I can't count: part 4 of 3

The Rumsfeld Doctrine

The basic tenets of this military strategy are:
- High technology combat systems
- Reliance on air forces
- Small, nimble ground forces
Afghanistan and the Iraq wars are considered the two closest implementations of this doctrine.

In fact, there is a third exemplar: Israel's 2006 campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

All three campaigns have one characteristic in common: the declared objectives were not accomplished:
- Afghanistan: capturing bin Laden, establishing stable democratic state
- Iraq: establishing stable democratic state
- Lebanon: disabling Hezbollah

Yes, high-tech weapons inflicted heavy damage on infrastructure in all three cases. Yes, casualties among attacking forces were limited. Yes, some tactical victories were attained. BUT - the strategic objective in each case was NOT attained.

If Clausewitz is correct, and war is "the continuation of politics by other means," then the Rumsfeld Doctrine has been demonstrated to be impotent.

Yes, high-tech weapons can blow things up... but they cannot impose our political will on our adversary. At some point, imposing our political will is necessary to achieve a lasting peace. Bombs can't do that - they can only blow things up. Only boots on the ground can control a population, and without this control achieving political goals is impossible.

Why, again, are we spending billions of $ on high-tech weapons systems?

Stop the madness.