World War IV? Tell me it ain't happening.

Capt Walter Miller — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:58:33 -0500

There is so much good stuff in this article, you need to give it a look if you don't like how things are going with ISIS.

"Even though Washington may try whenever possible to avoid large-scale ground combat, relying on air power (including drones) and elite Special Operations forces to do the actual killing, post-conflict pacification promises to be a manpower intensive activity. Certainly, this ranks as one of the most obvious lessons to emerge from World War IV’s preliminary phases: when the initial fight ends, the real work begins.

U.S. forces committed to asserting control over Iraq after the invasion of 2003 topped out at roughly 180,000. In Afghanistan, during the Obama presidency, the presence peaked at 110,000. In a historical context, these are not especially large numbers. At the height of the Vietnam War, for example, U.S. troop strength in Southeast Asia exceeded 500,000.

In hindsight, the Army general who, before the invasion of 2003, publicly suggested that pacifying postwar Iraq would require “several hundred thousand troops” had it right. A similar estimate applies to Afghanistan. In other words, those two occupations together could easily have absorbed 600,000 to 800,000 troops on an ongoing basis. Given the Pentagon’s standard three-to-one rotation policy, which assumes that for every unit in-country, a second is just back, and a third is preparing to deploy, you’re talking about a minimum requirement of between 1.8 and 2.4 million troops to sustain just two medium-sized campaigns -- a figure that wouldn’t include some number of additional troops kept in reserve for the unexpected.

In other words, waging World War IV would require at least a five-fold increase in the current size of the U.S. Army -- and not as an emergency measure but a permanent one. Such numbers may appear large, but as Cohen would be the first to point out, they are actually modest when compared to previous world wars. In 1968, in the middle of World War III, the Army had more than 1.5 million active duty soldiers on its rolls -- this at a time when the total American population was less than two-thirds what it is today and when gender discrimination largely excluded women from military service. If it chose to do so, the United States today could easily field an army of two million or more soldiers."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-bacevich/beyond-isis_b_8708726.html

Beyond ISIS: The Folly of World War IV

Assume that the hawks get their way -- that the United States does whatever it takes militarily to confront and destroy ISIS. Then what?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2015 12:24 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 12:24:29 -0500

According to Albert Einstein, WW IV will be fought with sticks and rocks.
I think he might have been right.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Dec 3 at 2015 2:01 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 14:01:17 -0500

"Indeed, the very existence of the Islamic State (ISIS) today renders a definitive verdict on the Iraq wars over which the Presidents Bush presided, each abetted by a Democratic successor. A de facto collaboration of four successive administrations succeeded in reducing Iraq to what it is today: a dysfunctional quasi-state unable to control its borders or territory while serving as a magnet and inspiration for terrorists.

The United States bears a profound moral responsibility for having made such a hash of things there. Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. Per the famous Pottery Barn Rule attributed to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, having smashed Iraq to bits a decade ago, we can now hardly deny owning ISIS.

That the United States possesses sufficient military power to make short work of that “caliphate” is also the case. True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality.

In that regard, the glibly bellicose editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, is surely correct in suggesting that a well-armed contingent of 50,000 U.S. troops, supported by ample quantities of air power, would make mincemeat of ISIS in a toe-to-toe contest. Liberation of the various ISIS strongholds like Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq and Palmyra and Raqqa, its “capital,” in Syria would undoubtedly follow in short order.

In the wake of the recent attacks in Paris, the American mood is strongly trending in favor of this sort of escalation. Just about anyone who is anyone -- the current occupant of the Oval Office partially excepted -- favors intensifying the U.S. military campaign against ISIS. And why not? What could possibly go wrong? As Kristol puts it, "I don’t think there’s much in the way of unanticipated side effects that are going to be bad there."

It’s an alluring prospect. In the face of a sustained assault by the greatest military the world has ever seen, ISIS foolishly (and therefore improbably) chooses to make an Alamo-like stand. Whammo! We win. They lose. Mission accomplished.

Of course, that phrase recalls the euphoric early reactions to Operations Desert Storm in 1991, Enduring Freedom in 2001, Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and Odyssey Dawn, the Libyan intervention of 2011. Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker."

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Dec 3 at 2015 3:00 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 15:00:12 -0500

We can get to WWIV right after WWIII. Then a better assessment can be made by Huffington Post and their war experts.

Response by PO2 Christopher Taggart made Dec 3 at 2015 5:03 PM

PO2 Christopher Taggart — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:03:36 -0500

May if Putin lights up those ISIS with SLBM's ? However I would --problem is very hard to re-implement 1980s technology nukes with that area of IRAQ and not expect mass casualties ?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Dec 3 at 2015 5:51 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:51:35 -0500

Are we willing to do what we did after WWII Comit lots of forces as "Pacification" or whatever you want to call it, Babysitters to ensure everyone plays nice and sink lots of money into that Captured Land like we did with the Marshall Plan? worked out pretty good with Germany and Japan, Good return on an Investment but not sure that we have the where withall to do it again.

Response by Sgt Nick Marshall made Dec 3 at 2015 7:10 PM

Sgt Nick Marshall — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 19:10:21 -0500

Putin has said the mess in the Middle East is America's mess he is trying to clean up because it is spilling into Russia. Overthrowing authoritarian regimes (like Hussein and Quadaffi) that have kept a lid on religious fundamentalism was (and is, in the case of Al Assad) a mistake. To quote Churchill (I believe) "Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer"

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Dec 3 at 2015 9:21 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 21:21:26 -0500

Interesting that it's called WW IV here. I've been expressing grave concern about the coming of WW 3...

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Dec 3 at 2015 10:02 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 22:02:03 -0500

What, do you think if you repeat it often enough and loudly enough, historians will start agreeing with you that WWIII has already been waged? You've got some serious audacity calling other people idiots.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Dec 3 at 2015 11:35 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 23:35:28 -0500

SSgt Christopher Brose -- loser. Whiner.

Walt

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Dec 3 at 2015 11:38 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 23:38:05 -0500

When you block someone you prove --- that you stand for nothing.

Walt

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Dec 4 at 2015 12:59 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:59:13 -0500

MCPO Roger Collins

Made several posts and then blocked me from responding.

Yes, there are things that are weaker and more unworthy than that.

Walt

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Dec 4 at 2015 6:42 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 06:42:14 -0500

What happens when you have no choice but to go after them? We talk about his like we simply get to chose whether we fight them or not. They are already coming after us. Forget the why, it isn't relevant at this point. How many cells have to unleash murderous rampage before we decide that is unacceptable and go after them where they live?

The real questions we have to ask and answer are: Is ISIS a threat to the safety of Americans both here and abroad? Is ISIS able and willing to attack us at every opportunity both here and abroad? Do they have the will and capacity/capability to do so? If the answers to those questions are yes then I think we need to do whatever it takes to eliminate them. How many western cities and towns have to have a bloodbath in them before we've had enough?

Part of the problem with long winded theoretical tomes is that they miss the essence because they are too busy trying to show you how sophisticated they are in their musings.