On war, by war, through war

[SwordsMaster]

I found this quite interesting article written by Us Army personnel, which makes me have hopes about their brainpower. Now it is written somewhat pompously and it is quite dense. It is also, however, interesting.

In PDF (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/NovDec07/VlahosEngNovDec07.pdf)

Enjoy.

Opinions?

[Watchman]

"I dub thee Baron Mustache, the Pompous."
- Norikuni Iwata, Excel Saga ~;p

Spends far too much ink on murky identity-talk IMO; that's something of a fad these days, I understand. Even in contexts that don't really have that much to do with "identity". Also plays a wee bit fast and loose on the details of its historical references (eg. merrily forgetting the Late Roman citizen-reservist limitanei regional garrisons, and getting quite a bit wrong with the Late Medieval bits). Uses much too unproblematicised collective terminology when discussing "the Other". Contains annoying elements of grandiose rhetoric (personally, I've always found the in some circles common practice of spelling "soldier" with a capital S irritating).

Makes a fair few good points though.

[Geoffrey S]

Not very concise, I'll admit. Finding his points, of which some were quite interesting, in the murky depths of his historical allusions was somewhat tiring.

On a similar subject, [B]Lord Winter[B] posted this (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1693592,00.html?xid=rss-topstories) in the Backroom recently. I found it quite interesting and is a potential avenue to head down to alleviate certain problems with the US military as an occupation force.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Quite interesting. Especially good pointing out with many clear examples that the main problem in American modern warfare is that the Presidents try to go to war without the support of the people (neither in their own country nor in neutral and semi-allied countries). It means instead of achieving decisive victory, inconclusive victory or even defeat is achieved, and that also undermines long-term own strength.

Apart from just comparing the people supporting the war situation between now and the historical examples, one can also compare the causes of this lack of support with similar causes in the same historical examples. As warfare of a nation becomes less and less similar to what the people in general truly wants, the weaker the support machinery becomes, and the stronger control the individual corporations/influential merchants gain over the military forces of the state, which further undermines the correspondence between the people's will and what wars are actually fought. This was also the case in ancient Rome, and when people with little interest in the survival of the state gain control over the matters of state, the state is in danger in many ways. I think it all amounts to the undermining of people's control over the state affairs and the too uneven power distribution within the country, with too little local influence on when to go to war. Perhaps nation-wide referendum before going to war could mitigate the problem temporarily for long enough to be able to develop better systems to increase the influence of the people, for example by delegating more power to local state-governments rather than the country government? On the other hand, the racial segregation of the country is what causes the influential people to try and remove and restrict the power of the citizens in general. This too is a problem in desperate need of solving to solve the problem of undermined influence of the people in general.

The problem is probably racial and economical segregation and undermined people influence in the foreign policies, and that corporations/factions with little or no interest in maintaining the strength of the nation itself have gained massive influence over its security policies.

[Vladimir]

Who is "we" and how are we "loosing"?

If it's a reference to the war on terror then:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/12/zawahiri_on_annapolis.php
To include his comments on Iran and threats towards the Iraqi army working with the US.

When the enemy begins to eat their own you're on the verge of victory.

Quoted from Vladimir's On War

[Watchman]

Except, you know, a fair few of them militants never got along, didn't want to have anything to do with each other, or for that matter could tolerate each others' existence in the first place.

Some people seem to keep forgetting (or never quite understood to begin with) that "The Enemy" in this case were never some sort of big monolithic entity to begin, but rather a mind-boggling multitude of autonomous factions each with their own particular interests and goals.

[SwordsMaster]

Warping somewhat Watchman's line of thought I'd elaborate some more on the concept of war. Perhaps it links with the whole identity concept to an extent.

In the West, war is the very last resource of diplomacy due to the stigma and consequences that are attached to it, since it affects the lifestyle of westerners to an extent they are not comfortable with. Now, if one's lifestyle didn't vary significantly in war or peace, would that make them resort to war more often? Perhaps war wouldn't be the last resort in that case, but the second or the third? What about people who want to wage war? Aren't these considerations that need to be taken into account before invading someone from a different cultural group? If any of these questions is answered in a way that is different from your own concept of war and diplomacy, that makes them a much more dangerous enemy.

[Geoffrey S]

Would willingness to wage war be enhanced by keeping defense budgets fixed at a high level, separate from the income of a state, with reserves created over time to sustain a war effort? One of the more damaging things to the 'war spirit' tends to be steadily increasing prices and parliamentary debates about those rising costs, with people worrying if it cuts into what they perceive as their share.

[Hound of Ulster]

comparing the U.S to the disfunctional Byzantium of the 13th-14th century may be more apt than the author realizes. Things are realitvly quiet in Iraq right now, but as the refugees who ran out of money come home, widespread violence could break out all over the country again.

I personally think that the Iraq insurgency groups are waiting to see who wins the election next year. If the Republicans win, the Iraqis will know that the Americans are never going to leave and all of the gains from the 'surge' will be wiped out in an orgy of blood-letting. If the Democrats win, at the very least thier will be a massive re-deployment of U.S forces and at most a total withdrawal from Iraq. In either case, the Iraqis will win, then they will go back to fighting amongst themselves.

[Geoffrey S]

Part of the problem there, I think, is the assumption that people are currently fighting for 'the Iraqis' or that such a group can be considered to be a cohesive front against the US.

[Fisherking]

For the uninitiated amongst us the US military has turned to social scientists in it efforts to engage terrorists on their own terms.

The article linked here, from the Army Command & General Staff Collage at Fort Lebenworth, KN is obviously not the work of your average Militarily trained Civil Engineering Student.

This is obviously an attempt to get it across to the military culture that more than math and science are required when you engaged in this type of war.

That is why it is murky and unsettling…it is meant to be. The enemy is a bit murky as is the militaries understanding of what an Ethnic Anthropologist can do to help them win wars.

I fear that if you see much more in this article then you are putting it there.

[Telys]

I personally think that the Iraq insurgency groups are waiting to see who wins the election next year. If the Republicans win, the Iraqis will know that the Americans are never going to leave and all of the gains from the 'surge' will be wiped out in an orgy of blood-letting. If the Democrats win, at the very least thier will be a massive re-deployment of U.S forces and at most a total withdrawal from Iraq. In either case, the Iraqis will win, then they will go back to fighting amongst themselves.


Well I just wrote this whole lengthy reply to this but I dont think went through cause i dont think I was logged in. So I'll try and make this short.

First, if the insurgents were to find out that we were'nt leaving they might just become more active. In that case the U.S. would just deploy more troops to counteract this. On the leaving idea. America does not have the resources to pull everyone out in one night, so it would have to be done gradually. The problem with this is that once we start pulling out there will be less security for the troops left and the ones leaving, once the insurgents see that we're leaving they will start to more active, and since there is less ground forces to handle a surge like that we would suffer a lot of casualties. In order to counter this more units would have to be deployed in order to provide security for the troops leaving and the ones still left on ground. It would just be on big on going cycle. The only way to successfully pull out with minimal casualties is to continue on with what the U.S. is trying to do. Which is build up the iraqi government, army and police force in order to stabilize the country. Once the army is large enough, and competent enough to hold their own, we can safely pullout. Of course thats just how understand things.