How Wars Are Won

[Guest guest]

I finished that book last night. Not too terribly impressed. It is divided into chapters with each chapter focusing on one of Sun Tzu's primary principles. That's fine since I have read books like this before. However, this author used mostly the same stable of battles to illustrate his points over and over for different principles. Such repetition in the same book became tiresome. I could see the points he was making, but still, it became less interesting allowing me to skim over some of the later chapters since just from reading earlier chapters I was familiar with the battles in detail and didn't need to reread all of that.

The author also pushed a principle of high technology and small units. That got tiresome as well and I usually skimmed the applications in the future bits at the end of the chapters. He thinks that future wars will be small units supported by highly accurate artillery and mainly air launched weapons. These units would be flown in to the target, do their attack and fly back out. He also thinks large wars like WWII are a thing of the past because of precision weapons.

I disagree with at lot of that. He puts a lot of emphasis on helicopters and the V22 Osprey tilt-rotor machine. This ignores history in that helicopters have a high loss rate in active combat areas. Thousands were shot down in Vietnam and several were shot down or damaged in Somalia and that was against not well equipped enemy. Several have been lost in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. The biggest point being that we have not faced an enemy with modern anti-aircraft systems since Vietnam. Iraq had them and I'll give the author this that we did knock that out with precision weapons. However, the Iraqis didn't have man-portable missiles to shoot down helicopters with, at least not in any great number. I'm sure if someone was supply the Taleban with such weapons and training them in their use, our aircraft losses would be high. By the same token, the Osprey is really something of a turkey from all I've heard. It is big and fragile, requiring special, very expensive paint to lower weight enough for it to fly. Nice idea, but not really working out that well.

He also doesn't apply some of his own points to his pet theory. By that I mean he often talks about guerilla forces and lesser trained smaller forces beating larger forces. This could easily happen if his small units dropped in and got surrounded by mobs of gunmen. Sure many gunmen might be killed, but the force might also get wiped out. That nearly happened in Somalia. If the Rangers had taken the doors off the Hummers, they probably all would have died. The doors weren't armored, but they did provide enough protection to keep many Rangers alive. They had wanted to take them off so they could leave the vehicles faster. He also overlooks the politics of dropping lots of smart weapons on an area to prepare for the landing of his small units or to protect them on the ground. Also ignored is the logistics of supply all those weapons and keeping enough platforms on station to drop them.

I suppose for someone who doesn't know much about military history it would be OK, so long as they take the author's pet theory with a grain of salt.

[Guest guest]

The author also pushed a principle of high technology and small units. That got tiresome as well and I usually skimmed the applications in the future bits at the end of the chapters. He thinks that future wars will be small units supported by highly accurate artillery and mainly air launched weapons. These units would be flown in to the target, do their attack and fly back out. He also thinks large wars like WWII are a thing of the past because of precision weapons.

He's wrong. WWIII will look like widespread asymetrical warfare. Try to imagine multiple VC popping up out of spiderholes through a trap door, picking off a target, and then disappearing again. Try to imagine Iwo Jima, where a bunch of poorly armed troops successfully evade invasion for a very long period of time before finally being discovered and killed.

A country like the US has lots of military hardware and weaponry, but imagine having to deploy that weaponry in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Somolia at once. Could it be done? Not for long. You'd have to bomb these countries, and then hope afterward that the countries would settle down. But instead, they would probably just get stirred up like a hornet's next, and go after any troops on the ground, pegging off one here, another there, but, because there would be involvement in many countries at once, many troops would be killed overall.

By the same token, the Osprey is really something of a turkey from all I've heard. It is big and fragile, requiring special, very expensive paint to lower weight enough for it to fly. Nice idea, but not really working out that well.

The Osprey is a waste of money.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

His pet theory is a popular one it seems in the Pentagon. The idea of swarming in several small units to hit a target from different directions is an ancient one, but also dangerous. It is probably also the theory that has seen development money spent on a space plane that can land a squad of troops anywhere in the world in under an hour. Silly idea that since the men would have no way out of wherever they were dropped and they'd be leaving behind a monstrously expensive piece of high tech kit.

Such units could probably wipe out a terrorist training camp or maybe take out a certain high value target. However, it would not be able to really affect policy in other nations. Say we assassinated Chavez with a hit squad that was flown in and out. What then? The masses that support him would simply be enraged and new claimants would take his power. Most likely his opposition would be killed off saying they helped the foreign forces whether true or not. In other words, we'd have a bigger mess than before. We'd have to have a big military we'd be willing to have deployed for a long time and realize that the majority of counterinsurgencies fail, particularly those carried out by invading armies as we are finding out in Afghanistan.

Indeed that's what most Afghans in parts of the country think we are. I recently heard of a poll of people in the southern part of the country where the Taliban is still strong. Majorities think things like the US is simply picking up where the Russians left off, that the US is trying to replace Islam with a new religion, nor to many know about 9/11, which is not hard to believe because of how isolated the region is. What is really telling is that it seems many generals don't see the "hearts and minds" aspect as very important, but only killing the terrorists. That's part of it, but if the people think we are there trying to harm them or their culture, they are going to work against us. Now translate that into Venezuela if we have killed Chavez. Big army of occupation or just letting them alone after, there are going to be huge numbers of people who want payback and will come to get it.

Anyway, the Osprey should still be a test vehicle to work out the kinks, and there are many. It was a good idea rammed through by ego and desperation. By desperation I mean that the Marines had stopped buying new transport helicopters to put money in the Osprey program when the choppers they had were so old and worn out that they could only carry half the number of troops they were capable of. Even then they had a high accident rate and low rates of availability. So, they had to have the Osprey to have air transport. As for egos, look up the Growler to see what kind of turkey and corrupt and arrogant procurement officers can foist on the troops.

In a message dated 12/2/2010 12:10:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

He's wrong. WWIII will look like widespread asymetrical warfare. Try to imagine multiple VC popping up out of spiderholes through a trap door, picking off a target, and then disappearing again. Try to imagine Iwo Jima, where a bunch of poorly armed troops successfully evade invasion for a very long period of time before finally being discovered and killed.

A country like the US has lots of military hardware and weaponry, but imagine having to deploy that weaponry in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Somolia at once. Could it be done? Not for long. You'd have to bomb these countries, and then hope afterward that the countries would settle down. But instead, they would probably just get stirred up like a hornet's next, and go after any troops on the ground, pegging off one here, another there, but, because there would be involvement in many countries at once, many troops would be killed overall.

[Guest guest]

" Majorities think things like the US is simply picking up where the Russians

left off, that the US is trying to replace Islam with a new religion, nor to

many know about 9/11, which is not hard to believe because of how isolated the

region is. "

You'd think during one of these generations, people in Afghanistan would think

to themselves " Hey! Why do so many foreign countries keep invading us? Could it

be something about US, like our leadership??? "

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Since most only know what happens in their village and the elders might know what is happening a few villages away, they really don't have any concept of "country" like we do. Throughout Afghanistan most only disliked the Taliban because they were seen as bandits who not only came to steal but also to force the people to change their way of life. Many seem to think that is what the US is doing as well.

In a message dated 12/3/2010 1:46:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

You'd think during one of these generations, people in Afghanistan would think to themselves "Hey! Why do so many foreign countries keep invading us? Could it be something about US, like our leadership???"Administrator