Dealing with Haditha

[Sarajevo071]

Have you convinced him of anything?

And what is that you would like to convince me?!

[Sarajevo071]

We occasionally engage in mutual understanding...

No matter what others think, I am fair and open to hear and accept truth and honest opinions... Same moment someone goes blank and start with propaganda, insults or plain justifications, I retaliate same way.

I don't have nothing to prove to anyone nor to apologize for. Others spilled first blood and attacked me back in days. I paid big price being open minded, tree-loving, no-religious and no-biased naive kid. I am no kid anymore.

So, if you are open toward me, honest and respectful, be sure I am there to talk and exchange same attitude. Simple. Now... Are you ready for kick-off!??

[Sarajevo071]

Been a problem ever since there have been triggers. Before that, it was swords, before that spears...

Good leaders and good training don't let that happen and never have. Unfortunately, the human genome does not produce invariably good leaders and democraices don't do well at training in peacetime; to do it right causes casualties and the Mothers get upset.

It is, thankfully, far less a problem now than it was even 30 years ago. I suspect it will continue to be a problem and we just have to note when it occurs, fix that specific problem as best we can and keep working on the generic problem. Which most people are doing...

I agree and I can accept that (not that I think human race is evolving much, btw).

[Rank amateur]

We occasionally engage in mutual understanding...

That's why I'm a Powell doctrine advocate. Why spend 10 years coming to a mutual understanding when a couple of days of B52s will help people see how much we have in common?

(The few who will never be reasonable, i.e. Hitler and Bin Laden, need to be eliminated, but - while I don't want to speak for anyone else - I don't think Sarajevo would have a major problem with that.)

That doesn't solve all the world's problems, but it does provide effective, cost efficient defense.

[Sarajevo071]

That's why I'm a Powell doctrine advocate. Why spend 10 years coming to a mutual understanding when a couple of days of B52s will help people see how much we have in common?

So, how is that working for you by now? Solved anything? Got more friends and allies then enemies, then before?!

You are amusing.

[RTK]

That's why I'm a Powell doctrine advocate. Why spend 10 years coming to a mutual understanding when a couple of days of B52s will help people see how much we have in common?

I'm not sure if that quite sums up the Powell Doctrine the way it was sold.

Sounds more like the Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson Doctrine.

[Ken White]

Weinberger doctrine (LINK), modified. Both were expressly designed to deter use of the Armed forces in anything short of a war of national survival and to avoid any commitment to peacekeeping, nation building or counterinsurgency work.

The Weinberger doctrine, when announced made a little sense. it was argaubly a laudable goal if a bit unrealistic. However its effect was to insure that the Army ignored seriously doing anything to, by, for or with counterinsurgency -- when it was fairly obvious at the time that would be a future problem.

After 1991, it wasn't fairly obvious, it was right in our face and we still tried to hide behind the flawed doctrine. It was flawed because it didn't recognize the reality on the ground, catered to the purchase of large expensive hardware instead of investing in costly individual training and lulled too many into ignoring future problems.

It also effectively precluded, if followed, virtually any use of military force due to the ever decreasing size of the Armed forces. In the event, it was not followed by any President after it was announced; all of them violated its precepts with military action.

[Rank amateur]

It was argaubly a laudable goal if a bit unrealistic.

We're upgrading our fighters even though we already have the best aircraft. It increases the odds that no one will ever challenge us for air supremacy.

The stronger we are at COIN, the less likely our enemies will be to draw us into an asymmetrical conflict. So I'd argue that the doctrine was solid, just poorly implemented.

To use an analogy. Desiring to avoid nuclear war: good. Trying to achieve it by getting rid of nuclear weapons: bad implementation.

[Rank amateur]

I was suggesting that if a "mutual understanding" is the best you can achieve with Sarajavo071

The way I see it, threads like that are made for those like you. No disrespect intended in any way, but I'm at the point where I think that if I can convince you of something, I can convince the indigenous populace too.

than a "mutual understanding" might be the best you can achieve from the local populace. I consider the "Sunni awakening" a "mutual understanding." The Powell doctrine, as implemented in 1991, lead very quickly to a "mutual understanding" of who should run Kuwait.

Sounds more like the Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson Doctrine.

Excellent reference. I'm impressed: very impressed if you remembered Buck's last name without using Google.

[JJackson]

Re: Haditha Dismissal of Charge

As I am new here I apologise if this is covered somewhere else and I just haven’t found it yet (if so please link).

I found this forum from a link to Kilcullen’s SWJ article ‘Anatomy of a tribal revolt’ on Col. Pat Lang’s Sic Semper Tyrannis blog - which I have been reading for some time. He also posted a copy of a rather damning letter by Sam Provance of Army Intelligence ‘Why the Pentagon Doesn’t Want Me to Testify About Abu Ghraib’ the full text of which can be found here http://www.alternet.org/story/61241/ . The gist is he had tried to give evidence to the investigation but his superiors just did not want to know what he had to say. I have read the posts in this thread and the longer thread referenced by Jedburgh in post #10. In which most seem to argue ‘let the process take its course and wait for the verdict’ – an admirable sentiment with which I fully agree.
As I am not military I have know way of knowing how credible his testimony is. So my question for those who have operated in this theatre is a) does this ring true? b) If it does how isolated do you think it is? And c) How should this colour our view of these proceedings in general and the letter dismissing charges in post #1 in particular?

[Ken White]

We're upgrading our fighters even though we already have the best aircraft. It increases the odds that no one will ever challenge us for air supremacy.

Agree and I'm all for it; we need both the F22 and the F35 (all variants) for the reason you state. As I pointed out to someone here a few days ago; US troops on the ground haven't been attacked from the air and there's a reason for that.

The stronger we are at COIN, the less likely our enemies will be to draw us into an asymmetrical conflict...

Couldn't agree more; that's why I constantly gripe about the fact that the senior leadership of the Army (including Powell among others) ignored it for 30 years even though a number of us were screaming that was not a good idea. Being able to say "I told you so" isn't really very satisfying.

... So I'd argue that the doctrine was solid, just poorly implemented.

I don't think the doctrines say what you think they say and I know that the implementation of them was specifically designed to say the "Army fights the Nation's BIG wars..." and to totally avoid nation building and counterinsurgency. Google is ready when you are, You should be able to find several quotes from Powell and others saying just that.

To use an analogy. Desiring to avoid nuclear war: good. Trying to achieve it by getting rid of nuclear weapons: bad implementation.

I'm sorry but your analogy isn't tracking with me, what, precisely, do you mean?

I thought by pointing out that every President from Reagan forward essentially ignored that doctrine and sent penny packets of troops, ships and aircraft to do either inane things as well as some important things that needed doing would make the point that the doctrines, aside from the size of forces that I also mentioned, were not politically supportable. Militarily they're eminently sensible and very valid -- but as the North Vietnamese Colonel told Harry Summers, "That may be true but it is also irrelevant."

The doctrines sound good but the realities of force structure size and capabilities, a world removed from the phoniness and artificiality of the 40 year Cold War and the hard cold light of international and domestic politics made them moot the day they were released. Great idea, shame it was unworkable.

They were an effort to constrain the US from military efforts bar a major threat. Any student of American history could've told Weinberger and Powell their ideas were good but not likely to be heeded -- and they were not, from 1984 onwards and by four Presidents from two Parties. I think there's a message in that.

[SWCAdmin]

I agree and I can accept that (not that I think human race is evolving much, btw).

Concur! We have removed too many Darwinian drivers. Problem is they were so confounded with just plain mean-ness, it is hard to throw out the chaff and keep the wheat. But we have issues as a species.

Re Ken White statement on Powell doctrine being a spin on Weinberger -- concur there too. And that was how it was being taught in formal schools (USMC CSC) a couple of years ago, as an unambiguous bullet point in the curriculum plus all the trappings.

[JJackson]

Again I start with an apology this time for not being familiar with doctrines being discussed. If I get the general idea it is the military should be used for national defence, if that is so then I am confused by the sheer scale of US military expenditure over the last half century. US conventional forces are way beyond anything needed to defend the USA from conventional attack by any other country. Even if every other country on the planet combined their navies would they be a match? Would not any war involving the US be asymmetrical? I would have thought any group trying to oppose US wishes in any matter would have to do it by means other than conventional military engagement. This lesson does not seem to have been lost on those you are fighting around the world who have gathered that wasting money on large expensive lumps of military hardware or infrastructure is just a means of providing target practice. Small clandestine mosquitoes that keep biting you until you decide it is better to go somewhere else seems to be the new MO.

Have I missed the point?

[Sarajevo071]

If you check how many military bases U.S. have and where they all are (all over the world), you will get your answer of keeping the military in that number... To control and influence others, like any other empire before, U.S. need strong military and strong military/political/cultural presence in those countries. Plus, military-industrial complex in U.S. invested so much money in Congress and President/s that they get "paid" back by new contracts and new (or keeping old) jobs for weapon systems. And to get new "toys" you need to spend old ones.

[Rank amateur]

Let me refine my thinking, because you can't away with sloppy thinking here.

When there is broad political consensus, your unique skills are effective in convincing the minority that maybe the majority isn't so unreasonable after all. Be that in a traditional large scale operation or as a COIN mission. (You can take out the unreasonable minority all at once or one a time. You've convinced me that you can and will get better at doing it one at a time.) My premise holds up in WW1 and WW11. The Germans eventually agreed that with the consensus that Germany didn't need to occupy large sections of France and genocide was a crime against humanity.

When there is no political consensus - about how to govern Vietnam or Iraq - you make an enormous sacrifice and achieve little political progress.

So, I'll agree the "no COIN" bullet point was wrong. I'll agree that the no nation building bullet point was incomplete. I think it should've read "No nation building on our own, but we can participate in a coalition of nation builders who are being hampered by a small group of insurgents."

Afghanistan doesn't really fit, but that wasn't a war of choice. Every military should always be prepared in case they are drawn into a war they don't want to fight. In that case, they should always try to shape the battle so that they can utilize their strengths and hide their weaknesses. The Art of War always applies.

Finally, I'm only talking about modern Westerns forces. When the Romans were willing to crucifying whoever disagreed with them, the political landscape wasn't terribly relevant. (Though it would be fair to say that the Romans also subscribed to a no COIN, no nation building doctrine.)

[Sarajevo071]

Concur! We have removed too many Darwinian drivers. Problem is they were so confounded with just plain mean-ness, it is hard to throw out the chaff and keep the wheat. But we have issues as a species.

Re Ken White statement on Powell doctrine being a spin on Weinberger -- concur there too. And that was how it was being taught in formal schools (USMC CSC) a couple of years ago, as an unambiguous bullet point in the curriculum plus all the trappings.

I started saying long time ago that we should be all nuked to oblivion, and let the Evolution start all over again... How much I can see around, our try failed. Maybe those behind us will have better luck. At least a chance for the new start.

[Rank amateur]

If I get the general idea it is the military should be used for national defence, if that is so then I am confused by the sheer scale of US military expenditure over the last half century.
Have I missed the point?

Yes, you have missed the point. Besides national defense, the military can do things like close down concentration camps and stop genocide.

Also, the best form of defense is to be so big, and so effective, that no one takes a shot at you. The failure to modernize the British army during the 20s and 30s lead to the kind of thing that the pros here work hard to prevent.

[Sarajevo071]

Yes, you have missed the point. Besides national defense, the military can do things like close down concentration camps and stop genocide.

Like U.S. military stooped genocide in Bosnia?! Closed serbian concentration and death camps?! Running for 4 years... BS!

But, then again, in Bosnia christians kill, rape and "cleaned" Muslims and Bosnia don't have oil... And Jews was on serbian side so no need to "protect" them either.

[RTK]

Again I start with an apology this time for not being familiar with doctrines being discussed. If I get the general idea it is the military should be used for national defence, if that is so then I am confused by the sheer scale of US military expenditure over the last half century.

Have I missed the point?

I don't think I agree with the premise of your question.


US Army Mission Statement:

The Army's primary mission is to provide necessary forces and capabilities to the Combatant Commanders in support of the National Security and Defense Strategies. http://www.army.mil/APS/05/index.html

US Air Force Mission Statement

To deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123013440

US Navy Mission Statement

The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/organization/org-top.asp

Commandant of the US Marine Corps Planning Guidance

 Achieve victory in the Long War.
 Right-size our Corps to achieve a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio.
 Provide our Nation a naval force that is fully prepared for employment as a MAGTF across the spectrum of conflict.
 Reset and modernize to "be most ready when the Nation is least ready."
 Improve the quality of life for our Marines and our families.
 Rededicate ourselves to our Core Values and warrior ethos.
 Posture the Marine Corps for the future.
http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mc...MCGuidance.pdf

US Coast Guard Mission Statement

The United States Coast Guard is a multi-missioned maritime service and one of the Nation's five Armed Services. Its mission is to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests - in the Nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security. http://www.uscg.mil/NEWS/alaskaair/alaskaair.html

[Ken White]

US wanted Europe to fix its own problems, Sarajevo.

They didn't seem inclined to do that. If you've noticed, we were late to the party in World Wars I and II as well -- waiting for Europe to solve their own problems.
Seems to be a pattern there...

As to the world wide Empire, not really that we want to do it all that much; we'd a lot rather worry about Lindsay Lohan and Larry Craig's bathroom habits but all these other folks just seem to cause problems that no one is willing to fix.

Nasty job as they say but somebody has to do it.

Be happy, another 50 years or so and we''ll be downgraded -- then you can complain about the Chinese or the Indians.