The Andrew Bacevich collection

[Jesse9252]

I felt this (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=109065) article by Andrew Bacevich from this month's Atlantic Monthly would generate some interest given the debate surrounding LTC Yingling's article.

From the article:

In fact, however, empowering groups of soldiers to join in the debate over contentious issues is short-sighted and dangerous. Implicit in the appeal is the suggestion that national-security policies somehow require the consent of those in uniform. Lately, media outlets have reinforced this notion, reporting as newsworthy the results of polls that asked soldiers whether administration plans meet with their approval.

On matters of policy, those who wear the uniform ought to get a vote, but it’s the same one that every other citizen gets—the one exercised on Election Day. To give them more is to sow confusion about the soldier’s proper role, which centers on service and must preclude partisanship. Legitimating soldiers’ lobbies is likely to warp national-security policy and crack open the door to praetorianism.

The Appeal for Redress does not pose an immediate threat to the republic. It’s been signed by only a tiny minority of U.S. soldiers, and the movement could simply peter out, becoming little more than a minor historical curiosity, rather than a harbinger of something larger. Yet in either case, it offers further evidence of advancing constitutional decay.


There's also an interview where Bacevich really fleshes out his thoughts that can be found here (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704u/military-politics).

[Sargent]

I am not certain whether the comments made in the article apply to the argument made by Yingling. Whether officers ought to have a special voice in policy making (from the standpoint of them speaking as citizens) is not the same as what they have to say regarding the standards and policies governing generalship in this country.

For example, it is very much the purview of an officer to question the practice of ignoring peer and subordinate review in such matters as promotion and command screening. That is, the policies created to govern the institution are matters for which they do have a particular and special voice.

When those policies, furthermore, influence foreign policy decisionmaking, then there is a need for officers to speak up, because they are the only ones who understand the implications of such things. Your average civilian Schmuckatelli doesn't spend much time paying attention to the big picture -- you can be certain that they don't understand much about such intricacies as what goes into such issues as officer promotion generally, and general selection specifically.

At the end of the day, Yingling's article was about a subject of professional concern, and therefore one about which he is qualified and entitled to comment.

JSR

[Tom Odom]

Just a note, Andrew Bacevich of Boston University lost his son this past weekend in Balad. Bacevich senior is a graduate of West Point, Vietnam and Gulf War veteran, and critic of the war since 2003.

My sympathies to the Bacevich family.

Tom

More at


Son of professor opposed to war is killed in Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/05/15/son_of_professor_opposed_to_war_is_killed_in_iraq/)
By Brian MacQuarrie, Globe Staff | May 15, 2007

Boston University professor Andrew J. Bacevich has been a persistent, vocal critic of the Iraq war, calling the conflict a catastrophic failure. This week, the retired Army lieutenant colonel received the grim news that his son had been killed on patrol there.

First Lieutenant Andrew J. Bacevich , 27, of Walpole, died Sunday in Balad of wounds he suffered after a bomb explosion, the military said yesterday. The soldier, who graduated from BU in 2003 with a degree in communications, is the 56th service member from Massachusetts to be killed in Iraq.

[sullygoarmy]

Prayers for the family. Sad news to hear.

[John T. Fishel]

My personal sympathy to the Bacevich family.

John

[SWJED]

.. for any parent and for our country. Have said several Hail Marys for the Bacevich family and especially for 1st Lt Andrew J. Bacevich. God speed.

[RTK]

Prayers on the way....

[BRUZ_LEE]

That is indeed very tragic news, as all the other sad news of this huge waste of life in IRAQ.

We have to face it: No matter how much we will achieve in the next 1-3 years in IRAQ, in the end it will not be worth having toppled Saddam AT THIS PRICE! (And I don't refer to the billions of dollars that we buried there... And if we don't achieve significantly more than within the last 4 years, we transformed IRAQ into something worse than before...)

And I can't get the point of the Marcus Flavinius Quote in this respect.
In my opinion it refers to a Imperial Non-democratic Power that suppressed other people and reflects a military that doesn't obey the will of the population. All that doesn't apply to what the US is standing/should stand for.

BRUZ

[Steve Blair]

Perhaps, Bruz, the quote means something special to the user. In any case, this isn't the thread to attack sig lines.

[SWJED]

27 May Washington Post commentary - I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052502032.html) By Andrew J. Bacevich.


Parents who lose children, whether through accident or illness, inevitably wonder what they could have done to prevent their loss. When my son was killed in Iraq earlier this month at age 27, I found myself pondering my responsibility for his death.

Among the hundreds of messages that my wife and I have received, two bore directly on this question. Both held me personally culpable, insisting that my public opposition to the war had provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Each said that my son's death came as a direct result of my antiwar writings.

This may seem a vile accusation to lay against a grieving father. But in fact, it has become a staple of American political discourse, repeated endlessly by those keen to allow President Bush a free hand in waging his war. By encouraging "the terrorists," opponents of the Iraq conflict increase the risk to U.S. troops. Although the First Amendment protects antiwar critics from being tried for treason, it provides no protection for the hardly less serious charge of failing to support the troops -- today's civic equivalent of dereliction of duty...

[120mm]

At the risk of sounding harsh, domestic opposition to a war DOES assist the enemy. I don't think that should be the issue at hand, however. More appropriately, the issue should be, does assisting the enemy serve a "greater good" of stopping a war we shouldn't be fighting or cannot win at an acceptable price.

I respected Bacevich a lot more before he threw out the "People shouldn't have the right to oppose my opposition to the war" b.s. that one hears from the Dixie Chicks, Streisand, et al.. In the marketplace of ideas that is a reprehensible tactic that I despise.

[Steve Blair]

Agreed. People have just as much right to oppose his opposition as he does to take the position to begin with. Both forms of expression are protected. His is no better than theirs. This is one thing that many elements in this country (on both sides of the fence) have a great deal of difficulty coming to grips with.

[John T. Fishel]

Since I saw Colonel/Dr. Bacevich's piece early this morning I debated long and hard about whether to post a response. Any critical response is likely to cause hurt to someone who has lost so much. Nevertheless, he has stepped into the public debate and chosen to use his son's tragic death to support his argument and, therefore it is appropriate to respond.

First, it is unconscionable to accuse Colonel Bacevich of being responsible for his son's death. But it is also appropriate, as 120 points out, to note that opposition to the war does undercut the troops and their effort. Again, as 120 states, is there a greater good served by this opposition? In this case, I think not, at least, not in the terms that the debate has taken.

This is not the first US counterinsurgency that Colonel Bacevich has opposed. He was the lead author of the famous (infamous) Four Colonels Report on the US effort to support COIN in El Salvador. In that report, he was wrong both as a military observer and analyst. This was a case where we and our allies got it right yet Bacevich argued that we were doomed to lose. The central argument was that we had sent in our second team, something that turns out to have been totally inaccurate as veterans of the El Sal MILGP built a better track record of promotion and responsible position than any other similar group in the contemporary Army.

Since leaving the Army Dr. Bacevich has been a professor of International Relations at Boston University. There, he has written on the American Empire - a position that is both highly polemical and questionable in empirical terms. Some of that line of reasoning appears in his Washington Post commentary which comes out sounding very much like Marine Major General Smedley Butler in the 1930s. IMO Dr./COL Bacevich's argument has about the same level of validity. One need only ask how the major oil companies have profited by the war in Iraq.

In short, while I certainly sympathize with his loss, I am saddened to see the discussion take the form it has.

[Tom Odom]

In short, while I certainly sympathize with his loss, I am saddened to see the discussion take the form it has.

Agreed, John T. I posted earlier when I first heard of the loss, offering appropriate sympathies.

Best

Tom

[jcustis]

I'm curious, and I hope this doesnt spin this thread off track, but where is the empirical evidence that opposition to a war aids the enemy?

In our current fight, how does opposition factor into things? Is it possible for a jihadist to become emboldened because an article is posted in the New York Times?

[WVO]

To build on jcustis's question, is the main effect of opposition that it supports the enemy directly or that it erodes support at home?

Certainly Bacevich is entitled to his opinion, any media outlet is entitled to publish it, and anyone is entitled to oppose it. Perhaps his best know published work ,"The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," was pretty polarizing when it was published a couple of years ago, as mentioned in an above posting. It is among a body of newer writings expounding on the virtues of isolationism. It would be nice to redeploy behind our oceans and pull up the drawbridge, but that didn't work between the World Wars and is even less like to work in an ever more globalized international environment.

[SWJED]

To build on jcustis's question, is the main effect of opposition that it supports the enemy directly or that it erodes support at home?

Certainly Bacevich is entitled to his opinion, any media outlet is entitled to publish it, and anyone is entitled to oppose it. Perhaps his best know published work ,"The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," was pretty polarizing when it was published a couple of years ago, as mentioned in an above posting. It is among a body of newer writings expounding on the virtues of isolationism. It would be nice to redeploy behind our oceans and pull up the drawbridge, but that didn't work between the World Wars and is even less like to work in an ever more globalized international environment.

Nice first post - to the point and quite true. Thanks.

Isolationism is not an option regardless of one's desires to "pull-back" and defend Fortress America. Unless we remain engaged - and not just military kinetic - we lose - plain and simple.

[John T. Fishel]

First, I know of no quantitative studies of the subject. There may be some that address the issue indirectly but I don't specifically know of any.

But empirical evidence does not need to be quantitative. There is plenty of evidence that the French lost Algeria when the French public lost faith in both Algerie Francaise and the French Army. There is also a lot of evidence that opposition to the Vietnam War aided the VC/NVA in their cause by influencing US policy and actual support to the RVN. The survey data do correlate with policy.

Finally, this issue is all part of the war for legitimacy which is fought in the country where the war takes place, the countries that support the "host government," and the "court of world opinion." (Sorry about the shorthand.:D)

[selil]

Agreed. People have just as much right to oppose his opposition as he does to take the position to begin with. Both forms of expression are protected. His is no better than theirs.


Actually I disagree with this position. It may seem minor.

"He" has the right to oppose the war.

"You" have the right to support the war.

If you oppose his opposition you add nothing to the debate and define your argument by his opposition. This fails to provide discourse and into the vacuum of errant ideas only fallacious logic will fall. The debate will quickly turn to an attack of the person rather than a discussion of the ideas.

[Jimbo]

Great post John T.

Selil, interesting thought, but I would contend that opposing Dr Bacevich's opposition was meant in terms of being "pro" Iraq War, not necessarily the doctor himself. I do find it interesting that his families story is special, and roughly another 3,398 and are not.

This begs a further question that was raised regarding supporting the enemy. While commentary and honest discourse do lend aid to the enemy in a very abstract and tangential manner. However, in the U.S. today, the discourse has dropped to an irrational level below polemical tracts and muckraking articles of our history. This does give "aid" to an enemy. Not direct aid, but definately indirect aid. Since most guerilla warfare theory defines insurgency/guerilla warfare as a protracted conflict utilizing guerilla tactics to defeat the political will of a militarily superior enemy, then I would argue that the fact that beyond normal discourse gets mass media exposure, the guerillas/insurgents are aided.

[Bill Moore]

Does opposing the war actually aid the enemy? Unfortunately it does aid the enemy for the following reasons.

1. The enemy cannot defeat us militarily, so he aims to defeat us by influencing the American homefront to pressure its politicians to pull the military out.

2. A vocal public dissent provides motivation for the enemy to stay in the fight. One of the key factors for maintaining an insurgency is maintaining the belief that victory is possible. It is difficult to convince the enemy to put his weapons down and join the political process while he still thinks he has a chance of winning.

The bottom line is a vocal opposition to the war tells the enemy his strategy is on track, yet as painful and confusing as it may be it is still isn't an act of treason.

We all swore or affirmed to protect our constitution, and in so doing the implied task is to protect the freedom of our citizens, to include the freedom to protest the conflict. I would rather live in a nation where the people have the moral courage to stand up to the government "if" they believe the government is wrong. Of course the sad and confusing truth is that now much of the protest isn't based on strong moral convictions, but rather crowd mentality that blindly follows the far left so called Hollywood elites, and a few idiotic professors in our academic communities. The last thing I want to see in the U.S. is a mindless mass movement like Hilter started with the Nazi Party, but if we ever have it one it will come from the political correct far left.

Regardless of whether you support or protest the war, we have to deal with the reality of loyal dissent. Our strategy and actions in OIF can still influence the majority of the population to support the effort, but first we have to get our strategic communications game on track, stop politicizing the war, and stop blaming the press and protesters for our woes.

[120mm]

Actually I disagree with this position. It may seem minor.

"He" has the right to oppose the war.

"You" have the right to support the war.

If you oppose his opposition you add nothing to the debate and define your argument by his opposition. This fails to provide discourse and into the vacuum of errant ideas only fallacious logic will fall. The debate will quickly turn to an attack of the person rather than a discussion of the ideas.

That is too simplistic to include "my" viewpoint. I oppose the war. But I oppose losing the war, more than I oppose the war. I think that vocal opposition of the war is counterproductive in this case. Therefore I oppose Bacevich's point of view. Bacevich attacks my point of view as illegitimate.

Frankly, I think my argument is the better one, though it runs counter to what many believe.

[tequila]

Our strategy and actions in OIF can still influence the majority of the population to support the effort, but first we have to get our strategic communications game on track, stop politicizing the war, and stop blaming the press and protesters for our woes.

I think the worm has turned pretty decisively (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/us/24cnd-survey.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)on this. Historical evidence indicates (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101faessay84605-p20/john-mueller/the-iraq-syndrome.html) that generally it will not turn back.

Acknowledgement of this reality (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_senator_troopreduction_070527/)is a must. As GEN Barry McCaffrey said, "US domestic support for the war in Iraq has evaporated and will not return (http://www.iraqslogger.com/downloads/McCaffreyIraq.pdf)." We have, at most, perhaps 12-18 months before a significant American drawdown is forced on whatever American president is elected in 2008. Pretty much any realistic scenarios for American actions in Iraq have to take this into account.

[skiguy]

stop politicizing the war, and stop blaming the press and protesters for our woes.

The only ones politicizing this war, IMO, is the Left. They are still stuck on "the reasons for going" and, unfortunately, that is what has led the way and continues to lead the opposition.

There's dissent...and dissent is Patriotic blah blah blah, but then there's just plain wrong. I don't know how many political forums you guys read, but there's still discussion on a daily basis about Joe Wilson, Plame, WMD's, Saddam had no ties to AlQ, etc. Will they ever move on? (pun intended). There is virtually no discussion about victory, the only discussion is "get out of Iraq now" or "Bush lied"

I disagree that the press and protesters are blameless. Yes, they all have the freedom and liberty to protest or speak out. But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.

[tequila]

But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.

I find this very unpersuasive. A far more likely reason, I think, is the chart on page 39 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.)of this GAO report.

[marct]

Hi Skiguy,


The only ones politicizing this war, IMO, is the Left. They are still stuck on "the reasons for going" and, unfortunately, that is what has led the way and continues to lead the opposition.

I would have to disagree with that. The Iraq war was first politicized by the Administration, who are now in a reactive mode against the Left. To say that the Left are "politicizing" this war is just plain silly. What they are doing, however, is shifting the rhetorical basis of the discourse from what the Administration established at the start, and is now pretty much invalidated. The newer rhetoric is wrapped in a type of "moral rectitude" (and we all know where that comes from) that is designed to allow them to win votes.


I disagree that the press and protesters are blameless. Yes, they all have the freedom and liberty to protest or speak out. But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.

Don't you think that there are other reasons for why support has eroded? Just off the top of my head, I would say that one of the main reasons it has faltered is that the entire case for going to war in the first place has been disproven. When that is coupled with not having a UN mandate in the first place (i.e. no international legitimacy regardless of what anyone may think about the UN) and with all of the problems surrounding Phase IV, I would have to say that there are definite reasons for public support waining other than the "press and protesters".

My own position is very close to 120's - I didn't really think here was much of a case for it in the first place and, after the fiasco in the UN (i.e. not waiting for a final resolution), I was pretty jaundiced about it. However that doesn't matter now and hasn't for a number of years. You are quite correct that the Left is rehashing history and doesn't really consider future effects given current conditions. A rapid pull out or timetable will just encourage a loss so we have to deal with what is now.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I'm also very close to 120mm's position, because I see too many possible repeats of history coming...not on the ground but in the halls of Congress and offices of policy makers. They spend so much time looking backward (selectively, of course) and so little time actually understanding what they see that they're rocketing toward a replay of 1972-1975 in Vietnam. But what disturbs me even more is that many of them don't seem to care. So many are so busy jockeying for some sort of political position or gain that they appear mentally incapable of thinking more than six months ahead (or the next election or polling cycle).

The claim that protesting occupies a higher moral ground than support (or disagreeing with protesters) is absurd, of course. Both sides have equal standing and worth within our system. I do fear, though, that there is little value in the positions of some of the protesters and supporters, since they have long ago wandered into personal attack land and contribute little of value to any meaningful discussion of policy or strategy.

[John T. Fishel]

Hi Marc--

and everybody else. Clausewitz got it right on the one thing he was totally consistent about in all 8 books: "War is and extension of politics/policy (POLITIKA - German) by other means." This war, like all wars, is political.

Marc, I must disagree that the rationale for the war was discredited. There were some 20+ reasons given in the congressional resolution, only one of which was discredited and it was one that Democrats from Bill Clinton to John Edwards as well as all Republicans and nearly every intel service believed to be correct. Where the media and others bear significant responsibility for the loss of public support is in their continued repetition of partisan mantras that fly in the face of facts. In their worst form, they come out as "Bush lied." But deemphasizing the fact that WMD was the common belief is almost as bad.

This is not to say that the Administration does not bear the brunt of the blame for the loss of public support. It does. But it is hardly alone.

Cheers

JohnT (I guess this is my new moniker:D)

[Bill Moore]

Just as a question, not a serious proposition, I wonder what the reaction of the American people would be if the President came out in the next couple of days, and told America that we cannot stablize Iraq, so we will begin a rapid phased withdrawal of our troops within the next few weeks?

Of course no ones knows what would really happen in Iraq if we did this, I still think the Al Qaeda would be destroyed by the Iraqis, once they loose their reason for being there, which is primarily to fight us. None the less the talking heads would rapidly start shaping U.S. opinion, and explain how Saudi and Iran may wage a proxy war, which could cause the price of oil to sky rocket if Iraq's southern oil fields are threatened, and the Kurds and Turkey wouldn't have the U.S. in the middle to mitigate their disputes, not to mention the perception that U.S. lost and the power that will give our foes worldwide. Once people seriously start talking about the consequences of simply quitting I think the rhetoric will change, and it will become more sober.

[jcustis]

But empirical evidence does not need to be quantitative. There is plenty of evidence that the French lost Algeria when the French public lost faith in both Algerie Francaise and the French Army. There is also a lot of evidence that opposition to the Vietnam War aided the VC/NVA in their cause by influencing US policy and actual support to the RVN. The survey data do correlate with policy.

Finally, this issue is all part of the war for legitimacy which is fought in the country where the war takes place, the countries that support the "host government," and the "court of world opinion." (Sorry about the shorthand.)

To frame my question a bit differently, is opposition to a war necessarily bad? Furthermore, can opposition and dissent be in fact patriotic? There's a book out there about the liberal left reclaiming the patriotic high ground, and I believe that there are folks who have responsible and mature viewpoints about our global power and its repercussions.

And I do firmly believe that the road to war matters even more as we move along the timeline, because the venture of war will always take a toll in "precious treasure". We need to focus on moving to an endstate, for sure, but it doesn't mean we stop dissecting how we took that path in the first place.

[Jimbo]

Once again, I am with John T fishel (or is it John T.). He brings up the exact reasons that there are issues., and the media has plenty of blame on it.


I remember sitting in the Kuwiaiti desert for 6 months in 1998, and listending to a bunch of speeches on AFN by a different President say the same things. I also heard the same lines out people who have ran for President in the recent past. I also seem to recal that almost every 18 months were sending the heavy DRB over to Kuwait as a show of force for some shannigans that Saddam was pulling.

The media's culpability lies in that they as an organization have taken to using the lowest common denominator partisan laangauge to make a story. And when they do this, some people come out ahead, and it isn't anybody sitting in this country. Last weekend the Washington Post ran a story on the funding bill, and US doemstic politics. Buried in the story was a line from Zwahiri talking about how they were all going to be able to pressure President Bush to leave Iraq. No I am not a political stategist or party chair, but I think if my oarty's rhetoric was getting a thumbs up from Al Qaeda's number 2 guy, then there is a problem. The problem isn't the democrats, the problem is how the media covers them and their stances on this issue. What is televised are arguements, not debates. the arguments are heavy emotion and very light on facts. The media appears to be doing a good job of presenting these emotions as facts. This totally kills any strategic level IO we are trying to do, and hurts us at the lower levels as well. That is my $.02

[zenpundit]

Historically, the great majority of our nation's wars from the Revolutionary War forward were marked by vigorous and shrill dissent. WWII is the great exception but one that colors the public mind, particularly when it is mentally bookended with the Vietnam War protests led by the New Left radicals ( a tiny but influential minority that were taken out of the political driver's seat by Nixon's ending of the draft. Most Boomer protestors were really anti-draft, not anti-war).

I think we can divide anti-war opinion into three groups:

a) Ideological and religious pacifists

b) Ideological leftists and academics who accept to some degree the New Left critique of America as a perpetually unjust, racist, imperialist society.

c) People who think the war was ill-conceived from the start or are unhappy with the way the war has been prosecuted ( too harsh, too soft, incompetent etc.) ranging from disappointed hawks to angry doves who are not anti-war or anti-American per se.

In my view the first and third groups may make a fair claim to the mantle of "dissenting patriot"; right or wrong on the merits of their arguments, they have the nation's best interests at heart.

The second group however, cannot make such a claim. A fundamental opposition to the United States and the values of the American creed and a celebration of alien values that lead this group to consistently sympathize with whomever the enemy of the moment might be is intrinsically incompatible with patriotism.

Serially supporting the Soviets, Castro, Hanoi, Pol Pot, the Sandinistas, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Islamist terrorists, Saddam (a second time), Hugo Chavez and Iraqi insurgents can only be explained by a deep loathing of America and a desire to see it irrevocably changed into something else. There is no shortage of people like this and they tend to be well-educated, comfortably sheltered, upper middle class and influential in small ways.

But their anti-war views have little to do with patriotism.

[jcustis]

Jimbo, those are good points, but I'm curious. Is it purely the media's fault, or the fault of the consumer (Joe and Mary six-pack)?

Media works in a supply and demand cycle, right? Is it the responsibility of the media to find the debate amidst the arguments?

[120mm]

Bravo, Zenpundit. That was extremely well-said. And hits right to the crux of the issue. Unfortunately, the first and third groups tend to get painted into the corner of the second group, just by proximity.

[John T. Fishel]

Jimbo, thanks, and call me what you want... John, JohnT, etc. No, it's not all the media's fault, jc. But, as I said in the original post, they do bear a part of the blame. Mostly, it is due to incompetence rather than anything else, I think. Consider the diminished quality of journalistic writing and research over the last 30 years. (If one goes back far enough, however, the writing gets even more partisan than it is today:eek:)

Zenpundit, you are dead on. I would just add that dissent and self criticism is a hallmark of the Western way of war - and one of its greatest strengths - as Victor Davis Hanson points out in his numerous books (see Carnage and Culture for example). This still doesn't change the fact that the enemy draws comfort from that dissent and seeks to use it to his advantage a la Zawahiri. Again, the issue is whether a greater good is served. But the answer is not to suppress the dissent but rather to, as John S. Mill would have us do, counter the arguments with fact and logic. That, I submit, is much of what takes place in this forum

Cheers

JohnT

[goesh]

It's 4 years and holding with troops still on the ground, a government in place, some economic growth and infrastructure development, the Iraqi military is slowly developing and the police are engaging . Actions speak louder than words and in that respect, so maybe the words of Bacevich, Cindy Sheehan and the Dixie Chicks have much strenghtened the resolve of the jihadists. No doubt the strategists and financiers are encouraged by the anti-war forces. The jihadists were already convinced that we are weak, corrupt and Godless and if anything, I suspect a true jihadist would regard Bacevich as weak and afraid more than anything. He has chosen to aire his son's death and politicize it and to me, he is feeling alot of guilt but is not dealing with it.

[Culpeper]

That is indeed very tragic news, as all the other sad news of this huge waste of life in IRAQ.

We have to face it: No matter how much we will achieve in the next 1-3 years in IRAQ, in the end it will not be worth having toppled Saddam AT THIS PRICE! (And I don't refer to the billions of dollars that we buried there... And if we don't achieve significantly more than within the last 4 years, we transformed IRAQ into something worse than before...)

And I can't get the point of the Marcus Flavinius Quote in this respect.
In my opinion it refers to a Imperial Non-democratic Power that suppressed other people and reflects a military that doesn't obey the will of the population. All that doesn't apply to what the US is standing/should stand for.

BRUZ

Show a little class and respect the right of the professor to oppose the war as well as his son's right to fight in the same war for which he paid the ultimate sacrifice. Perhaps you will be better served on Democratic Underground where they would more than happy to enjoy your sadistic flash card talking points. This Council is hallowed ground when it comes to the quick and the dead in uniform as well as for their families. A thread devoted to the death, pain, and suffering of an individual and family members is not your opportunity to get on a soap box. You weren't born in a tent on some commune in Southern California so stop acting like one.

[RTK]

That is indeed very tragic news, as all the other sad news of this huge waste of life in IRAQ.

We have to face it: No matter how much we will achieve in the next 1-3 years in IRAQ, in the end it will not be worth having toppled Saddam AT THIS PRICE! (And I don't refer to the billions of dollars that we buried there... And if we don't achieve significantly more than within the last 4 years, we transformed IRAQ into something worse than before...)

And I can't get the point of the Marcus Flavinius Quote in this respect.
In my opinion it refers to a Imperial Non-democratic Power that suppressed other people and reflects a military that doesn't obey the will of the population. All that doesn't apply to what the US is standing/should stand for.

BRUZ


To avoid direct and indirect fire, how about introducing yourself in the introduction thread like you were supposed to in the first place...

[Sargent]

Bacevich was a professor of mine, back when we were both at SAIS. He is probably the best teachers (or least the first among very few equals) I have ever had -- challenging, and willing to be challenged, and utterly engaging in the classroom. Really, phenomenal -- when I think of myself as teaching some day in the future, I imagine that I will channel much of what I learned from him. We've stayed in contact over the last ten or so years since I left.

I recall exchanging emails with him in the fall, telling him my husband was about to deploy -- he replied that his son was about to as well. We commiserated. I was very curious how he would approach this end of war and deployment, that it would have to be a very strange place for him to be. Just after the SMH conference, I emailed him, all full of piss and vinegar -- I happen to love the annual meeting of the geeks, always have a great time! In the midst of that exchange, however, my husband's unit (a small MTT) took some casualties, a Lt. KIA, the Doc seriously wounded, and a LCpl wounded. It was rather devastating, because the first two were part of the original team of 11. So, at the end of this very upbeat message I had started I had to include this paragraph about what had happened -- it would have been very strange to send the message as originally written. It's always been my academic/scholarly desire to know and understand as much about war and combatants as possible, but after getting caught up in all that attends the reality of such an event, I wrote: "Oh boy, I didn't actually want to know _this_ much." I mention all of this, because his consoling message came back to me the Thursday before his son was killed. Truly surreal.

I had the chance to travel to Mass. for the wake. It was quite difficult to do the same terrible thing for the second time in three weeks, to stand beside another casket holding so much wasted promise, but it's also the sort of thing you can't _not_ do either. After the first one, I learned how important it is to the grieving family for people to show up. It's truly humbling when such a small gesture as that is met with such gratitude. And, because I had not had a chance to do so at the previous funeral, but had been amazed at their turnout, I took a moment to thank the police officers, who take such care to come out for their "cousins in arms" at these times.

I'd like to get off the casualty circuit, but I won't get my hopes up.

[Jugurtha]

Again, the issue is whether a greater good is served. But the answer is not to suppress the dissent but rather to, as John S. Mill would have us do, counter the arguments with fact and logic. That, I submit, is much of what takes place in this forum

Cheers

JohnT

What takes place in this forum is radically different from Joe D. Citizen regurgitating the latest quip that he heard from the latest pundit (of either side of the aisle) which happens on a far more regular basis than rational discussion/argument.

As has been seen, once the "public" has accepted an idea wholesale (Bush lied, etc.), there's not really much you can do to change it, regardless of historical fact such as the entire intel community, White House, Congress, et al believed that Iraq needed to be invaded. If everybody was having rational discussions there wouldn't be any problem. ;)

[Tom Odom]

such as the entire intel community, White House, Congress, et al believed that Iraq needed to be invaded.

Sorry mate,

That fact as stated above is more opinion. The intel community was hardly in consensus; even Tenet's waste of trees says that. I agree that much of what has been released from either view point has been slaved to an agenda. But in terms of fact, the justification for the invasion and the use of intelligence to support the justification has been shifted and respun repeatedly.

This I will state as my opinion. John Q. Public is not as stupid as some (and that includes pundits) might assume; the loss of credibility with John Q is a self-inflicted wound. Yes the media plays a role, perhaps helping point the gun. Spin masters pulled the trigger. Once that credibility is lost it is lost. GEN McCaffrey essentially said that on his last situation report.

Best

Tom

[Jugurtha]

Sorry mate,

That fact as stated above is more opinion. The intel community was hardly in consensus; even Tenet's waste of trees says that. I agree that much of what has been released from either view point has been slaved to an agenda. But in terms of fact, the justification for the invasion and the use of intelligence to support the justification has been shifted and respun repeatedly.

This I will state as my opinion. John Q. Public is not as stupid as some (and that includes pundits) might assume; the loss of credibility with John Q is a self-inflicted wound. Yes the media plays a role, perhaps helping point the gun. Spin masters pulled the trigger. Once that credibility is lost it is lost. GEN McCaffrey essentially said that on his last situation report.

Best

Tom

Thanks for the clarification on the intel issue, I was using my rather bad memory from before we invaded Iraq.

I also don't believe that John Q. Public is stupid (I hope not, as I am John Q. Public!), but easily swayed maybe? I don't want to fall into the trap that democracies are mobs and victims of emotion and all that, but after conversations I've had with people rational discussion is not the term I'd use to describe it. I've come to the conclusion that people, in general, aren't interested in coming to a joint conclusion during an argument, but forcing their idea on you and refusing to grant anything you say. This, to me, is more hurtful than anti-war protests.

[skiguy]

I've come to the conclusion that people, in general, aren't interested in coming to a joint conclusion during an argument, but forcing their idea on you and refusing to grant anything you say.

But what if the idea or opinion is correct? I'm not purposely going off topic, I'm just going to use this as an an example to make my point:
How's the economy doing?

Now if you ask that to your average, blue collar, Joe Q public guy, who get's his "news" from Katie Couric and the local newspaper only (because he doesn't have the time or interest), most will say it sucks. All the while his 401k is skyrocketing, he's paying less taxes, and he's been steadily working full time and, in many cases, OT for the past 6 years.
I'm sorry, perhaps I was incorrect placing all the blame on the media in my previous comment, but they are still guilty for a LOT of the problems when it comes to public support. In the case of economics, the Bush administration did come out and counter the misinformation...many times. But guess what happened? The media ignored or buried it.

The MSM hardly ever reports on how many schools are being built by our Soldiers and the locals in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I can almost guarantee it will be on the front page or be the lead story when one gets blown up. I don't see how anyone can blame the administration for that.

[Tom Odom]

Thanks for the clarification on the intel issue, I was using my rather bad memory from before we invaded Iraq.

I also don't believe that John Q. Public is stupid (I hope not, as I am John Q. Public!), but easily swayed maybe? I don't want to fall into the trap that democracies are mobs and victims of emotion and all that, but after conversations I've had with people rational discussion is not the term I'd use to describe it. I've come to the conclusion that people, in general, aren't interested in coming to a joint conclusion during an argument, but forcing their idea on you and refusing to grant anything you say. This, to me, is more hurtful than anti-war protests.

That is all too true on the issues avoidance and it has become the style of US debate (or non-debate). It is easy to start the name calling etc and then you don't have to think. John Q will go along with that mode for so long and then start looking for new faces and voices.

Best

Tom

[Jugurtha]

But what if the idea or opinion is correct? I'm not purposely going off topic, I'm just going to use this as an an example to make my point:
How's the economy doing?


In a rational discussion/argument between two people that are cooperating with each other (trying to come to the "right" answer) then they will end up at the correct opinion/idea, regardless of whose it is or if it directly opposed one's original viewpoint. My point is that most discussions/arguments are not of this nature. There is a lot more give and take in the discussions/arguments as stated above that doesn't happen today. Watch any "Crossfire" type show and you'll see what I mean. These are debates that are trying to achieve nothing but entertainment. This closed and non-cooperative argument/discussion is more hurtful to our efforts than anti-war protests.

[Jugurtha]

John Q will go along with that mode for so long and then start looking for new faces and voices.


I sincerely hope so. I know I'm tired of it.

[Tacitus]

Greetings Gentlemen,

I’ve been lurking for a while, this is a great website. This thread has driven me to register and post. Zenpundit, thank you for intelligently clarifying ahead of me that there are very different people opposing this Iraq War for widely different reasons.

I believe there are very few actual ideological or religious pacifists in this country. I’ll enlarge this group a bit to include those who believe this Iraq war does not meet the conditions set forth in Just War Doctrine. Without going into detail, let’s just say that in my own conscience, I do not believe it has ever met that threshold, and I have had doubts from the beginning.

I believe there are more cultural marxists modeled on the Frankfurt School than true pacifists, but this is still a pretty small number, say less than 5% of the population, at least where I am down South.

Supporters of the Administration and the Iraq war often seem to want to label anyone who opposes the war, such as myself, unpatriotic, and accuse them of being in this group. Declining public support is an important development in this war. Regaining support will be difficult, if not impossible. I don’t think questioning my patriotism or my motives are a particularly useful tactic in leading me to change my mind on this war.

I note that this tactic of the Administration has boomeranged on its own supporters with the Immigration Bill. I oppose that Bill, and have been labeled a bigot, a know-nothing, and a racist who doesn’t want to do what’s right for America by the public rhetoric of this Administration. Not true, but I’ve grown accustomed to having my character questioned already through opposing this war, so what else is new?

Most opponents of this war think this whole effort was ill-conceived from the beginning (building a democratic Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, an ally in the global war on terror and a friend of Israel, which will lead other states in the area to follow the example) and/or it has been so mismanaged that they have lost confidence in the ability of the military or Administration to bring it to an end in something that would look like a success worth the price that has already been paid.

Fellas, I’m just an old-school Conservative with Libertarian leanings. I think there is a growing number of people like me who are looking for some kind of change in how to deal with a stateless terrorist group. I was watching an old Western movie the other night called “The Wild Bunch”, with William Holden. At one point, he says “Men, we’ve gotta learn to start thinking beyond our guns.” We’re not gonna shoot our way to victory in Iraq, either.

[Granite_State]

Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Oversight and Investigations Tuesday. I'm inclined to agree with him.


Yet there is a second way to approach questions of grand strategy. This alternative approach – which I will employ in my very brief prepared remarks – is one that emphasizes internal conditions as much as external threats.
Here is my bottom line: the strategic imperative that we confront in our time demands first of all that we put our own house in order. Fixing our own problems should take precedence over fixing the world’s problems.
....
Since the 1970s, Americans have talked endlessly of the need to address this problem. Talk has not produced effective action.

Instead, by tolerating this growing dependence on foreign oil we have allowed ourselves to be drawn ever more deeply into the Persian Gulf, a tendency that culminated in the ongoing Iraq War. That war, now in its sixth year, is costing us an estimated $3 billion per week – a figure that is effectively a surtax added to the oil bill.

Surely, this is a matter that future historians will find baffling: how a great power could recognize the danger posed by energy dependence and then do so little to avert that danger.

Example number two of our domestic dysfunction is fiscal. Again, you are familiar with the essential problem, namely our persistent refusal to live within our means.

When President Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at less than $6 trillion. Since then it has increased by more than 50% to $9.5 trillion. When Ronald Reagan became president back in 1981, total debt equaled 31% of GDP. Today, the debt is closing in on 70% of GDP.
....
In fact, the Long War represents an impediment to sound grand strategy. To persist in the Long War will be to exacerbate the existing trends toward ever greater debt and dependency and it will do so while placing at risk America’s overstretched armed forces.

To imagine that a reliance on military power can reverse these trends toward ever increasing debt and dependency would be the height of folly. This is the central lesson that we should take away from period since September 11, 2001.
....
In the end, how we manage – or mismanage – our affairs here at home will prove to be far more decisive than our efforts to manage events beyond our shores, whether in the Persian Gulf or East Asia or elsewhere.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/07/16/bacevich-on-us-grand-strategy/#more-758

[Fuchs]

He still missed a lot.

My list about necessary grand strategic corrections has eight points, one of these is a necessary rapid re-industrialization.

[Graycap]

Bacevich's examples seem quite correct to me.

I'm not american and I don't want to write about grand-strategy of another country. God knows how much we, western euorpeans citizens, need a grand strategy...

Anyway, about reindustrialization: not that simple in the context of globalized market. USA, and Europe for that matter, has no chance to be competitive in many mass production ----> the need of commercial fences ---> many markets (China and India in primis) would be unreachble. But before this China could begin an economic maneuver about american debt sinking the economy at the start of this shift.

In my opinion the risk could be much more important: the problem for the western emisphere could be cultural. Are we still able to work, study, manage our life in a better way than others? I don't mean in absoulte but in the medium sense.

I've recently read about americans reciving tips about energy saving: please turn the knob of air conditioning from 18 to 23 degrees... I started laughing. Is this in any way symptomatic? I would rather start thinking about living without air conditioning or without SUV...

The logic is ever the same: we have the right to be addicted to anything, from energy to drugs. Isn't it the first grand strategy error, the cultural one?

Graycap

[Jedburgh]

Bacevich isn't the only one who presented testimony the 15th on A New US Grand Strategy:

James Dobbins (http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI071508/Dobbins_Testimony071508.pdf), RAND

....Having served under eight presidents through seven changes of administration, I have come to view these transitions as periods of considerable danger, as new and generally less experienced people assume positions of power with mandates for change and a predisposition to denigrate the experience and ignore the advice of their predecessors. America needs a grand strategy that helps it bridge these troubled waters, one that enjoys bipartisan support and is likely to endure. One key criteria for judging any newly announced grand strategy, therefore, is whether it is likely to be embraced by successor Administrations. In this respect, Napoleon’s advice with respect to constitutions may prove apt: that they be short and vague.
Barry R. Posen (http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI071508/Posen_Testimony071508.pdf), MIT (http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI071508/Posen2_Testimony071508.pdf)

The United States is a powerful country. Nevertheless, it is not as powerful as the foreign policy establishment believes. Political, military, and economic costs are mounting from U.S. actions abroad. At the same time, the U.S. has paid too little attention to problems at home. Over the last decade Americans became accustomed to a standard of living that could only be financed on borrowed money. U.S. foreign policy elites have become accustomed to an activist grand strategy that they have increasingly funded on borrowed money as well. The days of easy money are over. During these years, the U.S. failed to make critical investments in infrastructure and human capital. The U.S. is destined for a period of belt tightening; it must raise taxes and cut spending. The quantities involved seem so massive that it is difficult to see how DOD can escape being at least one of the bill payers. We should seize this opportunity to re-conceptualize U.S. grand strategy from top to bottom.
Mitchell B. Reiss (http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI071508/Reiss_Testimony071508.pdf), William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law

As a first step, I strongly urge the Committee to hold hearings on developing a strategy for sustaining and enhancing America’s economic power. Such a strategy would include the following issues:

- Reducing the national debt, which now stands at record levels, and has placed great stress on the middle and working classes;

- Tackling the coming crisis in entitlement payments (especially health care); driven by the “bow wave” of the boomer generation, U.S. citizens 65 and over will increase by a projected 147% between now and 2050;

- Reforming immigration laws to ensure that highly skilled and motivated people can come to the United States to work, create jobs and receive an education;

- Revitalizing our industrial infrastructure; and

- Developing a new national energy strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, including greater investment in alternative energy sources.

These are just a few of the hurdles that we will have to surmount in the coming years if we wish to keep America strong. Undoubtedly, there are others. None of them will be easy to accomplish. But it is important to remember that small countries do not attempt such things. Only great ones do.

[Danny]

I will not criticize or speak against a man who has lost a son in the war. I hope that that is a feeling I never experience. Bacevich has a right to hold any position he wants. But the one proferred here is the tired "we went to war for oil" meme, so incorrect that it doesn't warrant the time spent to refute it. Discussion threads at the SWC have graduated beyond that meme.

I'm all in favor a national energy policy, something we have never had as a country. But assuming that we have the grandest policy imaginable in the future (drill for oil off our own shores, start up another hundred nuclear reactors, electric cars, etc., etc.), it will have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with battling militant, Islamic extremism where it exists.

As for whether we do this overseas or within the homeland, well, take your pick. Don't be surprised if you choose to wage counterinsurgency on the homeland soil and that's actually what happens. In other words, be careful what you ask for. The "evils" of imperialism have kept the battle off of the homeland soil thus far. We have enjoyed peace and stability, including Bacevich who believes it's all about oil.

I understand the dangers of imperialism. There are consequences - and unintended consequences - to both isolationism and imperialism. But the long war - as Abizaid called it - will go on until one side or the other capitulates, one way or the other, one place or the other.

[Ken White]

cited here is that they were testifying truth to power in every sense.

Most of their testimony is essentially correct; one could quibble about war for oil and reindustrialization plus a few others but those cited are basically correct in their assertions. We need to fix a lot of things.

Every thing we need to fix that we can indeed actually fix can be laid directly at the feet of Congress. This or that President may have facilitated what Congress wanted but those guys only serve for four or eight years -- as all the testimony above shows, we've been headed downhill since the '60s. Only the Congress has been around that long. So congress can do the fixing. Somehow, I doubt Congress will fix itself...

Thus, we need to fix Congress.

[Tacitus]

But the one proferred here is the tired "we went to war for oil" meme, so incorrect that it doesn't warrant the time spent to refute it. Discussion threads at the SWC have graduated beyond that meme.


Well, I guess we went to war in Afghanistan because of the attacks on 9/11.

As to why we are at war in Iraq, it seems pretty persuasive to me that petroleum has something to do with it. If Iraq's principal economic resource was that it was rich in say, carrots, I doubt we'd be that interested in the goings on in Mesopotamia.

[Ken White]

...As to why we are at war in Iraq, it seems pretty persuasive to me that petroleum has something to do with it. If Iraq's principal economic resource was that it was rich in say, carrots, I doubt we'd be that interested in the goings on in Mesopotamia.was that it could be invaded with minimal disturbance to world oil supply -- and we really want China and India, two large users of ME Oil, to have all the Oil they need with no interruptions. There were some other synergistic effect involving oil but they were minor and paled into insignificance alongside the no-disruption factor and Iraq's geographical centrality in the ME and its pariah status at the time.

Thus the oil issue is not Iraq's oil but that in the greater ME.

[wm]

Well, I guess we went to war in Afghanistan because of the attacks on 9/11.

As to why we are at war in Iraq, it seems pretty persuasive to me that petroleum has something to do with it. If Iraq's principal economic resource was that it was rich in say, carrots, I doubt we'd be that interested in the goings on in Mesopotamia.

I think it may be tied more to forward basing for American troops than to oil for American automobiles. However, I suspect that Ken White's point about oil for China and India is an important piece of the whole decision. We wouldn't want either of those countries pulling a "1930's and 40's Japan plan" to get access to petroleum resources, would we?

So, if I'm right, how does the latest from Iraq on troop withdrawal timetables fit into the way ahead? Where else do we go to replace all those kasernes and POMCUS sites in Germany?
Diego Garcia isn't big enough; Romania is too far from the -stans; Afghanistan is too inaccessible. Do we retrench back into Kuwait or try to work a deal in
Oman?
Maybe the Iranians wouldn't mind if we just took up a small enclave around Bandar-e Abbas. After all, China had no problems with such efforts by European powers in places like Hong Kong and Tsingtao in the latter 1800s, right?

[Fuchs]

So, if I'm right, how does the latest from Iraq on troop withdrawal timetables fit into the way ahead? Where else do we go to replace all those kasernes and POMCUS sites in Germany?
Diego Garcia isn't big enough; Romania is too far from the -stans; Afghanistan is too inaccessible. Do we retrench back into Kuwait or try to work a deal in
Oman?

Turkey is ideal.

Ukraine and Georgia, two countries that are still in between NATO and Russia, are in range.
Iran, Syria, Iraq are very close as well.
The Suez channel is in strike range.

Turkey is getting alienated by Europeans because we don't want them to join the EU (actually, our politicians want it much more than the population).
They have no history of being colonialised, so they might not object bases as fiercely as many other nations.

Turkey would be the crown jewel of all forward deployments. There's no other country in the world that can offer so much for forward deployed forces.
Two shipping lane bottleneck, proximity to buffer region with Russia, proximity to Near East, immensely large and still capable indigenous forces that ensure the safety of the bases, easily accessible by sea, close to many other important allies.

[SethB]

I would question the necessity for forward based troops in the Middle East if oil were not a consideration. Oil is a strategic commodity because we need it, and it benefits them because they don't really have much else to offer.

In fact, oil has been an incessant source of conflict, and where it is not the source it seems to provide a disproportionate amount of funding.

Or as James Woolsey pointed out in a video I posted in another thread, this is the first war (I would point out the Barbary Wars) in which the United States has funded both sides.

[wm]

Turkey is ideal.
. . . there's that little sticking point known as Cyprus, which is also a problem for EU admission. The Turks' official positions wrt Kurds and Armenians are also concerns. And, we've already had trouble getting cooperation from Turkey--remember the 4ID debacle in 2003?

[Fuchs]

. . . there's that little sticking point known as Cyprus, which is also a problem for EU admission. The Turks' official positions wrt Kurds and Armenians are also concerns. And, we've already had trouble getting cooperation from Turkey--remember the 4ID debacle in 2003?

If Kuwait only had made as much trouble as well in 2003...it would have been a great friend.

[davidbfpo]

For all manner of reasons I suggest any "forward basing" should be on the islands available, for a moment ignoring politics: Cyprus, Crete, Malta, Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia.

If access from the Indian Ocean is required, yes no islands - unless Yemen allows use of Socotra (no facilities) - so Oman seems to be the only option.

davidbfpo

[bourbon]

Part two of the hearings:


Thursday, July 31, 2008 – 10:00 am – 2212 Rayburn – Open
The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will meet to hear testimony on A New U.S. Grand Strategy (Part 2).
* Subcommittee Chairman Snyder’s Opening Statement (http://armedservices.house.gov/apps/list/speech/armedsvc_dem/snyderos073108.shtml)
Witnesses:

Admiral Dennis C. Blair, USN (Ret.) (pdf (http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI073108/Blair_Testimony073108.pdf))
John M. Shalikashvili Chair
National Bureau of Asian Research

Ambassador Robert Hunter (pdf (http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI073108/Hunter_Testimony073108.pdf))
Senior Advisor, RAND Corporation
U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1993-98

Major General Robert H. Scales Jr., USA (Ret.) (pdf (http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI073108/Scales_Testimony073108.pdf))
President, COLGEN, LP
Former Commandant, Army War College

Dr. Philip D. Zelikow (pdf (http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI073108/Zelikow_Testimony073108.pdf))
White Burkett Miller Professor of History, University of Virginia
Former Counselor, Department of State

[bourbon]

Bill Moyers Interviews Andrew J. Bacevich (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html), PBS, August 15, 2008. (Transcript and Video)



BILL MOYERS: And you use this metaphor that is intriguing. American policy makers, quote, "have been engaged in a de facto Ponzi scheme, intended to extend indefinitely, the American line of credit." What's going on that resembles a Ponzi scheme?

ANDREW BACEVICH: This continuing tendency to borrow and to assume that the bills are never going to come due. I testified before a House committee six weeks ago now, on the future of U.S grand strategy. I was struck by the questions coming from members that showed an awareness, a sensitivity, and a deep concern, about some of the issues that I tried to raise in the book.

"How are we gonna pay the bills? How are we gonna pay for the commitment of entitlements that is going to increase year by year for the next couple of decades, especially as baby boomers retire?" Nobody has answers to those questions. So, I was pleased that these members of Congress understood the problem. I was absolutely taken aback when they said, "Professor, what can we do about this?" And their candid admission that they didn't have any answers, that they were perplexed, that this problem of learning to live within our means seemed to have no politically plausible solution.
Worth watching.

[Cavguy]

I apparently am in the minority, but think Prof Bacevich is spot on in his whole interview. I also sympathize with his diagnosis of how our foreign policy should be re-toolded.

Here's my favorite quote, which I have stated here before:


BILL MOYERS: You say, and this is another one of my highlighted sentences, that "Anyone with a conscience sending soldiers back to Iraq or Afghanistan for multiple combat tours, while the rest of the country chills out, can hardly be seen as an acceptable arrangement. It is unfair. Unjust. And morally corrosive." And, yet, that's what we're doing.

.......

ANDREW BACEVICH: Yeah. Well, my son was killed in Iraq. And I don't want to talk about that, because it's very personal. But it has long stuck in my craw, this posturing of supporting the troops. I don't want to insult people.

There are many people who say they support the troops, and they really mean it. But when it comes, really, down to understanding what does it mean to support the troops? It needs to mean more than putting a sticker on the back of your car.

I don't think we actually support the troops. We the people. What we the people do is we contract out the business of national security to approximately 0.5 percent of the population. About a million and a half people that are on active duty.

And then we really turn away. We don't want to look when they go back for two or three or four or five combat tours. That's not supporting the troops. That's an abdication of civic responsibility. And I do think it - there's something fundamentally immoral about that.

Again, as I tried to say, I think the global war on terror, as a framework of thinking about policy, is deeply defective. But if one believes in the global war on terror, then why isn't the country actually supporting it? In a meaningful substantive sense?

Where is the country?

[Mark O'Neill]

I apparently am in the minority, but think Prof Bacevich is spot on in his whole interview. I also sympathize with his diagnosis of how our foreign policy should be re-toolded.

Here's my favorite quote, which I have stated here before:

that Bacevich expresses in the quote that Cavguy has highlighted. I have observed the same thing in CONUS and down under. I think he is spot on.

I had the opportunity to meet Andrew Bacevich and spend some time talking with him and TX Hammes after dinner at an event in Oxford (UK) last year. It was an enjoyable evening - he struck me as honorable and smart. I think that it would not hurt a few more folks to spend some time reading his material and thinking objectively about what he writes before jumping to conclusions.

[sullygoarmy]

I thought his PBS interview was spot on as well. It is time for people to realize that we are in a real bind when it comes to energy and our waning power throughout the world. It seems to me Bacevich pulls some ideas from Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts for some of his stuff. You could also say he pulls from Malcom Gladwell (Tipping Point) and some Joseph Nye (Soft Power) as well. That being said, he combines all these ideas with a believable pitch that doesn't come across like whining or bashing any one administration...a refreshing change.

[bourbon]

Prof. Bacevich is certainly a unique voice who suffers no fools and is indeed a refreshing voice in the current political discourse. I have had the privilege of taking an American Military history course with him, and consider it the most rewarding experience I have had in classroom. Not only intellectually stimulating, Prof. Bacevich's lessons have challenged me to be a better citizen and man.

Cavguy's selected quote is powerful, reading it conjures the same sulking sense of shame and dishonor for me as hearing it aloud. It's pretty hard to argue with. Sharp, concise, and packing a wallop. Will we ever hear Senator's McCain or Obama say such a thing? Or for that matter Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh? This is the tragedy.

[Ski]

I'll admit my bias up front.

I agree with literally everything that COL (Ret.) Bacevich talks about, and have for a long time.

We are overextended in literally every aspect of our national power.

Thanks for the link to Moyer's program.

[Granite_State]

Bill Moyers Interviews Andrew J. Bacevich (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html), PBS, August 15, 2008. (Transcript and Video)

Worth watching.

Read this a couple weeks ago, motivated me to order his The New American Militarism on Amazon. I'm about 50 pages in, highly recommend it so far.

[Granite_State]

I thought his PBS interview was spot on as well. It is time for people to realize that we are in a real bind when it comes to energy and our waning power throughout the world. It seems to me Bacevich pulls some ideas from Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts for some of his stuff.

Curious what you mean here. Bacevich seems to be politically a polar opposite to Kaplan, who's a poor man's (maybe a homeless man's) Kipling.

[sullygoarmy]

Granite,
Some of the comments that Bacevich said in his interview made me think of Kaplan's book. In his book, Kaplan goes and visits U.S. military members in some far off places; Mongolia is one example. He avoids the usual spots like Iraq and Afghanistan in this book and instead, focuses on the fringes of where the military is, conducting equally important jobs but without the media focus. Kaplan's thesis (in my interpretation) is the U.S. military is in fact an imperial force, spreading the values, cultures, messages and influences of the U.S. no matter where they go or what the job. From a military attace to an SF team in South America, every member of the U.S. military takes pieces of America with him or her. While we are not forcefully occupying terrority or enslaving a population, we bring a lot of "Soft Power" (to quote Joseph Nye) with us along with the obvious hard power. In fact, all of Kaplan's book focuses on the soft powers these "Imperial Grunts" bring with them.

Although Kaplan may be politically opposite to Bacevich, the two of them do share a healthy love of the U.S. military. Kaplan has spoken frequently at Fort Leavenworth and I've spoken with him both in person and over e-mail numerous times. Part of me gets the impression that he sees the military as a kindred spirit as him: wandering the globe into some of the worst places imaginable...and always having a story to tell once they return home to the U.S.

Let me know what you think.

[Steve Blair]

What I find fascinating about this is that so much of it is really not new. We're seeing the same sort of pressures on the military that we saw in the late 1800s and through about 1928 or so, although on a larger overall scale and with 'instant' coverage. Rhetoric aside, the American political body (and a fair percentage of the public) has always seen the military as a disposable asset. It's a fact of life in this country, and has been since the beginning. As a historian, Bacevich should understand this. Up until recently, the bulk of popular adoration was saved for the state volunteer or the wartime volunteer. It's an interesting study on its own.

[sullygoarmy]

It almost seems that we are in a cycle of how "Imperial" our military is. Late 19th/early 20th century, highly imperial. In the late 1920s and 1930s, we retract, mirroring our society and their unwillingness to get involved (or inability) with foreign affairs. Today's "flattened" world has greatly increased the U.S. involvement in global affairs, even more so from when the Cold War kept us physically out of nations within the Soviet sphere of influence. As a reflection of our society, our military is only as imperial as they are.

[Fuchs]

http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/col-andrew-bacevich-usa-ret/

I agree 95%.

I do not tend to publicly agree with others often, so this is quite exceptional.

(The only thing that irritated me was the supposed theft of California by Mexicans, maybe I just misunderstood something - it doesn't fit into his speech.)

[SWJ Blog]

Andrew J. Bacevich: The Revisionist Imperative (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/andrew-j-bacevich-the-revisionist-imperative)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/andrew-j-bacevich-the-revisionist-imperative) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

This thread was called 'Warrior Politics--Andrew Bacevich' and has been renamed (similar title to David Kilcullen's thread, although with fewer reads).

I have also merged several smaller threads into this one.

[davidbfpo]

A WaPo review of 'Breach of Trust : How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country’ by Andrew J. Bacevich:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2013/10/04/171207ac-2460-11e3-b3e9-d97fb087acd6_story.html

I do like this phrase for describing (US) All Volunteer Forces:
....a civil-military relationship founded on the principle that a few fight while the rest watch.

The reviewer's best passage:
Evading civic responsibility is the order of the day, replaced by a politics of insult, enmity and evasion. The men and women we so blithely send off to fight wars in places we’ve never heard of deserve better than that, but there’s no reason to believe we’re going to give it to them.

Whilst I appreciate the book is about the USA, the principles have an application in Western Europe, where conscription has dwindled, but I cannot recall any public debate about an all volunteer military except on the far left.