"Don White" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger.

I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed
military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity in
the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take on
and defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller
than ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger.

What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized,
non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans
in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're
flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the
Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having
so much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas.




So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed,
non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
come immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up?

Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at
all the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and
slowly diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism.
Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best
efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties.

I agree with you that our military has been traditionally equipped and
trained for massive retaliation, designed to win as quickly as possible.
The new warfare requires new tactics, particularly commitment, patience
and tenacity. We aren't going to see major battles won.

Eisboch


We may have to ask Saddam for advice. He seemed good at keeping various
groups in line.


Yeah. He called a meeting and had anyone who disagreed with him shot.

Eisboch