Anatomy of the Next War

That's an interesting theory you have there. I'm not so sure tha we've actually invented a new warfighting strategy. We have, however, re-defined military policy. Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine takes full advantage of the most recent developments in long-range weapons.

The Israeli army is faced with a situation that they are trying to solve with what some call stand-off capability. You stand off at a distance and blow your enemies to little pieces. This minimized casualties on your side, and seriously demoralizes the people you are shooting your precision weapons at.

I'm sure we've got planners in the Pentagon going over every real-time second of the Israeli experience to see if those tactics can be used on North Korea or Iran. Trouble is, nothing gets fixed until you put boots on the ground. If the Israelis send troops in to south Lebanon, they risk tiggering a larger conflict. In the mean time, Hezbollah troops hide in the rubble and launch rockets as the opportunities present themselves.

The members of the G8 may think they've dodged the bullet for now by making a handful of generalized and non-committal statements, but the clock is ticking. Sooner or later, the odds will catch up to somebody. Hezbollah will score a lucky hit with a Syrian missile which caught a tail wind on a good day...or an Israeli shell will catch a headwind and drop on to a large group of non-combatants. Anything can happened at this point to send things out of control.

We are seeing more indecision right now than we knew in 1938 before the Munich conference. The agressors know that we fear the body bag. We know that the agressors don't fear any number of casualties. In the next few eeks, I think you'll see a few U.S. leaders trying to fool themselves in to thinking that this whole thing will get better bcause they said so.

unless applying my theory to the American war machine, they want something to happen. Lets face it, Bush wants inside Iran, and you can only use the same excuse to invade a country so many times. Israel strikes inside Syrian borders, Iran strikes Israel, accidental shelling kills a Syrian civilian or military personel, or what I think might even be possible is one of those nasty silkworm missles strike our chartered Greek cruise ship full of Americans.

So many possibilities that could happen all could get Bush inside Iran. Whether or not we bomb or invade, which I think we will slowly invade instead of rushing in, we are still at war. Israel is not at a standoff, they are just trying to crush opposition down by maybe 50-70% so that the region will be easier for them to deal with.

So many subtle signs seem to point to this, from Bush's "Accidental" slip with the microphone today bashing Syria, to Blairs odd stance the entire G8 summit. Notice how worried he looked? How sick he looked the entire time? He looked like a man pondering many thoughts, maybe thoughts like commiting his nation to another theater.

This may not be a new form of warfare exactly, but it is effective, and we are exploiting it. It is a mix of psychological warfare and military warfare. America is commited to battle, but live on normal lives, they get bored of seeing this on the news and ignore it. If it isnt in their home town who cares right? We threaten whoever we deam an enemy with military action, yet they know, such as Iran that they could never strike first. If they strike first then they are doomed to the wrath of America's military, and take full blame. They can just sit and wait and stall and stall and hope someone intervenes.

War with Iran could hurt our wartime economy if we have to institute our draft, or put more people in support positions. Maybe this is why Bush supports the quest worker program, so that foriegn nationals do our war time economy for us at the lowest levels so that we can take away that "expendable population" those 18-30yr old males. But then again it is late and you can probably tie anything into this issue as it is broad.

I can see one very important flaw in your theory. the REpublicans have already bitten off more than they can shew. They know they're in for a beating this November. The only question is just how bad it will be. Unless something exceptional happens, the strategy you suggest will end up being political suicide.

Here's why. Over the course of this week, you're going to see what Bush's opponents will call indecision. Next weekend, they'll put somebody on "Meet the Press" to say that Bush's foriegn policy is sczychophrenic. That may very well not be true, but that's what it will look like.

Over the next month, you're going to see a massive push by the pro-Israel lobby here in the States. They're going to demand that troops be sent to help Israel. When the administraton doesn't do this, you'll see the Democrat spin doctors easily turn it to their advantage. Again, not what what is, but what it looks like.

There will not be enough time to get a U.N. peacekeeper force in to Lebanon before the November elections. There won't event be enough time to debate the issue in the General Assembly before we go to the polls. Even if they wanted to fast track this thing, they can't get it on the calendar before September. It'll take that long to get the resolution language on the Security Council's docket.

If this president had some political capitol, he might be able to justify unilateral action just to get something done, but he's tapped. As a political scientist and historian, I say that we are fated to wait until the other guys throw the first punch that means anything. As it happened with Japan in 1941, there shall not be more war until the sleeping giant is awakened.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
As it happened with Japan in 1941, there shall not be more war until the sleeping giant is awakened.

There is no sleeping giant. The giant has been wide awake since December 7, 1941 and has never gone back to sleep.

EDIT: Let me also add something to what Vagabond was saying, about the non-existence of the war economy in the traditional sense and total war in the post-modern area.

Globalization and deindustrialization have created a world where industrial warfare and total war are not possible. The strategic ties made during the Cold War have been almost welded due to the cultural/political hegemony of the U.S. and the First World which rose rapidly after the end of the Cold War. While their arguments are not completely correct, both Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington were quite correct in that both predicted a new world where conflicts were a matter of "who had it" and 'who didn't," who was benefiting from globalization and the world economy and who wasn't. As far as economics and politics go, the full range of it has become far less diverse. Globalization is a capitalistic and liberal (economic and politically) phenomenon.

Given that, economics have also taken on a very new meaning and the ways of making money have changed from actual physical things to things that really exist only in your mind. This is the natural progression of economics, caused by deindustrialization. As resources come short and the labor movement becomes stronger, the First World has had to resort to transfering manufacturing and heavy industry overseas to much weaker countries just in order to sustain the costs. As time goes by, the industrialization will become a thing of the past and most of the Third World will never experience it.

My point in all this is that the cultural/political hegemony and globalization/cosmopolitanism of the First World has created a situation where warfare between industrialized countries is impossible. Even formerly bitter enemies have become far too close for comfort that going to war is going to have equal and opposite reactions that are unacceptable at any stage of history.

Finally, the "new" economy and rapid deindustrialization of the First World means that the great world powers no longer have the economic capacity to engage in war of such a large scale, high level, and of high intensity. Deindustrialization obviously makes industrial warfare non-existent and the lack of resources then requires modern military forces to be much lighter and less manpower and resource-intensive. High-level, high-intensity industrial-age strategies and tactics such as armored/mechanized warfare, blitzkrieg, maneuver warfare, Shock-and-Awe are all highly resource-intensive, not to mention the obvious peacetime costs of maintaining a large, powerful, state-of-the-art modern military. Countries no longer have the strategic resources for that extreme level of warfare. And as Vagabond pointed out, as a result of the changing nature of economy, the days when a sewing machine factory would be producing small arms are long gone.

Wars may have been fought for economic reasons, but now the costs outweigh the prize for victory. A Wikipedia article made the true point that the campaign to destroy Native Americans may have taken years, but the amount of resources it takes in that timespan would have equaled or been less than the amount of resources used in a single month in the American Civil War.

I've always believed war was at most a continuation of economics, but in this day and in the future, Clausewitz is and will be correct. War is a continuation of politics. Culture and politics may have once been justification for war, but it is now the war itself. Victory is now in our minds.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]

I think we will see the various regional wars getting much bigger than they are at this time. To that end, we will need to have a higher degree of mobilization. Current losses to both men and material are small by comparison to what they could be under harsher circumstances.

for example, a quick look at the U.S. military industrial scene shows that many companies are the sole-source providers of certain things. HUMVEE's, Strykers, Apache helicopters, and the Abrams main battle tank are just a few examples. Under the...wrong...conditions, we chould see an even higher demand for these things than there is already. Bear in mind that many of these assets are seriously backlogged in repair yards at this time.

Eventually, when the need for troops on the ground becomes undeniable, we will see a call for greater recruitment. All of this will mean a quantum jump in the need for logistical support. In practical terms, this will mean a doubling of current capablity at a minimum.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I think we will see the various regional wars getting much bigger than they are at this time. To that end, we will need to have a higher degree of mobilization. Current losses to both men and material are small by comparison to what they could be under harsher circumstances.

Again, I am in agreement, but its still a mystery what that mobilization would entail. My vision is a mobilization that involves combat divisions in their entirety, not the brigade format used currently.

for example, a quick look at the U.S. military industrial scene shows that many companies are the sole-source providers of certain things. HUMVEE's, Strykers, Apache helicopters, and the Abrams main battle tank are just a few examples. Under the...wrong...conditions, we chould see an even higher demand for these things than there is already. Bear in mind that many of these assets are seriously backlogged in repair yards at this time.

Which is what I alluded to in my last post. We are at a point in socioeconomic evolution where we cannot meet an insanely high demand of the above items. As you say, a lot of them are backlogged in repair, which gives you the impressions they won't even be availiable for future wars. We also have to remember that low-to-medium level wars have driven things like precision-guided munitions to dangerously low levels.

None of that sounds promising.

Eventually, when the need for troops on the ground becomes undeniable, we will see a call for greater recruitment. All of this will mean a quantum jump in the need for logistical support. In practical terms, this will mean a doubling of current capablity at a minimum.

But with conscription out of the question, what else could be done? Require mandatory service for citizenship, like in Starship Troopers? That sounds better than a draft.

I said it once, I'll say it again. Afghanistan and Iraq was just the beginning. Once our influence in the Middle East starts dwindling, we will have to handle multiple contingencies in other places like the Horn of Africa and East Asia. Afghanistan and Iraq are games compared to future regional conflicts.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]

There can't be any doubt that what we are seeing now is only the start of something much larger and much uglier.

American history demonstrates that we used whatever military capability we have down to the nub, then we wait for things to fit the fan. Then, we get more "stuff."

It's difficult to pin down, but I think that if "the government" put out a call for volunteer enlistment, we might see at least a million men and women join up. You've got to accept the fact that any circumtance dire enough to warrant this call to arms would be berry bad, indeed.

Consider this. After the events of 9/11, if President Bush had gone to the nearest t.v. camera and asked for volunteer enlistments...he would've gotten them. I don't know what bad thing is coming, but I do know that a lot of people will feel enclined to serve in the aftermath of it. Who knows? I might be one of them.

Vagabond, your analysis is very impressive and insightful. Perhaps they should hire YOU as a defense planner! Certianly youd do a far better job than the bozos currently there.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
It's difficult to pin down, but I think that if "the government" put out a call for volunteer enlistment, we might see at least a million men and women join up. You've got to accept the fact that any circumtance dire enough to warrant this call to arms would be berry bad, indeed.

Consider this. After the events of 9/11, if President Bush had gone to the nearest t.v. camera and asked for volunteer enlistments...he would've gotten them. I don't know what bad thing is coming, but I do know that a lot of people will feel enclined to serve in the aftermath of it. Who knows? I might be one of them.

The thing is, are we in any situation where things could get that bad? One thing to consider is that the threat of nuclear war is quite low these days, so the necessity of a call for volunteer enlistment means that the dire circumstance must be a survivable one. However, if we entered a major regional conflict due to cultural, political, and petroleum issues, would anybody really agree to that? If the threat to the United States was not imminent, then that'd be a tough one to sell.

I think the "service guarantees citizenship" concept is one to be considered. Sure, we all pay our taxes, but we do gripe about them.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
It's difficult to pin down, but I think that if "the government" put out a call for volunteer enlistment, we might see at least a million men and women join up. You've got to accept the fact that any circumtance dire enough to warrant this call to arms would be berry bad, indeed.

Consider this. After the events of 9/11, if President Bush had gone to the nearest t.v. camera and asked for volunteer enlistments...he would've gotten them. I don't know what bad thing is coming, but I do know that a lot of people will feel enclined to serve in the aftermath of it. Who knows? I might be one of them.

The thing is, are we in any situation where things could get that bad? One thing to consider is that the threat of nuclear war is quite low these days, so the necessity of a call for volunteer enlistment means that the dire circumstance must be a survivable one. However, if we entered a major regional conflict due to cultural, political, and petroleum issues, would anybody really agree to that? If the threat to the United States was not imminent, then that'd be a tough one to sell.

I think the "service guarantees citizenship" concept is one to be considered. Sure, we all pay our taxes, but we do gripe about them.

Any attack on Americans seems to insite patriotic pride in Americans to enlist. Lets assume one of our cruise ships evacuating civilians away from Lebanon is sunk or hit by a missle from Hezbollah.. would that be enough to anger us into a war mob attitude? Also if we end up at war with Iran and Syria, I think the Republicans will win the house, I will never vote for a Democrat during war even if I do not like the republican. It would also prove Bush right in a way.. Iran being the bad guy and all, even if we blow it out of proportion the media can persuade people of anything.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Any attack on Americans seems to insite patriotic pride in Americans to enlist. Lets assume one of our cruise ships evacuating civilians away from Lebanon is sunk or hit by a missle from Hezbollah.. would that be enough to anger us into a war mob attitude? Also if we end up at war with Iran and Syria, I think the Republicans will win the house, I will never vote for a Democrat during war even if I do not like the republican. It would also prove Bush right in a way.. Iran being the bad guy and all, even if we blow it out of proportion the media can persuade people of anything.

Certainly possible. Now I'm motivated to watch Starship Troopers again! I've always thought it presented a very interesting concept.

I also believe the Republicans would win the house if war broke out. We also have to consider the Silent Majority, which, IMO, either supports the war or doesn't care enough about it but will be swayed by the patriotic fervor and spread of fear throughout society.

From a purely political standpoint, it wouldn't be that hard for America to be drawn in to what's going on right now. Certain events can occurr regardless of party. Remember that the U.S. is a melting pot. Any number of things can happen that would almost certain force our involvement.

Let's have some fun and pretend:

07/26/06: Israeli forces cross in to Lebanon. Initially, it's a commando team working on a hot lead that might achievethe rescue of two Israeli soldiers who have been held hostage for more nearly three weeks. The commandos walk in to a trap. Out-flanked and out-gunned, they call for artillery and air strikes. As the action heats up...the radio calls get more desperate.

The chain of command decides that the commandos are close enough to the border to risk a hasty armored attack to get them out. One thing leads to another, and during the long hot night of fighting, the react force is sucked in to a situation that requires still more reinforcements. When the sun comes up, they find themselves rescuing the commandos, and...they find thmselves in posession of the enemies forward positions.

The leadership in Tel Aviv makes the decision to push on. Under cover of mobile artillery and airstrikes, the IDF takes posession of southern Lebanon after 72 hours of fast and furious activity. At some point, the missing soldiers are found and sent home, making the Israeli feel justified in their actions. Sounds good? Wait. There's more.

In the first 48 hours of the Israeli advance, the Lebanese leadership goes to the nearest t.v. camera to ask for help from the Arab world. Syrian forces answer the call, asking for U.N. observers to monitor their insertion. World opinon deadlocks over the Syrian "gesture." The U.S. President opposes this intervention as Syrian troops arrive by helicopter to back up Lebanese Army units that now block Israeli progress. Hezbollah militias reform along the new battle lines.

Despite every call for a cease-fire, the two sides clash in battle. Missile barrages from inside Syria target Israeli infrastructure with deadly results. Syrian combat engineers begin to ford rivers, and the bulk of that country's army begins to move in to Lebanon. Israeli forces hold their own, and make limited advances against stiffening resistence. Their ability to attack at night is their best edge.

In the United States, pro-Israeli voices call out for intervention. Pro-Lebanese voices also plead the case for their own country. Europe dithers as the American President orders two carrier battlegroups to the Med. U.S. and Israeli intelligence analysts secretly determine that Israeli warfighting stocks are dwindling. Five weeks in to the bitter fighting, a series of logistical failures and Syrian successes make it clear that the IDF will need reinforcements if they intend to win. Food, fuel, and some military supplies from Iran are making a slow difference in the equation. Without the introduction of friendly forces, the IDF will eventually have to fall back and hope for victory by attrition.

At which point nuclear release becomes a very legitimate possibility for Israel. To prevent that, the U.S. most certainly launches airstrikes from the carriers and Incirlik against Syria and depending on how those go, a joint U.S.-Israel invasion of both Lebanon and Syria may occur. This U.S. has a leg-up now that our troops can just cross the Iraq-Syria border.

There ya go. Just one example of how U.S. forces could be drawn in to a conflict that could require domestic mobilization that wuld go beyond anything we've seen so far. I suspect that any American President might have to promise troops to Israel to keep them from going nuclear.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
There ya go. Just one example of how U.S. forces could be drawn in to a conflict that could require domestic mobilization that wuld go beyond anything we've seen so far. I suspect that any American President might have to promise troops to Israel to keep them from going nuclear.

Especially since National Guard and Reserve units are largely unsuited for front-line combat, we're gonna need lots of active duty troops availiable.

I'm not sure what you think of this, but I see this as a catalyst for social upheaval. I think we could have a future where military is mandatory justto handle the endless contingencies.

Israeli Forces In Lebanon

Hm. This is how my fictional scenario starts. Then again, this isn't a situation that is too hard to predict. There are only so many outcomes.

As for mandatory service, I think it'll take something extra-special bad to make that one happen.

It's worth noting that some major media nets are reporting that atleast one of the IDF units that tried to ambush a Hezbollah force...got whacked. I think I wll NOT finish my prediction...just to be safe. Ha.

Justin, just for you, I am going to keep this thread moving!!!

How do you think media coverage of wars will change in the future?

It's kinda funny you should ask me that. I spoke to a small group tonight, and somebody asked me that same question because of something I'd written in my book.

In a nutshell, I don't think we're going to see too many big-name journalists reporting from locations that are very close to the fighting. We are likely to see no-name journalists working for msller outlets getting as close as they dare to "scoop" the competition.

As I pointed out in my book, the modern journalist gets paid a lot of money when they reach a certain level. This means they've got a lot to lose. that's why you won't see the big names getting too close to the action as things heat up Lebanon. How-ever, you may have already noticed that there are a lot of nobody's from from small Arab t.v. stations and cable channels who are crazy enough to stick close to the fighting.

Once upon a time, post WW2 t.v.journalists made their bones by playing the role of a combat camera man. In his day, Dan Rather at least wanted you to think that he was very close to some of the fighting. As mobile camera technology got smaller and less expensive, it became easier to get the story while staying away from it.

In the long run, we will se a new breed of video journalist who will get close to the fighting. The networkds will want it, and they will pay for it. It'll be a young person's game...but...you're gonna see some smokin' hot combat video.
I've already written my sequel, and I can tell you that video journalism does play a much larger role in the point i want to make.

There is one more thing to be taken in to account here. The Israelis aren't going to let video journalists see anything and everything. They will restrict access to the battlefield. American reporters don't like that sort of thing, and we can all remember how they complained in the first Gulf War, and Panama. It's worth notingthat the only video journalists that are actualy doing anything in Iraq today are new guys and gals trying to make their mark. The high-paid talent is nowhere to be seen.

Does it matter? Yes. Civilian media are the true eyes and ears of the general public in a war zone. It's hard to know what government should not allow them to see, and what's good for them to show the rest of us.

G'day all,

May I take this opportunity to thank all the contributors so far to a thoroughly intriguing and intellectual debate on this topic, frankly, I'd love to see some sort of debate such as this telecast on national television during prime time, would make for some riveting viewing.

Anyway, as previously mentioned by I think it was Justin, of how easily the USA could be dragged into a Middle Eastern war, particular to remove the risk of Israel falling back on their nukes, with the reslut of this engagement probably requiring the introduction of National Service for all males in the states, I think that one thing should be taken into account in this equation.....

There is a large section of the public that have seen and heard the amount of body bags returning from Iraq and they will not be up for a larger casualty rate in an escalated Mid-East war. That said, it could cause social upheavel in the US with many military age males refusing to go to the mid-east to fight and the possibility of riots starting in some cities and national guard being called in to quell demonstrations. I think it would make the Vietnam War resistance pale in comparison.

Another minor point, and I'm wondering what your educated opinions might be on the following - with the US tied up in an escalated and protracted confrontaion in the Mid-East, don't you think that other nations may exact their revenge on the US or threaten to with them being so stretched out? Such as North Korea firing a few missiles atv Japan and possibly some US bases in the area, China taking advantage and invading Taiwan, Leftist South American nations banding together and threatening the US in, I dont know, some way i guess, maybe Venezuelan oil supplies or massing troops in Cuba or something.

I just think that as you have said before, this WAR stuff is a business, yes it makes alot of money and has been planned out for the next 10years Im sure, but it could all turn to crap and backfire just because of the small "X-Factor", where "X" is the unknowned entity.

Just an example, how do we know that Europe will not enter on the side of the Palestinians in the future some time?

How do we know that China will not get invovled to secure their oil supplies?

How do we know that Pakistan hasn't already armed Iran with nukes unless Russia has already done so and is sitting back waiting for the Mid-East to turn into "Goulash" and then walk in at the end to mop up?

Anyway, thats enough from me, Ive rambled on enough. My 5cents worth, I aint no intellectual on the subject just a keen political observer.

Thankyou.....

P.S. Whats to say that when all turns to crap, that the US will get their secret laser weapons out to obliterate the enemy and their rumoured "alien tecnological weapons" that they've developed from recovered alien craft? I know they are only rumours for now but people have seen some of these beam weapons in testing.

Justin, do you see anything revolutionary in terms of media coverage of war? For example, the advent of the blog has augmented the traditional news coverage. We no longer have to wait for Anderson Cooper to do his report, all we have to do is ask somebody who is in the thick of it all.

And is your book availiable on Amazon.com? It sounds worth-reading.