12 Myths of 21st-Century War

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by Trip_Wire, Nov 4, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    Note: IMHO, a very good article on the subject. :wink:

    (Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, strategist and author of 22 books, including the recent "Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century.)

    A Quote from article:

    "Unaware of the cost of freedom and served by leaders without military expertise, Americans have started to believe whatever's comfortable

    By Ralph Peters

    We're in trouble. We're in danger of losing more wars. Our troops haven't forgotten how to fight. We've never had better men and women in uniform. But our leaders and many of our fellow Americans no longer grasp what war means or what it takes to win."

    Link to article:

  2. your point being.........
  3. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    Well thats a load of crap not worth reading. If guys like that are in charge.....it's probably why you're having a bit of problem.

    But thanks for sharing...I suppose.
  4. Myth 8: Sounds like he's content with just being hated.

    Myth 12: Its only mostly America's fault. (Britain helped create the state of Israel and thus a flashpoint in the region).
  5. Maybe if he'd given some idea of what victory meant to him, it would have had some interest. Seems to me he meant 'things go back to what they were like in the good old days' rather than any concrete endstate.

    PS Why is it Americans feel the urge to adopt the name 'Legion' for their jingoistic organisations. Don't they realise so has every fascist movement in the last 100 years?
  6. It makes sense in some ways. Though the twelve points Peters make are mainly about three things:

    a) Terrorists must be fought, because if they aren't, their bully nature leads to them becoming ever more vicious.
    b) Even though serious mistakes were made in our (The US's) campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, but things would've been worse if we hadn't gone.
    c) Things didn't start with our attacks on Iraq and the 'Stan, things started decades earlier and our weak leaders refused to act, causing point a) to go into effect.

    Peters doesn't mention the fact that Iraq had naught to do with Islamist attacks on the US, though. That's a weak point IMO.