Most useful soldier/machine for Low Intensity Conflcits

[Sayeret]

What is the most useful soldier/machine for the kind of war that the US is fighting in Iraq? Like the previous threads I've made, this thread and poll with the intention that there are no correct answers rather to create a discussion. Add in anything that I may have missed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snipers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipers)

UAVs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAVs)

Armored Bulldozers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D9)

Infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry)

Special Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_forces)

Artillery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery)

Gunship/Transport Helicopters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_gunship)

Attack Fixed Wing Aicraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft)

#2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombers)

IFVs/APCs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFV)

#2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier)

Police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police)

[digrar]

Infantry, everyone else is in support.

[jason82]

You left out intelligence, which IMO is the most important.

Most suicide bombings in israel are stopped by the Shabach (shin bet)... We (army) may be the ones who grab the bomber, but they let us know where he is...

[catalyst]

I cant see how special forces are the key element of fighting a low intensity fight!

SF dont go around and holding the ground like infantry do. They jump in ream the enemy up the backside and then go home. Infantry then come and show the locals who is boss.....

[Spartan117300]

Infantry, everyone else is in support.

He said a low intensity conflict. that means keeping out the conventional, armored and infantry units, the "big" army. SF units have completed the majority of operations in Afghanistan, ever heard of task force dagger? Iraq is another issue, its much larger, and we simply dont have the operators to cover that much ground. To add to my point, look at the russians tactics in their Afghan war, conventionally they did horrible, but their VDV and Spetsnaz troops actually did well.

[Royal]

In Low Intensity conflicts experience has shown (as has been pointed out already) that Int and SF in concert - rather than as often happens as separarte organisations that lead to sucess.

In general war (and perhaps in areas of Iraq) you cannot take and hold ground without infantry.

[PrincessRAR]

low intensity? any digger that can keep his eyes open on patrol or piquet

[digrar]

Infantry, everyone else is in support.

He said a low intensity conflict. that means keeping out the conventional, armored and infantry units, the "big" army. SF units have completed the majority of operations in Afghanistan, ever heard of task force dagger? Iraq is another issue, its much larger, and we simply dont have the operators to cover that much ground. To add to my point, look at the russians tactics in their Afghan war, conventionally they did horrible, but their VDV and Spetsnaz troops actually did well.

Well trained/disciplined Infantrymen can work wonders in low intensity conflict.

[Minardiau]

Police

Reason being that armed intervention can be seen as a intrusion into a nations soveriegnty.

[digrar]

Don't you think that many low intensity conflicts come about because law and order has broken down?

[Lokos]

To add to my point, look at the russians tactics in their Afghan war, conventionally they did horrible, but their VDV and Spetsnaz troops actually did well.

This is a puzzling statement. Define what you mean by Russian regulars performing '[horribly]' in the Afghan War?

As for the topic at hand...

Infantry. Entirely agree with Digrar. Back in '99 it was infantry sweeps that routed (temporarily) the UCK/KLA, not the 'specijalci' (SF). I mean, all of the above played a part in the cordoning operations and the subsequent reduction of the cordons, but it was infantry that did the sledgehammer work.

Lokos

[Minardiau]

Don't you think that many low intensity conflicts come about because law and order has broken down?

But sending in fully armed infatrymen for example could raise the prospects of terrorist action as seen because of troops being deployed to Lebenon, Chechnya, Cyprus, Ireland and Somalia and or atrocities occuring by the so called "good guys" Tibet, Chechnya, Somalia, ect

[digrar]

Who say's they have to fully kitted out, that's what escualtion of force is all about.

[ogukuo72]

Type of Soldier: - Civil Affairs/Psy-ops
Type of Machine: a full medic kit

[hauptman]

Infantry.
They have a wide range of different possibilities and they're fast and easy to deploy.

If they are supported through SF noone can stop them ^^

[Beer Monster]

If history shows us anything then it's probably regular infantry work in conjunction with SF and good intelligence.

This can be seen in a many low intensity conflicts the British Army has fought over the years such as the campaign against the Mau Mau in Kenya in 1950s, the Malayan Emergency and Aden in the 60s, Oman in the 70s Cyprus in the 1960s and Northern Ireland.

The Rhodesians also fought a successful (if not victorious) conflict and the Israelis have done very well in the latest intifada using regular infantry and SF but most importantly good intel.

[Asheren]

Alone none of this.

You need SF and some sort of support to destroy, disable and capture strategical enemy targets.
You need infantry to hold them and do cleaning job(disarm remaining enemy etc.)
You must somehow deliver above to target.

So my vote is on aircraft carrier.

[PrincessRAR]

Don't you think that many low intensity conflicts come about because law and order has broken down?

But sending in fully armed infatrymen for example could raise the prospects of terrorist action as seen because of troops being deployed to Lebenon, Chechnya, Cyprus, Ireland and Somalia and or atrocities occuring by the so called "good guys" Tibet, Chechnya, Somalia, ect

they dont have to go in fully armed, look at the solomons now - not all diggers go on armed patrols.

been non military you wouldnt know about eescalation of force, but that is exactly what you are talking about.

police just arent trained to handle matter like the scenario.

[PrincessRAR]

herc would be alot quicker and quiter, and wouldnt alarm the rest of that continent with a load of ships doordling around.

[mudbunny]

The most important weapon in a low-intensity conflict is, in my opinion, the Cowbell, without question. You walk thru the main drag of the dump where your fighting bangin a mean-ass cowbell, man, even the most hardened guerrilla would question his commitment to the fight. IMHO
I GOTTA HAVE MORE COWBELL BABY!!!!!

[gaijinsamurai]

Digrar said it all in the first response.
Infantry.

[ogukuo72]

There's too much emphasis here about the use of force. If you want to really win a LIC, you need the Hearts and Minds stuff too. Special Forces would be the most useful on the list, but there's a lot of others less glamourous jobs such as intel, interrogation, propoganda, civil affairs, etc, that are just as important.

[digrar]

It may be difficult to do your hearts and minds program without security, groups like SAS and SF can do both, but on a larger scale you may need an Infantry and Armoured presence for your medics and civil affairs types to get to work.

[Beer Monster]

It may be difficult to do your hearts and minds program without security, groups like SAS and SF can do both, but on a larger scale you may need an Infantry and Armoured presence for your medics and civil affairs types to get to work.

That’s basically what happened in Oman and Malaya. In Oman it was mainly indigenous troops commanded by British Officers/NCO's with the SAS doing their bit with the local populace and Firquats ("converted" former terrorists) where as in Malaya it was regular British Troops in support of SAS (again allowing them to do their thing).

Have a ready though Britain’s Small Wars (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html) website absolutely fascinating stuff.

[baboon6]

The most important weapon in a low-intensity conflict is, in my opinion, the Cowbell, without question. You walk thru the main drag of the dump where your fighting bangin a mean-ass cowbell, man, even the most hardened guerrilla would question his commitment to the fight. IMHO
I GOTTA HAVE MORE COWBELL BABY!!!!!

Listen... I got a fever... and the only prescription... is more cowbell!

[VISTREL]

definitely special forces because the nature of their work is somewhat similar to guerilla warfare while other branches are mainly suitable for conventional warfare....

[Sayeret]

this relates to the topic (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/apph.htm)

[gaijinsamurai]

Very cool site, Beermonster! Thanks for the link. By the way, is that you in your avitar?

[moughoun]

Infantry, everyone else is in support.

He said a low intensity conflict. that means keeping out the conventional, armored and infantry units, the "big" army. SF units have completed the majority of operations in Afghanistan, ever heard of task force dagger? Iraq is another issue, its much larger, and we simply dont have the operators to cover that much ground. To add to my point, look at the russians tactics in their Afghan war, conventionally they did horrible, but their VDV and Spetsnaz troops actually did well.

for a guy who supposed to be an expert in this type of warfare, your being shown up by an Aussie digger with no super ninja skill's, except of course that he know's what he's talking about, which would mean you are not

[Creeper]

Infantry, everyone else is in support.

He said a low intensity conflict. that means keeping out the conventional, armored and infantry units, the "big" army. SF units have completed the majority of operations in Afghanistan, ever heard of task force dagger? Iraq is another issue, its much larger, and we simply dont have the operators to cover that much ground. To add to my point, look at the russians tactics in their Afghan war, conventionally they did horrible, but their VDV and Spetsnaz troops actually did well.
WTF ?? HEY r u tabbed??? y/n ?????

[Beer Monster]

Very cool site, Beermonster! Thanks for the link. By the way, is that you in your avitar?

A pleasure mate. Yep it is me.

[Minardiau]

Don't you think that many low intensity conflicts come about because law and order has broken down?

But sending in fully armed infatrymen for example could raise the prospects of terrorist action as seen because of troops being deployed to Lebenon, Chechnya, Cyprus, Ireland and Somalia and or atrocities occuring by the so called "good guys" Tibet, Chechnya, Somalia, ect

they dont have to go in fully armed, look at the solomons now - not all diggers go on armed patrols.

been non military you wouldnt know about eescalation of force, but that is exactly what you are talking about.

police just arent trained to handle matter like the scenario.

But the reason why some situations escalate into small low instensity conflicts is because the military is there.

[California Joe]

Catch 22.

[digrar]

Don't you think that many low intensity conflicts come about because law and order has broken down?

But sending in fully armed infatrymen for example could raise the prospects of terrorist action as seen because of troops being deployed to Lebenon, Chechnya, Cyprus, Ireland and Somalia and or atrocities occuring by the so called "good guys" Tibet, Chechnya, Somalia, ect

they dont have to go in fully armed, look at the solomons now - not all diggers go on armed patrols.

been non military you wouldnt know about eescalation of force, but that is exactly what you are talking about.

police just arent trained to handle matter like the scenario.

But the reason why some situations escalate into small low instensity conflicts is because the military is there.

Like CJ said it's catch 22 or chicken and egg territory, but there must have been a need for soldiers to be there in the first place. That it esculated after they arrive is unfortunate, but the military force is best placed to de-esculate it, be it by turning the general population or taking out the trouble makers.

[Para]

I will have to agree with those that say the Infantry is the best method of keeping order. The one thing is they need to know just when to use force and how much force should be used, it is a very fine balance between helping the people and turning them against you.

[2/1kiwi]

infantry

[zonk]

infantry for sure....airborne infantry that is

[catalyst]

And how would you go about deploying SF in a wide fronted low intensity conflict like Borneo was during the ocnfrontation?

You saying you would like to see SF doing sweep patrols, clearance patrols, security of vital assets, convoys, logistics etc...etc...

that is the bread and butter of infantry! going into a place. Clearing the enemy and keeping it clear. Now if the Russians were unable to do that in Afghan, maybe we need to look at what they were trying to do and how the ywere doing it.

Aussies in SVN, did very well in using the supporting elements (Armour, Air, Sea, SF etc...) to further the cause! But you cant tell me you would deploy the whole SOCOM group in favour of deploying a infantry group of the same size.