GWOT... Nope. Long War... Nope. Overseas Contingency Operation... Yes!
Found this off drudge this evening, from the Washington Post:
"The End of the Global War On Terror" by Al Kamen 3/24/09
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...=news-col-blog
DOD is officially ditching GWOT, and discouraging use of the Long War, both old news. The replacement, however, will be Overseas Contingency Operation. That will show, al Qaeda!
Years from now at the American Legion, a youngster will ask a grizzled old vet, "Sir, what ribbon is that?" With pride, the proud veteran will reply, "That's my OCO ribbon. We didn't always think we'd win the OCO, but we stuck with it, and earned a hard-fought victory."
I personally am not a huge fan of GWOT, and prefer The Long War," but Overseas Contingency Operation? Not very inspiring, but that is just me.
Just think of how those who are the focus of its efforts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
patmc
Found this off drudge this evening, from the Washington Post:
"The End of the Global War On Terror" by Al Kamen 3/24/09
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...=news-col-blog
DOD is officially ditching GWOT, and discouraging use of the Long War, both old news. The replacement, however, will be Overseas Contingency Operation. That will show, al Qaeda!
Years from now at the American Legion, a youngster will ask a grizzled old vet, "Sir, what ribbon is that?" With pride, the proud veteran will reply, "That's my OCO ribbon. We didn't always think we'd win the OCO, but we stuck with it, and earned a hard-fought victory."
I personally am not a huge fan of GWOT, and prefer The Long War," but Overseas Contingency Operation? Not very inspiring, but that is just me.
How'd you like to be the guy who has to come up with the new recruiting slogans for the figh...( counter-contingency effort) against the west. :D
OB- you must join us in our battle to counter the hegemonist's in their efforts to help the Afghan people develop contingencies to overcome our plans to force everybody to do what we want.
newbie- Ummm HUH:confused:
I agree with your points, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Come on, "GWOT" was always a horrible packaging for our response to the attacks of 9/11, and contributed to an excessive focus on defeating "terrorists" over actually solving the problem at hand.
Similarly, to call the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan as separate "wars" also skews thinking in ways that asigns an improper context to each's place in the overall larger effort of solving the problems that gave rise to 9/11.
With any luck, this renaming will be a first step in relooking US Foreign Policy and Strategy as a whole to determine how we best engage this globalized post-Cold War world so as to best achieve our national interests in a manner that does not create unnecessary friction. To continue to press the control mechanisms designed to contain a long defunct Soviet Union has placed a tremendous strain on our national reputation, treasure, and influence.
I'm all for moving forward, and that means we'll need to leave some baggage behind.
GWOT was a lousy name. Separating Iraq and Afghanistan was a poor idea, and we did lose focus on the right problems. I'm all in favor of rethinking our Foreign Policy based on the recognition that we're not in 1985 any more. If I thought the name change was intended to address these issues, I'd be all for it.
But, "Overseas Contingency Operation?" That makes GWOT look like a good choice. The only way it makes sense is if the intent is to sweep things under the rug. I'll go back to my previous point. It's very difficult to gut the defense budget if you're fighting a war, and very easy if you're only "involved" in an "Overseas Contingency Operation."
It sounds like your number one concern is DoD's Budget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J Wolfsberger
GWOT was a lousy name. Separating Iraq and Afghanistan was a poor idea, and we did lose focus on the right problems. I'm all in favor of rethinking our Foreign Policy based on the recognition that we're not in 1985 any more. If I thought the name change was intended to address these issues, I'd be all for it.
But, "Overseas Contingency Operation?" That makes GWOT look like a good choice. The only way it makes sense is if the intent is to sweep things under the rug. I'll go back to my previous point. It's very difficult to gut the defense budget if you're fighting a war, and very easy if you're only "involved" in an "Overseas Contingency Operation."
My number one concern is the National Security of the United States.
An over emphasis on the M in DIME, and a resultant overly military and war-like face on our foreign policy arguably does not provide the most effective approach to National Security.
So, we can use alarmist terminology like "War on Terror" or "Gut the Defense Budget," or we can rationally sit down and ask "What are we really trying to accomplish here, and how do we best distribute a much smaller overall budget among the various participants across government that contribute to those ends."
It stands to reason that the DoD budget will get smaller. How could it not? I'm sure Soviet military leaders made similar arguments against "Gutting the Defense budget" all the way up to the point their government collapsed under the weight of it. Sometimes dropping the gut before it drops you is a good thing.
But I will say this, cuts without a plan that supports policy, that in turn supports an over-arching strategy, is just as dangerous as no cuts at all.
"War" was the word that got us off track in the first place
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John T. Fishel
Any name that doesn't include the word "war" fails the "so what" test. When our enemy has declared "war" against us - not once but twice - and has killed more Americans on 9/11 than were killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor clearly indicates that a "state of war exists" between (at least) the US and Al Qaeda and its allies.
On 9/11 AQN (a non-state entity, conducting a regional UW campaign to incite and unite dissatisfied Sunni populaces around the Middle East to rise up in insurgency to throw off governments that possessed Western support, but lacked homegrown legitimacy) launched an attack against the perceived source of legitimacy of many of the worst governments in the Middle East.
The U.S. populace, rightfully angered demanded revenge against their attackers and a return of the perception of security enjoyed prior to the attacks.
Instead of looking at the big picture as to WHY these attacks took place, we instead colored it as "Muslims trying to destroy America" and launched a war against a tactic and a religion. The resultant operations have in large part legitimized the propaganda being spread about US intentions and have arguably put as far more at risk today than we were 7 years ago on 9/10.
I agree completely with Hack that meaningless name changes are of no value; but will argue even more vigorously that this country need a major, major strategic overhaul.
US Cold War policy in the Middle East worked. Continuing it 20 years after the fact contributed significantly to the current conflicts we face coming out of that region.
US similarly faces growing concerns of organized criminal violence coming out of Mexico. Any US solution that does not fully address the contribution of US Drug policies will be equally ineffective.
Being a good neighbor is a two-way street. Nothing wrong with strong fences, guard dogs and staying fit and well armed. But you still have to stop throwing your garbage over the fence and going around the neighborhood telling everyone what to do, and parking your oversized vehicles on the street in front of their houses, etc. The sooner that sinks in, the sooner we will truly begin to address the growing security concerns to our nation.
As usual I think we are in violent agreement...
From a year ago, when posited that I thought we (the US specifically, western world generally) had reached a strategic culminating point and that it was time to transition to the strategic defensive...
Rob and his big ideas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual Rob has posted another of his intellectual hairballs that generates so much intellectual activity that it is nearly impossible to keep up and still do your job . A few thoughts that might already be accounted for above, but I don't have the time to digest...
Being on the strategic defense does not preclude offensive action. This is especially true if you consider STRATCOM/Info Engagement (IE) as part of the mix. Of course Clausewitz needs to be bent to fit generational changes, but he still fits in this era of fourth generation warfare.
All this gets a little hazy if you are like me and consider all actions/activities as having some IE component. I conduct a raid, I take physical action but I also convey a message to foes, friendlies, and neutrals alike based on how, when, etc...
However, if we bend our concepts of offense and defense so far that they no longer resemble their commonly understood definition (an example would be that Iraq was strategically a defensive action because it was pre-emptive of a presumed threat), then we probably just need to start over again.
As I continue on this stream of consciousness... I heard rumor (probably in this forum) that ADM Mullen proposed as food for thought that we ought to have an Info Order with an OPS Annex as opposed to the other way around. There is probably way too many cultural hurdles to scale with that idea, but that is the kind of big idea that I expect from a CJCS. If you get past your initial gut reaction, you can easily so why that is a far more useful mental construct. Unfortunately it took a squid... god help us if they are going to do all our thinking.
I suppose we are taking different avenues of approach to the same objective, I hope you lift and shift when I fire the green star cluster :D
Live well and row
I don't think "War" was the word that got us off track in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
...The U.S. populace, rightfully angered demanded revenge against their attackers and a return of the perception of security enjoyed prior to the attacks.
Nor do I agree with that -- if you use the caveat 'some of', I would agree but a bare "U.S. populace" implies most and I do not believe that's the case. The chattering classes certainly did and many who hang onto their every word (fortunately far from a majority of the populace) probably did but that's still a relatively small number.
In any event, the word 'war' wasn't the problem, the way the Administration of the day handled the media was the problem.
Quote:
Instead of looking at the big picture as to WHY these attacks took place, we instead colored it as "Muslims trying to destroy America" and launched a war against a tactic and a religion. The resultant operations have in large part legitimized the propaganda being spread about US intentions and have arguably put as far more at risk today than we were 7 years ago on 9/10.
The "big picture as to why" was of only marginal import. The 'why' was the issue you cite PLUS previous US actions around the world over many years PLUS the fact that the US, of all western nations due to our culture (or lack of it ;) ) offered both the easiest target and the easiest to dislike. The first two issues could not be undone and the last issue should not be -- we may be flawed but we have far more pluses than minuses.
Then there is the biggest PLUS of all that many like to elide: Our failure for over 20 years to respond adequately to probes and provocations originating in the ME. That one factor contributed more to 9/11 than the others combined.
I'll grant that some did go the "Muslims trying to destroy America" route but in fairness, the Administration, bad as they bungled their PR effort, did not do that -- in fact they bent over backwards to avoid that. The mass media and a few voluble nutcases were the beater of the anti-Islamic drum and they were a minority. Visible and loud but still a minority. So "We" didn't do what you said.
There is no question the bad guys used that visible and loud minority's stupidity to reinforce their position. The current operations do give them some legitimizing clout but more people are becoming aware that said legitimizing is a charade.
I agree that it is arguable that our operations have placed us more at risk -- and I would argue they have not. Folks in the ME are very much into pride, honor and revenge. The phrase "An eye for an eye..." after all originated there. I'm firmly convinced that our failure to react to provocations for many years encouraged more attacks (there is a Mid Eastern way of war...) and our twin responses in 2001 and 2003 will in the long run prove far more beneficial than negative.
Quote:
US Cold War policy in the Middle East worked. Continuing it 20 years after the fact contributed significantly to the current conflicts we face coming out of that region.
Having served there during the period, I do not agree that it worked then -- I do agree that continuing the same ideas has not worked in the ME since 1990.
Quote:
...Any US solution that does not fully address the contribution of US Drug policies will be equally ineffective.
Agree.
Quote:
...The sooner that sinks in, the sooner we will truly begin to address the growing security concerns to our nation.
I also agree with that philosophy but disagree that it is practical possibility. Further, I suspect it's not going to happen and I believe those things to be true for one reason.
We're the biggest gorilla in town right now and while we could turn the other cheek (as we did from 1979 until 2001) that would simply be seen as a sign of weakness by too many in the world. Rightly or wrongly, a big guy who's been a bully cannot get away with becoming Mr. Meeknmild. Sorry, Bob, everyone out there just isn't as nice as you are.
All that said, I agree with John T. 'War' should stay in there. If people are getting fired upon with regularity particularly by large groups of opponents with crew served weapons it's a war. Nation state involvement is not a prerequisite. Hard to justify all those CIBs, Purple Hearts and Combat decorations sans a war.
Not to mention that if the other guy strongly believes and says he IS in a war and you don't use the term, you can place yourself at a great disadvantage by not realizing how serious your problem is.
Lot of that going around...
They are indeed big on negotiation
It's a National Sport all over the region and they are masters at what we call haggling. If you'd like an indicator of how not to do it, see our President's Now Ruz message to Iran. :rolleyes:
They will only negotiate from a position of strength. If they do not believe their strength is adequate to get what they want, they will delay, whine, bluster and obfuscate until such time as they believe they're strong enough to prevail. They view ANY compromise as weakness.
Yes, they negotiate -- and we're rank amateurs at it and should be very cautious about entering into negotiations with them. In fact, some of the factors of our behavior in the ME about which you complain frequently were induced from earlier negotiations with various regimes in the ME wherein we foolishly bought a bill of goods because we thought they negotiated in good faith and meant what they said. Or would stick to an agreement after it no longer suited... :(
That said, I agree with your first point. :cool:
Sighting in on the HUDIMP
Absolutely great stuff in the definition of the HUDIMP. However, it fails to answer the question of which law applies - Local laws and regulations (State and Federal Statutes) or the laws of warfare (UCMJ/Geneva Convention). I am ok with either, so long as there is an outcome to the processing of the HUDIMP
JP, the answers to your questions .....
Quote:
from JP
the question of which law applies - Local laws and regulations (State and Federal Statutes) or the laws of warfare (UCMJ/Geneva Convention).
cut across a number of currently on-going threads. The answers are NOT matters of law only, although the Rule of Law (local and international) and the Laws of War do come into play.
Two levels will come into play, besides law:
1. The current study of "irregular warfare" and the military policies that will be developed from that, including the applicable SROEs.
2. The national strategic policy that is currently under development - not for the far future, but the policy that will be in effect for, say, 2010 (not 4 or 10 years in the future).
This is complicated because one size will not fit all of the situations. From a legal standpoint - and from the military SROE standpoint, I see at least four different situations that the military will have to confront:
1. Conventional warfare.
2. Insurgency (primarily focused on one nation which has one or more Domestic Violent Non-State Actors - DVNSA, with or without external support by one or more State or Non-State Actors).
3. Military action against Transnational Violent Non-State Actors (TVNSA), such as AQ, who launch attacks across international borders. Related to this is the permissible scope of civilian agency paramilitary action against the same TVNSA target. Two approaches have been taken: "War ROEs" and "LE ROEs" (these are in quotes because there are different views internationally as to what "War ROEs" should be, and what "LE ROEs" should be). Adoption of one or the other as a default does not necessarily preclude use of the other in certain defined situations. There is a huge conflict here.
4. Military assistance in LE (Law Enforcement) Operations, which may involve groups that are either DVNSAs or TVNSAs, but as to which the political decision has been made NOT to raise the status of the problem to that of an "armed conflict". In short, these generally will be regarded as domestic criminal law problems.
All of these situations require reasoned political decisions (national policy level); and hopefully mission tasking type orders to the military to allow it to formulate appropriate SROEs, and particular ROEs on a case by case basis - which will have to fit the military strategy, operations and tactics adopted for each case.
My problem (now through 15 Apr) is devoting enough time to these questions to present some coherent view of what is both a military and legal problem.
For those who want to do something in the meantime, I suggest becoming familiar with the "kill or capture" concepts inherent in the two basic types of ROEs:
1. Status-Based ROEs (based on the status of the "kill or capture" target).
2. Conduct-Based ROEs (based on the conduct of the "kill or capture" target).
The status-based ROEs are more "War ROEs"; the conduct-based ROEs are more "LE ROEs". With some digging with Google, etc., you will find discussions about this topic.
Sorry I can't be more explicit now; so, this will have to do for a start.
PS: HUDIMPS was a joke - based on experience with the imps at HUD.
Secratary of State explains
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Clinton: New team not using 'war on terror' term
Mar 30 04:03 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Military Writer
Quote:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration has indeed abandoned the term "global war on terror."
Clinton says that while she hasn't seen any specific orders, the new administration in Washington simply isn't using the phrase.
