War of Choice?

[Overland]

Zack,

This is going to sound quite flip, and I'm sure I stand the chance of being roundly criticized (and maybe justifiably so), but I am always wary of anyone who measures the cost of our involvement in "blood". Not that the sacrifice of every individual Soldier, Sailor, Marine and Airman isn't painful, but I'm always put off by an argument that rests its laurels on the morally superior position afforded by stating, "I don't want more of them to die." Welcome to the club. I can't think of a single rational, decent person who wants more servicemen and women to die.

However, the measure is at best naive and at worst intellectually arrogant. We currently field an all-volunteer force that is dedicated to performing the mission at hand. Individual servicemembers are willing to risk their lives for a variety of reasons (from the professional to the personal), but every single one of them made the choice to be where they are. Attempting to use their "blood" as a bargaining chip in any manner (pro- or anti-war) other than what they intend is unacceptable. So let's focus on the economic aspect of the debate on "cost" as we could not possibly provide the attention due to the individual sacrifices made and the motivations behind them.

As for the choice of the field of battle and weapons employed, I should have been more explicit. Let's use a quick example to highlight the point I'm attempting to make. Pre-9/11 most of our anti-terrorism/force protection efforts focused on the hardening of government and military installations, with little or inadequate attention being paid to our civilian infrastructure. The result? Our enemy found the gaps in our defenses and exploited them to attack us. It's a friction I'm sure everyone is familiar with-- you can try to defend everything all of the time, but eventually the enemy is going to find a way around your defenses and use a novel method to attack you.

Thus, we're basically allowing the enemy the room and time to decide when, where and how to attack the United States. Placing the US on the permanent defensive (or at least until our adversary decides it is done attacking us) should not sit well with anyone. In terms of cost, the constant revamping of our defenses and wasted money for unnecessary or ineffective measures (read that: TSA) could drain our treasury just as completely as fixing the problem at its source. Even further, such a defensive mindset opens possibilities for peer competitors, not just our enemies.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Overland

Zack,

This is going to sound quite flip, and I'm sure I stand the chance of being roundly criticized (and maybe justifiably so), but I am always wary of anyone who measures the cost of our involvement in "blood". Not that the sacrifice of every individual Soldier, Sailor, Marine and Airman isn't painful, but I'm always put off by an argument that rests its laurels on the morally superior position afforded by stating, "I don't want more of them to die." Welcome to the club. I can't think of a single rational, decent person who wants more servicemen and women to die.

However, the measure is at best naive and at worst intellectually arrogant. We currently field an all-volunteer force that is dedicated to performing the mission at hand. Individual servicemembers are willing to risk their lives for a variety of reasons (from the professional to the personal), but every single one of them made the choice to be where they are. Attempting to use their "blood" as a bargaining chip in any manner (pro- or anti-war) other than what they intend is unacceptable. So let's focus on the economic aspect of the debate on "cost" as we could not possibly provide the attention due to the individual sacrifices made and the motivations behind them.

As for the choice of the field of battle and weapons employed, I should have been more explicit. Let's use a quick example to highlight the point I'm attempting to make. Pre-9/11 most of our anti-terrorism/force protection efforts focused on the hardening of government and military installations, with little or inadequate attention being paid to our civilian infrastructure. The result? Our enemy found the gaps in our defenses and exploited them to attack us. It's a friction I'm sure everyone is familiar with-- you can try to defend everything all of the time, but eventually the enemy is going to find a way around your defenses and use a novel method to attack you.

Thus, we're basically allowing the enemy the room and time to decide when, where and how to attack the United States. Placing the US on the permanent defensive (or at least until our adversary decides it is done attacking us) should not sit well with anyone. In terms of cost, the constant revamping of our defenses and wasted money for unnecessary or ineffective measures (read that: TSA) could drain our treasury just as completely as fixing the problem at its source. Even further, such a defensive mindset opens possibilities for peer competitors, not just our enemies.

Blood is one of the currencies of warfare, and neither currency should be ignored if you gotta spend it to buy something.

The exploitation of a weak spot is not related to the concept of friction. The failure of a strong point due to bad luck would be friction.

A defensive posture on the strategic level does not necessitate a defensive posture on the tactical level, unlike you implied it.
It's always a bad idea to use a tunnel vision on a problem, and discussing OEF/ISAF as part of a CT strategy without taking into account civilian CT assets like the hugely effective* intelligence services and police.

My assertion:
Civilian CT assets have been 99% of our CT defence since 9/11. Meanwhile we're waging wars that are only supposed to be part of a CT strategy.


*: Once they pulled their act together.

[Ken White]

media and the chattering classes busy instead of allowing them to poke into other things. Occupy the Diplomatic types and allow them to "tut-tut." Puts people off balance, trying to figure out what the war maker is up to. Upsets the neighbors and causes rats to crawl out of their holes. Stirs up the world economy in unpredictable ways. Makes the ungodly focus on the wrong objectives. Stops Constitutions from being approved. Sews dissension among the onlookers. Forces people to choose side and tip hands. Modifies economic hegemony. Disrupts currency changes -- and more...

Sort of like a magician who palms something in one hand while keeping up a stream of patter and waving the other hand about airily...

One would think any strategist worth his pay would glom onto that. Not to mention that the many would realize there is almost never a single reason for any war but a multiplicity of things synergistically collide at a time and place. One would also think that any thinking person would realize that if he or she sees an inexplicable anomaly, many others also see it as that.

The easy solution is to elect a Hanlon's Razor explanation. That may or may not be correct.

[Overland]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Blood is one of the currencies of warfare, and neither currency should be ignored if you gotta spend it to buy something.

I just don't see the benefit of such hyperbole.

If you want to make an academic evaluation of the casualties associated with our current conflicts versus others then feel free. Referencing vague concepts such as, "blood is a currency," serves no purpose other than to accomplish what I noted above-- assumptive moral superiority.

Originally Posted by Fuchs

The exploitation of a weak spot is not related to the concept of friction. The failure of a strong point due to bad luck would be friction.

I think you're utilizing the term "friction" in a context other than what was intended. If there's a technical and exclusive use for the term I'm shamefully unaware of it. Rather, I was putting forward that there exists friction between efforts competing for limited resources. We cannot cover all of avenues of attack available to our enemy, and the enemy takes advantage of that situation. Thus, they choose the field of battle and the weapons employed.

Originally Posted by Fuchs

A defensive posture on the strategic level does not necessitate a defensive posture on the tactical level, unlike you implied it.

It's my impression that a withdrawal from Afghanistan and focus on homeland defense necessitates a change on more than the tactical level. You may disagree, although I do not see how.

Originally Posted by Fuchs

My assertion:
Civilian CT assets have been 99% of our CT defence since 9/11. Meanwhile we're waging wars that are only supposed to be part of a CT strategy.

99%? That's a fairly exact estimation. Could you expand?

[Rex Brynen]

Originally Posted by Overland

99%? That's a fairly exact estimation. Could you expand?

He's rounding up

[Surferbeetle]

Originally Posted by Ken White

media and the chattering classes busy instead of allowing them to poke into other things. Occupy the Diplomatic types and allow them to "tut-tut." Puts people off balance, trying to figure out what the war maker is up to. Upsets the neighbors and causes rats to crawl out of their holes. Stirs up the world economy in unpredictable ways. Makes the ungodly focus on the wrong objectives. Stops Constitutions from being approved. Sews dissension among the onlookers. Forces people to choose side and tip hands. Modifies economic hegemony. Disrupts currency changes -- and more...

Sort of like a magician who palms something in one hand while keeping up a stream of patter and waving the other hand about airily...

One would think any strategist worth his pay would glom onto that. Not to mention that the many would realize there is almost never a single reason for any war but a multiplicity of things synergistically collide at a time and place. One would also think that any thinking person would realize that if he or she sees an inexplicable anomaly, many others also see it as that.

The easy solution is to elect a Hanlon's Razor explanation. That may or may not be correct.

Wikipedia (the magic source of all knowledge )

The parable of the broken window was created by Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen) to illuminate the notion of hidden costs associated with destroying property of others.

[Ken White]

OTOH, there are a lot of parables about and one can pull one out to support about any proposition.

I'm familiar with the 'Broken Window' and Bastiat -- many of whose ideas I strongly support -- but have to point out that he, like all Economists, relies unduly on metrics, and that you can take any given economic theory or postulation from one or a group of them and find another equally well know individual or group who are diametrically opposed.

I'd also point out that the economic and other costs of war are only part of the equation. There are intangibles and no Economist or metrics can properly weigh them because they are in the minds of infinitely variable human brings.

Sometimes, you just have to make a subjective call...

If your allusion to Bastiat was to make the point that unintended consequences can outweigh seeming benefits, well yeah. They always do and most of us over 16 are aware of that. He also pointed out that war was almost always not a sound endeavor from an economic perspective. True, certainly -- but irrelevant. If it were relevant, there would be no war...

May I ask what is the precise point of your donated parable?

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Ken White

... that he, like all Economists, relies unduly on metrics, ...

I got a 1.3 grade (2nd best possible) for my diploma dissertation without a single equation in a hundred pages.
I know metrics and math-focused economist (I even endured lectures on the philosophy of public finance where the professor really described the whole philosophy in math!!!), yet "all" is entirely off.

@Overland:
I wrote 99% (and imo sufficiently marked it as a personal assertion) because I have yet to hear about a single plot foiled or Western sleeper cell eliminated by military action at the end of the world. There may be some contribution, but it's in the realm of other's assertion. The military contribution to CT (excluding military self-protection CT) was probably limited to grabbing prisoners for interrogation and neutralising some leaders who wouldn't have dared to set foot on Western soil ever again anyway.

[Surferbeetle]

...here...instead while listening and learning I noted that I had heard a description of war before that sounded similar to yours...my original route to Bastiat came from a quote from the character of Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg ("Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder, and chaos." ) which has been pinging around in my head for a while....

With respect to the opportunity costs of Afghanistan I suspect that particular analysis has been done and is updated regularly...and it's going to remain Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas until 50 years or so pass.

In short, more links in your discussions would be greatly appreciated Ken...you are a walking encyclopedia...and now back to regularly scheduled programming.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

yet "all" is entirely off.

True, hyperbole on my part. I should have said 99%.

Joking. Should really have said many or even some. So I do stand corrected on that...

Originally Posted by Surferbeetle

No sly subterfuge......here...

Didn't suspect it, just wasn't sure what the point was as my contention was apparently that those costs, unintended as well as foreseen were worth the possible results while Bastiat IIRC seemed to say they rarely were -- which is okay, Frédéric and I agree on much but do not have to agree on everything.

In short, more links in your discussions would be greatly appreciated Ken...

I was not channeling Bastiat, just stating my opinions based on open sources and common sense so I'm unsure what I could have linked in that post. Everything in the subject line and the first paragraph of that 1715Z post of mine has been said by others in many places.

Sorry, not a linker. I do link when I think it necessary but I do not believe that the number of links discloses the merit of a comment. I am in fact inclined to think the reverse is true. To me they are a distraction more often than not. Most of what I say here is fairly common knowledge (with the caveat that some of it is restricted to us Dinosaurs) and should be easily Googled (including the saurian recollections...). If someone wants me to 'prove' a certain statement (provided that said statement is not merely my opinion), I may or may not provide a link depending upon what kind of mood I'm in at the time.

So I stand chastised but uncorrectable or is that incorrigible? Unporridgeable? Unvinculumable...

[Surferbeetle]

Originally Posted by Ken White

So I stand chastised but uncorrectable or is that incorrigible? Unporridgeable? Unvinculumable...

And to think that I thought just the bourbon and the french were flowing....

There is a beer waiting in my fridge...gotta get there first though...laters

[omarali50]

I am surprised at the notion of "everything was going fine until we invaded" (OK, I am exaggerating, but there are a couple of posts saying something close to that). I am not saying the invasion was the best thing to do, but things didnt look that rosy to me back in August 2001. There IS such a thing as the serious jihadi project, which is not just "geopolitics by other means" (meaning its not just Pakistan, and certainly not just Afghanistan, playing at geostrategic thinking and using whatever means are at hand). Since the time of General Zia, there has been a determined core of jihadis who had/have a vision of avenging Palestinians, capturing Kashmir, humiliating India, liberating Central Asia, etc etc, all under the broader goal of Islamist revival. This project was going swimmingly until 2001, when someone overreached or whatever and things started going south. There are definitely Taliban who are only interested in ruling Afghanistan and there are many many Pakistanis who are only interested in improving Pakistan's position vis a vis India, but the idea that the Pakistani Taliban are completely different from the Afghan variety and AQ is completely detached from both is an exaggeration. All the jihads are interconnected and will stay interconnected. IF there is a non-jihadi Pakistani govt and a non-jihadi Afghan govt, then yes, its just a local insurgency with occasional terrorist acts far away. But the Pakistani govt of pre-2001 did not qualify in that category. Probably out of foolishness, the army high command (even the whisky drinkers like Musharraf) were all on board the jihadi project or willing to look the other way, which is much the same thing. The status quo ante was not as rosy as projected. Pakistan has indeed become destabilized after 2001, but a big part of that is precisely because the army has had to pull back from its jihadi partners and they are going berserk. Are you suggesting that it would be in US interest to have left that arrangement in place? (I am not saying this was the best way to achieve the change...this was probably a lousy way from the US perspective, costing too much and not achieving enough. It may have been better to use carrots and sticks more subtly and carefully). I should add that I am conflicted about this myself. I am generally left of center and close to being a pacifist (besides being a Pakistani and not really wanting to have the US "help" the country the way they helped Iraq), but still, unlike most American leftists I am aware that there are real people out in the world, with "agency" and sometimes with very violent and dangerous desires.In this case, the alternative to this war is also a war.

[Zack]

Originally Posted by Overland

It's my impression that a withdrawal from Afghanistan and focus on homeland defense necessitates a change on more than the tactical level. You may disagree, although I do not see how.

How does the occupation of Afghanistan make us offensive strategically? AQ may have been "headquartered" in Afghanistan in 2001 (though I think it is difficult to claim that something as decentralized as AQ has a head to cut off) but they certainly are not now. We are actively seeking out and destroying networks whenever we can, but that is completely independent of our occupation of Afghanistan. Securing our borders is, I agree, a basically impossible task, but continuing to occupy the former host country of AQ is not a solution to that problem.

@omarali50

I don't know if you were referring to me, but I in no way think the situation pre-2001 was "ok." There are plenty of anti-status quo, human rights abusing, regionally destabilizing groups out there, but we don't go around trying to destroy them all. We went after this one for reciprocity. The public demand for revenge is gone now. All we have left is an increasingly difficult nation building project with no end in sight, and with very little (at best) gains to be made (if we are successful at all).