West Point Is Divided on a War Doctrine’s Fate

[Gerald]

WEST POINT, N.Y. — For two centuries, the United States Military Academy has produced generals for America’s wars, among them Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, George S. Patton and David H. Petraeus. It is where President George W. Bush delivered what became known as his pre-emption speech, which sought to justify the invasion of Iraq, and where President Obama told the nation he was sending an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan.Now at another critical moment in American military history, the faculty here on the commanding bend in the Hudson River is deep in its own existential debate. Narrowly, the argument is whether the counterinsurgency strategy used in Iraq and Afghanistan — the troop-heavy, time-intensive, expensive doctrine of trying to win over the locals by building roads, schools and government — is dead. Broadly, the question is what the United States gained after a decade in two wars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/wo...t.html?_r=1&hp

Note: May 27, 2012

[Skybird]

- It failed,
- in two wars,
- over a period of 11 years,
- led to two strategic defeats of the US,
- and is more expensive than the nation financially can afford, given the debts that already strangle it.

What more does one need to know for reaching an assessment...

[Bilge_Rat]

There is nothing wrong with the doctrine since it has worked in previous insurgencies, i.e Northen Ireland, Malaya, South Korea. It would also have worked in Vietnam if the US had not pulled out.

I would argue that the problem was one of application, US/UK/NATO tried to apply the doctrine on the cheap: too few men, too little money, just enough to keep the lid on. No clear goals going in on what the desired end state was and what type of regime would be preferable in Kabul or Baghdad.

[Skybird]

No.

Defining the objectives that are to be reached - is part of doctrine! The failure there is double-layered. First, one defined objectives on basis of a misled doctrine (Rumsfield), second one designed the doctrine in worrying ignorrance of realities, cultural realities in this case.

Objectives havew been there for the desirable endstate in Iraq and Afghanistan. Westwern-friendly regimes. American oil companies in highly influential psoition that allow them to control the flow of oil and have a word din all Iraqui oil trades. Both countries turning into "beacons of democracy", populations turning Wetsern in living style and values, apllauding the invaders.

Designing such objectives reveal a worryin g lack of education, underdtanding for cultural differences, and the nature of the people and the enemy whose places one was about to embark on.

Later came Patreus, who had developed counter-insurgency strategies at Leven worth for years. While it seemed as if he was successful (the Surge, and such), he also mfailied on realsing the longterm implications and the basic nature of the enemy he was up against and the nature of the battlefield (cultural environment) he was to fight in. I have quite some respect for POatreus, but I must say: he also failed in forming a realistic assessment of the environment.

The only way to turn both wars into successes would have been to totally destroy both countries and annihilate evertyhing moving inside of it. Total war against an enemy that lacks the weaponry and capacity to strike back with total war - he can only deliver terrorist pinholes, although these can unfold a delayed economic impact: the cost for increased security measures after 9/11, for example: these costs are extremely high. But attacks likje 9/11 cannot destroy a society. Instead, society more or less adapts to such attacks. See Israel.

Total war. Well, I think that never was part of the doctrine.

I see the problem on the political level: too many lobbyists and infantile idiots who have plenty of illusions about what war is and what it means, adn thus easymindedly order for wars since hallucinations is all they have about what their orders mean.

What did Bruce Willis said in this movie about a military coup in the US, in New York after an Islamic terror strike (the title just doe snot come to my mind)? In the German dub he says something like this: "War is no clean and tidy operation with a scalpel, but a full-powered blow with the two-handed broadsword. "

Too many infantile and naive poltical idiots who think they know this better. Esoecially frteinds of the concept of "humane warfare" are vulernable to this. I say diffeently. Once watr got started, term like "overkill capacity" and "excessive use of force" have lost any meaning.

The tolerance of the public for such terms is limited. Home support for a war wanes once the bodybags start to arrive at home. Military doctrine must take this into account, too. A warplan that stretches over years and decades, is a very stupid warplan. Wars of exhaustion may be in line with Asian concepts of war, but Western societies tick differently.

[Catfish]

This Marine made his point.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

[MH]

Originally Posted by Catfish

This Marine made his point.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Nice read from the past.

So yeah countries go to war for self interests or when attacked while companies make loads of money.
In fact USA which sits alone on quiet continent does it more than any other country.
It saved Europe ass twice or maybe three times for profit and did lots of dirty jobs around the world as well because nobody else would, wanted or had the will to do it....and somebody made profit
Now question is is it good for you or not.
If you are German maybe not so much))) if you are American one would have to imagine alternative histories.

I agree though that last wars are screw ups as we all know by know.The only winners are armament makers and so on....so yeah it is them we have to blame.



................

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

There is nothing wrong with the doctrine since it has worked in previous insurgencies, i.e Northen Ireland, Malaya, South Korea. It would also have worked in Vietnam if the US had not pulled out.

I would argue that the problem was one of application, US/UK/NATO tried to apply the doctrine on the cheap: too few men, too little money, just enough to keep the lid on. No clear goals going in on what the desired end state was and what type of regime would be preferable in Kabul or Baghdad.

How can you say that our efforts in Vietnam worked when we had been be using them since the late 50's and had some advisers in combat from 1961 our strategy failed miserably in Vietnam we spent over ten years trying to fight the insurgency in one way or another and failed.

[the_tyrant]

The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a joke.

It seems like most people think it's all for profit, yet where is the money?!

Cortez, Clive, and Rhodes were for profit. A war where your military expenditure is higher than the GDP of the country you are trying to "conquer" is a failure.

Yet, everyone still says those wars are for profit. Come on now, if you are going to suffer the reputation loss, you might as well engage in real gunboat diplomacy. You know, the kind that TURNS A PROFIT

[Stealhead]

Well the arms maker always profits when his weapons are being purchased.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

How can you say that our efforts in Vietnam worked when we had been be using them since the late 50's and had some advisers in combat from 1961 our strategy failed miserably in Vietnam we spent over ten years trying to fight the insurgency in one way or another and failed.

Depends how you look at it. Even though the U.S. was blundering around and had only a vague inkling of proper counterinsurgency warfare, by the end of Tet, the South Vietnamese Vietcong was essentially destroyed and the insurgency could only be fed by sending down North Vietnamese guerillas/regular troops. Even then, it was not enough to win unless the NVA invaded with conventional forces (i.e. the Korea 1950 scenario). The first invasion in 1972 failed because the ARVN was backed up by U.S. air forces, the second one in 1974-75 succeeded once all U.S. forces had left.

The U.S. could have won if they had kept troops there. However, Vietnam would now look like South Korea, with U.S. troops still stationed along the DMZ. The U.S. was winning in 1968 and could have "won" the war if they had the political will to see it through.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a joke.

It seems like most people think it's all for profit, yet where is the money?!

Cortez, Clive, and Rhodes were for profit. A war where your military expenditure is higher than the GDP of the country you are trying to "conquer" is a failure.

Yet, everyone still says those wars are for profit. Come on now, if you are going to suffer the reputation loss, you might as well engage in real gunboat diplomacy. You know, the kind that TURNS A PROFIT

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.

[Carthaginian]

Like Vietnam, the political will to fight a WAR is not there; our politicians want to fight a "war" to prevent offending groups of people who hate us in the first place. The battle against the enemies we are fighting (and not fighting) in the Middle East are not being 'lost' on the field of battle... they are being lost on Capital Hill.

When I was arrived Iraq in 03-04, we had a 'no call' policy; if we considered ourselves in danger, we could open fire without calling for approval. We were required to call for permission for certain things, and forbidden from entering into or firing upon mosques.
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.

You can't fight a war if you have to ask permission to fight back... or carry the fight to the enemy, for that matter.

If we had been sent to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan we could have (and did!) accomplished the goal in short order. We 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.

My personal point of view- if you're going to go through the time and trouble to topple regimes hostile to you, you'd better follow up with the intention of making a regime that will support you... if not, it gets too expensive to justify.



Skybird - much, if not most, of the looting you speak of was carried out by the Iraqis themselves. This wasn't Kelly's Heros in reality.

[Bilge_Rat]

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 Russia in that part of the world, 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,m pleasing busienss inerest of Carlyle and Halliburton buddies, and gaining decisive influence over how Iraw signs oil contracts, and flow of oil traffic patterns.

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.

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 company 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 arms makers.

so you think Iraq was invaded to boost the profits of Carlyle and Haliburton? yet another conspiracy theory spun by the pinkos at "Der Spiegel".

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.

[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.

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.

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

so you think Iraq was invaded to boost the profits of Carlyle and Haliburton? yet another conspiracy theory spun by the pinkos at "Der Spiegel".

Where did you get that Spiegel-part?

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 mistake Iraq for Afghanistan. The plan to wage war on Iraq had been developed by Wolfowitz before Clinton took over. Under Clinton it slept in some desk until Bush got elected and then decided to carry it out. Then 9/11 got in his way, and he had to delay Iraq for having a picnic in Afghanistan first. when the oicnic was over, the troops got shifted to Iraq again. And that was what enabled tzhe Taliban to come back - and this time in strength.

I cannot believe that this lie of that Iraq had its hands in 9/11 is still believed by some. What'S next - Elvis returning? Kennedy discovered to live incognito in Florida?

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

No I blame Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perls, and the neocons, and I blame those who voted for this gang. Iraq was no war of need. It was no reaction to 9/11 because it got decided before 9/11. It was a war of desire.