Comments Posted By G. Mitchell
Displaying 1 To 2 Of 2 Comments
You have to understand what it takes to win wars. These folks did.
“There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
- General George Patton
"Hit hard, hit fast, hit often"
- Admiral William (Bull) Halsey
"You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting."
- General Curtis (Iron Ass) LeMay
The single biggest failing with this war and all the others since WWII one of which I had the misfortune to participate in is the concept of limited war. The enemy will simply never observe the limits. The first thing you need to do before getting into a particular conflict is decide approximately how many folks you need to kill (that’s right kill) to totally devastate the enemy and eliminate any possibly resistance to occupation. You can try to avoid collateral damage but not at the risk of losing. If you are not willing to do that than assuming you have the choice consider other options.
I believe we are going to have to consider a completely different foreign policy, maybe something closer to the old Monroe Doctrine or maybe a Machiavellian deal with China, Russia, and India. The Euros are a weak sister and a lost cause. Remember currently China and India need the oil in the Middle East more than we do. Russia can never really trust the Muslim populations on its southern borders. We can’t afford to be the policeman for the entire planet. That would take a ruthlessness the U.S. citizenry isn’t prepared to tolerate. The people in the eastern hemisphere are not going to sit around and hold hands and sing kumbaya any time soon. If we focus on the western hemisphere (including Australia and New Zealand) we can probably defend it given some substantial increases in expenditures on energy and military technologies. But maybe I am wrong.
"Yes, there's always the unexpected, isn't there?"
Jack Hawkins as Major Warden - The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
G. M.
Comment Posted By G. Mitchell On 1.08.2007 @ 10:26
TIME IS NOW THE BIGGEST ENEMY IN IRAQ
Folks, the problem here is the concept of limited war. Now I am no expert on military tactics and strategy (I spend my time fooling around with databases, software applications, and such) but I do know a few basics and a little history. You can’t win a limited war if the enemy doesn’t observe the limits! And guess what, they never will. You might think the first Gulf War was an example of a win. It was a battle we won. The war continues. Vietnam was a limited war we lost but it turns out that it really was a battle in the Cold War that we eventually won. There are two things to remember about war. First, there is no second place prize. Second, conflicts between countries, civilizations, ethnic groups, etc. are either settled decisively or result in a stalemate that is settled later. How do you win wars? Let the experts speak:
“There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
- General George Patton
"Hit hard, hit fast, hit often"
- Admiral William (Bull) Halsey
"You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting."
- General Curtis (Iron Ass) LeMay
Crush the enemy. Act quickly and decisively. Don’t stop or let them come up for air until they are dead or begging to surrender unconditionally. You have to single-mindedly focus on only one thing – victory. You have to kill one hell of a lot of folks. The most decisive victory in the last century was WWII. Close to 60 million people perished in that war! Americans may want this sugar coated but I am afraid that is just the way it is. It is ugly and not much fun. Holding hands and singing kumbaya won’t cut it. That attitude will result in national suicide.
Ok, so is there an alternative that will result in the survival of western civilization? Maybe. But my guess is it will probably cost more at least in dollars than an offensive strategy. And it will still require maximum strength of will.
Once we leave Iraq (also Afghanistan because it will become a bridge too far) you will probably see all of the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, and possibly Indonesia and Thailand become part of a growing Caliphate. How long this will take I am not sure but it will probably be a lot quicker than anyone can imagine. What follows that will be the subjugation of certain parts of the old Soviet Union, India, and large parts of Europe. non-Muslim Chinese, Hindus in India, and non-Muslim Russians will resist.
The best way to leave Iraq and Afghanistan is a tactical retreat. A tactical retreat requires at a minimum 1) a defensible position to retreat to and 2) an ability to punish the enemy severely to dissuade him from any ideas of taking advantage of this maneuver. This all means of course that we will be writing off the eastern hemisphere except for possibly places like Australia and New Zealand. Punishing the enemy severely is important lest they get the foolish idea they could knock us off first and mop up places like Europe and the old Soviet republics later.
Now if we aren’t going to prosecute a truly aggressive offensive plan of battle we need to think about defense. There are enough natural resources in this half of the planet that it might be possible to create a fortress western hemisphere. Our biggest advantage is technology. The enemy spends a lot of time memorizing their holy book not Feynman’s Lectures on Physics. They will unfortunately have some access to advanced weapons and folks with advanced weapons expertise in the places they will subjugate. Many of those folks will try to flee here from parts of the old Soviet Union, Europe, and Asia. We will need to facilitate that. We will also have to get serious about border defense and immigration. We will need to be very tough on immigration not just for the U.S. but the entire western hemisphere. We will also probably have to “invite†some people here in the west to move to the east. We will have to target large portions of the east with thousands of ICBMs and later with more advanced weapons systems just like we did with the Soviets and make it very, very, very, clear that any hostile moves will result in annihilation. Yes, among the enemy many are fanatics but if they are convinced that there is a good chance we will survive and they will not their dream of Islam becoming the only religion on earth will be thwarted. That will make them more cautious. With any luck after a few generations they may implode like the Soviets did.
The problem is that an effective defense requires as much will as an effective offense.
G.M
Comment Posted By G. Mitchell On 28.04.2007 @ 11:43
