Do low intensity conflicts make America's military any stronger?

[Felch]

Iraq and Afghanistan have obviously fatigued the United States and its allies. Balanced against the loss of men and material, does field experience make us more likely to be effective in a future conflict? It figures that real life would shake some of the stupidity out of some things, and lead to a better, smarter force.

I think about the Chinese Army, where they haven't really fought since their Vietnam war thirty years ago. Would you figure then that their NCOs are probably less effective, and their training and tactics outdated? If your army is focusing on suppressing riots, then they're likely losing their combat edge.

Smoke weed.

[Drake Tungsten]

Depends. Practice at fighting low intensity wars obviously makes the US military better at fighting future low intensity wars, but it might make them worse at fighting conventional wars against a peer opponent.

[Drake Tungsten]

dp

[MikeH]

Depends. Practice at fighting low intensity wars obviously makes the US military better at fighting future low intensity wars, but it might make them worse at fighting conventional wars against a peer opponent.

On the plus side, there aren't any peer opponents.

[fed1943]

Current wars are not real wars in the classical sense.
Instead they are very harsh police,diplomatic,covert,propaganda strugles.
So, the skill for these "wars" are not the same for classic wars.

[HalfLotus]

Growing up on a steady diet of Halo and Half-Life has made our military men better at flying Predator drones.

[Drake Tungsten]

On the plus side, there aren't any peer opponents.

I don't know about that. While the U.S. Navy and Air Force outclass the rest of the world, the Army would still have to treat a larger but less technologically advanced foe like China, Russia or even Iran/North Korea with some respect. The Army is also the branch of the U.S. military most affected by the increasing emphasis on low intensity warfighting, which means its skills in conventional warfighting are likely to degrade the most of the three branches. I don't think those skills would degrade enough for a country like Iran to actually beat the U.S. Army in a conventional war, but it's possible that the U.S. would suffer significantly higher casualties in such a war than it would have with the peer opponent focused Army of 1991 or 2003.

[Felch]

So, Drake, would you say that an NCO who has been in a guerrilla war is less effective fighting conventionally than an NCO who has spent the past ten years in Ft. Hood? I don't dispute that an army that has experience fighting conventionally will do so better than an army that has spent time fighting irregular warfare. I'm wondering if the actual real world experience of dealing with IED threats and being harassed by bushwackers is less applicable to modern warfare than traditional training methods.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, Drake, would you say that an NCO who has been in a guerrilla war is less effective fighting conventionally than an NCO who has spent the past ten years in Ft. Hood?

Yes, although the real issue is that training at Fort Hood may start resembling a guerrilla war more than a conventional war.