One of my first posts when I started blogging was to try and explain 4th generation warfare in order for my daughter to understand it. I wrote it as a serial piece and I always meant to do a follow-up and never did. I just lost interest. Don’t bother looking for it. I have already deleted it.
Today, I read the War Nerd as is my habit. Not only do I feel like and utter and complete idiot but a pretension little putz to boot. Here’s a sample of the War Nerd on Asymmetrical Warfare:
This way doesn't require any of the building blocks of conventional war: you don't need industry, aircraft, armor or massive armies. In fact, this kind of war can be played by any group of wackos that can round up a dozen or so bushwhackers. All you need is small arms and a grudge -- and those are the only two commodities most of the world has a surplus of.In three short and sweet sentences the War Nerd gets the point across better than my unfinished serial posting. More?
It's a heartbreaker for you hardware freaks, this idea that it just doesn't matter whether our tanks are better than their tanks (or planes or artillery or whatever). But it's time you grew up, guys: haven't you kind of noticed that in most wars, the other side doesn't even use tanks, or planes, or artillery (except mortars, which are so portable they can be considered small arms)? You guys are stuck in the dream about a classic NATO/Warsaw Pact Sumo match in Central Europe, and you just don't want to think about all these brush wars. Well, time to wake up. The Warsaw Pact doesn't exist any more, so that war is never going to happen. The fact is, it never was. If the Soviets had sent the tanks into the Fulda Gap, it would have been a nukefest, not a tank battle like Kursk. Not exactly a wargamer's dream: before you can even get your corps deployed, the whole playing field would melt down.
So I'm preaching real war here.
Yep. Read the War Nerd.
4 comments:
Well, at least someone has finally figured it out; it's about time.
Actually you are probably closer to the mark than War Nerd. His description of asymmetrical warfare is accurate enough (and points 2-6 irrefutable), but his prognostication is dead wrong.
The assertion that no 21st-century war will involve traditional mass organized armies facing off is ... interesting. Given that we're only a few years into this century, it's hard to say what the shape of warfare will be for the remaining 93 years. I'm sure the future of warfare looked pretty straightforward to the folks at the Siege of Mafeking, too.
The other thing is that he misses the forest for the trees. Asymmetrical warfare is the guerre du jour because no one else can afford high-tech military hardware on a scale grand enough to defeat the West. If we were to let our technological edge lapse to the point where the asymmetry was not in our favour (like the 1930s inter-war period), then good old fashioned army vs. army battlefield carnage would be back in vogue again. And this is precisely why military planners keep buying high-tech hardware to deter same-scale aggressors.
It is not as if large force-on-force battles have gone away permanently; they have vanished because our superiority is obvious and a foregone conclusion. The hard part is doing the same for asymmetric scenarios.
Chris,
I agree that force on force battles have not completely vanished - acutally, I can envision three possible scenarios where we will be seeing fighting force-on-force in the future.
Egypt-Israel, Syria-Israel, or a US ground invasion of Iran. While Israel can probably take the initiative and hold the skies, against either Syria/Egypt, the hard work of battle will have to be fought on the ground.
And to be honest, I don't see a US offensive launched against Iran in the near future - if ever. The US appears to be inclined to let Iraq fall rather then do what is needed to be done. I was expecting to see a limited strike into Syria in the spring of 2005, and when it didn't materialize, it made me realize how short-sited the Bush Admin truly was.
Also interesting goings on in Egypt. I am not suggesting that Egypt is ready for another round in the immediate future (next 24-36 months) but I do see signs that Egypt is gearing up for another go down the road.
I don't preceive see asymmetric scenarios as problematic as many analysts, but then I am have a tendancy towards pragmatic ruthlessness. Let's call it my inner Russian coming out, and for the West, taking the kind of action necessary makes a great many squeamish. Frankly, I despair for us and I am eternally grateful that our grandfathers for fighting WW2 rather than our generation.
He's probably a fat kid who lives in the basement of the Kremlin.
Post a Comment