only slowly stops the missile barrage.

riv'

Morning Riverrun,

Pretty much exactly my point.

The nature of warfare has always evolved throughout mankind's inhabitation of the planet. It will continue to do so.

My hypothesis is simply that *our* reliance upon armour, artillary and airpower sets us at a disadvantage straight away.

It is abit like stepping into the ring kitted up as a heavyweight boxer, only to find you opponent is a Siamese kick Boxer, or Tai Kwando champion. The heavy gloves are not much good.

Novo

Sorry, I just have to change the subject line... that typo was bothering me...

<>

Also, I agree with the above...

Though our army's current foes are poor people, I do not think that we should change the way the army is organised or the way they do their operations significantly. The only real danger that they pose is in the laws that are enacted here. The army should stay focused on big forces. They are the real danger to the country and the people. Just because all the rich countries are playing friendly now, does not mean they will be in the future. Just my £0.02 on this day Until later...
BCNU - Crescent

Just making sure DA's good works continue Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

In answer to the original question, Just because all our current are guerilla style ground conflicts doesn't mean we can forget the big picture.

You only have to think back to the first Gulf war - when Iraq had a proper military, the full might of the coalition armies, air forces and navies were employed to counter it. And yes, there were even battleships (though now retired). The job had already been done when the second war began.

Afternoon DaveB

<< The job had already been done when the second war began. >>, well partly perhaps. It has still cost 2500 US troops , over 100 UK troops, and countles 1000's of Iraqis. And now we are in Afgahnistan (again) where the assumed Al/Q HQ was bombed extensively. We are still loosing troops to the Taliban, and Al/Q still seems undiminished.

Which implies that our troops are under resourced, or that we are not tackling the enemy on ground other than that of their choosing

Novo

I heard an interesting interview yesterday with an Isaerali foreign affairs spokesman and he made the point that the big threat to Israel had been the relatively sophisticated rockets and missiles they had been using, which are presumed to have come from Iran via Syria. He said many national armies in the world don't possess such powerful conventional weapons.

So it would seem that Hezbollah's success was as much due to the power of heavy conventional weaponry as it was the guerilla tactics, which they were able to use on their own patch, due to their detailed knowledge of the terrain and relations with the local populace. I think Israel realised they probably left the land assault too late, hence the big rush before the ceasefire came into force. Apparently they are having an internal inquiry into the effectiveness of the tactics they used.

I think in past wars it was much more politically acceptable to take big losses in an effort to win a war using ground assault. To me that is what has really changed so much. Countries are terrified of doing certain conventional tactical things because of the fear of the public outcry. In terms of big wars involving the 'west' the last one to involve big losses was probably Vietnam, and look how that ended up affecting public opinion. And obviously to a much minor extent the Falklans war for Britain. But that was a very quick war.

The difference between a war with armies and a war with Guerrillas is that, while the main tactical element with armies is movements, with a bit of a secondary on intellegence. However, with Guerrillas, Movement is secondary, with intellegence first. Finally, with civilian warfare (i.e. Terrorists, Rebels, and Insurgents), it's almost completely given over to intel.

As with the Heavy Boxer and the Feather Boxer (or whatever you prefer), the Heavy boxer can hit hard, but can't always hit the lighter one as long as the Feather Boxer keeps moving. However, the Feather Boxer can't put enough weight behind his jabs and will, in the end, tire first. This bars the K.O.s, which, to a terrorist, would be killing the President/PM/ect. or something extream like that (9/11, Spain 3/11, London 7/7). To the Guerrillas, it would be forcing the Armies to withdraw. They can't kill every solder, but they can force them to pull out.

It's like Cops and Robbers or whatever. The Cops side can have the upper hand, but somewhere there will always be some petty theif. They can, however, stop the crime bosses.

I agree with Fanny; it's no longer politically acceptible to have enormous losses. Unless your country is self-rightous, then they are marters or heros or whatnot. Not saying there aren't heros, but in the rich nations, war has become both much farther away, but much closer to home.

A guerilla army could also have an advantage due to not playing by the rules. In Vietnam the American soldiers wore uniform and were identifiable, the Viet Cong I believe did not and as such could hide among civilians. The Americans could then have killed lots of civilians just to make sure, and they might have won the war. But if they are unwilling to do that, it gives them a disadvantage. Also guerilla armies don't necessarily know the terrain better than a regular army. Alexander the Great would always hire local guides wherever he went with his army. It is just that guerilla armies seem to often be fighting on home ground, whereas a more standard army probably doesn't.
As for the boxing analogy, I think more of a person dressed as a boxer going up against a guy with machine guns. The guy with the machine guns has an advantage due to military might. But he might not be prepared to use such excessive force, and so will have problems due to that.

A very interesting take on the conflict here.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1154525911992&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The Israelis *really* don't like losers do they?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2341670

Israeli Police Search Home of President Moshe Katsav, Seize Items in Sexual Harassment Case