| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| When We Fought Smart |
| 2008-10-27 |
| A must read-essay by Ron Pickrell I found over at Free Republic on the Grand Strategy of the War on Terror. The author began by discussing the various hypothetical responses a President Gore might have had to the 9/11 attacks. The key in warfare is not to find the path to victory. This is the view of the short-sighted, who never will understand that no battle plan or strategy ever survives first contact with the enemy. Contact exposes the current mindset of the enemy commander through his actions, the dedication of his troops, and the true constraints that he must operate under. They define what you face and must overcome, in order to force your will upon the enemy. Therefore the key to warfare is not to find the path to victory. It is instead, "...to arrange and prepare the starting point so that all paths lead to victory..." |
| Posted by:Thing From Snowy Mountain |
| #5 I agree with most Anonymoose's list of Bush's accomplishments. However I do believe that Bush's approach, a very limited "Long War" was a very risky and reckless decision that may yet have fatal consequences for the US and the west in general. The political environment in the United States should be a factor in planning, just as much as e.g. the topography of Afghanistan. A war plan in Afghanistan that does not have the support of the electorate will end in catastrophic failure, just as much as a plan that neglects logistics. The election of a new president in 2008 at the latest was a foreseeable contingency in 2001. One that any planning should have considered, and one that might have suggested that a war of 7+ years duration might not be sustainable. On a fundamental level, it is a trivial truth that the longer any time span, the higher the likelihood that unforeseeable contingencies come up. These contingencies might impede the prosecution of the war, or they might force the war to come to an end, even at the price of defeat. In this economic crisis McCain will have about a year to wrap up the war before the 2010 elections. To do that he will have to abandon the "smart" approach, and he will have to settle for a less than optimal but not a catastrophic outcome. That is, of course, in the unlikely event that McCain defeats B. Hussein Obama. If B. Hussein Obama wins, both theaters will swiftly collapse. It will be defeat that is very dangerous for the west, its consequences much worse than Vietnam. The world will know that a mass fatality attack on the continental US is a winning move. |
| Posted by: Ulerese McGurque1390 2008-10-27 22:46 |
| #4 But the generals never allocated resources to do that, and probably never will unless they're hammered to.They only want to fight the battle on the front lines and not fight the battle on the home front. Probably because there have always been restrictions, both legal and de facto. There have been repeated attempts; 3-4 years ago, there was such a proposal which got shouted/shot down. Perhaps there will eventually be a military PR equivalent of Petraeus, who can successfully flank Congress, the media and the various 'interest groups'. But I won't hold my breath. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-10-27 11:37 |
| #3 Carefull there ananomous, only 20% of the people agree with you and therefore you are subject to censorship. |
| Posted by: bman 2008-10-27 11:07 |
| #2 I utterly reject the axiom that W. Bush is or was stupid. In fact, his "strategery" is to strategy what chess is to checkers. Several times he has executed plans six months before his opponents had even begun planning. In his first election, he had locked up all the major Republican contributors before primary season had begun. By then, he had broken ground at the site of his Crawford, TX ranch. It was finished before Inauguration Day. He very pointedly did not interfere in military operations, objectively rewarding success and punishing failure. He decisively beat the Democrat congress more times than can be counted. He reordered the federal government, abolishing bureaucracies, consolidating agencies, and severely trouncing the federal employee union. He almost single-handedly "opened" India, which everyone in Washington had ignored for decades, as or more important than Nixon opening China. With Rumsfeld, forced force modernization on a hesitant Pentagon. And he ramrodded ballistic missile defenses through adamant opposition in congress. When they were built, he made sure our allies were defended as well as ringing Iran with anti-missiles. And in Alaska, against North Korean missiles. He defeated opposition to the US invasion of Iraq in the UNSC. He busted up the Khan proliferation network. The list goes on and on. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-10-27 10:27 |
| #1 I suspect there are possible "Third Ways" here. Specifically, if the military had war correspondents of their own putting together their own reports of what's happening using the military's own video sources,.. But the generals never allocated resources to do that, and probably never will unless they're hammered to. Too many are specialists by choice who can read the dictum that 'war is politics by other means' but can't grasp that they must in the end engage in politics. They only want to fight the battle on the front lines and not fight the battle on the home front. If you win every battle on the front lines but lose the battle on the home front, you lose the war just the same. No matter how effective and efficient the battle was, it was for naught if you don't win and it all becomes waste. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-10-27 08:08 |