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/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:48:05 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2012 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification Ry - this post's for you. Clausewitz in Wonderland. U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment head towards an ancient caravansary in Hana Qadim, Iraq, to conduct a search Sept. 8, 2006. The search is being conducted in order to assure that insurgents do not use the structure as a hiding place for weapons caches. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Eli J. Medellin) (Released) First, start off with Ralph Peters in Armed Forces Journal: The hearts-and-minds myth Sorry, but winning means killing By Ralph Peters Mastering the languages, cultural nuances, beliefs... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:45:57 -0600 Sigh. This got bent in a bad way. Now do people see why actual honest criticism in this age over this topic is almost impossible? Any attempt becomes a fight over whether Iraq was right or not when the discussion was about 'how should we prepare for the next fight?" Do we focus on battles of annihilation typical of state-on-state type war or do we fully embrace Boyd and his moral sphere of conflict and where ever that takes us? Tough question. BUt hey, scalp taking on the opposing side of the Iraq debate is *SO* much more important a question, and more fun, innit? Jeebus. (trying to bend it back) I don't think you can say that 'big war' is dead. If we shift entirely away someone else will move into that void. They'll exploit that fact. Path of least resistance. So we need full spectrum. Leviathan and SysAdmin. Leviathan is techno-fetishist. That reliance on technology allows it to fight faster, harder, and with more lethality. SysAdmin is more of what Corn wants---lots and lots of troops who are 'anthropologists more than warriors' who build the day to day relationships, but also know how to kick in doors(though they don't stress door kicking as much). Getting back to Corn. He's got a point, but he's also wrong, about Clauswitz covers all. Clauswitz covers what our military was designed to do and is still designed to do: fight great power wars. Why are we still designed that way? Can you really blame the military, which is under civilian control, for decisions made by their civilian masters? Is there insularity and a seeming uncreativeness? I'd have to agree with that. Citino hinted at it in his book 'Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The evolution of operational warfare'. The military is focused on killing the enemy. "war is too important to be left to the generals" comes to mind here. Grand Strategy, and the means to implement it, is the realm of civilian leadership---but here Corn would accuse me of being part of the 'cult of professionalism'. Oh, well. I've done my, futile, part to bend it back, Hoss. There's something else I want to write about tonight so I'm stopping here. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50968 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50968 Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:48:37 -0600 Gosh take a look at those long haired goats their hearding could those be long haired gloat goats from a place remote? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50961 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50961 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:53:36 -0600 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500731.html?nav=hcmodule In fact, your statement that the plan included “7)Doing all of this while fighting the AQ, Baathist, and jihadist insurgencies, funded by Syria, Iran, et al” is demonstrably false because Rumsfeld’s own words prove he didn’t predict the insurgency. ‘I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.’ Rumsfeld, Nov 2002 http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2002/t11152002_t1114rum.html ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50954 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50954 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:05:14 -0600 is being a full partner in the War on Terror. Seeya, fdcol.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50953 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50953 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:37:55 -0600 someone's tight grip for millenia. A state of anarchy isn't a normal state of affairs there, it's purely a product of the invasion. 2. Iraq is currently like Afghanistan. Iraq already has more foreign terrorists than any country in the world, and if some of them chose to plot against America there'd be nothing to stop them. 3. If you ask anyone of these foreign terrorists why they're there, they'll say it's to fight Americans. 4. If you ask locals why they tolerate them, they'll say it's because they fight Americans. When they don't fight Americans (or when the Americans aren't there) they don't tolerate them. Even in Iraq's roughest province, Anbar, the locals are tired of Al Qaeda for killing civilians when they promised to kill Americans. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/world/middleeast/18iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin BAGHDAD, Sept. 17 — Nearly all the tribes from Iraq’s volatile Sunni-dominated Anbar Province have agreed to join forces and fight Al Qaeda insurgents and other foreign-backed 'terrorists,' an influential tribal leader said Sunday. 'We held a meeting earlier and agreed to fight those who call themselves mujahadeen,' Mr. Rishawi said in an interview. 'Those terrorists claimed that they are fighters working on liberating Iraq, but they turned out to be killers. Now all the people are fed up and have turned against them.' Zarqawi himself was fingered by Sunni Iraqi insurgents. Most Iraqis, including most Shiites, think that Americans' presence is fueling and prolonging the violence. 'If we need to continue to make adjustments, refine our strategy, or commit even more troops there, then fine. Let's do it.' That isn't possible, because the effort is beyond the United States. The Army couldn't produce extra numbers for 12 months even with a draft. Just to maintain current numbers the National Guard is about to be hit on in a bigger way than ever before. And the National Guard is already a mess. Korea and Germany have already been drained. I suppose you could withdraw from some of the 132 countries in which America has a military presence, but Americans show no inclination to do that. Even current troop levels aren't sustainable. The draft would destroy all remaining support for the war, and guarantee Democratic victory in 2008. Since the advocates of going heavy clearly admit that they're talking about a 10-year committment, it's clear it won't happen. The American people are overwhelmingly against it. 'But for God's sake ..... let's do it together, and stop this incessant finger-pointing, political grandstanding, opportunistic hyper-criticism, and hand-wringing about "making the Muslims even angrier" than they get whenever we draw cartoons or whenever the pope quotes a 15th century cleric.' It's also too late because Iraqi public opinion has been decisively lost. As Terrill and Crane of the War College warned, this war could only be won if the US government won the battle of public opinion both in the US and in Iraq. It's lost both. It may be silly to get carried away by cartoons, but it's less silly to get upset when Grandpa is blown away at a checkpoint or Uncle Hassan is swept into Abu Ghraib along with every other adult male on the block. Not caring what they think, and flaunting that nonchalance, is one of the things that has done most to bring on American defeat. And I say defeat because the US govt's wish-list for Iraq is already doomed. They didn't simply want a democratic government - even Iran has elections - they wanted a democratic govt that would recognise Israel's right to exist and be a full partner in the war on terror. Instead they have a government of Iranian-backed terrorists who used to hijack US planes and blow up US embassies (look up Dawa), who recently backed Hezbollah in the Lebanese war, and who are quite possibly torturing more people than Saddam Hussein did, according to Iraqis' testimony to the UN special investigator on torture.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50951 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50951 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:30:57 -0600 LOL - I could offer a rebuttal of each of those issues you mentioned, but what would be the point? Enjoyed the exchange, Owen. Take care. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50950 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50950 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:48:39 -0600 'Instead of blaming Reagan for supporting the Mujahadeen against the USSR, why don't you blame the Soviets for invading Afghanistan in the first place?' Actually, I do, as you'll see if you re-read the last para. Your list of points certainly describes what the Administration wanted to happen, but that's all it describes. It's not a plan, it's a wish-list. A plan involves resources and practical methods for making it happen, making those wishes come true in the real world. If you read the comments of Iraqis interviewed in the article I linked to above, they reveal that one major reason why Iraqis suspect the US of malevolence is that they believe the monumental failure to produce serious reconstruction is too big to be explained by incompetence. '"Do you really think it's possible that America -- the greatest country in the world -- cannot manage a small country like this?" Mohammad Ali, 42, an unemployed construction worker, said as he sat in his friend's electronics shop on a recent afternoon. "No! They have not made any mistakes. They brought people here to destroy Iraq, not to build Iraq." As he drew on a cigarette and two other men in the store nodded in agreement, Ali said the U.S. government was purposely depriving the Iraqi people of electricity, water, gasoline and security, to name just some of the things that most people in this country often lack. "They could fix everything in one hour if they wanted!" he said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis...' How many times have I heard similar comments from Iraqis? Do you know what was the first thing Saddam did after the dregs of his army got back from Kuwait in 1991? Before even crushing the Shiite rising? He fixed the power in Baghdad. He never bothered replacing his tanks, his planes, his WMD. But he spared no expense in fixing the power grid within weeks, paying up front for the best specialists and custom-made parts from Switzerland and Germany. He understood what the Americans somehow still don't - no Iraqi government can survive that fails to deliver reliable electricity to Baghdad. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50949 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50949 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:27:47 -0600 "3. Hang around aimlessly with insufficient forces and no plan, as things continue to slowly (or rapidly) unravel." Well, this presumes, of course, that there ARE "insufficient forces", that there IS "no plan", and that things are "unraveling". Your presumption displays your negative bias and opinion of our efforts and the political/military leadership. I see things differently. I think we've seen a methodical, step-by-step PLAN to do the following: 1) Defeat and overthrow Saddam. 2) Establish a provisional, constabulary government. 3) Rebuild infrastructure, government institutions, and social programs that had been neglected for YEARS by the Baathists and which was destroyed in the war. 4) Establish conditions for an elected, interim caretaker government. 5) Craft an Iraqi constitution that was agreeable to all the various ethnic groups and factions. 6) Establish a permanent, elected government. 7) Doing all of this while fighting the AQ, Baathist, and jihadist insurgencies, funded by Syria, Iran, et al. 8) Doing all of this despite the opposition of the Democrats and liberals here in the US and other anti-US powers in Europe, the UN, and elsewhere. We've made good progress in 3 years. Is it perfect? No. Have mistakes been made? Sure. But there WAS a plan, and an overall strategy - which alo included changing the dynamics in the region to try to head off a larger, more destructive war with Iran. Do I blame Reagan for Afhganistan? Yes. Do I blame the Bush 1 for failing to finish Saddam in 1991? Yes. Do I blame Carter for Iran? Yes. Do I blame Nixon / Ford / Carter / Reagan / Bush / Clinton / Bush for failing to do enough to stem the tide of Islamis terrorism during ALL of their administrations? Dang right. But we can play that blame game ad infinitum and ad neaseum, can't we? The fact is that history and events build on themselves and interlock so much that you can't isolate a single cause for any of this. Instead of blaming Reagan for supporting the Mujahadeen against the USSR, why don't you blame the Soviets for invading Afghanistan in the first place, that necessitated our intervention on behalf of the anti-Soviet forces? My larger point, that I know that you're smart enough to get, is that we (all of us, the US, the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, the UN, everyone) watched as the situation in Afghanistan devolved after the Soviet pull-out, and we all allowed the civil war there to result in a safe haven for Islamist terrorists. I don't see how any intelligent person can look at that example, and not see that the EXACT SAME THING will occur in Iraq if we pull-out there before finishing the job that we started. I agree with your earlier point, though. Since the effort there IS so vitally important, we need to do WHATEVER we must to succeed there. If we need to continue to make adjustments, refine our strategy, or commit even more troops there, then fine. Let's do it. But for God's sake ..... let's do it together, and stop this incessant finger-pointing, political grandstanding, opportunistic hyper-criticism, and hand-wringing about "making the Muslims even angrier" than they get whenever we draw cartoons or whenever the pope quotes a 15th century cleric. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50948 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50948 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:46:41 -0600 "Pull out of Iraq, and let the various factions fight it out for control? Yeah, we saw how well that worked out in Afghanistan." By the way, fdcol, since the Americans have never pulled out of Afghanistan, I can only assume you mean that the Russians' departure allowed the country to fall into the grip of warlords who ultimately fell to the Taliban. But it was none other than Ronald Reagan who engineered the Mujahideen's victory over the Russians. So you're effectively blaming Reagan for 911. Fortunately for Reagan's memory, the record shows that in fact it was the Soviet invasion, not the Soviet departure, that brought Bin Laden to Afghanistan and set him on the path of Jihad. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50944 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50944 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:59:38 -0600 Even if that's your opinion, you must nevertheless find it difficult to reconcile the stated aim of bringing democracy to Iraq with the fact that, by staying, you're overriding the wishes of a large majority of Iraqis. It's also a fact that both the proportion who want Americans to leave, and the proportion willing to countenance violence to push them out, is growing every year. Remember, maintaining current policy is not the same thing as maintaining the current situation. That is changing, and changing fast, despite American policy. There are three sides to this argument: 1. Pullout. 2. As Gen Batiste etc, suggest, commit resources that offer the possibility of achieving something...including some form of draft. 3. Hang around aimlessly with insufficient forces and no plan, as things continue to slowly (or rapidly) unravel. The idiots, and those who can't be taken seriously, are those who support option 3. The real argument is between options 1 and 2. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50943 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50943 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:40:19 -0600 Pull out of Iraq, and let the various factions fight it out for control? Yeah, we saw how well that worked out in Afghanistan. So, some people want to see it repeated, on a much larger scale. Idiots. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50942 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50942 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:30:39 -0600 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show By Amit R. Paley Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A22 BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers... ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50937 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50937 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:32:14 -0600 Oi vey. Corn is fun. Now I know what it feels like to be on the recieving end of one of my never-enders. And I'm only half done. He's got some good points, and boy do I disagree with him on others. How many different ways can you say 'Clauswitzian theory about great power war is not the right tool for this job?' Dunno, I'll finish and let you know because Corn finds lots of ways to say exactly that. Peters is always fun. Again, some stuff of value and some stuff that makes you cringe. I like his pugnaciousness, but killing every slumbitch just isn't practical. He makes me wonder as I have these 4 years that maybe planning on causing massive disruption of the enemy via shock and awe type stuff(friction stuff, entropy based warfare) is better than grinding him down slowly and surely. Instead of turning every formation into a deaf, dumb and blind unit that cannot fight and so melts away maybe it's better just to make it deaf and blind so we can annihilate it? Yes, this still could possibly work for insurgentcy/geurrillas since you'd invest yourself to reduce them as well. That's why I think of it as a slow, continuous grind. Col Peters sometimes makes me cringe. Sometimes I wonder if he realizes that it seems he's trying to emulate GC Scott's Patton? It's what you want from someone fighting and killing. BUt it also ignores something profound David Drake once said, paraphrasing here, 'You create a policy maker when you put a gun in a man's hand and drop him off in some foreign land.' Kick much @$$ Col Peters, but please understand that Patton running SHAEF(typo?) would've been a disaster. Corn seems more like Marshall or Eisenhower to Peters' Patton. You need both. But, Corn kind of get's around Peters, IMO. Peters is great for war as war, the kinetic part. Corn goes after the 'everything else' that BArnett's been about for several years. Sorry about not having a spine this morn. JEss took it with her to her lab--- her students are always surprised by it during her office hours. Doing so keeps me out of trouble here in mine(dang Miss Thang! and yes, I'd like to graduate someday but that's not going to happen if I keep getting in trouble with my PI by angering MT) and was before I had my first Coke of the day. Now I'm ornery---had some Coke and Miss Thang is out to lunch(literally, she's always figuratively out to lunch in my opinion.). http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50935 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50935 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:17:29 -0600 We can always play the "coulda - shoulda - woulda" game with respect to troop numbers in Iraq, but quite frankly I think the very same people who now claim that we had "too few" troops would have argued that we had "too many". They would have still criticized Rumsfeld and Bush, but the argument would be for having such "large, oppressive American jackboot prints on the throat of occupied Iraqis." We've made serious errors, as we always do. We're a peace-loving nation, and I'm personally glad that we don't always get the "war" and "occupation" things perfectly right, every time. The practice that would require would really make us "war-mongers" and "imperialistic". http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50933 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50933 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:51:25 -0600 Dern sarcastic font.... you *really* need to get that fixed, eh John? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50928 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50928 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:08:28 -0600 Heh. I wasn't trying for a negative connotation... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50927 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50927 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:01:10 -0600 Dude, I didn't know that 'God's work' had a negative connotation. If I knew that I wouldn't use it. Dumb me. Really, I thought it meant fighting/working on the side of the good guys/The Angels. Oops. Didn't The Chief write something about how terms get mangled when they cross over from mil only use to civilian vernacular? I think we have another term to add to his list. Now, I have to find time to read this in total at some point. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50926 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50926 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:51:01 -0600 "The war on terror demand we mobilize and significantly increase the size of our forces" Way back in the 70's there was a lot of chatter about whether an all volunteer force would be sustainable when the "Baby Bust" came. Congress can add 60,000 slots to the Army, but without a draft those slots will go largely unfilled. Batiste might want to believe that the public would support a draft, I don't. I wonder how the Vietnam War would have turned out if MacNamara had told the Generals no to their request for 500,000 troops. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50925 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50925 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:42:44 -0600 Oh - and it's early. I may still get poked at. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50924 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50924 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:17:34 -0600 Aside from "This isn't all about you, Jack!" ;^) I would suggest... context. This discussion at Castle Argghhh! occurs in a different context than it does at Random Fate, and with a different set of commenters and long time readers. This place is generally a calm eye in the storms, either because we're, um, boring and no one cares, the stealth features work, or the Rulez, which serve to reduce entertainment value while enhancing actual content value in discussions, doesn't feed the trolls of either side - so they go away looking for a blogwreck to gape and jeer at? Which isn't a comment on how you run your place - but is a comment on who *visits* your place, and choose to comment. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50923 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50923 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:16:14 -0600 Now why is it that when I write of these things I am called a "liberal" and "defeatist" among other things (not here, but elsewhere)? Could it be that there are some who don't follow *either* party line who see things outside the partisan lenses, some who are inevitably labeled "partisan" by those who cannot conceive of the thought that they might have made a mistake? If we continue labeling anyone who doesn't follow the lockstep party line as "the enemy" then we are the ones who are the true enemies of democracy. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50921 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/burying_clausewitz.html#comment-50921 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:06:48 -0600