Should we look at new paradigms of waging war?

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 04 May 2015 15:10:39 -0400

We are having a difficult time beating the enemy who wear sandals. The current paradigm is to smash a country with huge conventional army, rebuilding the country, training the military, and propping up a democratic government. That is victory but not necessarily a lasting victory. I think we are looking at the military problem in different ways considering we have a multitude of metrics to describe victory.

Response by SFC Charles S. made May 4 at 2015 3:24 PM

SFC Charles S. — Mon, 04 May 2015 15:24:13 -0400

MAJ Ken Landgren you are absolutely correct. We should have learned this after the Vietnam conflict. Low Tech enemy doesn't mean an automatic Slam dunk win. We need to change tactics, A LOT.

Response by SGT James Elphick made May 4 at 2015 4:14 PM

SGT James Elphick — Mon, 04 May 2015 16:14:58 -0400

Absolutely we need to look at new paradigms. I think we should be looking at how we have found it difficult to defeat these low-tech insurgents in low-intensity conflicts and see what lessons THEY can teach us. That is, how can we apply guerrilla and insurgent tactics to our concept of modern and large-scale war.

For one, I see the need to be able to fight in much smaller units than we have been. The army is just now getting down to brigade-sized elements but I think they missed the point. The fight in low-intensity conflicts is at the squad and platoon level, and rarely maybe the company level. The idea of that paradigm applied to large-scale conflict works as well. The Battle of Debecka Pass in Iraq is a great example. Using small, well-trained units armed with superior technology as a "force-multiplier" to defeat a more heavily armed and numerically superior enemy.

Another lesson learned from the insurgencies that applies to both types of conflicts is the use of vehicles. The insurgents have rarely used vehicles allowing them to strike and displace repeatedly meeting back at a rally point later (or not at all). They also found numerous ways to destroy any vehicle we brought to bear. In certain situations bringing over-whelming armor to bear will certainly win the day. But that also means you are tied to those vehicles and vehicles are easy to track and spot. We need units that remain committed and capable to fighting and engaging on foot (this is supposed to be the light-infantry, but that rarely happens).

There are many other lessons as well but basically I think our new paradigm should be along the lines of "out G-ing the G" to qoute Hackworth, and applying guerrilla tactics to conventional warfare (or just having the infantry read their 7-8's again).

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made May 4 at 2015 7:34 PM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Mon, 04 May 2015 19:34:57 -0400

I don't think that we have any difficulty beating an enemy that wears sandals. We are back in Vietnam - a military that COULD win the war, but a political leadership that does not WANT to win the war. In any war, if our politicians would get out of the way, our military is perfectly capable of doing what needs to be done.

Just saying!

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 4 at 2015 9:19 PM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Mon, 04 May 2015 21:19:41 -0400

Here is a new paradigm for you ..
You pick a fight with me?

And I will pour out mine indignation upon thee,
I will blow against thee in the fire of my wrath,
and deliver thee into the hand of brutish men,
and skilful to destroy.

Ezekiel 21:31