A bit more of CvC on "continuation"
From Bk 1, Ch 1, pt. 24:
Quote:
24. Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln
So sehen wir also, daß der Krieg nicht bloß ein politischer Akt, sondern ein wahres politisches Instrument ist, eine Fortsetzung des politischen Verkehrs, ein Durchführen desselben mit anderen Mitteln. Was dem Kriege nun noch eigentümlich bleibt, bezieht sich bloß auf die eigentümliche Natur seiner Mittel. Daß die Richtungen und Absichten der Politik mit diesen Mitteln nicht in Widerspruch treten, das kann die Kriegskunst im allgemeinen und der Feldherr in jedem einzelnen Falle fordern, und dieser Anspruch ist wahrlich nicht gering; aber wie stark er auch in einzelnen Fällen auf die politischen Absichten zurückwirkt, so muß dies doch immer nur als eine Modifikation derselben gedacht werden, denn die politische Absicht ist der Zweck, der Krieg ist das Mittel, und niemals kann das Mittel ohne Zweck gedacht werden.
24.—War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.
We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.
Fortsetzung = continuation, pursuit.
bloße = mere, simple (in the sense of nichts ... als, as in the Nachricht-Notice = nothing but)
It does fit and might -- might at best, not will -- work. Irrelevant
because it is totally unrealistic due to current US political, educational, social and military constructs. IOW, it's not going to happen.
Most of what's proposed in the "interview" by GEN Warner are not Armed Forces issues. I think there's an intended message in that. An intel-operator centric view is offered and it is noted that introduction of the Army and Marines -- the 'conventional' armed forces fouled up the effort. While I do not totally agree, there is some merit in that assertion. The real issue is that the force introduced had NO training in the mission they were to perform.
Lot of dreamers out there. It's noteworthy that said dreamers always know what 'should' be done AFTER the fact...
The solution is to provide the government of the US with a permanent set of truly competent strategic planners who can do long term strategizing. That requires us to better educate the US populace (unlikely), destroy the current social fabric by pushing diversity (likely) while espousing fairness and merit equally (not possible), rebuild and de-bureaucracize the Armed Forces (unlikely).
To do all those things, you need a revised US political system and that is not going to happen in our lifetimes.
It also does not need to happen. We have ways of effectively using the forces we have to accomplish our aims; the problem is a lack of will compounded by significant shortfalls in strategic thinking and a system that insists everyone has to be involved in order to maintain the budget and garner more ribbons or advance. We always forget the old cliche about too many cooks...
The real overarching issue is that one should use the various elements of ones Armed Forces for the purpose for which they were designed, equipped and trained recalling that if it takes five years to make a really tactically competent junior NCO or Officer and twenty to make truly effective senior people then it'll take that long to switch gears. Use your purpose designed force for other things and you are going to get less than satisfactory results. We need to learn that just throwing people and money at a problem is no substitute for PPP. I'm unsure why that's so hard for many to comprehend.
This one's on autopilot and it will work out; the Great Thinkers ought to quit wasting time on Afghanistan and devote their time to preventing or at least better planning and prepping for the next one...
Short response. Good summation, Mike; some specific points:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
Hi Ken,
As usual, you provoke thinking - here first on a current local issue (the intel-operator centric interview), and second on the much broader future issue. So, briefly on both.
-----------------------------
Mr C
Selected items only:
2. Appoint Pakistani, Afghan, and Iranian ambassadors, businessmen/scholars conversant with the diversity of Islamic culture and history. ...
Fix our education and political milieus to enable that, let me know when we're ready...
4. Encourage Iranian and Tajik economic exchanges, even fund them if necessary, to further fence and contain Afghanistan.
Fencing and containing Afghansitan is not a good plan. People who are fenced and contained tend to rebel at their nominal fate -- and can do that in strange and unpredictable ways.
6. Encourage mutual interests of Tajikistan, China, and India to diplomatically squeeze Pakistan.
Once you get past the antipathy between China and India, good luck with that...
9. Treble the covert action special operations and paramil forces we have operating in FATA forward and deploy also into the rear areas of North and South Waziristan and Tribal Agencies of Kurram, Khyber, Mohmand, and Bajaur. ...
Uh, good idea -- Ummm, where do those extra folks come from? Who cares if the Pakistanis get upset...
10. Accept no logistic routes offered through or controlled by [Vladimir] Putin and company. Recognize that he remains KGB/Federal Security Service with the burning ambition to restore the Soviet hegemony.
While others want to restore US hegemony??? Sounds like a pot / kettle thing to me...
11. Secure the Afghan eastern “border” in Afghanistan with U.S. combat troops but allow no incursions by them into the FATA. ....
Dreaming -- we do not have enough troops to do that. We and NATO do not have enough Troops to do that (even including Turkey who probably wouldn't play) and forget about tours and rotations. :rolleyes:
----------------------------
Quote:
The Future
. . .
Perhaps, Ken and others would also agree that everyone lacks the ability to predict what the "next one" will look like, unless he or she lucks out ?
No way to tell what it will look like -- what we can and should do is a great deal more to insure it doesn't look like the last three big stellar successes...:mad:
Quote:
There is no doubt that the Worldview can change. Whether the present situation is a watershed akin to WWII, I dunno. I expect the current New World Order mode may well continue for the duration of Ken's and my lives. However, you younger guys may see a sea change in how the US views its role in the World. May you live in Interesting Times. :)
I do believe they probably will (to both mayhaps)... :D