How does the US military fight enemies they do not know?

Question

I am asking this because I think people forget that we are fighting a certain kind of enemy. These people are not in uniform they do not distinguish themselves from regular civilians and they hide pretty much everywhere. Our military still does a great job and I will still take 5 US soliders over 100 guerrilla fighters to win a fight anyday, but how do you crush and defeat an organization with no real leader organization and structure.

If you look at the Iraq war we steamrolled the Iraqi defense forces but when it came to securing the country it has proven much more difficult. Really I mean to ask how do you train soliders for this type of fighting.

Answer 1

The majority of the US military is trained for conventional warfare. But unconventional warfare requires a totally different mindset; the doctrines that are abscribed to by the services, military leadership, and civilian leadership are simply ineffective when dealing with unconventional enemies.

The answer to non-state opponents (the ones we're facing in Iraq and Afghanistan) is to win over the populace by using a policing mindset. Sounds simple, but very difficult to execute. And we must also first know ourselves and our enemies if we want to succeed in doing it.

The truth is, 5 US soldiers beat 100 enemy guerillas only because the US military has artillery, air support, and armor support. Of course, US soldiers are typically well motivated, trained, and equipped, but most credit is given to the immense firepower the US can bear upon the enemy. But when in terms of light infantry warfare (meaning, no artillery, no armor or air support), 5 US soldiers will be likely defeated by 100 enemy guerillas. When it comes to man-to-man fighting, US troops will find themselves consistently outgunned by the enemy's AKs and RPGs. US troops also have limited tactical repertiore; generally, US tactics can be described as "run into the the enemy and then bomb them to the Stone Age." Because the enemy loves to use booby traps and ambushes, the US is always reactionary, not proactive.

Basically, must first understand that while our military may be able to face conventional enemies, we cannot overestimate our strength. The enemy intentionally doesn't play by the rules; that is assymetric warfare. Hence, they will attempt to use our strengths to become weaknesses. Again, alluding to US superior firepower, the enemy hides in urban areas eager for the US to drop bombs or fire artillery and create collateral damage so that they create a "moral bomb;" they seek to use public opinion stemming from the media, a sense of David vs. Goliath, and attacking our values on not targetting civilians as a psychological and moral attack on us. Our firepower actually becomes a liability; one that can create more enemies than friends. We may win on the physical and tactical level of war we lose on the psychological, moral, operational, and strategic levels of war (moral and strategic levels of war being the most important).

So what is needed for the US to win is this: We must understand that this is not a purely military problem. Political, social, and economic strategies must be used to help win the hearts and minds of the people. And if they don't love us, at least they respect us. But I won't get too much in that because those arn't my fortes.

Politically (and you can tie in socially too), the government of Iraq will need to have support from its citizens. They don't, because Iraqis are bound by traditional tribal systems. Their loyalties are not to the government but to their clans, tribes, families, and religion. The government also suffers from mass corruption and does not provide the people with the security or services (electricity, water, etc) that are needed.

Economically, the people of Iraq will need some sort of sustinance; the unemployment rate is so high, and the country is experiencing a rapid brain drain. Without money, Iraqis cannot meet their natural needs like food, water, shelter, etc. America's enemies can take advantage of this by offering cash to poor Iraqis so they would carry out attacks against US and allied forces. Or plant IEDs.

Our military will have to develop specialized light infantry forces (like more Rangers or Special Forces) with a full tactical repertiore and portable weapons that offer more punch than a 5.56 mm and 40mm grenade. The doctrine must be that of true maneuver warfare; meaning that it is reconnaissance driven, utilizing speed, surprise, and deception, and basically out-guerilla the guerilla (masters of ambush and encirclement). Net-centric warfare, revolution in military affairs, etc are bogus doctrines quite simply because we cannot have full information at all times (and our information technology can be decieved or disrupted somehow) and technology cannot replace boots on the ground (and must be operated by someone, right?). The best way of looking at our current situation is through Fourth Generation Warfare (not generation in the traditional sense; it's actually a dialectically qualitative shift but you try saying that over and over).

Using conventional forces would be a waste of resources, because they are perfect for fighting Russia or China. To regulate them to do the stabilizing missions in Iraq or Afghanistan would dull the blade (like the Israeli Defense Force).

Like the police, these light infantry units would live amongst the people and understand the dynamics of the environment. The Marines' Combined Action Platoons and Special Forces did it in Vietnam and were quite effective until conventional thinking ended those programs (and look what happened). As these light infantry units integrated with the people and win their trust, then the Mao analogy of fish in water takes hold. The fish (terrorists and insurgents) needs the water (population) to supply itself and hide. By taking away the water, we kill the fish.

These units can destroy the enemy by using a lot of human intelligence (HUMINT) and set up ambushes, booby traps, etc. Using guerilla tactics against guerillas is possible, as can be seen from the example of the 4/39 battalion in Vietnam commanded by the late Colonel David Hackworth (USA, ret.) (2500 to 1 kill ratio, weapons included per enemy). No sweeps, no raids, no cordon and searches; those have proven ineffective in Vietnam, and still are ineffective in Iraq and Afghanistan (recent mortar attack on the Green Zone, anyone??) This is because for sweeps, the enemy just runs away. Raids create more enemies out of the civilians whose lives are interrupted and same for cordon and searches. Special SWAT-like teams can handle the specialized missions like hostage situations and the like but they must be swift and disappear. This is only a small example of how to use a police-like military force to defeat our enemies.

Answer 2

Win the populace's Hearts and Minds. I never did believe that stuff, but honestly, you cannot stay in a country forever fighting. You have to win over the people, and educate the younger generation. You have to install a similar mindset to your own. If you get more of the populace on your side, there will be less attacks, more tip offs of impending attacks/ambushes, and just an all round more difficult time for insurgents. As the general population begins to have faith in the new government/foreign forces, these foreign forces would be able to begin to withdraw. You probably would never stamp out an insurgency (like most crime, such as the Mafia), but at least the government would be capable of dealing with it and have the people's blessing. It starts by winning the people over.

Answer 3

There are three ways:
1. To watch and wait when they show themselves. For instance the military watchs the roads waiting for guys to plant IEDs and then the military kills the guys, finds out who those guys were and then goes back to those guy's homes and property. Also the U.S. military returns fire when shot at.

2. House to house raids. The military searches everything within a given grid. Key tip offs that they are in a insergent's house are they find liquor, steroids and drugs such as heroin. Such things are banned in the Muslim religion, but some cults believe if they are fighting against the west, they get a free pass to Heaven and those virgins. Steroids make them stronger and the alcohol and heroin make them braver. Sometimes the military finds weapon caches and bomb factories too.

3. People get upset and complain. Then it's a matter of police work. The military interviews witnesses, take evidence etc.

Answer 4

Use US special forces in conjunction with Iraqi Shiites & Kurds (who hate Al Qaeda & the insurgents as much as the US does) and have a 7 to 1 population advantage & the war in Iraq would be over in less than a year.

US conventional forces that are trying their best to fight a gurellia war in Iraq are not highly trained enough to defeat an insurgency. They were trained to fight conventional wars. And when you throw in US rules of engagement it's like tying one arm behind their backs. Insurgents don't have to play by any rules.

Answer 5

they should be fighting idiots like you who are concerned about something youll never have a say in...just demonstrate for peace man

Answer 6

The same way cops fight criminals.

Answer 7

YOU CANT...