Conundrum
Our enemies understand the West hates to wage war with infantry. Ever since WWI, Western nations have been reluctant to wage war with massed infantry attacks that will result in more casualties than the an air war or naval blockade. The notable exception to this rule was Germany and America. After WWII, Germany was no longer on the world stage and that left America as really the only western fighting force willing to use the Army/Marines to any great effect in war. However, after Vietnam this paradigm was overthrown and the United States since 1973 has been holding back its infantry divisions and letting the US Air Force do the bulk of its fighting.
The First Gulf War in 1991 and the liberation of Kuwait was instructive in that it appeared that America had returned to the "old way of waging war" with Army and Marine Corps infantry regiments and divisions massing in Saudi Arabia during the last months of 1990. A ground war looked inevitable, however after the Alpha Signal was sounded to commence hostilities it was the US Air Force that formed the not only the spearhead but also the shaft of the spear itself against Saddam and his irrelevant Iraqi army. The Army and Marines were not allowed to be the "first responders" against the Iraqi forces for fear of "high" casaulties but were simply there to mop up what was left of the Iraqi army. The US Air Force did a magnificent job destroying the enemy from the air and casualties were kept at a very minimum in the Army and Marines and yet, due to the requirements set forth by the UN and America's ruling elite back in Washington, the Army and Marines were not allowed to follow thru and defeat Saddam on his soil back in Baghdad in 1991. The preponderance of air forces at the expense of army/marine forces had thus not gone unnoticed by our enemies.
Yes, America may respond with small operations involving a few hundred/thousand Army or Marines but usually with limited objectives involving the least amount of fighting as possible. This has resulted in defacto defensive actions that may defeat our enemies in the short run but certainly over time they are able to re-group and form up for another attack later on since we are unwilling to occupy the high ground with army/marine infantrymen as they may and will incur greater casualties. As a result, America and the West in general, have ceded the high ground to our enemies in the vain hope that our air forces will pick up the slack. This is a failed policy.
The attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11 did change the Air Force/Army dichotomy for a short time in Afghanistan and Iraq as both the Army and Marines took on the bulk of the fighting. The results were fantastic and beyond our most optimistic assessments. Both regimes collapsed under the weight of our combined ground and air forces and with "boots on the ground" we actually changed the outcome on the battlefield as the enemy was no longer able to "re-group" for a second attack since we took their battlespace away from them. These offensive operations thus have yielded greater flexibility for America to launch attacks on further targets such as Iran and Syria. The ongoing terror attacks in Iraq is largely confined to the Sunni Triangle and is being fed by both the Syrian and Iranian regimes. The only solution to this problem is occupation of Syria and Iran by American Army/Marine Divisions.
And yet, this very necessity is nearly an unthinkable proposition for our ruling elites. Americans will suffer greater casualties as ground operations are always bloodier and more expensive than the liberal use of our United States Air Force but ground operations always yield victory in war. America will support this Administration or any adminstration for that matter if they understand the necessity of waging a ground war and the losses that will in fact be felt. Half hearted measures using air assets will not be supported by Americans for very long. Air forces are essential for winning wars but cannot replace the queen of the battlefield, the infantry, for ultimately changing the outcome of any war in our favor. The use of the Air Force as the sole fighting arm against our enemies is thus a short term answer to a long term problem.
If we are to be victorious in Operation WARTS (War Against Rogue & Terror States) as envisioned by President Bush with the War-On-Terror then we must steel ourselves to the notion that the US Army and Marines will have to form the backbone of our response and that it will in fact result in greater casualties on our side. The dividends however will serve as the cement of Pax Americana in the Middle East and beyond.
The First Gulf War in 1991 and the liberation of Kuwait was instructive in that it appeared that America had returned to the "old way of waging war" with Army and Marine Corps infantry regiments and divisions massing in Saudi Arabia during the last months of 1990. A ground war looked inevitable, however after the Alpha Signal was sounded to commence hostilities it was the US Air Force that formed the not only the spearhead but also the shaft of the spear itself against Saddam and his irrelevant Iraqi army. The Army and Marines were not allowed to be the "first responders" against the Iraqi forces for fear of "high" casaulties but were simply there to mop up what was left of the Iraqi army. The US Air Force did a magnificent job destroying the enemy from the air and casualties were kept at a very minimum in the Army and Marines and yet, due to the requirements set forth by the UN and America's ruling elite back in Washington, the Army and Marines were not allowed to follow thru and defeat Saddam on his soil back in Baghdad in 1991. The preponderance of air forces at the expense of army/marine forces had thus not gone unnoticed by our enemies.
Yes, America may respond with small operations involving a few hundred/thousand Army or Marines but usually with limited objectives involving the least amount of fighting as possible. This has resulted in defacto defensive actions that may defeat our enemies in the short run but certainly over time they are able to re-group and form up for another attack later on since we are unwilling to occupy the high ground with army/marine infantrymen as they may and will incur greater casualties. As a result, America and the West in general, have ceded the high ground to our enemies in the vain hope that our air forces will pick up the slack. This is a failed policy.
The attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11 did change the Air Force/Army dichotomy for a short time in Afghanistan and Iraq as both the Army and Marines took on the bulk of the fighting. The results were fantastic and beyond our most optimistic assessments. Both regimes collapsed under the weight of our combined ground and air forces and with "boots on the ground" we actually changed the outcome on the battlefield as the enemy was no longer able to "re-group" for a second attack since we took their battlespace away from them. These offensive operations thus have yielded greater flexibility for America to launch attacks on further targets such as Iran and Syria. The ongoing terror attacks in Iraq is largely confined to the Sunni Triangle and is being fed by both the Syrian and Iranian regimes. The only solution to this problem is occupation of Syria and Iran by American Army/Marine Divisions.
And yet, this very necessity is nearly an unthinkable proposition for our ruling elites. Americans will suffer greater casualties as ground operations are always bloodier and more expensive than the liberal use of our United States Air Force but ground operations always yield victory in war. America will support this Administration or any adminstration for that matter if they understand the necessity of waging a ground war and the losses that will in fact be felt. Half hearted measures using air assets will not be supported by Americans for very long. Air forces are essential for winning wars but cannot replace the queen of the battlefield, the infantry, for ultimately changing the outcome of any war in our favor. The use of the Air Force as the sole fighting arm against our enemies is thus a short term answer to a long term problem.
If we are to be victorious in Operation WARTS (War Against Rogue & Terror States) as envisioned by President Bush with the War-On-Terror then we must steel ourselves to the notion that the US Army and Marines will have to form the backbone of our response and that it will in fact result in greater casualties on our side. The dividends however will serve as the cement of Pax Americana in the Middle East and beyond.
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 9:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home