Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: OEF has it been worth the human cost?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default OEF has it been worth the human cost?

    I think this question has been asked before within a variety of threads, but the Lowy Institute have raised the issue - under a different headline. Questions that all of those nations involved need to ask, not just Australians.

    Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...n-failure.aspx

    The author starts with:
    Some good things have been achieved in Afghanistan, and some of them may even last once ISAF has gone. But for those of us interested in the decisions that governments make about the use of armed force, the fact that something has been achieved is not enough. The question that must be asked is whether the achievements have been worth the cost..(sentence removed)....But it is a question that we Australians cannot afford to duck.
    Citing an Australian TV documentary, which cites retired Major General John Cantwell:
    : At its heart it's about supporting an alliance with the United States. That's what got us into this when the ANZUS Treaty was invoked. Is it worth it? I as a Commander asked myself that question many times. And I really really struggle with it. The only way I can see through this, so that I can sleep at night, is to differentiate - to say it's not worth it for the lives that you lose. You could never look at any soldier, sailor or airman and say, your life's forfeit for some political purpose. That's just unacceptable. But at the highest level of strategy, and in the dirty ugly world of international relationships, where it's you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, that those lives become less important. And taking that longer term view, that hardnosed, realpolitik view, that politicians do, and must, it's worth it. But not at the human level.
    Link:http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stori...12/3476114.htm

    He writes:
    ...the decisions – including the moral decisions — to commit soldiers to combat are made at two different levels. There is the operational level, where the decisions are military, and the strategic level, where they are, to use his word, 'political'...He seems to argue the standards of morality at the two levels are different. At the strategic level the standards are lower, and 'lives are less important'.....

    Everyone involved in such a decision has a responsibility to exercise exceptional diligence in contributing to it. All of them must meet the same moral standard: have they been sufficiently careful in ensuring that the potential cost in lives is justified by the potential policy benefits?

    I believe Australian strategic decisions about Afghanistan failed to meet this standard. Soldiers were committed to dangerous operations when there was little prospect that those operations would achieve their policy objectives
    He ends with an even more difficult passage:
    Military service in a society like ours is based on an implicit agreement. Soldiers agree to follow orders; to go where they're sent and fight who they're told, even at risk to their lives. In return, we – their senior officers, their ministers and ultimately the public – promise that we will not order them into danger unless really critical national interests are at stake, and the operations they are committed to have a reasonable chance of success. In Afghanistan I'm not sure we have lived up to our side of that deal.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 04-26-2012 at 01:41 PM. Reason: Add Cantwell quote
    davidbfpo

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    In my opinion, no, it's hasn't been worth the cost.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  3. #3
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    One problem is how to measure the human cost. Sure, you can do so by lost lives (and standard of living for the wounded), but at what point does one more loss of life make it not worth it? If there had been only one KIA with the same outcome against the Taliban and AQ today, how is that one life worth less than the other 2,000+ that have also been lost?

    The other problem is hindsight. The aim of war is to compel the enemy to accept our conditions by destroying his will or capabilities. This hasn't been accomplished, so the political outcome is uncertain. Naturally, this raises questions about why lives (and treasure) were expended in the first place. If we had achieved a more definitively favorable outcome, would this have altered perceptions about the lives lost?

    I personally think war, while sometimes necessary, is a terrible waste of human potential. The original goal (destroying al-Qaeda) is laudable, but the rest is a mix of tragedy and farce.
    Last edited by AmericanPride; 04-26-2012 at 02:41 PM.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    AmericanPride,

    Such judgements are inherently subjective and therefore impossible to quantify. IMO, it is both foolish and distasteful (to use a polite word) to use accounting methods to add up KIA in order to determine if it was worth it or not. That's just my opinion - this is a difficult and sensitive subject and everyone has the right to deal with it on their own terms.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  5. #5
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    Such judgements are inherently subjective and therefore impossible to quantify.
    I agree, which is why I raised those questions. It doesn't make a difference if one life was lost or 10,000 lives since we cannot say that one life is worth any more (or less) than another; so there is no objective way to compare the lives lost with the outcome of the conflict. Even using the most basic rubric of war (did we win or not?) is problematic. I am only pointing out that unless we forgo our humanity, there is no objective method available to justify the loss of human life in wartime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    this is a difficult and sensitive subject and everyone has the right to deal with it on their own terms.
    I agree. It saddens me to think of the ones I did know, some closer than others, who were either killed or experienced the loss of a friend or soldier, as well as those who's standard of living was destroyed by the physical and mental toll of conflict. I think about it everyday. How can I, as an American and former Army officer, not think of this human cost and find some way to justify it? This is an answer, I think, that everyone must personally answer.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  6. #6
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Ken,

    I think you covered it as succinctly and effectively as possible.

    What deeply concerns me today is this "Atrocities Prevention Board" and all the talk of "Responsibility To Protect." I have a fear, that seems very reasonable, that this will transform into an open ended justification to go "... in somewhere we are not wanted (or, often, needed...) and setting up fire bases or FOBs with large sandbag or Hesco RPG magnets from which we foray briefly (and ineptly, more often than not...) and throw money about with little focused thought ..." And do so anytime the international community decides to isolate a particular bad guy for some random reason.

    I'd love to hear someone explain why kicking out Saddam was the height of evil and folly, but not kicking out Assad or Qaddafi is/would have been the height of evil and folly. The only apparent criteria seems to have been the party controlling the Whitehouse, which is politically stupid and morally bankrupt. Until there's a satisfactory explanation of that distinction, then I'll stay opposed to any future intervention. The lives of US and allied troops are worth more than that.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  7. #7
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Atrocities plus: separate thread

    John,

    I have just updated the thread of atrocities, genocide and maybe R2P:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...?t=5598&page=2

    If others want to purse those themes please post on that thread.
    davidbfpo

  8. #8
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yes...

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    I'd love to hear someone explain why kicking out Saddam was the height of evil and folly, but not kicking out Assad or Qaddafi is/would have been the height of evil and folly. The only apparent criteria seems to have been the party controlling the Whitehouse, which is politically stupid and morally bankrupt. Until there's a satisfactory explanation of that distinction, then I'll stay opposed to any future intervention. The lives of US and allied troops are worth more than that.
    Sadly correct...

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    I'd love to hear someone explain why kicking out Saddam was the height of evil and folly, but not kicking out Assad or Qaddafi is/would have been the height of evil and folly. The only apparent criteria seems to have been the party controlling the Whitehouse, which is politically stupid and morally bankrupt. Until there's a satisfactory explanation of that distinction, then I'll stay opposed to any future intervention. The lives of US and allied troops are worth more than that.
    Maybe the penny is finally dropping?

    Is there anyone other than USians who think the US political system of any value?

  10. #10
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Mixed bag...

    I believe the original decision to commit was correct. The performance of the CIA and SF was more than satisfactory. However, the decision to commit the GPF was ill advised and the later decisions to stay and to attempt to rebuild Afghanistan were very bad errors with entirely predictable consequences.

    We do not do these things well and have not since World War II -- the world changed and we did not; our Euro-centric focus has not served us at all well. Nor are we now capable of being mean enough; neither can we maintain focus due to our governmental processes. We should avoid such efforts in the future. Just go in, break things, leave quickly and let the locals and the UN fix it with our support -- from a distance...

    We do short, sharp and anywhere, anytime pretty well -- we do not have the patience for long hauls. Not to mention that going in somewhere we are not wanted (or, often, needed...) and setting up fire bases or FOBs with large sandbag or Hesco RPG magnets from which we foray briefly (and ineptly, more often than not...) and throw money about with little focused thought is just dumb -- and wasteful. Going is often necessary , staying -- or, more correctly, overstaying -- is almost never even desirable, much less necessary. It was not in Viet Nam, it was not in Iraq and it is not in Afghanistan. As my son said on his fourth or fifth trip to the 'Stan -- I lost count -- "I don't know what this is but it isn't war..."

    American Pride is correct, there are few things humans do that are more stupid than war but they are sometimes necessary and are certainly going to occur. As the Marines used to say "Nobody wants a war -- but somebody better know how to fight one." We seem to have forgotten both to 'not want one' and then when we blunder into one, the 'how.'

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    As the Marines used to say "Nobody wants a war -- but somebody better know how to fight one." We seem to have forgotten both to 'not want one' and then when we blunder into one, the 'how.'
    This is the crux of the matter... or as George Orwell said:

    "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

    Now if the politicians want to misuse the military and the generals don't have the balls to stand up to them when we get Vietnams and Afghanistans... and not the human cost is not justified.

    The thing about Stalin was that he knew how to deal with incompetent generals.

  12. #12
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    The thing about Stalin was that he knew how to deal with incompetent generals.
    No, if he fired an incompetent general, then because he fired (killed, jailed) so many that some incompetents had to be among them.
    Plus: The incompetents rose in the ranks under Stalin's regime, often because of Stalin's regime.

    IIRC Marshall was a much better example for how to get rid of incompetents (Colonel and above).

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    No, if he fired an incompetent general, then because he fired (killed, jailed) so many that some incompetents had to be among them.
    Plus: The incompetents rose in the ranks under Stalin's regime, often because of Stalin's regime.

    IIRC Marshall was a much better example for how to get rid of incompetents (Colonel and above).
    Good for Marshall then (assumming you are talking of George Marshall)

    Anyway it is not only colonels and above who need to be fired. The requirement goes right down the rank structure to include NCOs. The problem seems to be that the policy to reassign non-performers results in the problems being passed around the military rather than out the back door. Not a smart policy.

Similar Threads

  1. Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 944
    Last Post: 02-06-2016, 06:55 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-25-2008, 10:28 PM
  3. The Human Cost
    By Jedburgh in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2007, 07:35 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •