Article

2007-10-28 Great White North

(A few foolish) Canadians protest war in Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 2007-10-28 03:52|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 I wonder if one of the unspoken motivations for establishing the Iraq front in the WoT was because it had higher potential for a true victory - defining victory as a functioning, civilized non-Islamist state. That would have been realistically thought possible for Iraq in 2002/03, though recognized as a serious challenge (might still be possible, though now recognized as a severe challenge.) Given its history, resources, and location I doubt anyone was ever very optimistic about the long-term potential for Afghanistan. Furthermore, while victory in Afghanistan would be nice to have, victory in Iraq would be devastating to Islamism.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-10-28 09:51|| 2007-10-28 09:51|| Front Page Top

#2 The great commanders of history showed an ability to pick terrain and force the enemy to fight his [the commander's] battle, to bring to bear the best of his assets against the center of gravity of his opponents, to get into the mind of his opponent to understand his limitations and weaknesses, and in the long run make fewer critical errors than his opponent because the friction of war always dictates mistakes. That's how Iraq is going to be adjudged in fifty years.

While the US could collapse the Taliban in Afghanistan, it could not critically cripple AQ because it was so nebulous that it could fade and reassemble [as it has done]. The military, as a whole, could refight WWII or Saddam, but while parts were there, the establishment as a whole was not prepared for a long haul against AQ. The American political system is no longer capable of supporting a forty year war against the Apache. All these limitations indicate your point Glenmore. Knowing the mind of Ben Laden how could he not refuse to engage us in Iraq? Iraq has been our generation's North Africa and Sicily to get our military, designed and cultured to fight the 'big one' with the Soviets in central Europe, reorganized and realigned to take on threats like AQ. It is also a direct political thrust into the core problem of the ME, no stable democracy other than Israel, to destroy the intentional misdirection of dictators, tyrants, and their religious hand puppets for all the woes of the people. Iraq has been a means, not an end.

There was a program on the Animal Channel that showed the interaction of a pack of hyenas and a pride of lions. A female lion would drop prey. The hyenas would as a pack harass the lioness, distracting her, allowing others of the pack to take the fallen prey. The lioness alone was not strong enough to take on the pack. Then Mr. Lion returned after being out marking his territory and picking up a bit to eat. He sniffed out the matriarch of the pack immediately, chased her down, and in a quick snap of the neck, killed her. That sent the pack into anarchy seeking new hierarchical leadership. Meanwhile, the lionesses were able to get along to find food for the cubs again without interference. We're snapping the neck [center of gravity] of the trouble maker. We just need to add a few, figurative, clueless ~~bambi~~ nature lovers who interfere with nature selection.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-10-28 11:26|| 2007-10-28 11:26|| Front Page Top

#3 The American political system is no longer capable of supporting a forty year war against the Apache.

Nor was it ever. Read the history carefully, and it sounds an awfully lot like today, except that the military was even more poorly equipped and supplied than today. Much, much, more poorly.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-28 11:42|| 2007-10-28 11:42|| Front Page Top

#4 The best read on the entire experience from way back then is Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian, 1866-1891 by Robert M. Utley.

These excerpt should sound familiar -
Chapter 3: The Problem of Doctrine. Three special conditions set this mission apart from more orthodox military assignments. First, it pitted the army against an enemy who usually could not be clearly identified and differentiated from kinsmen not disposed at the moment to be enemies. Indians could change with bewildering rapidity from friend to foe to neutral, and rarely could one be confidently distinguished from another...Second, Indian service placed the army in opposition to a people that aroused conflicting emotions... And third, the Indians mission gave the army a foe unconventional both in the techniques and aims of warfare... He fought on his own terms and, except when cornered or when his family was endangered, declined to fight at all unless he enjoyed overwhelming odds...These special conditions of the Indian mission made the U.S. Army not so much a little army as a big police force...for a century the army tried to perform its unconventional mission with conventional organization and methods. The result was an Indian record that contained more failures than successes and a lack of preparedness for conventional war that became painfully evident in 1812, 1846, 1861, and 1898.

Chapter 4. The Army, Congress, and the People. Shermans frontier regulars endured not only the physical isolation of service at remote border posts; increasingly in the postwar years they found themselves isolated in attitudes, interests, and spirit from other institutions of government and society and, indeed from the American people themselves...Reconstruction plunged the army into tempestuous partisan politics. The frontier service removed it largely from physical proximity to population and, except for an occasional Indian conflict, from public awareness and interest. Besides public and congressional indifference and even hostility, the army found its Indian attitudes and policies condemned and opposed by the civilian officials concerned with Indian affairs and by the nations humanitarian community.

The dealings on the Mexican border echo to our experience along the Pak border in Afghanistan. The sad note is how much the contemporary Army has chosen to ignore its first hundred years of experience in nation building, insurgent fighting, and civil military government and concentrate on its legacy of WWII. It's relearning lessons lost.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-10-28 11:59|| 2007-10-28 11:59|| Front Page Top

#5 Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-10-28 11:59
The sad note is how much the contemporary Army has chosen to ignore its first hundred years of experience in nation building

Firstly, the job of "nation building" is not the responsibility or the mission of the United States military (or did not used to be). As most here are well aware, the armed forces of the United States are subordinate to the civilian leadership, ie, the secretary of the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Commander in Chief. While it has it's downside, we all hope and pray that subordiation to the civilian authority continues. Complicating matters further in undeclared "war(s)" are interferences from the US State Department diplomatic community, and donks in congress who oftentimes buggered things up in the first place and ill-defined, pollyannaisms like "nation building." Believe me when I tell you if the US Army, Air Force and Marine Corps had a free hand to operate OIF/OEF this bullshit would have been over long, long ago. If one goes deer hunting with an accordian, the results are generally quite predictable. In my view and others, recent successes in Iraq have come about as a result of administration frustration, Rumsfeld's departure, and General David Petraeus' bold initiatives to take the fight to the enemy. The career diplomat will seldom worship Athena. He does not seek victory, but rather political compromise. They generally view military successes and the resulting peace as eruptive contradictions, and generally bad for the business. Keeping the honey pot carelessly stirred and slopping is the manna of the diplomat, politician and moneyed bottom feeders of the military industrial complex. The common officer and ranker only want to achieve decisive victory and survive go home to his family to quietly await the next failed diplomtic effort and overseas deployment. His motives are honest, and maybe he's not so common after all.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-10-28 14:03|| 2007-10-28 14:03|| Front Page Top

#6 I'd agree tat nation-building is not the responsibility of our military. Making the conditions taht will allow others to do so is their responsibility, and they've done an excellent job at that. I also wouldn't like for a "renegade" military to decide that if nation-building is their job, perhaps they should start at home....

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-10-28 14:24|| 2007-10-28 14:24|| Front Page Top

#7 Firstly, the job of "nation building" is not the responsibility or the mission of the United States military (or did not used to be).

I respectfully disagree. Why do you think West Point was founded - just to make officers? It was also to literally provide engineers to build America. Who do you think conducted the survey and exploration of the new territories - wonder why Pike was out looking at that peak? Lewis and Clark were officers. Who do you think surveyed most of the west in the areas people gravitated to? Who provided the structure of government and enforcement in those new territories till the settlers and the like got their act together? Get beyond the rhetoric and look at the record, that's exactly what the Army was doing whether we like it or not. It didn't end on our borders. Who do you think ran Japan after the war, the State Department? I'd say by the judgment of history, someone did a damn decent job.

The problem today with coulda, woulda, shoulda has been apply demonstrated that no other Department in the government has the means or will to do it. Although they'll be more than happy to take the funding. It all looks nice on paper, but the real world has shown clearly, it don't work. Yeah, I know it's messy. That's why the knee jerk reaction to 'define' one's job as narrowly as possible to avoid doing messy jobs. The problem is - guess 'who' gets stuck with the clean anyway.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-10-28 15:15|| 2007-10-28 15:15|| Front Page Top

#8 Mission:

Posture Statement:

The Continental Congress created the United States Army on June 14, 1775 The United States Army is primarily responsible for land combat. The US Department of the Army includes the active-duty Army, the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, and civilian employees. The Army maintains combat-ready troops for deployment anywhere in the world as well as providing forces stationed at permanent bases around the world.

"Nation building" not found.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-10-28 15:25|| 2007-10-28 15:25|| Front Page Top

#9 A mission statement; that seals it for me. /sarc

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States

Art 2, Sec 2, Constitution for the United States of America

The Army's mission is to do whatever the President tells it to do.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-28 15:33|| 2007-10-28 15:33|| Front Page Top

#10 The common soldier and ranker are not in the least bit common. No more than common sense is, or I'd have at least a touch of that.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2007-10-28 20:23|| 2007-10-28 20:23|| Front Page Top

#11 Fantastic thread. Exactly why I like Rantburg so much. I agree with Glenmore and especially like P2k's lion & hyena analogy. Regardless of our military's charter, does anyone really think that we should bother with nation-building after dismantling Iran?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-10-28 22:52|| 2007-10-28 22:52|| Front Page Top

23:42 Alaska Paul
23:34 g(r)omgoru
23:24 Abdominal Snowman
23:16 Abdominal Snowman
23:15 Abdominal Snowman
23:14 ryuge
23:10 ryuge
23:08 Rich W
22:52 Zenster
22:35 Jan
22:31 Red Dawg
22:24 Anonymoose
22:21 trailing wife
22:20 trailing wife
22:13 trailing wife
22:12 Kim Jong-il
22:03 gromky
21:48 Crazyhorse
21:42 Frank G
21:39 JosephMendiola
21:32 JosephMendiola
21:29 OldSpook
21:19 Zenster
21:19 Duh!