Can't. My mommy told me not to play with matches...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Surferbeetle
During my year in Iraq I was not engaged in combat operations 24 hours a day, seven days a week and I do not believe that the bulk of our forces during this entire war have been so engaged either...Things are not that black and white and all the wishing in the world will not make them so.
Those statements are true of all wars as nearly as I can ascertain. Certainly applies to all I've seen on three continents.
Quote:
...This war is focused upon 'the population'. Commanders (and by this I do not limit the word to Officers, but include NCO's and Agency folks) who fail to understand this, fail to understand the power of diplomacy, and in so doing fail to use all techniques available to them in order to win.
That is typical not only of COIN operations but, again to my knowledge, of all wars to a greater or lesser extent. I certainly agree with what you say is required with the exceptions of the fact that what you describe is not diplomacy and that you omit privates who also must be involved.
Quote:
Diplomacy works at a tactical level and it's past time to train on, and consistently use all means available to win. Other duties as assigned is not just a catch phrase...
Then I suggest you need to define diplomacy as you are using it a little better than you did before. Seems to me you are now talking somewhere between international discourse and tact. I don't disagree with the fact that frequently in any war and almost constantly in a COIN-like scenario, some effort along that line is needed by all ranks. No disagreement at all.
What I disagree with is twofold -- calling it diplomacy which it absolutely is not; and the implication that 'other duties as assigned' doesn't cover the problem. It does, it is indeed not a catch phrase -- it never has been that...
Other duties as assigned in this context mean that one has to apply experience and judgment in relations with opponents and civilians in a combat zone to achieve a balance of security and freedom of action. Should such capability be included in our training regimen? Certainly. It should have been from 1975 until 2005 but essentially was not for the bulk of the Armed Forces (in COIN or post conventional conflict / occupation / pacification operations). Hopefully that has been or is being rectified -- but that training is not diplomatic training and to use that word sends a bad message to many, not least Congress who might start thinking diplomacy was a military mission.
Such muddy thinking could lead to a map like this: LINK and a situation wherein the GeoCom CinCs actually were the lead agents in US foreign affairs in their AOs. Note that Schmedlap has said he sees that area allocation dichotomy as a good thing; may or may not be -- what is certain is that having Flag Officers serving as de facto Pro-Consuls around the world means that they are exercising diplomacy. While they need to be knowledgeable about all that, I submit it is not their job to actually do that and further believe that such muddying of waters is not good for the US. Diplomacy is the job of politicians and the foreign affairs crowd; military involvement in diplomacy has always had bad results -- ala your earlier comment about the trenches in WW I.
What you suggest as required training is IMO correct -- what it is not is diplomacy. Not in any way.
At the risk of being unduly pedantic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Surferbeetle
As Ken says there is a difference between diplomacy and Diplomacy and I am still working that one out...
which is difficult since I don't even own a pedant :D -- but to preclude further confusion I may have inadvertently sown; Ken doesn't say there is a difference between diplomacy and Diplomacy, large or small 'd' -- it is the intercourse between nations and / or the exercise of tact.
There is however, as Webster points out, a difference between diplomacy (or Diplomacy) and being diplomatic. The latter is a euphemism for being tactful... :wry:
Words, as they say, are important. ;)
Particularly when dealing with that crew of Lawyers that constitute our Congress...
"tactical diplomacy" ....
seems a logical extension from "exercise of tact" by soldiers, or anyone else.
I recognize the shorthand use of "that crew of Lawyers that constitute our Congress", so long as you keep in mind that "Lawyers" in the congressional context means "persons who happen to have law degrees". There is a notable lack of what I consider "Good Lawyers" in those hallowed halls.
;)
Agreed. My comment was aimed at
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
...There is a notable lack of what I consider "Good Lawyers" in those hallowed halls.
their parsing skills only, I presume the majority have no lawyerly skills or they wouldn't be in Congress. Hmmm, maybe skill is a bad word -- perhaps penchant for paralyzing parsing would be better... ;)