On the avoidance of small wars

[Dayuhan]

I generally avoid responding to you (for good reason) but in this case I will.

I apologize insincerely for having caused you discomfort.

The bottom line is that Germany has no military leverage (the reason for which is immaterial).

They have as much military leverage as they think they need. They may or may not be correct, but that's for them to determine, and not anyone else's business. If they see their military purely as a device to protect the homeland, so be it. Their call.

But I do agree that once the Grand Strategy has been decided then the generals should be allowed to get on with it.

Once example of how ludicrous the situation has become is explained in the appointment of civilian oversight (political) of target selection in the recent Libyan debacle.

We agree on something, unusual. I also think the politicians should stay out of it, once they've laid down the basic guidelines... including, in this case, the specific provisions that the UK and France should lead to the greatest possible extent, no US ground forces should be committed, and US force should not remove MG. Those are all policy decisions, made for good reasons.

It should dawn on you that at battalion level and below the US military continues to render outstanding service to their nation in time of need. Above that I'm not sure there is a kind word to be said.

I've never said otherwise. Bad policy is a serious problem, has been for a long time.

Better avoided... or conceived and conducted more competently? The Fuchs approach seems to be to do nothing (which is fine if you have been living under the protective umbrella of the US for all this time).

If there's no compelling need to be involved, and no clear, practical objective that's achievable with the time and resources you're willing to commit, why be involved at all? Both of those qualities have been rather lacking from American involvements for some time.

Seems to me that the default choice when it comes to interfering in messy affairs in faraway countries should be exactly what Fuchs suggests: don't. That default would reasonably be overridden if there's a sufficiently compelling interest, but it would need to be very compelling indeed to be sufficient, IMO.

Give the military the war aims and let them get on with it (watching out for McArthur and Patton type personalities which need to be 'managed'.

MacArthur and Patton type personalities should certainly never be allowed to make policy... if that's "management", then it's called for. MacArthur was able to make policy for a very short while in the country where I live, and made a serious hash of it.

Smartness in the White House and in most of the worlds capitals is in short supply.

Agreed.