Good friend and frequent commentator BG has asked that I assist him in getting his thoughts out to you all. Believer in the free flow of ideas that I am, I am doing so, with no editorial input or comments. Everything you see below is BG. Have at it!
Can the US Armed Forces win the next war?
This question came up a couple of times in numerous threads, and I thought it was important enough to have its own thread. More specifically, the question is this:
Will the US Armed Forces have the capability to win the next prolonged, conventional fight?
My first, instinctive response was, “Who cares? It is an irrelevant question because there are no conventional, or ‘real’ wars left to fight in the foreseeable
future. However, after giving it a little thought, it is a very relevant question for obvious reasons. If history has taught us anything, history is predictably unpredictable.
Ultimately, this is the job of the US Armed Forces: “To support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” One can
even mix in the words, “against all threats to our national interests” seeing
how the job of the military is not (and never has been) solely to protect our
nation against existential threats posed by enemy nations, but instead the
military has always been used to protect the interests of Americans abroad from
the oil fields of the middle east, to the railroads of the wild west, to the
pineapple fields of Oahu. So with that said, let’s have the discussion and start with two assumptions that we need to go any further.
Assumption #1: There is a conventional threat that could lure the US Armed Forces into
a prolonged, conventional fight. Although I have no examples of this threat, without this assumption, the rest of this argument is pointless.
Assumption #2: This next war will occur after Iraq and Afghanistan have drawn down to
sustainable levels. I consider this to be less than 10,000 uniformed troops per country, which I consider to be realistic by 2016 (less troops than we kept in Korea for 50 plus years). Any discussion about trying to fight a conventional fight, air land battle style, before this occurs is marred with logistical challenges of projecting forces to a third theater and is just not realistic (nor, IMO, is a realistic scenario based on the current assessment conventional threats to the US Armed Forces).
I absolutely believe that the US Armed Forces will have the capability to win the next prolonged, conventional fight (based on the above assumptions).
Although I admit that I may be too close to the topic to make a completely unbiased, unemotional assessment, but I also feel my near 18 years of service, a mixture of Active, Reserve, officer, enlisted, combat arms, combat support and special operations, as well as participation in 4 different armed conflicts, does give me some insight worthy of discussion.
One of the primary arguments against our ability to win the next, “real” war is that we will not be ready due to three concerns. First of all, we are currently decisively
engaged in two theaters. I will not argue this, thus assumption number #2.
Second, we don’t have the forces required, the industrial base or the
economy to fight a prolonged war. My argument against this is simple. What was the status of our Armed forces and our economy in 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland? A hallow Army, a country still in a decade long economic depression. It took years for the US to prepare itself for WWII, and don’t forget our first engagement in 1943 at Kasserine pass where the US lost over 6,500 soldiers. What makes the US military
great is their adaptability and flexibility.
The third concern, probably the most common, as to why we won’t be ready to win the next “real” war is the US Army’s current focus on COIN. The argument is that we’ve lost our “hard skills” and our ability to meet another army head on. I will take the opposite stance. I believe that our current COIN and Irregular warfare training and war fighting will instead make us better prepared for a conventional war (after a short period of “reblueing” at national training centers).
1. The equipment we use today is still the premier war fighting equipment in the world (minus the M4 carbine and the M9 pistol, but don’t get me started).
2. Conventional warfare tactics are EASY. Action, reaction, counteraction. Give me a doctrinal template, show me a map and I will give you 3 enemy courses of action. It is two dimensional thinking. What you know about the battle field is far greater than what you don’t know, what lies in the fog of war is usually just one or two pieces of key information and all you have to do is find it and act. COIN is far from easy. You have action, reaction and counteraction for dozens of simultaneous variables. The amount of unknown information is overwhelming. A couple of rotations at a CTC and we are back in action for conventional fight.
3. “Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals study logistics” Rommel. During the invasion of Iraq, our greatest failure was logistics. The “Strategic Pause”, when 3ID waited out a sandstorm and the US government gave the Saddam Regime one last chance to surrender occurred partially for diplomacy, but primarily because 3ID overextended their supply lines. It was a logistical failure, and this was after decades of air land battle, ground offensive, conventional training. Those were the logisticians of
the post Cold War.
But who are the logisticians of today’s and tomorrow’s US Armed forces? COIN can be the most challenging logistics environment known to man, and Afghanistan is probably the worst of all logistics scenarios. One of my best friends was a forward support company commander for an infantry battalion in Afghanistan. She (yes, she, did any think we would see a time where a female officer had an infantry blue guide on, times have changed, and in a good way), her company was responsible for providing logistics to over 12 combat outposts spread over an area the size of New York state in the worst
terrain imaginable. Some places were only accessible by helicopter, some by logpacs that took 2-3 days of driving on IED infested, ambush alley roads. Tell
me something. Do you think these soldiers are learning something about logistics?
4. The small unit leaders of today, many of them with as much, if not more, combat time than garrison time, will be the leaders of tomorrow. I’ve often heard that the
Army of the 80’s was the best Army the country has ever seen, due partially to
the Vietnam junior leadership taking over key positions. I don’t know if this is true, but if there is some truth to it, I assess that the same will happen in the next 5-10
years. No, today’s leaders of the Armed Forces won’t be able to effectively get in a plane today, fly their units to a new country and jump right into a conventional fight without a reasonable expectation of Task Force Smith redux. But I maintain that any
fighting force that can survive a COIN fight, especially in Afghanistan, can
quickly relearn the basic tank on tank battle. Again, what has always made our Armed Forces successful (or unsuccessful) has been our ability to adapt, improvise and flex.
I fully believe that fighting in a COIN environment values these qualities above all, and those who do well will take these experiences with them to the next fight. I have an issue with my own argument here. The question is “will the US Armed Forces have the capability to fight a prolonged, conventional fight”. One of the real issues is not
the capability of the US Armed Forces, but instead the political and popular
will of the US population. This leads me to add a third assumption, that the US government will not attempt to fight the war “on the cheap” as we attempted during the GWOT, and that the US population is willing to mobilize for a long fight. Therefore, assumption #3.
Assumption #3: The threat against our nation is considered existential, or at the very
least, considered extremely important to the American people. This assumption must be made for a prolonged fight because without it, we have to worry about the US politicians attempting to fight another war “on the cheap” again. And without a full commitment, that will jeopardize any prolonged military venture. (Damn that Clausewitz
Holy Trinity thing).
So what? Assuming that our nation gets into a prolonged conventional fight (which I still consider the biggest assumption of them all), after we’ve had time to pull out of the current engagements, and the next biggest assumption, assuming the threat is
great enough that our nation will get behind a real commitment, then absolutely, YES, the US Armed Forces can win the next prolonged, conventional fight.
I am going to make an editorial notation here. You'll note the formatting problem, with what appear to be several carriage throws midway through sentences. I copied the post from an email and tried to clean the whole thing up. On the draft version, everything was fine, but as is evident, the final version is choppy.
ReplyDeleteInasmuch as I am just as lazy as I am opinionated, I'm leaving it the way it is. The fault is mine, not BG's. So sue me.
Hrumf. As posted the question is too vague.
ReplyDeleteLet's talk scenarios and explore possibilities.
1 Eastern Ukraine (including Crimea) breaks away and declares a desire to to join Russia. At their invitation, the Russian army enters and digs in. While Europe wrings its hands and declares neutrality (thus preventing re-supply), the president sends in american troops to Odessa (the only remaining Ukranian seaport) to help the rump Ukraine to push out the Russians and re-unite their country.
2. Instigated by rogue elements in the CIA, drug cartels in Mexico stage a coup. The mexican army and people rise up. The american government unable to admit that they screwed up invades mexico to quash the rebellion.
3. The reincarnation of Bonnie Prince Sun Yat Sen shows up. He gathers an army from Taiwan and invades China picking up disgruntled factory workes as he goes. One thing leads to another and all of a sudden the US Army has over-run north korea and is fighting the PRA in manchuria.
Ok, assuming that these scenarios don't end up nuclear, does the US Armed Forces have what it takes to deal with what follows?
War is inherently unpredictable and even when it is predicted, the prediction is almost never timely enough to make major corrections is force composition, training, etc. Over the years since I joined the service after the end of the Cold War I've grown increasingly skeptical of hypothetical scenarios where the US might fight some foe under some set of assumed future circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThat said I will go ahead, throw that out the window and make some predictions:
I think the notion of a "prolonged, conventional" fight isn't likely anytime soon. War over the next couple of decades may be "conventional" or it may be "prolonged" but not both. For conventional war we'll either win quickly or we'll lose quickly, the reason being that we can't replace all our high-tech equipment fast enough once the ordnance starts flying. Just my worthless 2 cents.
The next war the US Forces fight might just be here at home.
ReplyDeletejo6pac
I think the problem here is that we're defining the question too broadly and too tightly at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andy - the possibility of a conventional war is unlikely on the face of it. And the only real chance of a "prolonged" conventional war would be with one of the two other global military powers extant, Russia or China, and (short the "Unleashing The Zombie Chiang" scenario which is both hard to envision AND more a USN/USAF problem than an Army one) those powers have neither the political aggression nor the economic power base to take on the U.S. in the forseeable future.
The remaining second and third tier nations are simply out of their weight class, and that has nothing to do with the tactical prowess of the U.S. Army and everything to do with their lack of air power. Much as I hate to accept the wing-wiper's wild blue yonder bullshit, the reality is that our control of the air renders almost any significant tactical movement and most logistical support untenable for any period. A well-dug in enemy (North Korea, say) could fight a defensive battle for some time, but only in the sense of jacking the casualty figures. Eventually the combination of aerial attack and ground maneuver would do the trick.
Now...having said that...in the "World of Warcraft" scenario where our airpower is neutralized? I'm not so sure we're all that. Our infantry has never been tested on a peer foe, and where they have come close we've shown a distressing tendency to back off and call for fire. That's fine, but right now our artillery branch is fucking nonfunctional and I say that with all the anger and frustration of a redleg. Our infantry and tankers have never been the big killers in battle, boys - not in Saudi, not in Vietnam, not in Korea, not in WW2. It's the cannons that do the killing, and our cannoneers are in the worst shape they've been in since 1860. Sod THAT for a game of soldiers.
And I will argue that logistics in COIN is NOT a good school for logistics in a big war. COIN is all about penny packets and dribs and drabs. Major conventional maneuver calls for massive G-4 coordination, and so far - as bg points out - the last two times we've needed it, in Iraq in '03 and in the Gulf in '91, it came up short.
But WTF - the USAF will pull our ass out of the fire and I hate to say that, but it's the truth.
More to the point, tho - can our conventional forces win the wars we're fighting now, the wars of the flea?
I'll argue no, and that's the subject ofmy next comment.
OK, so...what about our Army's performance in the most likely wars we'll see in the next 20 years - local rebellions and foreign internal defense.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that Ael's Mexico scenario isn't that far-fetched. I understand that 7th SFGA is doing a fair bit of work south of the border that gets little press but could get busier if the Mexican state - one with a history of internal turmoil and precious little legitimacy - slides into failure. But can you imagine the fucking disaster it'd be if the 1CAV had to shoot its way into Ciudad Juarez like we did into Fallujah? Or the 10MTN got stuck up in a bunch of little FOBs in the Sierra Madre Oriental? Pancho Villa would be laughing in hell until his sides ached and gore ran out of his bulletholes.
My take on this is that we've managed to paint ourselves into a corner by insisting that we're "winning" in central Asia when we're doing nothing of the sort.
Oh, we're killing locals all right. But we're doing it in the most inefficient and costly way possible. Look at the record; rebellions and revolutions are either smashed with utter ruthlessness or co-opted and negotiated to a standstill. A foreign army can't possibly act with the ruthlessness needed to destroy the rebellion unless it is willing to rule for decades afterward, and we're not that Roman.
Yet.
And as far as negotiation...ask the CIA guys at FOB Chapman how cunning we are at separating the sheep from the goats in West Buttfuckistan. The people who could do this work - the "Jedburgh" side of the OSS/CIA/SF house - have pretty much been run out of the business by the "Ranger" side. A hell of a lot of the SF - who should be gearing up massively to train foreign Mike Forces, Local Defense Volunteers - are now door-kickers with sissy hats. The Marines who pioneered the CAP in Vietnam? Semper Fi, dude, and let's just fucking do the whole village...
So we lumber expensively around foreign parts with the same subtlety - and the same effect - as a goddam brontosaurus. Sure, we smash a lot of things flat. And we can get what we want in the short term. Sometimes. But the success of the conventional warriors has cut out any chance we had of fighting smart. We've spent seven years in Afghanistan - where's the proxy army we should have built by now? We've spent five years in Iraq - why are the locals there cutting deals with Iran and letting the local warlords set up fiefs and stealing the oil deals that were supposed to go to Exxon?
So...I don't think we need to worry about winning the "big one". We'll get enough support from the USAF/USN to do fine, and assuming our FA branch ever gets the chance to get back on the guns we'll even win a land battle or two.
But I don't see this "COIN Revolution" everyone's talking about. I don't see the Chinese Gordons and the Apache Scouts of the 21st Century. I see us making the same mistake we made in the RVN - taking over their war, trying to fight it our conventional way, trying to make them like us, and, when we realize that's not working, declaring victory and getting out.
Oh, well. It's not like we're going to lose anything but soldiers.
And bg, I have to take you to task about the whole "political and popular will of the US population" canard.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very popular lie, principally spread by the Right but used by anyone who wants to get U.S. troops stuck into some fucking tarbaby.
Wars in general have never been popular in the U.S. unless they were quick, easy, cheap and fought against brown or yellow people and not even then. Two thirds either sat out or fought against us in the Revolution, the nation hated 1812, the Mexican War was only popular after we won, the Civil quickly degenerated into draft riots and a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight".
After our brief national infatuation with imperialism we had to be tricked into WW1, WW2 was forced on us, Korea was widely hated, and Vietnam we all know. Fortunately for the U.S. public the armed forces, not the nation, fought in Panama, the Second Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq and A-stan. All Joe and Mary Lunchpail had to do was go shopping and slap a magnet on the SUV.
That said, the American public has been remarkable tolerant of our foolish stumbling around central Asia over the past seven years. How many generals did Lincoln relieve by 1865? How many battalion commanders and above were sacked between 1941 and 1944?
I'd have hung the entire MNF-I command and staff in 2005 pour encourage les autres and would have had the balls of the CIA, State and DoD people in A-stan even earlier. And that elides the pass this public has given the torturers and those who demanded torture and covered it up after it was done.
Has any of this happened? Where was the million-man march on Capitol Hill when Osama slipped out of Tora Bora? Where was the screaming mob battering the Pentagon after the zillionteenth drone-bombed wedding, renditioned sheepherder or checkpoint shooting?
No, this Army has gotten a hell of a blank check from its public, which has simply asked nothing more than to be left alone to watch American Idol and drink Bud Light.
And in re: "fighting war on the cheap"...
ReplyDeleteYou're out in the imperial hustings trying to hustle the East, doing the imperial job of trying to bend the sulky foreigner to the national will.
Your JOB is to do this "on the cheap". If it had to be done "on the expensive" it wouldn't be worth doing unless the nations involved were Germany or Mexico.
Face it: Afghanistan's political rulership and Iraq's democratic traditions aren't worth the bones of a single Californian grenadier. We SHOULD be doing this even cheaper and nastier than we are, with a tiny cadre of leaders and trainers, a tiny field force to provide a mobile backup, a bought-and-paid-for army of native sepoys, and masses of spies, saboteurs, confidential agents, case officers, Asia hands, bribers, political connivers and slinky, sexy treacherous women with big hooters.
Like a Thirties thriller only with aerial drones.
But because we're America, Land of the Big PX, we have to pretend this is about freedom and democracy and that we're failing, not because we are incapable of hustling the East, too arrogant and pigheaded to learn from those who have gone before us, too full of ourselves to accept that the raggedy-ass muj running through the hills might just have a better reason for doing it that we do, too cocky to believe that these simple savages can outlast the Might of the Arsenal of Democracy...
Nope, if we're stymied it HAS to be because we're just too "cheap"...
OK. I'll stop now. My blood pressure is rising and I need to have a drink.
But I have some more thoughts on this whole issue for later.
I object to this part:
ReplyDelete"...I believe that our current COIN and Irregular warfare training and war fighting will instead make us better prepared for a conventional war (after a short period of “reblueing” at national training centers).
1. The equipment we use today is still the premier war fighting equipment in the world (minus the M4 carbine and the M9 pistol, but don’t get me started).
2. Conventional warfare tactics are EASY. Action, reaction, counteraction. Give me a doctrinal template, show me a map and I will give you 3 enemy courses of action. ..."
COIN leads to completely different tactics - tactics that are suicidal in conventional war. Behaviour like showing yourself or using fixed bases. The ratio of support assets (especially air assets) to ground combat strength is also bizarre.
About the equipment; no, there are more exceptions. The Paladin SPH is outdated in comparison with Chinese, German, French and several other designs. It hasn't been a premier SPH since the late 70's. It's rather (together with Abbot) the prototype of modern SPHs.
There are more examples, of course.
And conventional warfare tactics are not easy; those the old ones that you've learnt and that were teached for decades are easy.
Modern/new tactics are not easy, and have not proliferated well.
Besides; think of your Kasserine example: Weren't the U.S. Army conventional ground war tactics of that time easy as well? Did that help in any way?
bg,
ReplyDeleteYour arguments are subjectively skewed and your conclusions were predtetermined before you even put pen to paper.
Do you think anybody in Europe of 1870 after a French ass kicking would've predicted a 1ww?
This stuff you talk is around the corner considerations and i posit long term concerns.
What if the EU members decide to break ties with the US and establish their own goals based on purely European interests?. This could happen when/if energy concerns drive them to the wall.
Look at US meddling with PAK/INDIA and evaluate the potential for nuclear disaster in that theater. Forget your mantra about AQ.
North Korea is a joke and i won't waste words on that.
Yeah, Mexico/south is a concern.
If you think that we can respond to a war as we did in 1939 then you really need a reality check.
You do remember that we didn't go that baby alone.Who would cut the slack while we beef up our deminished base? DUH.
BTW ,we are not decisively engaged in theater since there is nothing to win. It's not even close to a decisive engagement -which means that you win or lose with whats on the field. The AQ can't defeat us militarily,so therefore how can we be decisively engaged.?
jim
I'm going to lay into the article also. There are some good points here, but as stated above, some statements are a little too vague or unsupported. Will the US military win a future conventional war? Sure we will, if not merely through superior numbers, resources, and technology. But what is "win"? tactical sense? Will US military forces be able to support the successful acheivement of political objectives? Maybe not.
ReplyDeleteWill we have the right equipment, or will we be hastily throwing billions of dollars against the next MRAP idea? I have no expectations that our military will be optimally organized or equipped for the next conflict, in part because we do seem to enjoy fighting the last war, and in part because our acquisition process is so broke that we seem unable to maintain current capability while fielding new capability.
As for assumption 3, come on. CheneyBush told us that the war against Iraq was due to existential threats, and they proceeded anyway to do it on the cheap. Any politician will instinctively use rhetoric such as "existential threats" to justify his/her political statements and ambitions. What our political (and perhaps military) leadership has failed to recognize is that getting the public's support is more due to being able to "win" and complete the mission quickly than by declaring an "evil empire," axis of evil, existential threat, whatever.
Jim,
ReplyDelete"What if the EU members decide to break ties with the US and establish their own goals based on purely European interests?"
A European civil war inside a united Europe is an even greater concern. The U.S. could only become entangled if stupid and in support of the English, though.
Multinational states tend to break once freed from the iron fist of an autocrat - and exactly that might happen to Europe if its unification continues to be a top-down project.
Other credible scenarios include
* Baltic lightning invasion
* Ukraine proxy civil war
* Intervention in Belarus after a fall of the autocractic regime
* Intervention in a resource-rich African state in opposition to PRC troops, akin to Grenada (a small scenario)
* anything else that stupid politicians can mess up
Sven: I'll agree that the M109-series of howitzers has become a legacy system. I would argue, though, that improvements in fire direction (particularly the AFATADS network of software and hardware upgrades) and projos keep the Paladins in the game.
ReplyDeleteBut that's current. What I see as the real problem is 15-20 years down the road. By that time the M109 WILL have become a dinosaur and the FDC/projo upgrades will (IMO) have reached the limit of what they can do with the system...and since the cancallation of the Crusader there's no replacement in the pipeline.
And the competing systems will be newer and more capable.
And that's without discussing the mess that the FA-branch training is in.
Given the relative paucity of infantry and the criticality of the FA to USA maneuver warfare, that could be a real showstopper.
Well, BG, you certainly stepped into it now.
ReplyDeleteI will not pile on because of the Chief, and Jim have pretty much said what I was thinking.
So I will address the larger picture.
The American military is an extension of the U.S. Government which has been, unfortunately, an extension of wealthy whose interests lay in their businesses...thus, business is the one who drives what has become our national interests.
So, given that, and focusing on externals...I will say that the social disentigration of Mexico will be a far more existential threat to our border and our national interests than Osama Bin Laden, or any other wannabe caliphate middle east nutbag could ever hope to be.
Imagine hundreds of thousands, if not a million or two of Mexicans fleeing a civil war.
Europe is also developing an independent streak which was birthed by Bush II when they saw that the US could act against their own interests. So I can see Europe taking an active role independently of US interests to preserve their own...such as Oil, natural gas, etc.
Most saw a war between China and the US for natural resources, but I think Europe would be the most likely oponent in my opinion.
Africa, what most people would think would be the most prominent potential zone of conflict...pfft...hardly. I'm not downplaying the humanitarian crisis there, but since the business interests drives the US foreign policy, and business with Africa tends to be viewed as humanitarian...yeah, there's no money to be made in Africa...a tax write off, sure, but a business venture worthy of corporate America's attention?
But in very real terms, though the above are extreme potentials for us to seriously consider, the reality of our current situation is this:
-Currently the greatest threat to the United States outside of our foreign policy screw-ups is the very good chance of the US breaking up into economic zones of interests, which to preserve the union, I believe Obama would go to war to keep the United States whole.-
So, BG, who would say would win in a war between Americans forces?
Gee, I'm sitting here wondering how long it's been since the first time I tried to discuss something with bg... 2004? 2005?
ReplyDeleteNot sure, but the topic was Iraq. The question bg needs to answer now hasn't changed since then: what are the objectives?
If you don't even know what you are trying to do, how are you supposed to figure out if you can "win"??
It's an old story bg: 1 + 1 = 2, not 0 or 3. Eight years is a long time. How much longer will you need to find a faint clue?
It isn't just your job, it's your sworn duty, and competence is not optional.
And to pile on some more (sorry, bg, but there it is...) I'll side with Sven on the whole problem of translating small-unit COIN tactical experience into big-war, big-unit tactical competence.
ReplyDeleteJim has a good point about Kasserine and the time it took the U.S. Army to get its shit together. We were good at "small wars" and indian fighting and trench warfare - we hadn't bothered to upgrade our skill since 1918. And we met the Germans and got handed our ass. Luckily we had allies and time and pulled ourselves together. But it took a long time, and it wasn't pretty.
The British had generations of small-war experience going into WW1...and supposedly had fought a tough Boer enemy armed with modern rifles in South Africa within the decade...and their performance as an army (as opposed to individual units, which showed impressive rifle marksmanship and fieldcraft) was no better than the French and demonstrably poorer than the German. A big part of that is capability at the battalion command level and above. A gifted platoon leader is just that. We haven't had the opportunity to really fight a competent enemy above the company level since 1972. I think if we were honest we'd admit that we don't KNOW how good we are...
And the other problem with our infantry is there is so damn little of it. An American infantryman is bloody expensive, and we have,, what, about 30-35 RA brigade equivalents? 1st through 4th, 24th and 25th IDs. Throw in the three light divisions (10th, 82nd, 101st) and the infantry in the CAV and the two armored divisions and the ACRs. That's it. A genuine high-casualty high-intensity war would grind up our infantry battalions in a heartbeat. The best infantry in the world isn't much use if it's mostly dead, wounded and combat-exhausted.
Like I say - I'm not particularly stressed about us militarily - our political stupidity will get us in more problems that our military incapacity. But I think we've beat up on too many third-stringers too long. We're not ALL that, and we need to keep that in mind when planning for the future.
Jim, there is a successor to M109 in the pipeline; FCS NLOS-C. It survived the cancellation of FCS and was renamed, but it's essentially a step back in concept. Automotive modernity is the biggest advantage over M109, for it's easily out-ranged by other modern SPH designs with its 38cal barrel.
ReplyDeletehttp://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/03/self-propelled-howitzers-china-ahead-of.html
There's much false/misleading propaganda about the NLOS SPH; wikipedia asserts a higher rate of fire than M109, for example (maybe correct for sustained fire, but according to official info not true in first minute).
The U.S. is going for projectile design in the quest for range while all others add longer barrels and have the option of using expensive projectiles as well.
I focused a lot on this particular project because it's typical; there's a lot of hype, but in some cases the hype is not justified. Much of the U.S. Army equipment is mediocre by industrialized nation standards, and USMC equipment tends to be worse.
The U.S. tech advantages are in it pioneering of new stuff (such as EW equipment during the 60's and 70's) - with the associated problems of high cost and immaturity.
Sven, I had heard that the FCS gun system had been cancelled or at least downgraded to testbed status. Appreciate the update.
ReplyDeleteI agree that I think we're heading down a blind alley with our tight focus on projos. I think our neglect of tube artillery has a lot to do with the success of the MLRS and our dependence on tac air. Mistake, IMO, but I'm arguing against both DA and the schoolhouse.
One thing to remember about the "mediocrity" of U.S. equipment is scale. We're equipping a force several times the size of the small, high-quality European forces; we tend to lose quality in return for quantity and ease of manufacture. However, I think that the DEGREE of decline is more a reflection on the sad state (and politicized state) of our procurement process rather than a pure quality/quantity issue.
Charles: In fairness to bg, he's asking a operational/tactic question and you're grilling him on strategy and grand strategy. He's not saying "The U.S. Army will win a conventional war fought for sensible geopolitical ends" - he's just saying "The U.S. Army will beat a conventional enemy in the field." While I agree with you that the geopolitical fool's errand we're wasting time on in central Asia reflects poorly on the Army's grand strategic thinking, bg isn't really concerned about that level - nor, at his pay grade, should he be.
As a citizen, that's another matter, of course.
To all,
ReplyDeleteWinning the next war hinges on the following,none of which are a given.
-Will we have air superiority.
-will the en have tac/strategic nucs/CBR?NBC.
-will we have allies.
-will we have the luxery of massinf forces w/o being atk by tac nucs.
-will we have POL.
-will we have medical assets to deal with mass casualties.
Chief,
These are the things that the next war will hinge upon, assuming that our credit card is not cancelled.
jim
Very interesting discussion, but ISTM that some of it looks like prepararing to fight the last war...
ReplyDeleteAlmost all of the scenarios for having to fight seem plausible to me. But I haven't seen anyone address what might happen should an up-and-coming power (arguendo, China or India) attack the US while it is busy fighting elsewhere. And suppose further that they don't start the attack with conventional means.
No one has spoken about fission bomb-pumped x-ray lasers in orbit or the Excalibur project (smart rocks / brilliant pebbles). Granted, both these ideas were fathered by Edward Teller, born as part of anti-ICBM hardware for SDI, and allegedly abandoned since then. I think Edward Teller was just as crazy as a shithouse rat in many ways, but no one can say he wasn't a smart cookie.
And while X-ray lasers have problems with atmospheric bloom, gamma ray lasers would not. Of course they don't exist yet, but we are talking about the future. And in any case, even an x-ray laser would be effective against satellites.
Brilliant pebbles was also born as an anti-ICBM weapon, and did not need much of a punch in that role. ICBMs are hard to hit but not hard to kill, especially in boost phase.
Brilliant pebbles were explosive, but the idea of a non-explosive kinetic kill weapon launched from orbit is still pretty interesting. Something hard, pointy, and massing 100Kg would make an impressive bang after essentially falling to the earth from infinity.
Friends in the Navy have told me that when the next balloon goes up, there will be just two kinds of warships: subs and targets. There is some truth to the notion that if you can find something, you can eventually kill it. And there have been a couple of incidents in the past few years where a Chinese sub has gotten very close to US warships undetected.
So, is it guaranteed that the USAF/USN will bail us out by providing air superiority? Even if you can't kill the aircraft, you might very well be able to destroy the support infrastructure (airbases as well as carriers).
What about cyber warfare? We can probably count on the enemy being unable to decrypt our communications, but we won't be able to decrypt theirs either (unless there are great leaps in building quantum computers). But as far as I know, there is no defense against a distributed denial of service attack, once the bad buys have access to the network. And keeping them out is not easy.
So it is conceivable to me that, in a relatively few years, an enemy might be able to transform our vaunted infrastructure and leading-edge weaponry into smoking wreckage and boat anchors.
Just sayin' -- a pessimist is never unpleasantly surprised.
Cheers,
JP
What operational / tactical question?
ReplyDeleteSuch questions don't exist outside of a strategic context, and a hypo requires you to assume one if you want to talk about anything that actually matters.
Marrying a girl is one thing, raping her is something else, and neither is a function of penis size, even though both more or less require having one. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
The most dangerous weapon in existence is the human mind. Everything else is just an accessory.
Yes, Charles, but it's the accessories that separate the boor from the bourgoise. Half the fun is snarking one's fellows inability to accessorize.
ReplyDeleteJP: I think that bg is focused purely on the Army side and purely near term. All of your speculations are within the realm of possibility in the next several decades, however. In particular, I'm not convinced that our carriers are going to be the power projection platform we think they are all that much longer.
Jim: Good points. I suspect we will have allies, but our POL is suspect and our air superiority...probably still good to go, but if the carriers get hammered, who knows...
And as for nukes, well, once you pop the first nuke, your tactical worries are the least of your worries.
bg-
ReplyDeleteImo you've argued your position. You're talking about "the next prolonged conventional war" occuring by way of your assumptions and under your assumptions. Everyone here seems to me to be disagreeing with your assumptions, but nobody's really picking your argument apart, since its coherent and solid. The subject is obviously of interest and merit since the US has fought enough conventional wars in the past. I would just state that you seem to be addressing both conventional wars that would be launched against the US along with wars which the US would initiate against conventionally interacting enemies.
The logistics for conventional operations is simply that necessary to support the projection of military power, and who believes we won't be able to do that conventionally, especially against a convertionally interacting foe in 2016 given what we know today? Conventionl war = industrial war - this is our way of war . . . leading to/supported by the innovative and technoligical expertise we possess. It is also hard to imagine that the US would not be able to get international support for this war.
While one could say that yours is a narrow argument, I would point out the inherent strengths not yet addressed. Kasserine Pass was a tactical defeat for the US Army, but led to a strategic victory . . . the capture of 620,000 Axis troops three months later. Tactical success is important, but strategic effect is the ultimate purpose of military forces from a strategic theory perspective. Strategy could call for the commitment of unready and untried forces, but for its own purposes . . . strategic direction is what is important imo.
I'm intend to tackle this subject with a separate post from a little different perspective in a few days. I'm loath to get into this one because the more I advance in years, I become less and less enamored with all of the hoo-rah military bullshit coming from our newest version of "the finest military there ever was (TM)," or whatever we're calling it these days. I think our military should earn its stripes.
ReplyDeleteThe world is passing the U.S. by. Why in the world would any so-called second-rate or wannabe super power ever attack us? Irrational as we are, we'd no doubt default to nukes sooner rather than later. And, inasmuch I believe most advanced nations are led by folks that are a tad more rational than our leaders, I doubt any would risk that. Besides, the U.S. is clearly on the downhill pull, with the momentum increasing all of the time. Nah, if I'm in charge of one of these so-called "near-peer competitors," I'm just going to sit back and watch the U.S. self-immolate. "Bonfire of the Vanities" wasn't about the U.S., but the title fits.
Industrial warfare? Don't make me laugh. We have next to no industrial base, and we have to essentially bribe our congressmen and our defense contractors to build this neat stuff in meager quantities. As noted by FDChief, even though it's the most fearsome thing on the battlefield, we don't do FA any more. Probably don't do ADA anymore, either. We also don't do intelligence—don't believe it? Ask a fellow named Flynn—and myriad other military tasks that were once taken for granted. We may well have magnificent infantrymen, hearts like tigers and all of that, but we don't have very many of 'em. We've got more contractors than we do anything else.
Nope, we don't want to do any serious wars. We're better off picking on third-worlders.
There is one technological issue that I never see discussed: Air Defense.
ReplyDeleteAirplanes are really vulnerable machines and with modern computing and communication capabilities there is no reason why an integrated air defense cannot keep the USAF away. Airplanes typically move at somewhere under 500 knots. Slow compared to an electron.
Furthermore, the rise of passive radar and technologies such as software radio mean that stealth technolgies are not as effective as their price tag would indicate.
Finally, I can see that the west won't bother investing in fancy AD. They are the ones *with* the airplanes. However, for those nations who are threatened by western air power, a little investment in air defense might be wise.
Two years ago, who would have thought that Iran could put a satellite in orbit? What are the chances that the USAF will suffer a nasty surprise in the next 5 years?
"who believes we won't be able to do that conventionally..?"
ReplyDeleteMe, for one.
The last couple of excuses for "high-intensity" conflict we've had, the Gulf in '91 and again in '03, both had several operational pauses because of logistics issues, either because the materials just weren't in theatre or because they were there but couldn't get to the FEBA/FLOT. I've heard several people who I believe say straight out that the 100-hour endex for Desert Saber was in main part due to the fact that we were running out of fuel - the tankers just couldn't keep up with the tanks and Brads.
Plus, as Publius points out, we've come a long way - down - since 1945. Our industrial base has shrunk and the technical skills needed to manufacture weapons and ammunition have intensified dramatically.
And I think I've gone some distance towars picking bg's argument apart.
1. We have decent infantry but too few, and we are not prepared to replace them quickly.
2. Our FA branch is a shambles, and if we ever need to fight without tacair we might be in trouble for indirect fire support.
3. Our officer corps has had little practice in combined arms operations above the battalion level and where they have, have shown little operational innovation or imagination. Don't believe me? Ask GEN van Riper.
4. As Publius points out, several of our branches have real question marks. ADA? Chem? MI? Are we any good? Who knows?!
The real question here is whether a conventional war will ever be "prolonged" again. Recent experience suggests that our current advantage in strategic military assets - principally airpower - will prevent that from ever happening again. And in a short war, what you have up front wins or loses.
Publius states the obvious, ugly truth: we have no real stomach for or interest in facing off against whatever passes for heavyweights left in the military world. If we did, the problems inherent in our highly leveraged fiscal base, our lack of natural resources - particularly petroleum - and our miniscule land force (relative to our size) make us an unlikely belligerant.
The second stringers? We'd probably fight through to an acceptable level of tactical success.
But to what end? We've already proved we have no idea of what we want the end state of our military campaigns to look like.
Let's look at the scoreboards:
Iraq, 2002 - Militarily contained, politically isolated familt-run kleptocracy costing several to tens of millions of dollars per year to monitor and contain.
Iraq, 2010 - Militarily impotent, politically fractured, Islamic-religious-party-run kleptocracy de-facto allied with Iran costing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to prop up and maintain, with significant stability issues between Shiite majority government, Kurdish seperatists and Sunni minority.
Afghanistan, 2001: Impoverished, Islamic chaos barely controlled by Taliban theocrats in Kabul, host to Al Qaeda among other nonstate actors.
Afghanistan, 2001: Impoverished, kleptocratic chaos barely controlled by warlords and the Karzai Gang in Kabul, host to a confused melange of warring tribes, Taliban rebels and outside actors, many of whom we don't understand or even know about.
Do these sound like "wins" to you?
I'm no bunny-hugging peacnik. I hate the idea of fucking with other people's countries but accept that Great Powers do that sort of thing. The difference is that SUCCESSFUL Great Powers do it intelligently, at a reasonable cost, realistically, and get the outcome they intend. We seem to flail about expensively and cluelessly.
I'm not impressed.
FDC, I'm admittedly in a grumpy mood due to deluge of idiotic blather recent events have set off, but it's been eight years, and bg's act was way beyond stale four years ago.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll leave it at that.
@Ael:
ReplyDeleteAir defence is not an asset that creates a zone fo death. It's more like a dangerous complication. It can be perforated in principle, and you can bet that no air defence net can keep USAF away fi USAF is really determined. The attrition rate may be high, of course.
Air defences work best in cooperation with and support of fighters and AEW helps a lot to solve the OTH issue.
And the West DOES bother with developing fancy AD. MEADS, for one, or SAMP-T and several other projects. These efforts are too much geared against conventional air threats and ballistic missiles for my taste, though.
And of course the U.S. is not very much into AD, but "the U.S." isn't the same as "the West".
@FDChief:
Especially your points 1-3 mirror quite well what I've been blogging about for a while. The problems are visible to those with open eyes, but the mainstream won't acknowledge it.
FDC,
ReplyDelete"but right now our artillery branch is fucking nonfunctional and I say that with all the anger and frustration of a redleg."
I have a few friends who I worked with in AFG who might disagree. Iraq was a disaster for FA, but in AFG they are conducting Vietnam style Arty Raids, air assualting guns to a location, conducting a fire mission, and flying back to their Firebase. I think they will be ok.
"And bg, I have to take you to task about the whole "political and popular will of the US population" canard."
I think you misunderstood, or I poorly expressed my point. I am not saying we need a "popular" war, otherwise we will lose. I am suggesting that for the US to win a prolonged, conventional fight, there will have to be sacrifices made by everyday Americans (i.e., war bonds, changing industries to support he war, war taxes, draft, etc). To fight an old school WWII conventional fight for a few years, we would have to move towards a war time economy, and that would never happen without the US public being willing to alter their daily lives.
And I don't think we are doing AFG "on the cheap now," I think it is costing us billions now because we tried that strategy at the beginning (just like Iraq) to do max damage with min force.
FDC,
ReplyDeleteIt's almost getting to the point where the huge logistical tail becomes an objective in and of itself, and we can't get out because it would take too long to dismantle it, even if it wasn't so much fun indiscriminately murdering people who can't defend themselves.
Which, come to think of it, is just one more consequence of having delusional objectives.
All,
ReplyDeleteI very much appreciate the dialogue, and even more appreciate no one holding back too much. I greatly appreciate the challenges by all (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered writing the post). And yes Charlie, I guess it has been that long. But I still argue it isn't my sworn duty to decide where force is applied, I just have to figure out a way to apply it. I don't disagree with you, what are the objectives? Not for the military to determine, that is for the civilian leadership to determine. If you don't like the objectives our elected politicians choose, do something about it. I know you are trying, I don't take that away from you. But I am trying as well, and I firmly believe that I have the best chance to affect change from the inside, so "voting with my feet" is not an option that will serve any purpose at this time (no matter how I feel about the objectives).
I think the discussions of future conflicts is very interesting. As Jim stated, we can't just assume that there will never be a war again. I agree. But the nature of the war is the real key.
Couple of categories for us to deal with.
1. Conventional, force on force. Not likely, but possible in some off unpredictable scenarios.
2. The Mexico or failed stated scenario, very, very realistic and falls in the population centric category.
3. Cyber war (thanks JP, great point!) This is a nightmare that has little to do with standing armies, and I believe DoD has point on this one. Really scary stuff.
What got me going on this subject was a previous posting questioning why we are seeing so much emphasis on population centric fights. My argument is, that is the most likely future scenario. The Army is a huge beast of a machine and doesn't turn on a dime. I believe that the leadership (military and civilian) consider COA 2, the population centric fight to be the highest probability, and are therefore trying to tool the military towards that end. Whether or not it is a fool's errand is another topic.
"in AFG they are conducting Vietnam style Arty Raids, air assualting guns to a location, conducting a fire mission, and flying back to their Firebase. I think they will be ok."
ReplyDeleteArtillery raids?
Artillery raids?
That right there tells you that the FA is fucked up like a football bat for the next conventional war, if and when it ever happens.
And arty raid is a stunt, the sort of thing you can do when you're fighting an enemy with no air assets, little organization above the company level and a Neolithic air defense setup. They're a gag, a fun run, the sort of thing the FA does for fun. I used to ask for one every AT just in hopes of doing something goofy instead of the usual "Fire for effect/at my command" missions we'd drill on until we got sick of them.
"Big war" FA is fire planning, bg, and especially clearance of fires. It's conducted above the battery level and involves integrating the maneuver elements' fire plan, targets of opportunity...why am I telling you this? You're the guy with the shoulder silverware. You know what I'm talking about.
LIC devolves into...artillery raids. And the harder, higher level skills go to hell. As does the crew drills. For every battery doing arty raids the rest of the battalion is driving up and down the MSR delivering cases of MREs and bottled water, or playing ersatz infantry.
FA
is
fucked
up.
It's really that simple. No amount of "battery ones" or dropping H&I rounds with a single gun is going to make up for battalions firing FA Table VIII.
At least in the RVN we had enough infantry that our gunners were used as gunners. This central Asian COIN is bad for gunners, except to make gunners into infantrymen.
bg,
ReplyDeleteWhether you're responsible for setting the objectives is entirely beside the point. The question is uncomplicated...
What are the objectives in Afghanistan?
And if we're not boing A-stan on the cheap now?
ReplyDeleteWe're doing it wrong.
Nothing there is worth more than a corporal's guard worth of time, troops or materials.
Where the HELL is the SF? Where the hell is the Mike Force, our "ANA"? How the hell can we NOT be fielding an Afghan Army in the fightinest place on earth?
WASSSSSSF.
FDChief: "This central Asian COIN is bad for gunners, except to make gunners into infantrymen."
ReplyDeleteI doubt it's real good for my armor friends, either. Come to think of it, just WHO is all of this "small wars" business good for? Other than generals, contractors and think tank mavens, that is.
Okay, okay Chief. I will concede the point on FA, for I am not an expert, just a light fighter that likes having them around. I have friends in the branch who take both sides of the argument, on side similar to your position, and one side saying that the old ways of using FA is no longer relevant unless we get into another force on force war.
ReplyDeleteSF lost their job to train armies Now they only train other Army's SF forces.(just not enough traditional SF). Sad, IMO, it wasn't the Rangers who took over Special Ops, it was another brand of shooters that we don't talk about.
On the cheap now? Well, relatively speaking, we are spending way more on AFG than we did just 2 years ago. That was my point. Perhaps instead of sending 150K into Iraq they (or their resources) went to AFG, we could have already trained those AFG legions that you are looking for. In 2002, 5th SFG left AFG and was replaced by the NG Groups (19th, 20th). I agree, if we left 5th, 10th, 3d Group, and backfilled by the NG Groups, 7th and 1st, we could have really done Afg right. But alas, they were needed elsewhere. The reason? Because 5th Group, 10th Group and portions of 3d Group were dispatched for the invasion of Iraq. In late 2003, we were determined to get as much SF out of Iraq as possible, and we did, we got it down to 1 Bn (mine). As a result of SF's desire to not become decisively engaged in Iraq or AFG, the Big Army took over the training piece, and traditional white SOF never got it back.
Charlie, here you go, does this help? This is what we have to work with.
White House Objectives for AFG (MAR 09)
Achieving our core goal is vital to U.S. national security. It requires, first of all, realistic and achievable objectives. These include:
Disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan to degrade any ability they have to plan and launch international terrorist attacks.
Promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that serves the Afghan people and can eventually function, especially regarding internal security, with limited international support.
Developing increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can lead the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fight with reduced U.S. assistance.
Assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan and a vibrant economy that provides opportunity for the people of Pakistan.
Involving the international community to actively assist in addressing these objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with an important leadership role for the UN.
bg,
ReplyDeleteSo are you claiming that all of these are valid military objectives, or just some?
And if only some, which ones exactly?
Secondly, for each one you consider a valid military objective, could you briefly state how military force might effect that particular objective?
Oh, and what exactly is the "core goal"?
I should really do a post titled "It's All Charlie Beckwith's Fucking Fault".
ReplyDeletePoint was that the guy was a huge SAS groupie. The SAS never was, never meant to be what our SF was intended to be. The SAS were sort of like British Rangers, zipping around the desert blowing up Messerchmits. Beckwith wanted an SAS Group in the U.S. Army and because he was a Green Beanie he shimmed the thing into the SF structure. BAD decision. It made ODA/Delta the "coolest" thing to be in SF, and legitimized the goddam Ranger ethic in what should be an UW training establishment.
These guys are Rangers in all but name and uniform - the system they've forced on the SF is basically a direct-action Ranger system. Hence the term.
And as for the FA COINdinistas...well, back in 1946 we were all convinced that the Bomb made everything else obsolete. FA got themselves tactical nukes and had all sorts of sexy war plans based on completely revising the whole concept of field artillery fires. Fortunately, Korea intervened before we could get all woo-woo about the nukes.
Artillery is a luxury in COIN. It is a NECESSITY in conventional war. Infantry patrols are infantry patrols, whether they are chasing muj or trying to find and fix the Das Reich. But if you waste your cannoneers as a bunch of ersatz infantrymen while doling your cannons out in penny packets, you're creating a dysfunctional artillery. FA officers may try and make lemonade out of these lemons, but they're still fucking lemons.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI haven't really studied the AFG objectives, I am involved in other work now a days. But based on a quick review, I would agree that disrupting the ability of terrorist networks to conduct attacks and increasing the Afg security services are two very valid military objectives. There are interdependent on other non-military objectives and can be never ending commitments with or without success from the other objectives.
Disrupting the network (not defeating it) can be achieved by finding and targeting key nodes (leadership, logistic, financial, recruiting) and killing/capturing those individuals. Disruption can also occur through deterrence, for lack of a better word. Bomb one training camp in progress, they are less likely to gather in numbers again out of fear, thus we disrupt future large gatherings and training. (in reality, they just move the training camps elsewhere, to Somalia, then to Yemen or other places where they believe they can safely meet in large numbers to get the most bang for their buck in training, no pun intended).
The problem with this objective is the definition of "disrupt". How do you measure effectiveness, how do you know once you accomplished it, and when are you mission complete? Usually, the measure of success for disruption is how many attacks have occurred. For example, if no attacks occur during an election, despite plans or threats to do so, then we consider the disruption a momentary success.
Of course this will not defeat, it analogous to "whack a mole" or the analogy I like is "cutting the grass." You can mow the lawn every day, but it will just keep growing back. The real answer lies in why does the grass grow? Are we watering it? Did we plant the seeds? Did we apply fertilizer? Can you stop the sun from shining?
Assisting the Afg security forces to become self sufficient. A legit and valid military objective. You provide funds for equipment and training, and you provide trainers that are smart enough to adapt US tactics and procedures, even the US military culture, to the culture of the Afg Army. We've been doing it for decades, most of the time you don't hear about it (Colombia, Kenya, Baltic states, Kuwait, Philippines, etc).
This objective is a little easier to measure. When the host nation no longer needs help in providing their own security, the mission is complete. But this too can be a never ending commitment.
Core goal? You know that one. To win. Whatever that looks like. Our core goal, IMO, is to look strong, yet justified in our actions. Not lose face out of fear that will entice future challengers. Not sure if we are accomplishing that one.
FDChief,
ReplyDeleteYou'right-it's all Charlies fault.Beckwith not Giddings.I never could accept removing the LT from the ODA, nomaking a senior intel/ops NCO the WO. SF swallowed that one hook line and sinker. Yeah and then there's selection and then further selections for the gravy train jobs.
Next point. The operational lags that you mentioned were not due to logff imho, but rathher to a lack of depth on the battlefield.Example PVT Lynch being captured due to no rear area security. What the fuck, in a invasion there should be clear lines of communication and define axis of advance, and if enemy is bypassed as they shouild be then follow on forces destroy them in cauldron battles.
The log excuse is just more Army bullshit.
Charles Giddings-I'm in total agreement with you. Also I'm glad that you're still kicking.
bg, based on Charlies cmts and what i see of your writings imo that i waste my breath on talking to you. Istm that you are way too subjective and fail to remove yourself from the scripted message.
jim
jim
Chief,
ReplyDeleteI have thot about the SF thing and here's my take.
Having the Army train civilian police forces is like having pimps training novitiate nuns. It just doesn't work , nor is there any historical success creating govts out of shake and bake ingredients. This is also a SF cmt since they probably get involved in this scenario, i don't know but it feels like a good guess. Nor has building armies been proven successful in nation building.
All the other SF missions are irrelevent in IRQ and AFGH. MIke force won't work b/c theres not a solid base of troops that can be trusted. Remmember that the Mikes of RVN although highly successful were not generally VN but rather Yards. This sorta kills the nation building aura since the yards cared less about a SVN govt. The same could be said for the French F Legion mobile guerilla groups upon which the Mikes were patterned. The mobile forces would contradict the tribal realities of the non state theatre that we call AFGH.
All the other SF stuff should be a host nation responsibilty, such as pop/resource control and idad. SF can only frost the cake- they aren't the baker, contrary to thr bullshit. Also State needs to push the cart more than they do.
So I'm sorry to say ,that as much as i hate to admit it ,they devolve into direct action hunter killers with Ranger mindsets. My take is that if the PWOT were real their sole mission should be to kill AQ. They , the SF, work for America and not corrupt ass holes like Karzai and his band of criminals that we call the govt of AFGH.
Simply put they should kill chickens, goats and even AAF if they obstruct the misn of killing AQ members.Dogs should not be over looked either, hell throw in a few kids just to keep things poppin'. This approach is too realistic b/c it proves that AFGH is a figment of our imaginations, and as such is not a going prospect.
If AFGH were a real COIN thing then all the SF misns would/could apply, but sadly this is not the case.
Now for a side bar- I just don't understand why some of our commenters just don't get it.?
I've always said that plexiglass belly buttons should be issued to field grade ass holes so that they can see what's happening outside of their assholes.
As for all your Arty comments- you know my position since it's obvious that we can't even employ mortars effectively anymore.
Publius,
I'm glad that you don't waste tooo many words. Great summary.
I hope all of us can have a real beer together someday. Maybe in the old soldiers home when we're droolin' on our chins, which will be sometime next month.
jim
Jim,
ReplyDelete"bg, based on Charlies cmts and what i see of your writings imo that i waste my breath on talking to you. Istm that you are way too subjective and fail to remove yourself from the scripted message."
Nice. Well played, Sir. What is clear by your PVT Lynch comments above is that you are so far removed from today's reality, and so unable to forget the past, that you too are way too subjective to remove yourself from your own bias. At least I admit my bias and work to overcome it. If you want me to explain what really happened with PVT Lynch, just let me know. It had very little to do with "rear area security" in the conventional sense. I will try to put away that pesky "I was there bias", even known, well yes, I was there.
FDChief-
ReplyDeleteYou make valid points, but they are mostly beyond the limits of this post imo which is well, a limited and very specific strategic scenario.
I've anticipated bg's post since it was on my last thread where jim's comment met with bg's response and one could almost hear the wheels turning . . . Here's bg's response from my Gentile thread . . .
""My belief is that we'll lose the next war b/c of our present Coin bullshit."
This is a bold statement. Please elaborate by describing what this next war will look like so we can further discuss your theory and discuss whether or not COIN influenced changes in the armed forces (if we can even define those) will lead us to destruction. Keep in mind, 90% of this COIN discussion focuses solely on the Army, we never really even talk about USN or AF which tend to shape most battlefields for the Army and USMC to fix and finish. If we are going to talk about losing a future war, we should involve the other services to seeing how everything the military does today is Joint."
Most of this thread's comments are about Army operational/tactical issues and COIN, there hasn't been much on the larger issue of war fighting in comparison, which is what I see bg's post as being mostly about. His handling of COIN was to indicate that the mix/complexity of missions actually is not detrimental to overall military effectiveness which you and others have countered, but does that refute his core argument?
I would say no at this point. Let me add several additional assumptions to the argument which bg can either accept or reject and which might open other areas of discussion/consideration:
First, let's define "prolonged conventional conflict" as being a conventional conflict that lasts beyond the initial military operation/counter action, that is there are follow-up conventional military operations which are conducted.
Second, there is a paradox at work in regards to conventional powers which could theoretically be in conflict with the US. For a power to be able to interact conventionally in the military sense removes most of the potential conflicts from consideration. Iran, for instance is not going to trade conventional blows with us, but will most likely adopt mostly asymmetric responses, that is not wage a conventional war. Those countries which can trade blows are all much weaker militarily and are economically integrated with us, so there is little interest to sustain hostilities let alone any incentive on our part to overthrow the enemy state. For these reasons we're talking about wars of limited objectives which in turn require limited means.
Third, Publius's comment as to our lack of an industrial base is correct, but then will we be required to refight WWII? I would argue that it is not only the material, but the morale base which is lacking, not only in the US, but in all states capable of sustaining conventional warfare No state of this level of power is going to allow itself to be pounded into the ground (which is what US military potential comes to) to deny the US a limited goal. To achieve this, USAF, USN and maybe USMC assets may be enough, with the Army sitting the conflict out.
To pull these together, for bg's limited strategic argument to be correct imo the US has to be able to win "prolonged conventional" wars of limited objectives against adversaries whom we have no interest of overthrowing. This reduces "military means" to the US's sustained ability to project military power to achieve strategic effect (essentially identify, engage and destroy target sets) and persuade an adversary to allow us our political purpose, that is a successful conventional war.
Jim: Next point. The operational lags that you mentioned were not due to logff imho, but rathher to a lack of depth on the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteActually, Rummy's personnel cap and his diddling with the TPFDL caused a good portion of the lags. The transportation side of Log was woefully inadequate. Chinooks, for example, were not deployed in sufficient numbers, mainly because they are "manpower heavy".
bg: Here's the thing.
ReplyDelete"disrupting the ability of terrorist networks to conduct attacks" is not really a military objective. Historically it has been accomplished through policing and intelligence. Soldiers were used, but certainly not large numbers and certainly not in conventional military maneuvers like infantry sweeps and cordon-and-search missions.
Terrorists are political animals who use violence for political ends. They are defeated when the bulk of the population accepts a political decision or decisions that the terrorists cannot refute or disrupt with violence. This is done by politicians. Again, soldiers may be called in to assist, but the lead has to be political.
Military force controls PLACES. When you control the place you control the people in it. Soldiers typically don't do a good job being policemen (who DO control people rather than places) and if they do, they typically lose their effectiveness as soldiers.
Plus, frankly, the notion that we need to have a pair of boots on the ground to stop a dozen people from plotting to blow up an airliner or a post office is fantastical. It implies that we have to have physical military control of every friggin place on the globe where these people can meet, plan, prepare and launch from. That's neither practical nor affordable.
(continued)
"Assisting the Afg security forces to become self sufficient. We've been doing it for decades, most of the time you don't hear about it (Colombia, Kenya, Baltic states, Kuwait, Philippines, etc)."
ReplyDeleteSo here's the problems with this:
1. Yes, we do do this stuff all over. And I'd say the results have been pretty mixed. Many places we're "trained" the locals (many African states, Columbia, Bolivia and Peru...) they then use this training to act in ways that are detrimental to our long-term interests (coups, interventions in civil government, "dissappearing" their own dissidents, etc.). In places where the stability and legitimacy of the "government" we're "assisting" is questionable, our efforts often go as much to the other side as the one we're supporting. I don't think that you'd find much argument that as many as 10% to 25% of the ANA guys we train end up fighting either for the Talibs or for some local warlord.
2. As far as I can tell the ANA has been marking time since 2003. How the hell long does it take to work up a semi-functional light infantry unit? Three months for BT/AIT, another six months for platoon and company level collective training? This doesn't say much for our capability, or the Afghan trooper's enthusiasm, or both.
3. A-stan is one of the most impoverished places on earth. It's can't afford the army we keep saying it needs to beat the Talibs. If you're willing to argue that we need to bankroll the freaking place for the next twenty years, we might as well stop talking now, because I will never convince you of anything.
4. My personal take on the situation is this: we're trying to convince the Karzites to fight this war the American war (conventional troops conducting classic US/COIN "presence patrols", sweeps, etc. This is, in effect, the sort of thing that the French tried in SVN (and we tried after them), we worked in El Sal, and the British tried in Palestine and Kenya...except that I get the sense that the "government" in Kabul is even less cohesive, more corrupt, and a bigger mess than what we had in El Sal, the Brits had in Kenya or we or the French had in SVN.
Plus you have to look at the downsides:
1. When we put large maneuver units on the ground we cut the balls off the locals. Whether or not we try, our size, wealth, military competence and foreignness makes it almost impossible for the local troops to really "own" their own side of the civil war.
2. We also enable the most hardline, intransigent and short-sighted of our local partisans. One huge reason the rebellion in El Sal was settled was that we didn't have any large bodies of formed troops in the place. Our local proxies did the fighting, and legitimately beat the rebels. When they saw that they couldn't even beat their own soldiers, then came to the table.
Same-same Nicaragua. We tried funding our own guerilla army - which united the country and strengthened the government we wanted ousted. Reagan went, Bush and Clinton lost interest...and the Nics voted the Evil Commies out.
Are Kenya and SVN post-colonialism, is El Sal post-rebellion, is Nicaragua post-FMLN, what we or the Brits or the French "wanted" them to be? Probably not exactly. But did all those soldiers and deaths and maimings help?
Not so much...I think.
So far, what I'm reading doesn't convince me that your diagnosis fits what we're looking at on the ground, or your prescription of "lots of GIs" is the right medicine
"for bg's limited strategic argument to be correct imo the US has to be able to win "prolonged conventional" wars of limited objectives against adversaries whom we have no interest of overthrowing."
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't really make a lot of sense.
1. The possibility of an overseas conventional war isn't out of the question, but our massive preponderance of naval and airpower make the likelihood of it being "prolonged" fairly low.
2. A conventional war of limited objectives is unlikely to be prolonged, either.
In essence, you're restricting this to some sort of military intervention to stop a conventional invasion, a sort of Gulf War Two Redux. I would think that the example of Saddam in Kuwait and Milosevich in Bosnia and Kosovs will put paid to that for a long time to come. And the record on those shows that most of the strategic heavy lifting was done by:
a. The Air Force, which will still be there the next time out, and
b. The FA (in Kuwait), which, as I said, is in some serious trouble.
But even without tube artillery, I suspect that airpower will be sufficient to repel Burkina Faso's next invasion of Niger.
"This reduces "military means" to the US's sustained ability to project military power to achieve strategic effect (essentially identify, engage and destroy target sets)"
Which, again, we seem to do fine using primarily land-based and carrier air assets, pilotless drones and cruise missiles...
"...and persuade an adversary to allow us our political purpose, that is a successful conventional war."
Ah, THERE's the rub.
We've talked this one to death already; the bottom line is that in the past 20-30 years, the U.S. has either
1) had no well-thought out (or well-stated, which is the public version of the above) political objectives for our wars, or
2) accomplished the stated political purpose which was, however, not congruent with the actual/final political purpose either because we forgot what that was, were deflected by events, or flat-out lied about the public political reasons and got caught in the lie.
Gulf II was "push the Iraqis back", which we did, only later getting wrapped up in the "oust Saddam" nonsense. Somalia was "feed the hungry", which we did until mission creep bit us in the ass. Kosovo was "hammer the Serbs", which we did (politically and strategically, even if our actual tactical strike effectiveness was low).
The Eleventeenth Afghan War was "Oust the Taliban", which we did, and then forgot to leave.
Gulf III was "oust Saddam and replace with Chalabi", which was an utter fucking failure, installing instead an pro-Iranian kleptocracy.
So:
1. Our conventional land warfare capability is immaterial for the near and probably even medium term. No enemy who is likely to WANT to fight us will risk our airpower, and no enemy who has the capability to even come close to neutralizing our airpower wants to fight us.
2. We do probably have enough landpower to successfully fight a quick military-assistance type war, regardless of how competent we are.
3. The REAL elephant behind the arras is whether or not the current involvement in and preoccupation with FID/LIC/COIN will have a long-term deleterious effect on #1 and #2 above. And my guess is yes...but, again, not enough to offset the immense advantage we have in air and seapower projection.
But...I still think a smart enemy - assuming there was one out there, which I don't see - could make us pay for the conventional war sloppiness our LIC habits are inducing in our FA, Armor, ADA, MI and probably other branches.
But given the current chaotic threat environment, we will probably not know if we're getting things right until we're up to our asses in alligators trying to drain the swamp with a hand bailer...
Most wars in history have been limited ones, not ones to destroy the enemy state. Conventional ones in the future will be of limited objectives given the political relations between the concerned states, as in 18th Century Europe. Notice I have offered a tenative definition of "prolonged conventional conflict" . . .
ReplyDeleteAnd, well yes, there is that "Rub", but imo bg addresses that in part as well . . .
"Assumption #2: This next war will occur after Iraq and Afghanistan have drawn down to
sustainable levels."
I would take that to mean an end to the GWOT, since that war does not envision reduction of commitment, but rather ever increasing commitment not to mention widening of areas of operation, that is a very politically rational response. And yes, as you indicate I read this as a limited strategic scenario in which bg assumes political rationality.
This assumption of course would be part of my own critique of bg's post, but I figured I would start with a positive view of it to stimulate discussion since there were already enough contending views . . .
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletebg,
ReplyDeleteThat's a useful response.
First, there's the question of what you mean by the expression "terrorist network." I suspect our understandings of "terrorism" are similar, though not identical. We will see.
The next question is "What exactly is a network?", but I'll just go ahead and state that it's group of individual elements (computers, relays, people, pets, etc) that are in communication with each other, the membership and boundaries of a given network being purely a function of communications. Networks are organic the way the cells of your body are, and indeed, your body is literally a network of cells that will be alive just as long as the phones keep working and not a moment longer.
It's obvious that you and DoD appreciate some of the implications of that model. For example, networks are highly survivable and adaptable, because killing individual cells only results in a new configuration; to actually kill a network, you have to either kill all the cells or cut all communications, and it's virtually impossible to get your arms around a large network. Hence, you say "disrupt" instead of "destroy".
That begs the next question, which you pose: what does 'disrupt' mean, and what makes you believe it's even possible to do that to a network?
Networks are resilient, and a disruption is a reconfiguration. You tend to assume that any significant hostile impact by you on the "terrorist network" is good for you and bad for them, but that's not clear. For example, a sniper might wound Joe Johnston, but his replacement might be Robert E. Lee.
That's more than just bad luck, it's basic probability. Any given change to a system has a certain chance of being positive, negative, or neutral with respect to performance depending on the exact configuration and circumstances, and it gets worse.
You also assume you're dealing with a discrete network. Now you might object and say "no, we know we're dealing with multiple networks that merge and split and adapt etc, that's why it's so hard, etc." But that's actually mistaken, and you literally don't know any such thing -- the notion that you're dealing with a discrete network of terrorists or a loose collection of such networks is a figment. Reread the definition I stated above: there is only one network here, and the appellation "terrorist" is superfluous, because the network is nothing more or less than the entire human race, including anyone who was alive 2,000 years ago and wrote down anything that anyone is still reading today.
Now that might seem like a reach, but it's an empirical observation, and you'll have to show me where it's mistaken. We aren't talking about discrete systems, but sub-systems within a much larger system where even DoD is just a tiny part, and the Heisenberg principle says you can't even observe the system without changing it. Any change to any part will propagate to every other part to the extent it communicates with the one that changed. Think about it: it means you can't disrupt Al Qaeda without also disrupting yourself. Since you can only solve a problem by understanding it, your disruptive interventions subvert your ability to act as a consequence of converting what you know into what you don't. This is nothing new: one army routs, the other pursues, both lose cohesion over time.
Bonus: as the quality of your situational understanding degrades, there are expanding pond-ripples of new possibilities such that you're not only making yourself dumber, you're making yourself work harder to loose more ground every minute you do it. A cognitive black hole as it were, witness the last eight years of strategic masturbation... Feel the suck, even -- and those aren't the worst parts. But I'm tired and that's enough until I catch up with the rest of the discussion.
Charly
Sorry about the double post. Delete the first one if you can somebody. I was having trouble getting it under the size limit.
ReplyDeleteChief,
ReplyDelete"So far, what I'm reading doesn't convince me that your diagnosis fits what we're looking at on the ground, or your prescription of "lots of GIs" is the right medicine"
I agree because I never implied this, did I? When have I ever said that more troops for AFG was a good thing????? For years I have said, and believe, that less in better. Or more precisely, less is better when the correct force is applied (i.e., SOF, civil affairs, etc).
IRT disrupting attacks, there isn't a need for a large conventional force footprint. I think you and I are in violent agreement to this point, the way to go is with a small footprint doing very specific tasks (such as the capture/kill key nodes that I suggested).
IRT US forces training other countries, again, I don't disagree with any of it. This specific question from Charlie was not whether or we should do it, it was if it was a valid military objective, which I argue, yes, the military can be asked to do it with a reasonably expectation of success.
Charly,
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion, thanks, it is appreciated.
I agree that "terrorist network" is very vague, in fact, intentionally vague to give military commanders some latitude in choosing targets. The POTUS is a little more clear now, stating "Al Qaeda", but even that is open to interpretation.
"You tend to assume that any significant hostile impact by you on the "terrorist network" is good for you and bad for them, but that's not clear."
No, this is bad assumption, I don't believe in zero sum gains, I win, therefore you must lose. The world is too complex. As you point out, you may replace the devil you know with the devil you don't. This is always a risk. The commanders (and their civilian leadership) discuss this risk to determine whether or not the risk of the 2nd and 3rd order effects of an action is greater than the risk associated with allowing the potential attackers the freedom of maneuver to attempt an attack. If you believe that a group is getting together with the intention to blow up a school, an Army barracks or bringing down airplanes full of people if you don't act, it becomes a very hard and emotional decision.
Your point about the difficulty in defining a network is also very accurate and not in dispute. It reminds me of GEN McCrystal's old mantra that he said daily as we targeted Al Qaeda world wide. "It takes a network to defeat a network." I am interested to hear you thoughts on that type of thinking.
Your argument about "networks" is true, to those who think at your high level. I would argue that to us ground pounders (the intended audience), when we hear "network", we simply imagine a nodal organization that communicates and works together to achieve a common goal. Although this definition may not meet academic criteria of a network or a system, the desired effect is to paint a picture of a threat that we can not easily imagine. We break down this complex concept into something that makes sense, and that is pictures of individuals who have roles, and when those individuals communicate with their corresponding nodes (Recruiter speaks to facilitator who speaks to safe house operator), now their is something tangible that can be targeted, and thus "disrupted."
But your point is well taken about the long term chances of success. But you know we are going to try it anyway.
seydlitz,
ReplyDeleteThanks for keeping the discussion going, I think I think I see where you may be going with this statement:
"Assumption #2: This next war will occur after Iraq and Afghanistan have drawn down to
sustainable levels......This assumption of course would be part of my own critique of bg's post"
Here is my thinking when I made this assumption, and more specifically, why I chose 2016 as a year where I expect to see us with less than 20k forces in both theaters.
I think that the POTUS is taking a play out of the Bush playbook, and that is, redefine victory and get out. Bush did this before he left, he reshaped the objectives in Iraq, and made AQ in Iraq the primary target, and when they were disrupted enough to allow the Iraqi government to say "we got it", then we could leave (or, when the Iraqi government was just plain sick of us, whichever came first).
In all fairness, not a bad plan. AQ in Iraq was in fact very much disrupted. Yes, there are still attacks, but violence levels are about as low as they have been since the invasion. Here is a link, not sure how accurate, but it demonstrates that Iraq is now down to Northern Mexico levels of civilian deaths, the lowest it has been since the invasion.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
A benchmark that many missed was the lack of any US service member combat deaths in Dec, something that has never happened since the invasion. Before someone attacks, no, I am not saying, "We won!", I am saying the we redefined the conditions of victory, and we are using that to get the hell out.
Obama is already on his way towards this strategy IMO. Notice now he is going out of his way to say, "War on Al Qaeda" and not the GWOT. He is narrowing the enemy. I think what we are seeing in Yemen and Somalia are examples of the future of the war, no conventional troops on the ground. Although, as hard as we try, we can't seem to keep our fingerprints off these operations, we have got to get better at that, but that is another issue.
I don't think it was a coincidence when the POTUS alluded to ending the new "surge" in 2011, with his reelection coming up. I fully believe that in 2012 he will run on a platform to have Afg wrapped up, one way or the other, by the end of his second term, 2016. This is my prediction, and thus the reason I put 2016 in my assumption for minimal troop levels in both countries.
Is this close to answering your critique of the assumption?
bg-
ReplyDeleteI think that the POTUS is taking a play out of the Bush playbook, and that is, redefine victory and get out.
Or the Nixon playbook. Now that you mention "redefining victory", I would venture to bet that this is a) one of the major frustrations for folks who are searching for strategic logic and b) ultimate end state of military actions initiated without a militarily achievable political strategic goal. In short, wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan turn into protracted "police actions" of sorts, either by our doing (Iraq) or the very nature of the situation to begin with (Afghanistan). Meanwhile, the populace is waiting for V_I Day or V-A Day, and it ain't gonna come.
bg,
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to forgive me being so blunt, but I'm talking about reality here, not a comfy tautology designed to feed the delusions of criminal fools like Dick Cheney, Robert Gates, and David Petraeus.
I didn't have any trouble defining the network -- it was defined explicitly. The problems are observation, comprehension, digestion, etc, but those are objective tasks. There's no substitute for actually understanding what you are doing, and you just don't.
It's been adding up the same for eight years now.
Excellent, Charly. You're bringing a badly new dimension to the party.
ReplyDeleteInsofar as the rest of it, even though we're off topic on the original post, it does seem to me that, as Bg suggests, we're moving towards that old declare victory and get out scenario. Boy, I hope so, because as Al notes, there will be no decisive "victory" end state in any of this putrid wars we've decided we just absolutely had to do. It's clear our political leadership—nonpartisan here, BTW—likes war but doesn't know how to (1) pick the right war; or, (2) how to close the deal once engaged. This also applies to the great unwashed public.
We have really become a nation of bunglers, haven't we?
bg-
ReplyDeleteI welcome all theory posts on this thread. Yours came across to me very much as strategic theory . . . abstract, yet applicable.
Let me think about your question.
I would be interested in your view of my definition of "prolonged conventional war".
Rather "all theory posts on this blog" . . .
ReplyDeleteOff the Portuguese red for tonight . . .
Well thanks Publius. I've mostly put myself in a bad mood because bg is such a poster boy for everything that's wrong with the military, and it's impossible to penetrate the fantasy world he lives in.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Obama likes war, but he's been getting a lot of very bad advice from the very demented folks at DoD, and he made a decision at the start to leave DoD alone for the time being to focus on the economy and health care.
What we need now is for Obama to realize just how corrupt DoD really is and take positive steps to correct the situation, starting by dumping Gates. I'm not holding my breath, but Obama is intelligent enough to do the math if he can see past the idiocy and CW at the Pentagon, and they have a spotless record of failure, criminal misconduct, and war crimes over eight years, so there's plenty of stuff to consider.
But ya, bunglers is a pretty good overall description. Posers and fools.
seydlitz,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your definition of a prolonged conventional war, I had no issues with it.
"for bg's limited strategic argument to be correct imo the US has to be able to win "prolonged conventional" wars of limited objectives against adversaries whom we have no interest of overthrowing."
I do think it makes sense, after all, hasn't most wars between WWII and 9/11 fallen under this definition? I think if there is a prolonged conventional fight, it will be something like Korea, where two nations go at it, and we jump into the middle supporting one side or the other. I think this is important because it also implies a war we choose to fight, which one would think translates to a war that someone feels we could win.
"This reduces "military means" to the US's sustained ability to project military power to achieve strategic effect (essentially identify, engage and destroy target sets) and persuade an adversary to allow us our political purpose, that is a successful conventional war."
I would add the word "Deter" as part of the strategic effect (you imply it by saying "persuade", but I think it needs to be stated because deterrence has always been a tenet of our military strategy (be it nuclear or just appearing to be the biggest, baddest boy on the block).
IRT FDC's "rub" that the US has not, for the past 20-30 years, had a well-thought out political objective or accomplished the stated political purpose. I agree, that is the rub. But with the exception of WWII, has the US every done this???
I think that part of the reason for this is because a good strategic foreign policy requires years, decades of consistency. That is not the nature of our "4 and out" system. Note that during WWII, we had the same Presidential administration the entire war. Wars of limited objectives, that are not existential, will always be used by political parties to change the seat of power, and thus, keep a constant, violent streak of changing of long term policies and strategies. It is just the nature of our system and, IMO, the reason we are perpetually in the discussion of the lack of strategic thought from our government.
Charly,
ReplyDelete"I've mostly put myself in a bad mood because bg is such a poster boy for everything that's wrong with the military, and it's impossible to penetrate the fantasy world he lives in."
That's ok, doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I've always taken your comments towards me very seriously and give try very hard to understand them because I respect what you do and what you stand for, but I personally feel that your view of the world is a bit fantasy as well. ISTM it is based on academic theory and legal studies that result in some outstanding observations, but, unfortunately, not applicable in an imperfect world.
You are right, I don't get it. I don't think at the high level you do, most people don't. This, IMO, is why your arguments, although profound, don't persuade me. Because as you say, I really don't understand, nor do I feel you understand how to apply your observations in this world. You said you "defined the network" just fine. Yet, that definition does nothing in helping to understand how to defeat it.
IRT to painting Obama as the good guy, who is just following bad advice of demented people, come on. He approved the posting of those "demented criminals". "Who is the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows?" Yes, I did just quote Star Wars, sorry, couldn't get out of my fantasy world :)
One serious question for you Charly (the rest was mostly rambling), if you truly believe that the President is as intelligent as you suggest, is it not possible that he does in fact understand the situation better than even you, and is thus, making decisions based on information that you either don't have or don't understand? You have faith in him that one day he will do the right thing, why is it that you are so convinced that his intelligence simply hasn't yet caught up with the real problems in DoD?
Bg: "One serious question for you Charly (the rest was mostly rambling), if you truly believe that the President is as intelligent as you suggest, is it not possible that he does in fact understand the situation better than even you, and is thus, making decisions based on information that you either don't have or don't understand? You have faith in him that one day he will do the right thing, why is it that you are so convinced that his intelligence simply hasn't yet caught up with the real problems in DoD?"
ReplyDeleteAha, the old, "if you knew what I know, then you'd understand," canard. Bg, this is utter bullshit in a presumably democratic system. If folks such as Charly and all of the former military folks posting here don't "get it," then there's something gravely wrong with our system. Keeping important information from the public and reserving decisions to a small, "well-informed" elite was a notable characteristic of that outfit we once knew as the Politburo. In fact, it's a hallmark of all totalitarian systems.
Interestingly, Bg, you've brought up something that I, a person who's had security clearances like you can't believe for many years, has had problems with ever since the end of the Çold War. The "national security state" is not good for our republic; you, unfortunately are a part of that state security apparatus, which is something I suggest you think about a bit. When the reasons for waging war are too highly classified for the man on the street, then I would say it's by definition an unjust and unconstitutional war.
Charly, I don't agree with you about Obama. Yes, I think he was stupid in going after the healthcare reform at this time, but I know why he did it. Politics 101 informs him that he's got to strike on his pet projects early on. Unfortunately for him, and for all us, he should have thought beyond the freshman calculus for presidents. He's got so many other alligators nipping at his ass—principally the economy and stupid wars—that he should have deferred this signature pet project, the one he thought would put him in the hall of fame.
Obama has now screwed up health care. Whatever he gets won't be worth the time and effort. Meanwhile, his continuation of Bush policies WRT the economy and the wars will wound him and his part grievously.
Charly, I think Obama's a lightweight, a man with few bed rock principles of his own. In this, he's very much like George Bush. You say he's getting bad advice. I agree, but I also say his Justice, Treasury and Defense Departments look and act very much like Bush's. I also say the buck does in fact stop with Obama. Geithner and Gates won't be running for reelection, nor will McChrystal or any other general. Obama will, and he is going to have to defend what he enabled Geithner, Gates and the generals to do.
His actions during his first year in action tell me he's going to have a hard time.
Publius,
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't my intent, to cast Charly as an outsider, but my question remain. It has nothing to do with security clearances, you know as well as I do that one thing I government is terrible at is keeping secrets. Just about everything that I've seen in classified forums makes the press eventually. I know about methods and sources, I don't have any important info that isn't public.
I am afraid my question was perceived by you (and others) because, as you say, that is such a common, and old bias. It was not my intent.
So to rephrase my question: Charly, if Obama is as intelligent as you hope he is, why has he not come to the same conclusions you have?
Publius, et al, just to be clear, I completely agree with your statement and did not intend to frame my question that way.
ReplyDeleteWow, just catching up with this thread, which is becoming pretty epic. So far I really like Seydlitz's strategic summation which I think layed it all out very well. It's nice to see Charles here even if he's resorting to ad hominem which, suprisingly, Jim did as well.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Publius, I gotta disagree with your bullshit call on Bg. Every politician hides information from the public - that's the nature of politics. Plus, it's generally not a good idea to show all your cards when dealing with foreign countries or even Congress and telling the public your clear intentions without at least some hedging simply isn't possible.
Publius,
ReplyDeleteYour cynicism is running ahead of mine. I'm reserving judgment until after the elections or some intervening event makes up my mind for me. I don't care about the economy at all beyond keeping tabs on the overview. Health care was an absolute priority for Obama, correctly IMO.
But there is so much more to it than that, and after eight years of this nonsense speculation is something I only do when necessary. Right now I'm waiting on the government response in Kiyemba on Feb 3, and oral arguments on Mar 22 for precisely the reason that they'll give me a better idea of where things stand. There are parts of DOJ that are as far gone as DoD is, just not as many.
Andy, of course presidents need to keep certain things secret. But wouldn't you agree that modern presidents and their surrogates have, without exception, invariably taken it to excess? And that it has eventually hurt them? Classification is a joke.
ReplyDeleteBg, sorry I misunderstood you, but the old "I've got a secret routine wears thin around the time the cash register hits the hundreds of millions mark. Not to mention lives, which can't be quantified.
Ultimately, you can't run a secret war. You just can't. It'll all fall apart on you. Which is what's going to happen.
Charly, we'll see. You know my stance.
As for you bg,
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your last question is simple enough -- his attention is a lot more spread out than mine is, and I know a lot more about warfare and systems analysis than he does. I can tell you this much for sure: I'm not making any big assumptions about him, I'm just keeping track of the evidence on those issues and waiting to see more.
As for the rest, bullshit.
When did I say that Obama was the good guy?
I didn't say any such thing, nor do I think that. It remains to be seen how good Obama is.
But I don't need to know anything about Obama to know that Gates, Petraeus, and McChrystal are fools and war criminals: that's obvious from eight years of evidence on the public record. The US military tortures prisoners, including children, and it imprisons innocent people on false charges by policy. The invasion of Iraq was a disgraceful crime against peace in the same way the Nazi invasion of Poland was.
Who do you think you're kidding?
There's nothing academic or arcane about basic logic -- it's fundamental to military operations and every other human occupation.
As for this...
"I personally feel that your view of the world is a bit fantasy as well. ISTM it is based on academic theory and legal studies that result in some outstanding observations, but, unfortunately, not applicable in an imperfect world."
That's just more evidence of your own confusion and wishful thinking. You can either give me some examples and prove it or I'm going to call you a liar and a fraud.
One last note... you don't want to kill the network. I told you, the network is the human race. Hint: you do not want to kill the human race.
Would you like to know how to shut down a sub-system or node as you call it?
That's easy: you switch off the power or the communications, usually both. It's a lot easier with electronic circuits than people though.
Charly,
ReplyDeleteSince I don't want to be called a fraud or a liar, you force me to respond despite how far off topic we are getting. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your comments about the network which I will get to in another post.
The reason I feel the way I do is that your opinions, such as your statement that Gates, Gen P and McCrystal are criminals makes my point. I don't know law, but to be fair, let's assume that according to international or even US law, you are 100% correct and they, in fact the US military (I guess myself included) are the Nazi, baby killing, torture masters you claim. The fantasy portion is that you believe (hope) that these people (Cheney, Bush co included, maybe even me?) will ever be prosecuted. This is an imperfect world, and certain things will never happen because there are too many people who don't think like you and see their actions as justified.
Your point about a the human race network attacking itself makes the point, those who would have to prosecute would have to prosecute themselves as well.
I want to take more time to examine your recommendation of how to shut down an organization of people. You may have to prove to me, that your observations can in fact be turned into something that can be applied in the real world. Hate to call you a fraud or a liar :)
Charly,
ReplyDeleteNow this is interesting and worth talking about.
"Would you like to know how to shut down a sub-system or node as you call it? ...That's easy: you switch off the power or the communications, usually both. It's a lot easier with electronic circuits than people though."
To translate "a sub-system" into real world terms, let's take my real world job as an example. Let's say I have been tasked to disrupt a sub-system, a declared Al Qaeda cell in Kreplackistan. I know, through multi-source intelligence, that this organization of people is planning to conduct an attack on a Western city (no further info) similar to what was conducted in Mumbai, where 100s of innocent people will die. I know that this attack is in the final stages of execution, so time is limited. The local government of Kreplackistan has a limited capability to police their country and a simple FBI style raid will not work due to internal corruption and lack of access to remotes regions of their own country. (Although the country and method of attack is hypothetical, I assure you this problem set is not).
So, using your recommendation, I need to cut power or communications within the network. I will work through this.
1. The first course of action is to do nothing and hope they fail, hope their plan isn't sound (like the Christmas underwear bomber). That is a method and may very well work, however, politically not one that plays out well if 100s of people die and you knew the attack was coming.
2. Obviously you don't mean literally cut off cell phones, internet, and block all roads to prevent couriers. We can't shut down the airlines or any city that might be attacked. So we will rule out a denial of service attack.
3. If the network is powered by social, economic problems or by our foreign policy, which it very likely is, that is good to know, but not applicable in this case, there is no time to turn that off that before the attack occurs.
4. We can chose a limited air strike of the site where we believe the leaders, trainers and executers are meeting (with the permission of the government of Kreplackistan). This is followed by the local country's security forces (who do not learn of the strike until it occurs) who conduct site exploitation to determine the success of the strike and continue the intelligence cycle. This will turn off the power of this cell and will cut communications from anyone who is killed and may disrupt, delay or even stop the attack. Of course, it may also inflame the local people and self perpetuate the problem.
5. Make the intelligence public, alert and warn the world (go to code Orange or something) and attempt to track the executors in hopes of interdicting and catching them red handed before they can detonate themselves or begin shooting. Keep in mind that when they travel, you likely will not know who they are, just that they may be Nigerian, Yemenis or American, and they won't have weapons on them until they reach their target city. Even if you increase screening, you won't find them. Chances of success are low based on the level of intelligence. You also risk exposing your methods of intelligence collection and may lose your ability to continue collection against the Al Qaeda cell which will effectively blind you against their counteraction to your press release.
You are the President now, these are the options that GEN P has given you. What do you do? What other courses of action could you offer DoD, DoJ, CIA, NSC, TSA, HLS, or DoS? Or who do you fire and how will that disrupt the attack?
Of course, these courses of action are short term solutions, but what long term solutions could cut the power to these subsystems? Or is the problem unsolvable?
bg-
ReplyDeleteThe US doesn´t have a great strategic track record, but I would argue much of the problem since 2001 has been not using the national security strategy making apparatus, but circumventing it. What have been sold to the public as "intelligence failures" have been more (as in the case of Iraq) the nature of leadership and political failures or simply pursuing one set of hidden policy goals while proclaiming another public set. The system was never meant to deal with this type of subterfuge. Maybe it comes down to simply that imperial policy does not lend itself to operating in a democratic or "republican" framework.
To formulate adequate strategy a political community has to be honest with itself, honest as to the political purpose, the nature of the conflict it is engaged, the enemy's center of gravity and motivations. Perhaps most of all it needs to be honest as to the character of its own political establishment since that will fundamentally influence the nature of the conflict in question.
Are the military aims supporting the political purpose? Are the means adequate and supportive to the purpose, or are they in fact counter-productive? Is the purpose actually in the nation's interest and worth the level of commitment/costs?
In your post you simply assumed political rationality, which one would expect a serving officer to do. Perhaps the greatest "rub" comes in describing the political rationality of our own side in any given conflict.
I would only add one additional comment to your post. Following COIN theory, specifically David Galula, but Mao as well, revolutionary wars once they have reached the level beyond guerrilla war become more and more conventional as the insurgency attempts to overthrow the counterinsurgency. That is that conventional wars need not start out as conventional wars.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteYou may be operating in a fantasy world as bg indicates, but at least your position doesn't get innocent people killed.
jim
There are two basic policy aspects of any state. Domestic policy and foreign policy. The domestic or foreign policy of State A should not concern State B, unless that policy somehow impacts upon the domestic security or economy of State B. If only State A's foreign policy is a threat to State B, then State B has an interest in getting State A to change it's foreign policy, as State A's domestic policy is the sole responsibility of State A.
ReplyDeleteIf State A's domestic policy (such as harboring terrorists) is a threat to State B, then State B should indeed convince State A to change it's domestic policy. That does not necessarily require "regime change". State B can simply make the undesirable policy too expensive (via sanctions or punitive military strikes) to continue. Eliminating a government, to be replaced by another, to include new governmental structures, is a major task. Hell, even working with mature sophisticated states like Germany and Japan, it took time to help them return to full function. Trying to accomplish this with tribal, backward states is downright foolishness.
bg,
ReplyDeleteYou made a factual statement about me which was untrue and offensive. I don't have much, but I do have intellectual integrity, and that has been a point of honor with me since I was nine years old. I'd suggest you simply apologize and move on.
I'd also suggest you think about what you say and believe a little more carefully. It is in no way a fantasy to suppose that someone could be prosecuted for violating federal criminal statutes, or that someone might be prosecuted for war crimes. If I thought the intergalactic police were going to land in a flying saucer and help me execute an arrest warrant, that would be a fantasy.
I do not claim it is a certainty Bush and Cheney will be prosecuted -- my claims are that they are in fact guilty of war crimes, that they should be prosecuted, and if prosecuted, convicted. I'm not a fortune teller, all I know is that I'm going to keep working to make it happen until it does happen or I'm unable to work. You can say it's unlikely, but you can't say it is impossible, and from my perspective, it's the most critical national priority we have.
You don't know the law?
Bullshit. You know what the punitive articles are, and I'll bet you've read every last one of them. I'll bet you've had some indoctrination in the laws of war too, and regardless of whether you have or not, it is in fact your duty as an officer in the US Army to familiarize yourself with the laws of war and obey them. If you are unfamiliar with those laws, it can only be the result of your own dereliction. Unlawful detention, prisoner abuse, and dereliction of duty are ALL violations of the punitive articles.
And I'm sorry, but this isn't five years ago and there isn't any doubt about the war crimes, not that there was any serious doubt then. If you are unaware of those crimes it's only because you are ignorant of the facts. We prosecute criminal acts all the time, and a service member is only responsible for their own acts. Under military law, you are responsible for your own acts and any act of a subordinate which is subject to your authority. You just go right ahead and tell me what parts of that are incorrect or unknown to you.
As for shutting down a network of people, the first thing to ask is, as always:
Why do you want to do it? In other words... What are the objectives?
So you said something like 'we want to disrupt all terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan,' accordingly, I can assume that shutting them down would be even better. How?
Simple: kill everyone in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nukes would be quickest, and since they have nukes themselves, taking out their arsenal is the first tactical objective. When that's done, you give them the old shock and awe treatment and mop up.
Or is the guy who doesn't know anything about the law going to tell me he thinks that might be illegal in some way?
I'd certainly recognize that as a valid consideration, but you asked me a purely practical question. It's easy to prove my observations are applicable to the real world: consider scientific method. It's a physical fact that killing everyone in Afghanistan and Pakistan would absolutely prevent and any future terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, at least until you colonize the place or the neighbors start moving in. QED.
The only real question here is why you haven't already done it if you really think that's our objective. The truth is that over the last eight years the actions of the US military have caused a massive increase in terrorism world-wide.
I have to fix breakfast, but Seydlitz' last post is right on about the FAILURE of leadership, Al's comments on the foolishness of neo-colonialism are also good, and I'll get back to you on your last one bg. My post probably answers some of it.
ReplyDeleteCharly,
ReplyDeleteAs I've told you many times, I fully respect and admire your efforts regarding your pursuits, and it because of that respect that I have always taken your comments very seriously (despite any abuse that may come my way, some of it deserved, some of it not). If I insulted or offended you, it wasn't my intent and you know that. I would not purposively offend you and if did, I do apologize. It isn't my style.
I will admit, sure, I am familiar with the law as it applies to what I do. When I am not clear on the law, I consult lawyers (in my case, military lawyers). In my experience, everything that I have seen and done has had "legal review", which means that a lawyer blessed off on it as legal. And I know that this happens at the highest levels of the US military (I won't speak for the civilian leadership). So if Gen McCrystal, who I've worked for, is a war criminal as you allege, than that tells me that either the lawyers are falsely interpreting the law, or the laws are not enforced. Or the other option is that your are misinterpreting the law. This is why I stated that I don't "know" the law. I can't and won't dispute your claims, but I also won't dispute the military lawyers who say that the actions are within the allowance of international/federal law. I would be very interested to hear your perspective as to why no action has been taken against any US officials in regards to the alleged war crimes.
And no, I didn't consider nuking anyone. You got me, I guess I do have limits. I look forward to hearing some of your more feasible solutions to the problem that I presented. Be well.
So while Charles makes breakfast, let me try and take a whack at your hypothetical.
ReplyDeleteSo you have an "declared al Qaeda cell in Buttfuckistan."
First of all, I would ask - "declared" by whom? The cell itself? How have they done this? How do you know it's the truth, and not a bunch of local wannabes? Or, even more likely, a bunch of local rebels identified to you by your "ally", the probably-kleptocratic, typically despotic "government" of Buttfuckistan? You've got trouble before you even get started.
OK. So let's assume that you're not worried about whether these guys are really "bad guys" or not - after all, we've been credulous enough up until know to throw tuns of jack at madrassi dropouts and latino gangstas pretending to be brilliant terrorist masterminds...
"The first course of action is to do nothing and hope they fail, hope their plan isn't sound (like the Christmas underwear bomber). That is a method and may very well work, however, politically not one that plays out well if 100s of people die and you knew the attack was coming."
Which is not all that different from why we let hundreds, maybe thousands, of GIs die in WW2 rather than let the Germans know we'd broken their Enigma code.
Intelligence services, military organizations and political entities do this all the time. And, in reality, many times these covert ops will be black swans, unrecognized and unrecognizable until after they occur. There are times when you DO take the chance.
But this is really a strawman. You and I both know that at the very least we'd put a surveillance team onto this "declared group" and monitor them for signs of any moves.
You're right that it would be impractical to "...cut off cell phones, internet, block all roads, shut down the airlines", so #2 isn't really on the table.
But the notion that we can sut off INDIVIDUALS or small groups from these things? VERY possible. If we DON'T have the capability to hack our enemies' cell comms, internet access, and travel arrangements, why not?
3. If the network is powered by social, economic problems or by our foreign policy, which it very likely is, that is good to know, but not applicable in this case, there is no time to turn that off that before the attack occurs.
Te social and economic problems of other nations are not really our "problem" (unless our foreign or trade policies are contributing to the m). But this IS applicable if you know that said policies are causing a long term problem and you do nothing about it.
We KNOW that our policy towards Israel (see no evil, hear no evil, speak nothing but good) are causing long-term problems. We KNOW that Israel's settlement policies and war on Gaza are DIRECTLY linked to acts taken against our interests (the most recent the CIA suicide bomb near Khost). Israel is neither a strategically valuable ally nor an arm of U.S. Middle East policy. It is silly to allow it's interests to obstruct our own. We've had more almost thirty years to tell the Israelis to get the hell back inside the Green Line and to strongarm the Egyptians to take Gaza and Jordan the West Bank. Not doing this is predictably causing us problems, and will continue to do so in the future.
(continued)
4. We can chose a limited air strike of the site (to) turn off the power of this cell and will cut communications from anyone who is killed and may disrupt, delay or even stop the attack. Of course, it may also inflame the local people and self perpetuate the problem.
ReplyDeleteMay? You know it will. It always has.
Why stop with an airstrike? (I'll tell you why - it's what we do - a perfect example of our linear thinking with regards to complex problems) Since the locals have approved the strike (and this is pretty much fantasyland - where outside of Iraq have they done this? Pakistan? Yemen? Even if they've greenlighted us, WHEN we kill the women and kids, they'll lie their asses off to save themselves), why not have a local hit team to do the job? an ODA with a local Mike Force of mercs to sneak in, hit the targets - remember Paul Vann's comment about "the best weapon is a knife"? - and exfil. Credit the hit to local military. EOM.
The idea of "5. Make the intelligence public" isn't all that bad an idea - think of it as an "America's Most Wanted: Terrorist Edition". Sure, "Chances of success are low...", but your chances are already zero, why not? The entire notion that "(y)ou also risk exposing your methods of intelligence collection and may lose your ability to continue collection against the Al Qaeda cell which will effectively blind you against their counteraction to your press release." is what I would consider a very tenuous hypothetical. You release their names and location. How do they know how you got them? And isn't it just as likely that your action jacks up their paranoia level to 11, harming their relations with the locals and causing them to distrust everyone and lose THEIR sources of intel?
Plus you don't seem to consider an possibility of real covert operations, all the way up to organizing and funding entire pro-American parties (complete with their own militias...) in places like A-stan and Yemen...
"Or is the problem unsolvable?" In the long term, of course it is. There will always be enemies of our country, those enemies will always find places to organize and plan, people to help and fund them, and ways to hurt us. No defense ever conceived was impregnable. We also need to grow up and accept that the enemy is going to succeed every so often - that's why he's the enemy. He does not and will not have a means to destroy our nation. Only we can destroy ourselves in making foolish and self-destructive choices.
Back in the old Intel Dump days, in '03 and '04, Charly and our old friend JD—current status unknown—were the ones who began beating the drums about the whole war crimes issue. First, I believe it was JD, who is of course a veteran and an attorney, broached the subject of "just war." It was JD's position that Iraq violated this principle. Charly agreed, and then I agreed.
ReplyDeleteThis is the genesis of our examination of "just wars" and war crimes. Bg wasn't around at the time, so it's understandable if he doesn't know that we've been kicking this can around for a long time now. As we evolved, Charly evolved as well—from being fringe "whacko" as some had it, a perception that wasn't helped by his heavy handed approach at times (yes, he's passionate)—to be pretty main stream with most of us, certainly with me.
We as a nation haven't resolved these issues and I believe we're poorer as a result. It's become pretty clear to many old farts such as myself that our skirts aren't clean; some of us are very uncomfortable as a result. The old conscience kicks in and I am frankly very happy that I'm no longer in government service. I know the conflicts that arise when one's in active service, and I don't envy those such as Bg who may face moral dilemmas far more often than they'd like. Unfortunately for Bg, I can't give much advice here because the truth is we didn't engage in so much questionable behavior back when I was serving as an intelligence officer, military and civilian. In fact, on the few occasions where I believed that I'd been asked to engage in questionable activities and I protested, those in charge accepted my input and in fact thanked me for it.
Times are different now. I'm not real proud of my government or my Army. And these things are still going on, despite the pledges by the president who's now been in office for a year. Just take a look at this from today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us/10de
tain.html?emc=eta1
Sorry, folks, this is just plain wrong. And this is why I give Charly a hard time when he's giving Obama a pass, the pass he never gave Bush. Obama's been in office for a year now; we've yet to see the executive order outlawing such abuses, civilian and military.
I know Obama's busy, but this is fundamental housekeeping. And his failure, as the chief magistrate of the nation, to address it, frankly makes him look like shit. I can't respect him. I doubt I'll vote for this man again. Won't vote for a Republican, so I may sit 2012 out. I think a lot of folks like me will do the same.
Chief,
ReplyDeleteIRT your response to #1, I think you are ignoring the political aspect of non-action. The public will want politicians hanged if they do not act on "credible intelligence." Right or wrong, all economics aside, that is a factor.
IRT #3, true, true, true. Israel is a problem, we have lots of long term strategic issues to work. While fixing many of those are important, it will not have an impact on the current situation.
IRT #4, a knife is always better than a bomb. A strike is always the easy answer, and I agree, not always the right one. But sometimes, it can be effective. The problem, as I stated before, is leaving fingerprints. That is something that is harder than one would think.
IRT #5, I do like this option for many reasons, but what it doesn't offer the decision makers is any assurance of success. As much as we want it to be, often times intelligence just isn't as good as we want it to be, so following people or posting "most wanted" posters of suicide bombers usually is not feasible. I wish it was that easy, but those we pursue are not stupid. They can use effective craft.
Publius, against what some may believe, my views have fundamentally changed, primarily as a result of conversations with this crew. Admittedly, I was way out there. Perhaps I still am. Just to be clear, I am not, nor have I tried to in a long time, tried to justify anything about Iraq being a just war, or anything of value whatsoever. Often time I feel that I am still be blamed for that war.
But regarding unquestionable behavior, today vs. yesterday, I am willing to bet that the good old days weren't golden and innocent either.
"[T]hat tells me that either the lawyers are falsely interpreting the law, or the laws are not enforced."
ReplyDelete"I would be very interested to hear your perspective as to why no action has been taken against any US officials in regards to the alleged war crimes."
Well actions have been taken. When Bush was in office, there were cover-ups a-plently, show trials where enlisted service memberes were tried and convicted for crimes thaqt were authorized from the White House wile eveyone above them in the chain of command skated, and above all, and all out war on the Constitution and laws of the United States which continues today. That last is because just as Obama hasn't flushed the Gates gang down the toilet at DoD yet, he hasn't flushed some of the gamier parts of DOJ either.
And that's because he doesn't want to have to appoint a lot of new people at DoD or DOJ right now to minimize friction in the Senate. All of this is keyed to the election cycle, and it's all being calibrated to enter 2012 with rising poll numbers and a rapidly expanding domestic economy. That's the bet, and if they pull it off, Obama could win the biggest landslide in history, and the 113th Congress might just be one of the most productive ever.
"You got me, I guess I do have limits."
Ah. Good, I'm glad we got that straight. The law matters. Humanity matters. Justice matters. The freaking results matter too, now, and 20 years from now.
*
Anyone who supported the Iraq invasion should be blamed for it: it was one of the most despicable crimes in the history of this nation, and that's saying something when you consider the crimes we committed against slaves and natives.
bg,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I don't see any need for a hypothetical TO, so I'll read "Kreplackistan" to mean exactly Afghanistan and Pakistan, hereinafter A, P, and A/P together.
In the hypo, you have more legal authority (as distinct from capability) to conduct an FBI raid than you do to launch an air-strike, though it's clear there are parts of A/P where mounting a raid might require some air support.
I'll start with two of your largest delusions: the nutty idea that this is a war, and the even nuttier idea that air strikes are a solution to either the "war" or this hypo. It's absolutely clear that whatever information you have that might warrant an air-strike is the product of police work, or intel work that is substantively a form of police work; and equally, that the quality of your information is a direct function of how good your police work is.
So why waste all that hard work by dropping a bomb on it?
You should be wiring the bastards for sound, and doing whatever you can to make them feel snug and secure. My first instinct would be to figure out some way to help them mount the attack, but the first thing I'd do is put security in place to intercept it. If you think that increases the chance the attack gets through, I say bullshit: anything you do carries the risk of an attack getting through, and what you've being doing has created a hot house that generates many more attacks. Worse, you're giving them a free education, in exactly the same way that over-prescribing antibiotics gives a virus an education on how to be a drug-resistant super-virus.
And it's just a matter of time.
The network learns from everything you do, and the more you do it, the faster it learns. The logical battle space expands faster over time -- an effect that has been kicking your incompetent asses from day one, and kicking you harder than ever right now.
Looking through the rest, if the meeting is in A/P, and includes the strike team, there is obviously no urgent threat to any western city. If you know enough to know the strike team is at the meeting, you know enough to track them when they leave it.
The last part is a separate question.
If I'm the President, the day after the inauguration I ordered my new Secretary of Defense, Joe Lieberman, to evacuate Iraq within 6 months, and Afghanistan by the end of the year (2009). All predator strikes were stopped. I'd order that the Chagos Islands be returned to the Chagos Islanders, and return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba. I'd be looking to reduce our deployments in A and Iraq to zero, and our total deployments elsewhere by, oh 75-80%. ETC. That world would be nothing like this one. No more war on terror.
Charly
Charly,
ReplyDeletePlaying devil's advocate here.
If it's not a war then I suppose we have no legal basis to kill them (and UBL, etc.) at all? And if we do have the authority to kill UBL and other AQ leadership, what does it matter if the means is an airstrike vs some other method?
Also, if it is not a war police work, as you seem to indicate, then isn't arrest the only lawful course of action, or at least attempted arrest since I'm assuming they would be heavily armed and would not go quietly? You seem to indicate that we should send the FBI to "raid" these safehavens in Waziristan? Does the FBI have legal authority to do that in a foreign country outside the context of war? Traditionally it has not.
Additionally, I'm not sure you can claim with such surety that any information must come from "police work" or intel that is functionally the same as police work; unless, of course, your position is that virtually any investigative effort constitutes "police work," in which case the term becomes meaningless.
I think I remember discussions in similar veins back in the old Intel Dump and it seemed to me at the time that some of us argued that "terrorism" can often fall somewhere between law enforcement and warfare or possess aspects of both. I still think that's true in many, though not all, instances.
"The public will want politicians hanged if they do not act on "credible intelligence."
ReplyDeleteYou and I both know that the public is an ass. Our nation has gotten itself into a lot more trouble because of weak politicians bowing to ignorant public pressure than it has by having intransigent pols impeached or pressured by a howling public. There is nothing this country needs as much as it needs a politician/politicians who are willing to tell the idiots - from the religious nut to the single-issue voters to the people who never met a tax they liked or a public service they didn't - to sit down and STFU.
"While fixing many of those are important, it will not have an impact on the current situation."
Don't be silly. The most important step the British took in resolving the "Malayan Emergency" was to announce loudly and repeatedly that as soon as the "emergency" was under control that the colony would be independant. Did that bring a single CT out of the jungle? Of course not. Did it immediately and politically cut the ground out from under them?
Hell, yes it did.
We could do this very simply: as Charles says, publicly zero out the war budget for A-stan and Iraq in FY2011. Announce a complete zeroing of all assistance to Israel, beginning on 1/1/2011 if ALL the settlements aren't dismantled and the Israeli borders returned to the Green Line at that time. Treat both sides equally.
Would this end our problems? OF course not - we're still occupying several Muslim countries. Would it help? Probably immediately. Would we see more benefits in the long term, as more Muslims become truly convinced that we're no longer bankrolling the new Crusader State? Sure. Would we win over every one? Never.
Will we try it?
No chance.
"The problem, as I stated before, is leaving fingerprints. That is something that is harder than one would think."
Harder than denying a frigging missile through the front window? Puhleese. Anything would be more subtle than what we've been doing.
"...what it doesn't offer the decision makers is any assurance of success."
Of course not. No operation is EVER 100% successful. But, again, what have you lost? IMO this option backfoots your enemies and gives your allies actionable intelligence.
"so following people or posting "most wanted" posters of suicide bombers usually is not feasible. I wish it was that easy, but those we pursue are not stupid. They can use effective craft."
So do many criminals. We still post wanted posters of them, flash their faces on "America's Most Wanted".
We need to get OVER this weird insistence we seem to have that these guys are fucking SMERSH superspies. They're mooks, most of them, goatherders and shopkeepers who get a little half-assed "training" in some donkey village somewhere. If their tradecraft is better than our agents we need to work to improve our agenst! So they threw a spectacular strike on 9/11, but most of their games are gutterballs. A single USAF aircraft with a tactical nuke will kill and devastate more than any of these SOBs in their wildest success.
But by inflating their frightfulness, by ignoring the things we do that make more of them, by warping our own society and laws to accomodate our moronic fear and respect for them...we help destroy ourselves.
Osama has said it openly - his entire plan is to get us to act like utter fools. Tell me - is it working?
Well, a lot of our "GWOT" looks pretty foolish to me.
Andy said...
ReplyDelete"If it's not a war then I suppose we have no legal basis to kill them (and UBL, etc.) at all?"
Baloney. You can kill them if they resist arrest or you convict them of a death penalty offense. This is one of the biggest piles of govt BS.
You have military criminal jurisdiction over any person subject to Title 10 (the UCMJ) or anyone who commits a crime against such persons. You have civilian criminal jurisdiction under Title 18, where many statutes apply to criminal acts by or against US nationals anywhere in the world including airplanes and ships (including murder, assault, and conspiracy), and the war crimes statutes applies everywhere including outer space (inside or outside the United States is the language).
"[I]f we do have the authority to kill UBL and other AQ leadership, what does it matter if the means is an air-strike vs some other method?"
The same reasons we don't use air-strikes against criminals in Manhattan or Des Moines, etc.
"Does the FBI have legal authority to do that in a foreign country outside the context of war? Traditionally it has not."
Well that stuff is under a diversity of international and bilateral agreements, but in general you can pretty much do what ever you can get the other country to agree to that isn't otherwise a violation of binding agreements like Geneva.
"Additionally, I'm not sure you can claim with such surety that any information must come from "police work" or intel that is functionally the same as police work; unless, of course, your position is that virtually any investigative effort constitutes "police work," in which case the term becomes meaningless."
You're just letting the words confuse you. All of them are EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS, and the basic methodology is identical in each one. You can only solve a problem by understanding it, and you can only understand what you know from prior observation.
"[S]ome of us argued that "terrorism" can often fall somewhere between law enforcement and warfare or possess aspects of both."
Well law enforcement often requires military methods, but wars are about geography, not crimes. We don't go to war on murderers, investment bankers, thieves, etc. If we did, it would be all war all the time everywhere.
Hint: you do not want to kill the human race. Nor incite an increase in violence.
bg-
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, I am not, nor have I tried to in a long time, tried to justify anything about Iraq being a just war, or anything of value whatsoever. Often time I feel that I am still be blamed for that war.
I, for one, do not blame you, so you can now rest easy! ;-)
The difficulty in dealing with terrorism is rooted in the target population's perception of it and only the target population's perception of it. We experienced the general British reaction to IRA bombs and threats in London over a period of a few years, and it was as close to "business as usual" as one could imagine. We regularly made the trip from London to Cambridge. Kings Cross Station, the London terminal for the trip, was a common threat location. So, check to see if Kings Cross is open, and if not, go to Liverpool Street Station to catch the train there. On the occasions where we were in the station when a threat was discovered, it was simply an orderly evacuation until it was safe to return. Folks took it seriously, but without displaying any fear. Granted, the IRA never delivered a strike as large as 9/11, but it did conduct regular bombings over a 25+ year period, to include 36 in London in 1973 alone.
As FDChief, or perhaps JD once wrote, "19 men with boxcutters have frightened the crap out of us", or words to that effect. Terrorism isn't terrorism unless it stirs significant lasting fear and associated behavior changes and costs in the target population, and AQ seems to have indeed done that. Note that over time, the IRA shifted from acts that were intended to simply injure and kill Londoners to attempts to disrupt the financial/economic elements of the country. Since fear didn't work, a different tack was taken.
For all intents and purposes, the commandeering of a commercial airliner for use as a flying bomb ceased to be a viable terrorist tool at about 10:00 AM, Sept 11, 2001, when the passengers of United Flight 93 acted to foil that flight's hijackers. The concept is no longer "unthinkable" and thus, while possibly deadly to the passengers, not a threat outside the confines of the aircraft. Subsequent passenger actions with bomb attempts in flight further limit the terrorists' tool box. Keep in mind that during the past 15 years, commercial pilot and maintenance errors have caused more fatalities than all the non-9/11 aviation terror related acts combined.
The question I would pose is whether or not engaging in a protracted war is the most effective option in either economic or human terms. Leave Iraq, a truly monumental blunder, out of the equation. It should not be dignified by inclusion in a rational discourse of viable anti-terror methods. Is the cost/benefit ratio of the way we approached Afghanistan delivering benefits anywhere close to the overall costs? At what point does seeking "victory" in this manner become Pyrrhic? Are there more appropriate methods of "taking the fight to them", if that is the best tack in the first place.
Chief,
ReplyDelete"You and I both know that the public is an ass."
Thanks, that is the first time I've smiled all day.
To all, your points are well taken, especially IRT to the big strategic picture. But until that changes, I wish we could prosecute this war/whatever the way that you all suggest, as a straight up law enforcement issue, and believe it or not, often we do (it hits the news all the time and has hang time of about 1 hour). It just isn't always possible and I have to leave it at that.
To all,
ReplyDeleteCharlie,
Your position is solid.
To all,
Everyone here seems to forget the concept of jurisdiction and the following fact that the Host Nation has responsibility for arrest and apprehension. This is their country and we have no jurisdiction to enforce our law in their domain.Neat and simple.
Just a small point.Just wars are proportional.
Every soldier used to have classes on the rules of land warfare. This was not restricted to O's.
The rift in these discussions clearly reflect those of our society and show that all of us are in a box, myself included, and that box is nationalism and when discussing blowing peoples shit away in such light manner we should think with more general humanity and less artificial bullshit patriotism.
A uniform doesn't make killing right.
Try this concept on for size-what would you do if you were an AFGH or Irqi? Remember that we're in their countries .It's funny that Gen Mc C likes Jean Paul Latterguys book on Algeria but doesn't seem to have read his brutal discourses on the French Indochine War.
Charlie, yore the man.
jim
Andy,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to address your cmt concerning ad hominem atks and the idea that i'm guilty of same. Here goes.This is my 3rd attempt and all before have been lost in the ether world, and that's why my reply is tardy. I was not ignoring your pov.
I stand behind every word that i uttered and feel correct in doing so. I will not engage in any further exchanges with bg because we are talking past one another and this serves no purpose. I accept my part of the equation.
For the sake of the integrity of this site i offer my humble apologies and admit that my replies were based on frustration and feelings of helplessness. I apologize to bg with the proviso that although he's a fine fellow we need not discourse any further.This is not an attack, this is a realistic appraisal,and since I divorced 2 wives i don't much mind divorcing somebody on the internet, since the dialogue serves no useful purpose.
My following cmt is to the general thread and is not aimed at anybody.
About terror cells and nets-has anybody offered any historical precedents of a modern army defeating a terror net? Has any proof been offered of any Army of Occupation defeating a domestic insurgent/terror network , keeping in mind that the Occupiers have an entirely different/military/social/political/religous/legal/philosophical/psychological orientation?
As Charlie so wisely points out-WHY?? When did my Army start pimpin' for Karzai?
Well our coin manual is clear on the topic.The US Army will just kill them all if they don't buckle under. Read the manual.! As i pointed out in an article at RAW, this is exactly the same policy that Hitler espoused in Poland/Russia and all conquered lands.I don't know about you other folks but my Dad spent years of his young life fighting the Nazi concepts.
I'm foggy on the point but I seem to remember that my Army was dedicated to preventing such activity.Call me nuts and crazy but that's what we were supposed to be about.At least we fantasized that that's what we were doing.
Now back to terror net disruption-the military knows that this dog won't hunt but they go balls to the walls trying to do the impossible. This is my definition of insanity and some readers/commenters are portraying this idiocy as professionalism and devotion to duty.
I fully realize that this will be labelled as a rant and so be it.I'll stay in Fantasyland rather than accept the party line..
jim
To all,
ReplyDeleteMore ideas on fighting terror cells/networks.Look at the reality of today and disregard what is viewed as the bad old days, ie pre Obama.
Today we are killing people not even adjudged to be terrorists with guided bombs outta the wild blue yonder.We even kill their wives and kids.When has being a member of a cell become a death sentence-being in a cell does not equate to death unless you are taken before a judge and sentenced. This is extra legal assassination and fits as against all laws of civilized nations.If anybody here endorses such activity then that's just peachy keen, but killing is just continuing the cycle of violence and leads to further intransigence, which is not in short supply on either side of the equation. Again try to look at it from their pov.
The imprisonment,torture and endless warehousing of suspects is not a winning tactic , but yet it's still a central feature of the nuetralization of networks policy. Christ, is anyone so obtuse that they can't see Stalinist theory at work here?
I'm back to square 1 -the FBI can't raid anybody in other countries as this violates sofa and international law, and no, i'm not an atty ,but i understand the concept of national sovereignty. The host nation is the key and if they don't do it then we're simply out of luck and must follow other c/a, such as declaring war or having the UN sanction some sort of corrective action. We are presentlty either too lazy or dishonest to do either.
The point has arrived in which I must say that i'm shamed and embarrassed by our actions on all levels and it's apparent that democracy in America is as dead as an old mans dick since we can't/don't or won't take any corrective action.
When we the people can't control the flow of policy then what's the point of it all? We,re not destroying T nets, we,re destroying the concept of democracy and our place there in.
Another rant.
Chief, If i'm ot or inappropriate then give me the call and i'll shut up.
jim
Jim,
ReplyDeleteNo worries on the ad hominem and please do not quit posting. I'm sure BG is a big boy and my main point in bringing it up is that those kinds of arguments/attacks are usually ineffective and cause people to harden their position instead of change their position. I used to tell Charly that he might get more support if he didn't jump down people's throats all the time, but I gave up on that long ago.
On this,
Everyone here seems to forget the concept of jurisdiction and the following fact that the Host Nation has responsibility for arrest and apprehension.
Unfortunately, it's not so neat and simple in many cases. Pakistani law, for example, does not apply to the tribal areas except in specific circumstances. The Pakistanis have essentially the same system of administration the British used which was formalized in the Pakistani constitution. The Pakistani courts have no jurisdiction in the tribal areas. There is little to no law enforcement presence because Pakistani law (again, except in specific cases) does not extend to these areas because law enforcement is a local responsibility. That's why when there is trouble Pakistan sends in the Army. These territories (comprising almost 2/3 of Pakistan's geographic area) are essentially colonies within the borders we define as "Pakistan." They are administered as colonial possessions and not as integrated provinces. We might like to think that Pakistan is ultimately responsible for arrest and apprehension in these areas, but the fact remains that Pakistan has no ability to conduct law enforcement in these areas beyond punitive military campaigns. So the Pakistani government may theoretically have “jurisdiction” but for all practical purposes they don’t. For political reason they won't allow our ground forces to grab AQ leadership regardless of if they're FBI or Delta Force. That's the reason we are using the drones, which Pakistan supports despite public protest to the contrary (their protests against our "violations" of their sovereignty are made for domestic political reasons).
AQ is being harbored by a group of tribal allies in these areas. Since they are a sub-national group, we can't declare war on them nor sanction them. Traditionally, states have used punitive military campaigns in such situations but, as already discussed, this isn't possible for us in Pakistan except for drones.
So I think it gets pretty complicated from both a legal and practical perspective, to say nothing of political. Perhaps we should just call it a day and acknowledge that AQ is untouchable so long as they remain where they are. I don't know.
Charly,
ReplyDeleteSo as long as we make some attempt to arrest them, killing anyone who gets in our way is OK? Take a look, for example, at Panama. We killed several hundred Panamanian military and civilians in the operation in order to arrest Noriega. Were those killings lawful since we got our man and that was using military means for law enforcement ends? Somehow I don't think so if consider it a purely law-enforcement operation.
On the intel/police-work thing, there are some important differences between the two that you need to acknowledge even though the methodology is often similar. I’m not confused about that at all.
My position on this is that terrorism should be dealt with through the least-kinetic means possible. What I mean by that is that I think there is a spectrum of options ranging from basic security measures, through law enforcement, to military action and, if need be, up to warfare. For the latter cases I would point to the Barbary pirates and the overthrow of the Taliban. If it were possible to have the local cops deal with every problem (as they would be able to in Des Moines) then I’m all for that. Unfortunately, every place isn’t Des Moines and so that isn’t always possible. In some cases, military means will be required. That doesn’t mean you go to “war” but once you’re sending troops to raid inside a foreign country you’ve got at least one foot out of the realm of “law enforcement” in my opinion.
Andy,
ReplyDeleteB/c AQ is operating in areas outside the law this is not a justification for us to do so also.
jim
Jim,
ReplyDeleteOk, then what can we legally do and what is legally prohibited? I'm assuming here you would end the current practice of using wartime legal powers which is (IIRC) where we are currently deriving the authority to kill these people. If that goes away then what are our options?
BTW, Here are some interesting articles on how the Clinton administration dealth with the legal issues (since they did try to kill UBL with a missile strike). I think they're relevant because the come from a time when there was no war powers authorization to use force against AQ:
ReplyDeleteFirst, and article on the tension between the CIA and Clinton White house over when/how lethal force could be used:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A59781-2004Feb21¬Found=true
Clinton administrations explanation of the basis for the legality of the 1998 missile strike:
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/oct/29/news/mn-37327
Article on Bush's presidential finding authorizing targeted killing:
http://www.subliminalnews.com/archives/000085.php
I believe Bush's finding is till in effect or was renewed by President Obama.
Finally, A general article on targeting killing that's interesting reading:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Targeted+killing+and+the+law+of+armed+conflict.-a0167029847
Jim,
ReplyDeleteNo apology needed, just please keep up the discourse. If I am missing your point, I appreciate the continued attempts. Charly has been trying for 4 years, and one or two points have finally sunk in, so it isn't mission impossible.
IRT Andy's reply to your post, I have to add that the FATA is not the only "lawless" land. That isn't just a cliche based on the wild west, there literally is no law enforcement, so what we would normally consider legal means isn't so easy or feasible. I would include Somalia, much of Yemen and even parts of Colombia in that lawless category. In much of these places, local tribes, militias rule the land based on anything except what we would consider the rule of law. If we determine that legal means of direct action (police type raids, arrests) are not feasible in these lawless lands, and the country that owns these lands have no power or influence over them with economic or other indirect means, as Andy asked, what are our other options to apprehend them?
Andy,
ReplyDeleteWhat am i missing?
Wartime legal powers but where is the war?
Somehow i seemed to miss the Congressional declaration of War.
It just ain't a war-as much as one wishes that it be so-it just ain't.
It'll surely be fun when this vulture comes home to roost.
jim
Jim,
ReplyDeleteThe 2001 AUMF is still in force and that's what the current wartime legal powers are drawn from. The one for Iraq hasn't been repealed either.
It just ain't a war-as much as one wishes that it be so-it just ain't.
Well, that kind of ties into my point. I agree this isn't a "war" in the traditional sense and I don't like the idea we're using powers designed for wartime to combat terrorism, but what's the alternative? Going back to the limited law-enforcement approach prior to 9/11 probably isn't politically possible and carries all the problems the Clinton administration ran into when dealing with lawless or semi-lawless areas. I think we need something in between and probably all that is required is some additional authority for a President to act against terrorists operating in lawless areas.
bg says...
ReplyDelete"literally is no law enforcement, so what we would normally consider legal means isn't so easy or feasible. I would include Somalia, much of Yemen and even parts of Colombia in that lawless category. In much of these places, local tribes, militias rule the land based on anything except what we would consider the rule of law."
Bullshit. I bet every one of those places in fact has some form of law enforcement, and that the locals obey their laws a hell of lot better than DoD obeys ours.
Do you suppose they torture children like DoD does?
Have they murdered as many people as DoD has over the last eight years?
How can you not understand the hypocrisy of what you are saying?
Charly,
ReplyDelete1. Now you are getting offensive, once again accusing me as a member of DoD of torturing children and murdering people.
2. I am shocked that you would defend the "locals who obey their laws" in the FATA, in Somalia or the jungles of Colombia. Is putting AK-47's in children's hands not torture? Do you know why a teenage age boy in a small skiff will risk his life to try to rob a ship? Because he doesn't have any reasonable expectations to live to manhood, so what does he have to lose? Because their laws do no respect life. Period.
Let's talk about the laws in the FATA, such as sending a young girl to prison or worse for getting raped.
So, what you are saying, it doesn't matter how screwed up the law is, those people are better than DoD because they follow their own perverted laws.
Just to make sure I understand your point perfectly clear, if a society has a brutal, barbaric legal system with cruel and unusual punishments lacking any form of a fair justice system, but if this society follows this brutal law to the letter, this society is a better society than our own because at times we don't obey our own laws. (I don't distinguish a difference between DoD, our civilian leadership and our society, as I am sure you don't either).
Jim-
ReplyDeleteJust to make sure I understand your point perfectly clear, if a society has a brutal, barbaric legal system with cruel and unusual punishments lacking any form of a fair justice system, but if this society follows this brutal law to the letter, this society is a better society than our own because at times we don't obey our own laws.
No, it does not make it better, but the more important question would be if their cruel and unusual (from an outside view) punishment or lack of what someone else calls a fair justice system is grounds for ignoring their sovereignty. If a foreign country were to consider the US's abortion practices cruel and inhuman, would that be grounds for military action? We are on very shaky ground when we accept another country's solely internal affairs as justification for military intervention. Not saying you are doing so, but simply saying that this tack can easily morph in that direction. I weep over the way some societies treat their people. But sadly, if that treatment is within their legal and cultural system, other than intervening to stop genocide, I feel that only moral force is justified in bringing them to a more humane stance.
Al,
ReplyDeleteI think that was meant for me. I don't argue that because a society's system is different that we have a missionary obligation or even right to correct their system, I am just asking Charly is will admit that our flawed, imperfect system is still a better society than a society where brutal practices are enforced to perfection. I agree that we must be ever vigilant to protect our society from ourselves, but can we really say we as a people are worse human beings because of our imperfections? (again, I don't differentiate between DoD, civilian leadership and the people, so IMO, a knock on DoD is a knock on our entire system).
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI'm always amazed when people talk against teenage soldiers but never espouse keeping teenagers out of our military forces.
It's not ok in Somalia but it's ginger peachy in the 3rd Rangers.
Anybody in denial that we've tortured kids in our PWOT is living in an alternate universe. Pls notice that i didn't call it fantasy.
jim
"I am shocked that you would defend the "locals who obey their laws" in the FATA, in Somalia or the jungles of Colombia."
ReplyDeleteObservations aren't defenses. I'm unaware of ANY human society that doesn't have a system of rules or mechanisms to enforce those rules. Indeed, even animal societies do. This is just one more case of you ignoring obvious facts.
"Is putting AK-47's in children's hands not torture?"
No, it's a federal offense pursuant to 18 USC 2442. Torture is under 18 USC 2340-2340A. That's Title 18, United States Code, section 2442. You can Google "18 USC 2442", the whole thing is on-line. I like the Cornell website.
"Because their laws do no respect life. Period."
Bullshit. You're an ignorant, prejudiced cultural bigot, QED. Why would someone suppose that you know their laws any better than you know ours?
"So, what you are saying, it doesn't matter how screwed up the law is, those people are better than DoD because they follow their own perverted laws."
No, I was pointing out that they're generally a lot more honest and conscientious than you and DoD. Like for example, why do you ignore and make excuses for the perversion of our laws by people like Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Haynes, and Gates, etc?
I don't argue that because a society's system is different that we have a missionary obligation or even right to correct their system, I am just asking Charly is will admit that our flawed, imperfect system is still a better society than a society where brutal practices are enforced to perfection.
Well I think you've things a little backwards, and my experience of you over the last five years or so indicates you have virtually no understanding of ethics or moral philosophy at all. That happens to be something else I know a lot more about than you do, so if you'd like to try proving what you say instead of just regurgitating prejudice and falsehoods, by all means proceed.
And how many times do I have to repeat it before it finally sinks in?
There is only one human society. What you call a sovereign nation is a sub-culture.
I agree that we must be ever vigilant to protect our society from ourselves, but can we really say we as a people are worse human beings because of our imperfections? (again, I don't differentiate between DoD, civilian leadership and the people, so IMO, a knock on DoD is a knock on our entire system).
Gee, I can't imagine what would make anyone worse than anyone else EXCEPT their imperfections, and I'm certain we all have some.
The facts show that DoD is an organized criminal enterprise which tortures children and has murdered more people over the last eight years than any other terrorist organization. I guess maybe the lunacy in Darfur might come close in numbers, but DoD is orders of magnitude more dangerous. You people raped an entire nation, and speaking as a US Citizen, I regard DoD as a threat to public safety which is second only to the Republican Party.
If you're actually interested in my view of things, you should read the amicus brief I filed one month ago in the Supreme Court case Kiyemba v. Obama, S. Ct. No. 08-1234:
http://www.pegc.us/letters/kiyemba_cbg_amicus_20091211.pdf
You should also read (or re-read) arts. 6, 7, and 8 of the IMT Charter (1945):
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art6
...and get something straight:
Hague IV (1907), the IMT Charter (1945), and Geneva (1949) are the laws of war. It is a criminal breach of your military duty to commit, aid, or abet any of the acts listed in IMT art. 6.
I don't recognize your moral standing as being superior to anyone. The crimes DoD has committed over the last eight years are as bad as crimes get qualitatively; the only real question is the exact quantity, but it's huge. See again IMT arts. 7 & 8.
And we will finish what was at times a good conversation with that.
ReplyDeleteCharly, thanks for the reading assignments. I am looking forward to studying them in between some raping and killing, of course ;)
DoD represents our nation and you as a society, which of course you know. Keep fighting the good fight your way, and I will keep fighting mine. I will give you this, your way, (legal action) has the potential for much greater wide spread change. My way, from the inside, will be much more localized and direct. We all have our roles, and despite your distaste for mine, I respect yours. Best of luck to you.
No, we will finish what was apparently a complete waste of my time with this:
ReplyDeleteBULLSHIT. The only thing you're working for is a paycheck you don't deserve.
Classy as always Charly.
ReplyDeleteCharly, more flies with honey, remember?
ReplyDeleteI don't see Bg defending any criminal conduct whatsoever. And isn't it a fundamental precept of our laws and our society in general that we don't tar all with the same brush?
My advice is to stay focused on the ones who've actually done the bad deeds. Bg isn't your enemy and, IMO, he's right about some of those other societies out there. Frankly, my friend, you're coming across as the classic Western liberal who finds any number of ills in his own society, yet is blind to those in others. For reference, I'll direct you to those members of the Western intelligentsia who decided that Joe Stalin was a better fellow than Franklin Roosevelt. There was no rule of law in the Soviet Union. Further, as one who's been around the world a few times, I'll assure you that there are other nation-states out there with no rule of law.
It's good that we expect the best from our own, but we also need to realistically accept that we're not always going to get that. What's traditionally differentiated us from others has been our willingness to police ourselves. Where I share your disappointment is in the realization that this is no longer the case in many instances. Despite what I believe to be a well-founded grievance on your part, I'm also cynical enough to call your quest an extreme long shot, esp. with today's Supreme Court.
Despite our PR, we've never been that nice a nation, but we're really not nice these days.
PS:
ReplyDeleteI don't have any distaste for your role -- don't know what your exact role is, don't have any problem with the profession in any case. It's the dereliction of duty, incompetence, and war crimes that bother me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePublius,
ReplyDeleteAfter eight years, my tolerance for apologists like bg is somewhat less than zero. His criminal culpability is for a jury to decide, but his dishonesty about all of this stuff is obvious. When he started in on how all these defenseless people that we've been murdering and terrorizing the last eight years don't care about life, that was the last straw for me. when these people start talking like that they sound exactly like Nazis talking about Jews. It makes me want to vomit.
As for the chances in the Supreme Court, the case will be argued March 22, and we should get the opinion by the end of the term. I figure we have five votes assuming Justice Sotomayor goes our way. But they have a lot of options and concerns to juggle, so it's hard to say what they'll do even if the detainees do win. The only thing I know for certain is that the government's 'case' is completely fraudulent.
Charly,
ReplyDeleteI do want to being this post with a quick statement about your case you posted a link to. Very convincing and disturbing, assuming that these individuals have no evidence against them as you stated, it is very disturbing. Does the government admit that there is no evidence against them? Or is it a case that no sufficient trial has occurred and these guys are being kept in legal limbo? Either way, if there has been no trial or if no evidence exists to hold them to wait for a trial, then I absolutely agree that this situation is unacceptable. I admire your work in this case.
Now for the rest of your comments against me. (BTW, you are about as combative as anyone I've ever met, and coming from the warmongering group I work with, that is quite a statement)
"how all these defenseless people that we've been murdering and terrorizing the last eight years don't care about life"
Nice, you completely twisted my words thus implying that since I don't believe these people care about life, I am thus justified in killing them because they don't care.
1. Do you really believe that I don't care about human life? As evidence by my actions, which you have never seen and only imagine based on limited online discussions and your own personal bias against those like me?
2. You would make a great politician. I am very glad I am not running for political office against you, you are savvy.
3. When I say that a society of people have no regard for human life, I do mean it I have seen it, they really exist no matter how much your liberal sensitivities don't want them to. They care about their own life, of course, and that of their family, tribe, clan, etc. But they don't care about yours or anyone else's that stand in their way of achieving their individual goals. Unlike you, they don't consider all life precise. But perhaps I misspoke, perhaps they do place value on life, or should I say, value on taking it from you if it helps them to meet their needs.
No Charly, I am not a bigot for saying that. Yes, people are people. Our DNA is the same, however, genetics only accounts for a portion of our behavior. Environment is, in most cases, more important than genetics. This means that a society where someone grows up in can be completely alien to your own (absolute poverty, religion, culture, etc) , and that person can then be a completely different person from you in how they think, analyze, justify and rationalize. Now add some of the lesser human characteristics to stew, greed, selfishness, lust for power, pride.
Claiming that these people are "different" is not being a bigot. It is an observation based on observed facts. I fully understand my biases and when I make these observations, I take efforts to counter my biases.
Not liking someone because of their association with an organization or group of people, not liking someone because of an image that you've built in your head based on preconceived notions and a purely subjective view of their comments, that my friend, is bigotry.
bg,
ReplyDeleteYou'll find a folder with most of the case docs on my website here:
http://www.pegc.us/Kiyemba_Merits
At the top are three sub-folders...
CAD = US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Cert = S. Ct. Certiorari phase
DDC = US District Court for D.C.
Have a look at the Govt appeal in the CAD:
http://www.pegc.us/Kiyemba_Merits/CAD/CAD_gov_appeal_20081024.pdf
And see the STATEMENT OF THE FACTS starting on page 4. The detainees' view will be found in their CAD Response, their cert. petition, and their merits brief that was filed one week before the amici briefs, all of which are in those folders.
As for the rest, I'm too tired to deal with it right now, but I'll say this much:
Facts and well-grounded logical inferences are not "subjective opinions".
And actually, I do like you -- that's part of why I'm so PISSED OFF.
Thanks for the reading Charly, in all seriousness. Please keep it up.
ReplyDeletebg,
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome. Would you like to be added to the PEGC distribution list? If so, send me an email.
And here's my reply...
(you are about as combative as anyone I've ever met, and coming from the
warmongering group I work with, that is quite a statement)
Well I started out as a Chess player. Told some of the story to the Talking Dog...
http://thetalkingdog.com/archives2/001328.html
I've been working on my project for EIGHT solid years, more than full time. You have no idea how seriously I take this stuff. This is a WAR, remember?
Do you really believe that I don't care about human life? As evidence by my actions, which you have never seen and only imagine based on limited online discussions and your own personal bias against those like me?
No: I know you're a human being, and all humans care about life unless they are mentally defective or dead.
"You would make a great politician."
Heh. I'm no politician. I'd be a better O-10. I'm even available if you guys ever decide to get serious. =:D
{PART 2}
ReplyDelete"When I say that a society of people have no regard for human life, I do mean it I have seen it, they really exist no matter how much your liberal sensitivities don't want them to. They care about their own life, of course, and that of their family, tribe, clan, etc. But they don't care about yours or anyone else's that stand in their way of achieving their individual goals. [etc}
[SIGH] In short, they are people exactly like you are, and human sub-cultures exactly like ours. I repeat once again: there's only one network.
"No Charly, I am not a bigot for saying that."
Well it's a prejudiced, bigoted thing to say. I do get that you often say things without really understanding what you are saying, but I use a simple definition of bigotry --
To regard another person as a thing, an animal (as distinct from a human), or an inferior being.
This does not refer to objective measurements of individual performance: different individuals perform differently at different tasks. It's about making judgments on the basis of personal characteristics like race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
To claim that someone doesn't value life is to claim that they are inhuman in the same way a hungry tiger or a frightened rattlesnake is.
"Yes, people are people. Our DNA is the same, however, genetics only accounts for a portion of our behavior.[etc]"
Oh sure, but you're missing something; language and culture both have genetic properties that function a lot like DNA, only the engine driving the mechanism isn't the random recombination of genes, it's the particular choices and experiences of people and sub-cultures. Equally, you have insufficient information to make such judgments. You have a much more objective evidence about the people you work for, yet you ignore that out of DoD clan loyalty.
"Claiming that these people are "different" is not being a bigot. It is an observation based on observed facts. I fully understand my biases and when I make these observations, I take efforts to counter my biases."
It's not about being different. There are @ 6.5 billion people on the planet, no two of them are alike, and no one is the same from one minute to the next. It's a given that people are different.
"Not liking someone because of their association with an organization or group of people, not liking someone because of an image that you've built in your head based on preconceived notions and a purely subjective view of their comments..."
Re-read my definition. There's nothing subjective about observing that someone is a member of a criminal enterprise, or listening to what someone says. We judge literally everything by preconceived notions -- they're called "concepts".
Charly, you're really a piece of work. God bless you.
ReplyDeleteBTW, what happened to the email updates? As I've told you, I'd like to be in the loop.
My best always.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI can't agree that all human beings care about life unless they are mentally defective or dead.
If you look around , and if you look at your efforts in the last 8 years, you are fighting something that is not humanistic and it comes from us as well as from any external source.
Nobody ever claimed that the guards at Auschwitz or Gitmo were mentally defective.
I served in a unit where killing people was a major sport and i never saw a shrink giving classes on touchy ,feely stuff. None of us were called mentally defective and many loved the trip.
Just sayin'.
jim
jim
Publius,
ReplyDeleteHere is the latest one (see item 5 at the bottom).
http://www.pegc.us/_UPDATES_/PEGC_20100105_update.txt
Looks like I just forgot to put you on the PEGC email list, which has been corrected. But that's also the only one I've sent out since I talked to you. Treatment was really tedious and really boring, and the radiation fatigue really took over big time. You wind up spending most of your time sleeping, watching TV, and struggling to keep up with all the trivial details of appointments, prescriptions, meals, and diverse symptoms that advance and recede and interact with each other. You get tired of thinking about it, let alone boring your friends and family with it. Some of the symptoms were unpleasant, but in my case they weren't horrible. The fatigue was the worst, I guess the radiation burns were the ickiest (but healed in a couple of weeks), but the ones that have been most persistent are digestive and vocal problems caused by the cancer as distinct from the treatment, and those are both better though still there. The fatigue is mostly gone now.
It is what it is. My MRI looked good and I'm having a PET scan next week. If that's OK, the expectation is that we just keep an eye on things for awhile. This stuff is very hard to predict because there are so many things that can go haywire in so many different ways.
But I've regained some weight, and was feeling good enough to write that new brief (which was even harder than the first one five years ago in some ways). I'm better than I was a year ago, and that better than some of the alternative. The worst thing about this crap is that everything is so unknown and unfamiliar.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteIf someone is breathing, it's either because they want to, or because they don't have the physical or mental competence to commit suicide. A sport is something we do because we enjoy it and it enhances our lives, pretty much by definition. The Romans thought it was great sport to feed people to hungry carnivores, or have people fight to the death for entertainment.
Why would anyone water-board someone 180 times?
Only because demonstrating how superior his life is to theirs is such a rush.
As for the guards at Gitmo or Auschwitz, they were at least confused. From a systems analysis perspective, a bug is bug, and the consequences of confusion or negligence can be worse than than those of insanity. George Bush killed a lot more people than Jeffrey Dahmer did, but they both got a rush doing it.
Whatever a persons motivations may be, they always reflect the concerns of their own life. Why else would a soldier obey orders or even be a soldier in the first place?
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI've known soldiers that i'd consider to be sociopaths or psyco killers. They were around only for the thrill of killing people.But then we're back to your contention that they're mentally defective, but institutionally they are on the mark. From this what do we conclude.?Why waste words.
I believe we walk more comfortably with destruction than with truth/love and beauty. Man has a mighty thin veneer of persona and personality.
I only mentioned this b/c of your cmt.
I read your medical update with optimistic thoughts for you.
Dahmer was the more truthful of the pair.
jim
Are you in need of a Loan/Funding for a project? Have you been trying to obtain a Loan from any of the Banks or Loan Companies and got Ripped off and they have refused to grant you the Loan because of bad credit? we offer all types of non-recourse Loan and funding at a low Interest Rate of 3% both long term and short term.
ReplyDeleteThe categories of Loan/financial funding offered include but not limited to: Business Loan, Personal Loan, Company Loan, Mortgage Loan, debt consolidation and financial funding for both turnkey and mega projects E.T.C. from a minimum of Euro/US$1Million to Euro/US$5Billion Max.
We also specialize in lease, sales and monetization of Bank Guarantee {BG}, Standby Letter of Credit {SBLC}, Medium Term Notes {MTN} and Confirmable Bank Draft {CBD}, this financial instrument is issue from AAA Rated bank such as HSBC Bank, UBS Zurich, Barclays Bank, Standard Chartered Bank E.T.C.
The financial instrument can be invested into High Yield Investment Trading Program {HYITP) or Private Placement Program (PPP). We are direct to a genuine and reliable Financial Organization, without broker chain or chauffer driven offer.
Kindly get in touch for further details and procedure.
Regards
Mr.Andrew John Pelley
Email: andrewjohnpelley@yahoo.co.uk AND andrewjohnpelley@oakdm2ltd.com