Let's pretend that idiocy is the same thing as strategic thinking, shall we? Oh, no need--someone has already done that:
If the whole United States active-duty military, excepting strategic nuclear weapons, disappeared tomorrow in a puff of smoke, would Americans be less secure, more secure, or about the same? That the answer is not self-evident points to the biggest military secret of our time: conventional armed forces are following the knight’s road.
Um. Hello? The answer is "less secure" and the answer is indeed self-evident. That Mr. Lind doesn't find it so is commentary on his analysis and not the utility of our conventional military.
But let's enjoy the idiocy a bit, shall we?
He compares our military to jousting--all for show and useless for combat.
But against non-state opponents, those Marines are 0-4. They, along with the rest of our armed services, lost in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, a war that is decided if not yet over.
Real wars with important outcomes are now fought and won by ragtag militias, gangs, and tribes. They fight not for raison d’état but for God, honor, loot, tribal pride, women—war’s age-old, pre-state causes. They define the Fourth Generation of modern war.
Lind says he is really just speaking about ground forces. He says navies and air forces are irrelevant to "4th generation" warfare.
Ah, the dreaded 4th generation warfare. It is a laugh riot of idiocy.
Of course, Lind has to ignore navies and air forces because very recently those forces were absolutely critical to keep vaunted 4th generation warriors from being slaughtered by the most feeble of conventional armies under Khaddafi as they rolled toward Benghazi, Libya.
But on to his losses. Let's start with Afghanistan.
We've decimated al Qaeda in their Pakistan hideouts, ejected them from Afghanistan after destroying their Taliban government host, and beaten down the Taliban and drug gang resistance while building up Afghan forces to continue the fight. The fact that it is taking a long time to do so has nothing to do with so called magical 4th generation fighters and everything to do with the fact that insurgencies take time to defeat. That is age old.
As for Iraq, we lost? Really? Our military smashed Saddam's military, defeated Baathist dead enders, defeated Iranian death squads and their Shia allies, and defeated al Qaeda's attempt to defeat us in Iraq. Iraq now fights the remnants of all of these forces largely on their own. In what way did we lose? And in what way wasn't our conventional military critical in defeating all these threats? Yes, our ground forces had to adapt, but as I'll argue, any good soldier makes a good counter-insurgent.
As for Lebanon and Somalia, is Lind serious? We lost because we didn't think it was worth the price of fighting to win. Had we decided to win, our conventional militaries could have won those fights just as we've won in Iraq and are winning in Afghanistan.
In the end, analysts like Lind exist just to justify the cancellation of expensive weapons by pretending that they aren't really needed to win. I'll grant you that excellent soldiers and Marines with adequate weapons will still win wars. But how many more casualties--ours and innocent civilians caught in the crossfire--are we willing to endure to save that money?
And there is a risk of not having the margin to win if we face troops equally well trained and led.
Not that there is nothing of value in this article. He does quote something from the 1980s:
For winning in combat, people are most important, ideas come second, and hardware is only third.
This is as old as warfare, but no less true. Sadly, some make the mistake of thinking hardware isn't important at all. We've done well because we have well-trained volunteer troops, using effective tactics under good leadership--magnified by superb hardware.
Oh, and to complete the circle of idiocy, after starting with the implication we need only nuclear weapons to deter our enemies, he mocks the B-2 which started out as a stealth nuclear bomber for the Cold War era. I thought we needed that stuff?
The mockery of the B-2 for counter-insurgency is just a cheap shot. In a military designed to fight across the entire combat spectrum, any war we fight will find large portions of our military ill-suited for use against that enemy.
One more netwit spouting idiocy. Explain to me again, Mr. Lind, how sheep's bladders may be used to prevent 4th generation defeats. But remember, his theory is only a model. And a silly place. Let's not go there.
Please laugh at the idiocy. Or we'll cry if the advice is taken.
