the nature of modern warfare (not the game)

[shotgunbob]

No, I think you're right. The western powers (I.e. Europe, America etc.) have all had a history of massive engagments involveing thousands of soldiers and the latest tech. From the Crusades to the WW2. Even during the cold war, everyone expected conventional warfare like from the past. Both America and Russia were caught out when they entered their "quagmires" of Afghanistan and Vietnam where the rule books were tossed out the window.

I think Iraq is a good example of this. The actuall war where we fought Sadam's army, was over in days because It was a conventional fight. Lots of Tanks vs Lots of Tanks. Now that the war is long since over, and we are fighting untraceable civilians using weapons that can bought from any black market dealer...suddenly the M1 Abrams and Challenger II become useless.

So it's not so much a question about "We're preparing for the wrong fight", it's more a case that a modern military force needs to adapt to the situation. An army needs to be prepared to fight guerillas one day, terrorists the next, and the neighbor the day after that.

Exactly

 

[Smagmuck_]

I'm on your side with this.


Yes, we need to seriously rethink our war stratagy, war today isn't the same as say during world war two, no. Todays battles are fought in towns, door to door and in the streets, so obviously our old stratagy won't work. At one point, during the war in Iraq, a good family friend of mine said; "Doing door to door serches were the most terrifing moments of my entire life, at one point it got so bad that every time a house was cleared, I thought that the next one would be my last, and a few times, it came very close." So that being said, if I join the Corps, I'm getting a shotgun.