The Kill Company

[Schmedlap]

Perceptions of "what is a war?" are weird.

I once had a law student tell me that the invasion of Iraq was not a war. This left me scratching my head. I then asked him a few questions, such as, "so the US military fighting against the Iraqi military is not a war?" Finally, he explained that it was not a declared war. Once that was established, I had to ask what significance that had to the original topic that we were discussing. He couldn't think of one. Neither could I. But it was weird that he would suddenly rise up on this point that was so insignificant within the context of the discussion. It is not an uncommon reaction - I've seen and heard it several times in other situations. I've never understood why people insist upon declaring open hostilities involving military forces to not be wars.

[Ken White]

Perceptions of "what is a war?" are weird...I've never understood why people insist upon declaring open hostilities involving military forces to not be wars.

they'd rather be involved in helping others than acknowledge the job is essentially killing people; do all the COIN stuff you want to, you're still helping the Armed forces of the US kill opponents. For others, it's that line in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8; "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" They read the first clause and ignore the rest and assume it has to be 'declared,' not knowing that if it is declared, there are a slew of Statutes on the books that give the Executive branch of the Federal Government some awesome powers and Congress wants to avoid that. That's why all our wars since WW II have not been 'declared.' I think all that boils down to differing agendas, perhaps...

Then, of course, there are those who just want to be contrary.

Best way to make the determination IMO is ask the folks that are there. All of 'em, see what the consensus is. On balance, I'm with you, even with those explanations seems to make little sense to me...

Quit picking on the squirrels at AM. 22-6 indeed...

[Schmedlap]

Quit picking on the squirrels at AM. 22-6 indeed...

Are you referring to this? That could have been any Schmedlap. I admit nothing.

[Ken White]

I knew your Uncle Smedley -- he was devious also...

[Greyhawk]

I think much of what drives this semantic discussion is that our political leadership is very much concerned with the semantics. This has much to do with now being in charge of things they've opposed (implied they would end, even) for the past few years and coming up with ways to explain and support the effort without using exact terms that countless YouTube clips would reveal them condemning.

This is not a comment on the worthiness of either our leadership or the semantic discussion here, merely an observation of what I perceive is happening. I believe that for some participants the NCA-level semantic discussion is divorced from any strategic decision making, btw. While that relationship is of concern to those here, and the framework of these discussions, for those "calling the shots" it's less "what is this that confronts us and is there an appropriate strategy" and more "how do we sell this? It's X but we can't call it that, we're anti-X after all."

(X meaning "war" or "surge" or any number of things. "Nation building" is certainly unpalatable too, for a slightly different reason.)

Speaking of marketable semantics, here's a WaPo headline over a well written and in many aspects troubling account of Marines in A'stan from Rajiv Chandrasekaran): "A Fight for Ordinary Peace".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102815_pf.html

[Greyhawk]

The Marines will get no extra troops, American or Afghan. In light of that they've asked if they can arm the locals ala SoI (another semantic story, by the way) - but whatever it might be called, so far the answer is also "no".

What do they get? They get one year to do what Marines do. I'll bet they're well aware of what they're doing, and quite adept at explaining it in the correct terms to media embeds.

To bring that more in line with the topic of this thread, hopefully few will get their names in the paper for all the wrong reasons. Apparently (from another account) one group of Taliban, cornered in a building with female hostages walked away dressed in Burkas as part of a deal to let those females go.

On a "positive" note re: numbers - not in that story, but meanwhile some in Britain are arguing they should send more troops and gear. Their Afghan death toll just exceeded Iraq, and that "more" argument is the opposition response.

[Kiwigrunt]

Good article, Greyhawk. (‘A fight for ordinary peace.’)

Something else I think is potentially troubling is this:

Experts from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development will arrive in Nawa this summer to assist with longer-term reconstruction and governance initiatives, including a $300 million program to provide agricultural aid to 125,000 farmers through vouchers to purchase seeds and farm equipment. That program will also seek to employ 166,000 young men in projects for six months.

Once these hearts and minds have been bought, sorry, won, what happens in six months time? Do the farmers receive more vouchers? Are the workers given new jobs? It would appear to me that hearts and minds bought and then lost may end up becoming more troublesome than hearts and minds never won. And I say this without wanting to get into the ‘hearts and minds’ conversation as such (which I'm enjoying).

[added] hmmm, just realised this post is a bit off topic here.

[Ken White]

I think much of what drives this semantic discussion is that our political leadership is very much concerned with the semantics.

The Truman, Kennedy and Johnson administrations all played that game in big wars while Reagan and Clinton played it in small ones. The more forthright Bush adminsitration initially did not but after the media jumped them over the 'harsh' rhetoric, even they played the game -- deluding the ignorant.

Oh, well, at least we're still honest enough to call a Destroyer a Destroyer...

(X meaning "war" or "surge" or any number of things. "Nation building" is certainly unpalatable too, for a slightly different reason.)

True; we have a poorly educated public and give too much space to far out fanatics on both sides of the political divide.

On a "positive" note re: numbers - not in that story, but meanwhile some in Britain are arguing they should send more troops and gear. Their Afghan death toll just exceeded Iraq, and that "more" argument is the opposition response.

Simply the 'one-third rule' in operation. That's what drives the semantic discussion above.

Kiwi Grunt makes a pertinent observation:

Once these hearts and minds have been bought, sorry, won, what happens in six months time? ...

Point derived from the linked articles and the comment is that we, NATO and other coalition members do not have enough troops to employ "COIN tactics" in Afghanistan -- much less will we all provide enough to do that. We can plus up the ANA and Afghan Police -- but who's going to pay for that plus up (Heh...)? Who's going to sustain that huge amount of money when, as they surely will, the west leaves?

Hearts and minds being won, foolish term that is often misunderstood as has been mentioned, costs big bucks. There is also a pretty tough human cost. Armed Social Work is not the panacea many seem to believe. Go in, stir things up to 'help,' to 'stabilize the situation' (by adding to the instabilty? ), make a big mess -- then leave.

Brilliant...

[jmm99]

My wife tells me my order from Amazon has arrived, including this one: Rules of Engagement? A Social Anatomy of an American War Crime. Operation Iron Triangle, Iraq. The blurbs indicate this is more a forensic study (with documentation) - so, perhaps more to a lawyer's interest than general interest.

Anyway, I expect I will be doing some reading in the next few days, since the order also includes Luttrell's Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10, which also was an ROE and Laws of War problem....

and two books by Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society; and On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace. These could be total bullroar, but the blurbs looked interesting.

[IntelTrooper]

Anyway, I expect I will be doing some reading in the next few days, since the order also includes Luttrell's Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10, which also was an ROE and Laws of War problem....

I know this story is a sacred cow for many and Marcus Luttrell is undoubtedly a hero, but take his accounting of the events leading up to the firefight with a grain of salt.

[Ken White]

They tell me.

[IntelTrooper]

They tell me.

We must have acquaintances in common.

[Uboat509]

and two books by Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society; and On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace. These could be total bullroar, but the blurbs looked interesting.

I'm reading On Combat for my Psychology 101 class. It's not bad so far.

SFC W

[Ken White]

I'm reading On Combat for my Psychology 101 class. It's not bad so far.

I thought it was a lot better than "On Killing." Eight years later and the presence of co-authors probably helped. I've also talked to folks who've been to his recent lectures and apparently he's gotten still smarter. Some people do that as they age -- I, of course, elected not to do so...

I'm probably excessively suspicious of anyone who puts much reliance on psychology; while I acknowledge it's a discipline and has merits, I also believe people are very difficult to pigeon hole and that events can affect or change people in unexpected ways. I've seen veritable Tigers fall apart at small provocation and mousy types take on a Company -- literally. You never know what drives people...

[Greyhawk]

...the only good unit seen in Vietnam on their co-tour was his old one. They did everything perfectly.

Never crossed paths with any of the gentlemen, but that part of Hackworth's story had me shaking my head and chuckling. Maybe it was accurate, I don't know, wouldn't claim the right to judge and don't believe my opinion matters. But had he been a bit less glowing in his praise (esp in comparison to all others) he would have convinced me.

[Fuchs]

It's (I think so) a bit related:

The Israelis have again troubles with "Cast Lead" veterans speaking out about war crimes. An organization called "Breaking the silence" seems to have published a report with testimonies.

German newspaper source (newspaper with one of the best reputations in Germany)

My take on such things is probably already known, but I'd like to repeat myself:

War leads to war crimes, and the only sure way to avoid that seems to be to avoid war. Good example, discipline and control (good leadership) can only reduce the problem.

There's no white and black, and "our boys don't do that" is naive. Humans are almost the same everywhere, and they can turn ugly with an unpleasantly high chance once they've been subjected to war-like conditions.

It's about the environment, the conditions - not the boys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

[Ken White]

War leads to war crimes, and the only sure way to avoid that seems to be to avoid war. Good example, discipline and control (good leadership) can only reduce the problem.

There's no white and black, and "our boys don't do that" is naive. Humans are almost the same everywhere, and they can turn ugly with an unpleasantly high chance once they've been subjected to war-like conditions.

Yes, true indeed. While those are true statements, a degree of naivete exists in the world. Putting anyone into a situation of danger is going to bring some pretty normal reactions -- even if those reactions would not be normal absent the danger. For example, in a similar story LINK, the headline is "Gaza invasion: 'If you're not sure – kill'."

Yes. Exactly what almost everyone in that situation should logically be expected do...

[William F. Owen]

It's (I think so) a bit related:

The Israelis have again troubles with "Cast Lead" veterans speaking out about war crimes. An organization called "Breaking the silence" seems to have published a report with testimonies.

Can't see how it is related, but this is the second bite at this one. Once the allegations made by some, were proved to be untrue, we now have a bunch of anonymous claims, which cannot be investigated.

There's no white and black, and "our boys don't do that" is naive. Humans are almost the same everywhere, and they can turn ugly with an unpleasantly high chance once they've been subjected to war-like conditions.

I concur, but there is vast difference, between abuses, and war crimes. Shooting holes in someone rooftop water tank, is not a war crime. Selective definitions of what does and does not constitute a crime is being used for political purposes. British Troops allegedly killed prisoners in Basra. War crime? Abuse for sure.

GROSSMAN
Treat with extreme caution. I wrote a re-buttal to "On killing" a while back. He misuses several pieces of evidence and once challenged the core of his argument falls apart. Failure to participate in combat is not based on a lack of desire to kill. For example, he cites Marshall, but not Wigram. I have it in my list "misleading works."