My old roomate at Campbell told me that Eaton "ruined Ranger school" and was a "sworn enemy" of the RTB.Originally Posted by Schmedlap
My old roomate at Campbell told me that Eaton "ruined Ranger school" and was a "sworn enemy" of the RTB.
Sir, what the hell are we doing?
Except it's a very, very far stretch to compare a tactical situation to a decision about strategy.Think of the patrol that walks into an ambush. They know that they cannot stay where they are at, nor can they keep doing what they are doing. some of them will probably be killed no matter what they do, they will certainly be destroyed if they continue on their current course. While flanking left may not be the correct solution to resolve the problem, it will 1) buy them (a little) time and 2) give them information about how to resolve the problem ("oh, good their line end here" or "Nope, looks like they are on the right side" etc.). God help the patrol who in a similar situation the leader says "Let us take a moment to consider our direction carefully before we act," because many of them will soon meet him.
Again, please tell me how many troops are going to die because the President is taking a few weeks to actually analyze and decide what the proper course ahead should be, as opposed to deciding according to when you think he should?
I think, for this war, the many months its taking to develop a strategy is not as bad as it could be. I don't think, for example, that political leaders could take that amount of time in a conflict like WWII. We can, in this conflict, more easily maintain the status quo while our leadership works through the strategy problem.
Still, in general, the sooner a strategy is formulated the better, because it's not as if the enemy is sitting still waiting for us.
Not that much a stretch
Principles are principles and time is time. The parameters are different but the compressed time tactically is simple relaxed or more time strategicallyHobson's choice? Unanswerable question as you know.Again, please tell me how many troops are going to die because the President is taking a few weeks to actually analyze and decide what the proper course ahead should be, as opposed to deciding according to when you think he should?
Moot point in any event. The Prez will take his time and make a decision -- it is highly unlikely to change much on the ground no matter what that decision is. It is an almost certain fact that if we remain in Afghanistan, there will be more casualties. The prime determinant of the number of those will most likely be time followed by enemy activity and own actions as contributors. The enemy activity cannot be predicted with any reliability and it is, regrettably, probably going to drive the latter consideration. Bill Moore said it well:This discussion of time / strategy is more politically than operationally pertinent."I think we need to give it a break. War is hell, war is complex, and it has always been that way, and the nations (and world's) best minds should debate the issue fully. A tactical commander must make tactical decisions quickly, but strategic leaders generally do not, and they definitely don't for an insurgency in Afghanistan."
ADDED: That statement by me in on way contravenes that just above by John T. Fishel. We're both correct as a change in strategy will be a political decision.
Last edited by Ken White; 10-24-2009 at 05:07 PM. Reason: Addendum
I think Economics 101 is a very good analogy as it relates to the Means portion of the Strategy equation. In Econ 101 you learn about Supply and Demand, if your Strategy requires a certain demand for People,Guns and Money and you don't establish a reliable Supply Mechanism to maintain the appropriate level. Then you just guaranteed the outcome......which is one you want like
That was part of it.
Reality of WWII strategy
During WWII it was a hard fight to develop any consensus on our strategy in Europe, where we should open the first front, should we next go to Italy or the heartland, how do we divide the goodies between the allies, etc. In the Pacific Theater there was also considerable debate between Army and Navy approaches. In the Korean conflict there was considerable debate as in Vietnam, so what exactly is different?I think, for this war, the many months its taking to develop a strategy is not as bad as it could be. I don't think, for example, that political leaders could take that amount of time in a conflict like WWII.
The answer is 24/7 news, blogs, twitter, etc. that have to push hype to stay in business. Look beyond the hype and consider that strategic decisions are obviously of strategic importance and will impact our nation in a variety of ways (security, economically, etc.), so I think we can wait a few more days/weeks to get the best answer rather than rushing to support or deny GEN McCrystal's proposed strategy. We have national interests outside of Afghanistan also, so those who actually see and understand the bigger picture have to weigh the risk of surging in Afghan to those interests. I think we need to give it a break. War is hell, war is complex, and it has always been that way, and the nations (and world's) best minds should debate the issue fully. A tactical commander must make tactical decisions quickly, but strategic leaders generally do not, and they definitely don't for an insurgency in Afghanistan.
The issue isn't how many troops will die
if it takes longer to decide on strategy but rather what the risks are to achieving our objectives. We know - as much as can be known - what it takes to defeat an insurgency. We have solid quantitiative and qualitative evidence. We know, for a fact, that a strategy built around a purely (or mainly) enemy centric approach will fail in Afghanistan on numerous counts. We can predict, with reasonable accuracy, what will happen if troop strength is not increased and we rely more and more on targeted drone strikes - and it is not a positive outcome. With a little less assurance, we can predict a negative outcome if additional troops are fed in too small increments over too long a time - we fail. So, the presidential decision is really whether the strategy GEN McChrystal has proposed meets the Acceptability component of the FAS test. Essentially, if it does not - if President Obama chooses not to resource it properly - then we must choose not merely a different strategy but a totally different objective and build a strategy to achieve it. I, for one, am not sure that any other objective is acceptable, nor am I sure it would be feasible. In the end, if we want to achievethe objective stated by President Obama, we really need to give GEN McChrystal the resources he says he needs. So, this debate over resouces is the wrong debate. The debate needs to be over ends/objectives. IMO changing the objective means accepting defeat.
On that cheery note...
JohnT
Hi John, yes that is the real question. Even more so on the grand strategy level. This apparent policy of invading countries because their terrain was used as a launching platform for an attack can get us into a lot of trouble. Instead of whack a mole it is turning into whack a country. I don't see how that can be in our long term best interest. Thoughts on this? from anyone? Any merit to this line of reasoning or did I fall off the boat
Hey Slap
Different invasion rules for countries with real governments and thos without. You really can hold a govt responsible for its actions - if that govt has effective control of (most of) its sovreign territory, eg Panama or Iraq. But if there is no real govt - Somalia and Afghanistan in 2001 - then you are playing by different rules. Deterrance is a real policy when there is a govt - it is indeed an option for say Iran. But deterrance is not an option for an Afghanistan or a Somalia.
Cheers
JohnT
Thank You,Sir
What he said...
For those chaotic neighborhoods, we need the capability (which is easy, already have the gear and people, just need to train 'em better) and the WILL (the hard item...) to go in a do some minor destruction and havoc stuff then leave quickly. Have to get some more gear and train up some more people to do the covert entry surgical stuff but we can do that as well.
Need to be prepared to leave some bodies and possibly prisoners behind. Goes with the territory; not doing that is nice, it also is a relative rarity. Only the last three wars failed to produce bunches of both.
Creating more chaos, sowing hate and discontent is a USA specialty, we do that well...
P.S.
I agree with you, Slap, on the be careful where you go and why -- we lost the bubble on that...
P.P.S
No, the public won't get upset (other than the usual suspects who get upset at practically everything and cannot believe everyone isn't nice) -- IF the raids are successful.
Last edited by Ken White; 10-25-2009 at 04:54 AM. Reason: Addenda
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks