Scenario: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies

[shahadi]

In Avi Kober's (2008) 'The Israel defense forces in the Second Lebanon War: Why the poor performance?' frames a compelling discussion whose nexus is that Western soldiers fighting a "non-existential" war are not willing to scarifice fellow soldiers to accomplish the unit's mission.

According to IDF’s Chief of the Manpower Branch Major General Elazar Stern, part of the explanation for the IDF’s failure in the war was over-sensitivity to casualties.

An investigation committee headed by Major General (res.) Yoram Yair found that during the war commanders’ sense of responsibility for the lives of their troops over shadowed their commitment
to fulfill their missions.

The ‘post-heroic’ style of warfare, which characterized the Israeli conduct of the Second Lebanon War, is not a new innovation. Post-heroic warfare has two main rules: (a) the avoidance of casualties to your own troops, and (b) the avoidance of killing enemy civilians.

Its roots are demographic, social and moral, and it is characteristic of Western democracies conducting non-existential wars in which their readiness to sacrifice is relatively low, as per Edward Luttwak who penned the term "post-heroic warfare." Accordingly, when an IDF company attacked the mountain town of Bint Jbeil in the Second Lebanon War, losing eight men in one night, that number was perceived in Israel and broadcast around the world as a disastrous loss.

Juxtapose the scarifice of American forces on D-Day, an operation deemed "existential" where most reports put fatalities at 29000 while all of Iraq war we find reports of 4800 deaths.

Or, consider the lines of Americans during the weeks following December 7, 1942 against the paltry number of volunteers following 9/11.

Hence, we may have an additional tool, "non-existential" or "post-heroic" warfare to understand the complexities of what are acceptable casualities today.

Kober is from the Department of Political Studies and, BESA Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.

[jivemi]

US fatalities were 29,000 on D-Day? Some sources say more like 10,000-plus total casualties with over 4,000 KIA. Similar casualties for the Germans. Please correct me if that's wrong.

Quibble aside, the concept of post-heroic or non-existential warfare bears repeating. Without the prospects of plunder or glory it's hard to see how Western troops' morale and motivation can be maintained on a battlefield. Perhaps special forces with classic warrior's spirit and a taste for danger are the answer? In any case missiles, jets, drones, long-range artillery and eventually robots may render the question moot as warfare becomes increasingly mechanized. Stay tuned.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You know I have to wonder about this all somewhat. I really don't think these judgements can really be made until that war or this war is actually going on. I was just a young kid watching the nightly news on TV during the Vietnam War,I saw the cost in human lives, the wounded who'd never be whole again, the compassion of those same troops, the fear, the guilt, the sacrifice, devotion to duty, the loss and the will to live and so much more. I do believe for anyone that has served many of these traits are within themselves. It's the motivation to get the job done when you no longer believe the mission can be accomplished in a tactical or strategic sense. They were 19 years of age four years younger than when I began my career. They are still now getting the job done and sacrificing again as they have down the ages and unfortunately will into the future.

I posted in the Vietnam Forum about the PBS covering the war. A Marine described how he was wounded in an ambush, two sacrificed themselves to save him, a third finally did after being severely wounded himself in all three cases they kept that Marine alive by throwing their bodies over his.

As an NVA soldier I think rightly pointed out at the end of the segment "...the only people who care about winning or losing are those who've never fought."

Until actually tested none of us will know how we'll react, we can just hope we'll do the right thing if tested. My motivation is simply, just to come home to CINCLANTHOME at the end of the day, though I hope I'll never have to find out if that's enough or not. I feel based on some of the people I work with, know otherwise and from watching programs as noted above, it seems that "motivation" driven by whatever reason(s) seems to be a constant theme.

When the KURSK sank (2000) in relatively shallow water (Where a DSRV/or other can reach you.) we joked about the poorly built in some cases Russian subs. We did know however, they were at a depth where rescue of the crew could have easily been achieved. We would find out during the event how badly damaged she was, and out of respect not one person working for me (All Submariners.) didn't think how sorry we felt for those dead and their families, and how angry we became at the lack of response by their government and the refusal by them for not allowing us and others to send in our equipment to effect and assist in rescue operations for the survivors.

We all accept the risks, that's why they weed out the ones that can't from Sub School on. As the days went on we all also knew the various stages the crew was going through in the slow death they were experiencing (We're trained in such matters.). No one did anything and a 118 never went home alive to their loved ones.

That's respect for their service, bravery and empathy for their situation until the very end.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/mil...ter-watch.html

Those are the words I hear.

I don't know and where ever my Dad I know he's glad I never found out, but I can tell you he respected those 19 year old kids he was training to go to Vietnam after all the combat he saw in three wars.

Which ever side they are on, I feel they'll do their duty for whatever their motivation is given the proper tools to do the job and the leadership to guide them.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

It's all very VERY situational.

Even the exact same unit fighting a near identical battle may, and often does, behave differently during each. There are so many factors it's impossible to even list them all much less quantify them. This of course never seems to deter the Armchair Quarterbacks.

Yes, you can make generalized assessments based on training, leadership, equipment, and "national character". But anything more precise is nothing but guesswork.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Which ever side they are on, I feel they'll do their duty for whatever their motivation is given the proper tools to do the job and the leadership to guide them.

I hear you loud and clear. And, that sentiment is much aligned with the Israeli investigation of the poor performance of her forces in the 2008 Second Lebanon War.

From Kober's much cited report we find the following: "An investigation committee headed by Major General (res.) Yoram Yair found that during the war commanders’ sense of responsibility for the lives of their troops over shadowed their commitment to fulfill their missions."

The assertion, "...they'll do their duty for whatever their motivation is given the proper tools to do the job and the leadership to guide them," coincides with the conclusion reached in the Yair report as I have noted here; namely, that the leader's respnsibility to their troops mitigated their mission objective.

In short, the Israeli soldiers were led by commanders who did not press on with the mission, but as that company that suffered eight casualties one night at Bint Jbeil the company commander halted and withdrew.

There is no question Western armies are casualty adverse.

What we would like to do is capture the effect of a casualty adverse force in the game.

Other than introduce an additional scoreboard such as the Battle Calculation Sheet, scenario designers could significantly increase the cost of Western forces, in particular infantry units.

As an example, a USMC Fire Team cost would rise to 577 from 77.

[Suhiir]

Easy enough to do for your own purposes.

Just go into the editor and double, triple, whatever, the cost of units.

I've done the opposite in one scenario I tested. Since you can't have a negative unit cost I set the insurgent forces to zero and the battle results are used backwards.
I.E. You get a high score you lose the battle (too much bad press from murdering unarmed civilians).

[Oche]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Easy enough to do for your own purposes.

Just go into the editor and double, triple, whatever, the cost of units.

I've done the opposite in one scenario I tested. Since you can't have a negative unit cost I set the insurgent forces to zero and the battle results are used backwards.
I.E. You get a high score you lose the battle (too much bad press from murdering unarmed civilians).

Exactly, no need to alter core values since you can do that to your interest in the scenario/campaign design scene so far.