“Why We Lost,” A General’s Account of Two Wars, by Daniel Bolger. Washington Post book review by Carter Malkasian.
No U.S. general has criticized the Iraq and Afghanistan wars more sharply than retired Lt. Gen. Daniel P. Bolger. “Why We Lost” is neither a memoir nor a window into private meetings and secret discussions. It is a 500-page history (including prologue and endnotes) filled with heartfelt stories of soldiers and Marines in firefights and close combat. It weighs in mightily to the ongoing debate over how the United States should wage war.
Bolger served in Iraq from 2005 to 2006 as the officer in charge of training the Iraqi army, and then from 2009 to 2010 as commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division. After that, from 2011 to 2013, he led the U.S.-NATO mission training the Afghan army and police. He holds a doctorate in history and has written several military histories. His prose flows. He speaks his mind, comparing himself to Gen. Joseph “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell of World War II fame, who was known for his coarse personality…
Comments
Bill--this is reference to the killing of 30 Ukrainian civilians and wounding of another 100 by Russian troop fired BM21/27s into Mariupol and I think now the Rest vs the West has a serious decision now to make. If the Rest makes one miscalculation their economy is gone for the next ten plus years.
Western leaders have said repeatedly "if" new Russian aggression,"then" more sanctions. To not follow through undermines Western credibility
Security Service of #Ukraine: terrorist talks intercepted over shelling of #Mariupol - EN subs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmMVfWboWzo …
Intercepted radio exchange of MRLS crews shelling Mariupol,accent is of mainland Russia,not any Ukrainian region.
http://fb.me/6ZREzjHaC
Bill--correct because this particular Rest is in fact very well armed nuclear wise especially their complete rebuild of their nuclear weapons series to include a long range nuclear cruise missile, the fact they have unsigned from MAD, threatened four times in the last seven months to use nuclear weapons and just recently in an interview Putin "jokingly" threatened to defeat the US in under 30 minutes, has now invaded the Ukraine and issued yesterday via their proxy a declaration of war, shelled a city today with GRADs killing over 30 and wounding over 80---would say that is far more dangerous than someone standing on a hill in Kobane waving a black flag would you not say?
At the same time Putin is getting harder and harder to read even for Russian speakers--if one takes the time IS says what they think.
The use of this term more and more inside Russia --"Holy War"--totally makes sense but here is an interesting sidebar---it includes Muslims especially those of Chechyna.
One might say a merging of the ME and Russian "Rest" actually for virtually the same reasons. To a large degree this explains the current Russian foreign policy in Syria and the rest of the ME.
Here's my piece from July, day before MH17 shot down | Putin Practiced His Ukraine Strategy in Syria
http://bit.ly/1r6RoFN
#Ukraine war bloodiest in Europe since Balkan wars, says @nytimes.
#Putin will make it the bloodiest since #WWII by end 2015.
Gubarev Kidnapped by Chechens - and Released; Fighters from Caucasus Take Over Krasnodon http://www.interpretermag.com/russia...-23-2015/#6483 …
pic.twitter.com/WfuExMBq1e
The Unstoppable Rise Of Ramzan Kadyrov
http://www.rferl.org/content/profile.../26802368.html …
Chechen Ismail shouts "Allah Akbar" in Donetsk before he shoots towards Ukrainian positions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDtqc-aplCA …
Regarding "why we lost," should we see this -- not in isolation and as re: Iraq and Afghanistan only -- but more holistically (the West v. the Rest?) and, thus, as relates to our efforts world-wide?
Thus and for example:
a. Not only in terms of our failed designs on transforming (more along modern western lines) the Greater Middle East.
b. But also in terms of our similar failed efforts (as Outlaw so clearly outlines below) to transform Russia (and, indeed, many others).
In all cases, I suggest, this failure stems from a simple mistake, to wit:
a. Of asking such fundamentally "different" states and societies to
b. Make (1) such full, complete and total transformations as we desire (2) immediately rather than much more gradually.
Thus, due specifically to this mistake, on many fronts we get:
a. Not accommodation, progress, rule-of-law, success, modernization and secularization (our transformational desires). But, rather,
b. Resistance, failure, crime/corruption, backsliding, archaic orders and ideas and religiosity.
In this regard to understand how we got into our current "holy wars;" which extend not only to the Greater Middle East but also to the Russian homelands and beyond.
"Konstantin Sonin, a professor at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, echoed that point. “The influence of economists as a whole has completely vanished,” Mr. Sonin said of the Kremlin. “The country is on a holy mission. It’s at war with the United States, so why would you bother about the small battleground, the economy?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/world/europe/ukraine-violence.html (Courtesy of Outlaw below.)
"Why we lost" needing to, thus, be viewed more through the large, more-holistic West v. the Rest view/lense provided above -- which Outlaw seems to be pointing us toward?
(Outlaw's main point however being, if I read him right, that the greater danger is to be found in the Russian theater/front of this West v. the Rest conflict.)
The following this week were Russia's actions and statements:
1. the Russian FM in an open press conference states---we have influenced the DNR to pull back to the Minsk demarcation line
2. then the DNR declaration of war followed by two statements by Putin and his FM 1) the Ukraine did not respond to our proposals about the artillery pull back and 2) we are not involved in the internal affairs of the Ukraine
3. claimed they wanted the Normandy talks to proceed
4. recalled their signatures on the 13 November ceasefire agreement and claimed they still supported the Minsk demarcation line
5. then Russian troops go on a full attack
6. Putin claims in the face of lies--that the Ukrainian AF bombed Russian citizens
7. AND now importantly Putin sends "suggested changes to the Minsk demarcation lines" which if followed would create the "New Russia" and the Ukraine does not respond--the actual reason for this declaration of war and Russian offensive
8. Russia places Crimea troops on full alert after they shell Mariupol
Now the following below and we still think the IS is the direct threat--read the NYTs "Holy War" article?
Russia "is on a holy mission. It’s at war with the US..." - Moscow professor's take on escalating Ukraine war
http://nyti.ms/1uG3Vom
Kremlin Leader’s Distorted View of the World.
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2015/01/talking-to-putin-about-ukr… …
Here Putin claims that the Ukrainians used aviation to bomb Donbass in recent days.
http://www.kremlin.ru/news/47505
Whether today, Feb or March, Russian Forces will move to seize control over Ukraine's Sea of Azov coast, building #landbridge for #Crimea.
Russia is getting nervous about the possibility of being cut off from SWIFT - calls such move tantamount to war
http://on.ft.com/1Cm0oMC
URGENT! In connection with the events in #Mariupol, the #Russia|n Armed Forces in #Crimea alerted!
Zerkalo Nedeli publishes #Putin letter to #Poroshenko and shows his suggested new border with separatists
http://zn.ua/UKRAINE/pismo-putina-poroshenko-polnyy-tekst-i-putinskaya-… …
While we debate whether we failed or succeeded maybe we need to ask ourselves do we even have a current coherent foreign policy on anything that makes sense to anyone?
Yesterday Russia declared open war on the Ukraine via their own funded and lead proxy mercenary state the DNR and did anyone notice anything other than business as usual in DC?
We now are in a full blown slid into 1914 style war in Central Europe 25 years after the Wall came down and our foreign policy towards Russia is what?--talking and or silence it seems.
Our foot dragging on the economic sanctions, the constant drive to talk and the failed belief that "diplomacy" will work if we only can get Russia to converse should be finally called out for what it was and is a failure to the fourth degree.
This is just a quick sample of "a Russian declared war actions on the Ukraine" this morning alone and even with the Congress passed and US President signed aid law on the books --just what is the US response?--by the way check the mass of the western media not much being mentioned there as well as of this morning.
And for the 50th time--just what is the US strategy towards Russia and for that matter the IS?
Kremlin Leader’s Distorted View of the World.
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2015/01/talking-to-putin-about-ukr… …
Mariupol today. Severe escalation!
pic.twitter.com/tf7ZNLGldJ
30 Russian vehicles near Pavlopil incl 8 tanks; 15 near Mariupol incl 6 tanks https://www.facebook.com/dmitry.tymchuk/posts/626144204180905 …
East Mariupol, Kiev street, after Russian Uragan attack
pic.twitter.com/Sz0wr4huu6
This helps to determine direction of Mariupol rockets. (Soon we will hear Russian reports that "Ukraine did it").
pic.twitter.com/LakUaP7UjL
It was the heavier "Uragans" that Russians shelled on Mariupol today
pic.twitter.com/pvjyt1VX8W
Ukrainian MFA: At least 10 civilians including children have been killed at Mariupol shelling
pic.twitter.com/qv2vBe0FOO
Azov in Mariupol reporting several dead and many wounded after MLRS hit a market http://u.afp.com/zNp
pic.twitter.com/5b4rXYNKEt
#Mariupol, Vostochny. Shelling from Novoazovsk direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKAq9nmm93A …
pic.twitter.com/uSL9ELEt39
Move Forward: While still agreeing to disagree on the relevance of the scale vis a vis Dhofar versus Afghanistan/Iraq, I think your thoughts on Russia havea a lot of substance. I would encourage you to invest a few minutes in <A HREF="http://warontherocks.com/2014/12/on-strategy-and-strategists/">this podcast</A> of a recent lecture by legendary strategist Dr. Lawrence Freedman, as he discusses President Putin's recent exploits and argues (convincingly, I think) that Putin made some aggressive bets with his foreign policy that haven't been paying off, and that he's probably trying to carefully retreat as a result.
MF---your last paragraph is accurate--the answer is a mixture---the Cold War trip wire theory of forward based tanks and infantry worked for 45 years once it was removed by the last three Presidents the military option was no longer on the table and Putin was home free.
The use of the old Cold War theory MAD also worked for 45 Years--but Putin has taken it off the table as well and the mere threat of SWIFT is no different that his threat to use tactical nukes and just as the threat of nukes is real Putin must understand the SWIFT threat is just as real.
Do no forget one of the key Russian geo political goals--to connect the Crimea to the other Russian enclaves taken from Moldavia and Georgia via the Odessa land corridor.
Corridor to Crimea . Mariupol first step
pic.twitter.com/TB8KgRh1Qr
<blockquote>THERE is though an economic "nuclear weapon" that the US/EU have that will end Putin's aggression immediately and it is a two step process--step one cut off all Russian companies from any capital anywhere outside of China, and step two disconnect Russia from SWIFT---the core question is do western leaders have the courage to pull the trigger--this is where the blogger is correct--they do not.
Before reading this Dutch bloggers comment--remember the Russians just released their new nuclear war doctrine that "foresees the use of tactical nuclear weapons first in order to deescalate".
Remember nuclear use to deescalate actually the first time any nuclear power has formally stated that option and what did Obama respond with--silence.</blockquote>
Per your first paragraph, recall that oil sanctions on Japan led to Pearl Harbor. Sometimes sanctions and failed diplomacy/treaties/unfinished business can cause war. Witness WWII resulting from unfinished issues of WWI. Witness unfinished business in Desert Storm, the ineffective no-fly zone, and the premature withdrawal of all coalition forces from OIF. Witness unfinished business in Libya, Yemen, and potentially Afghanistan. Witness current failed negotiations in the case of Iran. In Iran's case we see President Obama and his staff, aided/abetted by the State Department, pushing Israel to bypass him and go straight to our Congress because negotiation delays just increase time for Iran to get a nuke. Why are you so concerned about Putin using a nuke and not Iran or al Qaeda/ISIS/Syria/Yemen?
Numerous times in this thread you appear to fall for Putin's propaganda and seem to ask us to believe it, as well. He is not going to use a tactical nuke, let alone on Berlin. He isn't dumb. Instead, he's smart enough to know that some appeasers might hesitate to act just because of such a threat. And if IIRC, the threat to use tactical nukes was in connection to an offensive against Russia, not a NATO defense of Ukraine or the Baltics.
If Putin did use a tactical nuke on Ukraine:
1) Instead of just low gas price revenue he would have no such revenue as all pipelines heading west would be sabotaged
2) Access to Western banking systems would be cut off
3) The Ruble would fall even more and all Western investment to include oil investment with Russia would end
4) Instead of sending the current 100 tanks to Europe, many more would be sent along with permanently stationed ground forces closer to the Baltics
5) The West would retaliate against "New Russia" with massive conventional air attacks that Russia could not stop
BTW, I responded last night to Dred well below in the comments about non-similarities in <strong>scale</strong> between the Dhofar Rebellion and Iraq/Afghanistan. Outlaw, do I guess correctly that your concerns about Ukraine involve the belief a UW light footprint solution would work against Russia? Isn't the answer good old fashioned forward-deployed conventional deterrence with armor and airpower?
This indirectly goes to the question concerning the failure of our own strategy if there ever was one in Iraq, AFG, the Ukraine, and now again Syria and Iraq.
Strategies in the 21st century demand imagination, thinking outside the box, ie critical thinking and adaptation and must be able to question our old habits and come up with new ideas and ways to address the quote that Hagel provided us to think about.
Well worth the read:
A Dutch bloggers view of the Ukrainian fighting and why the US/EU/NATO does not respond---am afraid I actually agree with him.
Really read it from end to end and you will notice I have mentioned much of it here on the Ukraine thread---and regardless of my respect for Bill M Russia is inherently the greatest threat against the US in 25 years --OR has no one in the US noticed Putin has effectively disowned the nuclear concept of MAD and that is far more dangerous than a bunch of black flag waving fascist islamists trying to create a Sunni nation.
Putin has effectively with this current US president shown to the world the "fakeness of US foreign policy" or basically put we have no policies.
THERE is though an economic "nuclear weapon" that the US/EU have that will end Putin's aggression immediately and it is a two step process--step one cut off all Russian companies from any capital anywhere outside of China, and step two disconnect Russia from SWIFT---the core question is do western leaders have the courage to pull the trigger--this is where the blogger is correct--they do not.
Before reading this Dutch bloggers comment--remember the Russians just released their new nuclear war doctrine that "foresees the use of tactical nuclear weapons first in order to deescalate".
Remember nuclear use to deescalate actually the first time any nuclear power has formally stated that option and what did Obama respond with--silence.
Oh and by the way if you feel I am wrong did anyone catch the simple fact that the DNR as a proxy for Russia basically "declared war on the Ukraine" yesterday in the name of Russia and Putin and his FM backed them up within minutes with supporting statements and the IS is what a truly "serious direct threat to the US"?
Poroshenko's dilemma
"I am a president of peace. Not of war." said president Poroshenko.
The problem is: his country is at war whether he likes it or not.
But Poroshenko knows it is a war he can not win.
Why?
Because Putler has nukes (and many other nasty tricks of course).
E.V.E.R.Y single time Ukraine upscaled it's response to the Russian aggression to counter it, the Russians upscaled THEIRS even more.
And where does that end?
If the road of upscaling-aggression would be walked, in the end Putin would use nukes. And Ukraine does NOT have an answer to that.
So an all out war with Russia... Ukraine will loose that. Period.
And THUS Ukraine seeks help from the West and started with an unilateral ceasefire and later Minsk bilateral, EVEN THOUGH everybody knew the Russians would use it to restructure and reinforce their forces in Ukraine.
But Ukraine can not win the war against Putler without the West. That's why Poroshenko listens to them. To get their help. And THEY say: don't fight.
Because the West does not want war. Not in Europe but neither in Ukraine. It's bad for business!
So the West hesitates. Lingers. Tries to find a 'diplomatic solution'.
And they tell Poroshenko: do not fight, because we will sanction Putin. Show the world HE is the aggressor and not you and we will hit him in his pocket.
Why they do it this way? Why not send weapons?
Because Putin has nukes!
We don't want a nuclear war. We don't want upscaling-aggression all the time with the use of nukes in the end.
Sanctions are working pretty good when you look at the Ruble. But it's not good enough. Because it takes a loooot of TIME before it really has a good effect.
But ALSO because the West does not understand Putins game. Putin does not play by the rules. That is: OUR rules. Putin has his own set of rules and PRETENDS to play OUR game. That's why he is able to endlessly fool Western diplomats.
If sanctions hurt Putin... he will STEAL what he needs to survive. He STEALS Crimea. He STEALS coal from Donbas and sells it to Ukraine who has no option but to buy it. He steals a complete factory for helicopter engines from Donbas, transports it in his humanitarian white trucks and builds it up again somewhere in Russia.
Putin will STEAL from the West too. Mark my words. He will if he needs to do that for his survival.
Because NOBODY can get Putin and his gang. Why? He has nukes.
Imagine... one bomb on Berlin and Europe is out.
Because what we gonna do? Nuke back? And get an all out Nuke war? We don't want THAT.
And THUS the West has to allow Putin grabbing what he wants and HOPING things will get better anyways.
But what the West does not fully understand is that they have REALLY GONE MAD in Russia. Beyond imagination. To this point that almost all of them believe the crazy propaganda they produce themselves. It is a vicious circle they are in. A VERY aggressive one.
AND they have nukes... a lot of them!
That is a very dangerous combination. Madness and Nukes...
Putin is going to grab what he wants with force. If anybody wants to stop him, he will upscale. Our collective (Ukrainian AND European) dilemma is this: How much will we allow him to grab before we say it is enough? Until he is in Berlin?
You think he will not go to Berlin? Of course he will. U.N.L.E.S.S somebody or something stops him.
(That is... he and his gang, because they are all in it together.)
And therefor the ULTIMATE question we have to ask ourselves is this: how are we going to deal with Putlers nukes if he would start to use them?
Do we have an answer to that?
If we DON'T have this answer, he will eventually (between now and so many years) run all over Europe with his crappy tanks, with uncountable victims.
<BLOCKQUOTE>See if you had in fact served again which you have not</BLOCKQUOTE>
It's asinine, juvenile, and <I>inaccurate</I> assumptions like these - along with your incessant and irrelevant rants about Russia - that lead me to ignore about 98% of what you post here. I suspect I'm not alone. The assumption that because I disagree with you, I must not have served my country, is intellectually lazy and elitist. Even if I "hadn't served" - and you myopically equate service in uniform as the only method of service to one's country - it's pretty obtuse to believe that those with diverse perspectives can't bring any useful views to the discussion. A couple of weeks ago, ratsnakerabbitsnake offered some excellent commentary on a couple of threads, and to most folks' credit, they welcomed him and encouraged him to keep offering his insights from outside the military/veteran bubble; it would seem that you would dismiss his and others' ideas as irrelevant because they "haven't served".
<BLOCKQUOTE>See the world is far more interconnected than you seem to think.</BLOCKQUOTE>
I have a master's degree, summa cum laude, in strategy. I wrote my dissertation, for which I received top marks, on an obscure campaign in a tiny corner of the world that impacted the entire region and tied in China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Iraq, Egypt, the United Kingdom, and a handful of other countries. In December, I wrote a lengthy article discussing the lengthy interrelationship of energy and strategy, and discussed how the current energy market volatility impacts the Gulf (Arab) States, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Scotland, the United States, and the world at large. I'm currently writing a book about the First World War, and although my topic focuses entirely upon a tiny Scottish archipelago and a narrow swath of France, I'm conducting research on the entire war, to include what some generals at the time called the "sideshow" campaigns, in order to demonstrate their wider interconnection with the overall war. I have a far better understanding of how interconnected the world is than you give me credit for, your assumptions about me and my knowledge/views/experience are kneejerk and unwelcome, and they make you look petty and ignorant. I'd recommend that you reconsider your tone, and take people more seriously when they request that you stay on topic.
See if you had in fact served again which you have not--your comment on a junior NCO which you somehow assumed did not fully get the big picture because they were "junior in your eyes"---they were far more informed than most senior officers ---WHY--simple they carried the fight but which again if you had served would have understood which you did not.
Read this paragraph and even you might see the connection between IS the Ukraine and Russia --that is if you understand the Russian connection to the IS via Iran and the Chechens again which you do not fully understand.
You need to expand your thoughts---a Chechen/Third Rome "Holy War" is far more threatening to the US than any black flag waver == at a far higher level than any IS fighter will ever be because they have the personal ear of Putin but again you knew that right?
By the way the Russian "Orthodox Holy War" includes Chechen Muslims--you must have missed their leaders recent statements reference Paris and the Ukraine--again see the circle?
Islamists shouting "Allah Akbar" as they killed Ukrainian troops might have interested you which it did not and Chechens deep in the GRU/FSB and Chechen fighters being allowed to "leave" Russia to Syria and Chechens arrested this week in France with large amounts of explosives and weapons is again not connected to the Ukraine but again you knew all of this right?
Take the time to read this paragraph.
As Russia’s economic crisis has mounted, Putin has unsurprisingly turned to fellow Chekists, some of them very like himself by background. They share a worldview which is conspiratorial and deeply anti-Western; they view America as their Main Enemy and now believe Obama is on a mission to destroy Russia. That they will not allow, and they will stop at nothing to halt what prominent Orthodox clerics recently have termed the “American project” that wants to destroy Holy Russia. This volatile combination of Chekist conspiracy-thinking and Orthodox Third Rome mysticism, plus Russian xenophobia and a genuine economic crisis, means that 2015 promises to be a dangerous year for the world. The Kremlin now believes they are at war with the United States, an Orthodox Holy War in the eyes of many Russians, and that struggle is defensive and legitimate. It would be good if Obama and his staff paid attention. This is about much more than Ukraine.
See the world is far more interconnected than you seem to think.
<BLOCKQUOTE>Interestingly you have never served it appears---you seem to immediately want to take his VN service into question---if you had also served in VN you probably would be saying virtually the same quote.</BLOCKQUOTE>
Those are some pretty bold assumptions - you seem to be quite fond of making those, and then pontificating accordingly. Ignoring your obnoxious and irrelevant assumption about <I>my</I> service, I absolutely take Secretary Hagel's Vietnam service into account, I think it quite obviously prejudices his views on the subject. Furthermore, I observe that his Vietnam service was not as a senior officer, but as a junior NCO - e.g., not the folks whom the Army trains (or perhaps I should say "trained") in strategy.
And I've already told you on multiple occasions that I'm not interested in diverting a conversation about Afghanistan and Iraq to talk about Ukraine, so I'll defer on any of your additional remarks to anyone who's interested in discussing them with you.
Interestingly you have never served it appears---you seem to immediately want to take his VN service into question---if you had also served in VN you probably would be saying virtually the same quote.
We have the exact same problem now in the Ukraine---where ethno nationalism is driving a Russian aggressor or what might be called state sponsored terrorism using the US definition.
AND what is our reaction---words, silence, inaction, no strategy-- nothing nichts, nada-----
Bill gave you an excellent quote and exactly that has occurred in the Maidan and when it happens our current government runs for cover--ever wonder why?
Back to the core reason---we simply never did have a long term core strategy and we still do not unless bombing alone is a strategy.
If anything Russia has taught the IS one thing about the West---just hang on long enough and they will get bored and leave or go back to business as usual and that again is not a strategy---well actually it could be one.
We never seem to be interested in anything that lasts longer than two weeks.
Bill M.: While I respect your opinion, sir, I think this is just an issue upon which we'll just have to agree to disagree. Secretary Hagel's remarks that the Duffel Blog were lambasting were absolutely hyperbolic and inconsistent with reality. ISIS/DAESH is absolutely a relevant and pressing threat, but they are not the existential threat to the American homeland or way of life that he portrayed them as in his remarks, they are not more dangerous than the threat of assured nuclear destruction that the world faced in the early 1960's, and their heinous crimes and acts of war are not historically unprecedented. Secretary Hagel sounded like a fool in that press conference, not to mention being completely inconsistent with the narrative that the Obama Administration was trying to advance at the time. (That's not to say that I agree with the White House's narrative on ISIS/DAESH, but one would think that a man touted as the first SecDef from the enlisted ranks would know well enough to maintain the proverbial company commander's party line.) I've already made my thoughts on Secretary Hagel known above, so as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. While respecting his service in Vietnam, and his willingness to attempt to manage the Pentagon when asked to do so by the Commander in Chief, and the multiple competing priorities he attempted to wrangle in that office, I think Dr. Carter will be a breath of fresh air once Secretary Hagel's tenure at the Pentagon comes to an end.
I don't see a problem with Hagel's comment that the Duffel Bag made fun of. The fact of the matter is that ISIL is the most pressing threat to the U.S. at the moment. Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and another actor "cold" be a much more significant threat to the U.S. if they decided to do so. ISIL is an active threat that actually has a global presence virtually that manifests physically. The fact that there are over 17,000 foreign fighters over there should be a wake up call. We can wait until there is another major terrorist attack, or we can recognize the threat and be proactive. I'll take Hagel's statement over the amateur analysis offered by the Duffel Bag. I recall similar comments being made about al-Qaeda in the 90s. Amazing how we quickly we forget. As a wise man recently said, the further we get away from 9/11 the closer we get to 9/10.
The bottom line is we have multiple threats we have to mitigate. Hagel gets that, so did Panetta, so did Gates, and I'm not sure what Rumsfeld got. I don't hero worship any SECDEF, but I respect the tough job they volunteered to serve in. Hagel stepped up to serve during a very tough period for DOD. He isn't incompetent by any stretch, and since he is serving during a down sizing period he is going to take fire for making tough decisions. For the most part, the fire is coming from amateurs with political agendas. By the way, all SECDEF appointments are political.
I know everyone on SWJ loves Gates, and while also served during a challenging time, I think time will prove he made some very poor decisions that will haunt us for a long time. I still think his service was respectable. Hagel certainly has a broader view of the all the issues than any author writing for the Duffel Bag taking pot shots at him does. You read Clausewitz, so you understand the trinity. You can apply the same concept to any SECDEF, they have multiple factors pulling at them that outsiders have limited understanding of.
I'd lean toward the latter. While offering the requisite respect for Secretary Hagel's military service, I was baffled at his selection for the post of SecDef by the White House, and believe that it had almost entirely to do with politics, rather than any actual qualifications for the office itself. Secretary Hagel was not a particularly distinguished Senator - respected for his genial conduct, perhaps, but not for his actual performance in that office. Some of the things he's said as SecDef have been so ridiculous that even the Duffel Blog <A HREF="http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/08/hagel-cold-war-isil-terror-group/">got a hold of them</A>. Frankly, I was stunned a few weeks ago when Bill M. cited Secretary Hagel as a source worth quoting, and although I realize that the quote you've cited above obviously supports your favorite thesis, I'm surprised that you consider Secretary Hagel the sort of authority whose comments would sway others' opinions. (Not to mention that perhaps the most ambitious statement you've quoted above, "It just won't work, never has worked. Help them; human rights, freedom, people having rights to decide their own lives for their own families and opportunities. That's universal.", is so demonstrably false.)
As an aside:
Consider this from SecDef Hagel (in the article entitled "As He Exists, Hagel Candid on Intervention" of my 26 Jan-2 Feb edition of the "Army Times"):
"You can't force the United States' value system and our values and our standards and our structures and our institutions down anybody's throat ... And we make a huge mistakes when we think we can go around and make many USAs all over the world. It just won't work, never has worked. Help them; human rights, freedom, people having rights to decide their own lives for their own families and opportunities. That's universal. How they do that, how they structure that, that should be up to them, not to us or anybody else."
(Sorry: Do not have the link.)
Goes to "why we lost?"
And/or goes to the reason why Hagel is being shown the door?
Bill C.: I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree about Pope Francis, but I feel obligated to challenge your remarks about Germany. Germany's role in Afghanistan has been minimal, they've been repeatedly criticized for restrictive ROEs which effectively preclude them from fighting, for <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/15/germany-afghanistan-beer">s… around on their FOBs drinking beer</A>, for being "<A HREF="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460905,00.html">too fat to fight</A>" (by their own fitness standards), and even for deploying an elite SOF unit which <A HREF="http://www.jeromestarkey.com/post/86100335/they-came-they-saw-then-left… on its FOB for three years without undertaking a single mission</A>. The idea that Germany is engaged in "ideological colonialism" in Afghanistan is unsupported by the available evidence - they have a minimal presence there, due mainly to their obligations by way of Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington. The same goes for your statement about their role in Iraq: Gerhard Schröder was famously critical of the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq, the Germans did not participate in OIF, and even now the extent of their involvement in Iraq appears to be <A HREF="https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a-history-making-arms-transfer-devised… the Kurds</A> so that the Kurds can protect their way of life from the ideological colonialism of ISIS/DAESH. And this entire discussion obfuscates my original point, which was to challenge your claim, by way of Erdogan's statement, that Germans who expect Turkish immigrants on their own soil to assimilate to German values are practicing "ideological colonialism" for wanting to maintain their own way of life on their own soil - the very definition of conservatism, evidenced also by their support for the Kurds against the "ideological colonialism" of ISIS/DAESH.
I also think it's worth suggesting that, although the West uses various tools of influence throughout the world, there was no expectation of intervention in Afghanistan until Taliban-sponsored/protected al Qaeda perpetrated 9/11. We can debate the relative merits and shortfalls of the decision to invade Iraq, but some of the justifications given for that invasion were Iraq's sponsorship of international terrorism, Iraq's decision to attack various neighbors on multiple occasions, Iraq's violations of UN-mandated sanctions and no-fly zones (and I hope you won't try to suggest that the UN is in any way Western-dominated). And even with all of those justifications, the Hussein regime and Taliban were only ousted by force after 9/11 when the international risk calculus shifted dramatically. You could claim that the sanctions imposed on Iraq (and to a lesser degree on pre-9/11 Afghanistan) are a form of "ideological imperialism" meant to "transform their states and societies more along modern western lines", and I would counter that when a state interacts outside its borders, it does so under the requisite understanding that some degree of adherence to international norms must be accepted, so in either case the obvious alternative would have been for the governments in question to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. One could claim that Afghanistan had effectively done that, but again, they harbored and partnered with a terrorist group that carried out a self-declared act of war against a country (the United States) that had had negligible relations with Afghanistan for years prior to the attack. I'd highly recommend that you peruse <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Imperialism-History-Efraim-Karsh/dp/03001… Imperialism</A> by Efraim Karsh, which, while somewhat obviously partisan, might challenge your notion that the societies that you accuse the West of trying to "transform... along modern western political, economic and social lines" are merely passive victims of Western "ideological colonialism".
I respect your point of view, sir, but I really think you're significantly off base on this one.
Consider these offerings from the Catholics themselves re: "ideological colonialism." Note that the Catholics, themselves, point directly to the West. Nothing here -- veiled or otherwise -- regarding China.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-warns-west-over-ideol…?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/kids-in-poor-countries-suffer-wh…
Likewise, in such places as Afghanistan and Iraq, what we offered the populations in development was/is tied directly to these states and their societies being forced to throw off their traditional values, attitudes, beliefs and institutions and, in the place of these, adopt our very different values, attitudes, beliefs (for example: re: the status and role of women) and institutions.
The Pope, to me, would suggest that this was wrong. He might say: "If the West wants to help the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, et al, then let them help them. But don't make this conditional upon these people becoming, more or less, damned in the eyes of their religion, their culture, their peers and their identity."
All the above going directly, I suggest, to "why we lost;" both in the narrative sense and the actual sense.
And if we still doubt that the Pope is, in this very limited sense, seeing eye-to-eye with our enemies, consider his recent instinctual thoughts re: Charlie Hebdo::
"In a widely quoted remark, the Pope said that even a friend could expect a punch in the nose if he “says a swear word against my mother.” That, the Pope said, is “normal.”
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/01/pope-francis-exp…
As to Germany not trying to ideologically colonize anyone, may want to reconsider that thought, given Germany's role in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.
To this old soldier (me) -- who may indeed be wrong -- all these guys (to wit: real and pretend conservatives of every stripe) -- due to our determination to "transform" everyone, everywhere, more along our ultra-liberal modern western lines; these conservative folks are (1) finding common cause and (2) lining up, together, to stand against us.
The fact that the Pope, in a very limited way, seems to have joined this team of conservatives, this should, if nothing else did, tend to give us pause.
Why in the heck would we wish to make war -- or think that we could win a war -- by adopting such a contentious stance?
Make enemies via this approach? Big time. (Even the Pope!?) Like throwing gas on the fire.
Win wars, friends and influence people (positively) via this approach? Nope.
Bill C.: Your argument itself may be worth considering, but I believe you've supported it rather poorly with your examples.
Pope Francis' speech in question was directed to a specific audience. I'm very reticent to interpret it as an indictment against "ideological colonization" by the West; if anything, it's more likely a veiled critique of China, which has been trying to impose its will upon the Philippines with increasing aggression over the last few years. I think you're stretching his meaning further than what it was intended to convey. And the idea that - and this is a direct quote - "the Pope seems to have more in common with our enemies" is also simply ridiculous. You could make a very vague case for the Pope, having been raised in Argentina (although being essentially European himself), having a sympathy for non-Western audiences, but I dismiss the notion that you're trying to extend it to. I think you also ignore the Pope's previous statements deploring terrorism, and his efforts to build relationships with moderate Islamic leaders.
In the case of Erdogan, I'm not sure how you can even take what he's said seriously. Erdogan is openly Islamist and has spent the last few years consolidating power in Turkey, to the tune of undermining Turkey's proud pluralistic heritage. And Germany, of all (modern) states, isn't trying to colonize anyone, ideologically or otherwise. The idea that a significant minority of Germans want immigrants living on German soil to assimilate - particularly two weeks after the Charlie Hebdo incident - is somehow imperialistic, or represents a Western effort to (and I hope I'm getting your quote correct, as I've read it enough times) transform any foreign populace along Western social, economic, and cultural lines, is just plain nonsense. I also think you ignore the role that Erdogan's rhetoric plays in the wider context of the cold war between the Saudi bloc and the Iranian bloc, in which Turkey is roughly analogous to China in the Western vs. Soviet Cold War analogy.
Outlaw and I (well below) have been discussing "why we lost" from the perspective of a clash between:
a. The values, attitudes and beliefs of the ultra-liberal "West." And
b. The very different values, attitudes and beliefs of the more conservative "Rest."
(Thus to consider the present conflict/contest as being world-wide in nature and scope, much like the Cold War.)
In this regard to consider, for example, the recent comments of (1) the Pope yesterday in the Philippines and (2) the Prime Minister of Turkey in Germany last week:
a. The Pope:
"Every people deserves to conserve its identity without being ideologically colonized ... When imposed conditions come from imperial colonizers, they search to make people lose their own identity and make a sameness ... this is ideological colonization."
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/01/20/pope-catholics-dont-have-to-breed… (Courtesy of yours truly.)
b. The Turkish Prime Minister:
"Yes, integrate yourselves into German society but don't assimilate yourselves. No one has the right to deprive us of our culture and our identity ... "Islamophobia should be seen in the same way as anti-Semitism."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/erdogan-urges-turks-not-to-a… (Courtesy of Outlaw.)
Thus, to see "why we lost" from the perspective of our miscalculation re:
a. How we believed states and societies, individuals and groups, and national and religious leaders --
b. On a world-wide scale and to include even our own Pope --
c. When confronted with a challenge from the West and re: "conservative values"
d. Would not, as we expected, roll over and play dead. But, instead --
e. Would rise to the occasion and fight to preserve their more-traditional values, attitudes and beliefs; this,
f. In the face of an assault on same by the ultra-liberal West.
(In this West v. the Rest light, to also understand why Putin might wish to jump on the "conservative values" bandwagon.)
BOTTOM LINE:
In our Cold War days, the Pope would seem to have looked at the West as the champion of conservative values -- and looked at the communists (who, in those days, were the one's that demanded radical, alien and profane state and societal transformations) -- as the clear enemy.
Now, because the West today is the one who is seen as demanding radical, alien and profane changes -- and the Rest seen as championing conservative values -- the Pope seems to have more in common with our enemies.
How can we hope to win such a battle (the West v. the Rest) given this roll reversal -- which the conservatives might say puts the West on the wrong side of history -- the wrong side of virtue -- and the wrong side of the Pope?
Interesting development and it is Russia this time not the IS or AQAP.
A few commenters especially Paul Schindler have indicated that actually the initial Paris attacks while claimed by AQAP have actually a Russian background and many laughed--and now?
Agence France-Presse ✔ @AFP
#BREAKING Five Russians held in France on suspicion of planning attack: prosecutor
AFP is reporting that 5 Russian citizens have been held in France on suspicion of planning an attack. Exact details to come.
UPDATE: 5 men 4 chechen, 1 austrian arrested in Beziers France, Suspected of preparing an attack in Austria.
John Schindler @20committee
5 Russians "from N Caucasus" arrested for plotting terrorism in France...now why on earth would they do that?
This interested in "why we lost" or why we have so-far lost the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan might be interested in the new release by McFarland Publishers, Counterinsurgency: What the United States Learned in Vietnam, Chose to Forget, and Needs to Know Now, by David Donovan.
Considering America's experience with counterinsurgency one would expect that the expertise gained over that time should have shown itself in its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. For a long while, it did not. Too many lessons had to be learned over again. In Counterinsurgency, Donovan addresses the key issues relevant to counterinsurgency and provides discussions based on personal experiences with decades of thought given to them afterward. Personal vignettes from his own experiences and from the experiences of others are placed throughout the book to illustrate points being discussed with real-life examples. The book will be useful to both the counterinsurgency planner and the advisor in the field, but it is also a book for the general reader who wants to understand the complexities of counterinsurgency and the implications that come with it.
In particular,Donovan focuses a lot of attention on counterinsurgency advisors because they are the key players in any counterinsurgency effort. They transmit knowledge and values to their counterparts, which means advising is a job requiring appropriate personnel selection and advanced training.
The reader will quickly learn that Donovan is no Pollyanna. He is quite clear about the too-common failure of counterinsurgency programs and the key factors that cause it. Relatedly, he uses the metaphor of the Potemkin village, i.e. facades put up to make things look better than they are, when discussing critically the tendency for over-optimism when considering and implementing counterinsurgency campaigns.
An earlier, online version of the book was entitled, War of a Kind, and was extremely well reviewed prior to that version's being taken down in deference to the hard-copy version.
And there are no Russian supported and paid jihadi's fighting in the Ukraine?
Chechen Ismail shouts "Allah Akbar" in Donetsk before he shoots towards Ukrainian positions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDtqc-aplCA …
Appears the IDF takes care of the ME and Iran better than the current US foreign policy in the ME. Why is that again?
Sky News Arabia and others reporting that commanders from Iran's Revolutionary Guard also killed in Quneitra strike.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsArabia_B/status/556861004328747010 …
Basically: IDF jst killed 6 of Hizbollah's-best inside #Syria. Incl Nasrallah's "godson" Jihad Mughneye pic.twitter.com/x7sPcfhgXp
#LEBANON (Jan18 #Beirut 19:43) Source: #Hezbollah ordered "general mobilisation" after today's #Israel.i strike.(Libancall) #Libanon #Syria
Bad day 4 IRGC / MT @sheeraf IDF strike bigger than originally thought. Now confirmed several Iranian commanders killed alongside Mughniyeh.
Defense Min. Yaalon won't comment on strike but adds cryptically in radio interview "#Hezbollah should explain what it's doing in #Syria"
Senior Israeli military official says if Hezbollah responds to todays strikes with rockets, there will be a "very heavy response."
We are in serious trouble if the US JCoS does not know when Iran is in violation of the UN sanctions. Seems he also forgot when Iranian supported Iraqi Shia groups were killing US troops with EFPs.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey has described Iran’s military action against the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq as a “positive” development, according to recent comments.
Dempsey, during a join press conference with his Israeli counterpart earlier this month, said Iran’s involvement in Iraq is not surprising to the United States and currently does not threaten American efforts in that country to battle IS (also known as ISIL or ISIS).
“Iran has been both interested and sought to influence the future of Iraq since Iraq’s sovereignty was restored in 2004, so Iranian influence is not [a] surprise and Iranian advisers have been in Iraq for a very long time,” Dempsey said during the press conference, according to Jane’s. “As long as the Iraqi government remains committed to inclusivity of all the various groups inside the country, then I think Iranian influence will be positive.”
Iran does not pose a threat to the United States in Iraq, according to Dempsey.
“It’s not threatening to U.S. forces or to our mission at this point. If it were to become that way, then we would have to adapt our campaign plan,” he added.
However, Iran’s transfer of weapons to Iraq would constitute a violation of United Nations resolutions governing Tehran’s military activity, Jane’s noted in comments on Dempsey’s remarks.
“Any transfer of Iranian military equipment to Iraq, as well as the presence of Iranian military advisers, would be a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1747, which banned any state from importing military items or services from the Islamic Republic,” they wrote.
Iran has been spotted using its F-4 Phantom II aircraft to carry out strikes in Iraq and has “also been seen carrying out ground attack sorties in support of joint Iraqi Army-militia operations in the east of the country,” according to Jane’s.
“The Iraqi Army is also using military hardware that has come from Iran, most notably Su-25 ground attack aircraft,” Jane’s wrote. “The Iraqi Ministry of Defense released a video on 30 December showing an HM-20 multiple rocket launcher (MRL) operating with the 5th Infantry Division in Salah-al-Din province. The HM-20 is the Iranian designation for a copy of the 122 mm BM-11 MRL mounted on a MAN LX tactical truck.”
http://uk.businessinsider.com/dempsey-says-irans-military-in-iraq-is-po…
Bill--this is a tad where we differ---right now I would argue that the Rest has in fact drifted into a form of fascism not seen since the 1930s/40s and the West is in fact drifting due to the various economic collapses and the sheer fact that the US has not figured it out that they are no longer the world's policeman nor does it really want to be.
BUT the Rest seems to be in a bind due to the simple fact of "weaponization of information" ie the global media and the internet and then that terrifying single word "tourism". Why because travelling tends to educate and many have seen the disparity of the Rest to the West and actually utter it under their breaths in private that they like it plus along with the deep corruption and lack of the rule of law and good governance within the Rest then goes to the streets and we get the Colored and or Arab Springs.
I would argue as well that the Rest is in the middle of a major revolt and the ruling elites have no other solution than to crack down and hard in order to protect their own economic fiefdom which in the end just forces the end decision to be delayed---AND this has is worth noting--the West was not pushing it-even surprised them----it again goes back to the natural flow of information these days.
I have argued here that while all and I mean all the major religions/ideologies on this earth have had at some point in their development a major "reformation" of some type Islam has not had theirs and this is due to the way they have structured their "global communities" around a single Imam or Mullah. Couple that with the four major rather conservative centers of Islamic studies you get a very slow changing if at all religion that can in fact be hijacked by what I call the war wing and it has been hijacked with little push back from the peace wing which actually when you listen to you accept some of their arguments.
If we look at the Maidan and yes you can make your points as they are valid--a majority of those that froze and fought did so because they simply had grown tired of the massive all inclusion corruption, the lack of security and the lack of good governance---and again that single word "tourism"--the Ukrainians have since 1991 been prolific tourists in western Europe and have seen the striking differences between the West and the Rest and started asking the question that carries a powerful threat to the current ruling elites -----WHY?
As you point out with the Rest defending itself--therein lies their core problem---the more they defend themselves the more they fall behind the West THEN they flip the argument and accuse the West of trying to keep them as vassals---see the inherent problem?
The following is a very real problem within Islam that I just pointed to---the utter lack or a reformation and IMHO they are decades away from one.
By Asra Q. Nomani January 16 at 8:01 PM
Asra Q. Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is the author of “Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam.”
“You have shamed the community,” a fellow Muslim in Morgantown, W.Va., said to me as we sat in a Panera Bread in 2004. “Stop writing.”
Then 38, I had just written an essay for The Washington Post’s Outlook section arguing that women should be allowed to pray in the main halls of mosques, rather than in segregated spaces, as most mosques in America are arranged. An American Muslim born in India, I grew up in a tolerant but conservative family. In my hometown mosque, I had disobeyed the rules and prayed in the men’s area, about 20 feet behind the men gathered for Ramadan prayers.
Later, an all-male tribunal tried to ban me. An elder suggested having men surround me at the mosque so that I would be “scared off.” Now the man across the table was telling me to shut up.
“I won’t stop writing,” I said.
It was the first time a fellow Muslim had pressed me to refrain from criticizing the way our faith was practiced. But in the past decade, such attempts at censorship have become more common. This is largely because of the rising power and influence of the “ghairat brigade,” an honor corps that tries to silence debate on extremist ideology in order to protect the image of Islam. It meets even sound critiques with hideous, disproportionate responses.
The campaign began, at least in its modern form, 10 years ago in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, when the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — a mini-United Nations comprising the world’s 56 countries with large Muslim populations, plus the Palestinian Authority — tasked then-Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu with combating Islamophobia and projecting the “true values of Islam.” During the past decade, a loose honor brigade has sprung up, in part funded and supported by the OIC through annual conferences, reports and communiques. It’s made up of politicians, diplomats, writers, academics, bloggers and activists.
THIS is though exactly where RJ would come in and I fully agree with him the West must learn to allow the Rest to develop at their own paces and assist where possible to smooth the rough edges---but the West does not have the generation of elites in place to even think of that happening.
If one really thinks it through both sides are dependent on each other in the end---the art becomes how then to balance that dependency allowing both sides to view it as a "win".
Thus -- and as illustrated by a reading of your article on the Turkish prime minister -- to realize that we have made:
a. The most unintelligent and ungodly (literally and figuratively) mis-reading of the "human terrain" in all of history (to wit: that the Rest wants to be like the West). And, based on this,
b. Have adopted the most dangerous and self-defeating (if we're lucky) and self-destroying (if we are not) of foreign and national security policies to date. (To wit: the decision to move forward aggressively to transform outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines; herein suggesting that "universal values," rather than differing values, was now the order of the day).
The Rest's answer:
a. BULLSHIT ! YOU SURE GOT THAT WRONG ! NO WAY JOSE ! WE'LL SHOW YOU ! Or
b. WE TRIED BUT WE JUST CANNOT DO IT. YOU ASKED FOR TOO MUCH TOO SOON. WE WARNED YOU. BUT YOU DROVE ON (AND DROVE US ON) ANYWAY. AND NOW BOTH YOU, AND WE, MUST REAP THE WHIRLWIND OF YOUR SUCH IMPROPER THINKING AND ILL-ADVISED DECISION.
How to defuse this bomb?
I do not know.
Thus, not a misreading of nations, national leaders and not understanding nationalism this time (as the cause for world war)?
But, this time, the misreading of civilizations, of those who see themselves as their civilization's leaders/protectors and, thus, a failure to understand, shall we say, "culturalism?"
When will we learn that -- if you mess with someone's identity and, thereby, their status and the foundations of their security (the bull shall we say), then you must expect to get the horns (war -- in one way, shape, form or another).
Thus, I like your World War I analogy and warning.
But does it (WWI) hold any lessons for us -- on how to back-track out of this mess -- before it is too late?
Bill--currently the West is losing as it does not understand the issues and the Rest are on the verge of starting a full scale war in the Ukraine due to their own miscalculations, and are in one in Iraq and Syria so right now both sides are in what a German saying states "plus minus zero".
If you read the interview released here at SWJ done with a major player on the inner circle of the IS he basically admitted it when he stated "we are riding a wave and we do not control it nor understand where it is headed" which sums up the ME nicely.
And if one sees the last few days of escalating Russian military violence and the moves Putin is making we in central Europe are standing on the edge of 1914 all over again---one simple miscalculation and we are in a war.
And the West has no answers and or strategies for either thus the "plus minus zero".
Example--the German article is enlightening.
Obama tells Europe to assimilate Muslims better. This assumes that all Muslims WANT to assimilate to 21st century EU, which is NOT true.
Before Obama castigates the "haters" of the EU, he should talk to his NATO ally PM Erdogan about assimilation:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/erdogan-urges-turks-not-to-a… …
Outlaw: From you excellent "Moscow Times" link above:
"But it would never have happened if France had employed censorship to prevent insulting people and things some people consider sacred."
"We, Christians, Muslims, Jews and even Buddhists stand on one level of evolution, and the liberal Europeans on another, and both sides are moving inexorably in different directions. No words exist that could bridge that chasm."
"The Putin regime has far more in common with Islamic terrorism than they realize in the West."
Outlaw: You have hit the nail on the proverbial head here.
These statements -- and how they were put forward (via, as you note, the new "nuclear" weapon of modern communications and technology) -- confirm, I believe, what you and I have been discussing, to wit:
a. That we are today still involved in an ancient (from at least the 16th Century) "clash of civilizations" conflict between the West and the Rest.
b. This West v. the Rest conflict having today, much as it did in the past, multiple theaters (for example: the Middle Eastern/Islamic theater; the Russian/Orthodox theater).
Within this long-running West v. the Rest "clash of civilizations" conflict to see:
a. The uniform goal of the West: To transform outlying states and societies in such a way (via colonialism then and via capitalist democracy today) as to gain greater access to and greater utilization of their human and other resources. (This is openly acknowledged by Kipling in his "White Man's Burden;" wherein, he makes crystal-clear that [a] the "savage wars of peace" are undertaken to [2] "seek another's profit and work another's gain.") And to see
b. The uniform and common goal of the Rest: To resist/prevent such an unwanted transformation; this, by appealing to what the Rest have in common, such as:
(1) Conservative, non-modern/non-western values.
(2) Earlier, more glorious, non-western-dominated times.
(3) A perceived more moral/pious character. And
(4) A common goal which proceeds therefrom (to wit: to save and preserve their moral civilization -- in the face of an assault by the, essentially, amoral West.)
(Herein, for example, to understand why those of the Rest might wish to use Charlie Hebdo to illustrate the amoral/blasphemous character of the West; to, thereby, find common cause; and to, thus, join forces against same. Thus, and in this way, to better define what these "wars" are actually about and to more sharply and more clearly define the West as the Rest's common enemy.)
A good strategy on the Rest's part? Undertaken in an intelligent way?
Stupidity on the West's part? (This, potentially, the reason why our President refrained from going to the rally?)
Our strategy, in the face of all the above?
To suggest that an "internal debate" is going on within these other civilizations; with the West saying that it will support those individuals and groups therein who would say that:
a. The western secular values associated with, for example, Charlie Hebdo (to wit: freedom of speech);
b. These must trump, shall we say, the more traditional/more religious values of the Rests' states and societies; this, if "progress" is to be made.
Who is most likely to win (the West or the Rest) such a fight -- described and undertaken in such a way -- and designed to achieve such ends?
But Bill then we have this:
The Putin regime has far more in common with Islamic terrorism than they realize in the West.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/kremlin-troll-army-shows-… …
Bill C---based on your comment:
"In this light (puritanical forms of Islam; Islamic revivalism; reaction to Western military, economic and now social and cultural dominance) to easily see that neither the Salafi jihadists -- nor this clash of civilizations -- are unique to today."
"So what has changed?"
Two things have changed that have caused a major escalation on both sides;
1. the ability to project you message via the bomb and gun anywhere in the world on a moments notice---not a given in the 18/19th centuries where it took awhile for anyone to react and not much was done outside specific areas
2. the weaponization of information---meaning the ability to propagate your message via the 5 minute news cycle or the internet to any audience in any language 24X7 365 or what some call "radicalization" and I call simply just great PR
There is an old language learning law that says in order to learn a language fluently one must repeat the words and or sentences seven times for the brain to lock in the message---we see this in the Russian propaganda in their info war and we see it in AQ and IS---say the same message enough times and people will believe it is the truth.
Example---the main director of the Russian TV network system stated---give me a crowd and a video camera and I will give you a revolution and she is basically right.
Let us acknowledge that this effort, by the West, to transform other states and societies -- such that the West might gain better access to and better utilization of their human and other resources -- let us acknowledge that this "clash of civilizations" has been going on for a very long time indeed. (As my reply immediately above indicates, at least since the 16th Century).
Thus, both the West, and the Rest, showing that they have (1) amazing staying power and (2) are committed to seeing this contest through to the bitter end.
With regard to the Middle Eastern theater of this "war," and as relating to how long this conflict has been going on, consider the following:
"Muhammad Ahmad bin Abd Allah (Arabic: محمد أحمد المهدي) (August 12, 1844 – June 22, 1885) was a religious leader of the Samaniyya order in Sudan who, on June 29, 1881, proclaimed himself the Mahdi (or Madhi), the messianic redeemer of the Islamic faith. More broadly, the Mahdiyya, as Muhammad Ahmad's movement was called, was influenced by earlier Mahdist movements in West Africa, as well as Wahabism and other puritanical forms of Islamic revivalism that developed in reaction to the growing military and economic dominance of the European powers throughout the 19th century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ahmad
In this light (puritanical forms of Islam; Islamic revivalism; reaction to Western military, economic and now social and cultural dominance) to easily see that neither the Salafi jihadists -- nor this clash of civilizations -- are unique to today.
So what has changed?
What would:
a. Cause Kipling, in the late 19th Century, to state the job, what the job entailed, and what the job was to achieve -- in such clear terms:
"Take up the White Man's burden, In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit, And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden, The savage wars of peace-"
b. But cause the West, today, to suggest some other requirement, some other motivation and some other description of "the enemy?"
Bill C--this is an insider response to the article yesterday you might find interesting as the discussion needs to turn more to exactly what is it the jihadi's are in fact attempting--one very knowledgeable German Islamist recently wrote a book on what he calls Islamic fascism which earned him a fatwa---that has never been in the discussion ie fascism and Islam in the same sentence as for many it would not seem possible.
IMOHO they are after far more than the West even thinks possible and this is the big difference they are in it for the extremely long haul and patience is not and was never a western virtue.
http://20committee.com/2015/01/15/a-pentagon-insider-speaks-on-obamas-g…
Outlaw:
Allowing other states and societies to decide, for themselves, how they might wish to be organized, ordered and oriented -- politically, economically and/or socially -- this has not been considered a reasonable or intelligent strategy/means/method for achieving the Wests' desired ends.
(These such desired ends being: The ability to have full and complete access to -- and full and optimal use of -- the human and other resources of other states and societies.)
Instead, and so as to better achieve these desired ends:
a. From the 16th to the mid-20th Century, many states and societies are forced to become organized, ordered and oriented more along colonial political, economic and social lines. And
b. From the mid to the end of the 20th Century, many states and societies were prevented from becoming organized, ordered and oriented more along communist political, economic and/or social lines.
At the dawn of the 21st Century, however, and because of "universal values" and "end of history" thinking, we came to believe that we might achieve our desired ends (see my second paragraph above) by simply:
a. Eliminating outdated -- and now obstructing -- rulers and regimes (that we had often installed to stand against communism) and
b. Helping the populations of these states and societies, thus liberated, and per their "universal" desire, become organized, ordered and oriented more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
THE PROBLEM: Thus liberated, many of these populations indicated that they DID NOT wish to become constituted so as to provide the West with optimum access to -- and optimum utilization of -- their human and other resources (to wit: along modern western political, economic and social lines).
THE SOLUTION: The West must admit that "universal values" is was wrong, that differing values prevail, and adopt foreign and national security strategies, policies, procedures and practices which, accordingly,
a. Provide for and promote favorable state and societal organization. (Thus, organization more along modern western lines political, economic and social lines.) And
b. Prevent unfavorable state and societal formation/organization. (To wit: the ordering, organization, etc., of other states and societies along other than modern western political, economic and social lines.)
BOTTOM LINE:
With "universal values" discredited/disproved, we are now back to multi-belief world. (Thus, a more colonial or Cold War-like world.)
Strategy, policies, practices, etc., must be adopted, and/or adapted, accordingly. (Thus to understand the call by SOF and others for methods, practices, etc., developed for and used during the similar -- multi-belief -- Cold War?)
As in the past, and likewise today, these differing values, attitudes and beliefs of other states and societies prevent the West from achieving optimal access to and optimal utilization of the human and other resources of these entities.
As such, these differing values, attitudes and beliefs -- and the adverse matters which result therefrom -- these must, as during the multi-belief colonial and Cold War periods, be overcome.
When the US has no strategy in the ME then how do we adjust to this when we need Turkish support?
Documents leaked on Twitter purport to show Erdogan ordering MIT to transfer weapons to AQ in Syria.
http://www.todayszaman.com//national_govt-tries-to-hush-up-leaks-about-… …
Bill C--one of the article's takeaway is---the dispute over the 21st century Islam should be left up to the Muslim population ---something by the way both myself and Robert have been repeating over and over concerning the IS in Iraq and Syria.
Also if you really read between the lines he is extremely critical of the lack of a coherent FP by this administration and the rather weak if non existent NSC which I have often criticized here with the simple question where is the strategy for the ME and the Ukraine/Russia.
Perfect example--the US is completely tied in knots over the IS BUT yet says absolutely nothing on the killing spree by BH in Nigerian which by the way is also building an "Islamic State", and the Russian shelling of a civilian bus killing 13 and wounding 17.
If the latest blog comments are anywhere correct in their estimates--right now there are 52K Russian troops, 300 tanks and 1800 armored vehicles sitting close to the Ukrainian border and we have roughly 12K actual Russian troops fighting inside the Ukraine and yet the US keeps stating "incursion" if it says anything at all--lately they have said virtually nothing. By the way open source bloggers have actually geo tracked the entire Russian invasion of August 2014 into the Ukraine via Google Earth and no cost and it totally counters the US view ---that it was an "incursion". We should be discarding the entire IC as they have said nothing since the Crimea--seems that GE is a far better tool than the entire billions we have invested into the IC since 9/11.
It is almost like the US is currently completely AWOL in Europe.
And by the way virtually both events were badly covered and or totally ignored by the entire Western media--but not by the blogger world that has been providing evidence after evidence for the building of a "sane" FP---but again nothing.
Ever wonder why?
Turchynov: There are around 36.000 'separatists', including 8.500 regular #Russia|n troops in #Donbass NOTE: of the 36K mercenaries only 1K come actually from the Donbass so the Russian invasion force stands at 43,5K and that is not an "invasion" using the Webster's?
Different terrorists, same uniform.
pic.twitter.com/drHPSRqYZg
Satellite images obtained by @amnesty show #Baga before and after the #BokoHaram attacks.
pic.twitter.com/lB6yi6GHMV
#Russia|n Northern Fleet base 50km from the border #Finland in Alakurtti base [#Army≈3K].
http://bit.ly/1E2BJfr
pic.twitter.com/Uqe7pCufGR
Edited a bit and added to:
If we approach these matters in the manner that I have suggested above. Thus, in terms of:
a. Western aggressive action throughout the world; designed to transform outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines. And
b. The defensive actions -- undertaken in the face of this such aggression -- by certain of the world's states, societies, individuals and groups.
(Thus, widening the aperture of our discussion to encompass, not only the Islamic, but also the Rest of the resisting world.)
Given these necessary changes, then should we say that the linked author's contention (immediately below) rings true?
"The bottom line is the Islamic world is having a robust debate, sometimes settled with guns and bombs, about what it should be in the twenty-first century, and that’s a debate for Muslims — not us, we’re spectators — to have."
Herein to ask:
If the problem is, in actuality, world-wide in basis, nature and scope. (The West seeks to subvert and transform the Rest; and the Rest appeals to conservative and/or radical values, desperate measures, and/or earlier, more-glorious times -- all in order to resist.)
If this is indeed the case, then how is it proper and accurate to single out and address only the Muslims/the Islamic world here?
This, with the United States -- in the context offered above -- having resisting "enemies" that are not Muslim or of the Islamic world? For example: Resisting Russians, resisting Chinese and/or resisting North Koreans?
Are the Russians, the Chinese, the N. Koreans, etc., when they set about resisting our transformational efforts, are they, also, having a "robust internal debate as to what they want to look like in the 21st Century?"
Or is it better to see these things in the following manner:
a. The problem of western subversive/transformational aggression -- and the resistance by the Rest thereto -- is, obviously, not unique of or limited to Muslims and/or the Islamic world.
b. The only thing that is unique is the Muslim/Islamic world's responses to such western aggression; which, in turn, is caused by their weaker, disorganized and/or ill-led status.
(I am on precarious ground here, as political warfare/irregular warfare are said to be common to all such resisting parties today; small fry and/or great power.)
However, as to Outlaw's linked author's overall thesis -- that the reason "why we lost" has much to do with the United States failing to see the problem in terms of Muslims, Islam and/or the Islamic world (hope I got that right). THIS such thesis, because of its "clash of civilizations" implications, seems to have legs.
But in order to have a proper clash of civilizations, we must add in the element that I have described above, to wit: the element of western civilizational aggression.
And we must understand that this problem, of a clash of civilizations, because of the grand scope of western ambition, is not limited to a clash between the civilizations of the West and the Muslim/Islamic world alone.
To sum up:
Seeing the world through the erroneous lens of "universal values" and the "end of history;" this may, indeed, be the reason "why we lost."
Seeing the world through the lens of a "clash of civilizations;" this may, finally, give us a chance to consider the enormity of the task before us.
Herein to understand that these other civilizations will not (as per the erroneous "universal values/end of history" thesis addressed earlier) go gently into the night.
You might like the entire article.
http://20committee.com/2015/01/14/obama-and-the-global-war-on-whatever/
From the blog article provided above by Outlaw above; the second to last paragraph:
"Yet Islamism, as distinct from Islam, is a genuine problem in many places. The terrorist element is the obvious challenge, but there’s also the problem of subversion, to bring back a Cold War term that needs rebirth, and anybody who’s looked at this issue honestly knows that Islamism pushes a worldview that is deeply incompatible with Western democracy, much less post-modern ideas on faith, society, gender, and sexuality."
Next, a definition of subversion:
"Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place, are contradicted or reversed."
Now let's do the obvious and right thing, which is to put the subversion "shoe," shall we say, on the proper foot (to wit: the Western foot).
Thus:
a. It is the West that has, quite obviously -- and on the grandest scale imaginable -- sought to transform the established social order and structures of power, authority and hierarchy of other states and societies throughout the world.
b. Likewise it is the West that has, on such a grand scale, set forth a process by which the values and principles of other states and societies are condemned, contradicted or reversed.
Thus, it is "westernism," shall we say, that pushes a worldview that is deeply incompatible with the ideas and beliefs of many populations; to include the West's radically different ideas on faith, society, gender, and sexuality.
Thus, to see things properly is to understand that:
a. It is the "West" -- using westernism as their weapon of choice -- that is, obviously, (1) in the attack mode and (2) on the move to subvert the alternative ways of life, the alternative ways of governance and alternative values, attitudes and beliefs of others.
b. And it is the "Rest," as it were, that is using Islamism -- and other conservative-based approaches -- as their means of defense. (By these methods, the Rest seeks to prevent an unwanted "conversion" more along the alien and profane lines of modern western civilization.)
From a national defense, strategic, intellectual and/or simply honest point of view, it would not seem to make any sense to see these things the other way around.
Thus to, "call the enemy what it is" is to describe those states and societies -- and those individuals and groups -- that:
a. Stand in the way of the West' efforts to transform their states and societies more along modern western lines. And that
b. Use an appeal to more-conservative (or otherwise more radically non-western) values, attitudes and beliefs -- and/or an appeal a grander period in the nation's or civilization's history; when more western values, attitudes and beliefs did not -- as they do today -- prevail.
Thus, using my "enemy" description provided immediately above, to see and understand -- not only our Islamist enemies -- but also our enemies in Russia, China, Iran, and throughout the world?
To bring back the discussion to the center as to why we failed---this is cut from a blog article today by a well know former US CT type in DC with years in the field that actually goes to the heart of the lack of a US strategy in both Iraq and Syria and for that matter even the Ukraine.
An interesting read.
To get my bias out there, I’ve been immersed with this issue since before 9/11. As someone who worked operational counterterrorism in the intelligence world, as well as later served as a consultant on the same to several agencies of the U.S. and Allied governments, I’ve been part of this debate virtually since its creation. The hours I have spent hashing out “strategic communication” strategies against Al-Qa’ida and its friends is nearly countless. My position is clear: Call terrorists what they call themselves. The U.S. Government has no reason to get involved in disputes about anybody’s religion — the very last thing we ever want to do is tell Muslims what their faith is or is not — but when bad guys say they’re Salafi jihadists, that means they probably are, and we must not be afraid to say so.
Lots of things motivate terrorists. Anarchists are motivated by anarchism, Irish nationalists are motivated by Irish nationalism, white supremacists are motivated by white supremacy, and Salafi jihadists are motivated by Salafi jihadism. This is only complicated if we choose to make it so. The loser-criminals who killed seventeen innocent people in Paris last weekend may be very bad Muslims, but they were Muslims all the same.
Moreover, the “they’re not really Muslims” dodge is not only dishonest, it’s an insult to the huge numbers of Muslim cops, soldiers, and spooks who have given their lives in the struggle against the Salafi jihad, many of whom made the ultimate sacrifice in U.S.-led campaigns all over the globe. The bottom line is the Islamic world is having a robust debate, sometimes settled with guns and bombs, about what it should be in the twenty-first century, and that’s a debate for Muslims — not us, we’re spectators — to have. We have plenty to do with tracking and hunting down terrorists, preferably before they kill.
I also staked out a hazardous position, years ago, by having a centrist take on political Islam: we need to talk about it, we will never understand the Salafi jihadist enemy if we don’t, but we must not obsess about it. A lot of our recent homegrown terrorists resemble spree killers who seek out Salafi jihadism — not the other way around — as an excuse to act out their sick violent fantasies. Understanding the nuances of Islamic theology is not what they are about.
That said, on the other side, we have those who seek to embroil the West in an endless war against Islam, not just radical Islam. Their worldview is nearly as absolutist as the Salafis’ and about as helpful. The motivations of such people are a mix of their own religious faith and bias, and their understanding of Islam is generally as shaky as that possessed by teenaged drug addicts seeking to redeem themselves in a martyrdom operation. When this dangerous nonsense creeps into U.S. Government anything, I have protested, sometimes publicly. Fortunately these types are usually stopped in their tracks with one simple question: “If Islam is the problem — What’s the solution?”
Yet Islamism, as distinct from Islam, is a genuine problem in many places. The terrorist element is the obvious challenge, but there’s also the problem of subversion, to bring back a Cold War term that needs rebirth, and anybody who’s looked at this issue honestly knows that Islamism pushes a worldview that is deeply incompatible with Western democracy, much less post-modern ideas on faith, society, gender, and sexuality. It’s clear now that most Egyptians don’t want to live under the Muslim Brotherhood, even though it was born there, so I can’t imagine many Westerners are eager to either.
The touchy issue of subversion must be handled discreetly by governments, but counterterrorism is a much more public matter. Here the Obama administration’s inability to call the enemy what it is has been troubling for years. I have no problem with ditching the Bush-era rhetoric of the “Global War on Terrorism” but denying that we are embroiled in a long-term campaign against Salafi jihadism that looks a lot like a war of sorts, cannot be done without dishonesty.
"Where we appear to enjoy some agreement is the COG of the region’s problems is the House of Saud’s monopoly on the KSA’s wealth, power, religion, pursuit of happiness and more besides."
I would think that the COG of the region's problems, as relates to the House of Saud and the West, is that:
a. The House of Saud is seen as being in bed with the West. And
b. The West is seen as being bent on transforming the Middle East (et al) more along the alien and profane lines of modern western civilization.
These such beliefs tending to be confirmed by the matter we have been discussed here, to wit:
a. That in spite of the fact that most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia,
b. No action was taken, pre or post-9/11, against the House of Saud.
Thus, to adequately address the COG I have outlined above (the perception that the House of Saud is aligned with the West, and for the purpose of "modernizing/westernizing" the Middle East et al), then we would need to:
a. Attack and overthrow the House of Saud and
b. Install a governor and government with a radically anti-western agenda.
The fact that we did not do this and, instead,
1. Attacked and overthrew the non-cooperating (re: modernization/westernization) governors of Afghanistan and Iraq and
2. Immediately thereafter set about transforming these states and societies more along the alien and profane lines of modern western civilization.
These such alternative actions speak volumes upon volumes to populations throughout the world re: the perceived -- and now confirmed it would seem -- unholy(?) relationship between the House of Saud and the West.
RCJ wrote:
‘For the US to bring revenge against the Saud’s simply because the nationality of the attackers would have been the stupidest move we could have possibility made. We have some dumb moves, but thank God we did not make that one.’
Hang on a minute I am not an advocate of raiding – forgive but I thought it was your good self who reminisced for:
‘More ‘the shores of Tripoli’ this sort of thing used to be the bread and butter for the Marines.’
Secondly the nationality per se of the majority of the attackers was as relevant as their hair color or what size shoes they wore. It is the political aberration the Saudi elite impose upon their fellow citizens that creates the energy that fuels the insurgency as you helpfully state further down the thread:
‘But equally absolutely they were also nationalist insurgents whose primary motivation in life was to take down the House of Saud.‘
Where we appear to enjoy some agreement is the COG of the region’s problems is the House of Saud’s monopoly on the KSA’s wealth, power, religion, pursuit of happiness and more besides.
I am not a believer in the merit of Raiding but many folks are. I was assuming somewhat the mantra of the Devil’s Advocate and the contention was that if one believes a tactic is effective then it should be applied to the root cause of the problem. IMO bringing down COIN,FID,Drones,HTP, PsyOps and the whole RMA-enabled circus upon the heads of Afghans, Libyans, Somalis, Yemenis, Iraqis, Syrians etc. just adds noise at best and more than likely fans the flames of political inspired violence elsewhere.
It is my contention that our political, military and corporate leadership fail to provide effective strategic guidance for the simple reason they refuse to acknowledge the Saud’s political elite are the cause of the region’s political problem. Alarmingly some of our closest allies are even more wedded to them than we are.
I wholeheartedly agree raiding Riyadh would have been stupid but who said we were smart? Perhaps a Devil’s Advocate’s approach soon after 9/11 might have sharpened a few minds and consequently avoided so much wasted blood and treasure.
Needless to say hindsight is a wonderful thing but just say around Xmas 2001 we were all sitting down in our living rooms and choking on our Xmas turkey whilst watching a few hundred dead Marines being dragged naked thru the streets of Riyadh on CNN. As you point out the outcry as to how such a stupid disaster could have got beyond the planning stage – leave alone given the go ahead – would have been immense. But I ask you; what did your 2014 Xmas turkey taste like – with 14 years, 7,000 KIA, 52,000 WIA and $5 trillion to wash it down with?
But here’s the rub. Despite the appalling cost since 2001 our politicians, generals and CEOs are still appeasing the political dysfunction that fuels the region political unrest. If back in 2001 the Devil had had his way and a disastrous Raid had ensued, how many of our leaders would still be in bed with the House of Saud? I would venture not a single one.
Furthermore I would argue such a coming together of minds in 2001 would have subsequently spared many of our dead and wounded.
As Outlaw often points out, popular perception plays an important role in the region’s political stability. If we had attacked the political elite in the KSA soon after 9/11 many folks within the region would have recognized the act as an honorable attempt to settle a blood feud.
More importantly, in light of the political grievances plaguing the region, the force brought down on the ruling KSA elite (as opposed to wretched Afghans, Paks, Iraqi’s etc.) would have been seen as a long overdue comeuppance for the hoarders of the region’s political, economic and religious power.
Raiding would have been stupid but there is a whole raft of RMA-enabled tactical tools that IMO are equally stupid. Even if I am hopelessly misguided, it still stands that if we insist on doing something, should it not be the COG that first and foremost gets the treatment?
No doubt CvC experienced similar disaster at the hands of Napoleon and I imagine the folly of some RMAs of the day played a role in his determination to promote the critical importance of first understanding what type of war you are embarking on and where lies the enemy’s center.
No doubt if we execute the correct tactics against the correct COG - victory will follow. Unfortunately we have not managed to solve that simple riddle since WW2.
If we execute the wrong tactics against the wrong COG – military disaster is unavoidable (Vietnam).
If we execute the correct tactics against the wrong center we will suffer a thousand cuts on a long march to failure (GWOT).
If we execute the wrong tactics but apply them to the correct COG we are on what Sun Tzu considered ‘the slowest route to victory’. However given our appalling record over the last 70 years this path gives us some hope for strategic success.
Because our Operational aim is directed at the COG, whatever tactic we select - Raid, COIN, FID, UW, Drone, HTP, PsyOps, AirSeaBattle etc. it will impact upon the causation of the political problem.
Initially this impact may be good, bad or indifferent but its effect on the core (as opposed to effects on some meaningless ‘other’) will offer up valid lessons learned that we can promptly adapt and develop to help shape a winning strategy.
RC
The following quotes come from the RAND Oct. 2014 study "Improving Strategic Competence: Lessons from 13 Years of War." This study was one of the four recent sources retired COL Collins cited in his recent article. I believe these quotes counter many of LTG Bolger's beliefs:
<blockquote>Pg 58: The military might like to leave the political strategy entirely to the diplomats, but it is very difficult to conceive of a war-ending strategy without this dimension. Therefore, as Nadia Schadlow has argued, it is important to “consider the establishment of political and economic order as a part of war itself, the design and implementation of which requires both land forces—usually the Army—and an operationally minded diplomatic corps.” A RAND study on the war in Iraq reached a similar conclusion, noting that “wars do not end when major conflict ends. Wars emerge from an unsatisfactory set of political circumstances, and they end with the creation of new political circumstances that are more favorable to the victor.”</blockquote>
<blockquote>Pg 64: Despite attempts to mandate the planning, prioritization, and resourcing of these operations, the military has not historically embraced the missions, and the United States has often been reluctant to embrace the long-duration and sometimes large-scale operations that may be required. There is a well-established school of thought and U.S. tradition opposing intervention as imperialistic or unrealistic and embracing isolationism or a philosophy of limited engagement. But if the United States does decide to intervene, experience in the Balkans suggests that a sufficiently large footprint to conduct early stability operations, during the “golden hour” before any opposition can get organized, may prevent the need for a larger or longer deployment later.62 Doing so requires military forces to prepare and train for policing operations in post-combat environments to prevent a breakdown in law and order.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Pg 65: Experience also suggests that building partner capacity to get local security forces in the lead as quickly as possible should be a higher priority. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, building indigenous security forces took second place to combat operations in terms of the urgency and resources devoted to the task, with particularly severe deficits in building adequate police, logistic and other enablers, and headquarters staff and institutions.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Pg 68: Drawing on lessons from the Balkans as well as the recent wars, several workshop participants suggested that robustly resourced stability operations initiated soon after the intervention might have forestalled much of the later chaos. It is not possible to prove the assertion but it is useful nonetheless to ask whether robustly implemented stability operations, including the critical task of policing to maintain public order, followed quickly by a comprehensive effort to build adequate security forces, would have largely secured the peace.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Pg 78: Among the many experiments in civil-military interagency partnerships, the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) were the best known and most widely employed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Early in the war in Afghanistan the U.S. military developed the concept of PRTs, which were small civilian-military units led by military officers. They were in some cases manned by civilian reconstruction experts from the Departments of State, Agriculture, or Justice and the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as NATO ally civilians. Their role was to foster governance and development in key areas. PRTs were later employed in Iraq under a different model; they were civilian led and reported to the embassy rather than the regional military commands. The integrated civilian-military concept drew inspiration from the CORDS program in Vietnam with a crucial difference in their respective command structures. CORDS established a civilian chain of command operating under the overall military command.</blockquote>
RC--thought you might like this--the open source reporting of Assad rebuilding his nuclear abilities plus map and imaginary seems that have completely floated under the US media radar.
From a blogger who is critical of the lack of US policy/strategy--
If Assad looks like he's close to nukes, Obama will start endless negotiations that will "force" DC to ensure its "partner" stays around.
If you didn't understand Obama outsourcing US #Syria policy to Putin meant OF COURSE Assad would eventually want nukes again...I got nothin'
#Iran provides money, #NorthKorea expertise, #Hezbollah guards & #Putin protection to #Syria's nuclear program.
Only #AlQaeda is left out...
Does the relationship between Russian, the Ukraine and Syria via Iran now make sense?
Notice the similarities between BH and the IS--both creating their own Islamic State.
Boko Haram now control about 20,000 square miles of territory with 1.7 million people in a mini-Islamic State.
http://fw.to/AmJRJS