Strength in Combat

[stef]

by Adam Lauritzen

“The reality is that in order to win, someone has to go somewhere and physically stop the enemy from doing whatever it is we disagree with, and this will be dependent on the strength of the individual combatant. In every modern conflict, singular acts of valor occurred, which demonstrate an ever present need for our troops to be individually strong.”

Article

[Suwannee Dave]

The problem with this article is that it does not compute with reality. The North Vietnamese were demonstrably smaller and lighter that American GI's yet that war was lost. Korea was basically a stalemate despite the small stature of the N Koreans and Chinese. The Afghans of the 1980's were probably smaller and weaker than the Russians, but who won? The wars that were won were won mainly through attrition and industrial superiority, not the strength of individual soldiers. The point is that as Carl von Clausewitz said, war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means.

[Adam Lauritzen]

I think you've missed the point which is individual members of the military must be strong enough to survive the rigors of combat. This article pertains to specifically to individuals being capable of winning individual combat instances, the base level one must win to eventually win the war. Your examples do not address this point, especially considering that these were all limited conflicts with politicians restricting ground commanders tactical use of their assets (the inability to bomb bridges Chinese troops would use to cross the Yellow River). So the loss of these wars occurred in DC rather than the failure of individual combatants doing their jobs. I'm not too well versed on the Russian side of the Afghan war, but we did assist their belligerents and it was a fairly unpopular war in the world view which may have pressured the Soviets into their own limited conflict failure. Clausewitz is correct but the point is moot if the individual combatant dies in his attempt to support his government's decision while on the battlefield. The victor of the conflict gets to set the the post conflict rules as he has demonstrated through his willingness and ability to apply force (violence). This is dependent on his individual combatants being able supply the violence, if they are strong then they can do that better.

[Subby]

Given what's happened to the military over the last 6 years. I think this article aged well.