USA needs to spend 35 BRPs -- and Declare War

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The USA malfed up in September of 2001.

We had just been attacked, so Congress authorized Bush to wage war unilateraly and without declaration. Congress found a Constitutional way (blank check authorization in advance :no: ) to sidestep the Constitution and abrogate its constitutional duty. Not only is this cowardly, but the lack of this declaration has hamstrung our efforts ever since.

We needed -- and perhaps need -- a formal Declaration of War against Al Queda VOTED on by our representatives. As the war widens, we needed subsequent extensions of that DOW to be voted on to extend the conflict to any other terror groups or nation-states necessary to prosecute it effectively.

Following a DOW, we should have (and would have been empowered to):

1. Institute a draft. I prefer an all-volunteer force, but we need boots. Front-line combat formations would only be populated by volunteers, but numerous other positions exist that can and would be filled by draftees. Front Line = All volunteer.
2nd Line = Volunteered for combat service after being drafted.
Support = Draftee.

2. Close the borders using army units (2nd line formations, see #1 above).

3. Garrison trouble spots using an 11-1 ratio [1 Front Line, 10 2nd Line]. Any less than 10-1 does not suppress guerilla conflicts effectively -- and there are few force multipliers for this. 15 Brigades of US or British troops can pretty much demolish any opponent on the globe save for Russia and the PRC -- but they can't garrison/occupy anything bigger than New Jersey. This is a prime use for the boots.

4. Hire Mercenaries (a la Blackwater) to serve with friendly foreign contingents. This frees up our Special Forces for intelligence raids and selected decapitation (military definition, not anatomical) efforts.

5. Sell war bonds, ration gasoline and other select commodities, and refocus budgetary efforts to support a full-on conflict.

6. Develop a clear definition of "terrorist." Then, apply this definition across the board and let it become a central component of US policy.


Probably won't happen, but I needed that...

[PanzerJaeger]

Nice.

The US has been trying to fight a war without sacrifices.. and its costing the nation. :shame:

[Divinus Arma]

Seamus,

The organization of a modern military in the new combat theatre does not at all coincide with the concept of "front lines".

Warfarre, in this 4th generation of development, has become completely alinear. The enemy purposely avoids our heavy troops and attacks targets of opportunity, especially in what used to be called a "rear area".

Now, EVERYONE is a combat troop. Cooks, drivers, supply guys: All must be proficient because all with likely face an ambush or some type of caombat threat.

We now operate with "pockets", where we have semi-secure zones of total control within a large area of not-so-secure country where we excercise periodic control in response to proven threats or reliable intelligence.

Warfare has changed for ever.

Google "4th generation warfare". You'll learn some interesting things about the dangers our 3rd Generation armed forces face in this period of transition.

The last major shift was in WWI, when we shifted from 2nd to 3rd. Some folks still had an attachment to cavalry despite the presence of the machine gun. The beginning of WWI was a real lesson in warfare evolution that we would be wise to rememeber and learn from.

[Redleg]

An Interesting blog concerning 4th Generation Warfare and Politics

The Fourth Generation of Modern Peace (Nonviolent Ideoogical Net-Struggle)
"Mao's 3 Stages of 4GW (Now with Tractors)," by Dan, tdaxp, 5 April 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/04/05/mao_s_3_stages_of_4gw_now_with_tractors.html.

"4GW's Peaceful Evolution (Yushchenko as 4GWarrior)," by Dan, tdaxp, 7 April 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/04/07/4gw_s_peaceful_evolution_yushchenko_as_4gwarrior.html.

Earlier I wondered if Ukrainian President Victor Yuschenko was a fourth generation warrior -- a 4GSoldier. The answer is no. He is a fourth generation pacifist -- a 4th Generation Citizen.

I argued that the First Intifadah and the Orange Revolution were basically peaceful 4th generation wars. The evolving nature of 4GW made this sound plausible. But ultimately that view is wrong. There is a difference war and peace, warrior and citizen, which should never be forgotten. Enemy warriors are a danger and must be destroyed, whether shot on the battlefield, detained in Guantenemo, or sentenced in the courts. "Enemy" citizens, on the hand, or part of the democratic process. Warriors must be fought and citizens must be protected even when they have the same goals.

Fourth Generation Peace - 4GP - is the peaceful complement of Fourth Generation War. Everything that 4GW does with violence, 4GP does with non-violence. For example, in another post I listed the three stages of 4GW as



Destabilize the enemy while building up a fighting force. Assassinations, bombings, and the like.

Attempt to control areas where the enemy is weak while building up a fighting force. However, do not fight regular battles.

Use your fighting force to conquer the enemy in regular battles.


In 4GP these become


High-profile attacks on enemy networks and hierarchies while building up your own network

Contest other network's possession of individuals

Directly influence government policy with your network


Remember that 4GP is an ideological or political struggle. Like in 4GW the goal is create laws. A 4GP struggle "ends" when a movement controls government and the movement's enemies are no longer serious threats. Like in 4GW, 4GP is not quick -- it can take decades, even generations. Like in 4GW, 4GP can be in differnt stages in different places at the same time.

What are examples of 4GP? What where the first three generations of modern peace? How does 4GP interact with controls? What does 4GP mean for Barnett's Gap-Seam-Core progression? Those are questions for another time.

http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/04/21/the_fourth_generation_of_modern_peace_nonviolent_ideoogical.html

An interesting read - I like the link that the author is trying to establish between the two.

[Redleg]

Nice.

The US has been trying to fight a war without sacrifices.. and its costing the nation. :shame:

This is what happens with the Congress neglects its constitutional duties and responsiblities and allows other branches to usurp its authority.

Futhermore the American People by large do not get behind foreign adventures without an outside stimulus to spur the sacrifice. Afganstan and the inital parts of the War on Terror, where the adminstration focused on attempting to capture and/or kill OBL and his henchmen - allowed the American People to maintain focus on the end result. No matter how much one agrees with the removal of Saddam from power, the obvious truth is that the adventure in Iraq removed the necessary focus of the American People from the end result of the War on Terror. This is clearly the fault of the adminstration. Congress also has some of the blame in this particlure instance because it as a body allowed its authority and responsiblity to be usurped by the Presidential Branch. The War Powers Act of 1973 needs to be rescinded and no blanket authorization of force should ever be issued again by Congress. Congress needs to fulfill its Constitutional duties and responsiblities and any congressmen or Senator that advocates allowing the other branches to usurp thier authority should be voted out of office or impeached by the citizens that voted for him in the first place.

Now the removing of Saddam from power had to be done, he was not honoring the committments of the cease fire, nor the 14 resolutions that were over and over again implaced by the United Nations. However the timing of that removal and the method of doing so - not enough troops on the ground, rushed, and then haphazardly thrown together occupation had blackened the eye of the United States Military.

But one would be blind if in hindsight they are not willing to acknowledge that Iraq is the classic case of attempting to juggle to many glass balls. When you begin to drop them - the break into many pieces, to many to juggle the same any longer.

[Divinus Arma]

This is what happens with the Congress neglects its constitutional duties and responsiblities and allows other branches to usurp its authority.

Of course, by NOT declaring war and ceding the power to the executive branch, those who voted for authoriztion to use force can play political duplicity.

Pretty neat, eh? The ****ers.

[Papewaio]

Wouldn't some of the current units (like Rangers?) and the Marines as a whole be better trained for 4th generation by emphasising that everyone is a rifleman first and whatever speciality (making cakes) second.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't know what is meant by 'spending 35 BRPs'. ~:mecry:

[Atilius]

I don't know what is meant by 'spending 35 BRPs'. ~:mecry:

Avalon Hill's Third Reich game.

Actually we need to spend more than that - 35 BRPs for the declaration of war and 15 per quarter for the offensive option. I don't think the attrition option will get the job done.

[Divinus Arma]

Wouldn't some of the current units (like Rangers?) and the Marines as a whole be better trained for 4th generation by emphasising that everyone is a rifleman first and whatever speciality (making cakes) second.
Pape, you are exactly correct. It is a well known fact that insurgents will intentionally avoid Marines when possible and target regular army instead. Our uniforms are different, and insurgents have recognized vast vast differences in our battlefield tactics.

I invite you to explore the USMC concepts of the "Strategic Corporal" and "Distributed Operations". You may be surprised how seriously the Marine Corps is taking the evolution of warfare.

These concepts are reliant on intelligent, motivated, and mature volunteers to be effective.

The Marine Corps operating force implementing these concepts would be crippled by draft forces. It is essential that the modern Marine Corps remain volunteer.

I would even argue for drastic increases in pay to both non-coms and the Marine Corps as a whole in order to recruit a more educated and mature force. I would desire to see a small unit leadership comprised of men in their late 20s and 30s rather than the 19-20 yr old Corporal we have now. The only way to recruit dedicated adults instead of adventurous teens is to increase pay dramatically. We would also need to allow for non-promotion retention. Currently, the Marine Corps will only allow one to serve up to 8 years if that individual does not promote up to Sergeant from Corporal.

It is past due for the Marine Corps to reconsider its recruiting, retention, and seperation policies in order to achieve a more professional force.

[Papewaio]

Interesting it seems that is the same model British and Commonwealth forces use... Sergeants are the backbone of those forces. In WWII all the ANZAC troops possible would be told as much information (maps, intel) as possible so that they could make the best decisions at the point of contact and their own ideas on how to achieve the objectives if they were separated from the chain of command (this did cause some problems with other Commonwealth forces).

While the SAS model is like what you propose. Except for officers most will be demoted in rank once joining (but their pay will increase dramatically). Average age is around the 25 to 27 mark for that force.

[DemonArchangel]

The thing is that by and large, the American populace is still living normally, even though we have large numbers of soldiers stationed at multiple corners of the world, and this is a good thing.

We cannot make a generalized declaration of war, because we cannot really define "terrorist". And no rationing either. We have to go on living normally, no guarding, making bomb shelters in the basement, no taking away our rights like the right-wing establisment proposes. That's stupid and fundamentally Un-American. We must accept the fact that there are folks out there that don't like us, but we must still treat them with respect, unless they choose not to extend that courtesy to us.

In order to battle terrorism, it is not enough to close our borders and bomb the sweet (expletive deleted) out of people. Our military is already excellent in terms of projecting power and at conventional warfare. Now what we need to train our military to do is to occupy an area. This means that all troops, not only SF troops, should recieve cultural/language training beforehand and try to reach out to the local population so that they would be willing to support us. Sometimes the carrot actually works better than the stick. The amount of attacks on our troops will be reduced greatly if the populace becomes less hostile to us and our ideas.

And America needs to listen to the world more often. Even if we disregard the rest of the planet, we should still at least give them the right to address their grievances. Maybe if we did that, we would not be seen as a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant p**cks.

[Vladimir]

I agree with the 4th gen analysis but disagree with declaring war on Al Queda because I don't believe it's possible. The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs or Poverty, not like the war against Japan. I don't know if it's possible to declare war against an ideology. That's what you'd have to do to eliminate the threat because once Al Queda is eliminated there are more than enough organizations to take its place.

Besides, how would you wage this war? If they're in Pakistan and the government of Pakistan doesn't want us there will you declare war on Pakistan? Or perhaps Sudan, Somalia, et al? This issue is far more complex than declaring war (like against a nation state), it's combating an ideology.

In the case of Iraq I would very much favored a declaration of war and it would have been more feasible. The problem is the politics and I don't know if it would have been approved given that we originally went there under a UN resolution, not a declaration of war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Eclectic (and others):

I am well aware that even a semi-definable "front line" is a thing of the past.

My references would, perhaps, be better labeled as:

Fully Deployable: available for any combat mission and combat support mission (including logistics, infrastructure, and the like). These would be all volunteer forces, or draftees who subsequently volunteer for an additional term of service. They would be tasked with major combat operations and with the key components of suppression strikes during an occupation. Please note, in this context the entire USMC fits into this category -- its an assault force by definition.

Limited Deployable: here's where the draftees come in. They will be deployed as suppressive forces to round out the numbers of the fully deployables duing occupation duty; allowing the fully deployables to be on the selective cutting edge of the suppression effort and not running convoys or guarding wire. Domestic border guard work as well. Those opting for a combat role after draft would certainly fall in this grouping.

Support Services: rear-area MOS's operating in largely safe zones. Guarding the Vint Hill radio complex, security duty on state guard armories; the reams of necessary paperwork. Again, draftees (and for some jobs GS employees)could serve in these capacities without endangering efficiency.


Atilius:

Thanks for helping Louis. I do miss that game, but finding the time to play it -- and the people -- was a project. Its a shame the computer version was so buggy (and its AI not much better than RTW 1.0's).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with the 4th gen analysis but disagree with declaring war on Al Queda because I don't believe it's possible. The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs or Poverty, not like the war against Japan. I don't know if it's possible to declare war against an ideology. That's what you'd have to do to eliminate the threat because once Al Queda is eliminated there are more than enough organizations to take its place.

Besides, how would you wage this war? If they're in Pakistan and the government of Pakistan doesn't want us there will you declare war on Pakistan? Or perhaps Sudan, Somalia, et al? This issue is far more complex than declaring war (like against a nation state), it's combating an ideology.

In the case of Iraq I would very much favored a declaration of war and it would have been more feasible. The problem is the politics and I don't know if it would have been approved given that we originally went there under a UN resolution, not a declaration of war.

Terrorism is a thorny problem, but the first key is to define it. If you try to define it so loosely as to include everybody in the Michigan militia who chooses to flout gun laws, then you'll never be able to act. An operational definition that sets useful parameters is absolutely essential. And yes, if you set up your operational definition to include tacit support for terrorists (or inability to act against them) then you might need to attack anyway. Define the parameters, plan the mission, work the plan.

Poverty is a relative term of condition. Given human nature it is insoluble. The phrase "war on poverty" was rhetorical, and meant to indicate and all out effort.

The War on Drugs uses the same rhetorical convention, I admit, but was always winnable if the correct target had been attacked. That is, of course, the market. In addition to a thorough explanation of the pitfalls of illegal drugs, were all third time users were imprisoned for life without parole -- no exceptions for stories/conditions'connections -- then the market would deteriorate. Attacking suppliers without curbing demand is stupidity -- all it does is enhance the profits for the suppliers. Alternatively, legalizing any such substances -- but penalizing harshly any resulting harm to others -- would probably be more efficient. Let the addicts weed themselves out.

[Spetulhu]

4. Hire Mercenaries (a la Blackwater) to serve with friendly foreign contingents. This frees up our Special Forces for intelligence raids and selected decapitation (military definition, not anatomical) efforts.

More mercenaries means more elite soldiers retiring in order to join the mercs. Why serve as SpecOps for bad pay when you can join Blackwater and other merc units and get top dollar?

[Ironside]

An Interesting blog concerning 4th Generation Warfare and Politics

The Fourth Generation of Modern Peace (Nonviolent Ideoogical Net-Struggle)
"Mao's 3 Stages of 4GW (Now with Tractors)," by Dan, tdaxp, 5 April 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/04/05/mao_s_3_stages_of_4gw_now_with_tractors.html.

"4GW's Peaceful Evolution (Yushchenko as 4GWarrior)," by Dan, tdaxp, 7 April 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/04/07/4gw_s_peaceful_evolution_yushchenko_as_4gwarrior.html.

Earlier I wondered if Ukrainian President Victor Yuschenko was a fourth generation warrior -- a 4GSoldier. The answer is no. He is a fourth generation pacifist -- a 4th Generation Citizen.

I argued that the First Intifadah and the Orange Revolution were basically peaceful 4th generation wars. The evolving nature of 4GW made this sound plausible. But ultimately that view is wrong. There is a difference war and peace, warrior and citizen, which should never be forgotten. Enemy warriors are a danger and must be destroyed, whether shot on the battlefield, detained in Guantenemo, or sentenced in the courts. "Enemy" citizens, on the hand, or part of the democratic process. Warriors must be fought and citizens must be protected even when they have the same goals.

Fourth Generation Peace - 4GP - is the peaceful complement of Fourth Generation War. Everything that 4GW does with violence, 4GP does with non-violence. For example, in another post I listed the three stages of 4GW as



Destabilize the enemy while building up a fighting force. Assassinations, bombings, and the like.

Attempt to control areas where the enemy is weak while building up a fighting force. However, do not fight regular battles.

Use your fighting force to conquer the enemy in regular battles.


In 4GP these become


High-profile attacks on enemy networks and hierarchies while building up your own network

Contest other network's possession of individuals

Directly influence government policy with your network


Remember that 4GP is an ideological or political struggle. Like in 4GW the goal is create laws. A 4GP struggle "ends" when a movement controls government and the movement's enemies are no longer serious threats. Like in 4GW, 4GP is not quick -- it can take decades, even generations. Like in 4GW, 4GP can be in differnt stages in different places at the same time.

What are examples of 4GP? What where the first three generations of modern peace? How does 4GP interact with controls? What does 4GP mean for Barnett's Gap-Seam-Core progression? Those are questions for another time.

http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/04/21/the_fourth_generation_of_modern_peace_nonviolent_ideoogical.html

An interesting read - I like the link that the author is trying to establish between the two.

I must say that saying that Mao invented the the concept of 4GW is flawed, rather he defined it. The principle of guerilla warfare is quite old. The 4GP concept is quite interesting though (counters is already deployed against it).

[Vladimir]

The War on Drugs uses the same rhetorical convention, I admit, but was always winnable if the correct target had been attacked. That is, of course, the market. In addition to a thorough explanation of the pitfalls of illegal drugs, were all third time users were imprisoned for life without parole -- no exceptions for stories/conditions'connections -- then the market would deteriorate. Attacking suppliers without curbing demand is stupidity -- all it does is enhance the profits for the suppliers. Alternatively, legalizing any such substances -- but penalizing harshly any resulting harm to others -- would probably be more efficient. Let the addicts weed themselves out.

Quite right; the war on Drug and Terrorism won't be won with rhetoric or half measures (narco-terrorism isn't a new phrase). Every nation needs to determine if it is in their national interest to combat such problems and to what extent. I know that sounds rather selfish, (wrong is wrong, right? Sometimes I don't like English :dizzy2: ). The problem is, as you say, how do you define it?

[yesdachi]

The US was clearly overconfident and did not expect this little Afghanistan/Iraq thing to be as big an ordeal as it had turned into. Had our leaders realized the task was as great as it is I… 1) doubt we would have gotten into it. and 2) that if we had it would have been much more formalized. I’m sure we thought that we would just roll on in and liberate the country and be treated as saviors and then roll back out effectively securing peace in the Middle East and spreading democracy to the underprivileged. All before the 11:00 PM news.

The US’s overconfidence and inexperience with an unfamiliar enemy led to a string of bad decisions. We made the mess, I’m crossing my fingers in hopes that we stick around to clean it up. Hopefully we will have learned a lesson thru this.

[rotorgun]

The US was clearly overconfident and did not expect this little Afghanistan/Iraq thing to be as big an ordeal as it had turned into. Had our leaders realized the task was as great as it is I… 1) doubt we would have gotten into it. and 2) that if we had it would have been much more formalized. I’m sure we thought that we would just roll on in and liberate the country and be treated as saviors and then roll back out effectively securing peace in the Middle East and spreading democracy to the underprivileged. All before the 11:00 PM news.

The US’s overconfidence and inexperience with an unfamiliar enemy led to a string of bad decisions. We made the mess, I’m crossing my fingers in hopes that we stick around to clean it up. Hopefully we will have learned a lesson thru this.

My sentiments exactly yesdachi. There is really no viable alternative but to "stay the course" now. The absolute arrogance of the planners of this adventure has astounded me. This plays well into the hands of the great military defense spending industrialists/international investors/BIG OIL people that mostly make up the Bush administration, and its supporters. It is really what they wanted all along. A nice, long, and almost unwinable, dirty litttle conflict going on for many years. After all, they'll all be retired on "the ranch", spending the billions made off this boondoggle and counting on all that residule income still to come from the war for many years to come.

In my opinion, they tried to make it appear that a short war was all that was needed, all the while vaugely hinting to the world that it "might take a little longer than we expected". As for strategy and tactics, what's that? Something the entire senior officer corps has seemed to forgotten, as if sending young people on a patrol in the middle of Bahgdad or Fallujah etc. is the only solution to the insurgency. I still say back off, take the oil fields and pipelines, guard the important Iraqi government and infrastructure buildings, and let the little d***heads come at you across your cleared (by knocking down whatever you must) fields of fire. Meanwhile, on the strategic front, invade Syria and eliminate that source of former Sunni Baathists and foriegn fighters from reentering Iraq. By the way, they can help out Isreal by making a left turn into Lebanon and eliminating the Hezbollah. If Iran gets a little upset, just tell them that we'll get to them in a bit, as we are a little preoccupied. Sun Zu would have advised "lure the enemy onto the ground of your choosing, and there deal him the deathblow."

Yes dear Seamus, we should have declared war, not just on "terror", for what the hell is that, but on the actual countries we accused of aiding and abetting terrorism as well. If that takes a draft, and it probably would after everyone now realized that this is a real war, than so be it. To try and avoid the consequences of their little plan, the Bush boys have never really come to grips with exactly what in the hell thay have gotten us into. I forsee a long occupation, yes occupation, for at least a generation in Iraq and the region in order to protect our little "investment" in democracy. If we don't, the United States should just pack up and never take up arms again against anyone, for we will have lost the worlds' and our own respect.

I apologize for the extreme sarcasm in the tone of my rant, but I cannot abide the hypocracy of the Bush camp, and am tired of hearing of good people dying for something that many in Washington lack the courage to participate in themselves. My only consolation is that I truly feel that we will prevail in the end, just wonder at the final cost. If we want to win, we must ante up and play to win, and quit pussyfootin' around trying to appease the Muslim world who mostly hate us. As an old farmer might say, "if you have a stubborn mule boy, you've got to git his attention first....hit him in the head with a 2X4, and then he'll understand." That's the problem, these people just don't really respect us, because they know that we are too soft to apply the desperately needed 2X4.