Thursday, July 27, 2006
Reaching the limits (A reply)
Richard North (whom I have a great deal of respect for) has written a post here that I have to take issue with. He identifies some issues and concludes if I may paraphrase that the idea of trans-national bodies (trnazies) such as the EU, UN and WTO may be approaching obsolescence. I’d have no objection to their being obsolete, and would argue they probably are anyway. Richard North seems to be equating the obsolescence of these organisations with Western military might. I don’t think there is any correlation, yes if the tranzi wants to achieve something it has to rely on Western military might, but unfortunately the obsolescence or not of a tranzi (unlike in the real world) has no correlation (in my view) to its achievements.
I also take issue with his arguments with respect to the decline of Western military might.
He says: “We appear to have reached the limits of technology, tactics and firepower which have underwritten the might and the standing of the Western powers.”
I think he is making a mistake here, whilst the three things he cites are important factors militarily, the one factor that has and will always be, the overriding one is the infantry. In particular numbers of men on the ground, yes you can (and have to) back them up with technology, tactics and firepower, and the better these are the easier the job will be, but if you lack numbers to put in the field, you will always have a problem even against a low technology enemy. The Romans understood the nature of warfare and although they had forts, war machines, cavalry etc and although they suffered various defeats, their most successful tactic was to get the troops into the field, and after the preliminaries (spear throwing etc) get up close to the enemy, get the short sword (the gladius) out and start hacking away. Brutal, nasty and horrible; the weapons have changed since then, but the principles are the same, if you want military might, you need well trained, well equipped infantry and you need to be able to put them in the field, which of course entails the necessary support. What we have reached the limits of is our over-reliance on peripheral things, we need to change our military thinking, to relying upon the men, the soldiers, and to providing the technology, tactics and firepower in support to those we rely on, instead of the other way round, as it appears to be.
Richard North continues: “The greatest military force on earth has so far been unable to prevail in Iraq,…” he has something of a point, although I wouldn’t have put it this way myself. Why have they failed to prevail? Well OK the enemy isn’t exactly coming out into the field, it’s hiding amongst civilians, driving about at night shooting people etc. Why can it do that? Because you haven’t got enough soldiers on the ground, manning checkpoints, out patrolling, providing basic security for the people of Iraq, an aircraft that costs millions can’t replace men on the ground in a situation like this. Does anyone for one moment think that when the allies during the Second World War, after they’d occupied towns and cities they left them all to their own devices? Of course not! They’d have maintained a strong enough presence to provide security.
Richard North continues “… and now probably the most capable (referring to Israel my brackets) is on the brink of being humiliated – both by low-tech weapons in the hands of ruthless and obsessive terrorists.” Well maybe or maybe not, but they have perhaps taken on more than they expected, and why? Because Hezbollah has men on the ground, in this case it would seem in small reasonably strong positions. Now I think Israel can defeat them, but if those men are prepared to fight, then it wont be easy, but if Israel isn’t prepared to put men on the ground and go in there and fight then they’ll lose a lot of face in the Arab world and things wont get any easier for them in the future.
I think we’ve allowed our reliance on technology to shield us from the realities of war and whilst I back Richard North to the hilt when he calls for better equipment for our forces, I do think our thinking is geared towards all this wiz-bang technology whilst we forget the basic truth that any military might has always been underwritten not by technology and other peripheral matters, but by numbers of trained men, supported with their equipment, that you can put on the ground.
UPDATE, Richard North has posted an update to his article, in response to an email from a reader (not me). The update is here. It looks at things from a Navy perspective, but does take on I feel my point about numbers on the ground (or sea in this case)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
I also take issue with his arguments with respect to the decline of Western military might.
He says: “We appear to have reached the limits of technology, tactics and firepower which have underwritten the might and the standing of the Western powers.”
I think he is making a mistake here, whilst the three things he cites are important factors militarily, the one factor that has and will always be, the overriding one is the infantry. In particular numbers of men on the ground, yes you can (and have to) back them up with technology, tactics and firepower, and the better these are the easier the job will be, but if you lack numbers to put in the field, you will always have a problem even against a low technology enemy. The Romans understood the nature of warfare and although they had forts, war machines, cavalry etc and although they suffered various defeats, their most successful tactic was to get the troops into the field, and after the preliminaries (spear throwing etc) get up close to the enemy, get the short sword (the gladius) out and start hacking away. Brutal, nasty and horrible; the weapons have changed since then, but the principles are the same, if you want military might, you need well trained, well equipped infantry and you need to be able to put them in the field, which of course entails the necessary support. What we have reached the limits of is our over-reliance on peripheral things, we need to change our military thinking, to relying upon the men, the soldiers, and to providing the technology, tactics and firepower in support to those we rely on, instead of the other way round, as it appears to be.
Richard North continues: “The greatest military force on earth has so far been unable to prevail in Iraq,…” he has something of a point, although I wouldn’t have put it this way myself. Why have they failed to prevail? Well OK the enemy isn’t exactly coming out into the field, it’s hiding amongst civilians, driving about at night shooting people etc. Why can it do that? Because you haven’t got enough soldiers on the ground, manning checkpoints, out patrolling, providing basic security for the people of Iraq, an aircraft that costs millions can’t replace men on the ground in a situation like this. Does anyone for one moment think that when the allies during the Second World War, after they’d occupied towns and cities they left them all to their own devices? Of course not! They’d have maintained a strong enough presence to provide security.
Richard North continues “… and now probably the most capable (referring to Israel my brackets) is on the brink of being humiliated – both by low-tech weapons in the hands of ruthless and obsessive terrorists.” Well maybe or maybe not, but they have perhaps taken on more than they expected, and why? Because Hezbollah has men on the ground, in this case it would seem in small reasonably strong positions. Now I think Israel can defeat them, but if those men are prepared to fight, then it wont be easy, but if Israel isn’t prepared to put men on the ground and go in there and fight then they’ll lose a lot of face in the Arab world and things wont get any easier for them in the future.
I think we’ve allowed our reliance on technology to shield us from the realities of war and whilst I back Richard North to the hilt when he calls for better equipment for our forces, I do think our thinking is geared towards all this wiz-bang technology whilst we forget the basic truth that any military might has always been underwritten not by technology and other peripheral matters, but by numbers of trained men, supported with their equipment, that you can put on the ground.
UPDATE, Richard North has posted an update to his article, in response to an email from a reader (not me). The update is here. It looks at things from a Navy perspective, but does take on I feel my point about numbers on the ground (or sea in this case)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
