SWJ Small Wars Survey 2012

[AmericanPride]

Defense is a burden on the economy, but that's not why the economy is shaky: there are much more important economic issues at hand.

I did not state that the defense economy is the primary or direct cause of our current economic problems, though it is a major contributor to America's gradual economic decline. For economy in general, the most important issue is the regressive tax and financial policies that have resulted in the largest transfer of wealth in American history. For the defense economy specifically, the problem is that budgets continue to grow while output and quality decrease. The GWOT has brought into sharp focus the inadequacies of the military establishment. Trillions of dollars have been spent but there are zero favorable political outcomes from the conflict. That's the bottom-line.

The institutional failure I see is not on the part of the military, but on the part of those who repeatedly send military forces to accomplish that military force can't reasonably expected to accomplish (e.g. "nation building") and bite off commitments that we haven't the political will to complete. The military has been effective at the tasks it's trained and equipped to accomplish. It's been ineffective at tasks it's not trained and equipped to accomplish. This should not be a surprise. Using a hammer as a screwdriver is likely to be ineffective and messy, but that's not the hammer's fault.

It's been the military that has been the largest proponent of "counter-insurgency" and targeting the population instead of the enemy. The political leadership empowered the military to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has not occurred. And so it has been the military wrestling internally about what to do next since our doctrines, technologies, wealth, and combat power is relatively ineffective. Blaming the political leadership for the "nation building" mission is a convenient defense for inviting that obligation by assuming the "counter-insurgency" mantle in the first place.

True to some extent, but is it the most cost-effective way to accomplish these goals?

Cost-effectiveness is not the only measurement of success, nor the most desirable one. I certainly think a national service program should not be limited to military service. All departments can benefit from such a program.

The poor outcomes and high costs in the "War on Terrorism" are to me indicators of bad policy decisions, rather than of declining military capabilities. Start with the whole ridiculous idea of a "War on Terrorism"...

There is no defending military ignorance on how to define the GWOT. It's fairly well understood that the intent is/was to prevent or deter another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil and more specifically, to defeat Al-Qaeda and its allies. The military is not the sole responsible party in the GWOT, but it is the responsible party for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which have produced desirable political outcomes despite high costs in treasure and lives. The military's sole purpose is to use violence to achieve national political objectives by producing victory (i.e. defeating the adversary). This has not been accomplished. In comparison, the intelligence community, and departments of Justice and Homeland Security are doing fairly well in their mandates.

Is counterinsurgency necessarily a pressing national security requirement? I see no reason why it must or should be.

It is when the military is/was actively engaged in two simultaneous "small" wars that have profound political, economic, and security consequences.