tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719362718346107647.post1783654642674847812..comments2024-03-16T09:11:27.097-04:00Comments on GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD: Queen Of Battle!GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09760252542953109449noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719362718346107647.post-29993836398096976232011-08-01T19:59:29.831-04:002011-08-01T19:59:29.831-04:00The world will be a safer place if a US Army Armor...The world will be a safer place if a US Army Armored Division is permanently stationed somewhere inside of Iraq. Figure out how to get it done - training, partnership - what ever you want to call it. Leaving Iraq without it is at our and our friends peril. There is nothing on this planet that can defeat it when it comes to closing with and destroying the enemy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05503929193900498334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719362718346107647.post-17398560316114328542011-08-01T12:38:07.118-04:002011-08-01T12:38:07.118-04:00Fair points that ground forces win (won) battles i...Fair points that ground forces win (won) battles in recent past. But two points:<br /><br />1) The wars waged in the 1990s-2010s (with the exception of the Invasion-stage of Iraq, which GSGF eloquently notes was a mere 20 days of an 8-year and counting conflict) have been localized conflicts against small-band fighters operating on their home turf, e.g. the exact terms on which infantry is the only effective fighting force. That this was so can be attributed to a lot of things -- such as the reallignment of great power during those two decades with China rising, Russia stumbling/flailing/trying to stand again, the US in a fo-pol identity crisis -- that basically vitiated big dogs wanting/needing to fight each other trans-theater. But I'm not certain that can be counted on to last. Countries that have managed uneasy co-existence for two decades may be increasingly willing to fight for their interests in contested regions, notably the sea, to gain access to resources (looking at the Spratleys here...). As infantry can't swim all that well, a focus on stand-off (i.e., drone/missile, NOT fighter/carrier) technology must be an equal focus of US military planning.<br /><br />2) Any successful infantry-heavy strategic posture for the US in the future will require American commanders (and its population) to reevaulate its hesitancy to take casualties. If the US does deploy ground forces to yet another area in the future, that hesitancy means the Hobson's choice between fighting with less than full commitment of forces or simply leveling blocks/towns with the subsequent alienation of the local populace (and, for some, moral culpability) coming therewith.<br /><br />These may be slightly off-topic, but they come to mind when I read pieces like this.<br /><br />Best,<br />CallenCallenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16128977945905235456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719362718346107647.post-66287317808272958182011-08-01T09:01:33.973-04:002011-08-01T09:01:33.973-04:00During the last ten years, the US has been involve...During the last ten years, the US has been involved in two CENTCOM wars and one AFRICOM war, none of which have been won. In two of those wars (OIF and OEF)there was a sizable deployment of ground troops. For fiscal, poltical, and other reasons, we are unlikely to see US boots in the ground in Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. I beleive that even if troops were deployed in those cases a clean win a la Gulf War is impossible. <br /><br />Basically, it is very unlikely that the US will choose to use its ground forces in the next ten years in a 'minor conflict'. Instead, the use of drones, airstrikes, cruise missiles, and surgical CT strikes will be the norm. Indeed, it is likely that if a case surfaces where major ground forces need to be employed then the war would be of a conventional type (Korean crisis?) where airpower and seapower would be arguably equally as decisive as ground forces.DesertWolfnoreply@blogger.com