Posted on May 1, 2015
A relevant blue-print for the future of the Armed Forces?
1.85K
18
9
3
3
0
Seeing as low-intensity conflicts have been the pervasive type for the entirety of America's existence (refer to Max Boot's "Savage Wars of Peace" for more info) should we be building forces adept at fighting these wars/conflicts? We have proven, twice, that we can raise a large army and win on a global scale against formidable opponents but rarely have we sought to specialize our forces for the types of conflicts they are most likely to face. The Marines between WWI and WWII are a perfect example as they spent most of that time in Central America fighting guerrillas before transitioning to fight the big war in the Pacific. So, should we build our forces to face these more typical challenges knowing that we can create a sufficient force, and that those capabilities are transferable to large-scale conflicts?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/08/wanted-ph-d-s-who-can-win-a-bar-fight/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/08/wanted-ph-d-s-who-can-win-a-bar-fight/
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
We've been known for being lax in peace time and suspicious of a standing military force; slow to rile, but when slapped we kick and win. However, since Vietnam, the dynamics changed, the time lag changed, the tactics and technology changed. It's almost like we need a Varsity and a Jr. Varsity--one team prepared the fight the last war, another to fight the next one after.
(4)
(0)
SGT James Elphick
SGM (Join to see) I think you are spot on. I believe the majority of the active duty force should be prepared to fight these low-intensity conflicts and much of the heavier assets and needs for fighting large-scale wars should be transferred to the National Guard and Reserves. I think the active duty force should also look at ways to operate lighter. Technology has changed to the point that a few guys with Javelin ATGMs and a radio can destroy large armored forces. There are many other examples as well but that one I think is most apt.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SGT Elphick, yes...the Rapid Deployment Force using special ops were to be the joint expeditionary force of the future....clearly, it's not enough
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I love that analogy. I'm probably going to steal that in the future. Forgive me, please, if I forget to give credit!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
We have numerous problems: We need a better doctrine and TTPs for counterinsurgency. Our military comes in head first with a large army, sets up democracy, and rebuilds the nation which we can't afford for many years. The focus becomes many priorities. I think we should live with the locals, and go to the homes of the insurgents to kill them with our local allies.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
This might sound odd but maybe our expectations do not coincide with realism, like our expectation we will win all our wars.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google