HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug. 21, 2007 Looking over the last few articles I see a number of writers making comments on the present war. A lot seem to have little military knowledge basing their views on, lets say, how things go in a fire department or police department where the loss of life or equipment is an aberration and a discredit to those in charge. The military is a different kettle of fish and in order to criticize one should first have some basic education. One of the prime criticisms concerning the handling of the present war centers on the loss of life and equipment. TV is mainly to blame as before its invention civilians had little actual up close view of the battle field and of course are shocked and repelled by the sight. First we need a definition of war. Clauswitz states that it is a means used by a state to impose its will upon another by the use of violence. There is an initial violence, which causes reciprocal violence, which could reverse the aim of the aggressor thereby allowing the defender to impose its will upon him. Put more simply; the attacker expends material and manpower in order to impose his will upon the defender. In all wars equipment is lost and men are killed, the ideal as stated by Patton 'to let the other SOB die for his country'. During World War Two in a single battle it was not uncommon for a commander to lose 5,000 or more men plus a large amount of equipment.(At Leyte the Marines lost all of their Sherman tanks). Commanders allocate forces and then deploy them in a way in which they think will win a victory for the least cost. In Iraq the situation is similar to that of the nineteenth century when European powers engaged in war fare with tribes unable to stand up to them using conventional methods and so resorted to guerilla attacks, sabotage and the long term wearing away of their will to fight. The insurgency in Iraq too is based upon these methods. The US and the UK clear an area ,recruit counter forces from the locals and then arm them. While this is going on there is a good deal of subterfuge, some of the recruits turned to work for the insurgency, some forced to hand over their weapons to them. General Patreus of course knows that this as the cost of war. In a conventional battle he would lose a great deal of armored fighting vehicles including expensive main battle tanks.In this type of war the general loses equipment through theft etc. He has to, as in a conventional war, balance his credit and debit column, the armored fighting vehicle loss now small arms and militarily insignificant casualties. For the insurgency, due to the intimacy of modern communications, the resulting loss of life constantly reported in its smallest detail every night can cause a loss of will to back the effort in the civilian population. The fighting in Afghanistan has introduced a sinister new twist to the wearing away of a forces will to fight. There is a connecting factor between the insurgency and part of the US population, namely drugs. It is estimated that in Afghanistan 20 percent of the enemy troops are Taliban while the rest are composed of various criminal elements involved in the drugs trade who are fighting for their turf(last Sundays London Observer). In the west drug consumption is rampant and as we all know those on drugs think only in the short term, their main concern how to get their next fix. What do they think when they see their own troops in Afghanistan fighting their suppliers? You can hardly expect them to cheer on the boys.
Users of drugs are a part of the political
process, and, as do all special interest groups, have
pull in Congress and even the Senate. Of course this
is done in a discreet manner and at arms length but
undoubtedly it occurs. When one views the vitriolic
hatred in some of the popular media regarding the war
it becomes obvious that we must be very careful as
Afghanistan could come here, those having any kind of
a drug interest on one side, the non users on the
other.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
