If the War on Terror is the new perpetual war, why is a conventional front necessary? Like Iraq. And in case that burns out, Iran.
2007-08-09 18:53:25 · 9 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Conventional war is necessary because it is still about controlling territory and controlling population. As Robert Heinlein stated in his science fiction masterpiece, Starship Troopers, there will always be a need for boots on the ground.
Now whether the goals of the war requires boots in a particular location, that is an entirely different question. But a key part of the war on terror is denying the terrorist a place where they can train and organize.
2007-08-09 19:00:26 · answer #1 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Conventional war is very necessary, now more than ever. The problem is nobody knows what conventional war is anymore. Conventional war has not been used by this country since WWII.
Puting troups in a conventional war situation and then tying their hands so they can't do the job, is not conventional war.
2007-08-10 02:04:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having boots on the ground denies places for the enemy to regroup.
Conventional war is still a deterent. Think about Darfor. If we just want to stop the violence then the presence of a marine brigade will do just that. If we want to kill the SO Bs doing the violence then a special forces war will work very well.
2007-08-10 02:29:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The very idea that one can have a war on an emotional state like terror (or sadness) is ludicrous for a start. Then the history of US wars eg drugs shows that it is not really the one to be leading the charge.
2007-08-10 01:58:29 · answer #4 · answered by nicelyevolve 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. the tactics used to fight terrorist would not work against countries like China and North Korea who have large standing militaries. We need to be able to fight both conventional and asymetrical wars.
2007-08-10 04:45:18 · answer #5 · answered by joeybagofdonnuts 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if by conventional you mean ground and air forces, then yes. The unconventional type means using those fusion devices.
2007-08-10 01:59:26 · answer #6 · answered by quntmphys238 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-08-10 01:56:57 · answer #7 · answered by jrd 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That question was first asked when atomic weapons were developed. It was thought that the bomb made conventional forces obselete. That theory was proven wrong.
2007-08-10 13:12:08 · answer #8 · answered by wichitaor1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer is I dont know, why are we there good question.
2007-08-10 02:55:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋