Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low tech warfare
Message-ID: <12600@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 27 Dec 89 03:40:45 GMT
References: <12539@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12572@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 43
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <12572@cbnews.ATT.COM> jhamilto@ics.UCI.EDU (John Scott Hamilton) writes:
>
>I don't think the original question should be how much has the US
>learned from Vietnam, but how much has it forgotten from its past, and
>how much has it learned from fighting in two world wars.
>
This is an important point, especially in view of the pending defense
spending cuts.  Capabilities of marginal utility tend to be the first
items that the US military will drop to save money.  Unfortunately,
marginal utility is usually calculated relative to a major European
war scenario.  The Marines are an excellant example of how to
successfully buck the trend.  They use the argument that we never know
when we will need an amphibious capability, and once it is lost you
can't recreate it overnight.  To broaden their appeal they have begun
to drop the appearance of maintaining a capability to fight in a
Central European war and have begun to specialize on fighting in low
intensity situations, i.e. as an expeditionary force.  Once again the
argument is that it is a capability that can't be developed overnight.
They have about a 10 year jump on the army.  The USMC even has BLTs
(battalion landing teams) trained for hostage rescue.  Although I
think a BLT might be a bit pnderous for such an operation, at least
they working on more realistic situations.

>Now the question in my mind is, why are we trying to engage in warfare
>with the wrong tactics and equipment?  As the drug war in Colombia has
>pointed out, the US military does not even comprehend the needs of
>small scale conflict (by sending equipment that was of little use to
>the Colombian effort).  Is this not only a serious flaw in military
>policy, but a basic ignorance of the "art of war" (ala Sun Tzu).

When pressed on the issue, the Bush administration admitted that the
materiel sent was not appropriate for the intended application, but
that some visible sign of support was better than promises of future
aid.  The Columbians apparently have found the key to winning that
type of war;  you have to want to win more than the other guy.


-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu