Militarythinker

I agree that transforming the U.S. military into a "guerilla type" force is not only impractical but also stupid.

I also however think that there should be a greater focus on either training our forces in how to appropriately deal with these terrorist strategies or changing a part of the military. Like it has been said, special forces without firepower to back it up is cool and can do fun stuff, but will not win wars. Again one key ability special forces have is to call in air strikes or coordinate attacks.

If the US can alter their structure to allow for more mobile units while still maintaining our firepower, we should be in good shape against terrorist strategies. Imagine if we increased the number of small units capable of calling in air strikes and organizing coordinated attacks by providing Intel. It is obvious how effective and useful air strikes are but I think that the information would be even more valuable.

The way I see it, the hardest part about fighting a terrorist force is that we don't know enough about them. It is hard to find their bases of operation, distinguish who is fighting with them and how to catch them before they can dissolve into the population.

If the military were to train more units in this type of recon we would be able to learn more about the locations and patterns of the terrorists without sacrificing firepower. Teams could still call in bunker busters or provide Intel to help coordinate a crushing assault with ground troops.

However I can't say where these new units would come from or who would train them because I lack a strong understanding of the US military structure.

And as heartless as it sounds, I think you have a valid point Mike. These guys are trained to destroy the enemy. Even the most basic man in the military knows that. Perhaps unleashing them with a bit less restraint may show the terrorist, and civilians that either harbor them or simply allow them to operate in their village, that we mean business.

I know that if I was a father in Iraq with my kids to look after, and I knew that there was a terrorist cell in my village, I would want them out if I thought that the Americans were going to blow the place apart searching for them.

That would be where the Spec Ops guys come in. It has been pointed out that Spec Ops do a lot of counter terrorism work. Going into villages, befriending the locals and perhaps suggesting to the village leader that the US would be willing to help him remove this cell from his village. Suddenly we have some of our dirty work being done by locals.

A great advantage to this, if it works, is that the villages will feel self liberated. Instead of the big bad US army smashing through their front yard, they took care of their own business and helped protect their own families. By creating a threat of violence to anything near a terrorist operation, we can turn the terrorists into the villager's enemies.

Eventually I would imagine that the terrorists would catch on and realize that being near civilian populations was a bad idea. My guess is that they would either A) start to harm the civilians or force themselves upon them or B) move away from civilian populations.

Both of these options work to our advantage. If they went with A, this would only anger the civilians more and would increase their likelihood to help us if not give us outright support. If we get the terrorists to focus more on trying to maintain their positions forcefully, they will not only waste resources but also further anger the civilians.

If they went with B, then they are away from any collateral damage that would bring bad PR to the US and slow down our efforts. Terrorist installations that are remote can be bombed into dust with those dumb bombs Mike mentioned without worrying about one landing on a school house. If this happened, the civilians would see how wise it was to get the terrorists out of their villages, continuing the cycle.

I apologize for the length of my post. I had a train of thought and just went with it. Hope I made sense and my conclusions were logical.

__________________
MT . . .

Officer of Engineers

And when North Korean infantry advance under their own rolling barrage, all the SF types would be just meat, with or without air support. SF are force multipliers. However, you do need the main force to be multiplied with. When all is said and done, it is the team that wins the game, not the individual player. To have an entire team dominated by SF types is just plain stupidity.

__________________
Chimo

zraver

I agree, the US is falling into the Maginot trap. Becuase Fortresses worked (or were percived to work) at Verdun they must always work. Or in Israels case, becuase tanks worked in 67, they would work in 73 or 06. Special Forces are ahuge force multiplier, but they are no substatue to boots on the ground in many instances like your North Korea example.

You still need normal infantry supported by tanks, artillery and CAS with adequate depth to hold or defend ground. SF units lack staying power over the long haul. If a company loses a rifle team it can still function, if an A-team loses a pair of operators it is crippled beucase it has all of its eggs in just a few baskets.

Officer of Engineers

If I have to absolutely pick a trade that I cannot do without, it is the infantry. I will pay through the nose in blood in casualties without the other services but no battle can ever be won without infantry.

zraver

If I have to absolutely pick a trade that I cannot do without, it is the infantry. I will pay through the nose in blood in casualties without the other services but no victory can ever be secured without infantry.

Fixed Tanks, arty, tac air, even engineers can win a fight, but they can't win a war or keep/secure the peace.

Militarythinker

But have you really won if you cannot secure what you won?

zraver

Depends on what we are talking about. The great encriclement battles of 1941 were won by tanks cutting off the Soviet armies, Falise pocket or Kafji was won by tac air, but wars and pece are won by boots.

xerxes

yes and no ....

you do not have to secure, if you can make you enemy sue for peace therefore legitimizing your occupation, rather the fighting for each street in a city. Infact during the invasion of France in 1940, Hadler toyed with the idea capturing Paris and knocking France out of the war, though saner minds prevailed.

Even, in Napoleonic campagins, the emphasis was always at destroying enemy armies by massive sweeping manuervers to force them sue for peace, rather then conquering every inch of terrain and the cities, street by street.

Though, with todays world, I doubt those old ways will be effective to fight the surge of nationlism of the occupied people. Thus, we cannot really blame US for shifting toward Guerilla (if that is the right term) from mass armies.

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

Militarythinker

That is the point that I was making. Yes it is possible to go in without infantry (just tanks, bombing or whatever) and get the country to sue for peace. However today I wouldn't say it works that way. A countries leader may have surrendered/died/run from office but militia and guerilla warfare from his followers doesn't stop. There is no way we could occupy Iraq without a lot of boots on the ground.

The nice old days of violence ending with the stroke of a pen are over. They aren't playing by the rules. Our job is to figure out how to beat them at it while still playing fair... damn PC wars.