- This topic has 5 voices and 26 replies.
-
Posts
-
Has anyone truly considered the role that technology played in transforming warfare in the late 19th century? Was technology decisive or was it simply better leaders, doctrine, and troops. Consider the decisive results achieved by the Prussians in the Seven Weeks War when they were equipped with the Dreyse needle gun and the Austrians only had muzzle-loaders. Breech-loaders made many tactical evolutions on the battlefield possible for infantry that were previously impossible. These include, but are not limited to, rapid fire, open order combat, reloading in the prone, and a more continuous volume of fire than previously possible. I do not contend that the breech-loader was solely responsible for Prussian victory but they certainly contributed. These evolutions would not have been possible without the doctrine to make use of the technological advantage conferred by the equipment.The Austrians very nearly held at K?niggr?tz, it was only the fortuitous arrival of the Prussian Second Army on the Austrian flank that turned a stalemate into a rout. I personally believe that the intangibles of leadership, ?lan, morale, and good doctrine contribute more to victory than any pure technological superiority. Our current troubles in Iraq highlight this for me. Technology is no substitute for good doctrine and leadership.
I don't doubt what you say, but I think there's something else to the equation – such as complexity of objective. In Iraq we must admit that the objectives each side is trying to accomplish are vastly different. One side has to deal with a whole range of issues that the other side does not. Did 19th century wars face the same disparity in objectives?
I have a hard time identifying an objective in our current war in Iraq beyond the nebulous “Global War on Terror”. I think that 19th century wars were, with some exceptions, fought for easily definable and concrete objectives. Often the objective was either territory or some political concession on the part of a recognized power, or the suppression of colonial revolt. I hesitate to say that times were simpler, they were most likely just as complex as today. Also, there was not as much hand wringing about the use of force. Force was seen as a legitimate tool of statecraft, which it largely is not anymore. I think that the phrase ?Gunboat Diplomacy? says a lot about the mindset of 19th century governments and there attitude towards the use of force.The difference between then and now is that now we are fighting a thing, terror, and even worse, there is no definable enemy. They have neither territory nor even an acknowledged leader. Bin Laden does not control all the terrorists, he is a figurehead and if he were killed terrorism would not end. Terrorists are like the mythical Hydra, cut off one head and there is another to take its place. The answer to terrorism is to remove the underlying cause of resentment and I am not certain we, meaning the West can do that. Muslim resentment of the West is more cultural than material. Can we change their culture, I think we cannot, they must change it themselves. Until that happens, the conflict will continue unless we are willing to resort to genocide, which I for one am not. I would much prefer to live in peace but if my enemy offers war, then war he shall get.
In a way, the term technology is just a word for mechanical advantage. One of the principles neede to win a war is an advantage, wether that be numerical advantage, positioned on the high ground or having better training. When it comes to the weapons of war, there has always been technology. Imaging the first clashing of armies when the one armed with bronze weapons met the one with iron. (no that is not where the term irony came from) The Macedoneans fought with longer spears. Any improvement over the previous version is a technological advantage. Now if you push an advantage too far you can also create a disadvantage. The sarissa is nice but once the enemy gets within its length there is not much more you can do with it. As bomber development allowed them to fly higher, accuracy declined.Now regarding the Operations going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. We definately have the technological advantage, hence the highly skewed casualty ratio. But the one thing the US does not have is TIME. The insurgents can fight forever, we will eventually have to leave. Can we get to them all before we have to leave?
Can we change their culture, I think we cannot, they must change it themselves. Until that happens, the conflict will continue unless we are willing to resort to genocide, which I for one am not. I would much prefer to live in peace but if my enemy offers war, then war he shall get.
By George, this man gets it!Beaumaris, I think a question we should ask is "Can we get to ENOUGH of them so they can make a difference before we leave?"Plus, will we ever leave completely? I don't see 160,000 troops being there too much longer, but hopefully there will be enough to be able to provide security for all the diplomats and civilian NGO's that will (or should) stay there for a long time. That new embassy is pretty big, and pretty nice from what I've heard for it to only be temporary.Personally, I wouldn't think it a bad idea to have some permanent military bases there either.
Regardless of bases within Iraq, we still have a few in the region. So many people think that when we pull out of Iraq that everyone will be back home. Nope. We will probably have a carrier group in the Gulf and there is always one or two bases in the area we can still fly out of. So lets talk symantics, ok lets pull troops out of Iraq….and station them in Kuwait, or back in Turkey. Not sure how the Saudi's would go for us going back to a few of the bases we built there…
Back to my original point. Technology is not winning the war for us. All the gee whiz UAV's, jammers, optics, and weapons in the world have not helped us defeat the insurgents. The insurgents are proving the Napoleonic maxim that “In war, the moral is to the material as three is to one”. We have extremely well trained troops and when we can find the enemy we win every time. The problem is finding them. They are Mao's proverbial fish swimming in a sea of peasants. The issue is convincing them that we can help the average Iraqi live in better conditions and greater freedom, but I am not sure that is what they want. Certainly some do, but I am not convinced that a majority of Iraqi's do.I am afraid we are seeing a dilemna similar to that we faced in Vietnam where we will be in the unenviable position of either giving up and leaving or having to destroy the village in order to save it.
I was under the impression we were doing much better since the surge took place. Even the Dems admit as much.
We won the war! We are not fighting a war any more. Now we are just trying to secure a nation into a somewhat stable environment. I have tried to think about it this way, what if someone came over here and told us that we were living the wrong way. We know our beliefs and will do ANYTHING to ensure we can live the way WE want. Well they believe the same way. Not about the same belief but they are holding on to there with the same amount of passion.
But we didn't go over there to change their way of life, we went over their to change their government. And because of our inept leadership at the time, their were no plans or incredibly bad plans on what to do after that government was removed. If Petraeus, Gates, and Crocker were in charge from the beginning, Iraq would probably be in great shape by now.
We won the war! We are not fighting a war any more. Now we are just trying to secure a nation into a somewhat stable environment. I have tried to think about it this way, what if someone came over here and told us that we were living the wrong way. We know our beliefs and will do ANYTHING to ensure we can live the way WE want. Well they believe the same way. Not about the same belief but they are holding on to there with the same amount of passion.
How do you define the war? To the best of my knowledge the fighting has not stopped since the invasion. The only difference has been what group we are fighting. Counter-insurgency is still war. In your example, we would be fighting an insurgency against invaders, that is a war also.
Alright, I'll agree with you there, but the objective has changed and I don't know if that was truely explained to the American public. Our initial objective was to oust Saddam, once that was done our following objective was to help establish a new publicly electected government and keep the citizens safe since there was no police or military.I think we need to stop trying to set up new governments.Anyway, this has kinda gotten off the topic don't you think?
Anyway, this has kinda gotten off the topic don't you think?
Not really. It does stil go along with the OT of
I personally believe that the intangibles of leadership, ?lan, morale, and good doctrine contribute more to victory than any pure technological superiority.
and we are discussing leadership and doctrine.
