The Illusion of Peacetime

[Bill Moore]

The reality is that we need new laws, policies, practices, etc for more effectively deterring state actors that are not deterred by our old approaches in the current environment. We need the same for actively engaging, when necessary, short of war, to impose costs and to disrupt their actions.

I agree, our lexicon, our rules, our laws, our approaches, are hopefully outdated. In the end I don't care if we call it war, as long as we recognize it isn't peace and that what we're engaged in (or ignoring) is seriousness and requires real strategy.

We evolved from low intensity conflict (LIC), which included a spectrum of conflict from low to high intensity. That is telling, because high intensity conflict (though subjective) could include major combat between conventional forces and even nuclear weapons. Yet, we called it conflict, not war. When the Cold War ended, we transitioned to military operations other than war (MOOTW). We harped on the importance of interagency collaboration and synergy, but the further we got away from using the construct of war the more stove piped our various agencies became. We identified problems in clean little stove pipes. Oh that is a law enforcement problem, and that is a development problem, and that is a military problem, and we'll use a little information to solve that one. The military has its own problems with its definitions and reducing a problem to insurgency, terrorism, etc.

The concept of war hasn't been in vogue for decades in the U.S., because apparently it is better that we can conduct it almost persistently without calling it war. We don't have a CT strategy, we have a decapitation strategy that has been a miserable failure. We don't have a COIN strategy, we have a nation building strategy. This gets to my underlying point, why I recommend calling it war (for now). In theory, war requires a holistic strategy that is closely monitored by national security. It is not an excuse for different agencies and services to compete with each other for a slice of the national budget. If the leaders can't work with each other, then they should be fired. War is too serious for maintaining the status quo.

Moreover, I think treating some security threats with the seriousness that war deserves (e.g. al-Qaeda in 1996) would result in much less violence world wide, because we would pursue solutions instead of engaging in endless conflict due to half-hearted efforts that are not part of a coherent strategy. The old view of war as China and Russia theorists point out is not widely applicable today. In fact, they assume we're waging war, and they don't buy we're waging a messy peace. They respond appropriately, while we continue our willful blindness. Not all wars require bombers, tanks, or even major battles. If you buy into Sun Tzu, in theory you can win the war before the first shot is fired.

Why do you think we can have a messy peace, but war can be clearly defined (again you failed to define it)?

[Bob's World]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...-servant-state

(worth reading, and the article and perspective starting this whole thread is definitely an example of the sad syndrome Andrew Bacevich describes...)

As to defining war, I have not "failed" in that task, I simply have not taken it on yet here in this thread. Even the department of defense shies away from defining war these days.

I think there are important components to something being "war":

1. I believe war must be between two or more complete systems of governance.

A system of governance need not be a state, but must have some form of governing body/system, a security force of some sort, and a distinct population. I think there probably needs to be a territory requirement as well to create a degree of tangibility necessary for war. (So AQ lacks the prerequisite characteristics to participate in war, regardless of what they might declare, or how they might act).

2. War may be legal or illegal, but I believe must be violent.

Many forms of competition occur day in and day out between systems of governance. Usually this competition is legal, but often it is illegal. This is business.

3. War must threaten to compromise the sovereignty of one system of governance to the advantage of the sovereignty of another.

We can say that war is politics or policy by other means, but it is for many reasons, most often to deal with a perceived security concern, or to expand the wealth, power and/or influence of at least one of the parties. This naturally affects politics, and is a matter of policy.

So, my 5-minute, Army of One stab at defining what the entire US Department of Defense shies away from is as follows:

"War is a violent interaction between two or more systems of governance with the intent of changing the nature of sovereignty between the contestants."

[Bob's World]

This then leaves things that are not war. I do not think that revolutionary insurgency that occurs within a single system of governance is war, and that more importantly, that it is counterproductive for a government challenged by revolutionary insurgency to think of that illegal challenge to governance as "war."

Increasingly senior leaders are agonizing over what they call "gray zone conflicts" - and what Russia does in Ukraine and what China does in the South China Sea are good examples. The US also was a major proponent of gray zone conflict when we were a rising power. Nothing new here, but it is frustrating for those being challenged all the same. I do not believe that this is a type or form of conflict, but rather it is a "space" between what is perceived as legal/proper, etc and those activities that would trip a clear redline leading to "war."

There is advocacy for conducting "political warfare" within that space, and for defining these conflicts as political warfare as well. That works at a certain level, but does run the risk of an overly expansive use of the term "warfare" - which in turn can lead to dangerous and unnecessary risk of escalation. What I would offer is that these actions are only "warfare" if they meet the criteria I sketched out above; and that the first response should be one of determining and putting into effect actions designed to shrink the gray zone one's opponent is taking advantage of to expand their sovereignty.

A visual take on that perspective:

[Bob's World]

(Seeing if a JPEG is easier to read)

[slapout9]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...-servant-state


"War is a violent interaction between two or more systems of governance with the intent of changing the nature of sovereignty between the contestants."

BW,
That is why we keep loosing. In old time Special Warfare as opposed to General Warfare there was always a violent illegal means combined with non violent legal means to overthrow, subvert or sabotage the normal operation of the target nation or state. Remember a nation does always have a state.

[Bob's World]

Slap,

So, my definition, created today, is "why we keep losing"? Ha! Such power I have!!

I would offer that the primary reason we "keep losing" is that we take on things we shouldn't take on, and then define winning in impossible terms.

Of course there is a spectrum of competition - but everything on that spectrum is not necessarily "special," "general," or "warfare."

(And I was very clear in my definition that a system of governance as I defined it did not need to be a state).

[slapout9]

Slap,

So, my definition, created today, is "why we keep losing"? Ha! Such power I have!!

I would offer that the primary reason we "keep losing" is that we take on things we shouldn't take on, and then define winning in impossible terms.

BW,
Not power..... but force, political force vs combat power.The commies understood and exploited the difference. So when you define something and the leadership accepts that definition you will be misdirected and end up targeting the wrong object and thus lose. Which is why we (USA) keep loosing by not understanding that our enemy combines political force and combat power to
achieve their goals.

Of course there is a spectrum of competition - but everything on that spectrum is not necessarily "special," "general," or "warfare."

War is a two party system. If the other system says they are at war with you and you refuse to accept that, you are in denial and will loose, which is part of Special Warfare.

The creation of Psychological Paralysis and make an incorrect choice, through subversive propaganda.

I was very clear in my definition that a system of governance as I defined it did not need to be a state).

Sorry,
You were clear. That comment was for the larger audience.

[Bob's World]

When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?

I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.

Just as a woman can steal the power of a powerful man by seducing him (I.e., President Clinton gave his power to Monica Lewinski when he gave in to her advances, and nearly lost the Presidency as a result); so too can a powerful nation give it's power to a weak challenger by giving them too much credit. We gave our power to AQ by exaggerating their danger and dragging them up to our level (or dragging ourselves down to theirs).

I'm listening to the sales pitch, but I'm still not buying.

[OUTLAW 09]

When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?

I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.

Just as a woman can steal the power of a powerful man by seducing him (I.e., President Clinton gave his power to Monica Lewinski when he gave in to her advances, and nearly lost the Presidency as a result); so too can a powerful nation give it's power to a weak challenger by giving them too much credit. We gave our power to AQ by exaggerating their danger and dragging them up to our level (or dragging ourselves down to theirs).

I'm listening to the sales pitch, but I'm still not buying.

Someone wiser than me once said--until we the US is at peace among ourselves there can be no global peace---something to that.

[slapout9]

When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?

I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.

Just as a woman can steal the power of a powerful man by seducing him (I.e., President Clinton gave his power to Monica Lewinski when he gave in to her advances, and nearly lost the Presidency as a result); so too can a powerful nation give it's power to a weak challenger by giving them too much credit. We gave our power to AQ by exaggerating their danger and dragging them up to our level (or dragging ourselves down to theirs).

I'm listening to the sales pitch, but I'm still not buying.

Hold on for a bit. Have to go to work. Will continue the sales pitch later.

[slapout9]

When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?

I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.

Just as a woman can steal the power of a powerful man by seducing him (I.e., President Clinton gave his power to Monica Lewinski when he gave in to her advances, and nearly lost the Presidency as a result); so too can a powerful nation give it's power to a weak challenger by giving them too much credit. We gave our power to AQ by exaggerating their danger and dragging them up to our level (or dragging ourselves down to theirs).

I'm listening to the sales pitch, but I'm still not buying.

In some cases what you mention is nothing but bad parents and a severe marriage problem.

BUT if the 4 year old is part of a Revolutionary Youth Group and his parents belong to the Parent group, it is an act of War and should be dealt with at the level of force.

If sexual blackmail of a senior political official is being used for the purpose of some foreign state or revolutionary group that to is an act of war and should be dealt with by the appropriate force also.

People forget that we "won" the cold war because we recognized it was a War not a competition. People forget competitions have rules, boundaries and referees and penalties if one party breaks the rules. There is no such mechanism outside of the borders of America. We recognized that during the Cold War and we kept it from getting "Hot" by using Diplomatic warfare, Information Warfare,Economic warfare and Covert Warfare.


If you can still find it read a copy of Ike's "Goals for America". The man had clear vision of what America needed to do to remain strong. And as time went by we have violated most of it and we know find ourselves in the predicament we are in.

[OUTLAW 09]

A wise old spook friend from the Berlin days has a simple political view;

I am a socialist because the American political and economic system has basically failed Americans --I am a patriot because we the US have nothing to be ashamed of in our values.

If we finally got our own house in order and it truly functioned then that alone is a strong message to other civil societies that decide to emulate the US--meaning they can succeed whatever their views are towards the rule of law, transparency and good governance.

BUT we must be willing to allow them to go their own ways in order to achieve their determined paths without fear that it is directed against us.

Example---how loud have we made statements about Syria--which many forget that it kicked off four years ago with small demos about the rule of law, fair elections, and good governance and then exploded when the ruling minority government cracked down on the majority.

Now 250K killed, 8M IDPs/refugees and over 1M wounded AND the second round of chemical gas attacks (chlorine) on civilians last night killing more men, women and children--just normal civilians---where is that US red line again --where are our so called values?

Our problem is that we shout out to the world our so called values and then in the end fail to support those values--we have a super split personality and then when someone takes up arms against those perceived values then we flip out and get physical about it without realizing that maybe our concept does not fit their civil society but that society might in fact adopt some of them in their own ways.

Example--Ukraine---the Ukrainians in their Maidan movement were actually displaying the best of what we assume democracy to be--demanding transparency, fair elections, rule of law and good governance based on their own civil society and a massive dislike for wide scale corruption and a longing of what they viewed as European "values".

In bitter freezing temperatures when the US and Europe assumed they would fold they did not and young and old, men, women, children, military members, police and just plain citizens stood their ground much as they did at Lexington--- what is our own governmental reaction by this administration in supporting them further along that path--tap dancing, silence, excuses, words --- but training and defensive arms to support themselves after "trusting" the US in 1994--total silence and waffling.

And we wonder why the world questions our intentions?

You cannot shout out values and demand the world accept them and then simply look the other way without having a "third way forward".

Socialist/patriot--kind of makes sense--the world would then actually understand us better.......if we made that clear by our own actions.

[Bob's World]

This is our poor leadership. We need to focus on leading by example. We (the US) need not, and should not, be the guarantor of the right of self-determination; but neither should be the obstacle to self-determination either when we fear that the locals will determine some form of governance not to our liking.

The principles espoused in our declaration of independence are powerful, and now we read them from a position much more like that of King George when he received them, than we read them at the time they were written. They have become inconvenient truths when we allow our fears of what might happen if we allow the same self-determination for others that we demand for ourselves. But we need to stop taking counsel of our fears. We have faced far greater challenges and harms from our efforts to deny this fundamental right, than I suspect we ever would have from being the champion of the same.

[OUTLAW 09]

This is our poor leadership. We need to focus on leading by example. We (the US) need not, and should not, be the guarantor of the right of self-determination; but neither should be the obstacle to self-determination either when we fear that the locals will determine some form of governance not to our liking.

The principles espoused in our declaration of independence are powerful, and now we read them from a position much more like that of King George when he received them, than we read them at the time they were written. They have become inconvenient truths when we allow our fears of what might happen if we allow the same self-determination for others that we demand for ourselves. But we need to stop taking counsel of our fears. We have faced far greater challenges and harms from our efforts to deny this fundamental right, than I suspect we ever would have from being the champion of the same.

So right---when one looks at the world today we see a number of different civil societies attempting to emulate either our values or those of the EU--the interesting question is why though the US or the EU--I think all civil societies regardless of religious beliefs, regardless of whether in Africa or the Pacific, regardless of past political history ie Warsaw Pact or the Far East--all civil societies strive towards a set of norms that ensure them physical security in their society, ensures them employment and a safe environment for their children and opportunities for the children to grow educationally and economically--and if there are fair elections as they define them along the way and a transparent government that responds to their needs so be it.

They would normally then see no need to lash out at the US--there might be inherent differences in approaching common problems but lashing out--hardly.

We simply believed that these societies had to be exact replication of ours in order to be successful and therein lies the core problem they all do not speak English, did not evolve out of the British Empire--and they have their own histories we somehow overlooked.

Would I love the ancient Persian society to once again bloom in the ME--most certainly but along the way they have to lose their revolutionary religious zealous drive and back away from supporting terror as a political means--which IMHO that is at least 20 years away---would I like to see a stable and prospering Russian must certainly as it would lend an additional layer of security to Europe and their civil society has truly suffered since 1917 and desire far better and the list goes on.

So while we have our own issues to work on--I am afraid to say a number of irrationally acting nation states and non state actors will be with us for a long while to come.

[Bill Moore]

I don't always agree with Colin Gray, but he is one of the more prolific writers on strategy and war. The areas in bold are my injected highlights to facilitate further discussion. I think he is close to being on the mark, but not quite there if I'm interpreting his thoughts as he intended correctly. The comments below Gray's are mine, I'm branching off his thoughts. Mine loosely nest with his, but I don't want to give the perception I'm using his arguments to justify mine. I'm confident he would disagree with my branches.

https://www.infinityjournal.com/arti...ntext_and_War/

Terminology: Clarity, Context and War
By Infinity Journal 03/26/2013

War is not simply the interaction of two state-sanctioned militaries interacting through military means. Rather, war is the use of violence as one tool of politics in order to compel an adversary to do your will.(1) The violence can take many forms and your desired effect of an adversary can be infinite, but what always remains is that it involves the use of force as an instrument to achieve an end. War is a political act to create a political change in an adversary that is beneficial to your own situation.

As he explains in the article and other writings, politics is not restricted to states. In fact, small to large non-state groups can and do declare war upon states. They often employ terrorism as supporting tactics, and increasingly they employ terrorism as a form of strategy. To confuse terrorism as simply tactics, and not also as a strategy to compel an adversary to make political changes through the use of force/coercion. The failure to grasp this leads to our confusion on whether or not we're at war with non-state actors. If they are using terrorism to compel political changes, then it is a form of war period. Most wars do not require mobilization of one's nation to wage major battles, rather they're indefinite and relatively small scale affairs, where battle is not decisive.

Colin argues the use of force is required to make it a war, he tends to exchange the terms force and violence as though they're the same thing. I guess it depends upon how you define violence. Is the use of offensive cyber to destroy or disrupt an adversary's cyber systems or infrastructure considered violence? If it is used to compel political change, is it a use of force? Is subversion to promote an uprising against a government considered a use of force? Finally, and not addressed in Gray's article, is Iran's and China's use of soft power tools to marginalize U.S. strategic influence a form of strategic maneuver related to winning an undeclared war, but yet short of war? In my view it is short of war, but it is related to war, and can determine the outcome of future conflicts, as much as moving and maneuvering military forces in preparation and execution of a battle. Putting troops on ships to move them to North Africa to fight the Germans is clearer prelude to war, the intent is clear. Other forms of maneuver in the political and economic domains are not always so clear. Competition? Definitely. Just friendly competition? Hardly.

Strategy is a process of negotiation between those that develop the ends (policy makers) and those that execute, through ways and means, war.(2) This negotiation creates a narrative for employing the forces in such a way as to create the desired effect on an adversary. It is not a static product designed to allocate resources for a set contingency, nor simply a plan of action updated every five years. It is a living and breathing process undertaken by and between human beings that is dedicating to determining the best policy for a desired outcome against an adversary, which must have the capacity to use or threaten violence, and how to develop and employ resources to achieve it. Any definition of strategy must contain the element of violence. The reason is simple: if one has no means (combat), one cannot have a strategy.

I'll start at the bottom, I strongly disagree that strategy must contain an element of violence, and that violence is the only means a group or state has to pursue it ends. If he is referring to a conventional war strategy (one type of strategy), then he has a point. However, the world is more complex than this, and strategy is not something the military alone owns.

Moving back to the top of the paragraph, I strongly agree with these comments. As a friend told me recently, we too recently hear the broken record that we don't have a strategy, everything is going bad because we don't have a strategy, etc. IMO this is complete BS, the reality is we have an evolving strategy based on the negotiation process. I agree it appears to be evolving in the wrong direction. But to think we if had some document that locked in our ends, ways, and means all would be better in the world, we're fooling ourselves.