Efficacy of punitive strikes?

[CPT Holzbach]

I have been curious about this lately. What does the noble Small Wars Council think of the idea of using punitive missions in the future, in place of "regime change" and "nation building"? How about we replace "regime change" with simple "regime removal", meaning get rid of the bad guy, and let the people sort it out.

Many who contribute to this board understand the 4GW concepts of lose-lose situations that the US is forced into by getting involved in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. If we lose, we lose. If we win, we lose, because we're bullies, beating up on the little guy, and no one likes a bully. So why not conduct Operation Iraqi Freedom I, and then leave? Is it our moral responsibility to clean up the mess we make? I would say no. I would say it's the responsibility of the people of a nation to get rid of leaders who get their country into unwinnable wars, like conventional fights against the US. Does the democracy we've installed in Iraq and Afghanistan ensure our safety? Obviously not. They can vote in hostile regimes, as some other countries have (Venezuela). I also dont buy the idea that people like Hussein were so brutal that the people couldnt beat him. The Americans couldnt beat the British Empire during our revolution either. I know there are a host of differences, but you get my basic idea.

We could spend 100 years in Iraq and maybe accomplish nothing. We could leave, and the people could turn right around and elect a hard-line Islamic government that openly supports terrorism. And I would completely support the process that put them in place. But we would be right back at square one: a hostile regime that is employing violence against Americans. And if they did that, it would be a clear message: "We, the Iraqi people, violently oppose the USA, and want to see it's downfall." Or something to that effect. And there's nothing wrong with that. If thats what they want, I only ask that they make it happen democratically. Either way, such choices come with a price. Is it wrong for us to pummel them for that choice, and then leave them to try again? I say it isnt. People have to choose for themselves. Does such an approach still make us a bully? Probably. But life's tough. Id like to beat up Chuck Norris, but we all know that's not gonna happen because he can make water boil just by looking at it. It would be a waste of time to try to change that fact. Are we just wasting our time in Iraq?

So, I propose an end to nation building and regime change. In it's place, I put forward the idea of regime removal and punitive attacks. And not a couple cruise missiles. I mean ground invasion. But once the battle is won and the regime is smashed, leave. And let the people of that nation fix what they perhaps should have fixed in the first place. Will they put the same government back in power? Maybe. But they'll think twice about violently opposing the US.

1...2...3...discuss!

[Tom Odom]

Thanks for an interesting post!

Direct strikes--whether limited or large scale--have their own cosequence sets. In many ways, Desert Storm was just that; set objective matched with containment afterward. Some have termed that a strategiic defeat, an argument I do not buy as the set end state was achieved and the spill over was contained.

Other examples are less clear in their results. Punitive expeditions are historically common; one can almost hear Kitchner assembling the Camel corps to march on Sudan. Take a look at Dan Reiter's paper "Preventative War and its alternatives: the Lessons of History.: It is avaliable on the SSI page for download athttp://www.strategicstudiesinstitute....cfm?PubID=651

On the issue of nation-buidling: I believe nation-building is doable if there is a "nation" (people that see themselves as a nation). But nation building in the absence of such a nation is a risk.

Another interesting article today on this subject was by Ed Luttwak. see number 51 on the early bird "Will Civil War Bring Lasting Peace To Iraq?" His point is quite simple: sometimes the people have to fight it out among themselves to set the conditions for peace. Here is an extract:

CIVIL WARS can be especially atrocious as neighbors kill each other at close range, but they also have a purpose. They can bring lasting peace by destroying the will to fight and by removing the motives and opportunities for further violence.

England's civil war in the mid-17th century ensured the subsequent centuries of political stability under Parliament and a limited monarchy. But first there had to be a war with pitched battles and killing, including the decapitation of King Charles I, who had claimed absolute power by divine right.

The United States had its civil war two centuries later, which established the rule that states cannot leave the union — and abolished slavery in the process. The destruction was vast and the casualties immense as compared with all subsequent American wars, given the size of the population. But without the decisive victory of the Union, two separate and quarrelsome republics might still endure, periodically at war with each other.

Even Switzerland had a civil war — in 1847 — out of which came the limited but sturdy unity of its confederation. Close proximity, overlapping languages and centuries of common history were not enough to resolve differences between the cantons. They had to fight briefly, with 86 killed, to strike a balance of strength between them.

And so it must be with Iraq, the most haphazard of states, hurriedly created by the British after World War I with scant regard for its rival nationalities and sects. The sectarian hatred — erupting during the Saddam Hussein era and at full boil since his ouster — is now inflicting a heavy toll in casualties.

The key element that I find lacking in Luttwak's piece is that he does not account for the reality of the 21st Century Information Age. Like it or not, instant world wide media coverage is an element of modern war. How it plays depends on who is involved and where it is happening.

Finally I would say that regardless of current or future events, the word 'never" never works, whether one is swearing off regime changes or nation building or large scale armored warfare.

Best
Tom

[Merv Benson]

Blackjack Pershing's Punitive Expedition into Mexico was hardly a ringing success, especially if you thinking capturing and/or killing Pancho villia was its primary purpose, since we never found him. What we basically proved is that if Mexican bandits raid New Mexico, US troops can raid Mexico.

One little side note on the expedition, was Patton's "mechanized" attack on a ranch house, i.e. he got there is an automobile, where they got some of the bad guys. He later leveraged this action into a leadership position in the new tank corps in World War I.

The problem with decapitation without regime change is that you leave a vacumn to be filled by the strongest war lord. In Afghanistan that turned out to be the Taliban who later hosted al Qaeda.

[Stu-6]

I think punitive strikes can be effective in some circumstances; for instances raiding a terrorist camp where it would be impractical to occupy the area or similar action against the military of a state protector. However there are limitations for instance situations like Iraq where we have broken the existing state, there the options for attack and leave are somewhat limited not for moral reason but rather for practical ones. Leaving failed a failed state creates all kinds of problems (of course staying in one creates its own difficulties).

[slapout9]

Capt. Holzbach, you may be on to something. One of the first books I read was called The Lessons of Terror by Caleb Carr. In the book he talks about such and operation. His model was Sherman's march to sea You want war, you want terror, we will give to you in spades. In the end we will make you hate war and terror. You also point out some weaknesses of elected officials, we may end up with somebody worse, all nice and legal. Your theory would also have the support of the american people quick, sharp and with a moral reason to do it. And then go home. Also as President Reagan said about Quidaffi(cain't spell)"We are prepared to do it again". I have doubts about this build em a new country and we will pay for it so they will like us theory. Respect first aid second. I am ranting and raving now. I meant to ask can you expand on your theory?

[zenpundit]

Punitive expeditions make sense if there is an entity which can be held accountable for the behavior of its troops, agents, citizens or whatever. The idea is to communicate that the costs of state irresponsibility are higher than the internal political benefits of winking and nodding at difficult to control elements.

Launching a punitive expedition where there is no one who can effect changes desired may or may not make strategic or tactical sense.