Punitive Ops revisited

[LawVol]

Some time ago, one of our community members put forth the punitive operation suggestion. Given the way Iraq has played out, I wonder if this might still be an option for the future. I just finished reading an article discussing Kissinger's opinion that we cannot win militarily and I'm sensing another "peace with honor" movement. I think this sort of thinking plays into the hands of those that oppose us because it makes us look weak. Punitive ops might provide a solution for the future. I'm sort of thinking out loud here, so here goes...

Assume for a moment that instead of staying in Iraq, we launched a punitive operation. In other words, we pushed to Baghdad just like we did in OIF I, but instead of staying, we pulled out and left.

1) What would we gain from this type of action? What would we lose?

2) Given the huge anti-war mentality across the globe, would we have been better off by just doing a punitive op? Would we still have to deal with the anti-US activity, just of a different type?

3) In the long run, doesn't the punitive op play to our strengths and mitigate our weaknesses, especially when it comes to US public support for a "long war?"

[tequila]

Assume for a moment that instead of staying in Iraq, we launched a punitive operation. In other words, we pushed to Baghdad just like we did in OIF I, but instead of staying, we pulled out and left.

Depends what you mean by "punitive op."

The reason why the war was opposed by so many across the globe was largely because Iraq was not viewed as a legitimate target at all, not simply because the world was against an occupation of Iraq. The world could not see a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda / Sep 11, and indeed there was none. Thus the war could be easily characterized as, in the words of Milton Friedman, "aggression."

Now an attack as you describe might have resulted in a better situation than the one we are caught in now, but I doubt the political realism of launching such an attack.

If you have in mind the sort of op that the Brits used to run in Afghanistan, what Churchill called "Butcher and Bolt" --- I think it depends on the situation. Frankly, unless properly targeted, I think this sort of thing is ultimately self-defeating, especially as pursued against non-state actors. Who exactly is being punished? A "punitive operation" of that sort differs little from what AQ did to the U.S. on 9/11.

[John T. Fishel]

Are we thinking about the Pershing Punitive Expedition of 1916 against Pancho Villa? There is little doubt the US was justified in going after him for the Columbus NM raid but there is much doubt about what was accomplished. Villa was largely a spent force in Mexican politics and the expedition really didn't affect that much one way or the other. It did anger the Carranza government and affected US/Mexican relations negatively for many years after.

[CPT Holzbach]

Here is a link to the original thread, which was brilliantly suggested by the illustrious CPT Holzbach. Note the skillful use of the word "efficacy" in the title...

Efficacy of punitive strikes?

[Bill Moore]

I posted this elsewhere last night, but it seems appropriate here. It talks about retaliation, which is basically a punitive strike. Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During recent readings on the Philippine War (1899-1902) I uncovered some information I missed previously on General Order 100, which was apparently signed by President Lincoln during the Civil War, but used extensively during Philippine War to guide martial law, retaliation etc. I found a link to the full text (posted below) and I cut and pasted some highlights. Does anyone know if this GO is still valid? I believe this was the predecessor to the Genevan Convention. Interesting reading....

http://lawofwar.org/general_order_100.htm

[LawVol]

From a purely selfish point, what do we gain from nation-building? As we approach the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, we still haven't produced a government that controls it own territory and we face increasing opposition at home. Maybe I'm just frustrated, but it seems like there has to be a better way.

Tequila mentioned the "butcher and bolt" campaigns the Brits engaged in. This is more in line with what I'm talking about. When there is a clearly defined threat to our security, we go in and remove the threat and then leave. If this is our stated goal or strategy then we do not face the repercussions of losing face before the enemy by pulling out of a nation-building effort too soon because of domestic pressure.

Recent news indicates that the Democrats are becoming more serious about ending the war, with talk of cutting the funds becoming more prevalent. This type of politics is not likely to end, but rather become the norm. Recognizing that, like it our not, this is a reality, shouldn't we consider another way of waging war?

One argument against this type of action is that we will continually have to go into the same places. Of course this is a possibility, but it would surely be cheaper in blood and treasure than an extended COIN campaign, right? Right now, we face a command structure that apparently doesn't get COIN, our international prestige has taken a huge hit, our country is politically divided and the rancor is increasing. Going back to the questions posed in my initial post here, I just think that the benefits of a strategy of punitive operations outweigh the negatives. Where am I wrong?

CPT H - thanks for the link. I guess I was being lazy.