A change in military strategy is needed

Written by Van Santos
Published December 04, 2003

Last night I was suffering from my reoccurring insomnia which gave me the opportunity to watch several installments of HBO's Band of Brothers. If you are not familiar with this series, the show highlights the story of the airborne infantry "Easy Company" from boot camp to the capture of Hitler's summer house, called "Eagles Nest." This series, shot in the same style as "Saving Private Ryan", has Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg attached as executive producers. The stories about Easy Company are presented in such a moving and often graphic way it can almost make the viewer break down. The series is truly moving but, it also got me thinking.

The attitude of the United States is that our military is superior to anyone any other country in the world, and to be frank, it is. While other armed forces that have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, our modern fighting force, the tanks, fighter jets, submarines, et al, are far superior to any other existing army.

The attitude of veterans of WWII I have spoken to in the past have always been humble. They do not want to be called heroes, but they all served with heroes. None will admit to playing an important role in the war, yet some were the keys to highly sensitive and hugely important operations. The attitude of the military since these men went to war has changed, or so it seems.

The US, fresh off of the victory in WWII ended up in a stalemate with the Korean War. America went to Vietnam to help the French and end up getting our ass handed to us on a platter by an inferior army. Times were changing, and the military was not. The enemy was no longer the huge war machine that was Nazi Germany, rather the enemy was now blending into the background and the army could not adapt.

The other conflicts to follow were, essentially, the United States overpowering the opponent. Again, there was no large military force we were facing but things worked out in our favor. Grenada, Panama and, the First Iraq conflict saw the weight of the United States overpower the resistance and this is what really worries me.

Regardless of if you think the war is justified or not, the current war has shown two things to the world. First, the day of the glory seeking military is here. I am not referring to the individuals fighting the battle, rather the military exploiting the individuals (aka - Jessica Lynch). Yes, in WWII the military had individuals touring the country promoting the cause and pitching war bonds, but what the military has done with Jessica Lynch is different from my perspective. They did not use the Jessica Lynch story to help their cause; rather they tried to show this as an accomplishment of the war.

The second thing the military has shown the world is that we cannot yet fight a guerilla war. This, I am guessing, is due in part to the size of the fighting force, in part due to military strategy, and in part to the fact that we do not want to "stoop" to their level. If we do not fight and plan like a guerilla our troops will continue to be killed one by one.

Hubris, or pride, has been the downfall of many great individuals. I fear that the mentality of the military machine if still fighting wars as if we are facing enemies like the Nazis when in reality we are fighting a smaller, yet organized, group of individuals which will continue to pick away at us. If the US does not look past it's pride - if it does not adapt from the ways of the past, the US military will continue to loose it's power and influence. Simply throwing brute force at a problem will not insure victory, just ask Goliath.

Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
A change in military strategy is needed
Published: December 04, 2003
Type:
Section: Politics
Writer: Van Santos
Van Santos's BC Writer page
Van Santos's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Van Santos
All Politics Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — January 5, 2004 @ 04:47AM — Larry Leonard

The last three paragraphs in your article are interesting. In the first you point a finger at the military as being different as with Jessica Lynch verses WWII. Is correct, but the military is mirroring what the current political environment is allowing them too. They may have been "under orders", Naaaaa trying to put a "positive spin" on having the first female POW returned. I would also say to justify their being in Iraq. It's just too weird to try and figure out just what they were thinking to present it in that manor. Too much political pressure, micro management and bad planning is forcing the spin-doctors to try and put every thing in a positive spin! It's a change from the past!

In the second, you indicate that we, our military, cannot fight a guerilla war. That I can say is 100 percent wrong! Politicians cannot fight a guerilla war. Included in the politician list are the guys wearing one or more stars on their shoulder or having a title like the "Sectary of Something" or "Assistant Secretary of Something."

If the political end would simply tell the US Military that they will have to fight a war against terrorist and they will have to support it 100 percent or hand in their resignation, the military would be able to do a better job than we do now. Big rank wants big out fits to fight with so that they can get their ticket punched for promotion. We can do better! We can fight at that level and win! Just don't have the understanding and support at the top! Every body wants to be like the WWII officers like Eisenhower, Patton, and all the rest of the WWII generals. It's not pride or conceit It's plain stupidity of our military and political leaders! A small war has at the most AR-15, machine guns, recoilless rifles, mortars and mines. A large war has battalions, armor tanks by the hundreds, battleships, fleets of fighters and aircraft carriers! If you were a businessman making war material, which war would you fight for to make money on? If you had money, on which type of war would you influence politicians to push for? Simply throwing money and large forces at the problem will not insure victory; just ask the GIs that fought in Viet Nam.

The military does what our leaders ask and direct them to do, and they do it extremely well. And if they get in harms way while achieving that goal, they die for us too.

#2 — January 5, 2004 @ 08:00AM — Van Santos [URL]

Greetings,

Great comments! As to the guerilla war, my comment was "the military has shown the world is that we cannot yet fight a guerilla war" and I think that comment is vaild, however, that notion (and that fact) is changing day by day as the military continues in Iraq.

You made the comment "If the political end would simply tell the US Military that they will have to fight a war against terrorist and they will have to support it 100 percent or hand in their resignation, the military would be able to do a better job than we do now....If you had money, on which type of war would you influence politicians to push for? "

I totally agree, but what I didn't think about when writing that post was the business aspect. The sad truth is that individuals may (and have in the past) pushed for large wars simply for the economic reasons and not due to the military goal.

Also - "The military does what our leaders ask and direct them to do, and they do it extremely well. And if they get in harms way while achieving that goal, they die for us too." Yes, and God bless them and thank them for it too. Without the individuals who does this, largely thankless task, the US would not be the country it is today.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/10677)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments