The Long War

[Adrian II]

That is what the Pentagon calls it, and it looks like they are indeed planning for a prolonged campaign of a different nature than the War on Terrorism. Papers on all continents have carried parts of this story; for those who need a quick fix The Guardian seems to provide a good write-up: America's Long War (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1710062,00.html).

I haven't made my mind up after just a few days of reports and comments. Let's discuss it here. Some of my initial impressions:

Upside
1. more involvement of allies
2. no more massive military invasions
3. more intel on the ground

Downside
1. more 'remote control' ops (drones)
2. more use of 'bad' proxy forces
3. terrorism unnecessarily hyped into Cold War dimension

So?

[Proletariat]

At first glance, sounds like something we shoulda been doing all along.

[Papewaio]

I agree.

=][=

Rewind.

Skip the Iraq conflict, keep up the good PR with the rest of the world. Cooperate with other countries and destroy the terrorists.


As well as big expenditure projects, the report calls for: investments in signals and human intelligence gathering - spies on the ground; funding for the Nato intelligence fusion centre; increased space radar capability; the expansion of the global information grid (a protected information network); and an information-sharing strategy "to guide operations with federal, state, local and coalition partners". A push will also be made to improve forces' linguistic skills, with an emphasis on Arabic, Chinese and Farsi.

I think this should be the larger focus. Get it right and get it done quickly.

No point in having special forces who can defuse nuclear warheads if no one can get them to the location in a timely manner.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, it makes sense to me.

[econ21]

I'm coming back to the view that the whole rhetoric of a "war on terror" or now a "long war" is inappropriate. I was shocked at the terminology when it was used immediately after 9/11 - it seemed histrionic at the time - but after a while you get used to the doublespeak. Now it comes up again in a new form, my old reactions to it resurface.

The danger of referring to counter-terrorism as a war are numerous:

It glorifies an enemy who seems to be little more than a few men hiding out in some caves.

It fosters an antagonistic attitude towards radical Muslims that can easily lead them to think they are on the other side of a holy war, so recruiting some more martyrs for the men hiding in the caves.

It leads people to think the war can be definitively won, when not only is it going to be long, it's probably going to be interminable. (The nightmare of the nuke in the briefcase is only going to become more troubling over time).

It encourages a "state of emergency" type mentality that can be used to suspend proper legal procedures for dealing with suspects and rush through various other dubious measures, that are either intrinsically undesirable or instrumentally counter-productive (or both).

It makes people think first of military solutions, when the key short term issue is finding the terrorists and the key long term issue is stopping more being created, neither of which are military problems.

At worst it can be used to create a fevered atmosphere in which people can be hood winked into supporting a war quite unconnected with 9/11 in the bizarre belief that there is a connection.

[Azi Tohak]

I'm curious how many governments will have the stomach to continue to fight phantoms. Everyone knows that Bush and his group does, public opinion be damned. How long until someone else shows up with new ideas of how or even if to fight? Oh yeah, just 2 years probably.

And that is just the US. The idea of including a bunch of other countries is great. Seems to me special ops from the USA, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Israel (assuming they can take time away from their own multitude of problems), Australia are all superb at whatever they want or need to do. But will the next President of France, or Chacellor of Germany send their boys (okay, maybe girls too, but I doubt it) to die in random country X? I just don't think that a 'long war' will be able to gain that kind of support all over. Reminds me too much of Vietnam.

As an aside, I know this is a vastly condensed article (as much as I am surprised that I liked anything from Guardian), but still, I loved the vagueness of what was cited.


Priorities

The report identifies four priority areas

· Defeating terrorist networks

· Defending the homeland in depth

· Shaping the choices of countries at strategic crossroads

· Preventing hostile states and non-state actors from acquiring or using weapons of mass destruction

Ah ha! So THAT is what needs to happen. Nevermind that every spy agency of every country around the world has their own definitions and own specifications for each of the four.

I just thought that part was ironic.

Azi

Edit: SMRT! SMRT! I somehow managed to copy the entire article. SMRT!

[Samurai Waki]

I'm beyond caring at this point, and so I will begin building my underground antarctica colony... no republicans...no democrats...no terrorists... just hot tubs...hot babes... and good cigars.

[Adrian II]

I'm curious how many governments will have the stomach to continue to fight phantoms. Everyone knows that Bush and his group does, public opinion be damned. How long until someone else shows up with new ideas of how or even if to fight?Most of the ideas in the plan are not new, but its implementation might bring a change of tack. And policies can and do change in the course of years and presidential terms. I try to look at the bright side of this plan, which is that there is now at least an option on the table to engage in some real 'world policing' instead of the slash-and-burn campaign we have witnessed. But I do share Simon's main concern, as well as another one: this set-up would lead to closer cooperation with some of the most unpalatable regimes, warlords, security services and mercenary outfits. American soldiers will be drawn into more 'dirty' operations together with proxy armies.

Less all-out warfare, less overt confrontation with Muslim countries. More renditions, drones, torture centres.

It is a very, very complex equation... :wall:

[Major Robert Dump]

Great. Another international body with member countries. The others are such sparkiling examples of cooperation and progress. I hope members get neat hats or some sort of fancy vest to wear, and maybe some kind of magical scepter to smite terrorists.

[rory_20_uk]

If it's a Republican on the Throne it'll be a rubber stamp organisation to put a good spin on backing erm, freedom fighters (the Taliban II, anyone?).

Democrats will most likely make it a talking shop, so nothing in fact has to be done more than intel and drones.

What the CIA gets up to will be the worrying thing. Looks like far more of the work is in their court, and hence off the radar of courts and papers.

Goverments like to have some emergency. Then calls to look at the "big picture" or calls to assist "final victory" can be used to hush people over anything else: "you're not being unpatriotic, are you???"

~:smoking:

[littlelostboy]

I came into this world when the Cold War was coming to an end. Now I'm going to live in a generation of the "Long War". Great. Just Great. Thanks U.S., for making my life oh-so-exciting. :no:
U.S.A: United States of Arrogance.
p.s.: no offence to you American citizens.

[Azi Tohak]

I came into this world when the Cold War was coming to an end. Now I'm going to live in a generation of the "Long War". Great. Just Great. Thanks U.S., for making my life oh-so-exciting. :no:
U.S.A: United States of Arrogance.
p.s.: no offence to you American citizens.

Hum, are you sure your're beating the right dead horse? Maybe you want to blame Israel for continuing to humiliate the Arabs by its very existence? Or what about the people who actually kicked the USA in the nuts with their attacks? Or the political and religious leaders that make butchering Westerns not only acceptable, but a good idea? Nah, it is more fun (and not racist) to just blame the US.

Yeah, I know you don't mean to insult Americans themselves, and I'm not attacking you. I just think blaming the US government for this war is like blaming the Cold War on the US too. Yeah, there would have been no Cold War if the US had just meekly caved in to the Soviets (apologies to the rest of NATO, but without a direct foe of the Soviets, I don't think W Germany, France, UK would have stood a chance). But I would hate to live in that world. Would you like to live in a world where these people can run around killing at will? Or do you prefer the idea of them being hunted like the rodents they are?

Azi

[Rodion Romanovich]

The good news are:
1. that they're trying operations directed strictly towards guilty, and not against entire nations in a way that can hurt innocents. This can even lead to better cooperation with the countries in which the operations are to be conducted.
2. a possibility to solve political non-terrorism type problems in a peaceful way
3. the power-balance of earth will not change dramatically and suddenly due to the USA destroying itself by overextending and creating more enemies
4. in the cases where the fighting is against pure extremists as opposed to people called extremists, the strategy might be close also to European strategy. It might then be possible to get rhetorical hostilities between Europe and the USA to end. If this draws in Europe in fights with enemies who aren't real extremists and only enemies of the USA, it's a bad thing though

The bad news are:
1. those hurt by earlier types of operations will demand compensation by violent methods for maybe a century or two, which will possibly mean more violence vs civilians in the short term. However the long term effects will most likely be good if new presidents act responsibly and remember that there are conflicts remaining from actions of earlier presidents, even if newer presidents use this new, better policy that shouldn't cause much new resistance
2. if there are covert operations there's a risk that due to the difficulty of the operations less margins will be taken, shooting will be done first and questions asked afterwards. And it's difficult to get tapes of whatever is done released in mass media. In short - the risks of torture existing without the public knowing of it increases. On the other hand special forces might have better discipline than others. Being in the middle of possible enemy territory I guess an agent would try to avoid torture in order to not receive the same treatment in case he gets caught.

All in all, the new strategy has potential to be a large improvement over previous strategies. It's still theoretically possible to screw up badly within the limits of how the new strategy is formulated in words, but if it's followed I guess it'll be an improvement for many. The only big problem I can see is if this change of strategy has come too late, so that the extremists see it as admittance of defeat due to weakness (the economical problems of the Iraq war may lead to similar thoughts), and the inevitable effects of the emnity from hurt innocent civilians created by the earlier, less successful and less ethical, strategy. However since the earlier strategy was plain stupidity compared to the new one, I doubt it would be seen as too much of a defeat admittance, and rather as a change of strategy welcome for both neutrals, civilians and the people living in the western world.

[Divinus Arma]

Well, I mentioned 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) many times in this forum.


Once again, I am correct.