by Tim Mccardle

Created on: June 28, 2008   Last Updated: June 29, 2008

The question of the obsolescence of modern armies against the tactics of a guerilla army needs to take into account the mission of the traditional army. If the occupation of foriegn territory is the objective, then yes, guerilla tactics do reduce the effectivness of a modern, high-tech military. This is not a new development. Throughout the history of warfare smaller less well equipped armies have given fits to the mighty through unconventional tactics.

One need only to look at the history of warfare in the United States to see that this "new" application of assymetric warfare has been around for centuries. The French and Indian war was dominated by actions considered ungentlemanly at the time. The French, English settlers, and most prominently, both sides Indian allies used such tactics with great effectivness against both regular troops and irregulars(guerillas).

The American Revolution also featured militias that used methods consistent with guerilla warfare. A viewing of "The Patriot", by Mel Gibson shows this for those not interested in the historical record. The Confederate Army used scouts and calvary hit-and-run strikes with great effectiveness in the Civil War against the better armed and equipped Union Army.

That said, the purpose of the modern army particularly in the United States, is to secre national boundaries and secure strategic interests. When it comes to the core missions of national defense and securing of strategic interests, the modern armed forces of the United States are unequaled.

The Bush Administrations misuse of the most powerful fighting force that the world has ever seen should not be seen as a failure of mission for the Pentagon. If the United States were a colonial power bent on world domination and occupation, then our armed forces would be well-prepared to occupy foriegn soil and combat insurgency. Since this was not the defined mission before the disasterous invasion of Iraq, the military did not focus on occupation issues like nation building.

If the war in Iraq were about the oil, the US Armed Forces could have taken the vast oil fields of Iraq with a minimum of casualties, and it could have held them indefinetly with a minimum of forces. Repeling attackers is the mission of an army and The US can do it better than anyone in history, but instead they were sent into cities to restore order and police populations. This was a failure because it was not the mission that they were trained for. They were trained to close with the enemy and destroy it.

And to say that guerilla tactics have made modern armies obsolete obviously fails to look at the situation in Iraq today. With new tactics and training, General David Petraus has transformed the situation in that powder keg of a country in less than a years time. However, the United States needs to not forget to keep their "obsolete" armed forces intact for the time that a true threat to our national interests comes along and needs the attention of a force that can destroy the enemy, rather than pacify them because that should be the mission of the military not the conquest and occupation of foriegn nations.

With the rising threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, I hope the civilian leaders in Washington realize that the US Military can destroy all of Iran's military capability (thus greatly reducing the threat) without resorting to the occupation of a country with seventy million people. Putting an advanced army within the confines of cities with teeming populations is what allows assymetric warfare to even the odds, most certainly not the obsolecence of the modern army.

Learn more about this author, Tim Mccardle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.