Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54

Thread: My reaction to Gen. Petraeus's dissertation...

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Ah... but... you see ... um... actually I don't think there is COIN v Conventional.

    There are combat and security operations against regular and irregular threats and you might have to conduct combat and security operations against regular and irregular threats at the same time. Counter-insurgency could be an entirely false construct, and a misleading one as well.
    I agree. It is a false construct. My point was simply that many have a tendency to see a "type" (for lack of a better word) of combat and to name it. We fight in urban terrain and call it MOUT. We fight in mountains and call it Mountain Warfare. The name is just something that we throw around because it is combat occuring under conditions where we tend to use more of some techniques and procedures and fewer of others. The doctrine and tactics apply equally to both. People see the type of war that we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and call it COIN. No problem - MOUT, COIN, Mountain, Desert, Woodland - whatever. Last I checked, we still use movement formations to ensure security, control, and flexibility, whether operating in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Balkans. It looks different in each - technique - but that's it. Whether entering rooms in Bosnia or Iraq, we took up points of domination, but it looked a lot different than in Iraq, in terms speed and posture. We altered formations according to the perceived enemy situation. It's all the same doctrine. In Iraq, we modified our techniques and procedures for theater-specific threats.

    I think OIF was a wakeup call for a lot of people who finally realized that our practice of training for CTC's, rather than training for war, led us to be a military only prepared for a very narrow range of enemies and a very narrow range of conditions. Some responded by writing another doctrinal publication. I think that really appealed to the cerebral crowd that enjoys the intellectual exercise of discussing big picture issues and putting it down on paper. The end-product was not useless. It was very effective upon the political and domestic target audiences. It sent a message that we were unprepared as a military, but were learning and getting our act together. The means by which we actuallly, on the ground, got our act together had little, perhaps nothing, to do with a doctrine re-write. Rather, it was a lot of squads, platoons, and companies figuring out how to apply knowledge that they already had. We finally realized, as an institution, that our training up until that point had been garbage - not because we weren't taught the basics, but because our training never emphasized teaching leaders and Soldiers how to apply their knowledge to a wider range of conditions, how to think more creatively, be more adaptive, and be more flexible. Our training pre-OIF was characterized more by a canned training scenario whereby if the BLUEFOR did not behave as the OC expected, then the situation would deteriorate at a speed, and on a scale, that was so absurd as to remove all training value from the exercise. If the BLUEFOR did behave as the OC expected, then there were no surpises and the commander got kudos in the AAR for being completely predictable and by the book. OIF turned into the worthwhile training exercise that we never had. After a few years, we finally became an adequately trained force.

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default On Petraeus's dissertation

    The common theme I see in Petraeus' dissertation and his recent speaking is a focus or specialization on the political aspects of military command. In seattle July 9th he spent more time reciting the names of people, relationships and their accomplishments than on Afghanistan, for example. (Time it.) The dissertation speaks frequently about *who* advised the President and political leaders, in various ways, in many conflicts, who those civilian leaders were, and who agreed or disagreed with whom.

    In his Seattle, he talked about State and political leaders in fairly long passages but barely mentioned the name McCrystal or Odierno. There may have been operational reasons or relationship reasons for not focusing on his subordinates, but the extensive discussions of political and military figures was prominent.

    The reason I mention this is, that it illustrates Petraeus and perhaps other general officers' excessive focus on things other than *why* we engage a particular war, or *alternatives* to the particular war, or its morality, legality under treaties, or its justness. Naturally, an officer's career is more successful if he focuses on the "How" rather than the "Why". I'm not even sure where one blends into the other. For example, you can hardly be excellent at answering the question "How", without a definition of the goal, and the goal in turn, is inevitably a part of the larger picture-- the whole picture of what we are trying to accomplish, in the world.

    I don't think the compartmentalization, or professional specialization, among general officers is appropriate at their rank and scope of responsibilities, especially in this era of nation building (or "stability operations", or the"administrative force" described by Thomas PM Barnett.) It is frankly stupid, and I share Fallon's assessment of Petraeus as an ass kisser.

  3. #23
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Good for you

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    ...especially in this era of nation building (or "stability operations", or the"administrative force" described by Thomas PM Barnett.) It is frankly stupid, and I share Fallon's assessment of Petraeus as an ass kisser.
    You're entitled to an opinion -- consider though that all the things you thought Generals should worry about they probably do but their opinions passed on to their political masters on such things get ignored more often that not.

    Consider also that the Army is not that "SysAdmin" force described by Barnett (thankfully...) and thus it doesn't do that job well. Recall that the Army does not volunteer to do that job -- it gets sent.

    If you know what we are trying to accomplish in the world, could you please call Washington and tell them -- I don't think they have a clue...

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    The reason I mention this is, that it illustrates Petraeus and perhaps other general officers' excessive focus on things other than *why* we engage a particular war, or *alternatives* to the particular war, or its morality, legality under treaties, or its justness.
    It is also worth considering that the answers to those questions may not be seen as all that controversial and may be viewed as settled matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    I don't think the compartmentalization, or professional specialization, among general officers is appropriate at their rank and scope of responsibilities, especially in this era of nation building (or "stability operations", or the"administrative force" described by Thomas PM Barnett.) It is frankly stupid, and I share Fallon's assessment of Petraeus as an ass kisser.
    I think it is a healthy sign of our state of civil-military relations when people think that our Generals have too narrow a scope and are ass-kissers. It means that we are probably in no danger of a military coup.

  5. #25
    Council Member pakphile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Is there any podcast link to Petreaus' Seattle speech so we can hear what he actually said? Thanks

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default Petraeus speech in Seattle

    Pakphile - the Seattle speech July 9th is at http://tvw.org and search for Petraeus.
    It is also in the archives on CSPAN2.

    Petraeus states many times in his dissertation that the military has adopted, since the close of the Vietnam War, a consensus that no war should be fought unless it is 1) supported by the Americn People, 2) has clear objectives that are achievable in a fairly short period of time before the country loses support, 3) the military is provided the resources and the freedom of tactics to win the war.

    I (and others in the antiwar movement) have been saying for decades, they need to add several more requirements, 1) that the war ought to be lawful under both domestic law and treaties we have signed; i.e., the military should not obey illegal orders from the President, AND, 2) that the war ought to be, furthermore, a just war under some comprehensible scheme that would be discussed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war)

    And of course both of these new requirements imply an end to wars other than self defense of the territory that is our jurisdiction, wars for economic reasons, or so-called "national interests". Both of these would repudiate the very longrunning tradition and practice of preemptive war (containment of communiism, domino theory, or today's preemptive "GWOT")

    So, I would hope that some future Petraeus will write dissertations on the Iraq Syndrome, just as the Vietnam syndrome appeared, and that we succeed in defining it, instead of the neocons or whoever their successors may be in the military and policy establishment. Because, these are the reasons we are opposed to US wars-- they are immoral and cruel, and motivated by greed. They don't reflect my moral values and I oppose them. And so does most of the world.
    Last edited by ToddBoyle; 07-31-2009 at 05:24 AM.

  7. #27
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    They don't reflect my moral values and I oppose them. And so does most of the world.
    Well thank you for that, Todd. I can now sleep soundly knowing you are against "us", whoever "us" may be.

    But since you feel compelled to label and libel a senior serving officer who has his fans and his detractors, how about you follow the rules on this site and introduce yourself. You can even use first person plural.

    Introduce Yourself

    Thanks

    Tom

  8. #28
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    2) that the war ought to be, furthermore, a just war under some comprehensible scheme that would be discussed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war)
    Really? Just War? Staggeringly naive in my opinion. Worst form of published ROE. Tells the bad guys when you will act and allows them to work within and below your threshold for war - almost criminally stupid.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    ... they need to add several more requirements, 1) that the war ought to be lawful under both domestic law and treaties we have signed; i.e., the military should not obey illegal orders from the President...
    What does this look like when implemented? Does the Supreme Court issue an injunction against the DoD, ordering it to not carry out an order from the President in regard to some exercise of force?

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    ...these new requirements imply an end to wars ... for economic reasons, or so-called "national interests".
    And that is one major reason why such requirements will never be adopted. People who neither identify as "anti-war" or "pro-war" - meaning the majority of Americans - want us to fight when it is in our perceived national interests. What "national interests" means varies with the times and situations and, depending on how the masses are influenced, might sometimes lead to unnecessary or poorly-conceived wars. Perhaps the best way to avoid unnecessary or ill-conceived wars is to ensure that the people are informed and thinking rationally. I don't know how you do that, but I do know that most folks will not subordinate interests to laws on issues of war. Laws tend to be cast aside when the perceived benefit is higher and seems more likely than the perceived cost.

    But here is some common ground: You want wars to end? I want to eat more and weigh less.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Well thank you for that, Todd. I can now sleep soundly knowing you are against "us", whoever "us" may be.

    But since you feel compelled to label and libel a senior serving officer who has his fans and his detractors, how about you follow the rules on this site and introduce yourself. You can even use first person plural.
    I did not feel "compelled." I read Fallon's remarks and found they had merit, after spending quite too much time listening to Mr. Petraeus and reading his works. Have you even listened to the subject speech? You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

    In response to your challenge, the FAQ on this site does not say that introducing myself is "the rule" on this site. Have you looked at that? It even allows pseudonyms,

    Kind regards,
    TOdd

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Schmedlap and William Owen, thank you for your reasoned comments. I would share your skepticism that armies can be constrained to fighting wars only when it's lawful under treaties, self-defense of their territory, the cause is just, and such notions.

    But that is the option of the most powerful army in the world. Only the most powerful military has the luxury of restraining itself.

    Do you dispute that the U.S. could restrain its warmaking without risking attack?
    Do you share my assumption that the U.S. does have an intact and well functioning chain of command that could implement such a major policy change?
    Do you share my assumption that the U.S. does have a functioning judiciary?

    Thank you for your thoughts.
    Todd.

  12. #32
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    Do you dispute that the U.S. could restrain its warmaking without risking attack?
    Do you share my assumption that the U.S. does have an intact and well functioning chain of command that could implement such a major policy change?
    Do you share my assumption that the U.S. does have a functioning judiciary?
    1. No.
    2. That is difficult to answer since I have no idea what the policy change would look like or entail. See my earlier question re: What does this look like? A Supreme Court injunction?
    3. Yes.

  13. #33
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hi Tom ...

    Mr Boyle is fairly well known on the Net. He is an old pro at things antiwar, military industrial complex and military recruiting. "Naive" is not a term I would use for Mr Boyle.

    Google Advanced Search is your friend.

    Stay safe in the Sandbox.

    Regards

    Mike

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    JMM,

    Do you have any input in regard to my question about implementation? What is the realistic (if any) COA for someone pushing the argument that Boyle presents? Is it a court injunction? Something else? Nothing?

  15. #35
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default In the absence of a constitutional collision ...

    between the Executive and Legislative Branches, the Jus ad Bellum question (whether it is or was "illegal" to go to war) will be regarded as a "political question" and the legal action will be dismissed.

    Here is the bottom line in Doe v Bush (1st Cir 2003), pp. 3 & 24-25:

    Plaintiffs are active-duty members of the military, parents of military personnel, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives. [1] They filed a complaint in district court seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, from initiating a war against Iraq. They assert that such an action would violate the Constitution. The district court dismissed the suit, and plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the dismissal.

    [1] The military personnel and some of the parents are proceeding under pseudonyms, pursuant to an order by the district court that is not before us. The members of the House of Representatives are John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Sheila Jackson Lee, Jim McDermott, José E. Serrano, Danny K. Davis, Maurice D. Hinchey, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Pete Stark, Diane Watson, and Lynn C. Woolsey. We also acknowledge the assistance provided by amicus curiae on behalf of the plaintiffs.
    ....
    It is true that "courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits" on constitutional power. Nixon, 506 U.S. at 238. Questions about the structure of congressional power can be justiciable under the proper circumstances. See, e.g., Clinton, 524 U.S. at 428-36; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 941-44. But courts are rightly hesitant to second-guess the form or means by which the coequal political branches choose to exercise their textually committed constitutional powers. See Orlando, 443 F.2d at 1043. As the circumstances presented here do not warrant judicial intervention, the appropriate recourse for those who oppose war with Iraq lies with the political branches.
    In short, organize and mobilize to elect antiwar candidates; but leave us (the courts) out of the political action. The position of the courts is similar to that of the military on Jus ad Bellum questions (it's not the province of the military to second guess a presidential-congressional decision to wage war).

    The same doctrine of judicial restraint may or may not apply to specific Jus In Bello questions (whether an act in warfare is or was "illegal"); e.g., on the rights and duties of individuals to disobey manifestly illegal orders.
    Last edited by jmm99; 08-01-2009 at 02:29 AM.

  16. #36
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    JMM,

    Thanks. My impression is that people who make these claims of "illegality" are either very unacquainted with how the legal system works or willfully suspending their understanding because it conflicts with some other idealistic yearning for how they would want the world to operate. But, I suppose that I can be proved wrong in that impression. Are you aware of anyone who has made an argument that reconciles the "illegal war" claim with a legal process by which the court could/should/would realistically concur that, yes, this is illegal? That is - not necessarily an argument that has been made before a Court, but one that has been floated as one that the Court might buy into? There must be some creative argument whereby the Court might at least be willing to concede that the matter is justiciable, even if the Court would ultimately rules for the Executive. And, if not, then why does this "illegal war" argument persist?

  17. #37
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Thou hast an inquiring mind ....

    which will be rewarded by some Googling. Here is a start for that task.

    The basic idea to challenge a war legally (positing that the President and Congress are more or less on the same page) is to resurrect Nuremberg and Tokyo.

    Those trials, besides "normal" war crimes, alleged Crimes against Peace (waging "aggressive" war) and Crimes against Humanity (genocides), as well as conspiracies to commit the basic charges. Crimes against Peace present a Jus ad Bellum question. Crimes against Humanity present a Jus in Bello issue.

    There is no point in me going beyond that. And, it has been done by others (with whom, Mr Boyle will no doubt agree). As to Gulf I, Ramsey Clark did a full mock trial - A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq, etc. As to the current armed conflicts, you can ruminate in the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center War Crimes Research Portal.

    In the latter source, you will find many links to Mr Boyle's arguments - Just War, etc.

    The probabilities of any of those argumernts working on SCOTUS (in a Jus ad Bellum case) range between nil and null.

    PS: looks like some of the Cox links are broken.
    Last edited by jmm99; 08-01-2009 at 03:42 AM.

  18. #38
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    I did not feel "compelled." I read Fallon's remarks and found they had merit, after spending quite too much time listening to Mr. Petraeus and reading his works. Have you even listened to the subject speech? You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

    In response to your challenge, the FAQ on this site does not say that introducing myself is "the rule" on this site. Have you looked at that? It even allows pseudonyms,

    Kind regards,
    Todd
    Todd,

    As you well know, that would be GEN Petraeus. Again if you wish to come in with an attack on a serving officer, do the board a favor an introduce yourself.

    And yes as a mod I have read the rules. I will highlight the part that applies, those dealing with courtesy:

    We invite members to consider providing some information about themselves, consistent with their personal preferences and situation. The two prime venues for that are:
    The Hail & Farewell forum. In particular, consider launching a thread with your username as the title and your introduction as the first post.
    Through the User Profile.
    This introduction need not impose on privacy or interfere with pseudonymous participation, which we fully support. Even just a little general information about background, interests, and expertise is appreciated by other members as a polite and responsible way of participating that goes a long way in helping to build our professional community. Members control the information they choose to provide.

    At the same time, we fully appreciate and respect that many members may not wish to share any information beyond a pseudonymous user name. As a matter of policy, that is just fine. We are about responsible participation on your terms, not some abstract concept of disclosure to fleeting preferences.

    Unfortunately, not all registered users have always fully appreciated the latter. We have zero tolerance for members who perseverate on others' empty profiles or absent introductions.
    Now before closing, Todd, let me say that this site is fairly clear in its intent of examining and discussing small wars. We for the most part avoid political discussions as they are not within that intent. That means simply we stay off the soap box. I suggest you do the same.

    Tom
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 08-01-2009 at 11:49 AM. Reason: TOdd to Todd

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Todd,

    As you well know, that would be GEN Petraeus. Again if you wish to come in with an attack on a serving officer, do the board a favor an introduce yourself....
    Now before closing, Todd, let me say that this site is fairly clear in its intent of examining and discussing small wars. We for the most part avoid political discussions as they are not within that intent. That means simply we stay off the soap box. I suggest you do the same.

    Tom
    On the question of respectfulness: Respect is something that arises of its own accord in the mind. I couldn't change my view even if I wanted to. On the question of restraining communication, yes, communications can be constrained.

    As for your suggestion that political discussions are off topic on this board, if true, and that includes the questions *whether* to fight particular wars, or *why* to fight, then of course I will leave.

    Now that I have responded to your points, I would like your response to my points in return. Petraeus' dissertation says, the U.S. military consensus after vietnam doesn't "recommend" military engagement unless a) the public supports the war, b) the objectives are clear and can be acheived, and c) the military is provided the resources and the latitude to do their job. I said the U.S. military should go further and recommend against d) wars that are unlawful under treaties and e) wars that are unjust under some framework that would need to be developed.

    Todd
    Last edited by ToddBoyle; 08-02-2009 at 03:26 AM. Reason: original failed to answer questions.

  20. #40
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    I said the U.S. military should go further and recommend against d) wars that are unlawful under treaties and e) wars that are unjust under some framework that would need to be developed.
    "Recommend?" - Interesting use of language. Surely if "unlawful" you mean prohibit.
    Why develop a "framework" that can only have the effect of limiting your options to enforce your nations desired policy? Seems pretty "out there" to me.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

Similar Threads

  1. GEN Petraeus and Political Salesmanship
    By MattC86 in forum Politics In the Rear
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 02:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •