|
thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/24/2010 9:47:50 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
thompsonx: Here is someone who disagrees with your assessment of asymetrical warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
Are you fucking kidding me? A Wikipedia article? Wikipedia is NOT a credible, or valid source, and whoever wrote that article is slightly off target.
That WIKIPEDIA article is WRONG. I'm an infantryman, fighting wars is our profession. Your WIKIPEDIA article misses the target on what constitutes asymmetrical warfare. You do realize that anybody could edit a Wikipedia article, do you? I guess not. I know what constitutes asymmetrical warfare, and what doesn't. THIS is what you should read:
Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui:
http://www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf
What they wrote scratches the surface of the type of war that we're fighting. There's a big difference between what they describe, and what your Wikipedia article talks about.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
From the cite
Representative list of asymmetric wars
Below is a representative list of interstate asymmetric wars fought between 1816 and 1945:[9]
Franco-Spanish War, First Anglo-Burmese War, Second Russo-Persian War, War of the Cakes, First Anglo-Afghan War, Uruguayan Dispute, Austro-Sardinian War, First Schleswig-Holstein War, Second Anglo-Burmese War, Anglo-Persian War, Italo-Roman War, Two Sicilies, Franco-Mexican War, Second Schleswig-Holstein War, Anglo-Abyssinian War, Anglo-Egyptian War, Tonkin War, Franco-Siamese War, Second Italo-Ethiopian War, Second Boer War, Sino-Russian War, Tripolitanian War, Franco-Turkish War, Polish Revolution, Italo-Ethiopian War, Sino-Japanese War, German-Polish Confrontation of World War II, German-Danish Confrontation of World War II, German-Norwegian Confrontation of World War II, German-Belgian Confrontation of World War II, German-Dutch Confrontation of World War II, Italo-Greek Confrontation of World War II, German-Yugoslav Confrontation of World War II
Every single one of those wars fall under the symmetrical warfare category, NOT asymmetrical warfare. In every single one of those conflicts, the combatants were recognizable, and their tactics, even if it were unorthodox, were recognizable as war tactics. Using frontiers warfare in North America during the Revolutionary War, or fighting tribes in Africa, didn't constitute asymmetrical warfare. That was a simple case of two different tactics being used... Frontiers Warfare in North America versus fighting in the open field in Europe. Fighting as African tribes against Europeans fighting open plain warfare. American Indians fighting as they do against other tribes when they fight the Europeans, and later the Americans. Going from conventional to guerrilla... that's happened throughout history, these are conventional tactics. Again, you knew who the hostile was, and even if their fighting tactics weren't like yours, you recognized it as a fighting tactic. That's conventional warfare.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
And this
The use of terrain in asymmetric warfare
Terrain can be used as a force multiplier by the smaller force and as a force inhibitor against the larger force. Such terrain is called difficult terrain.
The contour of the land is an aid to the army; sizing up opponents to determine victory, assessing dangers and distance. "Those who do battle without knowing these will lose." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
That's not using terrain in an asymmetrical warfare sense, but in a conventional sense. Whenever you're doing field problems, or conducting combat operations, you always consider the terrain. Whenever we're doing defensive operations, we do our best to make the land work best for us, and against the enemy. This includes emplacing mines and other types of obstacles to funnel the enemy, scatter the enemy, or stop them so that we could mass fires on them.
Using the contours of the land is a no brainer, that's not something that's out of the ordinary. You always use the land to hide from the enemy. You don't skyline yourself by walking on top of a hill when you could hide yourself by walking behind it. You travel within the forest, and walk around forest clearings so that you stay in the forest. Using terrain to your advantage is a SYMMETRICAL warfare tactic. It's a CONVENTIONAL tactic.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
The guerrillas must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea. ― Mao Zedong.
Not shit! Moving without being detected, all combatant elements must do that so that they don't draw enemy fire! Again, that's conventional warfare.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
A good example of this type of strategy is the Battle of Thermopylae, where the narrow terrain of the valley was used to alter the odds by funneling the Persian forces, who were numerically superior, to a point where they could not use their size as an advantage.
Like I said in my previous post, this was a common strategy that we'd still use today against another conventional force. You either funnel the enemy into the kill zone, you could divert them to where they'd end up in an ambush, or subject to mortar, artillery, and automatic fire, or you set the terrain up to scatter them, or halt their movement. These are conventional HENCE symmetrical warfare tactics.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
For a detailed description of the advantages for the weaker force in the use of built-up areas when engaging in asymmetric warfare, see the article on urban warfare.
This is another example of conventional warfare. Urban warfare is the predominant form of warfare in Iraq.
Throughout that article, the author focused on one definition, a weaker force going against a stronger force. This happens in both, symmetrical warfare and asymmetrical warfare. In the article's examples, however, they all involve both sides using military tactics. Military tactics that are traditional military tactics.
Asymmetrical warfare, on the other hand, involves the use of tactics that people won't see as military tactics. Asymmetrical warfare is a change in paradigm, one that people don't always see in the beginning. The two Chinese generals scratch the surface of asymmetrical warfare up as it applies to the 21st Century:
"Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by Bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwiths understood by the American military....This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operation other than military means" Col. Qiao Lian and Col. Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare, 1999.
In the book Unrestricted Warfare, these two Colonels interchange the U.S. military with the United States and the West.
Do you see the bolded red statement? That's the CRUX of our argument on asymmetrical warfare. The article gives examples of "asymmetrical warfare like" aspects of those wars. This is where a weaker force wisely doesn't confront the larger force head on. Asymmetrical warfare like isn't asymmetrical warfare. When I'm arguing asymmetrical warfare, I'm arguing the bolded red statement above, as well as the quote that I show above... THAT's what's applicable to what I'm talking about. Means other than tradition, operations other than military means. Your article falls short on that.
thompsonx: It seems that you only open your mouth to change feet
You advance a Wikipedia article in your argument against someone that's in a profession that fights wars, and you're insinuating that I "have" my "foot" in my mouth? Serious? You're one of the very few guys that I've debated over the years who'd be able to shoot his foot by attempting to commit suicide.
If that went over your head, this analogy might explain it better:
Your referencing a Wikipedia article in a debate with an infantryman is like you referencing a quack doctor's journals in a debate against a doctor.
The wiki article is pretty heavily footnoted...it would seem you are disagreeing with all of those also.
If wiki is so easily manipulated why don't you go fix it[8|]
|
|
|
|
