Can technology win the war in Iraq?

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Technology was the topic, but it is not now.  Tactics and strategy win wars.  Technology can be neither a tactic nor a strategy.  Technology is a force multiplier, but as Mr. Rumsfeld now knows (I think) it is not a substitute for adequate troops.  He read too many academic military transformation articles.

The war-fighting problem since 1950 has been that the only way to win against overwhelming firepower and logistical mass is by conducting attritional warfare by asymmetrical means.  It worked in prototype in Korea.  It worked in IndoChina (twice), it worked in Algeria, and it is working again in Iraq.  It is being waged to a degree against Israel.

Generals have yet to find a solution; politicians never have a clue, so I guess the trick is to stay away from your adversaries if you can.  The US could do it if we got our heads on straight, since there is plenty of navy to protect the sea lanes...commerce is what it is always about anyway.  The Middle East has to sell oil since it has nothing else of interest.

The attainment of military goals has never been an insurmountable problem for US armed forces.  The understood asymmetrical approach is to wear out the American public's patience (which has never been a strong point here), and declare every setback a victory.  It seems to work, so I have no solution. 

Anyway, no, technology cannot win the war in Iraq.  

Excellent post.

Let's not forget that one of the reasons the U.S. is in this postiton is the role it was forced into by default at the end of WW II. The world was faced with the choice of the (mostly) free market system represented by the west, and the U.S. in particular, or the centrally controlled communist model. While many people are highly critical of U.S. policy and actions over the last half century, it's been largely due to U.S. efforts that a much more open world structure exists both culturally and economically.

The U.S. can go back to a more continental based defence structure, but this mean that other nations will have to pick up the slack when it comes to protecting free trade of commerce and ideas.

To a great degree, the US wanted to maintain its position as the only Western power.  It has been willing to pay the tab since WW II.  That is understandable I suppose, since the various power centers of 1914-45 resulted in huge problems that the US had to get involved in when it really would rather not have done so.  With only the USSR to deal with, it actually was easier, although costly.

Duke's point about other nations picking up the slack brings up the fact that the US has been the enabler in many allies not picking it up since WW II.  They didn't have to, so why pay for it?

What might be a downside here is that others picking up the slack requires military capability, and that can develop into other power centers again with possible conflicting vital interests and overlapping spheres of influence.  Back to 1907 anyone?  