The strategy, first implemented in the American Civil War, was that the United States, using its vastly superior industrial reserves would attempt to outproduce the enemy. Then, using the mass-produced material the American military would then try to overwhelm the enemy on the front. Combine this with the second part of the strategy, where the US would go and knock the enemy's ability to produce, then you had a lethal 1-2 punch. Sherman and Grant exploited this perfectly in the Civil War, with Grant continuing to flood the battlefield with thousands of troops and material forcing Lee to retreat while Sherman was sweeping through the South destroying anything in his path. Using this strategy the Union was able to flip the tide of the war and hold together the nation.
The next war that the US would venture into would be The Great War but the American strategy would not really be next used until World War II.
Here, the US strategy could be implemented on a grand scale. Coming out of the depths of Great Depression the nation was ripe for mass production. Roosevelt capitalized on this urge. Issuing tax credits and bond incentives, American businesses started to produce all the necessary materials needed to wage the war. The American Strategy, drawn up by George Marshall and other members of the security team, took key elements from plan employed by Sherman and Grant. The plan called for the US to outproduce the Germans, the Japanese, and the Italians. While simultaneously, launching an effective bomber campaign to wipe out the Axis' power to make war. This plan took time to implement and was not fully up and running until 1944, but when set into motion, the plan was executed to devasting effect. The Allies were able to overwhelm the Germans on all fronts and the Americans were able to crush the Japanese in the Pacific.
The US though would struggle to use its industrial to full effectiveness in later conflicts. Korea was a hard-fought stalemate and Vietnam was a bloody disaster. Here, the American struggled to put the full weight of the nation behind the war effort and was never able to effectively cut the enemy's ability to produce war such as since the Russians and the Chinese were supplying the Koreans and the Vietcong with their equipment.
But the US adapted. Under the guidance of Ronald Reagan and his Secretary of the Defense Kasper Weinberger, the United States' military strategy went through a massive change. Instead of employing just sheer force the US adapted to be able to overrun the enemy with mobile tanks and precision-guided weapons. The concept though was still the same. Overwhelm the enemy and take out its ability to make war. The difference was now with modern equipment and technology, the US could now launch surgical strikes against high-level military targets and then use tanks and troop carriers to quickly dispatch the enemy.
In the previous wars, the US had relied on it capability to take out an enemy's the industrial base but during the Korean and Vietnam War, the USAF could not achieve that goal since the industrial bases of those enemy's was located within China and the Soviet Union, places where the US could not go. Thus, we adapted, we tried to take the enemies' transport vehicles and movements. During the Vietnam and Korean war we did not have the tools to do this but by the Gulf War, we did.
The results were brilliant.
The military launched a surgical 4-month bombing campaign that crippled Iraq's ability to make war and then, using the overwhelming force combined with high mobility, the United States able to sweep through the Iraqi desert overcoming anything in its path. Within 100 hours of the ground invasion, the Iraqi forces surrendered and the US won the war.
The Gulf War proved what was already known to many American military strategists, that the combination of tremendous air power and fast-moving large sums of ground troops, could deliver a decisive conventional victory.
This strategy has proved to be very effective in the War on Terror. The United States, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, when attacking the terrorists won a rout. It was the holding and nation-building part that still befuddles our nation and prevent outright victories. If it was a straight-up war left to the tactics and strategies of both sides, the US would win in a landslide. It will be interesting to watch over the next years and decades to see how this strategy evolves and changes. With the US modernizing and updating so much of its Armed Forces and computers becoming a more important tool in modern warfare, it is inevitable that the US will have to adapt and tweak its strategic thinking. But if there is one thing that history has taught us it is that the United States military will be able to adapt and evolve.
-C. Shell
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2003-07-01/new-american-way-war
The next war that the US would venture into would be The Great War but the American strategy would not really be next used until World War II.
Here, the US strategy could be implemented on a grand scale. Coming out of the depths of Great Depression the nation was ripe for mass production. Roosevelt capitalized on this urge. Issuing tax credits and bond incentives, American businesses started to produce all the necessary materials needed to wage the war. The American Strategy, drawn up by George Marshall and other members of the security team, took key elements from plan employed by Sherman and Grant. The plan called for the US to outproduce the Germans, the Japanese, and the Italians. While simultaneously, launching an effective bomber campaign to wipe out the Axis' power to make war. This plan took time to implement and was not fully up and running until 1944, but when set into motion, the plan was executed to devasting effect. The Allies were able to overwhelm the Germans on all fronts and the Americans were able to crush the Japanese in the Pacific.
The US though would struggle to use its industrial to full effectiveness in later conflicts. Korea was a hard-fought stalemate and Vietnam was a bloody disaster. Here, the American struggled to put the full weight of the nation behind the war effort and was never able to effectively cut the enemy's ability to produce war such as since the Russians and the Chinese were supplying the Koreans and the Vietcong with their equipment.
But the US adapted. Under the guidance of Ronald Reagan and his Secretary of the Defense Kasper Weinberger, the United States' military strategy went through a massive change. Instead of employing just sheer force the US adapted to be able to overrun the enemy with mobile tanks and precision-guided weapons. The concept though was still the same. Overwhelm the enemy and take out its ability to make war. The difference was now with modern equipment and technology, the US could now launch surgical strikes against high-level military targets and then use tanks and troop carriers to quickly dispatch the enemy.
In the previous wars, the US had relied on it capability to take out an enemy's the industrial base but during the Korean and Vietnam War, the USAF could not achieve that goal since the industrial bases of those enemy's was located within China and the Soviet Union, places where the US could not go. Thus, we adapted, we tried to take the enemies' transport vehicles and movements. During the Vietnam and Korean war we did not have the tools to do this but by the Gulf War, we did.
The results were brilliant.
The military launched a surgical 4-month bombing campaign that crippled Iraq's ability to make war and then, using the overwhelming force combined with high mobility, the United States able to sweep through the Iraqi desert overcoming anything in its path. Within 100 hours of the ground invasion, the Iraqi forces surrendered and the US won the war.
The Gulf War proved what was already known to many American military strategists, that the combination of tremendous air power and fast-moving large sums of ground troops, could deliver a decisive conventional victory.
This strategy has proved to be very effective in the War on Terror. The United States, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, when attacking the terrorists won a rout. It was the holding and nation-building part that still befuddles our nation and prevent outright victories. If it was a straight-up war left to the tactics and strategies of both sides, the US would win in a landslide. It will be interesting to watch over the next years and decades to see how this strategy evolves and changes. With the US modernizing and updating so much of its Armed Forces and computers becoming a more important tool in modern warfare, it is inevitable that the US will have to adapt and tweak its strategic thinking. But if there is one thing that history has taught us it is that the United States military will be able to adapt and evolve.
-C. Shell
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2003-07-01/new-american-way-war
http://www.history.com/topics/persian-gulf-war
Kennedy, David M. Freedom from Fear: the American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Very insightful post as to how American war strategies adapted to better fit changing war circumstances. I thought you did a great job connecting what we've learned in class about the Civil War and WWII to more recent instances such as the Gulf War and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think it was interesting how the US wasn't able to achieve victory in the Vietnam War because of the fact that they based all of their war plans on their previous experience in Korea, and their main objective wasn't to decisively win the war but rather to keep South Vietnam from losing the war. The restriction of American and South Vietnamese troops to just South Vietnam kept China out of the war and allowed bordering countries Laos and Cambodia to stay neutral, but it also prevented the US from stopping the flow of supplies and reinforcements to North Vietnam via the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Despite the loss, the event reaffirmed the importance of adaptation within the military.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.historynet.com/strategy-failure-americas-war-vietnam.htm