McKiernan OUT ... McChrystal IN

[Uncle Fester]

Careful not to commit the "psychological anachronism" falalcy when thinking about historical motivations. We now think of fascism as pure evil and thus it's difficult to understand how anyone could have ever supported it. There were many, many people in the '30's and '40's who didn't look at the war as a quest to defeat any isms, or thought fascism wasn't all that bad (they did at least make the trains run on time), or figured fascism could at least keep the Communists in check, or at the very least, we should just let the fascists and commies kill each other off and stay out of it.

The vote to go to war with Japan was nearly unanimous (there was one "nay" - goddamned peacenik hippies aren't a new invention, just their lack of hygene), but if Hitler hadn't honored his treaty obligations and declared war on us in return, it's debatable whether we would have gone to war in Europe - at least, not before the U-Boats starved England out.

The point is, the country wasn't nearly as united in purpose in 1941 as we now popularly believe. The right absolutely hated FDR, thought he was bringing socialism and class warfare to the US. Rancor and bile was being slung around Washington then as now. Only difference is one party had an unassailable majority in the government for about 20 years, and there wasn't the vast flow of information and press scrutiny we have now to report it.

 

[Spekkio]

WE didn't go to war "with the idea" but we "defeated the idea"

No, we didn't. Monarchies and dictatorships still exist today, and there are still people who ascribe to Nazi beliefs.

 

[TrunkMonkey]

Right ... so we shouldn't 'kill' them 'cause it might make them 'mad' .. ?? We don't want to make more of 'em ... ??? We don't want to violate their 'honor code' .. ???

With that thinking ... you've already lost the battle AND the war before you drop your first "1000 pounders" (sic) ... It's time to declare 'victory' and go home.

Personally, I'd prefer using a Mk84 ... as it provides much more 'bang' for the buck ... or pound for 'pounder', if you prefer ...

Kill the enemy, yes, absolutely.
When troops are already being shot at is not the time to take a soft approach. At that point, unleash everything we have.The key is to head it off at the pass before it gets to that point.
Example - better intel to grab a high value target elsewhere before he hides in a village... gaining the element of surprise...engage with tribal leaders so that the village will not shelter the Taliban willingly, etc.
When we flatten someone's village who was actively trying to help our side, chances are all we do is turn them to revenge. We have "lost" the people in that area and turned them back towards the enemy.
My thinking is biased having worked with non-kinetics, but I do see them as the way ahead.
Working with the electronic spectrum, information operations, shuras with local leaders, developing the Afghan National Police and giving them the tools they need.
None of this is going to keep us from getting attacked or attacking all of the time. I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't kill the enemy 100% of the time when required. But, over time, I feel like that is not what will truly win this war.

 

[exhelodrvr]

No, we didn't. Monarchies and dictatorships still exist today, and there are still people who ascribe to Nazi beliefs.

Defeating an idea is different from eradicating every last vestige of that idea from humankind.

 

[eddie]

I'm going to make a bold statement for the group: In the current geo-political configuration, and for the forseeable future,

I'm not one to say the sky is falling or that the stable order as it currently stands seems to be eroding at any particular pace, but still that seems an awfully hefty qualifier. War has been impossible before. I suppose my question is, what is it that makes our present situation so much different than that span between the world wars? Are things so much more stable this time around? It may very well require population change that would require entire generations, but I don't know.

the era of total warfare (I.E. WWII style) is effectively over. Too much is at stake for the big powers, so we'll collectively suffer through the occasional inconvenient police action and opposed nation-building type conflicts in favor of relative stability. Discuss.

Is this a nuclear issue? Between a future with a missile shield, a reduced number of warheads, and even just plain old threat of reciprocity, I do wonder if nukes may be ignored or sidelined in some hypothetical massive conventional conflict.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Is this a nuclear issue? Between a future with a missile shield, a reduced number of warheads, and even just plain old threat of reciprocity, I do wonder if nukes may be ignored or sidelined in some hypothetical massive conventional conflict.

I'd say nukes are the biggest reason the "total war" (in the WWII sense) era is over. The players who are big enough, rich enough, and well-organized enough to fight a "total war" are also members of the nuke club. But I think it'll be a long time before missile defense becomes a real factor in the strategic equation. We're the only country really pursuing it, and it's difficult and expensive with an uncertain payoff. MAD's not cheap, but it's cheaper.

The future will see more and more states getting nukes...it's the internationally recognized standard for "Not a Motherfucker To Mess With" status. IOW, it will quickly reach a point where the only way to be a true regional hegemon will be to have a nuke force of your very own.

I'm sure Brazil and Argentina are toying with it, if only to beat Chavez to it. Saudi Arabia (and possibly the small, rich emirates) will definitely go for it if Iran does; they can just buy the technology off Pakistan. Who the hell knows in East Asia, but the South Koreans and Singaporeans can afford it and the Taiwanese will do it in a heartbeat if they feel we're no longer a reliable deterrant to a Chinese invasion. The Japanese...hard to say, but Cabinet and Diet members have speculated about it openly of late without a fuss, whereas only a few years ago they would have been run out of town. A lot will depend on what comes, if anything, of North Korea's nuke and missile programs.

So if all these states have weapons, delivery systems, grudges with neighbors, and no superpowers to keep them in check, all you really need is a false launch warning or a Supreme Leader with an itchy trigger finger to make nukes most definitely part of a major conflict.

Interesting times.

 

[Flash]

My money in the "Something Bad Will Happen" pool is on a WMD event in Pakistan. Or, if the jihadis are clever, set one off in India and let the nukes fly, a la The Sum of All Fears. If the government there falls (I mean the capital-G Government, not just the cabinet), that'll be how it happens, not fanatic hordes pouring into Islamabad.

Much less likely a WMD attack than another 'Mumbai-style' attack, or something 'conventional' along those lines. WMD capability is a bit harder for an 'underground' terrorist group to develop/obtain than many people think, fortunately. I am not saying that it won't happen, just that the effort to get WMD is a lot harder than putting together a group of disaffected youth, indoctrinating them and then setting them loose in a city. India showed great restraint with the lat attack, especially with all of the evidence pointing to Pakistanis being behind it. It is doubtful they will be as restrained in the near future, a big goal in the first place of those who were behind the attack.

One thing that was already astutely pointed out was that the military in Pakistan is the most stable and competent part of government there. While parts of it, especially the intelligence apparatus, flirt with and support terrorist groups it is the final guarantor of the nation's stability and they don't want the nukes or the government falling into the hands of the idiotic, uncouth tribesmen of the hinterlands. While Pakistan's stability is of great concern I don't think it is anywhere close to becoming Somalia and its anarchy.

One thing to keep in mind with Pakistan too is that almost every military decision is colored by their neighbor, India. The militants serve a very useful purpose for many in Pakistan's military and government establishment. And up until recently the threat by the Islamic extremists in the east was not taken too seriously, and to a large degree still is not. Everyone's concern is still to the west and their biggest threat, India.

Have you briefed the ChiComs on this ... ???

The one action that might involve us conventionally with the Chinese is the seizure of Taiwan or one of Taiwan's costal islands. The few conventional forces in the fight would probably be the Navy, a little of the Air Force and if it lasts long enough, some Marines and maybe the 82nd. It just would not last long enough to involve heavy US forces, nor would they want it to. Nowadays they have too much to lose.

 

[voodooqueen]

One of the foundations of the Pashtun "honor code" in Afghanistan is blood feuds or the idea of revenge-based killing. These feuds carry down the generations for thousands of years whenever an insult to the family or tribe's honor is percieved.
With this cultural idea, entrenched and carried out since prehistoric times, things like flattening a village with 1000 pounders because a high value target might be hiding there are not going to win us the war. All it does is breed more people who would gladly throw away their own lives as long as they know they're taking a few of us with them.

Not that I have any idea what the answer is. But, I do think it lies somewhere closer to the COIN end of the spectrum, and further from kill 'em all.

I have an old friend who lived with the tribes in Afghanistan 20+ years ago; he's the type of guy who speaks 17 of their dialects. According to him, the tribes just want to be left alone to live as they always have, which may have some validity. The tribal peoples may not want to participate in Al Queda's activities for the most part. And scholars of language and philosophy, like my friend, feel strongly against us interfering with Afghani culture. The world is full of people who believe in butting out unless you are directly threatened. These same folks may acknowledge the validity of hunting down Al Queda--wherever. But not at the expense of the local musician or rug maker who were minding their own business in a remote villiage which we bombed to nail one terrorist. This gives many in the world the perception that we might be the real terrorists. And there is always film at eleven to back that up--these days someone always has a camera on hand. One would hope that we could do better in gaining world support than we did in VietNam. One would hope for more precision than that.

All due respect to A-4s (and I'm sure that the pictures you carry in your mind would give nightmares to most--so I'm not looking in there.)

 

[mmx1]

Back on topic, a rare insider's view of McCrystal:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/docs-temp/243-fury.pdf

 

[Spekkio]

Defeating an idea is different from eradicating every last vestige of that idea from humankind.

There is more than just a vestige of that idea in humankind. Germany, while a democracy, still represses speech regularly. There are many regions of the world which have dictatorships, and many parts of Africa have experienced genocide not very long ago (but the US is always reluctant to label them as such, if it even has officially recognized them). If we were at war with these ideas, why did we stop at Germany, Italy, and Japan? The answer is because, like I said before, we weren't at war with the ideas. We were at war with established countries who wished to do us harm.

Additionally, it's not our actions that defeated totalitarianism in these countries. There were a significant amount of people, if not a majority, who did not like the current state of affairs, especially once they started losing. The difference with the wars now is that a significant portion of the middle east population fears "westernization," whereas Germany and Italy were already culturally similar to us.

Claiming that we went to war to end dicatorships and racism is like claiming the north went to war with the south to combat the idea of slavery. Not true at all.

 

[exhelodrvr]

There is more than just a vestige of that idea in humankind. Germany, while a democracy, still represses speech regularly. There are many regions of the world which have dictatorships, and many parts of Africa have experienced genocide not very long ago (but the US is always reluctant to label them as such, if it even has officially recognized them). If we were at war with these ideas, why did we stop at Germany, Italy, and Japan? The answer is because, like I said before, we weren't at war with the ideas. We were at war with established countries who wished to do us harm.

That's like claiming the north went to war with the south to combat the idea of slavery. Not true at all.

"Germany, while a democracy, still represses speech regularly."
LOL! Yeah, and so does the United States.
It's silly to pretend that the idea of a Greater East Asia co-Prosperity sphere, and the German equivalent, were not defeated. That is completely separate from why we entered the war, or why we fought the war.

And yes, one of the main reasons, arguably the main reason, that the north fought the south was because of the idea of slavery - it was hidden within the category of states rights, specifically whether or not slavery would be able to expand into new territories and states. That was one of the primary factors in the secession, which is why the war was fought.

 

[Spekkio]

And are you now saying that every dictatorship is Naziism? LOL!

On a basic level, it's the same thing. Nazism, communism, whatever...life for the average joe is going to be very similar in all these situations. Very few rights, and lots of people being killed because they either are ethnically different, or suspected to be rebellious. No, they don't all specifically go after Jews, but my point is that killing someone because they're Jewish and killing someone because they're a Tutsi are morally equivelent.

Comparing what is happening at the official levels in Germany right now to Naziism is laughable!

My point is that Germany is still restricting the rights of its citizens. You are the one claiming that we went to war with the idea of doing this and won.

 

[exhelodrvr]

On a basic level, it's the same thing. Nazism, communism, whatever...life for the average joe is going to be very similar in all these situations. Very few rights, and lots of people being killed because they either are ethnically different, or suspected to be rebellious.

My point is that Germany is still restricting the rights of its citizens. You are the one claiming that we went to war with the idea of doing this and won.

When did I claim that we went to war against the idea of restriction of rights?

 

[Spekkio]

When did I claim that we went to war against the idea of restriction of rights?

You implied that we went to war with Nazism, fascism, and monarchy in your first comment. All forms of those government involve a restriction of rights, so it follows that if we are at war with those ideas, we are also at war with a restriction of rights.

Hell, we were so inundated with justice for Jews that we made immigration extremely difficult for them during WWII. Less than 30,000 jews made it here during the holocaust; most were turned away. There was a strong anti-semetic feeling among the US in the early 20th century. Fun fact: the SAT was created to prove Jews to be intellectually inferior, and thus serve as an empirical way to justify denying them (among other subgroups) entry to upper education.

The US never has, and probably won't in the near future, go to war out of the goodness of its heart. There is always some tangible motivation that drives us. For the civil war, it was to keep the country together. We got into WWII was because Germany wouldn't let us sell weapons to England, and Japan decided to bomb us. If it wasn't for that, the US couldn't give two shits if Hitler was killing Jews, if Hiroshito was torturing Koreans, or if the Italians were playing northern Africa. We go to war in the middle east because they were a perceived threat and they have resources that we want; it's not because we want to play Santa and 'give freedom' to them. There are countless countries in Africa that experience even more atrocities today, but we don't care because they don't have any valuable natural resources for us.

There's nothing wrong with this, it's just the way life is.