We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:00:07 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2012 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification We come as conquerors, but not as oppressors. -General Eisenhower to the German people as Allied forces entered Germany, 1944. The success of this occupation can only be judged fity years from now. If the Germans at the time have a stable, prosperous democracy, then we shall have succeeded. -General Eisenhower in Frankfurt, October 1945. Doing some research for unrelated topics I came across those quotes, along with the question, "Why didn't President Bush say something like that when we entered Baghdad?" Mebbe because it's been done before, and has bad resonance? People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:27:56 -0600 Winning will require a new approach to counterinsurgency, one that focuses on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. Hunting down insurgents and speeding their entry to Paradise is an extremely effective way of providing security, to my way of thinking. And some surgical airstrikes coupled with the judicious use of psyops might have a salutory effect on their recruiting efforts, too. But then, that's just me... ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31290 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31290 Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:39:31 -0600 You point out a hard problem. We have built a military that can destroy an opponent country's organized military in weeks with almost no friendly losses and have used it to do so. This is a capability that is at least to me having grown up during Vietnam both shocking and awesome. Then the same force is turned to the problem of the subsequent occupation of the defeated nation. In this it seems our forces are less able to achieve swift results; although, they are doing well. Achieving quicker success for this problem does seem to require more troops be deployed sooner than the current leadership has provided. Affording both a high tech, high tempo, high lethality military and a manpower rich force is very difficult as you point out, because the salaries of the manpower rich force will consume all of the funding for the high lethality force. A number of strategies could be taken. One approach is to plan to augment regular forces with reservists and Allies. This approach has been the centerpiece of our plan for many decades now. In fact though it is a good strategy, because with a high lethality, high tempo, high tech force all countries can be defeated; so, to oppose the US is very dangerous to a foreign power. That is a course few countries do choose. If the ability to hold the very existence of an organized government at risk were to be compromised, then this concern would weigh less heavily on potential opponents. Furthermore, it has to be better to be able to win any war than secure any peace, because the potential opponent must be deterred and real opponents defeated prior to peace being secured. As a result we will continue to be driven to a split force characterized by an expensive, American and manpower lean core combined with an extended manpower rich force of reservists and allies called upon as needed. In order for this to work, it is important to know which part of the battle we are fighting and use each force to the fullest extent necessary to both win wars and secure peace. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31289 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31289 Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:49:50 -0600 The idea of a System Admin(or second force for stabilization operations--Barnett's term for it is SysAdmin and since he lectures at NDU I use it) isn't all that new. At one point in time this was called the Navy Dept. But it is expensive as all hell. We can't get the funding we need for a military to do the teeth kicking job. It's a nice idea, but like Cassie says--good luck prying those pennies from people. Not gonna happen. Coalition warfare seems to be how we built anyways, John. I'm surprised to hear you implying that it wasn't the case. Isn't that kinda how things broke down in NATO once The Wall fell? Why complain about it ten years after the fact? It's what we got. They are adapting. They are overcomming. They are winning(what was your wrestling mantra?). I've got other issue's with Krepinivich(when don't I have issues--where's my rock to hide under?). It seems like he, and many others, are demanding a rhubric so they have something concrete to declare failure with. I don't like that. It ignores that things are dynamic and not static. It isn't like building a carbuerator--where there's a right way following a check list and a wrong way by doing it willy nilly. Ops that are scripted to the hilt fail because they aren't flexible or adaptable to conditions as they change. Stuff that doesn't have a schwerpunkt tends to have problems because you can't decide what to do. Seems to me that Ol' Bush and Rummy took a page out of the book of the German General Staff--define a goal and let the boys who actually have to do it find the best way of achieving those goals. Worked for them--and they're considered the masters of Operational Art. The only metric is: have you achieved your goal. I've found in my experiences that when you have competing minds/wills that's the only metric that matters.(going back under my rock again.) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31288 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31288 Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:18:07 -0600 But put enough boots and firepower on the ground to adequately suppress the insurgents, and you're considered an "oppressive occupier", which in itself encourages more hostility and opposition among the natives. I think it's a delicate balancing act, in which you're caught between a rock and a hard place either way. But what's the alternative? To allow ourselves to become so paralyzed by fears of failure and second-guessing that we sit by and do nothing? I think the bitter aspect of the bitter/sweet reality of instantaneous access to news and information is that we are not insulated enough from the "moment" to allow events and their long-term effects to mature or become realized. As you asked, John, do we have the stomach to let these generational changes take root and flourish ... or will we slink away from the challenge due to our aversion to risk and our myopic self-interest? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31279 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31279 Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:13:54 -0600 Without it being a cheaper draftee army, that's for sure. Which then, of course, won't be what we have now in terms of overall professional quality. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31273 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31273 Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:44:24 -0600 And Hell will freeze over before the American taxpayer will ante up for the kind of military that would be able to do what Mr. Krepinevich advocates... but hey... dream on. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31270 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/08/apropos_of_nothing.html#comment-31270 Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:22:07 -0600