Pakistani PM Warns of 'Full Force' Response to Future U.S. Raids - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733299]What is your definition of a "best" military?[/QUOTE] The most balanced use of each section.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733326]The most balanced use of each section.[/QUOTE] What's a "section"?

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733299]What is your definition of a "best" military?[/QUOTE] um the best the one that would be most likely to win in most situations in an all out conventional war you know...the best

It is my opinion that any "best" classification is fundamentally misguided. Militaries all over the world are tailored to their specific national requirements. If you have, say, an obsession over air power and technology, you'll favor militaries that rely on it extensively, and punish those that don't. You'll just end up with a biased list.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733333]What's a "section"?[/QUOTE] i would assume everything from number of active personnel, number and quality of officers, number and quality of equipment, etc. for navy, army, and airforce

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733209]When forces are fighting with what William Lind calls "fourth generation warfare" methods, they can use states as a method of countering their superpower adversaries. [/quote] Pakistan cant really be looked at as a candidate for 4th generation warfare, that would be something more along the lines of the Taliban. Edit: Pakistan's military I mean.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733364]It is my opinion that any "best" classification is fundamentally misguided. Militaries all over the world are tailored to their specific national requirements. If you have, say, an obsession over air power and technology, you'll favor militaries that rely on it extensively, and punish those that don't. You'll just end up with a biased list.[/QUOTE] the us has the most well rounded military as far as equipment and doctrine we have enough equipment that can fight effectively in most areas of the world and we have the strategies and tactics to fight in most areas of the world as well our 2 biggest weaknesses are cost of equipment, and a relatively low number of active personnel

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733393]the us has the most well rounded military as far as equipment and doctrine we have enough equipment that can fight effectively in most areas of the world and we have the strategies and tactics to fight as well our 2 biggest weaknesses are cost of equipment, and a relatively low number of active personnel[/QUOTE] Not really. While we are quite good at fighting conventional forces and actual militaries, our doctrine is still rooted too much in the cold war. We aren't very good at fighting insurgencies or so called "4th generation" conflicts.

If Al-Qaeda has a gigantic influence over Pakistan as yawmwen is saying, then all you guys saying "Let's fuck up Pakistan" and focusing on the state are from what I understand, are overlooking the real problem which would be Al-Qaeda. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;29733413]Not really. While we are quite good at fighting conventional forces and actual militaries, our doctrine is still rooted too much in the cold war. We aren't very good at fighting insurgencies or so called "4th generation" conflicts.[/QUOTE] AirLand Battle is out dude. Now the US military relies on a mix of things like "digital battlefield" doctrine and "effects based operations". And also, the US military looks "good" on the conventional battlefield because all its foes that tried to fight conventionally can't be considered "peer foes".

i mean im not some jingo with a patriot boner waving around all the time, but the us really does have p. much the best military right now, although china is gonna replace us within a few years as they improve their gear

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733393]the us has the most well rounded military as far as equipment and doctrine we have enough equipment that can fight effectively in most areas of the world and we have the strategies and tactics to fight in most areas of the world as well our 2 biggest weaknesses are cost of equipment, and a relatively low number of active personnel[/QUOTE] Well rounded? The US military has focused almost exclusively on irregular warfare since 2001.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733418]If Al-Qaeda has a gigantic influence over Pakistan as yawmwen is saying, then all you guys saying "Let's fuck up Pakistan" and focusing on the state are from what I understand, are overlooking the real problem which would be Al-Qaeda.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. We would most likely kick the shit out of Pakistan's conventional forces, but in the long run it wouldn't be worth destabilizing a nuclear power since we would have to occupy it for a veeerrryyy long time to prevent Al-Qaeda and other potential insurgent forces from gaining power over Pakistan's nuclear weapons. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;29733445]Well rounded? The US military has focused almost exclusively on irregular warfare since 2001.[/QUOTE] That doesn't change the fact that we still spend obscene amounts of money making sure we are prepared for a "real war" against a major power (that will most likely never come).

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;29733462]Pretty much. We would most likely kick the shit out of Pakistan's conventional forces, but in the long run it wouldn't be worth destabilizing a nuclear power since we would have to occupy it for a veeerrryyy long time to prevent Al-Qaeda and other potential insurgent forces from gaining power over Pakistan's nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] Historically, the US Army in particular has been very good at training and fighting at the tactical level at brigade and below. However, tactical excellence and success won't do shit if it can't be linked with the operational and strategic levels.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;29733413]Not really. While we are quite good at fighting conventional forces and actual militaries, our doctrine is still rooted too much in the cold war. We aren't very good at fighting insurgencies or so called "4th generation" conflicts.[/QUOTE] which is changing as we continue to develop new anti insurgency doctrine [QUOTE=Tac Error;29733418]If Al-Qaeda has a gigantic influence over Pakistan as yawmwen is saying, then all you guys saying "Let's fuck up Pakistan" and focusing on the state are from what I understand, are overlooking the real problem which would be Al-Qaeda. [/QUOTE] they are both equally the problem right now everytime we tell the pakistan government where a terrorist leader is and invite them to tag along to kill him someone in the government tips the guy off it makes it almost impossible for us to conduct anti terrorism operations in the area at times because we generally are diplomatic enough to to waltz in and just start killing people in pakistan(osama was the exception as far as i know), and if a terrorist guy in afghanistan can evade the us long enough to get into pakistan then it can become a giant mess to find him again

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733490]which is changing as we continue to develop new anti insurgency doctrine[/QUOTE] And then, when you guys fight a prepared conventional foe in the future, kiss goodbye to a repeat of Operation Desert Storm.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733479]Historically, the US Army in particular has been very good at training and fighting at the tactical level at brigade and below. However, tactical excellence and success won't do shit if it can't be linked with the operational and strategic levels.[/QUOTE] Very true. But the problem is that fighting an insurgency is very, very difficult on an operational and strategic level without a massive commitment from virtually all facets of a military. I do think we are getting better and better at it though.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733445]Well rounded? The US military has focused almost exclusively on irregular warfare since 2001.[/QUOTE] yea, but we still have a shitload of equipment developed(and being developed) for conventional warfare as well we p. much sucked at fighting against irregulars, but because of the wars in iraq and afghanistan it sorta made it clear we need to focus on developing better doctrines

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733520]And then, when you guys fight a prepared conventional foe in the future, kiss goodbye to a repeat of Operation Desert Storm.[/QUOTE] Welcome to modern warfare, it sucks dick :v: And a conventional force CAN fight an insurgency, it just requires massive commitment from both the military and a countries citizens and government, something we dont have.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733333]What's a "section"?[/QUOTE] Army, Navy, Marines, Airforce....I can't remember the name of those "sections" of a country's armed forces.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733520]And then, when you guys fight a prepared conventional foe in the future, kiss goodbye to a repeat of Operation Desert Storm.[/QUOTE] um who says you have to be prepared one way or another cant you have do both at the same time? i mean it isnt like we are being stingy with the money, we can continue to develop equipment for any type of warfare that we could conceivably fight

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733520]And then, when you guys fight a prepared conventional foe in the future, kiss goodbye to a repeat of Operation Desert Storm.[/QUOTE] I'm perfectly expecting heavy loses in any formal war. That's what annoys me with Americans, because I know, once a formal war breaks out. The American public will either join in and help the war effort or bend over and bitch about it.

Did no one else notice they spelled Osamas name wrong on the first paragraph?

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733551]Army, Navy, Marines, Airforce....I can't remember the name of those "sections" of a country's armed forces.[/QUOTE] branch is what they are called in the us

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733556]um who says you have to be prepared one way or another cant you have do both at the same time? i mean it isnt like we are being stingy with the money, we can continue to develop equipment for any type of warfare that we could conceivably fight[/QUOTE] Fighting a modern low intensity conflict isn't all about equipment. Unless you go with the "massive force" method of crushing resistance, but that hasn't worked for thousands of years due to politics.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733575]branch is what they are called in the us[/QUOTE] I forgot, thanks. Really angry at myself for forgetting.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733560]I'm perfectly expecting heavy loses in any formal war. That's what annoys me with Americans, because I know, once a formal war breaks out. The American public will either join in and help the war effort or bend over and bitch about it.[/QUOTE] thats what people do in every country during war...

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;29733534]Very true. But the problem is that fighting an insurgency is very, very difficult on an operational and strategic level without a massive commitment from virtually all facets of a military. I do think we are getting better and better at it though.[/QUOTE] Insurgency is at its heart a junior leader's war, with a few exceptions. The problem is that we are making similar mistakes that the Soviets did in the '80s. But hey, for the guerrilla, battlefield victory is almost irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;29733580]Fighting a modern low intensity conflict isn't all about equipment. Unless you go with the "massive force" method of crushing resistance, but that hasn't worked for thousands of years due to politics.[/QUOTE] yea yea yea fine forget i said equipment pretend i said doctrine, the point stands either way

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733592]thats what people do in every country during war...[/QUOTE] That's not what we did in the last four wars. Yes I consider the Korean War an actual fucking war, not a "police action".

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733560]I'm perfectly expecting heavy loses in any formal war. That's what annoys me with Americans, because I know, once a formal war breaks out. The American public will either join in and help the war effort or bend over and bitch about it.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, the average Westerner does not like to see massive casualties in a type of war they perceive to be the "best" at.