| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Assymetrical warfare forcing Western militaries to rethink strategy |
| 2005-10-25 |
| Western military powers are being forced to rethink strategy because conflict in Iraq has shown the limits of their conventional armies, the International Institute of Strategic Studies said on Tuesday. In its annual report on global military might, "The Military Balance", the London-based think-tank said strategists had hoped new technology would let them target enemies accurately from ships and planes, avoiding protracted ground battles. But it said conventional armies have been sucked into messy conflicts, often in towns, where they face enemies invulnerable to the advanced gadgetry that was supposed to dissipate the fog of war and herald a new era in warfare. "Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya demonstrate the limitations of modern conventional forces in complex environments that demand more of them than traditional warfighting," wrote Editor Christopher Langton in the introduction. The United States has some 137,000 troops in Iraq more than two years after crushing Iraq's conventional army in a ground invasion. Nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq since March 2003. The Military Balance said that rather than winning "network-centric warfare" using electronic sensors to find targets and direct fire, Western forces were enmeshed in "netwars", based on "agile and adaptive human networks". "The conflict environment of the early 21st century certainly does represent a new era in warfare: but not the era that Western military planners expected," it said in its handbook which lists the size and capabilities of the world's armed forces. Using suicide bombers and roadside bombs, Iraqi insurgents have killed U.S. and British soldiers and thousands of civilians. U.S. campaigns to dislodge fighters embedded in Iraqi towns have also involved losses. "Dealing with this new conflict environment has caused a rethink for many Western forces," the institute said. It said British and Australian special forces and the U.S. Marines were adapting to the new era of "asymmetric" conflict used by non-state actors such as al Qaeda by creating smaller fighting groups. But it said there was unlikely to be any major shift in U.S. strategy, or spending, for two reasons. First, because it feared the rise of large conventional armies in countries such as China and wanted to maintain air and sea supremacy. "China's military is rapidly modernising. This is of concern to the U.S. and some countries in the Asia-Pacific region as the modernisation of the People's Liberation Army is no longer directed solely against Taiwan," Langton wrote. The second reason was the immense inertia of the industrial groups that helped build U.S. military might and the fact that it would take time to move away from decades of strategic thought. The institute said one bright spot for Western conventional armies was that they were still unrivalled in their ability to respond quickly to natural disasters, such as the Tsunami. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #3 We need more tools to disrupt communication of telephone and cell phone useage while raiding. It seems that early warning to the terrorist is main advantage. Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted. - Sun Tzu Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical. If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are. Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content. - Sun Tzu "The art of using troops is this: ......When ten to the enemy's one, surround him; ......When five times his strength, attack him; ......If double his strength, divide him; ......If equally matched you may engage him; ......If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing; ......And if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him, ..........for a small force is but booty for one more powerful." - Sun Tzu, the Art Of War |
| Posted by: Slererong Crose8790 2005-10-25 16:14 |
| #2 Claving Speart7152 the problem with your reasoning is that the UAVs dont flood the battle field yet. Looking at paquidermic US procurement system and the hype gold plated stuff i doubt that in less than 10 years US will have much needed improvement in it's land gear. HUMVVES must be replaced ASAP with a better protected anti-IED veichle. IED detectors eventualy UAV based are needed. And much more. |
| Posted by: Unetch Flinetch3868 2005-10-25 14:49 |
| #1 But it said conventional armies have been sucked into messy conflicts, often in towns, where they face enemies invulnerable to the advanced gadgetry that was supposed to dissipate the fog of war and herald a new era in warfare. Considering the advance in man portable UAVs and their exploitation by ground pounders, it appears a lot of fog of war for the grunt has been lifted. Throw in hovering air support to deliver ordnance on target in seconds, the think tank boys need to take their product to sale elsewhere. What we have seen is the flexibility of the American forces to get within the decision cycle of the enemy faster, to adapt new tactics faster, to share information faster, and to integrate their resources faster and far more effectively. I'd say a lot of advancement has been achieved. But it said conventional armies have been sucked into messy conflicts What conflict isn't messy. Yeah, and water is wet. Using suicide bombers and roadside bombs, Iraqi insurgents have killed U.S. and British soldiers and thousands of civilians. U.S. campaigns to dislodge fighters embedded in Iraqi towns have also involved losses. As say oppose to what? D-Day, Okinawa, Gettysburg? Even the aboriginal natives of the American west inflicted casualties. Ask Custer or Fetterman. I get the sense of this that these people think you can fight a war without losses. Guess their concept of warfare was "Bomber" Clinton's campaign in Yugoslavia which in the end had to carry the threat of ground forces to finally get leverage. Given that 4,000 years of recorded history says you have to have ground pounders to occupy territory, these guys must be smoking that special blend. |
| Posted by: Claving Speart7152 2005-10-25 13:46 |