Bush-Petraeus and US civ-mil relations

[Ken White]

One can't always isolate exactly where the breeding ground is because it is generally hidden within the environment. And one can't just neutralize anything within a given area because the neighbors might get upset when their pets are harmed. So generally you just have to be patient and when the eggs hatch you make sure and get them as soon as they show

that 100% solutions are almost impossible and accepts that life ain't perfect; you just gotta got them to a tolerable level.

'Course, that may be an attitude due to living in Florida where you're never going to get rid of all of them. Not a big problem even if they are big enough to be called Palmetto Bugs instead of Roaches.

[Rank amateur]

100% solutions are almost impossible

When faced with the problem of how to get a woman naked after she'd seen roaches in my apartment, I discovered that going to her place worked 100% of the time. Of course, when dealing with women I've always had short term, definable goals and simple strategies. (I've found that the best way to deal with the inevitable fog and friction.)

[Ken White]

...Of course, when dealing with women I've always had short term, definable goals and simple strategies. (I've found that the best way to deal with the inevitable fog and friction.)

I sure agree and that's always the goal. Durn shame one can't always have that option...

[jcustis]

This is an interesting snippet from the SWC's own Google ads algorithm in the upper right-hand corner: http://www.teammitch.com/site/c.grLS...FQKwPAodVk5qIw

Thank You General Petraeus
This week General David Petraeus will report to Congress on the recent progress in Iraq. When General Petraeus testified six months ago, he was the victim of personal and vicious attacks by ultra-liberal groups. MoveOn.org took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling General Petraeus a traitor.

The truth is most Americans do not approve of MoveOn.org’s actions, nor do they support MoveOn’s radical positions on many issues. So this time as he testifies before Congress, we want General Petraeus and the troops he leads to know we stand with them.

Join Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in thanking General Petraeus by signing this special thank-you card below.

[George L. Singleton]

Although Petraeus deferred from getting sucked into the question, he was asked during testimony today if he thought our presence in Iraq created more terrorists than we were eliminating.

It was an interesting moment, because the committee member asking the question (I can't recall who it was) was referencing discussion he'd had with purportedly senior intelligence officials. According to the officials, they thought we were in a negative sum game.

...then the singing started...

I disagree with your view that we are creating more terrorists. However, here is the process which tends to work to decrease, but if not pursued, it is possible an increase in terrorists could happen:

1. You first have to recognize and accept that this is an ideological/religiously ideological war, and it is aimed worldwide.

2. Iraq was a separate topic of a less religious dictator, Saddam now gone, who wanted to be the "new head of a revived Caliphate" literally, which he failed to achieve in his invasions of 1990/1991, Saddam. Al Qaida flatly wants a revived caliphate, crazy as it sounds to us in the West.

3. Jew hating or anti-Semitism/Israel/Jerusalem are the propaganda issues the terrorists keep putting up front. Masses of overseas Muslims are illiterate and depend solely on radio and TV. This is where Voice of America is not being used, programmed, in native dialects, like it needs to be.

4. Voice of America in Pashto (for all of Afghanistan and the NWFP of Pakistan) can in weeks, alone, help take the edge off. Communication is everything. This from day one, while being violent and bloody on 9/11 is a theologically focused, values based war of different ideologies, surely we are awake to this fact by now.

5. Are you aware that the al Qaida are setting up and operating low frequency FM stations to control areas now of the NWFP of Pakistan as "their" command and control system? They use e-mail and computers deftly, many al Qaida in the leadership are highly educated, some being MDs others being graduate engineers. Guerilla wars historically, as we are now fighting, are the toughest in the world to deal with.

6. Terrorists were already in Pakisan and Afghanistan, and to some extent in Iraq before 9/11. Read that religious nut, my view, terrorists whom we have to put down in a propaganda war as best we can, here again, I say via Voice of America, but the hot war goes on, we can't be silly there.

To summarize a terrorist tactical and strategic model. We need to start shifing heavily to a propaganda war, while realizing we cannot remake the world into our own image where the people, religion(s),and topography have little in common with what works and worked for us in the US and Europe. We also have to get away from our over dependance on oil and gas technoloyg until or unless we find more in the Western hemisphere and develop it. Alaskan oil development takes time, as does future Canadian oil. BUT what have we been doing since the 1970s, which time frame was more than enough time? The sooner we start the sooner it gets done. Environmental and conservation types need to be restrained ideologicallywith an at home better domestic propaganda war against those who would self defeat our energy needs and resources by continuing to block same.

Islamic tribes operate on vendettas, revenge, hate, always have and always will as long as you have a backward tribal society. Israel ideologically, in a religious sense, is also, just like the Muslims, an eye for an eye ideology. There simply is no quick or easy fix, ever, for these different theological views. The best we can do and hope for is to the round the edges with more effective moderate propaganda warfare via Voice of America.

We are never going to have a socialist, all are equal world, that is an absurd idea. We can and are with poor recognition due to our darn poor propaganda program(s) helping with better world health, better agriculture, but poor, illiterate people have to become stake holders and in some instances, Sarfur for example, I don't see how that is today humanly, literally, possible, the grassroots becoming stake holders.

7. Use of Rumsfield's low cost Iraq war model, which also aimed for low US casualties, was a huge mistake, but that is that, it happened. We blew it when we didn't reorganize the Iraqi Army to resume "police" duties nationwide. Now all history. We are belatedly trying to do this now, rebuild their own military, para-military, and police.

8. The one good thing in Iraq compared to many other nations is that you do have a substantially literate and educated in a basic sense even though tribally diversified population to work with compared to Darfur.

ARE WE CREATING MORE TERRORISTS? I THINK NOT. WE ARE DEALING WITH TRIBAL MENTALIES AND HABITS WE OFTEN MISTAKE FOR EXPANDING OR EXPANSION OF TERRORISM. MY VIEW, AND I LIVED AND WORKED IN PAKISTAN FROM KARACHI TO THE NWFP 1963-1965 AND IT HASN'T CHANGED THAT MUCH EXCEPT FOR A FEW HOTELS AND SOME MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS.

9. Since Ike's Presidency under "Operation Sandbag" we have had a long term plan to respond to threats to the world's oil supply in the Middle East, to include Iraq. There is no down to earth avoiding this is what drove us to where we are now in Iraq. And I am a conservative Republican saying this.

9. The flow of oil from Iraq was continuing under Saddam; the Kurds had achieved somewhat of a separation from Saddam's central Iraq, but the port and pipeline of export of oil, Basra, was stil in Saddam's control due to US and allied failure to follow through when circumstances were more "right" in 1991 war. Today the Iraq flow of exported oil and where and how those billions are going should be our focus, as we don't need to be funding what ought to be funded by Iraqi oil money their own self-help and reconstruction program.

10. Windmills per se and soloar power work in some settings but not universally for all power demands. Capturing ocean tides in coastal locations for power works well, too, as in France, where now 18% or so of their national hydro power comes from "mining tides" if you will.

11. Grain derived ethanol works, but drives up the cost of bread and related food products when grain is diverted from the food chain to the fuel chain.
Brazil is the best working model where 100% of vehicle fuel for the entire nation is grain derived now. It is too easy to brush off what is happening in Brazil, it needs to be looked at for or as a "model" instead of crude brushing off of what is working elsewhere.

12. There is no quick fix! But we have had since Jimmy Carter's Presidency to get it right regarding energy, power, and I include more nuclear power which I support, and have been a bunch of dumb ass, lasy, I want to drive my big gas guzzler truck mentality and have basically been our own worst enemy regarding better ways and means to fuel sufficiency, including more fuel efficient engines, electric cars, steam powered cars, etc, etc.

Sarcasm is deliberate in this note. Creative and analytical, fact based, not b. s. thinking, more proactive planning and actions, better late than never, are now needed.

13. Texas has built windmill farms on Padre Island with aggregate power generated enough to power a city of 100,000 +.

14. California has long had windmills and solar power, and several SW states are into solar power, too. The geography and topography of each state means a unique plan for every state, and for various sections of each state.

Creative ideas are needed here and now. One shoe does not fit all so let's not waste time but be constructively proactive with your engineering ideas.
You younger troops, not us old heads, are the best think tank in the world. You see the hot, smelly, dirty illiterates as well as those who are somewhat and very much educated face to face daily. Try to back up from the tactical, think strategic, then look for and suggest tactical ways and means which led to a strategic consensus us old coots are too set in our ways and know it all in our views to recognize. I just shot myself down if you didn't notice!

Thanks.

[ipopescu]

Even though I'm running the risk of moving the discussion into an area where I may be way out of my depth, I've been highly intrigued by the following couple of points:

“One minor problem with Gray's construct -- and to a lesser extent, yours and Cordesman's, IMO, is that all three envision a political and military convergence that has never existed in this country. The British do it very well as do most Commonwealth countries but it is alien to historical practice here. I cannot say it will never happen but believe it is unlikely given our current structure of government. (emph. added)The frequent (if not constant) tension caused by domestic politics between Congress and the Executive branch has and will generally serve to disrupt any meaningful effort to get significant cooperation. Cooperation and unity of effort can be and probably will be improved but integration on the European model is highly unlikely.”

It may be so historically, but today I am not sure I really see our allies doing a better job at COIN/irregular warfare than we are. And it’s not just Basra and Southern Iraq, although that’s clearly one instance where the Brits messed up as well. To the extent that they have a very good historical record at linking political and military considerations in conducting small wars (a questionable assumption some would say), I just don’t see much evidence that their current capabilities are so much better than ours.

And I am also unsure that the “structure of government” is really the determinant factor that impedes our ability to achieve a politico-military convergence. I admit I may not be thinking of the same thing that you do when we refer to that concept, or I may just be too ignorant to figure out on my own what you mean In either case, I’d be grateful if you could elaborate a little bit more on this point. I have the feeling you are not talking about the much-maligned lack of “interagency” capabilities, but about something more profound having to do with the way the branches of gov’t are set up. But I would be curious which components of the European model that you mention do you think we lack.

I'd be interested to hear from some of our British folks with regard GB's strategic culture and how its changed - particularly over the last 50 years…

I'm often amazed at how we seem to want it both ways, we want cheap goods, trade that benefits us, the honor & prestige associated with being American in terms of influencing others - be it our call for human rights around the world, freedom of expression extended to places that have forms of govt. that are incompatible with those ideas for a number of reasons, etc., but with the exception of the most visible, and undeniable circumstances, we don't wish to sustain the level of involvement (and the means to support them) to influence our objectives over time. In the tradition of fear, honor & interests (but with an American twist) we generally publicly eschew the use of military force except to respond to an attack, or to the clearest manifestation of a threat. (emph. added)

I think this is a little bit too pessimistic. After all, we do spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. And even in relative terms, our 4-5 % is much larger than that of other rich countries (UK spends 2.5% or so.) And our casualty tolerance, while clearly lower than in historic terms, I think it’s fair to assume that it is nevertheless higher than that of most other democratic nations. And even when it comes to public opinion, I think Americans are by and large displaying a lot of common sense and have a realistic-enough understanding of the way the world works. I just read this very interesting survey by The Economist on differences between US and UK public opinion. Here are a few results that would hopefully support my previous statement.

US/UK should Stay as long as it takes to achieve security and stability in
Afhganistan: US 44- UK 28
Do you think the U.S. Government should, if necessary, be
prepared to take military action against Iran to prevent Iran
acquiring nuclear weapons? US 46-UK 26
In future, in what circumstances, if any, should the U.S. take
military action against another country?
-Whenever it feels it is in the interests of the United States to do
so, regardless of whether other countries or the United Nations
approve: US 26- UK 17
-Only if the U.S. can act jointly with its allies: US 21- UK 11
-Only if the United Nations approves US 8- UK 26
-the U.S. should never take military action against another country,
other than in response to a military attack on the U.S./UK : US 37/UK 37
For more,
http://www.economist.com/anglosaxon

Best,
Ionut

[Ken White]

...It may be so historically, but today I am not sure I really see our allies doing a better job at COIN/irregular warfare than we are. And it’s not just Basra and Southern Iraq, although that’s clearly one instance where the Brits messed up as well.

Didn't say that they did. The Brits don't do as good a job in COIN as we do and have never done so. Malaya and Kenya are often touted but everyone forgets the really big difference in those two -- the Brits WERE the government.

To the extent that they have a very good historical record at linking political and military considerations in conducting small wars

That's what I did say.

(a questionable assumption some would say),

Why?

I just don’t see much evidence that their current capabilities are so much better than ours.

Their armed forces operate as the politicians say, period. Ours get to argue about it. Their politicians tend to speak publicly with one voice, ours do not. Nor did I say they were superb in the realm of correlating the political and military today -- they're out of practice. Happens to the best of us. They have historically done it well, we have not.

And I am also unsure that the “structure of government” is really the determinant factor that impedes our ability to achieve a politico-military convergence. I admit I may not be thinking of the same thing that you do when we refer to that concept, or I may just be too ignorant to figure out on my own what you mean In either case, I’d be grateful if you could elaborate a little bit more on this point. I have the feeling you are not talking about the much-maligned lack of “interagency” capabilities, but about something more profound having to do with the way the branches of gov’t are set up.

Your feeling is correct. Congress can change complexions at two year intervals. The writers of the Constitution realized this and thus designed a process that left foreign policy as a function of the executive, thinking that at least some long term planning could be undertaken and that policy execution would thus be smoother. However, they gave the power of the purse to Congress and if Congress disagrees with what the Executive wants, they just withhold money. Think Jesse Helms...

Our system also forces all government agencies to compete (actually, to grovel in front of Congress) for operating funds. Agencies that compete for funding become very turf protective.

All those factors plus a few more marshal against any significant inter agency cooperation; more importantly, they allow those with an agenda pointed in one direction -- say State and / or the Intel Community -- to lean one way and another agency -- say DoD -- to lean another on many issues. If DoD is the big winner in the battle of the budget, then they can do things their way and pretty much ignore the other folks. Witness als discussion on this Board about the role of the regional combatant commanders and the lack of any Department of State corollary.

But I would be curious which components of the European model that you mention do you think we lack.

A parliamentary system wherein the leader of the dominant party or coalition is the leader of the government. He or she says, they pretty much do. Not so here.

Not that I'd espouse a Parliamentary system; it's an elected dictatorship. I'm quite happy with our system, it's inefficient by design and that keeps the government's big nose out of at least some things.

[marct]

Hi Ken,

A parliamentary system wherein the leader of the dominant party or coalition is the leader of the government. He or she says, they pretty much do. Not so here.

Or here, either . Ken, you are confusing the concept of "Party discipline" with actual agreement. Party discipline is much stronger, at the lower ranks, in the US than in, say, Canada or Australia.

Not that I'd espouse a Parliamentary system; it's an elected dictatorship. I'm quite happy with our system, it's inefficient by design and that keeps the government's big nose out of at least some things.

An "elected dictatorship"?!? No PM I've know, and I've known four of them, even had that power. Trudeau used to compare getting a bill through parliament to herding cats, and he was the closest we ever came to anything resembling a dictator . Nope, if you want to see the prototype for dictatorial powers, just look for a head of state who is also head of the government, commander in chief of the armed forces, controls foreign policy and can veto any legislation. That's much closer to the original Roman meaning of dictator...

[Ken White]

My reference was improper in not specifically naming the British and some -- not all -- European models. Those United Empire Loyalists and the scads of Americans who went north from the prairies after land later jiggled your system a bit...

And we won't even mention the Strynes...

Though I would give the 'little guy from Shawinigan' credit for trying on the autocratic version.

[marct]

Hi Ken,

My reference was improper in not specifically naming the British and some -- not all -- European models. Those United Empire Loyalists and the scads of Americans who went north from the prairies after land later jiggled your system a bit...

True, we have been influenced by some of your political culture .

Though I would give the 'little guy from Shawinigan' credit for trying on the autocratic version.

Well, he tried but really only succeeded in proving what a friend of mine argued in his MA thesis - the colder the climate, the greater the clown we elect .

[Ken White]

...
True, we have been influenced by some of your political culture .

Some aspects of our political culture aren't all that desirable...

[Steve Blair]

Some aspects of our political culture aren't all that desirable...

I would say that applies to any political culture....but I'm just sayin'....

[Rob Thornton]

I smell the beginning of a correlation here - are we saying that politics attracts the less than desirables?

[Watcher In The Middle]

that simple....

Originally posted by Rob Thornton:

I smell the beginning of a correlation here - are we saying that politics attracts the less than desirables?

Actually, most, not all, but certainly many pols across the political spectrum are actually fairly astute in judging the different angles to various issues - in private. Got to be, just to survive. In Public, another issue entirely.

But you put them in a "groupthink" environment (like congressional hearings), and not only does it tend to become partisan, but more importantly (and far worse), the discussion almost always sinks to the "lowest common denominator" - In other words, id the dumbest person asking questions, and there's where the level of discussion heads the majority of the time.

Politics really does attract a great deal of the best and the brightest - just doesn't keep them, because being the "B&B" doesn't always = "electable", much less "re-electable".

As a btw, there's a whole lot of political pro's out there (across the political spectrum, except for the real extremes) who are breathing a whole lot easier at the end of this week. For different reasons perhaps, but none the less, much more relaxed.

[Rob Thornton]

Actually, most, not all, but certainly many pols across the political spectrum are actually fairly astute in judging the different angles to various issues - in private.

I had a chance to meet a Congressman from GA last year who is one of the more senior folks in the HASC. I was very impressed by his sincerity, his intellect and his humility with regard to his role. It was as part of a Inter-Agency Staff ride the the BSAP program puts on. This congressman was a veteran, and espoused genuine respect for the military. I'd never heard of him before, but I hope there are more like him. Somebody like that is actually inspiring.

Best, Rob