SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Small Wars Participants & Stakeholders > Trigger Puller

Trigger Puller Boots on the ground, steel on target -- the pointy end of the spear.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-07-2012   #181
SWJ Blog
Council Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,505
Default Listen, learn, lead: Gen. Stanley McChrystal on TED

Listen, learn, lead: Gen. Stanley McChrystal on TED

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
SWJ Blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012   #182
SWJ Blog
Council Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,505
Default Gen McChrystal Shares Insights about Campaigns

Gen McChrystal Shares Insights about Campaigns

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
SWJ Blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013   #183
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8,372
Default What is Stanley McChrystal sharing?

The thread's title is a slight variation on General McChrystal's book title 'My Share of the Task: A Memoir'.

Earlier this week Dave D. added a post on SWJ Blog, referring to a book review by Gary Hart, a former US Senator, which had appeared in The National Interest:http://nationalinterest.org/bookrevi...l-way-war-8149

Dave cited the review in part:
Quote:
Unlike Tolstoy's families, uninteresting books are uninteresting in their own way; interesting books all operate on several levels. Retired U.S. Army general Stanley McChrystal’s My Share of the Task operates on three levels: first, the level of military memoir; second, as a detailed, even intimate, inside perspective on the concurrent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and third, and perhaps most important historically, as an account of the U.S. military’s transition from traditional wars between nation-states to the unconventional and irregular insurgency warfare of the early twenty-first century...

It would be a great surprise if this book does not become required reading at U.S. (and perhaps other) military academies and even more so in the network of command and staff colleges for rising officers. There is much to be learned here about strategy, tactics and doctrine, as well as the necessity for their adaptability in often rapidly changing circumstances. This is especially true as our military has been transitioning into an era marked by increased integration of services and commands and the rise of special operations...
I enjoyed Gary Hart's review and now cite McChrystal's own words on Afghanistan:
Quote:
I had a nagging feeling that a whole world of Afghan power politics . . . was churning outside our view. I felt like we were high-school students who had wandered into a mafia-owned bar, dangerously unaware of the tensions that filled the room and the authorities who controlled it.

(Later). I’d watched as a focus on the enemy in Afghanistan had made little dent in the insurgency’s strength over the past eight years and, conversely, had served to antagonize Afghans. Not only was Afghans’ allegiance critical, but I did not think we would defeat the Taliban solely by depleting their ranks. We would win by making them irrelevant by limiting their ability to influence the lives of Afghans, positively or negatively. We needed to choke off their access . . . to the population.
IIRC SWC has been rather critical of him in the past, judging from the title of the threads: An Open Letter to McChrystal (started July 2010), McChrystal did it on purpose (started July 2010), vietnam mccrystal (RFI for his 1987 thesis), Obama Angry at McCrystal Speech (July 2009) and McKiernan replaced (by McChrystal in May 2009)

I have not read his book, although one Amazon reviewer compared it to the memoirs of Grant and Slim. Link:http://www.amazon.com/Share-Task-Gen...ley+McChrystal
__________________
davidbfpo

Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-04-2013 at 12:55 PM. Reason: Copied here as fits merged thread.
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013   #184
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8,372
Default A Conversation With Stanley McChrystal

A lengthy interview in FP and has some interesting passages, notably on the development of SOF in Iraq:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discus...kill?page=show
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #185
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8,372
Default McChrystal on ISIS: his tips

Following on a CNN interview a previously unheard blogsite provides four tips to defeat ISIS, using excerpts, to read more follow link:http://www.havokjournal.com/national...ht-terrorists/

The CNN interview cannot be readily id'd.

The four tips are:
Quote:
1.The effectiveness of a group is not its numbers, it’s how effectively it’s connected.
2. Killing the individual (leader) almost never solves the problem.
3. You have to get after the people who get things done.
4. You go after the idea that makes people want to be a part of it.
The last tip is the most important - from my armchair - so I cite a liitle more:
Quote:
Only by giving them an idea they care more about, whether that is an idea that gives them a better vision for the future, or one that gives them a bleak outlook if they hold on to one they currently have, we’re not going to make positive permanent change if we neglect the ideological battle.
There is a thread 'The McChrystal Collection' where this end up one day:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=8587
__________________
davidbfpo

Last edited by davidbfpo; 3 Weeks Ago at 10:55 PM.
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #186
Bob's World
Council Member
 
Bob's World's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,594
Default

I respect Gen McCrystal immensely - but he still sees these problems through the lens of his nation, his duty and his experience. Until he can step back from those things he can only offer tactical advice designed to suppress the symptoms of the problem.

At some point we must move beyond the fears of our bias and simplistic targeting of the higher order effects that scare us so...
__________________
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Bob's World is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #187
OUTLAW 09
Council Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 3,336
Default

Bob is correct as always---he is basically still locked into his JSOC days---and they have also not worked at all in AFG---killing does not solve the mid and long term issues and as one recently pointed out from Israel to a US commenter---IS is here to stay and only the Sunni's can address the issue. To think anything else is a waste of thought power.

Besides just look at the current map of Syria and just how much Assad really controls vs the islamists (all groups) that David posted yesterday on the Syrian thread.


AND again even Mac does not --and notice it does not speak of a strategy--he has never left the tactical and operational tactical level of their targeting cycle.
OUTLAW 09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #188
Bill Moore
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,489
Default

I respect GEN McCrystal, he was one of our greatest leaders during the past decade of war by a wide margin, but the following comment does give me pause.

Quote:
Only by giving them an idea they care more about, whether that is an idea that gives them a better vision for the future, or one that gives them a bleak outlook if they hold on to one they currently have, we’re not going to make positive permanent change if we neglect the ideological battle.
The parallel view from our opposition would be, if Americans would just give up their culture and legal system based principally on Judeo-Christian values and believe in Islam and submit to Sharia law we could end the war. The point being that of course it would be nice if so-called extremists rejected what we label as extremist views, but figure the odds. Strategy can be based on grand views, but the grander it is the more unlikely it will be achieved. We in the West like to over simplify problems (the center of gravity disease) and think if we just focus on one area such as ideology, political systems, economics, or killing their fielded forces we can win.

Clausewitz got quite a few things right that continue to endure, such as war is an attempt by one or more opponent's to impose their will on another by force. That implies that the opposing wills are not amiable to a peaceful solution, they're irreconcilable wills, which is why the fighting began in the first place. This is not something short of war, it is a war where forces is being used between multiple opponents with irreconcilable wills to impose their will on another. In addition to violence, other types of forces are also being employed, but violence is essential (to varying degrees) if the state is going to remain viable as a state and protect its citizens and interests from those who are attacking it. Even if you believe the state is at fault, who is at fault really doesn't matter.

There is no political solution if all those groups fighting to impose their will don't accept it, and when there are multiple opponents reaching consensus is increasingly unlikely. The paradox is a political solution is the only viable means to reduce the violence, but neither side (the West being one side, although like its opponents it is a loose coalition with various views) at this point is willing reduce what they're asking for. One side wants to impose democracy, free markets, women's rights, etc., while another wants to impose Sharia law and all that goes with it.

As CvC noted, the more you seek from your opponent the more effort you'll have to apply to achieve it. Ask little, and the effort required to achieve it will be less (and more feasible). This should prompt to consider backing off our armed evangelism where we are trying to push Western values down everyone's throats, and instead pursue more realistic objectives via force. That doesn't mean we have to forfeit our ideas and values, we just pursue them by other means over time.

This gets us back to GEN McCrystal, he recognized at least part of this fight is based on two competing ideologies that are irreconcilable (by choice). Until we adjust our ends, or apply more force to achieve them (and we won't, because the level of force needed is illegal), the fighting will continue. Philosophy aside, if we're engaged in war, and we are, violence is a necessity to achieve one's ends.

CvC

Quote:
Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. The maximum use of force is in no way incompatible with the simultaneous use of the intellect. If one side use force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. That side will force the other to follow suit; each will drive its opponent toward extremes, and the only limiting factors are the counterpoises inherent in war.

This is how the matter must be seen. It would be futile - even wrong - to try and shut one's eyes to what war really is from sheer distress at its brutality.
This supports my criticism of focusing on economic development over fighting. It is a cruel ruse that only drags the violence out longer than it needs it to be. Assuming that a cause is worth going to war over, then we need to go to war and wage it at the level necessary to reach a decision. We have failed to do that since WWII. Clearly there were time we didn't need to go to war, but we did anyway. I'm not debating that issue, I'm just pointing out the obvious which war has a nature that seems to be enduring, a nature that the West has increasingly rejected, and in so doing has become less effective militarily.
Bill Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
bin laden, iraq, isis, leadership, mcchrystal, special forces, special opererations, syria

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Processing Intelligence Collection: Learning or Not?" Tracker275 Intelligence 2 02-21-2011 12:46 AM
New to S2, need FM 34-20 and collection management info schmoe RFIs & Members' Projects 19 02-07-2009 11:03 PM
Relationship between the political system and causes of war (questions) AmericanPride RFIs & Members' Projects 56 03-30-2008 10:16 PM
Intelligence Collection and Sharing SWJED Intelligence 30 12-03-2007 03:22 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8. ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation