The Warden Collection (merged thread)

[TheCurmudgeon]

Pretty much the same thing for some time. If you listen to the radio interview he brings these same points up during that interview. Also if you look at panel #2 of the PPT I posted he explains that Military force does not work against Religious,Cultural or Politcal belief systems. So the Military should not be tasked to do something for which Military cannot accomplish. I know you are busy but look at the PPT and listen to the actual inteview if you get the chance.

P.S.
I would add that we the USA cannot kill our way out of an insurgency but the COIN case involvoing the Tamil Tigers shows that it can be accomplished by the Home team.

I looked at the slide set. It was not terribly helpful. Full of platitudes like "short is good, long is bad"; "If you can't do it quickly, maybe you should not do it at all"; "get out at the right time and place" (my stock broker tells me the same thing); "you must have clear, concise, measurable national objectives". I don't think any of our plans to date were designed to violate these rules. In fact, I would say that the early days of Iraq were all about "short is good, long is bad", which is why there was no plan for Phase IV because there was not supposed to be a Phase IV. We had "clear, concise, and measurable national objectives" back in 2004, but no one bothered to check if they were achievable.

[slapout9]

Curmudgy,

I think they are more guiding precepts or prime directives based upon his experiences. But from the Link to the article you posted at War On The Rocks you must be a Star Trek fan. so here is an episode on the Prime Directive.......could be about our involvement in Iraq and the long term fight between the Sunni and Shia or anybody else for that matter. As they say Art imitates life.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLHH-mE94Pk

[TheCurmudgeon]

Slap,

I fully appreciate the Prime Directive, I just think it is not possible as described in the Star Trek series. We cannot pretend we do not already have contact with other parts of the world. I doubt there is anywhere on the planet where you could go and show the people a picture of the White House or the Pentagon and not have then understand what those building represent. That is why those ideas will not work in our world.

On the other hand, I believe we need to let others find their own way. That is a painful concept for many. the thought of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians dying to allow political reform to take its natural course bothers many. Take for example UNICEF. It is a great idea to help innocent children survive childhood deceases and starvation but what do you do when you suddenly have more adults than the system can bear. War of course. But UNICEF will never admit that they are the cause of conflict in Africa. It is a funny thing playing God with entire societies. That does not stop people from feeling that it is their duty to do it.

I am a serious skeptic when it comes to human nature. I would like to believe that some day we could reach the apex that is represented in Star Trek. I just don't know how many people will die to allow that to become a reality.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Slap,

I fully appreciate the Prime Directive, I just think it is not possible as described in the Star Trek series. We cannot pretend we do not already have contact with other parts of the world. I doubt there is anywhere on the planet where you could go and show the people a picture of the White House or the Pentagon and not have then understand what those building represent. That is why those ideas will not work in our world.

On the other hand, I believe we need to let others find their own way. That is a painful concept for many. the thought of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians dying to allow political reform to take its natural course bothers many. Take for example UNICEF. It is a great idea to help innocent children survive childhood deceases and starvation but what do you do when you suddenly have more adults than the system can bear. War of course. But UNICEF will never admit that they are the cause of conflict in Africa. It is a funny thing playing God with entire societies. That does not stop people from feeling that it is their duty to do it.

I am a serious skeptic when it comes to human nature. I would like to believe that some day we could reach the apex that is represented in Star Trek. I just don't know how many people will die to allow that to become a reality.

Elijah Craig and Porter go so well together, but I really gotta quit posting after my fourth Boilermaker ...

[Bill Moore]

Curmudgy,

I think they are more guiding precepts or prime directives based upon his experiences. But from the Link to the article you posted at War On The Rocks you must be a Star Trek fan. so here is an episode on the Prime Directive.......could be about our involvement in Iraq and the long term fight between the Sunni and Shia or anybody else for that matter. As they say Art imitates life.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLHH-mE94Pk

I loved this, not I have a new toy to play with "the prime directive," you'll regret ever sharing this with me.

[Bill Moore]

Slap,

I listened to the interview, read the article, and looked over the brief you provided on Col Warden's proposed strategy for dealing with ISIS. At the end of all that, I'll admit he is a more measured than I thought, but he still offers little that is helpful or new.

He starts out in the radio with a lot of ifs, if we can do this, and if we can do, then we would be put ISIS in the hurt locker. He said ISIS was surrounded and if we could get Iran, Turkey, and Syria to cooperate with us and attack them they would be very vulnerable. That argument is based on the premise we could persuade Iran, Turkey, and Syria to fight with us, and that the President would be willing to pursue this when we're in a proxy war with Iran, and we're certainly no friend of Assad, and I doubt we have any more influence over Turkey now than we did in 2002/3 when we requested their assistance in dealing with Iraq.

He then states that is an easy situation to deal with using air power, which made me wonder if he had a temporary moment of insanity. The insurgents are exposed now because they're not being targeted from the air, so they can afford to be exposed. If we start targeting them, it will be a "see me now, now you don't" as they blend into the civilian population.

In his brief the chart states air power can achieve strategic objectives directly, IF they're strategically conceived. I didn't hear anything that resembled a strategically conceived objective until the end of the interview when the interview pulled it out of him. His view is we want a stable Iraq (think about that objective and his proposal to conduct an air campaign and get Iran, Turkey, and Syria to target ISIS) without a strong Sunni extremist center.

Nothing he proposed would lead to that end state, it would further destabilize the region, and provide a lot of propaganda value to ISIS for recruiting if we side with the Shia against the Sunni (at least doing so openly).

He didn't explain how ISIS was a system and what that meant and how to target it. ISIS isn't a system, it is a network that thrives in an ecosystem.

I gave it an honest read and still don't buy what he is trying to sell.