Hmmm, looking back in history books, lets see, there is VIET NAM, and now there is IRAQ. Why does such a huge and powerful military have such a problem with fighting an enemy that fights in skirmishes and not battles? I think it is because our military is only good at fighting wars like WWII. Before all you jarheads get offended, think about it for a minute... You guys need to fight dirtier out there! Kick them in the balls and spit on their faces!
2007-01-12 05:17:47 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Eh, our military is soft. Everyone knows it. We are nothing like we were in WWII. What happened to that? What happened to Macaurthur and Patton, some rutheless bastards that would get the job done. Thanks for losing us another war guys!!!
2007-01-12 05:24:51 · update #1
Rules of engagement??? How the hell are you suppose to win a game of chess when the other opponent can cheat and you have to play by the rules. Answer me that?
2007-01-12 05:27:56 · update #2
Fight fire with fire guys... Only way we can win...
2007-01-12 05:28:55 · update #3
Yeah we invented the car too, and we suck at making those!!!
2007-01-12 05:29:46 · update #4
Yeah the special forces are great, why the hell cant the rest of the worthless military be like that???
2007-01-12 05:30:46 · update #5
You worthless pieces of grabastic amphibian ****! You make me want to puke! I took a bullet for this god damn country in WWII son, you better show some respect.
2007-01-12 05:35:04 · update #6
You better straighten up and start shiting me Tiffany Cuff Links before I gouge out your eyes and skull fug you!
2007-01-12 05:38:58 · update #7
We don't suck. For everyone one American death theres about 200 Iraqi deaths. Got to look at the numbers not the news.
2007-01-15 08:24:52 · answer #1 · answered by john c 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, no one really knows who invented guerilla warfare. However, Sun Tzu refers to it in the Art of War, which was written something along the lines of 2500 years ago.
And why the US military is having a hard time with an asymetric war is because of doctrine. It takes a long time to change, and now that's what causing so much trouble. The US and much of the western world for that matter is still stuck in the conventional war frame of mind, where force on force engagements are the norm.
You can't undo years of being under one doctrine with a few months of training in a new sort of fighting. That, and US soldiers tend to rely too much on the idea that they are US soldiers with the world's most advanced weapon systems and the best military technology behind them. They forget that there is one system more advanced than even the newest toys that come out of some contractor's R&D lab: the individual soldier.
2007-01-12 08:42:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Looking back, you missed the war for US independence. In that opportunity G. Washington used "guerrilla" methods to fight. And won.
I think "guerrilla" is the resource left to the weaker. The stronger can use both. Guerrilla methods, plus all kinds of weapons and technology available. But the amount of soldiers counts too. If US understands that is fighting against almost the whole population of Iraq, and at Iraq's territory, will found its week flank. Also the conviction of soldiers counts. If American soldiers doubt about what are they fighting for, you'll find another weakness,
2007-01-12 06:22:54 · answer #3 · answered by robertonereo 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are jumping to massive and childish conclusions. NO MILITARY has ever come up with a plan for taking out an insurgency. In the past such insurgencies were taking care of by political deals with the most powerful part of the insurgency. All the great powers of the past tried to beat down insurgencies and failed Armies are simply not geared to fight hit and run hidden attackers which is the average insurgent.
2007-01-12 07:02:18 · answer #4 · answered by brian L 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Our military actually started out using guerrilla warfare. Remember the revolution? This strategy is used when a group is vastly outnumbered and inferior in weapons/training. The US military is doing fairly well considering the lack of support in America. And as was said earlier, the death ratio does seem to give the military a higher "score".
2007-01-12 05:30:23 · answer #5 · answered by David T 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because guerrilla warfare requires you to completely understand the local population and be able to move amongst them. But the US military doesn't train soldiers to understand the locals, and most people in the US military know nothing about the countries they will be sent to and can't even speak the language. Soldiers are trained to be fighters not thinkers.
This problem can't be fixed, becuase if they train soldiers to think and to understand the locals, then they will soon realise that the war is wrong and stop fighting it. But if they don't train soldiers to think and understand then they can't win a guerilla war. So the US is caught between Iraq and a hard place.
2007-01-12 05:27:31 · answer #6 · answered by Carl K 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
We suck at it because our Armed Forces are structured, meaning we follow orders and have strict rules of engagement. If that was not the case Baghdad would be nothing more than a glass parking lot by now, if you catch my drift.
2007-01-12 07:31:04 · answer #7 · answered by TheMatador 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just imagine being a police officer with 90% of the citizens out to get you. Would you be issuing traffic violations? If the rules of engagement changed and you were allowed to torture, kill, and oppress the citizens you would win.
2007-01-12 05:37:22 · answer #8 · answered by breastfed43 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because we aren't allowed to fight using guerrilla tactics as defined by the Law of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement.
2007-01-12 07:40:38 · answer #9 · answered by Jeff F 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because we have a habit of training our troops for the last war we fought in, not realizing the next war will be someplace different.
Before the Vietnam war they were training guys to fight trench warfare and we weren't ready for jungle warfare, after Vietnam we started training for Jungle warfare, of course we didn't realize our next few wars were going to be mostly urban combat in desert locales. So now we start training our troops for urban and desert combat, obviously I think we must be going to war in Antarctica next, then we'll have no idea how to fight a war on a frozen tundra.
2007-01-12 05:50:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋