Is the American military really unbeatable?

[Perun]

http://thirdpositionreview.blogspot....nbeatable.html

Is the American military really unbeatable?

In my post dealing with the analysis of Ralph Peters on the issue of globalization, I made mention of the fact that his works concerning military affairs are of little value since they spout much of the same Pentagon-style jargon about how the American military can defeat anybody and everybody at any moment. Well William Lind has recently taken a shot at this notion. You may remember when I commented on another of Lind's article concerning Iraqi militias. Unlike most military analysts these days, William Lind approaches warfare with intelligence and not just jingoistic rhetoric.

Lind makes his point clear, "the idea that the U.S. military cannot be defeated is disconnected from reality." Indeed it is. Lind goes on to compare the mentality of America's top brass to the Spanish in the 17th century, when Spain was at the height of its geo-political power and it's military had not been defeated in a hundred years. That is until they faced the French at the Battle of Rocroi in 1643. It's only a matter of time before the American army meets its own Rocroi, according to Lind.

Lind probably did not intend to, but he also touched on the issue of what's wrong with most discussions on the nature of future warfare. He notes that "you cannot predict the outcome of a war just by counting up the stuff on either side and seeing who has more. Such "metrics" leave out strategy and stratagem, pre-emption and trickery, generalship and luck. They leave out John Boyd's all-important mental and moral levels."

And indeed that's the very problem with most "analysis" put forth concerning the nature of future warfare. It largely focuses on the material aspects, especially technology, and leaves out the other and often more important elements. Very little if anything is mentioned of political and cultural factors, which are absolutely key to victory. Not much is mentioned about tactics and strategy, except how it will relate to the use of the newest technology; nevermind the fact that the relationship of strategy and tactics with technology is twofold, each influences the other. Strategy and tactics do not always revolve around technology, in fact it often plays an important role in determining not only how technology will be used on the battlefield, but even what kinds of technology will be developed.

And the supposed technology of the future is presented in a silver-bullet fashion, as to make it appear invincible and without any flaws or weaknesses. This of course is bogus. Interesting enough, much of the technology proposed doesn't even conform to reality, as the Pentagon itself had to admit. And course the new technology will supposedly "revoluntionize warfare", so its advocates claim. Well it might, but then again maybe not. We don't know for sure right now. But technology alone does not revolutionize warfare, in fact it's usually political and social factors that dramatically change warfare. This point is very well articulated in the book The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050 edited by MacGregor Knox.

So yes the American military is not invincible, but good luck getting this simple point into the thick skulls operating at the Pentagon and their countless mouth-pieces writing about military affairs in numerous newspapers, magazines, and/or books. Sad really, since being aware of this simple fact may lead the Pentagon into using more common sense. But thankfully there are some voices of sanity out there. Keep the good work up Lind!


posted by Perun | 10:57 AM

[Gil]

Simple answer? No.
They like to pass the idea, with alot of support of the world media and their mighty CNN/Fox enclave, that they have the largest, most sophisticated army in the world.

What does that mean? It means they can pound a country with heavy artillery barrages and airstrikes and then invade with land forces. The next step, as seen in Iraq, is that for every enemy they kill they have 20 guerrila fighters. And even a 12 year old know's how to fire an RPG. (no, not the game, RPG means Rocket Propelled Grenade)

Us tank in Iraq:



Cost: Over a million dollars

Basic RPG/Rocket Launcher/Bazooka:



Cost: around 1500€ in the black market plus 50€ per ammo


The result?







(Amazing what you can learn with a couple of books and google, huh? No, i'm not involved in weapon smuggling to foreign nations which want to attack the US and US citizens... doh!)

[Perun]

As Ive often mentioned, discussing military affairs with Americans is a waste of time. It's nothing but jingoistic rhetoric and nonsense about how one American fighter jet can take out the entire Russian air force(or whoever) in 10 minutes or less and such.

I remember one loud-mouth commentator talking about how the Iraqis would be surrendering to American news reporters once Bush gave the signal to attack. Sure.

One reason why I dont read that much on the military lately, it's just that stupid!

[SouthernBoy]

Absolutely not.

I feel that a well coordinated army could defeat us in direct combat, but the more plausible way to do it is the way Iraqis are doing it.

[Bulair]

Is the American military really unbeatable?

No.

Is America really unbeatable?

Yes or at least they can't suffer a major defeat that will threaten them as a world power.Every army can be defeated one way or another and the American army is far from perfect, but they have reached the point where they won't lose much even after a major military disaster.

@Manji - the standart Russian RPG (the Bazooka is not in active service since WW2 and even back then it wasn't able to penetrate heavy armor) can't penetrate the armor of the Abrams tank even at close range.

[Gil]

@Bulair: normally bazookas don't penetrate the armour, I know that, but:

a) a infantry column vs RPG = bloody massacre
b) even if the tank is not damaged, the shooter will atract attention, and therefore:

Almost all wars today are based in squad principles, which means:

Artillery Barrage and Air Attack, Infantry and armour invasion. Now, fighting in urban settings the use of the armour is great, specially to destroy buildings which nest snipers and enemy infantry. The problem is that as soon as an RPG is fired the infantry will try to find cover while the armour will pinpoint the enemy location and suppress it. Meanwhile the enemy will outflank them and provided the guerrila is already experienced they will no doubt eliminate the infantry. From there to elimination of the tank crew it's just a small step.

Of course this is a simplistic approach and guerrila fighters usually lack the tactical know-how, but it happens, alot more than the media show.

Also, my point was to show that it's not a matter of "we have big and expensive guns, you don't" it's a matter of will to fight.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Bulair

Is America really unbeatable?

Yes or at least they can't suffer a major defeat that will threaten them as a world power.Every army can be defeated one way or another and the American army is far from perfect, but they have reached the point where they won't lose much even after a major military disaster.

What? How on earth did you come to that conclusion?