Qualities of the Fighter Become More Important Than the Quality of the Weapon

Analysis of modern confrontations shows that their important feature is that there's practically no possibility of political fastening of military successes. Neither in Iraq, nor in Afghanistan, nor in Libya winners can guarantee that "established by way of bayonets" power can hold on without them for long. Therefore the winners should prolong their military presence that is rather expensive.

In fact if there's no political victory, war can last eternally.

Whether the USA beat Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq? If yes, why we can still hear the sounds of fights and explosions? Whether forces of the NATO beat Kaddafi followers in Libya?

War in the modern world became so dissymetric that two parties can conduct simultaneously what is called "operations" without adjoining in any way with each other. While the fighter pilot bombs certain bases of terrorists, the suicide bomber can enter the crowd of tourists or passenger bus.

In XX century the best armed army had unconditional domination over worse armed opponent.

Today quality of the human capital grows in price again.

While the USA are occupied with naturalizing of gays into the army, thousand men in the countries of the Islamic world are ready to become shahids having become a victim.

In Libya the NATO block on which 70% of world military expenses are spent fails to "end up" with groups of the "dictator" of the small country. Losses of the EU and the USA from a rise in prices for oil in almost hundred times have exceeded direct military expenses for operation in Libya and, most likely, exceed material damage brought to the destroyed by bombing Libya. While Kaddafi is still free.

In 2006 Israel practically lost war to irregular groups of movement "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. In few days attack of 30-thousand first class army was stopped (in 15-20 km from the border!) and Israel began to turn the troops out.

Even earlier very well technically equipped army having overwhelming advantage over the contender in arms, communication facilities and management lost wars to more motivated, sacrificial and persistent contender. It is enough to recollect wars in Korea or Vietnam. However then it was a question of opposition of two regular armies, two systems of the rear security, two military-industrial machines, two public systems with ideology of mobilization type.

Now powerful regular army struggles not with the army of the opponent but with home guard which does not have accurate social borders. That is - with concrete man or group of concrete people who do not have either modern weapon, or security, either social structurization, or sufficient information... That is with someone not capable to win and even formally not capable to resistance.

Centuries ago Mongols and the Arabs who were at lower steps of public evolution gained victories over opponents who had more modern weapon, the best military organization and more better developed economically rear. They won and created world scale empires.

Probably, today the situation comes back to that starting point when qualities of the fighter were more important than the weapon which he possesses.

 

This has nothing to do with technology in the way you mention. What you're commenting on are counter-insurgency operations. Iraq/Afghanistan/Israel etc. are all examples. These types of conflicts have occured for thousands of years with similar outcomes. Alexander, Rome, and the British Emprie all dealt with and had trouble with counter-insurgencys. What technology has done in the last 40 or so years has widened the gap between the haves and the have nots. To defeat the U.S. and it's allies you cannot face them head on. In conventional warfare the U.S. and it's allies can dominate virtually everyone. Thus the only way to fight these powers is with assymetrical warfare....i.e counter-insurgency.

Weapons are just as important as ever (if not more so) in conventional battles today. If the U.S and China were to go to war one day you can be sure technology would have a very important impact on the outcome. When it comes to counter-insurgency operations though, human capital is more important. It has always been this way and probably always will. Insurgency's deal with stabilizing a country and it's population against members within that population. Pure force of arms doesn't accomplish much in that scenario. It's more about politics than raw force.

 

Whether it is conventional or unconventional warfare or a combination of both (hybrid warfare), it is tactics and strategy which will win the wars of today and of the future and not necessarily the technological superiority of weapons. It is the tactical skill and proficiency of the warriors themselves and smart thinking and good strategy of the warrior's leaders which is of prime importance in warfare. Tactics and strategy, solid leadership and the training, skill, experience, tactical proficiency and smart thinking of the warriors themselves is more important than technology and weapons.

Technology and weapons are ONLY the icing on the cake. That being said, I like technology and appreciate what technology can do, but in the end, it is still, regardless, the icing on the cake, but not the cake itself. Technology can have an important impact, I can't argue that, but far more important is the skill and smart thinking of the warriors themselves. Wars are still ultimately won by the warriors themselves and not necessarily technology or new advances in weaponry.

Smart and good tactics and strategy can circumvent the advantages of any new advances in technology of weapons. Technology and superior weapons are no substitute for good tactics and strategy. In my view, the quality of the warrior is indeed far more important than the quality of the weapon because a good warrior can always find ways tactically to circumvent the advantages of a high quality weapon. "Machine dependence" or an over-reliance on superior technology and good weapons is a trap that many warriors fall into.

 

It's a little too cliche for me to say its all about the individiual warrior and not technology. The most skilled Iraqi armored commander would still have been annhilated by any American force. Also consider that technology can play an important role in developing soldiers in training. Technology also allow commanders to have better intelligence and communication which leads to better decisions. Of course ultimately its the guys operating the technology that matter, but wars are often won by small margins and technology can easily provide that margin.

 

There are only two powers in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit. ~

Napoleon Bonaparte

 

By the way, in the modern world those states of the world which show high human potential of the population and army, the unity of people and absence of fermentation in the society don't become object of aggression even if they are in the international isolation and are ranked as "a harm axis". Neither North Korea, nor Iran are objects of attack and obviously won't become. The problem of countries which undergo aggression consists in the fact that there is no unity in the society and elite isn't supported by the population. Here we can talk about Iraq and Serbia and may be Libya.

 

I agree. But even in conventional warfare, infantry is still the most important aspect to winning wars and not armor.

 

Armor and technology is what supports the infantry, even in conventional war, but it's ultimately the tactical skill level of the infantry on the ground and the quality of their leadership that is one of the biggest factors that can decide the outcome of wars. Leadership, the tactical skill level of infantry and the human factor is one of the keys to winning wars. I know you don't under-estimate the value of infantry IgnoranceIsBliss, but I think many people do under-estimate the value of infantry and put an over-emphasis on technology and firepower. Infantry, tactical skill and good strategy is key to winning wars, the rest is support and icing on the cake. So, having highly skilled warriors is crucial.