ComNavOps focuses a great deal of attention on major wars and rightly so. Smaller conflicts are just subsets of major wars and if we’re prepared for major wars then we’ll be prepared for smaller conflicts, at least on the macro scale. To be sure, smaller conflicts bring their own unique and specific problems that must be addressed but it is major wars that represent existential threats and are the main responsibility of our armed forces. However, the likelihood of major wars is less than the likelihood of smaller conflicts - witness the never ending parade of small conflicts the US has jumped into over recent decades. Therefore, let’s take a momentary break from contemplating major wars and look at smaller, localized conflicts.
The US military wants to fight small, clean, data based and AI-assisted wars with firepower being a mere afterthought. The problem with this is that the enemy may not agree.
The US had every possible technological advantage in Vietnam and yet the enemy refused to accept our evident superiority and, instead, opted to wage a brutal, barbaric, individual level war which did not hesitate to kill civilians, use them as hostages and pawns, and use them as intel and supply resources. The enemy waged a dirt level war while we attempted to wage a high level, technological one and, worse, a technological war with significant self-imposed restraints. As it turned out, the low level approach prevailed, not just in terms of ultimate victory but, more importantly, in terms of its daily relevance to combat operations though the US military was loathe to acknowledge that fact. Now, some maintain that the US technological approach was hamstrung by extremely restrictive rules of engagement and, indeed, there is ample evidence to support that view. But, I digress …
What allows one to win a small war? The answer is twofold:
1. Firepower – the ability to apply sufficient firepower to devastate the enemy.
2. Willpower – the willingness to apply one’s firepower.
This leads us to recognize the following ComNavOps axiom:
War will devolve to the lowest technology level rather than rise to the highest.
This has profound implications for technology-loving militaries such as ours.
When you’re fighting goat-herders, all-domain technological warfare probably isn’t going accomplish much. The sniper or suicide bomber hiding as a civilian amongst the population isn’t going to be affected by superior technology. The verbal orders delivered in person are not really subject to electronic intel collection. And so on.
So, how does this discussion of small wars impact us, today?
Breaking Defense website published an article about a new set of Chinese military doctrine which emphasizes smaller, remote (from the Chinese mainland) conflicts and operations.(1)
The PLA began shifting in the 1990s from preparing to fight “local wars under modern, high-tech conditions” to “local wars under informationized conditions” to today’s “informationized local wars.” In each case, the Chinese phrase embodies both the scale of the conflict and the key methods by which it would be fought. The PRC’s assessment is that wars will be “local,” not global; as important, they would not be nuclear or total wars. (1)
What should worry China’s neighbors and competitors is that the Chinese strategic assessment is so pessimistic. A PRC that sees the global situation as fraying is one that is likely to conclude that conflict is not only more likely, but may be inevitable. (1)
Where the US abhors war at any scale and only reluctantly enters into it (despite the contrary evidence of the last two decades!), the Chinese, viewing war as inevitable, may not only not shy away from war, especially smaller, localized conflicts, but may embrace the opportunity for conflict and may actively seek it out, creating the circumstances for such a conflict and hoping that it blossoms into a localized conflict. By pushing the limits beyond any reasonable point, in an attempt to foster a localized conflict, China would either gain their objectives without combat if their opponent opts for appeasement – as has been the case thus far - or achieve the conflict that they desire. From their perspective, it would be a win either way.
One could make an argument that the construction and militarization of illegal artificial islands in the South China Sea was an example of this philosophy. China pushed the limits beyond all norms, hoping for a localized conflict and, instead, achieved all their objectives without combat when the US opted for appeasement.
Why did this happen? Because the Chinese had no fear of our firepower (criteria 1. from above) and were absolutely certain that we would never use it since we lack the willpower (criteria 2. from above).
So, how do we prevent future small wars? The answer is almost ageless ...
If one desires peace, one must prepare for war.
This means we must embrace firepower and willpower. Potential enemies must have the certain knowledge that we will crush any small war in short order. To convince them of this, we must begin demonstrating both our firepower and willpower. The next time Iran harasses us with their swarm boats or UAVs, we need to destroy them. The next time a Russian aircraft buzzes our ship, we need to shoot it down. The next time NKorea tests a ballistic missile, we need to shoot it down. The next time China focuses a laser on our aircraft, we need to destroy the laser source. For the squeamish among you, this is not escalation, it is a response to provocation.
If someone points a weapon (rifle, UAV, aircraft, whatever) at us, we have the right to assume deadly intent and respond with instant, overwhelming, deadly force. Again, squeamish, that’s response, not escalation. Every person and country in the world should know with unwavering certainty that you don’t threaten US forces. Period.
With that belief firmly in mind, the number of small wars will drastically decrease because the instigators will know with absolute certainty that will lead to total destruction.
Now that we understand how to prevent a small war from happening, let’s consider the reverse … a textbook example of how not to prevent and contain a small war: the rise of ISIS. The US was so consumed with the desire to avoid collateral damage and potential bad publicity that we refused to unleash our firepower and put a short, violent end to ISIS. Thus, ISIS grew, captured huge areas, and slaughtered many thousands of civilians. Our reluctance actually caused much greater death and destruction, in the long run … that continues to this day.
There you have it.
1. Firepower
2. Willpower
It’s really that simple.
_____________________________________
[1]Breaking Defense website, “How China’s Thinking About The Next War”, Dean Cheng, 19-May-2021,
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/05/how-chinas-thinking-about-the-next-war/
I'm not going to refight Vietnam here, but at some point you have to figure if and how you fit into what's going on somewhere else altogether. Especially with small wars.
ReplyDeleteYou lost me. Are you referring to the geopolitics of war? If so, please do not misconstrue this post as advocating a policy of jumping into every war possibility that presents itself. Quite the opposite! We should be very reluctant to jump in unless there are strategic objectives worth fighting and dying for. If there are then you have to commit wholeheartedly not with half-measures as we did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, ISIS, Kuwait, etc.
DeleteThe post is about preventing small wars not jumping into them.
If geopolitics was not your point then try again because it didn't come across.
Right, first set a default position of "do nothing." Then determine the desired outcome. Then, is there a path to that desired outcome. Then, does that path have a price tag over or under the perceived end state benefit. If emotion or retribution are considered, that's a real bad start. Regime change is not an outcome. Its a high risk, high cost option along a path toward a future desired end state. The primary impact the military can have is acheived by being ready for what we might want/need to happen. As soon as its being used for kenetic effect it quickly ceases to have value in acheiving the political end state as the policy focus will start to change to how to make the shooting stop.
DeleteAmerica jumps into WAY too many wars, there almost isn't one in the last 100 years that could have not been avoided.
ReplyDeleteSad but true. It would also help if our "allies" the UK and France stop dragging us into their shit shows, e.g., the recent wars in Libya and Syria.
DeleteThe hugely under-appreciated Eisenhower hated the US getting involved in wars and studiously avoided them.
DeleteLutefisk
Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. In to win, or don't go in.
ReplyDeleteTrue. It would help if our government and military leaders first ask and then answer the questions "What counts as a win? How do we get there? Do we have what it takes to get there?" BEFORE sending military service members to fight and die far from home.
DeleteNever invade a country you aren't will to stay in for 50 years. Never rotate troops home in under 20 years.
DeleteYour model of success is the British Raj.
Civilizing the Heathen takes time.
"Never invade a country you aren't will to stay in for 50 years. Never rotate troops home in under 20 years."
DeleteSad but true.
"Your model of success is the British Raj."
The US's conquest of North America's southwest coast is also a model of success. Somehow, Washington, DC forgot the "how."
It was stupid to try to transform Afghanistan into a western-style democracy, instead of simply uniting the local warlords under a confederacy and then letting them rule their individual fiefs, like a modern day Holy Roman Empire- that MIGHT have let an allied government (or governments) remain in power in Afghanistan, and even if it failed, there would've been far less strain on our budgets, as we'd simply be letting the Afghans police (and shoot, and bomb) themselves, instead of acting as the "foreign invader" against whom they'll unite to drive out.
Agree totally here. While clearly our military is a mess in general, theres still a significant amount of capability. If occaisionally its used in an absurdly overwhelming way, the deterrence for the future IS there. While bad actors large and small may act in spite of common sense and tactical/strategic situation, I really think that the teaching of a lesson here and there wont go unnoticed. Im not squeamish, and think that "nuking BinLadens house" level events would prevent a lot of brush fires the world over.
ReplyDeleteCNO for President, 2024!
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Imagine having a President that is so Navy-focused!!! Teddy Roosevelt reincarnate!! We could only be so lucky!!!
DeleteAmerica just lost two wars. They used three geneuos principals to do it.
ReplyDelete1. Bush II, and Obama, ordered the occupations could be run with 1/3 the troops needed. Every flag and general officer lined up to suck up.
2. Every flag and general officer applauded insane rules that allowed the other side to blast off all their magazines, then throw down their rifle, wave and stroll away until the attack the next day.
3. Every flag and general officer looked up briefly from licking the boots of the far left, to smack down every career senior NCO and field grade officer who dared to tell the truth, that the local nationals were either working for the other side, or completely worthless.
It is not a matter of tech, it is not a matter of systems. It is a completely devoid of reality ruling class paired with O-7s and above who will do anything, no matter how insane or harmful for their troops or America, to get the next promotion or a great job offer after service.
I remember back when Rumsfeld was saying that 100,000 troops would be "enough" to take Iraq (or maybe it was Afghanistan, I forget), someone asked me how many I thought we should send to do the job. I said 250,000. "So you think Rumsfeld is wrong about 100,000 being enough," was the reply. I answered, "I think 100,000 may be enough, but I don't believe in taking enough. I believe in overkill."
Delete/The next time a Russian aircraft buzzes our ship, we need to shoot it down./
ReplyDeleteWill Russia just accept it? Or it will follow escalation?
If Russia escalates, that's their choice.
DeleteDon't you find it grotesquely hypocritical to be questioning a RESPONSE we might make to a provocation while giving a complete pass to the initial ESCALATION by Russia? I do.
I know it's the commonly accepted Chicken Little response to cower at the mere thought of ever so slightly upsetting Russia (or any enemy) but I view it as, if Russia is prepared to go to war over a single, isolated incident then so am I. The US is far better prepared for the military and economic impacts of war. Russia would have no hope of winning a war or even surviving it structurally intact as a governmental entity. Zero. If they're that stupid, then let's grant their wish and eliminate them as a problem from world stage.
When did we become so timid? I actually know the answer to that but it's for some other forum.
Alternatively, you can respond in kind without killing one of them.
DeleteBuzz their aircraft, lase their pilots, etc.
"Alternatively, you can respond in kind"
DeleteWhich accomplishes nothing and just perpetuates a bad situation. If you want to ensure peace, you become the biggest, meanest, toughest guy on the planet and you put an absolute end to all the games that Russia or anyone else wants to play. You lay down the law and back it up with force. That's how you achieve peace.
We didn't 'respond in kind' to Germany and Japan. We crushed them and achieved true peace with them.
"...let's grant their wish and eliminate them as a problem from world stage."
DeleteWhile I do agree with this sentiment, and agree with overwhelming response to the "games" unsavory actors play, I have to say that Russia on my mind is largely irrelevant. Their actions including the current issues with Ukraine arent really our problem. Im starting to lean isolationist LOL...Let the Europeans deal with Europe. Id like to see our fleets come home for rebuilding, repair, and training. Maybe we can maintain prepositioned equipment, but otherwise I feel its past time to end the forward presence and useless deployments. When a crisis springs up, let our involvement be foreshadowed by a news report: " Four carriers and their escorts, as well as two SSGNs were noticeably absent this morning from ____ Naval Base"
"I have to say that Russia on my mind is largely irrelevant. "
DeleteYou say that and yet the existence of Russia is why we have untold thousands of troops, aircraft, etc. indefinitely based in Europe instead of the Pacific where we really need them. Russia causes no end of problems for the world and us. So, I can't really agree that they're irrelevant.
You say Ukraine isn't our problem. Okay. Do you think Russia will complete its annexation of Ukraine and then stop and become a friendly, responsible world neighbor or do you think they'll just check Ukraine off their to-do list and move on to whatever country is next on their list? At what point does it become our problem? After Putin reforms the entire Soviet Union?
Look at a map and consider it strategically. Ukraine is the stepping stone to eventual control of the Black Sea, Belarus, Romania, etc. Is that enough reason to make it our problem? I won't offer an opinion but I will say that it warrants deeper consideration than a casual 'not our problem'.
It's like the first artificial island China built. Not our problem and no threat to us, right? Except that China didn't stop at one island. They built dozens, militarized them, and used them to annex the entire South China Sea in a fait accompli. Maybe that first island should have been our problem and maybe that's where we should have taken a stand?
"Don't you find it grotesquely hypocritical to be questioning a RESPONSE we might make to a provocation while giving a complete pass to the initial ESCALATION by Russia? I do."
DeleteI don't think that killing a couple of russian pilots and shooting down russian jet over neutral waters just for fly by will be useful for USA.
CNO you make good points. I'm just at a bit of a crossroads, where I have divergent feelings and ideas about when/where/how much involvement we have in trouble spots globally....
DeleteI struggle with the ideal that we should always stand to help free nations survive. I believe that, and yet, where do we step back and let other nations who have more at stake handle it?? I do NOT want to be involved in every war, and don't want to put our forces in constant harms way. You're right, Ukraine could just be a stepping stone for Russia. But at the same time, why should we be on point when Ukraine needs assistance?? There are plenty of neighbors who have a dog in that hunt, so why us?? These thoughts arent due to timidity, trust me. Im all for striking hard, fast, and brutally to annihilate all existence of an enemy when needed. Im just struggling with the threshold of when it becomes our duty to expend men and treasure for someone else...
"I don't think that killing a couple of russian pilots and shooting down russian jet over neutral waters just for fly by will be useful for USA."
DeleteDo you not read these incident reports or do you just choose to ignore what you read? I'm not talking about some innocent flyby that exhibits the utmost safety and respect for all other forces in the area; I'm talking about the blatantly unprofessional, unsafe, provocative incidents that put US service member's lives at risk. If someone makes a high speed attack run at me, I have a right to self-defense. Whether they actually intend to launch a weapon at me is not relevant. They need to be taught the lesson that if you point a weapon at a US asset, you die. Exercising restraint on our part in the face of that kind of provocation only encourages more incidents and more reckless incidents.
You don't see how putting an end to such incidents would be useful for the US? Then you're either willfully ignoring reality or speaking from fear.
"where do we step back and let other nations who have more at stake handle it?"
DeleteNothing I've said should be interpreted as saying that we, and we alone, should bear the brunt of being the world's policeman. Quite the opposite. We need to be just as forceful with our allies as with our enemies. For example, if we believe that Europe can and should stand on its own, without our help, then we need to forcefully hammer that point home and pull out of Europe and make it clear to them that they will receive no military assistance, whatsoever, from us.
"how much involvement we have in trouble spots "
One of the reasons why there are so many trouble spots is that we and the rest of the world refuses to take forceful action when the troubles are just tiny. We wait and then wind up in yet another war after the trouble grows. Consider Desert Storm … we failed to make the proper choice to finish Sadaam off then and there and we wound up having to refight the war a few years later and that, of course, led to the rise of ISIS and so on. All because we lacked the courage to do the right thing up front.
The point is that if we start doing the right thing when problems are small, they won't grow into wars that we have to jump into later.
Had we forcefully confronted Russia when they were making noise about annexing Crimea, we wouldn't be floundering about, today, trying to decide what to do about Ukraine.
Had we finished off NKorea back in the '50s we wouldn't have had to deal with them ever since and keep troops stationed in SKorea indefinitely.
And so on, with example after example.
We rationalize our reluctance to do the hard/right thing by citing humanitarian concerns or whatever else but, inevitably, the price in human suffering is much greater in the long run by failing in the short.
Hopefully, this gives you some perspective.
I agree that we should respond with overwhelming firepower when we are attacked anywhere. But what are we doing there?
ReplyDeleteYour narrowmindedness in this analysis is breathtaking. Do you think that the Chinese think "local wars" means small wars in Africa and South America and the south Pacific? Economic exploitation maybe, in poor countries, but are we to go to war over that? China has never advocated military dominance anywhere other than local to them. They have a long experience of being brutally exploited by Western nations and Japan, I believe this still dominates their military planning, ie to protect themselves and ensure their independence.
The Vietnamese "opted" for a brutal local war because the French, who we supported under Truman and Eisenhower, opted to go back in with "overwhelming" firepower and take up where they had to leave off before WWII when the Japanese invaded. Your simple analysis of our involvement there after the French gave up is depressingly simplistic and familiar. Depressing because your advocacy of force as a solution is ignorant of the fact that everyone in Vietnam knew we were going home sooner or later. Same applies to Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and other countries where religion, ancient divisions and repelling foreign devils is paramount and our hope for success was based on ignorance.
Yes religious conflicts kill thousands as with ISIS. Your advocacy will just prolong our taking casualties in regions we have no real interest in except for the great fake battle against Communism, a battle that is still being advocated today in media to excite our population and earn advertising dollars. Something you are not part of, thank goodness, and I thank you for that.
"...your advocacy of force as a solution is ignorant of the fact that everyone in Vietnam knew we were going home sooner or later."
DeleteI think that is only with the luxury of hindsight. If the war had been conducted differently, I could see where Cam Ranh, for instance, would be a major US base even today. Continued presence in Japan and Germany post-war was a convenient way to stay "in theatre" during the Cold War. But at the end of 1945, I don't know that anyone anticipated we would still have presence there nearly 80 years later. The same could be said of our continued presence in Korea. And while the utility of a maintained presence in Afghanistan is pretty non-existent, frankly Im suprised that we didn't negotiate/keep a perma-presence in Iraq. Not as an occupier, but as far as maintaining large bases there. I know the politics of surrounding Middle East countries is touchy, and does sometimes limit the use of forces stationed there. Maybe the existence of basing in the other countries made it an unnecessary duplication (?) Either way, the conduct of past wars has total effect on what kind of postwar presence remains, and the firepower/willpower paradigm directly shapes it.
"I think that is only with the luxury of hindsight."
DeleteOh, I think those of us there fully believed that, and found it totally frustrating. The Vietnam war could have been won, with different leadership in Washington and Saigon. But to what avail? Ho was the charismatic leader of the whole country, for his opposition to the French. We screwed the pooch badly, on just about every possible level.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet's refrain from the pure politics.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree absolutely on the basis of Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum. Too many people mistakenly attribute this to a warmongering mentality when it is actually simply acknowledging the truth of human behaviour and hoping for the best (peace) while preparing for the worst (war).
ReplyDeleteThis is in fact something that's sorely lacking around the world (peace dividend), except maybe China and some states in the middle east and Africa. In South East Asia this is blatantly clear, hence the belated and dragged out response to Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Even then, willpower is decidedly in extremely short supply other than the usual outbursts and complaints (which has been proven repeatedly to not affect anything on the ground).
I can't say for Russia, so I shall not comment on the validity of shooting down their planes when they buzz yours. I suppose if it's over neutral/international airspace, sure. But if it's over Russian airspace (U.S spy plane etc) then... It gets a bit sketchy huh.
For the Chinese however, in South China Sea? Sure, it should have happened years ago. The Indonesian navy fired upon a Chinese fishing vessel in 2016 and their coast guard did not intervene. The incident did not escalate either so deep down even the Chinese knew they have no grounds for anything (aside from the usual political outburst from them that led nowhere). As far as I know, no one else have repeated the feat.
At the end of the day it is a last resort, however it is important that when all avenues of diplomacy and reasoning have been exhausted one must have the will to exercise the last resort. Sometimes, the sad truth is that the bully only understand force as a means of communication.
Loc
A thought:
ReplyDeleteMalaya (Or Malaysia as it was then) could easily gone the same way as Vietnam. The UK sent loads of troops and as far as I can seen put all the locals into fortified villages thus cutting them off from the communists. I don't think the tactics (and brutality in some cases) would be allowed today with social media. But it worked. It was total commitment which is the only way any war is won.
However is there much difference for us dealing with or the locals living in either Malaya or Vietnam now? Sorry if that is political.
My main point is if you are going to do anything don't do it "half arsed" The only time we have won a war is total commitment.
Going back to the main point of the post, If you have a full spectrum of kit for a big war you should be able to pick and mix any kit and personnel for little wars / conflicts.