Proof/examples of hierarchical armies outperforming decentralized militia?

[BigDH01]

If you look at history going back about 5000 years, and have a good understanding of political and military development, there is one constant truism: Consolidation and centralization brings power, and those areas that failed to do so were generally destroyed or consumed by those that did.

This. In the western world, where is our example of a libertarian state protected solely by militia? There might be some nations out there with a small military, but today they usually enjoy the protection offered them by stronger allies (via UN, NATO, what have you). The nations in Europe that did a poor job centralizing were quickly swallowed or overcome by the modern Westphalian nation states. It simply proved to be a more effective model at gaining, consolidating, and projecting power.

We must also remember that in the modern world a lot of these "militias" received foreign assistance against powerful invaders. Vietnam would not have been the same without SA-2s and MiG 21s and Afghanistan would not have been the same without the Stinger. All inventions of centralized militaries.

 

[Jaskalas]

No. We are fighting a counterinsurgency, not a war. In a war you're trying to defeat an enemy, in COIN you're trying to legitimize and bolster the host nation. In a war, killing lots of people is a good thing, in COIN killing lots of people will have no effect to very bad effects. It's apples and oranges... obviously we can obliterate Afghanistan and everyone in it on a molecular level.

The fact that there's 75,000 US/ISAF forces operating in Afghanistan tells otherwise. The insurgent elements in Afghanistan cannot deter anyone from invading, they cannot project power outside their immediate AO, and they cannot really do anything except fight a desperate asymetrical insurgency by suicide operations, lethal intimidation and killing innocents. That is superior? Gee whiz, maybe the US would be better off scrapping our military and using those methods because they are so superior.

If you look at history going back about 5000 years, and have a good understanding of political and military development, there is one constant truism: Consolidation and centralization brings power, and those areas that failed to do so were generally destroyed or consumed by those that did.

First paragraph is about COIN, and not killing people. In essence supporting my point that our capacity to project force means nothing in this scenario. Second and third paragraphs are all about the projection of force... Mixed message anyone?

Superior, yes. As in Islamic terrorism is thriving and it is not centralized. It cannot be defeated militarily. Perhaps that's too decentralized for the topic and the notion the OP was getting at.

Perhaps he's thinking of Colonial times. Which case your notions of projecting force are quite valid. Centralization does remarkiably well at that, for what should be obvious reasons.

The Modern problem is when you have no one to project force against.

 

[BigDH01]

First paragraph is about COIN, and not killing people. In essence supporting my point that our capacity to project force means nothing in this scenario. Second and third paragraphs are all about the projection of force... Mixed message anyone?

Projecting force won't give us the capability to build modern democratic states when the members of that state simply aren't interested in it or have beliefs that are not congruent to personal freedom or equality (radical Islam). However, we could enforce a military dictatorship and rule the people of Afghanistan or Iraq if we pleased. In antiquity, this certainly wouldn't be unheard of. This simply isn't our goal there and besides getting some oil out of Iraq, I can't really see a benefit to it. It also involves using tactics and techniques that modern societies and populations simply aren't willing to stomach.

Superior, yes. As in Islamic terrorism is thriving and it is not centralized. It cannot be defeated militarily. Perhaps that's too decentralized for the topic and the notion the OP was getting at.

Define thriving. Yes, it exists. Yes, Muslim extremists can occasionally inflict casualties on the west. Now compare those casualties to the number of Muslims that we've killed in the WoT. The fact that Muslim extremists have camps and training centers at all when we have such superior firepower is simply a testament to how ineffective they've actually been. They've been so ineffective at truly inflicting casualties on the West that our state would rather bring our own forces home to save money. They've been so ineffective that even though they pour all their own resources toward terrorism and the destruction of the West they only manage to rank #11 on American's list of concerns.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx

Even including the outlier of 9/11, Muslims have done a terrible job inflicting casualties. Even if we include all the American troops killed in the WoT (6,518), radical Islam looks pathetic. Hell, we lose more than that (roughly 10k) every year to drunk drivers. And we're right there, in their backyard where it should be extremely easy to inflict damage. Thriving? Hardly. We're leaving Afghanistan and Iraq because the public no longer wants to pay the costs and at this point I'd have to say that we don't really have a clear mission.

But you are right, we will never entirely defeat radical Islam. It's an idea, a philosophy, not a standing force or state. And no power, no force, no idea of our own can completely protect us from random acts of individual violence. This includes Muslim extremists or our fellow Americans (who statistically, are far more dangerous and kill many more Americans, 14k+ per year).