The decline of infantry and political ramifications

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is a good point but the thing is that people largely live in villages and towns as you can't just find that much food to sustain tens of thousands of people in the woods.

Those villages and towns can be easily leveled.

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Those villages and towns can be easily leveled.

And that only turns the populace against the military, leading them to support the insurgents. This is the main problem with COIN operations. For every village you destroy, you create more insurgents and/or allies of the insurgency. It is called the 'accidental guerilla syndrome.'

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The state can always kidnap and kill the families of insurgents. US sucked at COIN because it lacked the ruthlessness and savagery necessary. The people needed to fear America more than the Taliban. Any village that assisted them should've been wiped off the map. Tribes and clans from which the Taliban hailed should've been bombed to extinction. Their madrasahs in Pakistan should've been bombed and their families and friends hunted down and killed.

Any captured Taliban should've been flayed alive and left to hang in the public square.

Terror works. You just need enough of it. Ask the Mongols or Stalin.

The Soviets were far more successful and inflicted vastly greater casualties on the Taliban, held more territory, and left behind a more capable government.