There were a lot of interesting factiods in this article, but it didn't come together for me into a cohesive piece.
The US has no honorable reason for being in the Middle East - if it did, it would also have invaded large chunks of Africa, probably North Korea, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be a US ally and maybe send some troops into a few well chosen South American countries for good measure. The world is horrible, and it is highly suspicious that the Middle East was the first mob in need of 'saving'.
With that observation as a premise, it is questionable that the US military is reporting their objectives honestly. I think I can keep track of who the current bad guys are, but I can't keep track of which ones were US allies or created by US adventures over the past 20 years.
If the take-away is the US military would be more effective with flamethrowers then that makes sense to me. If the argument is that they are struggling to achieve their objectives in the Middle East then I assume they are lying about what they are trying to achieve.
Yes, I think this is because despite simply recounting the justifications for levelling a city that US forces put forth, it gives the misleading impression of having some suggestion on how to improve things.
I do think that the US military is reporting their objectives honestly. Armies are very much task focused organisations, and it really doesn't work if you are unclear about the task.
What does tend to be questionable is the metrics reported towards completion of the task: a military tends to solve tasks given to it no matter how it must misreport things on the ground. Ground reports are usually unreliable anyway.
>The US has no honorable reason for being in the Middle East - if it did, it would also have invaded large chunks of Africa, probably North Korea, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be a US ally and maybe send some troops into a few well chosen South American countries for good measure. The world is horrible, and it is highly suspicious that the Middle East was the first mob in need of 'saving'.
Not only that -- for this assumes that it's ok that the world should have some "savior" state, and even more so, a self-proclaimed one -- as opposed to sovereign countries solving their own problems.
This is a tough one. If Nazi's hadnt tried to expand their borders, but still kept killing all the jews in Germany, is that a sovereign country solving its own problems?
It’s not suspicious, it’s oil. The US government has been pretty transparent about that for decades. Africa can’t precipitate global instability the way the Middle East can, they just don’t tick the boxes for military intervention.
Articles written in the US about the US military destroying cities to "save them" are always positive like this.
Compare that to American media coverage of ISIS's "Management of Savagery" (e.g. https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/opinions/paris-attacks-isis-s...) in which essentially the same strategy of destruction, rebuilding, and recivilization is described as 'the end goal is to inflict significant political, economic and social consequences through "savagery"' (a complete misunderstanding of the tactic, if not a purposeful fabrication).
Simply put: this is not a strategy for "saving cities or people". That drinks directly from the propaganda line. It's merely a tactic for gaining control of a population and geography as an aspect of a larger strategy to achieve national/group interests (be they oil, geopolitical, religious...)
It seems that the case being made there is that because the forces of goodness and freedom can't actually take on the forces of bad and evil whole cities must be leveled to the ground to drive out the enemy and the people... And then when the enemy is fleeing like rats it's easy pickings for the divine superior air power of the forces of goodness and freedom.
Obviously the billions to be made rebuilding cities by the banks of the forces of goodness and freedom is a definite incentive. Not to mention multi-national oil companies which will help rebuild these countries. Sure you might use chemicals like Agent Orange to defoliate entire forests so you can get at the enemy for similar reasons, but that's a small price to pay for the forces of freedom and goodness to prosper.
But what about real solutions? How about not starting wars and creating power vacuums and minding your own business. But you say war is our business. And I can't help but nod and agree.
> How about not starting wars and creating power vacuums and minding your own business
Democracies tend not to pick fights. Unfortunately Russia (Ukraine) and China (Taiwan) are on a revanchist path.
Should Taiwan just let the PLA over for tea and a chat? What should the West do if the CPC decides that its time to "restore China to its former glory" and take back Taiwan by force?
I wrote "Democracies tend not to pick fights" because I knew someone would mention either the US or the UK.
Of course the US is democratic, however it is also a super power and until recently was a trusted keeper of the peace (securing blue ocean, trade routes, etc). The US is not really a valid counter example to my main point as its sui generis.
> Should Taiwan just let the PLA over for tea and a chat? What should the West do if the CPC decides that its time to "restore China to its former glory" and take back Taiwan by force?
US should absolutely destroy every major city in Taiwan that China dares occupy to make sure China never gets it.
>> When the former residents of Mosul returned, there was little left. Over forty thousand homes and sixteen neighborhoods were completely destroyed. Authorities estimate the cost to rebuild all the destroyed cities in Iraq to be over $88.2 billion, $42 billion just for the province that includes Mosul
Tangent, but, If I was one of those Iraqis, I might be mad. Saddam was bad, but was predictably bad (shut up and you'll get your security and food rations) now Iraqis have nothing. All that money has gone in black holes and US based consultants.
As other people mentioned, the only correct way to approach wars is to not have them in the first place.
But since we do have them...
The article failed to convince me that flamethrowers would be in any way less destructive than artillery and/or bombardment. As a Pole, we have had experience of our cities being systematically burned to the ground by Germans during WWII. Notable examples would be Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Warsaw Uprising. In both cases Germans used flamethrowers to deliberately burn the place to the ground, building by building.
"Almost all Warsaw is a sea of flames. To set houses afire is the surest way to deprive the insurgents of their hiding places. When we crush the uprising, Warsaw will get what it deserves – complete annihilation." - Hans Frank, German Governor-General
On the other hand tear gas seems like quite civilized way to force an enemy out of a building. I don't see why it should be banned in close range combat.
Islamic State (or Viet Cong) didn't have to raze the same cities to the ground in able to 'occupy' them.
Putting myself in the position of a civilian in these scenarios, I always bemused how "please leave your home, whilst we convert it and anybody left behind to rubble" as liberation like to win the hearts and minds of me and my family.
My take on the article is that it's the reasonable analysis of how to do what you've been ordered to, whilst minimizing your own casualties. Fair enough. The writers job.
Still, strikes me as if it were the instructions of how to "best remove a screw when you've been given a hammer" (without any consideration of why the screw needs to be removed).
You are comparing two different things, occupying a lightly defended city, and taking an enemy stronghold that happens to be built out of a city.
The author does leave out the most traditional way of taking a city in face of opposition: starving it to submission. I think a fundamental blind spot in the article is that it doesn't explain why US forces employ high explosives so much more than other armies
About "Islamic State (or Viet Cong) didn't have to raze the same cities to the ground in able to 'occupy' them":
Those forces do not face an army when they take a city: they face a collapsing civilian state. When the restoring state or a foreign country sends a "liberation" army, the situation is very different: two armies are facing each other.
It was the same with nazis in the first phase of WWII: a prepared, determined and fanatic army faced unprepared troops. They took large chunks of Europe with little combats and destructions (Central Europe, France, Belgium...).
> They took large chunks of Europe with little combats
The amount of casualties taken by the French army in 1940 seem to indicate that there were some fighting. And the French army tried to counterattack multiple times (Arras, Stonne), even if they lost each time. The Polish lost also a lot of men.
Insurgent that came in power thanks to US taking out Saddam enter's poor Iraqi's house. US flattens the house built with sweat and tears and moves to the next target.
Maybe a flamethrower leave the walls intact or something?
The US has no honorable reason for being in the Middle East - if it did, it would also have invaded large chunks of Africa, probably North Korea, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be a US ally and maybe send some troops into a few well chosen South American countries for good measure. The world is horrible, and it is highly suspicious that the Middle East was the first mob in need of 'saving'.
With that observation as a premise, it is questionable that the US military is reporting their objectives honestly. I think I can keep track of who the current bad guys are, but I can't keep track of which ones were US allies or created by US adventures over the past 20 years.
If the take-away is the US military would be more effective with flamethrowers then that makes sense to me. If the argument is that they are struggling to achieve their objectives in the Middle East then I assume they are lying about what they are trying to achieve.