The American Way of War

[RickSp]

An excerpt from a short essay by Gabriel Kolko. Well worth reading in its entirety.
Rumsfeld and the American Way of War

The fact is that the immense and costly American military today bears no relationship to politics and reality. It accounts for nearly half of the world's military expenditures but it cannot win its two wars against the most primitive enemies, enemies who exist in multiple factions who often fight each other more than Americans and who could not care less what Washington spends on weaponry and manpower. But America's leaders have always assumed convenient enemies who calculate the way the U.S. wants them to. More important, politics was never complicated; it existed as an afterthought and never interfered with fighting and winning wars the American way. But the Soviet Union and Communism no longer exist, and absolutely nothing has changed in America's behavior and thinking. The Pentagon is superb at spending money but its way of warfare in now in a profound and perhaps terminal crisis. It has lost all its wars against persistent guerillas armed with cheap, light weapons that decentralize and hide. The military system that Rumsfeld and his precursors created is increasingly dysfunctional and meant only to suit the expensive demands and pretensions of the powerful companies in the military-industrial complex. The emphasis on expensive weaponry is good for the American economy; successful counterinsurgency war costs too little to maintain full employment. It bears scant relationship to the political problems that the U.S. has confronted for decades – and more now than ever. America's weapons are made to fight state-centric wars and destroy concentrated targets – they were designed originally for the USSR and its Warsaw bloc allies, and for European conditions. China compelled some minor modifications in this strategy. Even ignoring that nuclear deterrence made this emphasis irrelevant, or that the Korean and Vietnam wars proved it was destined to fail, it took (and still takes) 15 to 20 years to develop and produce this equipment. But Communism has disappeared in Europe and in all but name in China. The budgeting cycle, which keeps the economy of the U.S. buoyant and is deftly spread to numerous Congressional districts, bears no relation to American foreign policy, which makes former friends foes, ex-foes allies and members of NATO, and changes every few years like a kaleidoscope. As a very recent study for the U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute concludes, "the United States [is] prepared to fight the most dangerous but least likely threats and unprepared to fight the least dangerous but most likely threats." The American way of war is technology intensive, firepower focused, logistically superior but politically and culturally ignorant to the point of being pathetic. Rumsfeld did not initiate this myopia, which has been inherent in the U.S.' foreign and military policies after 1947 regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans were in power. He only attempted to apply it to Afghan and Iraqi conditions, to sand and heat, to profoundly divided places, and he only continued the legacy of failures that began long ago. Hence defeat.

I am always amazed how the US keeps repeating the same mistakes in foreign policy, keeps thinking that it can impose our will on others and never seesm to learn from the disasters which follow. I think Kolko has put his finger on how so mighty a military can be defeated by dedicated insurgents with only small arms. Any comments?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yes, we should only use our conventional troops against those who can be trusted to be stupid enough to play our game, Europe anyone? that sounds like a nice morale booster, although Canada looks easier.

[RickSp]

The Pentagon with Rummy at its head seems to have perfected a high tech version of the German blitzkrieg which worked so well in Belgium in 1940. Invincible against a WWII army but easily bogged down by few dozen guys in jeans with RPGs and IEDs.

[Gods_Mercenary]

That's what I mean, we could conquer Europe in a month! Kidding aside, Rummy's an idiot.

[Chaossaber314]

If the guys on the ground had been given what they needed in terms of supplies and manpower and had been left to do their jobs without all this political maneuvering I have little doubt we would be looking at a very different Iraq.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 If the guys on the ground had been given what they needed in terms of supplies and manpower and had been left to do their jobs without all this political maneuvering I have little doubt we would be looking at a very different Iraq.

Why don't you enlighten us as to what would have been "needed in terms of supplies and manpower", and how they could have done their "jobs" better?

[Chaossaber314]

Let's see, proper body armor, proper armor for humvees and tanks etc. As far as manpower, there's been plenty of reports of generals suggesting troop numbers well above what was sent, both prior to 2003 and since.

As far as political decisions that make sense if you're thinking in the short term as politics typically (read: always) do, how about Bremer's decision to fire the police?

So you already don't have enough troops to keep order, and then you fire the only people there who can supplement your strength.

Point blank, the war was run by politicians and not by the military.

You shouldn't have to sit outside of a Mosque taking fire from armed guerrillas waiting to get the political go ahead to engage these targets because someone in DC is afraid of what will show up on CNN tomorrow.

Rather than guarding oil fields, maybe we should have taken a better portion of that man power and put it to defending the borders so bus loads of people couldn't be shipped in to fight, in the early days like was shown via video footage on all the mainstream stations. Unfortunately, they didn't even have the man power to properly guard the oil fields let alone attempt some border surveillance or god forbid help rebuild the infrastructure.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Let's see, proper body armor, proper armor for humvees and tanks etc.

Evidently, not enough was available. If bush was really convinced that Iraq was a serious threat, could he afford to wait until it was?

Quote by: Chaossaber314 As far as manpower, there's been plenty of reports of generals suggesting troop numbers well above what was sent, both prior to 2003 and since.

How many should he have sent in? Would more have made any difference anyway? Wouldn't there just be more GI's to serve as targets? I suppose you are now in favor of sending more troops?

Quote by: Chaossaber314 As far as political decisions that make sense if you're thinking in the short term as politics typically (read: always) do, how about Bremer's decision to fire the police?

Since the police have been implicated in a large percentage of the "insurgent" attacks and organized executions, perhaps Bremer did the right thing. It could have been even worse.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Point blank, the war was run by politicians and not by the military.

There are always political trade-offs when dealing with war. I'm sure that bush had to make some political concessions in order to get congressional approval to invade. Perhaps the restrictive politics originated from outside the White House.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 You shouldn't have to sit outside of a Mosque taking fire from armed guerrillas waiting to get the political go ahead to engage these targets because someone in DC is afraid of what will show up on CNN tomorrow.

I've heard this claim before, but haven't been able to verify that it has actually occurred. Have you found a reliable source for it? In any case, again, political concessions have to sometimes be made in order to secure support for the larger issue.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Rather than guarding oil fields, maybe we should have taken a better portion of that man power and put it to defending the borders so bus loads of people couldn't be shipped in to fight, in the early days like was shown via video footage on all the mainstream stations.

This has also been open to dabate -

"I want to underscore that most of the attacks on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not foreign forces,'' said Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.

Yes, there are ''many'' non-Iraqi insurgents in Iraq. But the more important question is: are most of the insurgents ''foreign terrorists'' or Iraqi nationalists?

Most experts agree the insurgency is made up of mostly Iraqi Sunni Muslims and Baath Party loyalists.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies recently estimated there are about 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists fighting in Iraq (out of an estimated 40,000 insurgents and up to 200,000 native supporters)." Terrorists in Iraq or Nationalists?

I'm not sure that any of your suggestions would have improved the current situation. The smartest thing that bush could have done was to simply ask (and listen carefully to) Daddy why he didn't go into Iraq in the Gulf war. This war is a disaster of the first magnitude for the U.S. I just don't believe that there was a good, better, or best way to start this asinine war. The biggest mistake wasn't how we invaded, how we fought the war, or whether we should have done this or that. The biggest mistake we made was starting the war.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Zeebadee Evidently, not enough was available. If bush was really convinced that Iraq was a serious threat, could he afford to wait until it was?

The way I hear it, they just flat out refused to buy more.

How many should he have sent in? Would more have made any difference anyway? Wouldn't there just be more GI's to serve as targets? I suppose you are now in favor of sending more troops?

Enough that when the republican guard suddenly wasn't around anymore Baghdad wasn't just ransacked like we saw it done so. If there were enough troops in the first place we wouldn't have former police stations and military barracks being raided by civilians and former personnel to later show up in insurgent hands. Weapons don't appear out of thin air.

As far as sending in more troops now? I'm on the fence. In the beginning I would have said yes emphatically. Now things have descended to a point I'm not sure it can be recovered. Though if one were to recover things this would be the place to start. It still won't fix the problems if they're not deployed correctly or with substandard gear.

Since the police have been implicated in a large percentage of the "insurgent" attacks and organized executions, perhaps Bremer did the right thing. It could have been even worse.

What's better? To keep them on a tight leach so you know where they are, or to set them free where you can't find them until they blow up a troop checkpoint or gun down a patrol?

There are always political trade-offs when dealing with war. I'm sure that bush had to make some political concessions in order to get congressional approval to invade. Perhaps the restrictive politics originated from outside the White House.

Perhaps, but does that make things any better?

I've heard this claim before, but haven't been able to verify that it has actually occurred. Have you found a reliable source for it? In any case, again, political concessions have to sometimes be made in order to secure support for the larger issue.

It's an example, not a specific citation. You've already conceded that there are political trade-offs in war.

"I want to underscore that most of the attacks on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not foreign forces,'' said Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.

Would you admit to fucking up if you failed to prevent a large scale movement of people who ended up joining up with your enemy? Better yet, who is more likely to attack Iraqi infrastructure? Natives where attacks hindering things like water or power are going to affect their families, or Foreigners who have no such connections?

Frankly, no one is sure how large the insurgency is or what it's really composed of. That's one of the problems. All we have is basically blind speculation on this front. Though it still doesn't negate video footage of people riding in on charter buses claiming to be joining up with resistance movement.

[littlebear]

We won the Iraq war. We defeated their military. We deposed Saddam. What we didn't do is get out immediately. What we attempted to do was impose a democratic form of government on them with which they were totally unfamiliar and which means far less to them than it does to us. The fact that we did not let them choose their own form of government, probably Islamic, indicates we in no way were there to give them freedom. We went there to mold them into something they can never be and to make them a nation that would always be our ally (puppet). Not going to happen. Now we are trying to save them from themselves. (civil war) The little beady eyed hypocrite from Texas keeps telling us Iraq will become a haven for terrorists. He wants us to believe if we don't "win" those terrorists will have the the world's second largest supply of oil to finance their efforts to attack us. Is there anyone out there who has entertained the thought that he doesn't know what he is talking about? Maybe the religious factions will settle their differences and live in peace. Maybe they will kick the terrorists out. Maybe they will be a peaceful productive nation that hates us because we are infidels, but will work with us anyway -- like Saudi Arabia. I mean Bush hasn't been right about anything so far, why do we fear the calamity he claims will happen?

[Gods_Mercenary]

True, there are two wars, we wipped Saddam, but as for the insurgents, that's a different story.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Frankly, no one is sure how large the insurgency is or what it's really composed of. That's one of the problems. All we have is basically blind speculation on this front. Though it still doesn't negate video footage of people riding in on charter buses claiming to be joining up with resistance movement.

Show us a link to such footage, I haven't been able to find any. First you imply large scale movement of foreign fighters into Iraq (complete with video), then, when presented with contradictory evidence, backtrack and say "All we have is basically blind speculation" about foreign participation. I gotta tell ya, you're first in line for the John Kerrey Memorial Flip-Flop Award.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Better yet, who is more likely to attack Iraqi infrastructure? Natives where attacks hindering things like water or power are going to affect their families, or Foreigners who have no such connections?

You don't seem to get it, even at this late date. No one is targeting "Iraqi infrastructure", they are attacking the United States. Aside from one religious sect attacking another, the main "infrastructure" attacks are aimed at American interests - if they can blow up a power plant, it shows that America can't protect it, that we are not in control. Airport, train station, market place, police station, you name it. When we occupied Iraq, we in effect took over the duty of providing protection to the people and property of the country. The infrastructure is merely collateral damage in the war against the invasion force, something they'll sacrifice in order to get to us. It's nothing more than a scorched earth policy - they'd rather destroy it than to allow us to use it to show progress in conquering the country and the people.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Zeebadee Show us a link to such footage, I haven't been able to find any. First you imply large scale movement of foreign fighters into Iraq (complete with video), then, when presented with contradictory evidence, backtrack and say "All we have is basically blind speculation" about foreign participation. I gotta tell ya, you're first in line for the John Kerrey Memorial Flip-Flop Award.

No you're misrepresenting what I said. I said there's no way to know precisely how many there are or what they're composed of, but we do know that there are foreign fighters operating out of Iraq which you didn't even dispute, just downplay. We just don't know how many.

You don't seem to get it, even at this late date. No one is targeting "Iraqi infrastructure",

Aside from one religious sect attacking another, the main "infrastructure" attacks are aimed at American interests - if they can blow up a power plant, it shows that America can't protect it, that we are not in control.

Houston we have a contradiction. Either there are no infrastructure attacks or there are. Trying to displace them with their motives is asinine because it still affects the families of those that are supposedly doing it to hurt the US.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Trying to displace them with their motives is asinine because it still affects the families of those that are supposedly doing it to hurt the US.

Yeah, sure, whatever that means. Either you're deliberately being obtuse, or you're just dense. I think you understand perfectly well what I meant.

[Chaossaber314]

Without a rebuttal, I guess I'll just take that as a concession.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove, although I know it has little to do with the topic.

[RickSp]

CB, your fantasies about charter buses carrying in insurgents is amusing but all studies suggest that the insurgency is overwhelmingly Iraqi.

The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters

The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq " feed the myth" that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Well, they are certainly financed and encouraged by foreigners, but the Iraqis obviously don't realize what's good for them, eventually we might just hand them over to Iran, then they'll want us back, most of them anyway.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Well, they are certainly financed and encouraged by foreigners, but the Iraqis obviously don't realize what's good for them, eventually we might just hand them over to Iran, then they'll want us back, most of them anyway.

Oh yeah, the sooner the world realizes that we know what's best for them the better off they will all be.