The one thing I don't see in the media, and that I definitely don't see the government educating the public about, is the difference between conventional war, guerilla war, and terrorist war.
Conventional war is uniformed soldier vs. uniformed soldier targeting each other and their support structures. Collateral damage is unavoidable but hardly intentional. Intentional military action against civilians is rare, and often used to achieve military goals.
Guerrila war could still be considered soldier vs. soldier. Guerillas generally still target military or political entities, needing to avoid antagonizing the local population. The difficulty is that the guerilla soldier blurs the line between soldier and civilian, using civilian guise to conceal himself while conducting his operations. This makes it extremely hard to tell friend from foe. For the common soldier and his officers, this is exceptionally frustrating. It didn't start in Vietnam, but that is the most notorious example in American military history.
Terrorist war makes things murkier still. The terrorist blurs the line between soldier and criminal. He hides amongst the civilian population like the guerilla, but his targets are often civilians, attempting to use their version of 'shock and awe' to achieve their goals. He also operates globally, showing crass disrespect for international boundaries and international conventions. Tracking him down is more like a criminal manhunt than a military operation.
Why do some nations and independent groups choose to fight their wars in these unconventional fashions? Because it's the only way to have a hope of winning. Our military can go almost anywhere in the world it wants even in the face of stiff opposition. Yes, it's that powerful. One aircraft carrier has more planes than most countries' entire air forces. They fight sneaky because they would get walked on otherwise.
Welcome to 21st century warfare. War even more hellish than ever, because the enemy is so hard to find and pin down.
Doug H.
P.S. Blow up my soapbox!!!
Conventional war is uniformed soldier vs. uniformed soldier targeting each other and their support structures. Collateral damage is unavoidable but hardly intentional. Intentional military action against civilians is rare, and often used to achieve military goals.
Guerrila war could still be considered soldier vs. soldier. Guerillas generally still target military or political entities, needing to avoid antagonizing the local population. The difficulty is that the guerilla soldier blurs the line between soldier and civilian, using civilian guise to conceal himself while conducting his operations. This makes it extremely hard to tell friend from foe. For the common soldier and his officers, this is exceptionally frustrating. It didn't start in Vietnam, but that is the most notorious example in American military history.
Terrorist war makes things murkier still. The terrorist blurs the line between soldier and criminal. He hides amongst the civilian population like the guerilla, but his targets are often civilians, attempting to use their version of 'shock and awe' to achieve their goals. He also operates globally, showing crass disrespect for international boundaries and international conventions. Tracking him down is more like a criminal manhunt than a military operation.
Why do some nations and independent groups choose to fight their wars in these unconventional fashions? Because it's the only way to have a hope of winning. Our military can go almost anywhere in the world it wants even in the face of stiff opposition. Yes, it's that powerful. One aircraft carrier has more planes than most countries' entire air forces. They fight sneaky because they would get walked on otherwise.
Welcome to 21st century warfare. War even more hellish than ever, because the enemy is so hard to find and pin down.
Doug H.
P.S. Blow up my soapbox!!!
Comment