Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: pyrite!peregrin@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (News Feed)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low tech warfare
Summary: Rev war == Guerrilla War?
Message-ID: <12603@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 27 Dec 89 03:40:49 GMT
References: <12539@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12572@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: WSOM CSG, CWRU, Cleve., OH
Lines: 49
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: pyrite!peregrin@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (News Feed)
In article <12572@cbnews.ATT.COM> jhamilto@ics.UCI.EDU (John Scott Hamilton) writes:
>
>
>From: John Scott Hamilton <jhamilto@ics.UCI.EDU>
>In article <12539@cbnews.ATT.COM> bxr307@csc.anu.oz writes:
>>it had learnt militarily.   We have been seeing for the last 15 years that 
>>the US government failed to learn any real lessons from it Vietnam experience.
>>What I was trying to find out was whether the US Army in particular, and the 
>>rest of the US military in general, had learnt any *tactical* lessons from 
>>Vietnam.  
>
>What I find incredibly ironic about this tactics issue, is that
>Americans fought their Revolutionary War based on guerilla tactics.
>Even though outnumbered and outequipped by a highly regimented British
>Army, the wanabee Americans managed to win.  
>
>
Hmmm...My understanding was that the Revolutionary War in America was
not as guerrilla war.  According to the limited reading I have done recently
- Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths of American History, and various of
John Keegan's books - the conduct of battles and strategic manuevering
was quite traditional.  This is true of Bunker Hill and Monmouth, for
example.  In addition, the British are reputed to have had much 
experience fighting against guerrillas, and could have been expected to
put down such a rebellion easily.

Is it really true that we don't learn from the past?  In the Rev. War, if
the rebels had fought in the manner of say, the French Indian wars, they
would have faced lack of popular support, a lessened capability to fight
decisive battles (due to the usage of small, dispersed units) and a lack
consequently of political support from other countries (France in
particular).  I would argue that they did learn from the past, and used
the lessons well.  Perhaps we are too quick to provide pat analyses of 
current events, without examining all the evidence available.
>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).

Is it really true to describe the US armed forces as incompetent bumblers
who have no idea of what to do in a given situation?  I find that hard to
swallow.

            David Pipes