Small Wars in the "new" cash strapped Western economy

[William F. Owen]

One way to assure bad policy decisions is to stop questioning decisions and to stop challenging the assumptions behind policy.

No argument there. You should care about politics, because politics does care about you.

Fine. Are you a soldier? I am not, and I see no reason not to question policy.

Not a soldier anymore and a remarkably mediocre one when I was. As I say, you should question policy - BUT - you are entering the realm of political argument. Arguing about politics is, to my mind, a pretty fruitless exercise.
My concern is "strategy and tactics." Tis what I study and write about. It stands entirely separate from my political beliefs - which I take care not to inflict on other, unless forced, as in denied a legitimate status.

If we are mucking about in a foreign country in pursuit of a policy, and the populace or a substantial portion thereof finds that policy objectionable enough to warrant violent resistance, are you not prepared to even consider the possibility that the policy is the problem?

OK, but those are entirely political opinions. What actions make the US more or less safe is not a set of objective conditions. It is opinions based in political belief. Strategy and tactics stands apart from that.

We are amusing ourselves here, not exerting influence.

My comment was about policy makes in general and not your or my opinion specifically, but I concur. Neither of us is going to alter the price of bread in Khandahar anytime soon.

...but I do know that some of what gets written here does make serving men think, and some influential people do read this. Be assured, I do not delude myself as to the merit of anything I write. I use SWJ as a mental running track, to hone arguments and ideas, and am very grateful to those who challenge me in a useful way.

[Dayuhan]

you are entering the realm of political argument. Arguing about politics is, to my mind, a pretty fruitless exercise.
My concern is "strategy and tactics." Tis what I study and write about.

I study and occasionally write about policy. Entirely pointlessly, as far as I can tell: to the best of my knowledge nothing I've written has ever had a vestigial shred of impact on actual policy.

I'm not sure that strategy and tactics stand apart from policy. If policy is not sensible, doesn't discussion of strategy and tactics become sort of pointless? Policy is where it starts: if we get that wrong, we're going to have a damnably difficult time getting anything else right. "Assume a policy" seems to me a rather shaky basis for the sort of discussion that goes on here.

If we've entered a situation and things are not going as we planned and expected, doesn't it make sense to start our reassessment with a review of policy?

I use SWJ as a mental running track, to hone arguments and ideas

As do I, though realistically to no end beyond my own amusement.

[William F. Owen]

I'm not sure that strategy and tactics stand apart from policy. If policy is not sensible, doesn't discussion of strategy and tactics become sort of pointless?

Excellent question. If the policy cannot be made to work, using all instruments of power, then it is probably a dumb policy - The US periods Prohibition being a good example.
I think "Nation building" is probably in the same bracket - BUT IF that is the policy, what do you do about those opposing it using violence?

IMO, the distinction between policy and strategy is vital to getting people to understand what strategy is.

[Dayuhan]

Excellent question. If the policy cannot be made to work, using all instruments of power, then it is probably a dumb policy - The US periods Prohibition being a good example.

I would qualify that and say "all acceptable or reasonable instruments of power". The US might have succeeded in imposing prohibition if they'd shot drinkers on the spot, and we might succeed in imposing the governance we desire on Afghanistan by killing anyone who doesn't accept it... that doesn't make those instruments of power acceptable or reasonable. In general, if a policy can only be imposed through the use of exorbitant force, it's probably not a good policy. If the cost of imposing a policy exceeds the benefits the policy is supposed to produce, it's probably not a good policy.

If we're imposing policy on another country (something I personally think is generally not a great idea) and a significant portion of the populace objects to our policy, it's a pretty good sign that the policy needs work.

I think "Nation building" is probably in the same bracket

We agree on something... will wonders never cease?

BUT IF that is the policy, what do you do about those opposing it using violence?

That depends on why they're opposing it. If they are opposing the policy because they perceive it as a threat to their interests and using violence because they see no other available option, it may be possible to adjust the program so that neither their interests nor ours are necessarily compromised, or at least so that they see a reasonable prospect of peaceful resolution. People don't generally go to the considerable trouble of fighting without some reason. If the reason can be removed without compromising the goals of the policy, the fight can be settled without having to run about the place slaying and smiting. After all, it's not entirely reasonable to expect residents of other countries to submit to our policies: certainly they have no automatic obligation to do so. If we're in another country the onus is on us to adjust our policies to make them acceptable to the locals, not on the locals to submit to us.

It may be necessary to kill people; it may not be. Ideally killing would be the last resort, not the first. And if we're killing people who believe with reasonable cause that they are fighting to defend themselves or their interests, that again pushes us pack to a critical need to review and probably alter the policy. If our policy requires us to kill people who are doing exactly what we would do in their shoes, it's probably a bad policy.

IMO, the distinction between policy and strategy is vital to getting people to understand what strategy is.

Agreed. Also vital to getting people to understand what policy is, and how it affects strategy.

[William F. Owen]

I would qualify that and say "all acceptable or reasonable instruments of power".

Would anyone ever employ instruments of power that they thought unreasonable or unacceptable? Judgement as to reason and acceptability is a political opinion.

If we're imposing policy on another country (something I personally think is generally not a great idea) and a significant portion of the populace objects to our policy, it's a pretty good sign that the policy needs work.

Well that's the reason countries go to war with each other. Conflicts come from policies. If you are prepared to kill to set forth policy, you do not care what the other side thinks.
What if the vast majority of Iraqis thought Kuwait should be part of Iraq?

It may be necessary to kill people; it may not be. Ideally killing would be the last resort, not the first.

Agreed. Killing is a last resort, and but also one that can be forced upon you. Once it is, it has to be done effectively, and with the objective of breaking the will of the other side to persist in that course of action.

If our policy requires us to kill people who are doing exactly what we would do in their shoes, it's probably a bad policy.

Everyone who has ever fought against the US has had a very good reason for doing so, in their own eyes.

[Dayuhan]

Would anyone ever employ instruments of power that they thought unreasonable or unacceptable? Judgement as to reason and acceptability is a political opinion.

Nations have been known to employ instruments of power that their own populace thought unreasonable or unacceptable. That's generally not sustainable, at least in a democracy.

Yes, such judgments are a political matter. They are also critical to success and they demand consideration. I see no reason why issues of politics or policy should be excluded from this discussion. They are in fact the subject of the discussion. If we want to bring the practice of war within realistic budgetary constraints we must start with policy adjustments.

Well that's the reason countries go to war with each other. Conflicts come from policies. If you are prepared to kill to set forth policy, you do not care what the other side thinks.
What if the vast majority of Iraqis thought Kuwait should be part of Iraq?

Are we at war with Afghanistan? Is the populace of Afghanistan "the other side"? For better or worse, when we impose ourselves on another nation's internal politics and try to establish a government that cannot survive without popular consent, we'd better care what that populace thinks, whether or not they are "the other side".

If Iraqis thought that Kuwait should be part of Iraq and Kuwaitis thought otherwise, we would be inclined to respect the views of the Kuwaitis, at least as far as Kuwait goes. It's bit easier to figure out when we deal with conflict among states. That's not always what we're doing.

Again, if we don't get the policy end straight we end up assigning military forces goals that cannot be achieved by military force and may not be achievable by any means. If we do that, no amount of strategy or tactics is going to salvage the situation.

[William F. Owen]

They are in fact the subject of the discussion. If we want to bring the practice of war within realistic budgetary constraints we must start with policy adjustments.

I think the best I can say here is wars are expensive. Don't fight unless...

Are we at war with Afghanistan? Is the populace of Afghanistan "the other side"?

Could be you picked a side in a Civil War that you intervened in? ...or didn't...

Again, if we don't get the policy end straight we end up assigning military forces goals that cannot be achieved by military force and may not be achievable by any means. If we do that, no amount of strategy or tactics is going to salvage the situation.

Exactly my point. Show me the policy, and we can then discuss the strategy.