tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post999903705741970788..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: The Inflection PointFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-17713834771513855512012-01-31T04:14:08.462-08:002012-01-31T04:14:08.462-08:00Andy-
The military is subordinate, I wouldn't...Andy-<br /><br />The military is subordinate, I wouldn't argue for anything else, but that also makes them responsible to the political leadership to provide the connection between the military aim and the political purpose. In reality this would become a problem with a defensive war, not one that we initiate . . . when exactly was the last time the US fought a defensive war? The time before that?<br /><br />I think you misunderstood the meaning behind Bacevich's quote which is probably my fault for not providing more context. "Drawing the brightest possible line between politics and war" is what Bacevich accuses the US military elite of attempting, not what he thinks should be done. Since any war in question is the product of the political relations (both internal and external) existing at a particular point in time, it is impossible to separate politics from war.<br /><br />Bacevich argues, as do I on this thread, that US policy today is maintaining "full spectrum dominance" or in my case simply "dominance". The current political elite is not operating with a coherent view, let alone a grand strategy. The military elite which has become essentially a political constituency - which is why this document was addressed mainly to them - to be placated with $$$ and power in order for them to manage the various current or potential wars.<br /><br />I recommend "The Limits of Power" which gets more into the strategic theory side than "Washington Rules".seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-70291255657062338172012-01-30T17:20:08.743-08:002012-01-30T17:20:08.743-08:00Seydlitz,
If it is not the military command's...Seydlitz,<br /><br /><em>If it is not the military command's job to establish exactly how the military instrument is to be utilized to achieve that purpose, then who's is it?</em><br /><br />The military can advise but at the end of the day they are subordinate to elected officials. That's not to say they shouldn't have done more with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan (<a href="http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2011/10/16/a-colonel-of-truth/#IDComment209273404" rel="nofollow">remember my argument here</a>)<br /><br />Getting back to Bacevich:<br /><br /><em>Reasserting a professional monopoly over the conduct of warfare requires drawing the brightest possible line between politics and war, thereby preventing civilian and military considerations from becoming entangled.</em><br /><br />My main point here is to suggest that this is possible only in the most ideal circumstances and that, for the US at least, it's not possible to prevent entanglement between military and civilian considerations. <br /><br /><em>The political elite that ought to bear the chief responsibility for crafting grand strategy instead nurses fantasies of either achieving permanent global hegemony or remaking the world in America's image. Meanwhile, the military elite that could puncture those fantasies and help restore a modicum of realism to US policy fixates on campaigns and battles, with generalship largely a business of organizing and coordinating material . . . </em><br /><br />I agree that the military elite should try to "puncture fantasies" by advising the political elite, but my point is that there is a limit to what the military can do as long as it is subordinate to the political elite. The question in my mind is how far can the military go in opposing the political elite when it wants to do something stupid. So I don't see that the military can ever be <em>the</em> solution when the political elite doesn't do what it "ought" to do - namely craft grand strategy. <br /><br />Finally, you say that Bacevich is a Clausewitzian, but "drawing the brightest possible line between politics and war" doesn't seem like a very Clausewitzian thing to say, at least based on my admittedly limited knowledge and understand of his work.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-86355377262493560762012-01-29T11:47:23.201-08:002012-01-29T11:47:23.201-08:00Andy-
I think the larger problem is political, si...Andy-<br /><br />I think the larger problem is political, since essentially both political parties - our entire political elite - support dominance which is unsustainable in the long-term. Ron Paul is the only candidate addressing this, which is one of the most important issues. I don't expect this to change, nor even be seriously debated. It's just another example of the incoherence of our political system.<br /><br />I've posted this in the past, but think it relevant to this discussion now. Rumsfeld issued these war aims for Operation Iraqi Freedom at a press conference on 21 March 2003:<br /><br />--Coalition military operations are focused on achieving several specific objectives:<br /><br />to end the regime of Saddam Hussein by striking with force on a scope and scale that makes clear to Iraqis that he and his regime are finished.<br /><br />Next, to identify, isolate and eventually eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, production capabilities, and distribution networks.<br /><br />Third, to search for, capture, drive out terrorists who have found safe harbor in Iraq.<br /><br />Fourth, to collect such intelligence as we can find related to terrorist networks in Iraq and beyond.<br /><br />Fifth, to collect such intelligence as we can find related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction activity.<br /><br />Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian relief, food and medicine to the displaced and to the many needy Iraqi citizens.<br /><br />Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people, and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect by the Iraqi regime.<br /><br />And last, to help the Iraqi people create the conditions for a rapid transition to a representative self-government that is not a threat to its neighbors and is committed to ensuring the territorial integrity of that country.--<br /><br />War aims as domestic propaganda. Notice the last point, essentially Phase IV, was part of their initial war aims as tasked by Rumsfeld. But then the military didn't take Phase IV very seriously since they took their cue from the administration. They simply assumed that everything would "fall into place" due to American exceptionalism, massive hubris and/or incompetence. Once again, imo, what was missing then and what is still missing is the link between military aim and political purpose. If it is not the military command's job to establish exactly how the military instrument is to be utilized to achieve that purpose, then who's is it?seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-73549171349519611132012-01-29T08:54:57.628-08:002012-01-29T08:54:57.628-08:00Seydlitz,
I agree, but think that in the case of ...Seydlitz,<br /><br />I agree, but think that in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan there was policy creep. For Iraq, we know the strategy did not foresee/assume that we would be doing "armed nation building" to transform Iraq into a liberal democracy - quite the opposite, the plans were to draw down and depart Iraq quickly because State and others were going to handle the transition. In other words an inherent part of the strategy was the assumption that the Iraqi invasion would result in an orderly transition to a new regime. Now maybe the military leadership should have realized that the original strategy was doomed to failure and that the military would be left holding the bag. Afghanistan was similar in that the assumptions going in were wrong and/or changed over time. There wasn't the intention to be there in ten years with 100k troops.<br /><br />So I get your points but I think the failure in strategy went way beyond the military element and therefore I'm not sure we can or should expect that military advisers will be able to correct such deficiencies. Also, if we continue to elect people who are bound and determined to take specific actions (as opposed to utilizing strategy), then I think it's unrealistic to expect the military to save us from ourselves. Not that I don't agree that Franks and officers like him are not the kinds of General Officers we want or deserve, or that they don't deserve opprobrium.<br /><br />I do hope, though, that our future military leadership is more cognizant of the fact that they will be left holding the bag if things don't turn out as expected and will, as a result, push harder to ensure any strategy with a military element is sound.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-57901987198975533162012-01-29T08:09:04.343-08:002012-01-29T08:09:04.343-08:00Andy-
I think "limits" is what Bacevich...Andy-<br /><br />I think "limits" is what Bacevich is talking about. There are only some policies which lend themselves to achievement by military means. Some times the policy goals are simply not achievable by the military instrument (say as in rebuilding Iraq as a liberal democracy in our own image), or the achievement of those goals would cost such a price as to make the effort too costly (destroying the Taliban as a major political player in Afghanistan). This is where the military should advise the political leadership prior to initiating conflict, in effect saying, "Mr. President, with all due respect, it is my professional opinion, that preemptive war makes no strategic sense in this case." Instead Bacevich implies that the model of General Tommy Franks, disparaging the political leadership, while "playing war fighter" is the norm today. In strategic theory terms, and Bacevich is clearly a Clausewitzian, there is no direct connection between policy goal and military aim, it is simply assumed that when the smoke clears everything will simply fall into place as we seemingly wish . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-86312904569968451982012-01-29T07:48:56.961-08:002012-01-29T07:48:56.961-08:00Agree, I think you also bring up a good point in r...Agree, I think you also bring up a good point in regards to CS/CSS then and now . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-29080439695787511962012-01-28T12:38:28.328-08:002012-01-28T12:38:28.328-08:00Meanwhile, the military elite that could puncture ...<em>Meanwhile, the military elite that could puncture those fantasies and help restore a modicum of realism to US policy fixates on campaigns and battles, with generalship largely a business of organizing and coordinating material . . . </em><br /><br />That brings up a few questions. What does "puncturing fantasies" mean in actual terms? In other words, exactly what should the uniformed leadership be doing that it isn't currently doing? Second, to what degree is the uniformed leadership responsible for puncturing the perceived fantasies of the duly elected representatives of the American people? At what point should that uniformed leadership shut-up, salute smartly and carry out their assigned tasks whether coherent or not?<br /><br />I'm not exactly sure what Bacevich is getting at here, but it sounds like he's wishing for a more skeptical and activist military leadership to push back against the preferred policies of their political masters. I think we could probably use some more Generals with a spine, but we should realize that there are limits to what the military can do since it is subordinate to the People's elected representatives. At some point the military must carry out the mission it's given, however flawed it may be.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-45539368135663795212012-01-26T23:29:33.084-08:002012-01-26T23:29:33.084-08:00seydlitz-
As others have mentioned we experienced...seydlitz-<br /><br /><i><b>As others have mentioned we experienced this same sort of drawdown in the 1990s after the "Defense Panning Guidance" of 1992 had been put into effect.</b></i> <br /><br />We have pretty much always had a post conflict "drawdown". Obviously, following the two World Wars, the military was far larger than needed for the subsequent no armed conflict period. Similarly, active military end strength ramped up for Korea (+1.5 million) and Viet Nam (+1.0 million) and then dropped back or below pre-conflict levels quickly when the conflicts were over. Following the end of the "Cold War", there was the "Peace Dividend" drawdown of some 0.7 million from the historically robust end strengths maintained to counter the Soviets.<br /><br />A significant difference today is that there was not a serious increase in active duty end strength to fight the GWOT/PWOT. While the Reserve Components became an Operational Reserve, they did not raise the total active strength as dramatically as did conscription and higher active end strengths during Korea and VN. Thus, and post Iraq/Afghan drawdown is going to result in a new and different Defense Dept beast.<br /><br />Why do I say a "different beast"? First of all, many of the CS/CSS functions once performed by GIs have been shifted to civilian contractors. These units and tasks were part of the personnel demand in the Korea and VN ramp ups. Now the personnel to perform these support "core competencies" are outside the DOD, and DOD will have no control over the maintenance of a mobilization capable support structure. In short, all that is left to draw down is maneuver and fighting capability. Where the post VN approach was to shift active component CS/CSS into the Reserve, contractors are a totally different animal. Are contractors going to provide the same ramp up mobilization potential as uniformed active and/or reserve forces?<br /><br />So now the Force Planner. Force Structure folks are preparing for the eventual drawdown, and all there is to draw down is basic fighting structure. No support tail to trim or put in Reserve. Is it any wonder they are behaving as they are? Not saying we need a robust military, but the next level of cuts do pose some difficult dilemmas.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-19231728655483223652012-01-26T04:12:15.291-08:002012-01-26T04:12:15.291-08:00My Scottish colleagues had their Burns Night celeb...My Scottish colleagues had their Burns Night celebration early, last Sunday, since most don't work on Monday . . . Haggis (which I actually like) and the reading of the poems, all washed down with copious amounts of Scotch whisky.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-29057654593540627572012-01-26T04:08:10.743-08:002012-01-26T04:08:10.743-08:00Thanks gentlemen.
Intended audience has been adde...Thanks gentlemen.<br /><br />Intended audience has been added as have some concluding remarks.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-55714225021431753832012-01-25T11:30:07.752-08:002012-01-25T11:30:07.752-08:00http://www.almanac.com/calendar/date/2012-01-25
F...http://www.almanac.com/calendar/date/2012-01-25<br /><br />From the FB page of the Old Farmer's Almanac, which I recommend you hook onto.<br /><br />"Calendar for January 25th, 2012<br /><br /><b>Burns Night<br /><br />The birthday of Scotland's most famous poet, Robert Burns (1759-1796), has become an occasion for Scots all over the world to gather together in his honor. A Burns Night supper usually includes haggis, a traditional dish of the heart, lungs, and liver of a sheep or calf minced with suet, onions, oatmeal, and seasonings. Burns's words "Hail Great Chieftan o' the Puddin-race!" greets the dish's entry into the room. Men wear kilts and women their tartan sashes, and the evening's celebration includes reading Burns's poems and singing his songs, ending with one of his most famous, "Auld Lang Syne."</b><br /><br />bbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-79757080769181331592012-01-25T10:07:48.721-08:002012-01-25T10:07:48.721-08:00Xronia Polla!!Xronia Polla!!Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-7268307672994679882012-01-25T09:13:27.425-08:002012-01-25T09:13:27.425-08:00Damn, Seydlitz, when I was 55 I didn't know an...Damn, Seydlitz, when I was 55 I didn't know anything.Poduck Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-11914183399638239682012-01-25T05:19:27.065-08:002012-01-25T05:19:27.065-08:00You've made a nice case for the US wanting to ...You've made a nice case for the US wanting to stay in NATO, Chief. How about the reverse? What is Europe gaining by having the US stay in NATO?Plutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04036751798841079048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-9015348463880015762012-01-25T04:15:11.429-08:002012-01-25T04:15:11.429-08:00As to the last question I wish to answer on this p...As to the last question I wish to answer on this post, the intended audience, consider the quote I've added . . . more to come. Btw, turned 55 today.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-7402846572757916582012-01-24T13:07:53.490-08:002012-01-24T13:07:53.490-08:00In terms of strategy, I'd give it an F. In te...In terms of strategy, I'd give it an F. In terms of propaganda, a C-, since it doesn't really come across as even believable . . . but consider the intended audience . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-5020296912493208562012-01-24T11:48:38.502-08:002012-01-24T11:48:38.502-08:00One of the brighter sides of World Domination, but...One of the brighter sides of World Domination, but yes, at what a price.<br /><br />Letting the larger world get a peek into a saner, humaner ( yes I'm biased ) culture.<br /><br />http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/sir-it-gets-better-sir_23.html<br /><br />bbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-12413627418285849032012-01-23T17:13:49.391-08:002012-01-23T17:13:49.391-08:00I watched the first part of Andy's youtube of ...I watched the first part of Andy's youtube of Dr. Bacevich's recent presentation in Chief's last post and found this one<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL_528YYPcY&feature=<br /><br />The part right after the 10-minute mark caught my ear.<br /><br />bbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-24175023281801276802012-01-23T17:12:20.227-08:002012-01-23T17:12:20.227-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-76356531813355396872012-01-23T16:38:17.289-08:002012-01-23T16:38:17.289-08:00"can there", not "can their". ..."can there", not "can their". grrr. <br /><br /><br />bbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-31420887997147383442012-01-23T16:36:02.661-08:002012-01-23T16:36:02.661-08:00Very good post, seydlitz, and if I may say so, you...Very good post, seydlitz, and if I may say so, you'd be a fine English teacher marking up an essay.<br /><br />I would add this to your criticism:<br /><br /><b>. . . directly striking the most dangerous groups and individuals when necessary.</b><br /><br />. . . to include US citizens, presumably under some Constitutional protection and due process of law, where evidence may be investigated and openly discussed?<br /><br />Dream on, bb.<br /><br />As I read through your post, several terms and phrases kept popping up in my imagination, one of which should definitely be taken out of the storage closet of our vocabulary, dusted off and used again, "Potemkin Village".<br /><br />I was waiting for "hegemony" and there it was. One of the pieces of literature I had my classes work with was from a Roman translator of fables, Phaedrus, "The Wolf and the Lamb".<br /><br />http://mythfolklore.net/aesopica/phaedrus/11.htm<br /><br />Obama was in Chicago today meeting with state AGs or their staff, to set the penalty against banking and financial institutions for their alleged fraud in the mortgage industry. 20 - 25 billion for lossed up to or near a trillion.<br /><br />How can their be domestic security in the US when there is such flagrant abuse of financial and domestic usage and law and lack of justice?<br /><br />Luckily, there is a number of state AGs who oppose this settlement.<br /><br />But if there ever was a fine example of a "Potemkin Village", here is one of the best.<br /><br />Little has changed since the time of Augustus. Pax Americana.<br /><br />bbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-45151693299947809212012-01-23T16:28:36.405-08:002012-01-23T16:28:36.405-08:00Thanks for the comments gentlemen. Nice discussio...Thanks for the comments gentlemen. Nice discussion, and I haven't even got to the intended audience yet . . .<br /><br />And yes, I think it's time for Al's "different world". NATO has outlived it's purpose and it's time for Europe to go its own way. This would be nothing but a benefit for the USA, but might be the beginning of the end of the US "Empire", which imo we are better off without . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-82864674344892822322012-01-23T16:10:12.633-08:002012-01-23T16:10:12.633-08:00NATO > > > > FIGLF
Obviously, correct...NATO > > > > FIGLF<br /><br />Obviously, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't France the largest component of NATO outside of the US?<br /><br />So if the "fig leaf" doesn't conceal the naked underbelly well enough for the belly's liking, it finds itself denigrated among the Armchair Chiefs of Staff of our "chattering class"? "Freedom Fries", "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys".<br /><br />bbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-45375287804592662182012-01-23T13:28:52.293-08:002012-01-23T13:28:52.293-08:00Andy: What was it that old saying about the purpos...Andy: What was it that old saying about the purpose of NATO - to "keep the U.S. in, the Germans down, and the Soviets out"?<br /><br />As Al points out, the problem with taking the U.S. out is that it doesn't really do much to "free" the U.S. - NATO pretty much does 95% of what the U.S. wants it to do - as much as it frees NATO to choose positions that the U.S. might not like.<br /><br />And "subsidizing" EU security really IS in the U.S. interests assuming that what you want is a nice tame little EU whose strategic military heavy lifting is done by the U.S...<br /><br />So I dunno if that game's really worth the candle for the U.S.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-16324746552288889002012-01-23T06:47:09.938-08:002012-01-23T06:47:09.938-08:00Funny you should mention, Andy, but this thread ha...Funny you should mention, Andy, but this thread had me wondering about what an US-free NATO would be like. Not a break up of NATO, but rather the US having to relate to the other NATO states as an independent defense organization - a sort of additional separate player on the world stage. One where the current pact would no longer provide "cover", so to speak, for our actions, since any and all actions we took outside of Europe would be solely of our own volition.<br /><br />Would, indeed, be a rather different world.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><i><b>"....we have undertaken extended operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring stability to those countries.........."</b></i><br /><br />Wow, talk about a outright lie! Had they at least said "return" rather than "bring" or "regions" versus "countries" there might have been an element of honesty here.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.com