wanna be startin' somethin' - RE: the next "small war"
.
hey.
I hope to get some discussion going on our next "war," the one in Somalia.
I consider our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to be military successes, but overall failures. Reason: we divorced politics from the martial, and lost sight of Mission, Vision, Values. Our Prussian patron would disapprove.
I've collaborated with two sanctioned authors, TX and Janine, before she became Madam Deputy Assistant Secretary, on the Global Strategic Assessment 2009 published by INSS, NDU.
Infantryman. SF. Constitutionalist. Perhaps best known for suing the Army in Federal Court to stop the employment of Mercenaries.
Loser.
I don't like the term "long war;" these aren't really wars in the historical sense. But our next one, whatever we call it, will be in the Lower Shabelle, and Garacaad.
Maybe instead of focusing exclusively on explaining why, despite the evidence, we haven't lost the first two, we can shape strategy so that #3 is actually winnable.
.
Well, I won't hold against you the collaboration with
Hammes or losing a suit. I won't even argue that we will not go to Somalia.. I will state that we should not simply because there is no important US interest at stake that cannot be better sorted in other ways.
We 'lost' the first two in one sense because we decided to stay; as to whether we really lost -- way too early to tell. Check back in 2030 or so. Even that may be too soon...
So rather than going directly to shaping the "... strategy so that #3 is actually winnable" why not tell us why we should commit forces there and should have a strategy element that says that's necessary, much less a good idea?
And on the other issues...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Scott
.
What folks think an invasion of Somalia would be a cakewalk ? Mostly folks who never served in the military, but are now deciding the foreign policy of the USA.
Who is saying that an invasion of Somaila would be a cakewalk, and where are they saying it? Specifically, please. A citation would help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Scott
.
GaroweOnline.com that President Farole laid out a very specific plan for how to spend that money, promising specific results.
A dollar goes a lot further in Puntland than in Luzon.
It's difficult to comment on - or believe in - a plan one hasn't seen. A dollar goes a fair way on Luzon, but probably farther in Puntland. However, it's difficult to see how a meagre 8 million in aid money is going to convince people to abandon an enterprise that brings in many more millions every year, or how the Puntland government intends to compel the same people to abandon that business. They have to either convince or compel, and $8m seems unlikely to do either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Scott
.
I'm new here. I don't know what you know about the US police action in sunny Southeast Asia 40-some years ago.
Not everything, but enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Scott
.
This thread is not going at all like I wanted. I am 100% certain that our Sneaky Petes on the ground in Somalia are gonna get a lot of backup from conventional ground forces, and I'm pretty sure that will happen by this Summer.
If you want the community here to discuss that prediction seriously, you might want to support it a bit more thoroughly. Why exactly do you think this is going to happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Scott
.
I was hoping this community could help them from screwing that up....
If our coming misadventure into Somalia is as badly led as the two current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this blog community doesn't lift a finger to prevent that, well, why even blog here ?
I could lift my full complement of fingers and toes several times over and have not one iota of influence over whatever the US intends or does not intend to do in Somalia. I personally don't think there's any intention to commit ground forces to Somalia in the near future, but if it happens we'll discuss it here, and those of us here will benefit from the discussion, and the US Government at large will either be unaware of the discussion or will ignore it. I suspect that you overestimate our influence by several orders of magnitude.
I understand all that, I was referring to the Persian tradition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
Possible but I think perhaps overestimated.
of Taarof. The tradition is understood by few westerners and is endemic throughout the old Persian Empire territory. Iraq was a part of several Persian Empires far longer than the 400 or so years it was in the Ottoman empire.
The rules are arcane and very elaborate, the relative military, political or social ranks of the parties involved and the character of the issue at hand can make a difference.
Basically, if you tell me you want my watch, I'm supposed to immediately take it off my wrist and offer it to you. Whether you take it or not depends on the resulting conversation; you may really want it, may not and actually want something else -- or you may just want me in your debt, in which case you do not take the watch -- but we both know I owe you. there are subtle changes based on our relative positions and we would both be very aware of that. Rules for two equals as opposed to a senior / less senior relationship differ.
I'm fairly sure that Glaspie's "you two need to work this out" was taken in a Taarof spirit and thus Saddam did not expect the US response he actually got. I know he had plans to do the attack regardless and I do not suggest the Bush (or Glaspie) in any way encouraged him. I very much believe he used Taarof rules and took the Glaspie comment in a way that was not intended