Quote Originally Posted by Compost View Post
It is depressing to read posts on this thread that seem resigned to the inevitability of more small wars destined to end in failure. Why not only small wars that can be structured and resourced to succeed ?
This thread may lead to that perception but the bulk of comment on this Board trends to suggesting we avoid those 'small wars' that entail large troop commitments and instead use better Intelligence, diplomacy and Special Forces in small numbers to intervene early. I think that may equate to your "small wars that can be structured and resourced to succeed."

The reason for avoiding the commitment of large forces is the historic probability of a lack of success due to flawed policy maker perceptions of the problem, US national traits of impatience and our electoral cycle which can -- and usually does -- undermine political will. Almost no one asserts "do not do this," rather most say avoid large commitments if at all possible.
So repeating the initial question: Why not only small wars that can be structured and resourced to succeed (with an all-volunteer force) ?
Makes sense to me -- the issue then becomes how to do that and how to avoid those that likely cannot be properly "structured" -- or adequately fought. The rub in that is such decisions will almost always be based on less than full information and for the US on domestic politics rather than the international situation or pure foreign policy concerns. That last item is quite important and often not understood by observers, domestic and foreign...
And secondly: At what level are US officers required to provide forthright confidential advice direct to the political administration?
Too much variance to answer succinctly but at the level you probably mean, by US law, only the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is at that level. Practically speaking, the service Chiefs are generally involved in providing such advice. On occasion, for specific issues, a four star Combatant or Geographic Commander may also weigh in. In the recent strategy sessions in Washington, all those were apparently involved.
And thirdly: What is the tipping point for resignation as opposed to acquiescence or possibly brown nosing ?
Such resignations are essentially a European construct, US tradition differs and here such resignations are extremely rare. The rationale is that if one resigns in protest, the Administration will simply keep asking people until it finds one who will do what is desired and thus, if one disagrees with a policy, it is better to stay and try to ameliorate the potential damage. There is also the factor that US tradition places strong emphasis on loyalty and adherence to the civil power, more so than is the norm in most nations.

It would be easy to say such an approach is self serving and less honorable than a resignation in protest, both arguably true. It is even more true that the rationale for not resigning is correct and the powers that be will simply keep going down the well until they find a turtle that will do what's wanted. IMO the American solution is more practical if less praiseworthy in the eyes of some.