West Point Is Divided on a War Doctrine’s Fate

[Stealhead]

I often wonder why many choose to ignore the No Fly Zones imposed on Iraq from 1991-2003 this was really a quasi war so in effect we never truly ended a state of combat with Iraq during the No Fly Zone times none of our aircraft where lost but they bombed many an Iraqi air defense sight.i can vouch for this I deployed on TDYs to Turkey many times and our aircraft left loaded with munitions every time they did not always come back with said munitions because they had bombed some Iraqi air defense related sight.I was not a bit surprised by the Iraq War part 3 they where just waiting for the right time.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I look at Vietnam based on what happened to put it short.I would rather not derail this thread any further nor get into a disagreement with you about Vietnam.Even though one could argue that many mistakes made in Vietnam have occurred in our current wars which shows that we do not seem to fully learn from the mistakes of the wars that we do not win.

okeydokey.

Back on topic, I am not sure the article has the right focus. The COIN doctrine used by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, i.e.: provide security, hunt for insurgents, push for reforms is tried and true and based on historical precedents.

For a long time, during Vietnam and especially afterwards, there was a strong resistance in the U.S. Army to being dragged into COIN warfare. Many thought the primary job of the Army was to fight conventional military forces, such as Iraq 1991.

Petraeus did not revolutionise COIN, he merely codified it and legitimised it to the point where it is now accepted as in the U.S. Army playbook. Iraq and Afghanistan do not show that the COIN playbook does not work

The article seems to focus more on whether the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were worth it, which is a different topic altogether.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

okeydokey.

Back on topic, I am not sure the article has the right focus. The COIN doctrine used by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, i.e.: provide security, hunt for insurgents, push for reforms is tried and true and based on historical precedents.

For a long time, during Vietnam and especially afterwards, there was a strong resistance in the U.S. Army to being dragged into COIN warfare. Many thought the primary job of the Army was to fight conventional military forces, such as Iraq 1991.

Petraeus did not revolutionise COIN, he merely codified it and legitimised it to the point where it is now accepted as in the U.S. Army playbook. Iraq and Afghanistan do not show that the COIN playbook does not work

The article seems to focus more on whether the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were worth it, which is a different topic altogether.

Did you read the same article?

"Colonel Meese***8217;s opposing argument is that warfare cannot be divorced from its political, economic and psychological dimensions ***8212; the view advanced in the bible of counterinsurgents, the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual that was revised under General Petraeus in 2006. Hailed as a new way of warfare (although drawing on counterinsurgencies fought by the United States in Vietnam in the 1960s and the Philippines from 1899 to 1902, among others), the manual promoted the protection of civilian populations, reconstruction and development aid."


In other words they are using the same playbook and why bother discussing it when we already know that we are leaving just lie we did in Vietnam we already set the date all the insurgents must do is wait until that date they can more or less do nothing but harass us until then and say bye bye when we leave and then take over the country.That is a failure of COIN.

If you can not or are unwilling to commit to a CION effort which may take decades then do not get involved in the first place when by dong so you let the insurgency win because you set a date for when you will be leaving.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Also you are wrong about Iraq Al Qaeda was not even in Iraq until we invaded on the incorrect pretense that the Iraqi government was in any way related with Al Qaeda and that Iraq had chemical,biological,and nuclear weapons.If you believe the the Iraq War to have been fought over the reasons that you state then I can fully understand why you also view the Vietnam War as you do.

When did Al Qaeda show up in Iraq? In 2004.....Man Bush was not telling a lie about being preemptive was he?By the way that was after his Mission Accomplished claim.

I thought you did not want to argue?

Everyone knows Saddam was not linked to the 9/11 attacks, that has been conclusively shown. However, if 9/11 had not occurred, Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons would never have been able to get the political support needed to invade Iraq. That was only possible in the post 9/11 political climate when every politician was afraid to be seen as weak on terrorism.

Also 2,996 people died on 9/11 not 3000.

really? you are going to quibble about that? maybe I will go back to discussing Vietnam.

By the time I left, the 'wiser heads' in Washington had decided that we were to call for approval to engage... even if taking fire. That's not being at war; that's the same rules I operated under stateside while helping with Law & Order duties in the wake of Katrina.

That is because you were just involved in policing the place by then, which means don't upset the locals and don't make waves for whichever muppets are sitting in office

could have easily installed a friendly regime and then left, secure in the knowledge that our interests in the area were protected. We did not do this... and we are now paying the price.

Which friendly regime did you have in mind and how long do you seriously think they would hve lasted?


Bilge rat

Iraq was invaded because 3,000 U.S. civilians were slaughtered like hogs on 9/11.

What the hell has Iraq got to do with that???????

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Did you read the same article?

"Colonel Meese***8217;s opposing argument is that warfare cannot be divorced from its political, economic and psychological dimensions ***8212; the view advanced in the bible of counterinsurgents, the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual that was revised under General Petraeus in 2006. Hailed as a new way of warfare (although drawing on counterinsurgencies fought by the United States in Vietnam in the 1960s and the Philippines from 1899 to 1902, among others), the manual promoted the protection of civilian populations, reconstruction and development aid."

yes indeedee.

although I actually have more knowledge of COIN than just that article.

[Stealhead]

I bet you do ever fought in Vietnam?Iraq?Afghanistan?Ever commanded troops?Or do you just like reading books?

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I thought you did not want to argue?

Everyone knows Saddam was not linked to the 9/11 attacks, that has been conclusively shown. However, if 9/11 had not occurred, Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons would never have been able to get the political support needed to invade Iraq. That was only possible in the post 9/11 political climate when every politician was afraid to be seen as weak on terrorism.



really? you are going to quibble about that? maybe I will go back to discussing Vietnam.

You stated in a previous post:

"Iraq was invaded because 3,000 U.S. civilians were slaughtered like hogs on 9/11. If Al Qeeda in all its wisdom had not butchered 3,000 innocent U.S. civilians, hundreds of which had to jump to their death to escape being burned to death, the neo-cons would have never had the green light to take out Saddam.

You want to blame anyone for the invasion of Iraq, blame Osama "he sleeps with the fishes" Bin Laden."



Now you just contradicted that post do you expect anyone to take you seriously now?

Why not blame it on the Neocons if it was their idea all along?And in stead blame it on Bin Laden when if it was on the "game plan" it would have happened sooner or later 9/11 attacks or not.

[Stealhead]

In my opinion fighting a counterinsurgency with out having the commitment to see it through is dooming yourself to failure this type of war is liked because you can see that you are going to fail at it or realize that you are losing the political desire to see it through is not there then you can simply change the goal to allow you to pull out and appear to have "won" even though everyone knows that you failed and people sacrificed their lives toward a goal that had been set but changed in order to save face.And then the foe that you faced takes over when you are gone and he says "Thank God, Allah, Buddha,Carl Marx that wars require the political support of a nation because we would have never defeated them otherwise."

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Has it ever come to your mind that the profit, financially as well as otherwise, is not as big as hoped for ten years ago - because both wars were not successful, but failures?

Afghanistan was retaliation, and using the opportunity to establish a permanent presence to entangle Russia in that part of the world, and China, and to overshadow a planned vital pipeline project in the region.

Iraq was not to steal oil, fill it in bottles and smuggle it out of the country, as it is sometimes depicted. It was about gaining a dominant military position, pleasing business interests of Carlyle Group and Halliburton buddies, and gaining decisive influence over how Iraw signs oil contracts (favouring American companies), and flow of oil traffic patterns (also to hinder China).

When Baghdad was taken, many plunderings took place, in hospitals as well as museums. Hospitals waited long to get protection from mobs as well. Most of Iraqi artifacts in museums were stolen and taken out of the country meanwhile. But the top priority objective to take was - the offices of the oil ministry and securing the pools of business papers and documents there. That says it all.

Subcontractors of Carlyle and Halliburton got profits in return for sure, financially, and as well as in influence, insider information, contracts. These profits just are not as big as the gang around Bush had planned. And the costs for the taxpayer to finance their little corporate war also derailed a bit, can one say that? For America as a whole, the thing is a negative bill. For some companies linked to those who organised the adventure, it was profitable nevertheless, I would say. And for mercenary companies. And for arms makers.

The mercenaries always profit. If there is no short term profit, they won't come here, they would just go to the next place. And of course, we can assume the same for gun runners.

From an American perspective, the payoff 10 years ago was much lower than it is now. 10 years ago Afghanistan was a wasteland, the GDP was only slightly more than 2 billion USD.

You can say that now the GDP is more than 17 billion USD. But in comparison, US military spending in Afghanistan each year is more than 8 billion USD. and that is not counting aid money etc, just direct military spending. You just don't bet on long term profit potential in a for profit war, you look to break even early.

I really don't see how you can expect to break even when the numbers are like that.

There are so many good examples that these stupid politicians can learn from: Cortez, Clive, Rhodes, and many more

Can these goddamn idiots learn? or did they start believing their "idealism" and now they think they are bringing "freedom" to Afghanistan?

[CaptainHaplo]

Armchair general's wisdom.... gotta love it.

The vast majority of you have never even pounded sand in a conflict area. Yet you want to debate "strategy" as if you have the answers.

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.

Let me share a dirty little secret with you. We are not at war. Haven't been at war since since September 2, 1945.

Now - are we in various conflicts? Sure we are - but the reason for them continuing as long as they have has not been because of profit motives - its been due to a political lack of will to actually fight them like they were a war.

Afghanistan and Iraq could be totally pacified in less than 60 days. The costs would be less than what we currently pay in the lives of our soldiers. The "collateral damage" however would be intentionally much higher. But no politician has the cahones to say its what we should do. Instead, they continue to tie the hands of those in conflict.

If its a war, you fight it like one. You think we cared how many casualties or "innocent lives" were lost in the firebombing of Dresden? How about Nagasaki or Hiroshima? How about Hamburg?

Our goal was maximum destruction - not only to take out the infrastructure, but to make it clear that we would stop at nothing to succeed. If it took massive civilian casualtes - well - thats unfortunately what war does. Now? We hold a civilian life higher than those of our soldiers who are there - purchasing a small modicum of freedom for them with the blood of our best. Call it whatever you want, but that ain't war.

Insurgencies survive because the civilian population allows, protects and enables them to. You can repress an insurgency through "surge" tactics, but you can't destroy it. The only way to destroy an insurgency is to destroy its civilian support. Win the hearts and minds? You can never win every single one - so its a doomed idea. So how do you undercut civilian support of an insurgency? You demonstrate that the cost of allowing it to exist is higher than the cost of rooting it out.

Insurgents will kill your family if you don't support them. How do you overcome that? Simple - you support them and its not just your family that gets killed - its not your whole block that gets flattened - its the entire neighborhood that goes away in the concussive waves of a carpet bombing campaign that levels 1/4 of a city.

Oh go ahead - spout the claptrap of how this will just create more militants. Guess what - when the civilian population figures out that they don't get clobbered until someone starts supporting the insurgency - they realize that the best security they can have is to keep the insurgency out of their cities, towns, neighborhoods and families.

Costly in human lives? Sure. Not ours though. But hey - thats war.

But don't worry - the idea of a politician supporting anything that would actually be cost effective and would work is anathema to the whole idea of politics - so it won't happen.

[Stealhead]

Well as I said we lack the political will to spend the decades that a counter insurgency requires(assuming that you do in the end "win") so why get involved in this kind of warfare in the first place?


If a nation lacks the will to commit to total warfare then they should not get involved a conflict in the first place.

Before you say anything you should know that I did spend time in Afghanistan and have two brothers that served in Iraq and Afghanistan as combat troops and officers
so I do have a direct opinion from those who fight.

Haplo is spouting the approach the French returned to.
It gives a small quick boost with lots of wider negative consequences then fails in spectacular fashion in very short order.

Its also an approach the Russians have tried repeatadly and failed at.
Saddam tried it...it failed
Turkey tried it ....it failed
Burma tried it...it failed
........the list is endless

Armchair generals eh...you gotta love it, so pathetic its almost funny

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

The mercenaries always profit. If there is no short term profit, they won't come here, they would just go to the next place. And of course, we can assume the same for gun runners.

From an American perspective, the payoff 10 years ago was much lower than it is now. 10 years ago Afghanistan was a wasteland, the GDP was only slightly more than 2 billion USD.

You can say that now the GDP is more than 17 billion USD. But in comparison, US military spending in Afghanistan each year is more than 8 billion USD. and that is not counting aid money etc, just direct military spending. You just don't bet on long term profit potential in a for profit war, you look to break even early.

I really don't see how you can expect to break even when the numbers are like that.

I am not sure on the GDP raise, but however:
Why do you rate the GDP of a hostile nation a profit for the US? Because more or less openly hoswtile Afghansitan will be once the troops are out and the taliban have taken over. That are the Taliban that after 10 years still could not be defeated.

And Karzai, is a corrupt and self-loving criminal himself.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Let me share a dirty little secret with you. We are not at war. Haven't been at war since since September 2, 1945.

You are/were at war for sure. War is what war does. It's just that these two wars of the recent past have been fought quite incompetently, without the needed determination and long-lasting breath, and without realoistic visions and expectations. They both compare to dreamdancing, which is for the most, the very most, the fault of the political leaders. One thought, especially this unscrupellous idiot Rumsfeld, it would be easy-peasy. Iraq war was launched without the responsible political ranks even knowing what to do there once they were in Bagdhad - they did not even had a plan to care for the time after the field battle was over! High ranking representatives from many governmental offices and services reported that, saying that when they made consideraiton and hoped them to be mailed upwards in the hierarchy, any mentioning of ideas and plans were brought down.

And the troops, like in so many wars, were imagined to be back at home just in time for christmas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_End_in_Sight

this movie was available at youtube, when it was released years ago. Unfortunately it no longer is, so it must be bought. But for anyone interested in the matter, this is a must. And an eye-opener.

Edit:
Uploaded again, here it is:

part 1


part 2


part 3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...17494053797724#