tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post5870658214452645525..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: Strategic Stupidity Incarnate?FDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-5280133585304773792011-11-07T04:21:41.569-08:002011-11-07T04:21:41.569-08:00In spite of some great commenting and with 78 comm...In spite of some great commenting and with 78 comments we still haven't been able to come up with any rational political purpose for the employment of these weapons. The military aim is simply destruction/violence, but there is no link to any achievable political purpose I see. Rather it has to do with certain self-deluding assumptions. For instance the "terrorists" (we're not engaged in "acts of terror" because we are both sovereign and legitimate) have no political goals, just religious ones which exclude us, thus they form an existential threat to the US. Since they constitute such a dangerous threat, any means available - which all come down to destruction/liquidation - are suitable. Also due to the existential nature of the threat to the US, all host nations are "either with us or with the terrorists" to use Bush's simple-minded formulation.<br /><br />Very simple logic. To which I would answer: The "terrorists" have a political agenda and our actions promote their achievement of it. The means we used can be seen by the targeted populations as "terror". The "terrorists" are not an existential threat to the US, far from it in fact. I could go on . . . <br /><br />Thanks to all for commenting, it has been a very interesting discussion.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-73964263042958885062011-11-04T17:32:14.018-07:002011-11-04T17:32:14.018-07:00Andy-
Reasons aside, we don't crack down on g...Andy-<br /><br />Reasons aside, we don't crack down on gun running to benefit Mexico and Pakistan doesn't establish what we see as sufficient "control" for our benefit. Yet we expect Pakistan to cede sovereignty for our benefit, yet would go ballistic if Mexico wanted us to cede sovereignty for their benefit. Do our operations in Pakistan pass Pakistani Constitutional muster, or is that even a worthy question for "Exceptional" America? We support trying other nation's citizens by the World Court, but not our own.<br /><br />Just roll the dice and we will tell you when you lose.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-65471025880918114062011-11-04T12:46:36.373-07:002011-11-04T12:46:36.373-07:00Al,
Perhaps the Pakistanis feel they have suffici...Al,<br /><br /><em>Perhaps the Pakistanis feel they have sufficient control of their border regions for Pakistani purposes.</em><br /><br />That's certainly how the Pakistani military and intelligence services see it. They oppose making turning the FATA into an actual province because then they'd be a lot more subject to oversight from the civilian government (such as it is). As it stands, they "run" things in those areas but they can't really exercise control in the way or nearly to the extent that we can in the US. Those areas are still administered under the colonial system established by the British, which hasn't really changed much at all. Those areas are, essentially, colonies of Pakistan. I don't see how that is comparable to the US. The reasons we can't crack down on the gun running are not the same reasons the Pakistanis can't crack down on AQ and affiliated militant groups in tribal region.<br /><br />And Yemen is basically in a civil war. The Yemeni military is <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-10/world/yemen.siege.zinjibar_1_zinjibar-abyan-province-aden?_s=PM:WORLD" rel="nofollow">breaking sieges and retaking cities</a>.<br /><br />Regardless, we are there because both countries allowed us to be there. Theoretically, however, I suppose you're right that we could allow the Mexican's to operate here. I say theoretically because I don't see how such a scheme could pass constitutional muster.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-41388474853694017792011-11-04T12:21:28.487-07:002011-11-04T12:21:28.487-07:00Jim,
Well, you asked...
Legal doesn't mean s...Jim,<br /><br />Well, you asked...<br /><br /><em>Legal doesn't mean smart,tactical or strategic which is the point of this thread.</em><br /><br />Never said it was - I was simply trying to answer your question from your previous comment: "And what gives us the right or legality to make these decisions?" <br /><br />In fact, if you've read anything I've written here on Afghanistan over the past couple of years you'd know that I don't think Afghanistan is "long term smart."<br /><br /><em>Screw all the legal gov'ts that thrills your little joystick.</em><br /><br />You asked a question, I answered and somehow you've concluded I'm getting off on this?Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-30654607037440354872011-11-04T10:30:31.357-07:002011-11-04T10:30:31.357-07:00Andy: There's an important difference with th...Andy: <b><i>There's an important difference with the Mexico analogy though. The US has control over all it's territory and it has the capability to exercise that control - there's no reason for Mexico to need to base fighter jets in the US because the US has the capability to arrest the gun dealers. </i></b><br /><br />But we haven't put a dent in the gun traffic. In the end, it's no different than the situation in the border regions of Pakistan. We say we have "control" of our border with Mexico, even if weapons flow across the border. Perhaps the Pakistanis feel they have sufficient control of their border regions for <b>Pakistani purposes</b>. If we are free to operate on sovereign Pakistani soil, then why shouldn't Mexico claim the same privilege?Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-91274495037589880812011-11-04T07:11:01.721-07:002011-11-04T07:11:01.721-07:00Gee Andy,
thanks for the clarification.
I seem to ...Gee Andy,<br />thanks for the clarification.<br />I seem to remember that South VN was the supposed legal gov't that we supported.We know how that worked out.<br />Legal doesn't mean smart,tactical or strategic which is the point of this thread.Likewise being strategic doesn't imply legality. Or long term smart.<br />Screw all the legal gov'ts that thrills your little joystick.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-75790736819760494072011-11-03T15:00:47.675-07:002011-11-03T15:00:47.675-07:00Jim,
These areas are legally the responsibility o...Jim,<br /><br />These areas are legally the responsibility of the governments of Yemen and Pakistan respectively. We are there, operating in those areas with the support of those governments. How is that illegal?Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-87345106836558047872011-11-03T11:34:52.743-07:002011-11-03T11:34:52.743-07:00andy,
So the areas where we are conducting strike...andy,<br /> So the areas where we are conducting strikes are areas that don't consider .....yadi yadi..<br />And what gives us the right or legality to make these decisions? Who cares what we consider?<br />Can you show me a treaty?<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-4007315369484725562011-11-02T18:04:37.391-07:002011-11-02T18:04:37.391-07:00There's an important difference with the Mexic...There's an important difference with the Mexico analogy though. The US has control over all it's territory and it has the capability to exercise that control - there's no reason for Mexico to need to base fighter jets in the US because the US has the capability to arrest the gun dealers. That's not the case in Pakistan and Yemen. Predators are not conducting strikes in areas those governments control. If al Alawki was hiding out in Sana'a, we wouldn't have sent a predator to kill him. And the reason he was in the Yemeni hinterlands and not in Sana'a is because he knew the government didn't have any actual authority where he was. <br /><br />In short, the borders of the nation-states of Pakistan and Yemen don't reflect the reality on the ground and the reality is that those governments simply don't exercise actual authority over what much of their territory. So the areas where we are conducting strikes are areas that don't consider the current governments of Yemen and Pakistan legitimate anyway - so much so that the people living in these areas will attack government forces that do try to exercise control. That situation is a bit different in terms of legitimacy and sovereignty from the Mexico gun dealer scenario.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-24742323233415096262011-11-02T06:15:35.430-07:002011-11-02T06:15:35.430-07:00FDChief-
-"So - again - I don't think th...FDChief-<br /><br />-"So - again - I don't think that this is a case of a weapon, or a tactic, driving strategy a place that the user didn't intend for it - or anticipate for it - to go."-<br /><br />That's exactly the problem as you have described it. The German High Command saw the Uboot as a weapon capable of achieving strategic effect (starving Britain out of the war) but the actual effect was quite different . . . ditto RPAs. You can't separate the weapon from the strategic effect either intended or unintended, which we are in the rather slow process of contemplating . . .<br /><br />Why don't Pakistan or Yemen shoot down the RPAs? Because those with the authority to order such action are the same who allowed these weapons in in the first place. Their interest was in giving the US what we wanted and that remains the case. Since they assume they have sovereignty they don't think they need legitimacy . . . but that attitude was common elsewhere as well . . Tunisia, Egypt, Libya . . . time will tell.<br /><br />You really get the impression that we are on the wrong side all down the line. How high would you put the survival instincts of the current Pakistani government? Yemen is hanging by a thread . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-56817349083638926352011-11-01T18:01:41.561-07:002011-11-01T18:01:41.561-07:00And it'd be the same problem if these guys wer...And it'd be the same problem if these guys were being killed by ninjas!<br /><br />It's not that people are being killed. It's not HOW they're being killed. It's that they're being killed in an "illegal" (i.e. under the laws of war) way, and that often the "wrong" people (innocents, women and kids) are being killed.<br /><br />So the Pakistanis and Yemenis are having the same "problem" the U.S. had with the U-boats in 1917 - that we're "breaking the law".FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-3671421512340303962011-11-01T17:56:51.011-07:002011-11-01T17:56:51.011-07:00Admittedly the drone war is a somewhat new take on...Admittedly the drone war is a somewhat new take on the notion of "strategic bombing"...but does that make the drone itself a sort of "strategic corporal"? I'm not so sure.<br /><br />The example of U-boats was brought up as a "tactic-that-had-strategic-implications"...but let's think about that for a moment. The issue that made the U-boats "strategic" was that they played a big role into bringing the U.S. into WW1 on the Entente side. But what brought them in wasn't the vessel, or even the tactic (sinking without warning) but a strategic decision by the Imperial GHQ that the benefits of a general blockade and the sinking of "neutral" (i.e. U.S.) vessels was worth the potential cost of a U.S. declaration of war.<br /><br />Wrong decision, IMO...but the strategic impact was because of the strategy, not the tactics or the weapon.<br /><br />Same-same w/ the drone strikes. The problems they cause aren't so much because of the tactics or the weapon - they were used in Iraq in FID with no more outcry than after the usual mistaken-identity/collateral-damage mistakes - but because of the strategic/geopolitical decision to use them in supposedly sovereign "allied" nations...supposedly "without the permission" of the local government.<br /><br />But I come back again to the point that if the Pakistanis REALLY didn't like these things they have the air assets to shoot them down. Same-same in Yemen; they have a little air force with enough attack A/C to knock down a damn model airplane. The fast is, they don't, and so the questions the locals are asking should be not "is my government 'legitimate'?" but "Why is my government LETTING the U.S. fly around killing people from the sky?"<br /><br />As Al points out, if another government did this in U.S. territory we'd consider it an act of war - hell, a group DID it in 2001 and we went to war all over hell.<br /><br />So - again - I don't think that this is a case of a weapon, or a tactic, driving strategy a place that the user didn't intend for it - or anticipate for it - to go. I think it's a case of a strategy being executed that some of us believe is counterproductive; we're trying to convince the Kaiser that the unrestricted U-boat war will bring the U.S. in on the enemy side and that result will be worse than the benefit of the blockade on Britain's war effort. The problem isn't the U-boat, but how it's being used...FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-60335015961647918902011-10-31T22:44:18.257-07:002011-10-31T22:44:18.257-07:00US drone strike victims in Pakistan plan legal act...<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15532916" rel="nofollow">US drone strike victims in Pakistan plan legal action</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rogers/drone-victims-in-pakistan_b_791800.html" rel="nofollow">Chris Rogers of Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict wrote:</a><br /><br /><i><b>Imagine, for a second, that the US were to permit Mexico to use fighter jets to bomb American gun dealers that sold arms to Mexican drug cartels--a hypothetical fairly analogous to the situation in Pakistan. Never mind issues of state sovereignty; how could the US--and thus Pakistan--ever allow another country to come on to its territory and extrajudicially kill its citizens? </b></i><br /><br />Very thought provoking analogy.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-57871144760766537962011-10-31T17:49:20.295-07:002011-10-31T17:49:20.295-07:00Al-
-"We seem to be making up the rules as w...Al-<br /><br />-"We seem to be making up the rules as we go along. Kind of reminds me of what a friend told a novice about the rules of a bar dice game, "Just roll the dice. I'll tell you when you lose.""-<br /><br />Nice. <br /><br />And definitely making up the rules as we go along . . . makes you wonder how much longer it's going to hold together . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-29529383624909240102011-10-31T09:48:38.043-07:002011-10-31T09:48:38.043-07:00I would offer that there is a bit of confusion ove...I would offer that there is a bit of confusion over what it is that we claim we are doing in Afghanistan. We claim to be conducting a "war" on terrorists, specifically AQ and the Taliban. We are using military means as part of this "war". However, we are not affording the "rights" normally accorded to opposing forces to AQ or the Taliban, but instead, a newly minted form of criminal law.<br /><br />Similarly, in Pakistan, we are causing "collateral damages" on non-involved civilians. Not citizens of the opposing state, but citizens of an allegedly "allied" state. All because we expect them to pick up arms against a non-state actor with whom they might very well not agree, but are simply victims of proximity. It's GWB's "either with us or against us" model. During WWII, there were surely collateral damage to French civilians by Allied forces, but it was done in the name of "liberating" them. Paki innocents are victims without any claim of greater benefit to them.<br /><br />We seem to be making up the rules as we go along. Kind of reminds me of what a friend told a novice about the rules of a bar dice game, "Just roll the dice. I'll tell you when you lose."Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-6259361720680393372011-10-31T06:14:45.053-07:002011-10-31T06:14:45.053-07:00seydlitz-
OK, we agree. As to the effect of RPAs...seydlitz-<br /><br />OK, we agree. As to the effect of RPAs, their use by the US on another nation's soil to pursue US objectives indeed weakens the legitimacy of the "host nation", unless the host nation is directly involved. Otherwise, it is a relinquishing of "sovereignty" to a significant degree, and I can see how it dilutes internal "legitimacy".Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-55376246823436203402011-10-31T04:42:36.091-07:002011-10-31T04:42:36.091-07:00To follow up on that last comment . . .
RPAs oper...To follow up on that last comment . . .<br /><br />RPAs operating over the host country and taking out HVTs would directly affect the legitimacy of the host country as seen by the political community it rules . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-19600104959853153812011-10-31T04:40:43.508-07:002011-10-31T04:40:43.508-07:00Al-
But what you're talking about wouldn'...Al-<br /><br />But what you're talking about wouldn't be "legitimacy" the way I have described the concept. It doesn't matter what those outside of the political community think or say, rather exclusively the attitudes/opinions and especially social action orientations of the political community itself in regards to its rulers/their apparatus of domination.<br /><br />Calling Iraq a "failed state" or "illegitimate" in 2002 was simply US (mostly domestic) propaganda.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-28514253414675536092011-10-30T22:57:17.272-07:002011-10-30T22:57:17.272-07:00seydlitz-
Wasn't addressing "happiness&q...seydlitz-<br /><br />Wasn't addressing "happiness" as in the human condition, but rather "pleased with". A populace may not be "pleased with" their government, yet not be "dis-pleased".<br /><br />I think the slippery slope is where a nation decides that the government of another nation is or is not legitimate, as for all intents and purposes, this is also a determination of whether than nation is worthy of being treated as a sovereign state. In 1991, we returned Kuwait to the legitimate government while still recognizing the sovereignty of Iraq. In 2002, GWB decided that Saddam's Iraq was not "legitimate" and sought "regime change", resulting in an invasion.<br /><br />If China decided that the Bush administration was "illegitimate" because it was allowing and encouraging financial practices that threatened the well being of the world.........? Or that any financial actions of the Bush administration were null and void?<br /><br />The whole issue of "legitimacy" is defined by whoever holds the better hand.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-35128457757566651962011-10-30T16:50:16.611-07:002011-10-30T16:50:16.611-07:00Al-
Think of it as a "snap shot" of a p...Al-<br /><br />Think of it as a "snap shot" of a political community going through its own process/evolution/dissolution of political existence. It always varies, is never the same. What makes it interesting for a specific point in time and historical context regards in most cases the decisions pertaining to going to war. At least it used to be that way. Decisionism if you will? <br /><br />Happiness, where does that fit in, considering that life is a long hard slog? Happiness is chance, being lucky, probably a lot of conviction and steadfastness through adversity, or simply being stupid. I see many stupid people who are very happy. Strong-willed, but reflective people, I know not nor see many. <br /><br />jim-<br /><br />Everything's fine imo.<br /><br />Going to do a Halloween thread . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-12064922081130215652011-10-30T15:28:59.980-07:002011-10-30T15:28:59.980-07:00seydlitz,
i too value bg's input. sorry if i i...seydlitz,<br />i too value bg's input. sorry if i implied, or said otherwise.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-66558962845299269912011-10-30T15:25:42.018-07:002011-10-30T15:25:42.018-07:00seydlitz,
i too value bg's input. sorry if i i...seydlitz,<br />i too value bg's input. sorry if i implied, or said otherwise.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-30393996134196839752011-10-30T12:35:51.377-07:002011-10-30T12:35:51.377-07:00So does it require the people to be "happy&qu...So does it require the people to be "happy" with the government, or just not seriously "unhappy"?<br /><br />One could use Weber to say that the current US government is not quite legitimate. The form may be acceptable to the "masses" but the function surely isn't - by a long shot.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-55705035964864101562011-10-30T09:22:05.145-07:002011-10-30T09:22:05.145-07:00Al-
No, what the locals actually think of their r...Al-<br /><br />No, what the locals actually think of their respective government would seemingly not interest us in the least, rather how well they can "deliver" in regards to our "interests".<br /><br />I would add that during the Cold War there was a rational argument for this. By keeping the local kleptocrats happy we kept them in our column in stead of letting that particular real estate slip into the Soviet orbit. Today, with us being all about "spreading democracy" there's no logic to our policies at all . . .<br /><br />In regards to Germany 1933-43, think of legitimacy as a sliding scale, beginning with a lower level (there was much the feeling of a "Nazi coup" in 1933 and with the political executions of June 1934 it probably reached something of a low point. After 1935 with an improving economy and Hitler's foreign policy triumphs rising steadily, with a dip in September 1939, since the war with France and Britain took the German people by surprise. It probably reached a high point in June/July 1940 with the victory over France, Legitimacy in this case would be tied with Hitler's charisma as a leader, one of the ideal types of Weberian legitimacy.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-86705610314791133732011-10-30T08:48:56.351-07:002011-10-30T08:48:56.351-07:00Seydlitz: I would think it in US interests to pro...Seydlitz: <b><i>I would think it in US interests to promote the legitimacy of allied/friendly governments . . . not instead to destroy that legitimacy.</i></b> <br /><br />We tend to promote, demand or solicit the friendliness of governments without regard to their internal domestic "legitimacy". Remember GWB's "diplomacy offensive" in the run up to his invasion of Iraq? "You are either with us or against us". It wasn't the use of "diplomacy" to avoid war, but to suck more nations into his war of choice. Still unable to get my head around his use of the word in that context.<br /><br />Would you classify the government of Germany in 1933 to, say, 1943 "legitimate"?Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.com