FA+
Shop
"We're gonna free the s*** out of you!"
15 years ago
General
You'd think with a title like that, this journal would be about the dead-end bridge scorched earth "strategy" US troops used in Vietnam, but amazingly enough, we've steered ourselves into the same trap AGAIN in Afghanistan;
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201.....n-off-the-map/
Of course, in order to save the village, we had to destroy it (sound familiar?).
Having been caught slipping on a 40-year-old Banana Peel, the PR spin-doctors had these flimsy excuses for turning an entire community into homeless refugees;
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201.....e-village-out/
Not only have the (Br)asshats forgotten the US military's own failings in Vietnam, but they've actually demonstrated the bombastic, in-your-face ignorance to ignore lessons learned from CURRENT EVENTS as well;
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/post.....in_afghanistan
Not surprising, given the US military's doctrine for COIN operations;
http://www.infowars.com/flashback-u.....-human-rights/
...as diametrically-opposed to eroding the enemy's base of support, the ONLY conscionable way to defeat an insurgency, and therefore the ONLY way to avoid both foreign and domestic backlash in the long run.
In the words of Colonel David Hackworth;
If you were a student of warfare, as I was, you quickly realized that, tactically, we were not going to win the war and we had to win the people. This was a lesson from the French experience, and it was, as Mao said, "The guerrilla is the fish and the people are the water." If you want to kill the fish, you remove the water. If you want to kill the guerrilla, you remove the people, because they provide all kinds of assistance: medical help, agricultural help, they put out the booby-traps, they provide the intelligence, they provide the trailwatchers. They are the whole sea in which the guerrilla-fish swims.
You want to "win the people" anyway, so why are we turning them into refugees in the most dangerous warzone (and the most HEAVILY-MINED REGION) in the world? How does this erode the enemy's base of support?
It doesn't.
A superb analogy is the old expression, "Cutting of your nose to spite your face";
http://thinkstrat.wordpress.com/201.....ite-your-face/
But at least our *overall strategy* is simple and sound;
http://minnesotaindependent.com/wp-.....9a-580x423.jpg
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201.....n-off-the-map/
Of course, in order to save the village, we had to destroy it (sound familiar?).
Having been caught slipping on a 40-year-old Banana Peel, the PR spin-doctors had these flimsy excuses for turning an entire community into homeless refugees;
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201.....e-village-out/
Not only have the (Br)asshats forgotten the US military's own failings in Vietnam, but they've actually demonstrated the bombastic, in-your-face ignorance to ignore lessons learned from CURRENT EVENTS as well;
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/post.....in_afghanistan
Not surprising, given the US military's doctrine for COIN operations;
http://www.infowars.com/flashback-u.....-human-rights/
...as diametrically-opposed to eroding the enemy's base of support, the ONLY conscionable way to defeat an insurgency, and therefore the ONLY way to avoid both foreign and domestic backlash in the long run.
In the words of Colonel David Hackworth;
If you were a student of warfare, as I was, you quickly realized that, tactically, we were not going to win the war and we had to win the people. This was a lesson from the French experience, and it was, as Mao said, "The guerrilla is the fish and the people are the water." If you want to kill the fish, you remove the water. If you want to kill the guerrilla, you remove the people, because they provide all kinds of assistance: medical help, agricultural help, they put out the booby-traps, they provide the intelligence, they provide the trailwatchers. They are the whole sea in which the guerrilla-fish swims.
You want to "win the people" anyway, so why are we turning them into refugees in the most dangerous warzone (and the most HEAVILY-MINED REGION) in the world? How does this erode the enemy's base of support?
It doesn't.
A superb analogy is the old expression, "Cutting of your nose to spite your face";
http://thinkstrat.wordpress.com/201.....ite-your-face/
But at least our *overall strategy* is simple and sound;
http://minnesotaindependent.com/wp-.....9a-580x423.jpg
The justification for a significant amount of funding for the "War on Terror" would disappear if Afghanistan were secured and Al Qaeda's senior leadership were apprehended; high-ranking officers wouldn't be able to jet-set to Afghanistan every once in a while to photograph themselves in a "Combat Zone", in order to collect combat pay; commands, study groups, task forces, and other units that draw special pay and privileges would be dissolved; the Defense Welfare State would lose a lot of contracts; a lot of lucrative LOGCAP contracts would disappear; chairborne personnel in the Pentagon won't be able to justify wild expenditures; the DoD won't be able to distract the public's attention away from it's missing $2.3 TRILLION as easily... and so on.
The War Racket is nothing new, either;
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH.....isaracket.html
There's a lot of talk about how Congress has to cut back on this and scrimp on that, but it's almost never on Defense, unless they want to throw the public a bone; e.g., "See? I cut $100 Million from [insert program name here]! I'm tough on wasteful military spending!", while omitting that that program is over-budget by more than $10 Billion.
For example, Congress proudly announced a $400 Million cut from the Stryker Program a few days ago. Of course, that leaves an excess of $45 BILLION untouched in that program (which, let's recall, was sold to Congress on the understanding that it's cost would not exceed $7 Billion).
They keep spinning for blank checks, complain loudly whenever someone suggests a cut, and often twist a few arms to protect "their" funds.
National Defense is a complex and dynamic issue, where many variables determine whether or not the US military can defend US interests, but for the Versailles on the Potomac, the only variable addressed is funding.
I.e., blank check = good military, accountable budget = bad military.
After all, what do we have to show for our annual military expenditures, which now exceed those of all the rest of the world combined?
When we decide to blow sh*t up, we mean it.
And on the 'plan' (and I use that term loosely) in Afghanistan, I'm reminded of this: "General, you don't have a war plan! All you have is a kind of horrible spasm!" Robert S. McNamara
There's even a Logical Fallacy named after him; the "McNamara Fallacy";
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is ok as far as it goes.
The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading.
The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness.
The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.
—Charles Handy, The Empty Raincoat, page 219.