Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy In my opinion, all of the usual categories mask one basic military determinant: unless one side is hopelessly outclassed in terms of technology or education, all military success or failure can be understood in terms of troop strength. |
Correct Ollie. After all, the main reason why the Soviet Union won 'The Great Patriotic War' was due to them having more fighting men than Germany. This is the bottom line, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss other factors because they do have an important impact. Germany, with the application of the correct operational doctrine, might have negated the troop strength held by the USSR. The same USSR almost cut their own throat by disregarding trustworthy intelligence from several unrelated sources.
This brings to my next observation which is obvious in the extreme but nonetheless I will voice it. That there is no large-scale military operation that is free from political considerations. "War is merely the continuation of politics, by other means", so wrote Clausewitz. Whilst he himself may not have intended that statement to be taken so literally it is accurate in any case. The problems usually occur when there is overlap of responsiblities and actions between the politicians and the generals. This can be seen most clearly by observing Hitler directly influencing military plans for purely political reasons as he did on several occasions in WW2.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy But what do you do when the enemy retreats and will not commit? How do we stop partisan or guerilla operations? How do we deal with this modern (and historical) friction? [Remember that Napoleon had to deal with guerilla tactics in Spain...the English in North America, etc.] |
It is very difficult without extreme measures, none of which would be remotely acceptable or palatable in the modern era. There are many reasons for the presence of guerillas and their reasons for resistance must be understood. Once they are understood then some action can be taken to either change conditions that are palatable to them or to make decisions to wipe them out. Gaining the acceptance of the majority of the population is a must for any occupying army and the Romans were past masters at this.
The problem for the US is complicated by that multi-headed beast called religion and by the fact that Iraq is a country drawn across political and not ethnic/religious boundaries. It is further complicated by the fact the US Coalition (read US/UK) is trying to impose democracy on a country that has never known such a notion. Is it really our place to impose our own systems on ideological and culturally different peoples? Does democracy even work as intended, given that the current US President was elected by less than 50% of his own citizens. A popular King would surely gain more of the vote.