Bulgaroctonus

By 'close out' I did mean unification of Vietnam under a non-communist government. Of course, the U.S. could still have won by just maintaining the independence of South Vietnam. However, it seems like without the Soviet giant peering over Vietnam, the U.S. could have decimated and occupied the North.

Thanks for the recommendations, I did copy down the list.

Shek

Depends. The average modern American isn't tolerant of death and violence, but when you look at pre-Vietnam history, it's tough to get much more violent. Fire bombing German and Japanese cities to the ground is quite violent. The American Civil War was very bloody. Also, I wouldn't put it beyond current generations to be capable of violence. The first time a nuclear device is detonated on US soil, just sit back and watch as the public calls for the overwhelming force in retaliation, and that doesn't mean the deployment of 500K soldiers.

While involvement in Somalia was a waste since it didn't serve our national interests at all, the reason for our pull out was because the commander in chief had zero backbone. While TF Ranger suffered casualties, the Somalias were killed by the bushel, and it was the decisions made earlier to prevent the deployment of armor that prevented TF Ranger from exfilling the crash sites for 18 hours.

This has nothing to do with what Americans think, and everything to do with the lengths that you'll go to for your fellow soldier. Also, "No Soldier Left Behind' is the wrong terminology. It's not some play on President Bush's "No Child Left Behind." The proper phrase is from the Ranger Creed - "Never shall I leave a fallen comrade behind."

No, Mr. Ishihara is an idiot. If he meant what you said, then he wouldn't have said that the Marines were competent. That clearly shows that he meant to convey that the US military was incompetent.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Bulgaroctonus

Yes, you make a very good point. In comparing the Americans to the Chinese and Romans, I am speaking of the current population of America. More specifically, I'm talking about my generation. Also remember that I live in the Northeast, and in a rich part of New Jersey. The people around here, right or wrong, are generally anti-Bush and anti-war. One could say that wealth has created a certain degree of pacifism and complacency. My location therefore creates a bias. When I look around me, I see people who are generally unwilling to sacrifice much in war, much less their own lives.

I am sure you are aware of the differences in attitude towards the war between my state and much of the other country.

As to your point, America has been very vicious and effective in the past. I hope those days can come again.

I have been considering the problem posed by the world press and the information age. Before America's actions were so closely scrutized and every minutiae watched, America was able to carry out its military actions with significantly less criticism. I am of the radical opinion that the situation in Iraq could be quickly solved with the proper application of ruthlessness. However, the world is so connected now that any American reprisal, for example destroying Falluja, would cause huge international repercussions. It seems to me that America is fighting its wars with its hands tied.

Yes, my point was not about Somalia's strategic importance, but about our facile withdraw.

Yes, I am aware that I did not use the correct terminology in reference to the Ranger Creed. The point I am trying to make is that American commanders often go to great lengths to secure the lives of individual soldiers, even when the lives of those soldiers are not important to the military's goals in the area. Since we are discussing the Mogadishu debacle in Somalia, I'll draw an example from that. When the black hawk helicopters went down, American commanders chose to invest significant forces and energy to secure the crash sites. My thanks to the courage of all soldiers involved, but the lives of those soldiers were not strategically important.

Of course, I know that such cold calculation about the lives of men is not well-received or popular. I am stating such things for the sake of argument.

I know you are in the military, so I am not demeaning the Ranger Creed. I am simply trying to understand how Ishihara's criticism might possibly make sense. I can think of advantages and drawbacks to the Ranger Creed.

What do you think Mr. Ishihara meant?

Shek

Like I said, wait until the day that a nuclear device is detonated in the US, and those that had moral inhibitions about the use of nukes will no longer have them.

More force wasn't/isn't necessary. Engaging the Sunni starting in April 2003, working on smaller infrastructure projects in the beginning, and training the ISF with the current intensity is what was necessary. We are fighting a counterinsurgency, and you must use counterinsurgency tactics. This is where we failed in Vietnam up through the Tet Offensive.

Recommended read: The Army and Vietnam, Krepinevich (I'm pretty sure that I already recommended this).

1. The pilots in the Blackhawk were absolutely strategically important. Images of Americans being dragged through the streets naked while being beat by Somalis was a strategic humiliation. The power of the modern press. As much as you may not want it to be around, you can't do anything about that and must factor that into your calculations.

2. Next, there is also a human dimension to war. If you were fighting, would you want your wife/kids/parents/relatives to have to live with the knowledge that you are MIA and never be able to have closure? If that were in the back of your mind, how hard would you fight or put your a$$ on the line? So, while the motivation is the respect that you have for your fellow warrior, there is an absolute practical reason that you don't let your dead or wounded fall into the hands of the enemy, especially given the fact that our current adversaries don't respect the laws of land warfare.

3. There wasn't really an increase in the number of soldiers dedicated to the crash site. Those that went in were already planned to go in (the platoon and operators that were inserted via fast rope and the ground convoy that was responsible for exfilling the detainees). The only additional assets that were put on the ground were Shughart and Gordon and then the relief column consisting of TF Mountain and some UN forces that had armored vehicles. If the ground convoy had the Jaws of Life on them and been able to reach the initial crash site, there never would have been a second bird shot down, which is wait created the need for a relief force to be sent.

I think he meant what he said. Now, you can ask yourself why he said it, and I can see two motivations, both of which are conjecture and not based on any specific knowledge of Japanese domestic politics.

1. He could be pandering to anti-American interests. I think that this is less likely given the fact that Japan has troops in Iraq and the negative press surrounding a family member who criticized the Japanese government over their reaction to an abduction of a Japanese citizen by terrorists in Iraq - the family member was skewered by the press.

2. He could have been trying to influence the Japanese dialog over changing the Constitution to increase the size of their military and change their role. With the appearance of Chinese subs off the coast of Japan, and the bitter exchange of words between Japan and North Korea in the past few years, I believe that there is a growing desire to change the constitutional limitations on the military. I hadn't thought of this before, in which case, he wouldn't be an idiot, but rather a shrewd politician, since criticizing US capabilities would influence domestic opinion.

Bulgaroctonus

Yes, our inhibitions will go away, but that will certainly be a dark day.



The question is not that more force isn't necessary. The fact is that world opinion would not allow the brutal exercise of force by the American military. As a result, we are stuck with an insurgency, and as such I do recognize the importance of counterinsurgency tactics. One thing I find very frustrating though is the limited success of many counterinsurgency methods. What is the best strategy? A skilled and determined insugency, especially the one in Iraq, seems to be the nightmare of any commander.

Yes, I wrote that one down. Thanks again.



Their strategic importance was contingent on the world press, and the extensive coverage provided by news agencies. In the battle, the Americans could have afforded to lose them, but they couldn't avoid the humiliation. I don't know about you, but those images of the American soldiers being dragged around Mogadishu infuriated me. If I was Commander in Chief (fortunately for everyone, I'm not!) I would have leveled that city.

Yes, this is one of the good things about the Ranger creed. It provides a certain motivation for soldiers. They know that they are cared for and valued within the army, and that they will not be abandoned. It would be interesting to see if the moral benefits of the Ranger creed outstrip any possible strategic disadvantages produced by it.


I've been reading some accounts of the Mogadishu incident recently, so I'll have to get back to you about that one when I have more information.

Yes, unlikely. Even more importantly, it is not in keeping with Japanese policy or interests to pander to anti-Americanism.

There has recently been a push to militarize Japan and amend the constitution. Ishihara could indeed be part of this movement.

Shek

By definition, an insurgency is a political movement that uses force to legitimize their power and discredit the current government. So, your solution needs to address the political problem, which is the root cause. If you kill all current insurgents and don't address the underlying political cause, then you'll have a new crop of insurgents grow. So, force is not the solution, but it does serve a purpose by trying to eliminate leadership that can organize the insurgents and by providing space for the legitimate government to grow its own forces in the interim.

As far as Iraq goes, the insurgency isn't really that skilled or have a successful strategy. Don't equate successful tactical engagements with strategic success, which is the impression that you can be left with from reading the paper. The Iraqis hate AQ, which is the only element that is extremely lethal.

Blademaster

I want to know one thing. Are we really in a war or it is just a counterinsurgency, thus COIN operations?

I am in an argument with a wife of a US soldier stationed in Iraq. I made some remarks that we are not in a war and she got very pissed off at me and said that I was trivalising her husband's efforts. I told her I didn't mean to but was saying that a war is vastly different from counterinsurgency and then she got on my ass and claimed that I was having it both ways. Here's an excerpt of her post:

This was in respond to my post:

How should I respond to her?

Praxus

The cause is not political but idealogical. They wish to fulfill the will of Allah and no political comprimise is going to solve the problem. The only option left to us is force.

Officer of Engineers

My advice - Don't. You're in a no-win situation. You're argueing from a technical standpoint. She from an emotional one. Even if you win on the technical merits, you will be viewed as beating up on a wife of a serving soldier.

__________________
Chimo

TopHatter

She's obviously quite sensitive about what is going on over there and rightly so.

However, I have to say - based on her rather snide and uninformed comment:
that being married to a soldier does not make HER an "expert" either.
I am going to assume that nowhere in your post did you claim to be an "expert" on military matters.

I'll definitely go with the Colonel on this one. It's a no-win scenario.

I'm going to put on my very seldom-used chauvinist hat and recall that just about every (but not all!) conversations I've ever had with [non-service]women about military matters has been mostly disasterous.
They care nothing at all about technical matters, historical causes, future consequences etc.
Their sole attitude can be summed as either

"Why don't we just kill/bomb/whatever them"

- or -

"We should leave immediately and let them figure it out by themselves."

Both attitudes set my teeth on edge....

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

Shek

Wrong. You don't have one insurgency in Iraq, but multiple insurgencies. You have only one insurgency, the Salafists, who are looking for the establishment of a caliphate. With them, only force will work. However, indiscriminate force will be counterproductive.

Shek

Bladmaster,

1. We are in a war in Iraq. What you described is regular war. Iraq is an irregular war, where we are fighting an insurgency, and with the broad strategy title being counterinsurgency (COIN).

2. Iraq is not peacekeeping. On its face, peacekeeping requires that there is a peace to keep. It is also not peace enforcement. That requries that there be a peace to enforce.

3. Iraq is no longer an occupation by legal definition. An occupation is when a foreign power holds sovereignty. With the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government, the legal thresholds for our presence to be an occupation no longer exist. This is a technical argument, and a dangerous one to buy hook, line, and sinker, since we are still perceived by many Iraqis to be an occupation. So, caveat emptor.

4. By your definition, it is a war. We are conducting military operations, both offensive (Fallujah, Tal Afar, Samarra, An Najaf, etc. etc.) and defensive (Syrian border ops) for a stated strategic goal (a free and democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors). However, It's certainly not as nice or simple to define as WWII (kill Germans and Japanese until they scream 'uncle'). Another way at looking at it is through a Clausewitzian lens, where war is politics through other means.

As far as how to handle the situation, I think that OoE is on target.

I hope that this helps.

Ray

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Shek

Sir,
Are you referring to COL(R) Andrew Krepinevich's "oil spot" piece in Foreign Affairs?

Ray