Today Iraq gets all the headlines, but the problems the U.S. military faces are bigger than any single conflict. If U.S. troops left Iraq tomorrow, the military would still be wrongly structured for any kind of war it is likely to face. The fault lines in that structure would still generate inappropriate and dangerous tensions; success would still require superhuman efforts on the part of individual senior leaders to transcend their legally defined roles and think only about the welfare of the nation as a whole. Some would do so; most would not. The system would continue to creak and groan and tear under the pressure of unbalanced strains it was never designed to bear.
Iraq is a symptom of this disease, not the cause. Similar tensions occurred over Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, each with different people in the key positions. This is not a problem of personality dysfunction, and it is not a problem of ideology, although both have played important roles in recent failures. It is a problem of structure, of organization, and, more fundamentally, of the conception of what kinds of war we are likely to have to fight and how we will fight them.
Of all the scary war scenarios facing the U.S. over the coming decades, the one for which our military is currently structured--simultaneous attacks on all fronts, in all dimensions, by a unitary global enemy--is the least likely. A grinding, prolonged, land-forces-based struggle within one regional command, or possibly two, is the most likely. Debate over the wisdom of the Iraq War and our current approach to it has obscured this reality for too long. Two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is time to adjust our military for the post-Cold War world.
#1
Of all the scary war scenarios facing the U.S. over the coming decades, the one for which our military is currently structured--simultaneous attacks on all fronts, in all dimensions, by a unitary global enemy--is the least likely.
Unless, of course, USA will restructure its military to deal exclusively with with Iraq-style "police" actions.
#3
Rummy gets a bum rap in trying to wean the military from its Central Front Europe [WWII part Deux] mentality. Gates gets praise in finally getting around to hammering those who've distorted the structure during decades of peace that finds the resultant military force structure less than prepared to fight on the real battlefield. Rummy was right - you go to war with the military you have. There will be no optimal solution since the military establishment is so subject to 'political interests' that find work in districts, bases in districts, micro managing every step of the procurement process, underfunding training and spare parts/maintenance, etc. Neither is it helped by those in uniform who seek to build empires and acquire 'systems' for their own sake rather than their practical application in the whole environment. Top that off with vacillations in foreign policy that blunder the country into confrontation or conflict with an enemy or enemies that is not on the 'to do' list. The one saving grace is the American military aptitude to adapt, improvise, overcome relatively quickly. Ask yourself, which war was America prepared to fight?
#5
A grinding, prolonged, land-forces-based struggle within one regional command, or possibly two, is the most likely.
The answer is right there at the beginning of the sentence. It's a political problem, since we have the option to immediately end any "grinding, prolonged, land-forces-based struggle".
The clue may well be that any discussion of "ROE" beyond civilian control of the military indicates the dilemma is political rather than military.
Posted by: Caesar Ebbaviger1593 ||
06/14/2008 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Debate over the wisdom of the Iraq War and our current approach to it has obscured this reality for too long."
A real leader should be able to articulate this fact. Bush simply doesn't posses the skills and McCain, so far, has proven equally under-whelming.
#7
Our uniformed military leadership has the ability and know-how to craft a flexible response to nearly any threat and DEFEAT it! They have done it before, they can do it again. The problem starts when the CIVILIAN leadership and US State Department decide infuse trillions of taxpayer dollars to bring.... 'democracy' to some sinktrap country and use the military to make it happen. Besoeker 5 paragraph solution/COA follows: (1.) Say nothing to anybody, threaten no one. Do NOT telegraph your intentions. Stay deployable, stay ready, stay airborne, stay seaborne, train on the range, train with NVG's, demo, hand-to-hand. (2.) Deploy and get to the trouble spot and bad guys quickly. As soon as the ramp goes down or first troops hit the DZ, organized for combat. (3.) Start hammering the bastards asap! Attack, Attack, Attack and decisively vanquish anything the even remotely resembles a threat. (4.) Reconsolidate, release the POW's to warn others future adversaries and move to an extraction location, airfield, port, etc. Redeploy to CONUS. Get the hell out berfore CNN arrives. (5.) Revert to point #1.
The people are out on the streets and staging a Long March to demand the rule of law and independence of judiciary. What a tragedy and an irony that a country which on its birth was considered "twentieth century miracle" of a state and which was fought and won entirely through a democratic and constitutional struggle should now itself be struggling haplessly for democracy and constitutional supremacy and for a place among the "peaceful sovereign nations" of the world.
Quaid-i-Azam did not live long to personally steer Pakistan to be what he thought and aspired will be "one of the greatest nations of the world." With his early demise, Pakistan was orphaned in its very infancy and lost the promise of a healthy youth with acute systemic deficiencies and normative perversities restricting its orderly natural growth. After the Quaid, it was left without any sense of direction and in a state of political bankruptcy and moral aridity.
We have encountered unbroken series of challenges and experienced wars and territorial setbacks. We have lost half the country, and even today, we continue to live in an environment of fear and uncertainty about our future. Above all, the post- 9/11 scenario has placed Pakistan high on the global radar screen in a very negative image as the "hotbed" of religious extremism and terrorism, and a country afflicted with an incorrigible culture of violence and militancy."
Pakistan is going through one of the most serious crises of its independent statehood. It is being weakened methodically through its ubiquitous engagement on multiple external as well as domestic fronts. Use of military power within a state and against its own people has never been an acceptable norm. Pakistan is the only Muslim country with an on-going military operation against its own people.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Pakistan is once again a frontline state, and a pivotal partner of the United States in its War on Terror. As a battleground of this war, Pakistan could not escape the fall out of the crisis in the form of a heavy toll on its already volatile socio-economic environment as a result of protracted violence, instability, displacement, trade and production slowdown, export stagnation, investor hesitation, and concomitant law and order situation.
A proxy war is being fought on our soil. We have brought the anti-Taliban war into Pakistan which puts our armed forces on the wrong side of the people. Our sovereignty is being violated with impunity. Our freedom of action in our own interest is being questioned and undermined. We are accepting the responsibility for crimes we have not committed.
The US, in particular, sees Pakistan as the "ground zero" and a pivotal linchpin in its fight against terrorism. From being a major power in South Asia always equated with India, Pakistan today is bracketed with Afghanistan in terms of its outlook, role, needs and problems. This is an unenviable distinction which circumscribes our role both within and beyond our region.
Our problems are further complicated by the complex regional configuration with Americans sitting in Afghanistan, the Indo-US nexus, India's strategic ascendancy in the region and its unprecedented influence in Afghanistan with serious nuisance potential against Pakistan. Our borders on all sides are no longer peaceful. Domestically, the "suicide bombings" have made Pakistan the worst killing ground of Muslims at the hands of their Muslim "brethren." There is nothing Islamic in this culture of senseless militancy and violence.
Questions now also abound about the very future of Pakistan. Our federal structure is crumbling once again. There is a strong underlying resentment in Balochistan (and in other provinces too) against inequitable distribution of power and resources, exploitation of the province's natural wealth and unabashed use of military force. Quaid-i-Azam had a special place in his heart for Balochistan. He pledged to the people of Balochistan equal position and political status within the polity of Pakistan.
Despite its abundance in the wealth of natural resources, Balochistan remains the most backward province of the country. A deep-rooted sense of deprivation and frustration has made its people highly suspicious of the policy-makers in Islamabad. Our leaders, however, have had different priorities. The current atmosphere is so murky that even genuine development projects initiated by the federal government are suspected and resisted only because there are un-addressed questions in terms of their actual utility and benefit to the people of Balochistan. It is time we redressed these grievances through constitutional and political means.
Posted by: john frum ||
06/14/2008 08:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They are most revealing not when they spout the "Holy word of the Prophet" with foam on they lips, but when they try to reason with us in our own terms.
Matthew Yglesias might want to chide his commenters. Ann Althouse
Matt writes: "Shocking news that Tim Russert has died of a heart attack at the young age of 58." And his commenters act like jackasses. The second post is by "Dick Cheney":
Damn. That was the one non-Fox show where I could control the message.
And it's downhill from there:
i say good riddance.
he was the best example of the worst of journalism today.
we should not forget his role in helping get this war started.
after all, cheney went on his show because he knew that he would be able to "control" the message.
he was a fraud and a hypocrite and the world will be better off with him gone.
the only people who will miss him will be the republican politicians who knew they could go on his show and lie with impunity.
Posted by frankie d | June 13, 2008 4:22 PM
So now people feel the need to say what a great guy he was? Now I hope we can get someone that will ask real questions and not just gotcha's.
Posted by rob | June 13, 2008 4:24 PM...
so all of a sudden we are supposed to forget about all of the outrageously harmful things people like russert do?
if he had practiced his craft of journalism, there is a very good chance that we would have never gotten involved in such a harmful war.
if people like condi rice and cheney did not feel that they could go on his show and lie through their teeth about matters of life and death, it is very possible that they would have never felt comfortable lying, continually to the american people.
if he had actually been the "tough questioner" he supposedly was, perhaps he would have actually torn cheney's smug assurances about the coming war to shreds and the administration would not have taken us to war and wasted thousands of american lives and hundreds of thousands of iraqi lives.
he'll have to deal with his complicity in his own terms, but i have no qualms about pointing out a bunch of inconvenient truths.
if pointing this out makes me a dick and less than a class act, i wear that proudly.
Posted by frankie d | June 13, 2008 4:40 PM
Good to know I'm not the only one Sam. Seemed like a decent enough guy. This really is going to ruin my R. Kelly, "not guilty" party tonight.
Posted by laborlibert | June 13, 2008 4:40 PM...
This push-back sort of restores my faith:
Might the D in Frankie D stand for dipshit? You sound like AJ on the last season of the Sopranos.
Posted by laborlibert | June 13, 2008 4:51 PM
Oh, those last 2 comments were by the same guy!
The horrible virulence is back:
... Russert loved life you say? What a sick thing to say when you have read the kind of qualms that have been raised about Russert's moral shortcomings on this thread.
What about those million dead Iraqis? I bet they loved their lives too until they were ended by unsought and unjustified violence -- as opposed to gluttony.
Posted by The Fool | June 13, 2008 6:34 PM
So Meet the Press thrives, delighting precisely the sort of person who doesn't realize that a hardball is a kind of ball whereas a curveball is a kind of pitch.
Actually, the balls Russert favors may be hard, but the pitches he throws aren't curveballs, which go someplace useful. They're sillyballs, which go somewhere pointless. Russert has created a strike zone of his own where toughness meets irrelevance....
Russert's goal isn't to inform his audience. He's there to "make news"to get his guest to say something embarrassing that lands in the next day's papers or on the NBC Nightly News. The politicians, in turn, go on the show determined not to make news. And why do they bother? Because... it's a rite of passage, and any politician too chicken to play Russert's inane games would never garner the respect of the political class.
Stay classy KKKos KKKiddies!
Posted by: Mike ||
06/14/2008 12:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I see on other blogs that the extreme Lefties [foam at the mouth type] are celebrating Tim's death.
Well I liked him as a TV persona but professionally eh...not much.... Tim didn't focus on the critical things I am concerned about.
Mercifully I'm only mentioning TWO...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the time that Tim Russert played tough reporter on Meet The Depressed he represented Washington's Elite class pretty well.
For all his Tall Talk about the working class Citizens though, [represented in part by his Dad] did Tim Russert ask or tell Washington's Elites and Politicians that the Vast Majority of US CITIZENS wanted illegal Immigration stopped Cold?
Did Tim even recognize that American Citizens were UP TO THEIR NECKS with illegal immigration?
Did Tim Russert realize that the US Constitutional and the Bill of Rights made the us American Citizen Boss over his buddies, the fucking Elites and demoCrap Pols?
Iraq War:
While Americans were fighting a WAR, Did Tim Russert cut through all the demoCrap political Fog and expose the *REAL* POTENTIAL DANGER of WMDs existing in Iraq?; Explaining to Americans, by asking smart questions of the Elites and Pols that we couldn't sit back and wait even if we weren't positive about WMDs being in Iraq...
Like rolling the dice, HOPING and TRUSTING that Saddam Hussein will make us safe from Anthrax Attack?
Was Tim Russert savvy enough to recognize that Islam itself was a huge threat to Western Civilization?
*********************************
RIP Tim and God Bless your Family, may they find the Lord's strength and love now in their hour of obvious need..
David Mendell's Obama: From Promise to Power, p. 148-149:
"[Obama]always talked about the New Rochelle train, the trains that took commuters to and from New York City, and he didn't want to be on one of those trains every day," said Jerry Kellman, the community organizer who enticed Obama to Chicago from his Manhattan office job. "The image of a life, not a dynamic life, of going through the motions... that was scary to him."
Obviously, if Barack Obama were satisfied with an office job, not only would he have not spent three years as a community organizer, he probably wouldn't have ever run for office. Every politician has to have some drive like that, some desire for more than punching the clock from 9 to 5, commuting home, and quiet evenings. They have to be willing to put up with public scrutiny and the constant demands for time, energy, money, and effort... Mike says: My father was in local politics, and as I was growing up, I saw first hand just how demanding that lifestyle is. Dad was a restless sort of person, and campaigning fit his personality. I would never want to live that way, so I've never run for office--but I will always have a certain level of respect for anyone that does; even the ones, like Obama, that I could never vote for.
There's nothing wrong with saying, "that life, taking the New Rochelle train, just isn't for me."
But there's a fine line between rejecting that life and looking down at that life. Because some people are just fine with jobs that require them to take the New Rochelle train. Some people actually prefer it to the stress, the risk, the time away from family, the constant demands from strangers. And the world needs these people - who get up every morning, go to work to do jobs with no glamor and little or no prestige, wages modest or worse, and whose names never appear in the newspaper. As another prominent commentator describes them, "hard-working men and women who earn an honest living doing the kinds of jobs that make civilized life possible for the rest of us."
These folks receive a round of applause when they dance at their wedding, and at their retirement party, and that's about it.
We can't all be touted as secular messiahs, surrounded by adoring throngs. Very few us get crowds chanting our name on a regular basis. Scarlett Johansson doesn't e-mail us, and Jennifer Lopez doesn't visit our offices.
Never mind the small towners who"cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment." Obama didn't want to be a suburban commuter.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/14/2008 09:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Seems to be a lot of things Barack doesn't want to do nor see worth in.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
