Options
Clausewitz and World War IV
NCfan
Posts: 945
Retired Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales has a fascinating piece in Armed Forces Journal about the future of warfare.
This piece is long and deep, but it offers a great explanation of why our military isn't succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also reinforces why we should never condone torturing. It has truly changed my mind about our foreign policy.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/07/1866019
Here is a small teaser...
THE EVOLUTION OF WARFARE
THE CHEMISTS' WAR
The decisive strategic advantage on the World War I battlefield was driven by new applications of chemistry and chemical engineering. Germany, for example, exhausted its supplies of gunpowder nitrates in 1915, but the synthesis of nitrates by German scientists allowed the war to continue for another three years.
THE PHYSICISTS' WAR
The atomic bomb ended World War II, but exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum in the form of wireless communications and radar won it for the allies.
THE INFORMATION RESEARCHERS' WAR
In World War III, intelligence and the ability to fully exploit it allowed the U.S. to defeat the Soviet Union. Information-age concepts of transformation and net-centrism mark the end of this epoch.
THE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS' WAR
To win World War IV, the military must be culturally knowledgeable enough to thrive in an alien environment. Victory will be defined more in terms of capturing the psycho-cultural rather than the geographical high ground. Understanding and empathy will be important weapons of war.
This piece is long and deep, but it offers a great explanation of why our military isn't succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also reinforces why we should never condone torturing. It has truly changed my mind about our foreign policy.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/07/1866019
Here is a small teaser...
THE EVOLUTION OF WARFARE
THE CHEMISTS' WAR
The decisive strategic advantage on the World War I battlefield was driven by new applications of chemistry and chemical engineering. Germany, for example, exhausted its supplies of gunpowder nitrates in 1915, but the synthesis of nitrates by German scientists allowed the war to continue for another three years.
THE PHYSICISTS' WAR
The atomic bomb ended World War II, but exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum in the form of wireless communications and radar won it for the allies.
THE INFORMATION RESEARCHERS' WAR
In World War III, intelligence and the ability to fully exploit it allowed the U.S. to defeat the Soviet Union. Information-age concepts of transformation and net-centrism mark the end of this epoch.
THE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS' WAR
To win World War IV, the military must be culturally knowledgeable enough to thrive in an alien environment. Victory will be defined more in terms of capturing the psycho-cultural rather than the geographical high ground. Understanding and empathy will be important weapons of war.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Its funny that in all these "reports" on the future of warfare, there aint much talk of peace.
America really does expect to be at war permanently. Sad, really.
Understanding and empathy will be important weapons of war.
This guy is insane. Not you, NCfan, though you do have your moments (can't beat terrorists because Europe has lost God being one of them).
Am I the only one who finds the above quote ironic, contradictory, and totally lacking in reality.
If you have understanding and empathy, you don't fucking wage war!!
You're entitled to your opinion, but please don't think that I believe in any way, shape or form that we cannot beat terrorism because Europe has lost God.
I don't think a belief in God or Christianity is essential to anything. My only point is that Europe's ideals are keeping them from joining the fight against terrorist, and a lack of religious belief is one indicator that Europeans gravitate more towards a free and liberal lifestyle. That means they are more accepting of other's morals and ways of life.
As far as the article, it would help if you don't just dismiss somebody right off because they see the need for a military. Yes, this retired general along with tens of millions of others around the world believe that we are engaged in a long struggle against a facist movement by religous zealots to steer the course for the future of our civilization.
I don't readily dismiss you because you don't believe in killing...
I actually think it is a great thing, and I wish the US would become more liberal....
But there becomes a point where your liberalism is a liability. When Islamic zealots seek to create a region of the world, and island, that subjigates it's inhabitants and oppresses free thought - then you don't need to be so excepting of that.
You need to check the growth of such movements, so they do not spread. It is obvious from the laws of Europe that they themselves do not believe in the strict lifestyle imposed by radical clerics.
You know what I believe is that there is a huge misconception out there that Muslim extremism is the majority of Islam followers...I just need to listen to the news to come to that conclusion...however a more objective person will find that the majority of Muslims are against the nuts...like I said a million times those Muslims in Egypt and ALgeria dealt directly with Al Queda first hand and they were the targets. They rallied against them without western influence...
There will always be radicals, we can never end that but we need to stop taking the fight to a country where the dominant thought is not extremism, through military means we create an environment (like Iraq or Lebanon) where the leaders of the extremists can prove that they were right and the West is the devil. They utilize our actions for their benefit and our governments not acknowledging that is the problem. We worry about looking weak hell we are playing right into the recruiters hands. By not bringing the war to them we do not create an atmosphere where the extremists can say I told you so.
The problem with Israel and America is they want all the extremists to be removed, ideally I agree 100% but that can never be accomplished through invasion of a country where the majority do not believe in the extermists to begin with. But when the real innocents start dying they actually start to believe the extremists are right, and that is what we need to stop. First thing is to get out and and play a significant role, without troops, in the re-building of these nations. Like I say we need to win over the common man through good will and faith...work hand-in-hand and then they will take care of the extremists. There will always exist acts of terrorism its a given but we can greatly reduce the chances of that by winning over the people in those countries.
The biggest weakness of the west is the inability to understand that waging war will not win over the common man. This is not Nazi Germany where a COUNTRY was blantly invading other nations...of course warfare was necessary to stop them. Extremism lies as a GROUP, that is in the shadows of society, to route them out you must take the war to them where the innocent are the ones getting hurt. Win over society and they will root out the shadows, cause if we allowed them to taste real freedom they will not support these nuts, but the more we accidently hurt and kill them we play right into the extremist's hands.
And the guy who has done nothing, in the now, Ahmejinanbad, is threatened with invasion and destruction?
Creepy, fucked up times we live in !!
Definitely. To think there may be others like you out there...