LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI've heard that people aren't too impressed with the China one though. Need to find a copy and find out for myself.
I'm currently reading Andrew Krepinevich's Amazon.com: 7 Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21st Century: Andrew Krepinevich: Books, and it is a very enjoyable read thus far.
He provides seven (I've read five so far) potential future scenarios to help strategic planners think about how to shape America's forces and strategy and policy. I've read the following scenarios:
1. The Collapse of Pakistan
2. War Comes to America
3. Pandemic
4. Armageddon: The Assault on Israel
5. China's "Assassin's Mace"
Any of these scenarios would be great fodder for "what if" discussions that the board is generally anathema to, but since they are set 5-10 years out in the future, it should reduce the p!ssing contests that often come with scenario type discussions.
If you're interested in the current global security environment and enjoy "what if" type scenarios, then I recommend this as a must read.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
I've heard that people aren't too impressed with the China one though. Need to find a copy and find out for myself.
China's not a strong suit for me, but I think that it was pretty good in highlighting the differing approaches to war of East vs. West and tying the Chinese approach back to their strategic white papers.Originally Posted by Skywatcher
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Killing time at the bookstore, I spent a half hour flipping through that book yesterday. Mostly "Armageddon" and "Just Not On Time". I did find the Chinese part intriguing, especially the picket lines of diesel boats. I may go back and pick up a copy.
Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)
Throughout history, many different empires have ruled and fallen. I've heard the same thing against the U.S. But is it not fair to say the U.S has pretty much secured its future? They have bases in almost every country around the world, they have major influences in countries that no one has even heard of, and they're not shy about accessing oil that was once not in their grasps.I'm currently reading Andrew Krepinevich's Amazon.com: 7 Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21st Century: Andrew Krepinevich: Books, and it is a very enjoyable read thus far.
He provides seven (I've read five so far) potential future scenarios to help strategic planners think about how to shape America's forces and strategy and policy. I've read the following scenarios:
1. The Collapse of Pakistan
2. War Comes to America
3. Pandemic
4. Armageddon: The Assault on Israel
5. China's "Assassin's Mace"
Any of these scenarios would be great fodder for "what if" discussions that the board is generally anathema to
If you're interested in the current global security environment and enjoy "what if" type scenarios, then I recommend this as a must read.
I don't see 1, 2 and 4 really happening unless the U.S lets it happen. 3 you can't really prevent and 5 will only happen if China is pushed, no?
If you prepare for an invasion of apples and instead, it's oranges that attack you, then you are not prepared. Back around 2000, the US was categorized as a hyperpower, where no one could challenge us militarily. After the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim that the US is a hyperpower. We may have cornered the "conventional" war market, but we don't own all other forms of warfare on the spectrum, nor can we.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
We may have cornered the "conventional" war market, but we don't own all other forms of warfare on the spectrum, nor can we.
That only matters if your trying to be "nice" in the execution of the war.
Which the US is want to do.....but if your in it to break things and kill people
is there any one that can challenge the USA's might (and that's not a shot at the military)
A red herring and dangerous thinking as well. Our soft power relies on our morality, and like it or not, things like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have seriously damaged our influence. Our adherence to just war theory, even if we try to blur the lines in certain areas, is non-negotiable as a nation that prides itself as being a beacon of liberty and freedom.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Agreed....But then would you agree that we as a country need to be less squeamish about the casualties that we incur or cause on the battlefield being that the lines are clearly defined there....well more so than with the case of an insurgent conflict or a Taliban type enemy(beheading/desecration of the dead ect.)
Also is "soft power" seen in those cultures as a weakness??
As far as I can tell, It is not the casualties themselves that make people oppose the war., it is the lack of tangible progress. The lack of a light at the end of the tunnel. Conventional war, this is clearly defined by territory held Progress or lack of can be easily seen. Unconventional war's factors are much less transparent. constant casualties with no tangible progress generates opposition. -my 2 cents.
Robert,
I think Diablo hit the nail on the head. The American people don't like their sons and daughters dying when they don't see progress. Once they saw progress with the surge, the poll numbers went up in terms of support.
As far as soft power goes, it's a bit of a misnomer. For example, Iran certainly doesn't like not having access to the American market. Our financial restrictions on them that we engendered about a year ago really started to pinch them. In many respects, soft power can sometimes be much more Machievellian, or as TR put it, speak softly and carry a big stick. The ability to emplace financial restrictions is a big stick, but it doesn't create a lot of noise otherwise. So, to answer your question, I don't think that soft power is seen as weakness, provided that you've got the option to use military power. Now, you can attempt to use soft power in ways that are soft and could project weakness.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Casualties have everything to do with it, the images of body bags and flag draped coffins are a very powerful opinion mover the MSM is obsessed with them as a measure of wining and losing unlike yourself and many others just on this board who approach the progress of a conflict in a more measured and analytical manner.
The anti war groups (for lack of a better description) have been trying to set up the cameras at Dover since the first death. And the "same people" always try to set the civilian casualties at shocking numbers.The Vietnam war was all about the "body count" as a measure of progress.
I will admit I am trying to be a little more "black and white" than I should be.
Also I apologize for taking your thread into the ditch...
No problem about the thread detour - I've been guilty of it myself plenty enough times
I still think you're overstating the power of casualties. Don't get me wrong - casualties are part of the equation, but Americans like winning.
[Motivating Patton Speech On]
[/Motivating Patton Speech Off]
If there's still a chance to win, then Americans want to win, and they are willing to tolerate casualties. After Tet, Americans clamored to send more troops to Vietnam, despite the claims that Cronkite sowed the seeds of defeat by pronouncing defeat. Check out the following thread to see that the media isn't as influential as many make it out to be. They don't lead opinion, but instead, tend to follow it.
The Press as an Agent of Defeat?
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
War is the most efficient engine of our evolution.
Mr. one-liner,
You post doesn't mean anything because you didn't write enough to explain it. Also, you should go introduce yourself in the "Members Introduction" thread.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: