Why military might does not always win

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/233617

A new study suggests that involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan might be doomed from the outset

Jul 08, 2007 04:30 AM
Andrew Chung
Staff Reporter

Does this sound familiar? "A war with no visible payoff against an opponent who poses no direct threat will come under increasing criticism as battle casualties rise and economic costs escalate .... "

It was written more than 30 years ago, after the end of the ill-fated Vietnam War, in one of the first analyses of battles between states and insurgents or guerrillas who are weak in military might but pumped up on resolve. Experts call them asymmetrical wars. snip

In other words, brute force works until you need the support of the people or the enemy to toe the line, she explains. "You can use brute force to kill terrorists or insurgents, but at some time you need acquiescence and compliance from the population, or every time you kill an insurgent or terrorist, he will be replaced."

The study's war model claims to be accurate in 80 per cent of the conflicts. Ominously, and despite some gains in Anbar province, the current U.S. mission in Iraq has a probability of success of just 20 per cent. (Vietnam, by comparison, had a 22 per cent chance of success.)

There are obvious similarities between Iraq and Afghanistan – an enduring insurgency, an unstable "democratic" government.

[thegreatcause2]

1. the art of war says

the best way to win a war is to never fight one.

[Edweird]

2. Other than a small group of special operators, our military is not equiped or trained

"to win the hearts and minds". They are, however, perfectly suited to breaking shit and killing people. And when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. You can not force people to love and respect you at the barrel of a gun, no matter how hard or long you try.