Is the American military really unbeatable?

In my post dealing with the analysis of Ralph Peters on the issue of globalization, I made mention of the fact that his works concerning military affairs are of little value since they spout much of the same Pentagon-style jargon about how the American military can defeat anybody and everybody at any moment. Well William Lind has recently taken a shot at this notion. You may remember when I commented on another of Lind's article concerning Iraqi militias. Unlike most military analysts these days, William Lind approaches warfare with intelligence and not just jingoistic rhetoric.

Lind makes his point clear, "the idea that the U.S. military cannot be defeated is disconnected from reality." Indeed it is. Lind goes on to compare the mentality of America's top brass to the Spanish in the 17th century, when Spain was at the height of its geo-political power and it's military had not been defeated in a hundred years. That is until they faced the French at the Battle of Rocroi in 1643. It's only a matter of time before the American army meets its own Rocroi, according to Lind.

Lind probably did not intend to, but he also touched on the issue of what's wrong with most discussions on the nature of future warfare. He notes that "you cannot predict the outcome of a war just by counting up the stuff on either side and seeing who has more. Such "metrics" leave out strategy and stratagem, pre-emption and trickery, generalship and luck. They leave out John Boyd's all-important mental and moral levels."

And indeed that's the very problem with most "analysis" put forth concerning the nature of future warfare. It largely focuses on the material aspects, especially technology, and leaves out the other and often more important elements. Very little if anything is mentioned of political and cultural factors, which are absolutely key to victory. Not much is mentioned about tactics and strategy, except how it will relate to the use of the newest technology; nevermind the fact that the relationship of strategy and tactics with technology is twofold, each influences the other. Strategy and tactics do not always revolve around technology, in fact it often plays an important role in determining not only how technology will be used on the battlefield, but even what kinds of technology will be developed.

And the supposed technology of the future is presented in a silver-bullet fashion, as to make it appear invincible and without any flaws or weaknesses. This of course is bogus. Interesting enough, much of the technology proposed doesn't even conform to reality, as the Pentagon itself had to admit. And course the new technology will supposedly "revoluntionize warfare", so its advocates claim. Well it might, but then again maybe not. We don't know for sure right now. But technology alone does not revolutionize warfare, in fact it's usually political and social factors that dramatically change warfare. This point is very well articulated in the book The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050 edited by MacGregor Knox.

So yes the American military is not invincible, but good luck getting this simple point into the thick skulls operating at the Pentagon and their countless mouth-pieces writing about military affairs in numerous newspapers, magazines, and/or books. Sad really, since being aware of this simple fact may lead the Pentagon into using more common sense. But thankfully there are some voices of sanity out there. Keep the good work up Lind!