Which war is tougher on a military?
- a short-term counterinsurgency with units rotated through a persistent, no-front-lines battlefield?
- an extended, conventional war of attrition with dedicated front lines that push and pull for half a decade?
Sound off in the comments below!
By: Brant
Posts
4 comments:
Wow, I'm surprised by the choices. I was expecting "a quick but intense MRC" versus "a long, drawn-out COIN campaign" but I guess that choice is too easy.
the world zigs. I zag. :)
My money is on ANYTHING short-term, with the obvious exception of a short-term global nuclear annihilation. Casualty rates in these low intensity conflicts are comparatively low. I think morale stays higher when there is a smaller likelihood of being blow to smithereens.
Echoing the others - short term is better, and lower casualty rates are better. Choosing between a long COIN fight and a long (and thereby by definition peer-on-peer) MCO is no contest - the MCO will be far worse.
Post a Comment