“You have to recognize also that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.”GEN Petraeus, in Robert Woodward's "Obama's Wars"
What the...the fu'...WHAT?
THIS is the best the theatre commander can do? This from the Warrior-Sage of Mosul, the savior of the Long War? That's IT? A multigenerational unwinnable clusterfucking landwar in Asia? That's the advice you're giving the Leader?
Christ, I used to get military advice that good from SP4 Denny after a half rack of Natty Lite and a basket of salty chicken wings on any Friday night down at the Yadkin Road Hooters. And it came a lot cheaper, too. And Georgie would even do the "Barbie Girl Dance" after he'd had some Jim Beam.
Geez. Does anybody here know how to play this game?
WASF.
Bacevich implies this in "Washington Rules". The rules make actual strategic planning and thought impossible since the rules operate outside of strategy. To implement an actual strategy you have to get rid of the Washington Rules.
ReplyDeleteNo one among our elite is willing or even contemplating doing that, so we end up with strategically irrational statements like Petraeus's, that do make sense only in terms of the rules.
Funny how hoping for Steiner and Wenck, not to mention the Allies falling out among themselves in April of 1945 actually made more strategic sense then operating in terms of the rules . . .
Add to that that Steiner (had he still been in existence) would have had a definable mission and a way to execute it. It wouldn't have won the war, but at least you knew where you stood.
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous on the science-fiction level. Fighting a desultory war in Asia for generations? Who the hell with a functioning hindbrain thinks THAT is a good idea?
If, for no other reason, for the evolutionary pressure. Sun Tzu remarks that its always a bad idea to fight the same barbarians over a long period, because the ones you didn't kill tended to get smarter and better at fighting; you became, in effect, the agent of natural selection among your enemies while at the same time teaching them how you fought and how to beat you.
I don't understand it either. These four-stars can't be this stupid, to think that a long-term, endless war costing $10 billion a MONTH doesn't have a significant political impact. Maybe Petraeus meant to say "you can't win this war given the current level of commitment of personnel and resources. At this rate, I think you keep fighting."
ReplyDeleteAfghanistan is "winnable" if you want to dedicate 500,000 people in theater, on the ground, and up the rate of expenditure to $30 billion a month. But that's just insane, considering that the survival of the United States isn't at stake. I only hope that Woodward was misquoting someone or was fed info second-hand, but it's more likely that the Washington Rules are in play.
WASF
Pfaff's picked up on Bacevich's argument . . . no surprise there . . .
ReplyDelete". . . General David Petraeus made his reputation by reviving classic anti-insurgent tactics for Iraq, and convincing his superiors and the public that they had succeeded. President Obama validated this by withdrawing all but 50,000 U.S. troops (while introducing mercenaries into Iraq in equivalent number to the soldiers withdrawn). In Afghanistan Petraeus reintroduced his counterinsurgency program, this time into a nationalist insurgency in which, more than a year after that White House meeting, there is no sign of victory. The conflict now is being redefined as the 'long war' against non-western world radicalism, where victory (democracy) is sure but remote.
The war is a task of civilization (the plan is implicitly colonial). Its method is shamelessly taken from Vietnam – winning hearts and minds. Petraeus’ successor as commander of the Army’s Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Lieutenant General William Caldwell, says 'The margin of victory will be measured…by the allegiance, trust, and confidence of populations.' Petraeus himself is quoted in Bob Woodward’s latest book (Obama’s War, Simon & Schuster): 'I don’t think you win this war. That is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives, and probably our kids’ lives.'
Why should this be so? Will this be the message Petraeus gives Obama at the supposedly decisive strategy conference planned for December – that the 'real war' has all along been that war for permanent world order we’ve heard about before, a condition for American security now and into the distant future? The generals set him up to back their plan for victory in Afghanistan. Now they are setting him up for its defeat."
http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=484
"Afghanistan is "winnable" if you want to go Roman on the country by dedicat(ing) 500,000 people in theater, on the ground, and up the rate of expenditure to $30 billion a month."
ReplyDeletefixed.
Sorry, J., had to add my two cents in your quote.
Afghanistan is not winnable in our current effort, and no matter how many troops we dump in theater, it will never be enough.
The only way we could win is if the Afghani's wanted us to win...and of course, with the current condition of the country there I'd say fat chance of that every occuring.
So, there must be an end game to Petraeus "advice" since, like you, I comletely refuse to accept that Mr. Petraues is actually that stupid.
Thus, I would say, he has something in mind, not so much about Afghanistan, as it is a lost cause, but here, domestically.
And it would not surprise me if it wasn't collusion with the Republican party desire to regain political prominence.
To all,
ReplyDeleteI know i'm preaching to the choir, but i'll butt in anyway.
Let's suppose that you do win- then so what??
What can we win-a boot full of piss.
My main objection to the endless wars is not strategic, moral or legal-my objection is that they are just dumb ass stupid.
It's that simple.
jim
Afghanistan has a GDP of about $25 billion a year, but the USA is spending about $100 billion a year on the war. Clearly, the money isn't being spent in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteThe goodness or badness of this money flow depends strongly on its relative direction to your wallet.
Does anybody here know how to play this game?
ReplyDeleteOh, but they do. And that game is all about how much they are going to make when they take off the uniform. How far they are going to go politically when they finally retire. How easily they can make a non-veteran, "liberal-commie-fascist" CinC bend to their will.
That is the game pogues like General Dave and Admiral Mike are playing. The actual troops, their families and the mission are merely a means to their narcissistic ends.
And there is no change in sight. At this point, I do not believe a catastrophic loss of life in Af-Pak is enough to shake either these politician flags or the American People out of the stupor that permits this BS to continue.
Yes. WASF.
Retired(once-Serving) Patriot
That quote is pretty damning. I'd like to see it in full context though.
ReplyDeleteSeydlitz,
Pfaff is claiming we've sent somewhere around 100k mercenaries to Iraq since 2008? ("President Obama validated this by withdrawing all but 50,000 U.S. troops (while introducing mercenaries into Iraq in equivalent number to the soldiers withdrawn)") I would like to see a citation for that, sounds like bs to me.
Andy-
ReplyDeleteSend Pfaff an email. You've got his link . . .
Seydlitz,
ReplyDeleteThere's one big flaw in Pfaff's essay IMO. I don't think this applies to the President at all:
"Its characteristic is to create a situation in which a president is no longer free to act as he might wish, because all of the doors except one have been closed."
The President has mostly put himself in the position he's in. He campaigned on Afghanistan. He kept Sec. Gates. His administration keeps promoting these generals who everyone says are boxing him in. Putting them in those positions implies endorsement of their views. No one made him put either McChrystal or Petraeus in charge of Afghanistan instead of someone else. He could have put someone else in there and retired Petraeus (or promote him to CSA to get him out of the way) in the spring. At least Mattis is at Centcom.
Even with those mistakes he's not out of options provided he's willing to take some political risk. The question is, does he want to? A lot of his staff is going to change over soon - seems like a good opportunity to make some changes in other areas as well.
I have to agree with Andy here. Obama didn't have to walk through this door. He's got some smart guys with stars he could have listened to, like GEN Lute, who have no problem telling him to sell this goatrope to the Afghan "government" and grab a hat. Then they and the Talibs will fight themselves to a standstill and eventually some sort of compromise warlord will emerge and the place will slump back into 14th Century lassitude for another 50 years or so.
ReplyDeleteObama so far has shown all the sack of a box of Johnson & Johnson cotton balls: 100% sterile. He's sort of the anti-Lincoln or the mirror-universe Truman, where his generals spin him like a top. I don't think he agrees with what the EOR are saying - what sane human would? I think he's instinctively a compromiser and is trying to avoid having to make a principled stand and go down with honor as a one-termer.
The ironic part is that I think he will anyway, having accomplished nothing towards ending this ridiculous obsession with fighting land wars in central Asia in the name of "fighting terrorism".
I don't think ya'll understand Pfaff's argument. He titles the piece, "Are Obama's Hands Tied?" and immediately introduces Bacevich's book. I linked the article to Bacevich as well when I posted it to this thread. Pfaff's second paragraph reads:
ReplyDelete"One might call this a silent coup against the presidency, but a coup implies intention: a responsible actor who sets the coup d’état into action for a defined purpose. The argument Bacevich makes implies that a coup can be institutional or intellectual, and come from outside as well as inside government. Its characteristic is to create a situation in which a president is no longer free to act as he might wish, because all of the doors except one have been closed . . ."
So, ya'll both say that Obama had "options" and could have gone a different route. I wonder, and Bacevich would say that Obama essentially had to follow the Washington Rules and made every indication he would from the day he was elected.
Why were the boys and girl(s) over at CNAS so sure that Obama was going to sign off on COIN? That is before, during and after the big review? Because, politically as Bacevich and Pfaff point out, it was not an option to quit (and thus "lose") that war.
So Chief, Pfaff's piece introduces Bacevich's answer to your question, as did I in my first comment. You don't have to agree with it, but it does explain a heck of a lot . . .
Seydlitz,
ReplyDeleteLet me explain a bit more:
"Its characteristic is to create a situation in which a president is no longer free to act as he might wish, because all of the doors except one have been closed "
How is that different from plain old politics? Advocates for whatever policy position will try to make their "door" as open as possible while trying to keep other "doors" closed. I haven't read Bacevich's book, but how are "Washington Rules" distinguished from everyday political skulduggery? Plus, ff there's one door that's open or much wider than others, then usually that indicates a political consensus. As I've noted here and elsewhere before, that was the real success of the "surge" in Iraq - it opened the door to withdrawal from Iraq and closed the door to an endless and violent US occupation. How do we distinguish political consensus from "Washington Rules?"
And what does "closed" here really mean? It means, if I understand things right, that trying to open such a door is politically risky - IOW doing so could result in policy failure (due to opposition in another branch of government for example) and a failure to get reelected.
Some doors are closed because of structural opposition. For instance, major government reforms have to pass both houses of Congress, get approved by the President and pass Constitutional muster in the Judiciary. That's one reason why health care reform is so difficult - it's got to jump through a lot of hoops and the various interests have multiple opportunities to intervene. There are no open doors regarding health care - the Democrats tried, found a crack and managed to force something through it.
By contrast, Afghanistan is almost wholly in the President's domain. There's political opposition, but very little structural opposition. So by all accounts, changing tack in Afghanistan ought to be easier than either the economy or health care. The "Washington Rules" are therefore entirely political it seems to me. Doors are only "closed" to Obama in the same way they were "closed" to LBJ who, we now know, wanted to get out of Vietnam but couldn't muster the political courage to do so for fear of being perceived as weak.
To be honest, I don't really know where the President stands in all this because what he's said and done is at odds with what's been reported in Woodward's book. Regardless, the responsibility and authority is his and it seems to me if he's not willing take political risks on Afghanistan (provided he really believes the US needs to get out of there), then that is his failure alone.
Doesn't anyone remember the stated goal of invading Afghanistan in the first place? We were going to deprive Al Quaeda of the training bases that were allegedly the breeding ground of 9/11 and terrorist attacks yet to be.
ReplyDeleteThat goal has gotten increasingly unreachable, not to mention, stupid since 2001. Terrorist attacks can be coordinated by four bad guys in a hotel room almost anywhere.
So even if we run every bad guy out of Afghanistan and Pakistan (and turn the rest of the population into Republicans -- heaven forfend), WASF (where I've borrowed the "S" to stand for 'still').
Cheers,
JP
SP:
ReplyDeleteAnd there is no change in sight. At this point, I do not believe a catastrophic loss of life in Af-Pak is enough to shake either these politician flags or the American People out of the stupor that permits this BS to continue.
One hopes that an increasingly large segment of our media will start pulling the curtain aside to show some reality. Rachel Maddow last night reported that the Pakis have clipped Petreus' feeding tube through their country.
It seems they are a bit upset that our military incursions and drone strikes have been murdering their military and police forces, plus assorted civilians of various persuasions and their infrastructure.
If I remember correctly, the Pakis have nukes. How long will they suffer to be poked and prodded and murdered before somebody does something rash?
Here's Rachel's bit last night:
http://tinyurl.com/27grn2k
Chief & Sun Tzu:
Sun Tzu remarks that its always a bad idea to fight the same barbarians over a long period, because the ones you didn't kill tended to get smarter and better at fighting; you became, in effect, the agent of natural selection among your enemies while at the same time teaching them how you fought and how to beat you.
Yes, it seemed we spent 7 years training "terrorist" weapons and demolition experts who apparently are more than happy to further hone their skills in Afghanistan.
More news reports of car bombings, IEDs, etc coming out of that area.
And more casualties.
I saw a glimmer of hope in a story a couple days ago.
http://tinyurl.com/24sg735
bb
bb - Thanks for the link tot he article. Hopefully the big money boys are indeed spending some coin at the more local, more grassroots level where actual "change that we can believe in" is occurring. And if so, that their dollars bring forth success that actually gets reported. After all, the GOP big money boys are pretty much mirroring this tactic (who keeps buying the teabaggers bus rides? And we hear entirely too much about the teabaggers now....
ReplyDeleteRP
Andy-
ReplyDeleteI think you need to read "Washington Rules".
Bacevich's argument is very strategically analytical and placed within a historical context, as one would expect. Your view seems far more subjective, tied to your particular place and time, which is our normal everyday, which in turn provides a clue as to Bacevich's real achievement.
I understand and follow Bacevich's argument, as do many others. If you wish to challenge Bacevich you have to do so on his terms . . .
It's not my intention to challenge Bacevich, at least not yet, but merely to understand the argument better. I know I will have to read the book in order to do that.
ReplyDeleteAndy-
ReplyDeleteI would like to read your challenge if you still want to do that after reading Bacevich's book.
In a nutshell, the "Rules" consist of a group of interlocking assumptions that form our view of not only the US, but also of the "mission" or "purpose" of US power. It's about exception and taking on world-changing policies . . . once again an answer to Chief's question on this thread.
I bought the book last night for my iPhone and read the intro before bed. I'll let you know when I finish.
ReplyDeleteI'm about 1/2 through. Pretty good so far, I envy Bacevich's writing ability.
ReplyDeleteBut I wanted to highlight this article I read this morning.