Spartacus
Active member
One of the books I am currently reading, How Wars are Won, discusses the need to restructure the Army to better meet the needs of todays battlegrounds. It seems to suggest that overall the Army is still structured for a large direct confrontation with an enemy who fights a regular type of war. As a civilian, and one with limited knowledge of the actuality of the situation, from what I have seen, this seems to be true. The speed and decisiveness with which we took down the regular troops supported by the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq seems to demonstrate our ability to fight a conventional war, one with established objectives and fronts.
This level of success has not been reflected by our stay-behind force. I am not saying that I think we are losing, or even that we arent doing any good, I am simply saying that perhaps there are other methods that may be more successful in dealing with an enemy who is unwilling to fight a regular war. The book discusses a method in which the Army isnt structured with such a top-heavy hierarchy, one with military brass making frontline decisions. It gives more independance to small unit commanders to make decisions regarding their AO. I believe they called it a Pod system. Basically, a couple of platoon strength units would form a pod, and these pods could assemble quickly to perform an attack, and then disperse, making themselves less of a target.
The way I understand it, each pod, or smaller groups, would have a specific area in which they would operate. They would then A) be less of a target, B)be able to better locate and identify enemy targets. They could coordinate with other pods, whether it be air support or ground troops, and quickly strike a target, then quickly redisperse and look for more targets.
I dont know if this strategy is applicable in the context of our current engagement, particularly with the amount of time needed to make such a fundamental change in the structure of the Army. I was just wondering if perhaps those with a more intimate knowledge of our tactics and strategies would see any disadvantages to our current mode of operation, and perhaps see ways to make it better.
This level of success has not been reflected by our stay-behind force. I am not saying that I think we are losing, or even that we arent doing any good, I am simply saying that perhaps there are other methods that may be more successful in dealing with an enemy who is unwilling to fight a regular war. The book discusses a method in which the Army isnt structured with such a top-heavy hierarchy, one with military brass making frontline decisions. It gives more independance to small unit commanders to make decisions regarding their AO. I believe they called it a Pod system. Basically, a couple of platoon strength units would form a pod, and these pods could assemble quickly to perform an attack, and then disperse, making themselves less of a target.
The way I understand it, each pod, or smaller groups, would have a specific area in which they would operate. They would then A) be less of a target, B)be able to better locate and identify enemy targets. They could coordinate with other pods, whether it be air support or ground troops, and quickly strike a target, then quickly redisperse and look for more targets.
I dont know if this strategy is applicable in the context of our current engagement, particularly with the amount of time needed to make such a fundamental change in the structure of the Army. I was just wondering if perhaps those with a more intimate knowledge of our tactics and strategies would see any disadvantages to our current mode of operation, and perhaps see ways to make it better.