Comments
Bill C.
I tend to agree that you present a logical argument, perhaps ones that historians will grasp in the future. I don't agree with the policy, but that appears to be exactly what we're doing. The question is this really in our national interest or is it hubris that will bring our empire to its knees?
Considering that Bill M's comment at Apr 7, 12:37 PM could suggest that the concept of "perpetual war" should extend back to include at least the Cold War (hope I read you right here), then should we consider that there is a transcending and complimentary concept that drives these continuing wars, such as: That we believe that we are, in all actuality, in the business of transforming states and societies. Thus:
During the Cold War: The effort is to bring about the transformation of the communist great powers -- via containment, etc. (Some significant success believed to have been recently achieved in this regard.)
Now in the post-the Cold War: This overarching concept and effort -- to transform states and societies -- has shifted away from dealing with aberrant great powers and now is focused on bringing about the transformation of the less-powerful outlier/less-integrated countries and societies; this to be achieved by exploiting the "openings," the "oportunities" as-it-were, that are presented/provided when such states and societies experience various difficulties (insurgencies, natural disasters, humanitarian crises, other "responsibility to protect" circumstances)?
I think we agree that our involvement in Libya is ill defined, but I think some good could possibly come out of it based on 2d and 3d order effects. However, based on current trends I don't think success will be likely.
I agree Islamist are waging a war using terrorism and subversion against the West, but I don't think they represent a majority of Muslims in America. Europe is in much more danger, because they're less inclusive (opinion), but it sounds like you're arguing we should be less inclusive?
Tequila, the answer to your 2nd question: Yes.
Bill you and I are comrades with Changiz, I trust him and you trust him.
Now to simplify and to attempt to stay on thread.
While I am in complete disagreement, Gen Dubik is at least presenting a case to consider. Coincidentally, Robert Baer made the same argument a couple of weeks ago.
I am making one argument. Since we don't really know what this kind of "perpetual war" is going to mean or look like, we need to stay out.
In the same vain, I am asking a lot of questions. And yes those questions span across a wider than normal spectrum.
The answer to how many, and what kind of wars the US has had with Arabs is obvious. However that isn't the point. There are those, rightly, wrongly, or worse, that believe they are at war with the West. Not just post 1776 America, but all of the West. And these same have invoked the images of historical characters and their exploits from 640 A.D. etc., to spur their efforts onward. Frankly, conspiracy theories are rampant and a staple not just within the Arabia, but within all of Islam. And Glenn Beck doesn't have a thing to do with that.
There is a propensity to glibly throw out terms like "Arab World" or "coalition" and expect meanings that are easily defined and commonly understood. I am not sure what we are seeing, and responding to, in North Africa, Libya, Yemen, Egypt and apparently now in Syria can be defined in terms which we have grown up with.
Clearly the emerging "reponsibility to protect" experiment is unclear in both definition and application.
Lots of questions.
By reference to Glenn Beck was due to his sad and uninformed propensity to promote conspiracy theories that are supported by facts. The direct correlation to your comment is that we have been in conflict with the Arab word since 620A.D.. Who is we? I guess if you're a Christian there is some truth to that, but the conflict between Christians and Jews even reaches back further than 620A.D. However, as a state we have not been at war since 620A.D. (obviously), nor 1776. At the most we have had a conflict with extremists in the Arab and Persian worlds since 1979.
You seem to be making two distinct arguments and I don't see how they're related. One is your claim that the Arabs are attacking the U.S., and you make a reference to Dearborn, MI as case in point of some supposed danger radiating from there. However, three of my translaters were from Dearborn, had Secret Clearances, and put their butts on the line for their country, which is the U.S.A.. Are there subversive elements in Dearborn? No doubt, but it is an overreach to claim the majority fall in that category.
Then you're making an argument that our involvement in Libya is a Neo-con/Liberal inspired intervention (I agree with you here), but I don't see how that relates to your comments about Arabs in the U.S. or the conflict between Christianty and Islam since 620?
I don't get the reference to "Glenn Beck." I just don't.
General Dubik is at least trying to make some sense out of this, not that I agree with his conclusion. I don't.
However, we are certainly viewing dichotomy.
I agree, 1979 was a historic point in time, much like 640 A.D. was an important point in time.
I do not accept the premise that we have been under threat by a small minority.
That being said, I don't see ANY good reason why the US is involved in Libya. We have no clue what is going to arise. We have no real clue who replaces Qadaffi or even if he will be replaced. AND if we are involved in formulating any change it is likely that change will be perceived as US inspired colonialism. Thus no real change.
Dilemma.
What don't see here is real discussions within a context of Arab empire and what the Arab "world" is supposed to look like. I am not sure anyone wants to contemplate that, let alone discuss it. We want to cling to a false comfort in multi-culturalism. On the other hand the Arabs (and others) reject multi-culturalism except as a tool bringing the West into subservience.
More dilemma, do we wait; or do we engage in a clash with something we have no ability to define? Do we not take people at their word and ignore the loud cries for the rise of the new Caliphate because it is non-serious and meaningless noise? Or does "responsibility to protect" only provide a thinly disguised foothold a la Neo-Con/Liberal inspired interventions?
Question: Does the Arab "world" now include Dearborn Michigan?
Bill C.,
What perpetual peace are you talking about during the Cold War? There were tens of thousands more killed during the "Cold" War than since 9/11.
Just a sampling of the conflicts we were involved in during the perpetual peace period: Greece, numerous conflicts in Latin America and Africa, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Grenada, Philippines, Korea (not just the conventional conflict), and not to mention the war of subversion. We didn't have this on Foxx and CNN for 24/7, it was just accepted as the norm.
LPierson, yes there has been a limited threat to U.S. lives and property for years from a very small minority of Muslims. However, "most" terrorist threats from Muslim groups against the U.S. prior to the end of USSR occupation of Afghanistan were mostly secular in nature and tied to our relationship with Israel. Hezbollah was one first groups (if my memory serves me right) to mobilize people to attack the West with ideology based on Islam. Within the Arab world there were several groups motivated to use terror based on religion, but for the most part it was restricted to activities within the Arab world. 1979 seemed to be a turning point in many ways that helped generate the threat we have today. Muslims were not a threat to our nation since 640 A.D., that is a little too much Glenn Beck for me.
The "perpetual peace" of the Cold War -- now followed by the "perpetual war" of the post-Cold War -- as various states and societies try to find a new ordering focus and guidelines, now that the Capitalist v. Communist paradigm -- and great power controls thereof -- are gone?
Is this what the United States has anticipated and expected -- and is now trying to adapt its strategy, foreign policy and instruments of power to deal with, to wit: The "chaos," and the potential for an adverse re-ordering, of the post-Cold War world?
Bill,
I don't agree with your assessment.
And we have no "new" enemies. We have had these enemies since about 640 A.D.
We, as a nation state, are absolutely new to this kind of perpetual war. We have chosen to ignore it, thinking that post WWII progessive liberalism in the form Gramschi inspired philosphy etc., pre-conflict OB templates, and US/USSR MAD doctrine would keep us all honest. And somewhat safe...
Our homeland safe? Absolutely not. Our Homeland has been in jeopardy before we had a homeland.
Bombing Libya -- not one wit more adding to our safety.
Invading Iraq -- Jury is still out, likely just a "holding action" on our part, just delaying the inevitable. Iraq may soon again become part of the Persian Empire. Likely Iraq would have become such without our "interference."
Interesting we have to view "peace" as an aberration isn't it? Aberrations likely wind up cancerous... I am not sure that aberrations are things to be maintained with great skill.
So again, just what is it we are looking at in the Arab world, and why are we in it?
We're not neophytes at perpetual war by a long shot, and perhaps that is why we are so quick to get involved in foreign conflicts. It is simply a behavioral norm for us.
Hard to see how invading Iraq and bombing Libya (in this case) will make our homeland safer. We are now simply waiting on the blowback, as old and new enemies with long memories seek to revenge these attacks. Perpetual conflict is simply a reality of the human condition. Peace is aberration that requires great skill to maintain.
We are neophytes to this perpetual war thing...
This isn't safe, the risk is high regardless of the COA, and I truly lack the vocabulary to adequately describe what we are seeing.
The Arabs have been at perpetual war, in some form, since about the 6th century. For all us smart people stuck in, or with, the "Responsibility to protect" conundrum: where do we go from here?
Do we stand by and watch, like we have watched done so previously, as the rest of Africa kills each other off?
Are we culpable in supporting Europe's turn to lie about their intent for intervention? (Oil derricks in one's "backyard"... I could write pages on this EURO cherry-picking effort)
Does the UN have any real moral authority. and just what is it the SecState, the AMAMBASS UN, and NCA committed us to?
Is "reponsiblity to protect" just another word for neo-colonialism?
Do we wait for "perpetual war" to arrive, again, on US soil?
What is the real nature of the "something" we are doing?
This is a small point, but of import I think. When Paul Yingling says the dictators forces have retaken several towns from the rebels and "...there is no evidence of Srebrenica-style massacres alluded to by the advocates of intervention.", how is that figured? I would think the dictators forces would cover up any thing they did and evidence of a massacre, if one occurred, would not be uncovered until the town was retaken by the rebels or several years have past. I doubt the dictator has let teams of investigative reporters into those places so they can snoop around and get the truth out. I think the only thing that can be confidently claimed is we don't know one way or the other.
Publius-
No, I meant the current kerfuffle... ;)
OIF has been spun- at least internally- to be a "win", and our narrative on why it might have been a "kerfuffle" is that the politicians messed it up in the beginning and GEN Franks and Myers acquiesced to them, then we had to learn 3-24 to fix the mess they made (along with the "right" amount of troops, $, and time).
It appears that the UN resolution wisely prevents an occupation force:
""to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory""
Comments from Germany's representative at the UN appear wise in fore and hindsight:
Germany:
"Indeed, in the implementation of the resolution just adopted, Germany saw great risks, and the likelihood of large-scale loss of life should not be underestimated. Those that participated in its implementation could be drawn into a protracted military conflict that could draw in the wider region. If the resolution failed, it would be wrong to assume that any military intervention would be quickly and efficiently carried out. Germany had decided not to support the resolution and would not contribute its own forces to any military effort that arose from its implementation. Germany had abstained from the vote."
The U.S. could have had other options that were more feasible, less risky and more likely to succeed if we had an approved US Gov policy ofr unconventional warfare.
Glad to see the usual suspects here are still sane.
But what is with these generals? I don't remember general officers being such warlovers when I was on active duty. Sure, some had a Patton complex, but most were reasonably well grounded. Maybe Grant Martin's got the answer--I presume he's thinking of ODS, not this latest kerfluffle--but, frankly, I'm not aware of any particular reason why anybody should be listening very much to any active or fairly recently retired general. It's not as if they've covered themselves with glory recently.
Drunk with power? Or just drunk? You active duty folks do not seem to be doing a very good job of managing upward.
Could the answer to the question I have posed above be:
That we and our allies no longer see such situations as those that have occurred recently -- and which are now occurring in Libya and elsewhere -- as being "problems", per se.
Rather, today, we and our friends see such state and societal difficulties as insurgencies, natural disasters, humanitarian crises, etc., more in terms of "opportunities" -- to do nation-building (also known as "state and societal transformations")?
Is it essentially this type of thinking, philosophy and mind-set that is driving this "prepetual war" -- or possibly more correctly understood -- "perpetual nation-building" train?
I don't think there is any political appetite to put ground troops into anywhere new for the foreseeable future. This effort, IMO, won't be criticized because the traditional anti-war crowd's main gripe- us doing unilateral action- has been undercut by the UN resolution and NATO lead. Maybe that will change if a pilot is captured or civilians are caught on camera being slaughtered, but I think even then it will only result in criticism as opposed to more "action".
I'm really not surprised at this recommendation, though. In 2008-2009 every week there seemed to be a senior retired Army officer touring Fort Leavenworth telling students that the answer to every problem the U.S. faced was to send in troops to nation-build. I'll never forget one saying, "What's the answer to the Somali pirates, guys? Limited Naval action? The only way to stop them is to build the institutions required for them to stop the pirates- and I mean police, army, navy, and a government. And the only group who can do that is you guys [meaning Army]."
I think Iraq has produced a group of hubristic Army officers- both retired and active- who think we can do anything as long as we have enough time, troops, and $.
We're nuts.
Stark, staring bonkers.
This 'humanitarian intervention' foolishness has arguably killed more people than do wars of territorial aggression. The Institute for the Study of War needs to really do some studying...
Still, maybe there's hope for them. Dubik ends with this:<blockquote>"...But Qaddafi has shown he is willing to use force to impose his will in Libya; is the coalition? This is what war is about, like it or not."</blockquote>That's a a good question.
Way too late to be asking it and since there <i>is</i> a coalition, it's obvious a lot of folks didn't ask it when they should have -- but it's one of the right questions that should've been asked...
Bill C, I hear you brother. It really is frightening. It is clear from the piece that the General is not just talking about an initial and limited use of ground forces, but an occupation force in which the US would participate that would do state building.
I am sorry, just because the US uses military force to break a regime, does not mean, by rule that we have to fix it. Strategy should determine whether we do or do not stay to fix it.
Unfortunately General Dubik's piece has succumbed to the tactics of state building and the immutable rule that if we break it then we must therefore stay and fix it. Yet this is a recipe for perpetual war, and more troubling it is militarism in the sense that the tactics of war and conflict have overcome strategy and policy.
gian
What is the thinking, the philosophy, the mind-set that causes us to be caught in such a cycle of perpetual war; wherein, we have determined (predetermined?) that we will intervene -- often with military forces -- when certain events occur (insurgency, natural disaster, humanitarian crisis, other state or societal difficulty) and do so with much less discretion than in the past?
Sweet Paul, your use of history at the end with FTG had me LOL! Perfect.
But better than that was your excellent critique of the General's argument.
I also agree with Jed with regard to his last point on the ineffectiveness of boots on the ground doing state building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet it is the notion that state building--aka pop centric coin--has worked in those two places that supercharges the idea that what the hey, if it has worked in Baghdad and Kabul then why not Benghazi.
gian
While I respect General Dubik's long service to our country, his argument is flawed both empirically and logically.
General Dubik asserts, without offering evidence, that "air power alone has not protected Libyan civilians." Is there any evidence that Qaddafi's forces are engaged in the mass extermination of civilians on the scale predicted by the war's supporters? Regime forces have retaken several key cities from the rebels, including Zawiya, Misrata, and Ajdabiya, whose combined populations are equal to Benghazi. Those forces have certainly inflicted casualties on the rebels and killed civilians in the process. However, there is no evidence of Srebrenica-style massacres alluded to by the advocates of intervention.
General Dubik conflates enforcing UNSCR 1973 and imposing regime change, as if these objectives were inextricably linked. He advocates sending in ground forces as the best way to "enforce the writ of the Security Council." He neglects to mention that the Security Council explicitly forbade " a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory." By conflating population protection and regime change, he is arguing that the only way to enforce the Security Council's writ is to ignore what it wrote.
General Dubik invokes his 37 years of service to demonstrate his knowledge regarding the use of force to achieve strategic aims. Any time a soldier invokes time in service in support of an argument, policy makers ought to be suspicious. As Fredrick the Great noted, Prince Eugene's mule, after serving on some 40 campaigns, was still a mule.
I agree with my friend Gian Gentile on this score - we seem to be caught in a cycle of perpetual war.
Best,
Paul
This is an obviously smart gentleman making valid points, but the dogmatic headline doesn't mesh with his real proposal. He proposes putting in some ground-based specialists (combat controllers, advisors, and trainers) to support the muscle of an air-centric, supported force. That is a very good joint plan. It doesn't, however, mesh with the recent headlines that proclaim, "Airpower alone cannot prevail!" NO KIDDING! Neither can ground power or sea power in today's world.
On the other hand, each domain component can and has been decisive in recent history, so don't dismiss the relative strengths just because it doesn't mesh with the mantra of "boots on the ground." Sometimes, more boots on the ground are just vulnerable targets that don't increase our chances of meeting strategic goals. With absolutely no disrespect to those executing the plans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the heavy bootprint plan hasnt worked too well yet in either place.