Strategy in Afghanistan: could the US have done better?

[Bill Moore]

Perhaps, but as you point out, geopolitical culture and history matter. What does China want? They want to be respected in their own back yard. They do not want to colonize the eastern Pacific. They are an economic powerhouse with a proud history. They just want to be respected and they see westerners as respecting military power. I don't see them using it unless forced to. The barrier islands and arguments with their regional nemesis Japan is probably the biggest threat to China, largely because it is an attack on their pride to have to give in to the same country that invaded them.

We probably will cause more harm with our Pacific Shift than good. We keep analyzing problem by putting ourselves in the place of our potential enemy. We need to think like they think.

This seems in line with popular liberal rhetoric, but it doesn't nest with current reality. Today's China was born in 1947, so it isn't that old. It hard to make a claim they're a proud nation based upon their history from their internal conflicts, to the opium war, to the Japanese occupation, to Mao's mass slaughter of his people. One can even make an argument that they're a state that survives through criminal activity, much of their economic success is based upon intellectual property theft, and now they're using the threat of force in an attempt to secure territory in the South and East China seas using some illegitimate 9 line concept as justification. China's internal security/stability problems are well known, and drumming up a little nationalism as a means to hold the state together is not an unknown tactic throughout history. Unfortunately China's aggression is resulting in other states in the region becoming more nationalized, and nationalization can result in much more radical behavior than Islamist beliefs. Not unlike the past the U.S. continues to live in an era of uncertainty and our critical interests are probably best addressed by having a credible combat force (low end to high end). Stability operations and FID will continue to be military missions, but success in these endeavors which are not war will rarely be determined by the U.S. military but by the politicians. The military can only buy space.

I to worry about concepts like the air-sea battle, not that isn't worth exploring, but that is a narrow comfort zone with limited utility. On the other hand I think our greatest effort must be maintaining our combat skills. No one else will fight the nation's battles other than the military. A lot of other organizations can provide aid, intelligence, conduct CT, etc.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on China. I don't make my assessment based on any liberal viewpoint. I make it based on their recent preference for making money rather than war.

Unfortunately China's aggression is resulting in other states in the region becoming more nationalized, and nationalization can result in much more radical behavior than Islamist beliefs.

I am not sure I would agree with this for a number of reasons but most of them because I don’t envision nationalism being a major force in the Pacific. I still see many parts of Asia splintered by ethnic divisions – more disunity based on ethnic identity than unity based on national identity. Even China has this issue. As I recall, Beijing had to use Mongolian forces from the north to quell the rioters in Tiananmen Square because the local commander refused (at least I think I remember reading that somewhere).

Not unlike the past the U.S. continues to live in an era of uncertainty and our critical interests are probably best addressed by having a credible combat force (low end to high end). Stability operations and FID will continue to be military missions, but success in these endeavors which are not war will rarely be determined by the U.S. military but by the politicians. The military can only buy space.

I think you undersell what the military can do politically. For example the Theater Security Cooperation Program (TCSP) can do a lot to build bridges with other nations. Getting to know and working with mid level field grade officers today can mean that you are friends with the dictator of the country tomorrow ;-)
All kidding aside, military to military programs are helpful. They build trust that helps maintain alliances.

I to worry about concepts like the air-sea battle, not that isn't worth exploring, but that is a narrow comfort zone with limited utility. On the other hand I think our greatest effort must be maintaining our combat skills. No one else will fight the nation's battles other than the military. A lot of other organizations can provide aid, intelligence, conduct CT, etc.

I agree that no one else is going to fight the nation’s battles. I just believe there is a space between all out war and tranquil peace that only the military is capable of entering with any hope of making a difference. A BCT is not the best fit for some parts of that space yet SF as it is now may not have the capacities required to finish the job. I guess I would like to see something in between. Not really sure what that is – just know we aren’t there yet.

I also believe that America is filled with evangelical democrats. You want to get America’s blood boiling simply paint the side you want to attack as a dictator who abuses his people’s human rights and the side you want to support as democratic revolutionaries. It sells, but it is a message that can take on a life of its own to the point where American’s are demanding action in fights we are not currently designed to deal with. Happens every twenty years or so. It will happen again. I guess I would like to be ready for it.

[Bill Moore]

Actually not too much disagreement, but we do have significant space between us on this point.

I am not sure I would agree with this for a number of reasons but most of them because I don’t envision nationalism being a major force in the Pacific. I still see many parts of Asia splintered by ethnic divisions – more disunity based on ethnic identity than unity based on national identity. Even China has this issue. As I recall, Beijing had to use Mongolian forces from the north to quell the rioters in Tiananmen Square because the local commander refused (at least I think I remember reading that somewhere).

There are other threads that discuss this at length, so I really don't see the issue of nationalism even being debatable. Both Japan and China (and others in the region) are seeing increasing nationalism, nationalism their governments' will find hard to control. The ethnic diversity in Asia isn't irrelevant (over 3,000 languages spoken), but Japan has historically been xenophobic and nationalistic, and China's Han (the true Chinese in their view) are a nationalistic group within a multiethnic China.

I think you undersell what the military can do politically. For example the Theater Security Cooperation Program (TCSP) can do a lot to build bridges with other nations. Getting to know and working with mid level field grade officers today can mean that you are friends with the dictator of the country tomorrow ;-)
All kidding aside, military to military programs are helpful. They build trust that helps maintain alliances.

Actually no kidding, all your points are valid, but they are not relevant to my comments about FID and stability operations (occupying a nation). I agree that our TSCP is a very powerful tool, but that is a different issue and that effort doesn't appear to be at risk, though funding may get reduced.

I guess I would like to see something in between. Not really sure what that is – just know we aren’t there yet.

I agree, but we should probably have an idea of right looks like before we build it. Unfortunately too many think right looks like the Army in Afghanistan currently. In my opinion I think we have learned the wrong lessons, and have more concern we'll build the wrong force based on those lessons than if we just focus on our core mission. There are also economic realities, how much of a stability force can we sustain persistently? Should the bulk of it be in the reserves? There are pro's and con's to every decision, but ultimately decisions should be based on an informed risk assessment to our national interests, not just probability of an event. Small Wars will never go away (bold statement, but...), but how important are they? We have to put them in context.

I also believe that America is filled with evangelical democrats. You want to get America’s blood boiling simply paint the side you want to attack as a dictator who abuses his people’s human rights and the side you want to support as democratic revolutionaries. It sells, but it is a message that can take on a life of its own to the point where American’s are demanding action in fights we are not currently designed to deal with. Happens every twenty years or so. It will happen again. I guess I would like to be ready for it.

This is our own form of nationalism and I agree and already see it happening for Syria.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I agree, but we should probably have an idea of right looks like before we build it. Unfortunately too many think right looks like the Army in Afghanistan currently.

Perhaps the scarest thing I have heard today ... and its scary because its true.

Is there anyone out there looking at trying to determine what right looks like or are all these research papers going to sit on the shelf until we are looking back to figure out what went wrong in Syria, or Iran, or some other place?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Perhaps another argument for having a force capable of independent action with a smaller footprint than a BCT.

From the patterns evident in past campaigns lessons to inform the conduct of future missions can be derived. The United States should only intervene when doing so has a reasonable chance of success. When intervention becomes necessary, the White House should seek international approval and operate as part of a coalition or alliance with airpower being its primary contribution. If it must deploy ground troops, it should keep the American footprint small and withdraw forces as soon as possible.

Avoiding the Slippery Slope: Conducting Effective Interventions