The Best Trained, Most Professional Military...Just Lost Two Wars?

[Bob's World]

OK, so what should the individual consequences be?

Thereafter what and how long would it take to replace with those who built it with those without guilt or blood on their hands?

I don't think we need to go on a witch hunt to see who to punish.

It's just time to recognize that we don't need to control, directly or indirectly through the Northern Alliance, Afghanistan to prevent it from being an AQ sanctuary. To recognize that the Northern Alliance has absolutely no interest or desire to be the government we want them to be. To recognize that we are better off simply packing up and going home than we are executing any kind of phased out exit plan.

[JMA]

I don't think we need to go on a witch hunt to see who to punish.

As an onlooker I have been able to observe part of the problem being that incompetents don't get fired they get reassigned.

The least that should be accepted is that those who were in the system at the time, all of them, acknowledge what went wrong and how it went wrong - all the while showing some contrition.

[Fuchs]

As an onlooker I have been able to observe part of the problem being that incompetents don't get fired they get reassigned.

The least that should be accepted is that those who were in the system at the time, all of them, acknowledge what went wrong and how it went wrong - all the while showing some contrition.

A system knows no incompetents, but people officially judged to be incompetent. That may be correct or not - it's why a second chance (with care) makes sense.

Ricks revived the old tale of how Marshall fired 500 flag officers in WW2 (which was known to many, but it needed a book promo tour to push it into a larger discussion). This well-respected approach allowed for second chances as well - and many of those who were relieved did well at a later time, when they were ready for the new command.


The only ones which need to be fired immediately are really dangerous people (those who disrespect democracy, laws or the lives of subordinates a lot), people who are too old for a second chance and those who are incompetent in a indisputable way.

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs noted that:

Ricks revived the old tale of how Marshall fired 500 flag officers in WW2

Peter Caddick-Adams, a British military historian, has talked about the impact of Dunkirk on the defeated British Army's officers; they collapsed from the physical and mental impact of the blitzkrieg, were taken prisoner, were sacked as operational commanders and were retained for service. Note this was in the British Empire's darkest days in May 1940.

Jim Storr, author of 'The Human Face of War', has a chapter on the career of general officers in WW2, which IIRC notes the demise of the majority, a few were taken prisoner and one Army Commander, 1st Army, General Anderson, after the surrender in Tunisia, never had a field command again:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth..._Noel_Anderson

I am sure the British Army has other examples, such as in WW1 and maybe the RN & RAF, for removal from command in wartime.

[Fuchs]

I just realised that I cannot remember noteworthy removals of German flag rank officers from command during wartime for reason of incompetence or similar. (Hitler did it a lot, but rarely so for reasons that stood the test of time, of course.)

It certainly happened a lot, but it doesn't appear to be well-documented or much-discussed.

Goering removed fighter wing (about a hundred pilots) and group (3 groups + a flight of 4 = 1 wing usually) leaders from command in 1940 and replaced them with younger officers, many of them aces. This happened during the Battle of Britain IIRC, and it led to an increase of aggressiveness.

On the other hand, army performance failures in Poland '39 led to a huge aggressiveness, doctrine and lessons learned training program for leaders from bottom up to division level.

_______________

There is a most noteworthy example of a leader failing and totally turning around towards a "great" military career:
Frederick the Great pulled a 'Darius III' in his first battle and ran when his cavalry lost the fight. His 2nd in command ordered the superior infantry forward and the battle was still won.
Nowadays Frederick is being considered to have been among the top ten generals of his century.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob

I don't think we need to go on a witch hunt to see who to punish.

I hope it never evolves into this, war and conflict are inherently messy and mistakes will be constantly be made. In theory those who make mistakes become wiser for it, which is why senior officers and senior NCOs should have accumulated a lot of wisdom over the years (because they have 20 plus years of mistakes under their belt they learned from).

We'll never become a learning organization if we in fact become a zero defect military. For those that are entrenched in a particular way of thought and can't learn they should be removed (politely), but there is no need for a witch hunt. Witch hunts should only apply when an officer wittingly participates in something like facilitating a faulty contract because it benefits him personally, not because of tactical errors (unless they are gross mistakes that most people in the same circumstance wouldn't have made).

[carl]

To recognize that we are better off simply packing up and going home than we are executing any kind of phased out exit plan.

Should we continue to pay for the fuel and ammunition for the ANSF after we leave? And should we make special provisions to take along the many thousands who have worked for and with us, and their families, when we go?

[Bob's World]

Carl,

We were manipulated (willingly) by the Northern Alliance. We did not trick them into supporting us, rather it was quite the opposite. Most are now mulit-millionaires and already have their exit strategies well funded and well planned out. I shed no tears for them.

Those in the villages, those who embraced the Villlage Stability program, for example, that is another matter. There will be no offers of sanctuary for these people I am sure, and they have no millions to show for their buying into what we were selling. These are the ones who are most vulnerable to what will happen as the US and GIRoA both light out for other places.

As we prioritize our loyalties, I think we might want to think about our own troops, their families, and the people of the US. I think this has gone on long enough.

[carl]

Bob:

Those who aren't rich will look at us and say "You promised." If we don't at least try to make some extraordinary provisions for them that makes us a pretty shameful lot. Those who aren't rich to whom we made promises will probably not look kindly upon us if we were to bug out precipitously leaving them. We might have to steal out like thieves in the night.

Do you think we should continue to supplies fuel and bullets once we leave? The Soviets did that at least until their system collapsed.

[JMA]

Bob:

Those who aren't rich will look at us and say "You promised." If we don't at least try to make some extraordinary provisions for them that makes us a pretty shameful lot. Those who aren't rich to whom we made promises will probably not look kindly upon us if we were to bug out precipitously leaving them. We might have to steal out like thieves in the night.

Do you think we should continue to supplies fuel and bullets once we leave? The Soviets did that at least until their system collapsed.

Carl, the problem stems from the concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". You can of course exploit this situation without throwing billions at these temporary 'fair weather' allies but that is not the way the US works.

The US politicians - remember Nixon with his "Peace with Honor" BS - seem to be able to sell anything to the voters but after the US troops are safely back at home and the country concerned drops off the radar thats when the real problems begin. More were killed after the war in Vietnam. What are the stats from Iraq using "Mission Accomplished" as the end of the war (they thought).

What will happen in Afghanistan is anyones guess but what is for certain is that the leaders of the current regime are well set up with US money to move at short notice while for the villages the cycle of violence will continue.

[carl]

The US politicians - remember Nixon with his "Peace with Honor" BS - seem to be able to sell anything to the voters but after the US troops are safely back at home and the country concerned drops off the radar thats when the real problems begin. More were killed after the war in Vietnam. What are the stats from Iraq using "Mission Accomplished" as the end of the war (they thought).

JMA, what do the people you talk to in the RSA and other places think of this continuing pattern of behavior of the US, people who aren't Americans?

[jmm99]

with the OP's question:

from Carl
How come this country of ours that professes to be a cut above, the city on the hill, is probably going to abandon millions of people to lethal killers again?

In answer, it will continue to do so until (1) it ceases to preach that it is "the city on the hill"; and (2) it ceases to preach that it will safeguard "millions of people" from "lethal killers".

It will continue to do so so long as its strategy continues to be based on what was so clearly stated to be US strategy in Afghanistan from the gitgo:

Future of Afghanistan
Richard N. Haass, Director, Office of the Policy Planning Staff, and U.S. Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan,
Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
December 6, 2001

Mr. Chairman:

I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify before the Committee on Foreign Relations in my capacity as U.S. Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan.

Our aims in Afghanistan are well known to the American people and this Committee. We seek to bring about an Afghanistan that is free of terrorists, that no longer is a source of poppy, and that allows its citizens -- including an estimated five million refugees and an unknown number of internally displaced persons -- to return to their homes and live normal lives in which opportunity comes to replace misery. ... (JMM: much more of the same in the rest of the statement).

Not to blame Mr Haass too much, who was simply following in the footsteps of a flock of US Presidents (from Wilson to GWB, at the time) and stating what his boss Colin Powell wanted stated.

If one believes that the US is "the city on the hill" and has an obligation to safeguard "millions of people" (actually "billions") from "lethal killers", then one is obliged, I suppose, to preach what Mr Haass said. The problem is that, if in the course of these neo-colonial wars, one must pull the plug, charges of hypocrisy are well founded indeed.

I do not believe that the US is "the city on the hill"; or that it has an obligation to safeguard "millions of people" (actually "billions") from "lethal killers" - other than its own citizens. I am therefore a "bad, evil person".

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

JMA, what do the people you talk to in the RSA and other places think of this continuing pattern of behavior of the US, people who aren't Americans?

As Ken has told me many times he and presumably many/most/all USians don't care what outsides think.

Nobody I know trusts or believes what an American President, diplomat or spokesman says.

There is a little more sympathy for the military because it is appreciated that they are vulnerable to political whim and fancy and as such don't have much real authority.

To an outsider the US system of electoral collages and micro-management of the military by unqualified members of congress is about as ridiculous as what passes for a government system in China.

USians will of course not see it this way as they see their history justifying their current system... much like the Brits preaching democracy to the 3rd world while they themselves had/still have an unelected upper house. There are none blind as...

[Bob's World]

Bob:

Those who aren't rich will look at us and say "You promised." If we don't at least try to make some extraordinary provisions for them that makes us a pretty shameful lot. Those who aren't rich to whom we made promises will probably not look kindly upon us if we were to bug out precipitously leaving them. We might have to steal out like thieves in the night.

Do you think we should continue to supplies fuel and bullets once we leave? The Soviets did that at least until their system collapsed.

Carl, you act like we somehow lured the Northern Alliance into doing something they were not already completely dedicated toward the accomplishment of. Or, as if the Afghan populace somehow has any more say now in who rules them than they did before. This is still a land where the only sure vote is cast in 7.62mm lead.

Think about it, if the election process was truly fair and functional, the Taliban government in exile would have simply rallied a "get out the vote" campaign rather than a long, bloody insurgency.

Government to government relations are contracts, not blood oaths. You worry about what happens if the US "abandons" GIRoA; but answer this, how long ago do you think that Northern Alliance-based government abandoned us?? 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Never really caring about what we wanted from the first place? We were "abandoned" long ago, but were too self-absorbed to notice or even much care.

Again, they abandoned us long ago, and have been manipulating us to protect and fund one of the most self-serving governments on the planet. Will many good Afghan people suffer when we leave? Yes. But many good Afghan people suffer because we stay as well.

Time to stop make arguments based on false logic and poor facts. It is only just in the past few months that our senior leaders in Afghanistan are waking up to the fact that the interests and efforts promoted so heavily by ISAF are not anything that GIRoA is interested in at all. If we would have truly honored Afghan sovereignty from the start we would have realized this long ago. Allowing our General's opinions to trump the host nation's President is a bad policy that leads inevitably to places like the one we are in now.

As soon as we stop driving the train as to what "must" be done, there will be a HUGE compression and reduction of security effort by GIRoA. As soon as we stop funding development and security forces there will be an immediate halt to 90% of that as well. We have been self-serving in our approaches just as much as GIRoA has. Time to let this situation find a more natural balance. That is a balance that may well end up with significant Taliban influence over it. We need to prepare for that reality and be willing to swallow our pride and reach out to embrace it.

The only way our true enemies gain undue influence or sanctuary in Afghanistan is if we once again turn our backs on the place or are too proud to reach out to the new management that is sure to rise. Judging by our spiteful positions on Cuba, Vietnam and Iran, however, I am not optimistic that we will this time decide to be the bigger man and extend our hand first. Most likely we will allow ourselves to be manipulated by a vocal diaspora that has fled in our wake to enjoy their il-gotten gains in the safety of our borders

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Note

The last set of posts have significantly left the thread's subject behind. I fully accept matters Afghan impact the American context for the subject 'The Best Trained, Most Professional Military...Just Lost Two Wars?'

Matters Afghan have their space, although a thread on leaving doesn't exist yet. Yes time to have a new thread, after I check and then copy / move the off subject posts.

[carl]

David:

Your judgment in these matters is good. You decide.

But let us amend the original question the C's asked. We'll go from 'How come such a great military just lost two wars?' to 'How come this country of ours that professes to be a cut above, the city on the hill, is probably going to abandon millions of people to lethal killers again?' Just like we did before.

I remember the aftermath of our abandoning South Vietnam. I hoped we would never do it again though I knew in my heart that we probably would. That won't make it any less sad and shameful though.

[carl]

Carl, you act like we somehow lured the Northern Alliance into doing something they were not already completely dedicated toward the accomplishment of. Or, as if the Afghan populace somehow has any more say now in who rules them than they did before. This is still a land where the only sure vote is cast in 7.62mm lead.

I don't give a darn about the warlords. I give a darn about all the people we made promises to and who will be subject to that 7.62 mm vote when we bug out, cut off the money and don't bother to try and make extraordinary efforts to take people who trusted us with us.

Think about it, if the election process was truly fair and functional, the Taliban government in exile would have simply rallied a "get out the vote" campaign rather than a long, bloody insurgency.

I have thought about it. I thought to myself that Taliban & Co have never much cared for elections. The results are too unpredictable for them. MO wrapped himself in the cloak of the Prophet, he doesn't do elections.

Government to government relations are contracts, not blood oaths. You worry about what happens if the US "abandons" GIRoA; but answer this, how long ago do you think that Northern Alliance-based government abandoned us?? 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Never really caring about what we wanted from the first place? We were "abandoned" long ago, but were too self-absorbed to notice or even much care.

Tell me, are there gradations in how seriously we should view promises? Does a promise or a commitment leave more wiggle room than a blood oath?

That is a nice bit of sophistry, us being abandoned. It cleverly shifts the blame. "Your honor I woulda kept the deal but they broke it first." And you always use "Northern Alliance" so we don't have to think about the little people we are going to bug out on. "Northern Alliance" sort of blocks them from view.

Will many good Afghan people suffer when we leave? Yes. But many good Afghan people suffer because we stay as well.

So one equals the other then? No I think not. That knife is sharp and it will cut deep when we bug out. We can lessen the pain for some if we try to take a bunch of them out with us when we go, or arrange for them to come later if things fall apart. I think we should do that. Do you think we should do that?

Time to stop make arguments based on false logic and poor facts. It is only just in the past few months that our senior leaders in Afghanistan are waking up to the fact that the interests and efforts promoted so heavily by ISAF are not anything that GIRoA is interested in at all. If we would have truly honored Afghan sovereignty from the start we would have realized this long ago. Allowing our General's opinions to trump the host nation's President is a bad policy that leads inevitably to places like the one we are in now.

I agree wholeheartedly with you last sentence. That speaks directly to the point the C's were making in their original post. As you said previously, our generals allowed scores to trump wisdom. That is poor soldiering. Of course since they have made it into the multi-star club, they will benefit now and forever from the impunity that comes from being in the club.

I agree with you first sentence also, though probably in a different way. I would apply it to our relations with our enemy, the Pak Army/ISI. But it is probably too late now.

As soon as we stop driving the train as to what "must" be done, there will be a HUGE compression and reduction of security effort by GIRoA. As soon as we stop funding development and security forces there will be an immediate halt to 90% of that as well. We have been self-serving in our approaches just as much as GIRoA has. Time to let this situation find a more natural balance. That is a balance that may well end up with significant Taliban influence over it. We need to prepare for that reality and be willing to swallow our pride and reach out to embrace it.

I think India, Iran, the Stans, Russia and Turkey are all going to have something to say about that. As for us, if we are going to bug out, which it seems we are fated to do, why on earth would we entreat with Taliban & Co? All those countries know a lot more about it and are a lot closer. After bugging out we wouldn't have any pull with anybody anyway.

I asked way above if you thought we should stop funding the ANSF after we bug out. I take it that you think we should. We didn't take a blood oath so that is OK I guess.

The only way our true enemies gain undue influence or sanctuary in Afghanistan is if we once again turn our backs on the place or are too proud to reach out to the new management that is sure to rise. Judging by our spiteful positions on Cuba, Vietnam and Iran, however, I am not optimistic that we will this time decide to be the bigger man and extend our hand first. Most likely we will allow ourselves to be manipulated by a vocal diaspora that has fled in our wake to enjoy their il-gotten gains in the safety of our borders

Yeah, that diaspora will have a voice. Their throats won't be sliced. The ones we made promises too whom we won't take with us, they won't be heard, for they will be dead.

A lot of your arguments, they abandoned us, things will reach their natural level when we leave, the enemy isn't really that bad (Mullah Omar, the getter outer of the vote) remind me of the things that were said from 1973-1975. It was all said then too so our self esteem wouldn't be lessened when we pulled the plug.