Warrior Ethos

[Brandon Friedman]

My solution to that problem is develop the civilian structure and get the military out of the lead for such efforts Even better, diligently avoid such efforts unless there is a really good reason to get involved.

That, of course, means educating politicians -- and good luck with that...

Ha. Tell me about it, Ken. That frustrating struggle has been part of my day job for the past two years. As you've implied, politicians are, in most cases, more loyal to both their constituents and their own intuition than to someone else is telling them what's right or wrong. So you can only accomplish so much through lobbying. The bottom line is that if you really want to affect policy change, you have to work to get your own people elected to office--and that means people with military experience.

[Schmedlap]

Ha. Tell me about it, Ken. That frustrating struggle has been part of my day job for the past two years. As you've implied, politicians are, in most cases, more loyal to both their constituents and their own intuition than to someone else is telling them what's right or wrong. So you can only accomplish so much through lobbying. The bottom line is that if you really want to affect policy change, you have to work to get your own people elected to office--and that means people with military experience.

I agree with the frustration, with one caveat. I don't think most are loyal to their constituents. They are loyal to whatever will induce their constituents to vote for them. That can be something diametrically opposed to the welfare of their constituents. It is self-interest - re-election to enjoy the junkets and mingle at the Georgetown cocktail parties; re-election to set themselves up for a future lobbying gig, influence-peddling enterprise, and/or high-paying speaking fees.

Disagree with the solution. An ethical individual will do the right thing, whether that person has military experience or not. We don't need to elect people with military experience (though that's not a problem if they have it). We need to elect people who are ethical. Good luck with that.

[Ken White]

when it first came out, CPT Foley. Ipicked up an early copy at the SWC Bookstore on Smoke Bomb Hill in '64. First Edition. Read it a couple of more times later. Gave it to my son; he can use it, I'm long retired.

I had before and after the book the opportunity to try his techniques and / or see them attempted. He doesn't have any more answers than anyone else does. All wars are different and if you get wedded to a technique or series of them, you will fail. People, culture, terrain -- all those things differ.

The problem with Galula and all the COIN experts is one of resources. There is no question that what they want to do works, I totally agree with the philosophies of FID and COIN.

The issue is that to do what's prescribed is simply unaffordable.

You will never get enough trained soldiers, not SF, with language and cultural skills to do what Galula and the others recommend. That's reality. The French could not do it in Viet Nam or Algeria and later in Viet Nam, with over 1.5M Allied troops in a nation with half the population of Iraq in one-fourth the area, we could not do that -- and good techniques were tried early on (too few people) and later (too few trained and competent people). Afghanistan is larger, has more people and far more difficult terrain. You cannot use good COIN practices without enough people with the skills to do the job required and you will not ever have enough adequately skilled. To do so would require significant devotion of a great many national assets to one small nation and a cessatio0n of short tours; stay until the job's finished. The cost benefit ratio will never support such an effort. Nor should it.

Plus you have to cope with the one third rule and the two year rule and you can finesse those just so long...

If State and SF don't stop potential FID efforts before they build, you're going to have to call in the grundy old Big Army and unless it's an Andorra sized nation, there won't be enough folks and they are unlikely to do it right -- it is not their job, not really. They'll give it their best shot but it's unlikely to ever be more than barely adequate. That, too is reality.

Said Boot:"I know its off topic, but you reminded me of something I had forgotten about until I read you post." So too did you too. Had to hitch a ride on a C-130 once upon a time; Crew Chief or Loadmaster said "you can't get on this plane with those Hand Grenades." So without a word, I pulled them off my harness and tossed 'em to him. The AF has no sense of humor...

Brandon

"The bottom line is that if you really want to affect policy change, you have to work to get your own people elected to office--and that means people with military experience."

I think you'll find that's a decidedly mixed bag; we've had a large former military / veteran presence in Congress, the WH and throughout Government before. Politics corrupts. They didn't do much better than the non-veterans have done. In fact, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations did a really poor job on most things and they were loaded with WW II veterans. Johnson was far and away the worst President I've seen (even if he did give me a cigarette lighter).

Schmedlap has it right. Ethical and reasonably honest. Good luck with that indeed...

[Brandon Friedman]

I agree with the frustration, with one caveat. I don't think most are loyal to their constituents. They are loyal to whatever will induce their constituents to vote for them. That can be something diametrically opposed to the welfare of their constituents.

Absolutely. That’s what I meant when I said it. Should've been clearer.

Disagree with the solution. An ethical individual will do the right thing, whether that person has military experience or not. We don't need to elect people with military experience (though that's not a problem if they have it). We need to elect people who are ethical. Good luck with that.

It’s not just about ethics. It’s about ethics and expertise when you’re trying to decide whether or not to go to war. I’ve met ethical politicians who simply don’t have the requisite experience or information to even know who to listen to. And with competing lobbying organizations, think tanks, and other political pressures, it becomes a problem. Both the House and Senate are filled with committee members whose only qualifications are that their district or state elected them to office. Others have a very narrow breadth of professional expertise. It’s not unusual to find one’s self horrified at the lack of knowledge and awareness on the part of some members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committees (like when you have to explain to a sitting member of Congress what “dwell time” is and why it’s important in terms of effectively managing a long war).

And when you’re fighting in two or more conflicts at the same time, this type of knowledge becomes important. So it helps when members have military experience. However, if you’re willing to forgo that by not competing for representation, then the SEIU, the Club for Growth, George Soros, and Rush Limbaugh—people whose first, second, and third priority is not defense policy--will be more than happy to assist other candidates in taking your potential candidate’s place.

And when you allow that to happen, you get a Congress that gets jerked around by guys like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. (Apologies if anyone here is a big fan of those two.)

You might say it’s not important to have people with military experience in office, but I will argue that it’s absolutely crucial that members of one co-equal branch of government be able to go head-to-head with a member from the other branch. Take Rumsfeld and Cheney for instance. Those guys, whether you support them or not, pushed Congress around in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. They said that not only is invading Iraq an awesome idea, but we can do it with like 90,000 troops. And it’ll be easy.

And there was no one in Congress with enough of a following or enough political capital (like, say, a Jim Webb) to stand up and say, no, actually, that’s a really bad idea the way you’re presenting it. That's why it's important. I'm sure there were plenty of ethical politicians in 2003 who believed Wolfowitz over Shinseki.

(I should also add, I'm not suggesting that prior military experience makes a politician ethical. I could probably name half a dozen unethical, former military members of Congress off the top of my head.)