Tuesday, March 25, 2003

Who's War is it anyway? More material on the policy split at the Penatgon Josh Marshall has two important posts this morning. First, on contemporary Pentagon culture and second-guessing generals: Was Rumsfeld and Co. right to tell the Joint Chiefs how to do their business? Were the staff officers on the Joint Staff just too unimaginative or maybe just too afraid of taking casualties? Did the uniforms really grasp the impact of new technology on the conduct of war? Or did the folks in uniform maybe know something that Rumsfeld and Co. didn't? Also, a brief recap of a presentation at the American Enterprise Institute by Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen and James Woolsey. The trio are part of a so-called neoconservative cabal that has "led" us into this war and is driving all American foreign policy in the Bush Administration. Marshall promises a more detailed report later. [InsideVC's War Blog] 2:15:20 PM    comment []

War is hell! - The Lessons of History and Empire Here is my analysis.   We are going to fight a urban house to house battle in Baghdad.  We don't have a sufficient number of troops in theater to do a good job of it.  The 3rd Mech and the 82 Airborne will likely be the main assault force.  Ultimately, the US needs to win this war militarily.  This will require that we put away fears of civilian casualties and focus on military victory.   We will need to destroy Baghdad in order to win this war.  Either way, we lose the political war.  In fact, we have probably already lost it.  The most important political consequence of this war will need to be that the US can and will take all measures to eliminate threats to global peace -- irrespective of the consequences to civilians.  This is draconian, I know (and I hate that it has blundered into this dark place), but it is the only good thing that will come from this.  It will be an object lesson for N. Korea. [John Robb's Radio Weblog] John - I think that you are right on here. Was not a key lesson of the Civil War that you had to prosecute the war! Until Grant, the Union, "fooled around" in manoeuvre warfare. Grant realized that war is brutal and that it is better to get it over by being brutal. 1939-40 - the British and the French bombed Berlin with leaflets - after all they did not want to provoke the Germans and hoped that they could change their minds about Hitler (Sound familiar?) By 1944 the allies knew that war was war. Only a complete defeat of Germany would end a European civil war. Now that we are in this - the gloves have to come off. The Arab world is accusing the Coalition of brutality. We will lose more lives by holding back we have lost the propaganda war already. The lesson of history is that the only way you defeat someone is if you really defeat him. Hence the unconditional surrender policy of the allies in WWII. A negotiated peace would have not ended the energy of the German people to assert themselves. It didn't in 1918. It has not in 1991 and a faux end to the war in Iraq risks yet more conflict. Rome knew how to have a cheap Imperial defense. They made it clear, Carthage and Jerusalem, that if you crossed the line that obliteration was inevitable. No matter how long it would take, an enemy of Rome knew that Rome would go the full measure. Such a policy worked for 400 years. My point is that underneath all the rhetoric, the Empire is here now. Empires do not win popularity contests - remember the great scene in Monty Python 's life Of Brian when the rebels say 'So what has Rome ever brought us? Another answers "Peace, Trade Roads and Justice" and is in turn answered "Yea but what have they ever given us really? A paraphrase but you get my meaning. Are we not just beyond the tipping point? The Empire is here. There is no going back to the last stage of the Republic of Clinton. The Arab world will not be appeased - they do understand violence and might.  North Korea is looking for the lesson too. They cannot be appeased but they can fear - they know fear well. The Empire is here - time to act like one and to take note of the lessons of how be Imperial. I say this with regret and feel as Cicero would have felt. But reality is reality.  Mark Antnony (Gore) has been defeated. Young Octavian has become Caesar. Poor Powell, Agrippa, has been used to obtain empire I fear that all the risk is in the McClellan approach. 7:57:50 AM    comment []

A Revolution in Military Affairs? The Rumsfeld Doctrine Critics say Rumsfeld plan ignored obvious pitfalls. What we may have had here is a civilian who micromanaged the war plans and told the military chiefs how to run their war. Now, these guys at the Pentagon may be old fogies but you generally do not get to be an old soldier if you make stupid mistakes. Rumsfeld believed the war would be over in 2 days!! They believed all that psychops stuff about mass surrenders. We are now 5 days into this war and facing a fairly large pitched battle that will determine the course of the war. This from the article gives me chills: Intelligence officials say Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and other Pentagon civilians ignored much of the advice of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency in favor of reports from the Iraqi opposition and from Israeli sources that predicted an immediate uprising against Saddam once the Americans attacked. Wolfowitz is one of the architects of Rebuilding America's Defenses which details the need for American domination of Iraq. Robin Dorf, director of national security strategy at the U.S. Army War College, lists as one of the things that has gone wrong so far a 'mismatch between expectations and reality.' Rumsfeld wanted to show the military that civilians were in charge by micromanaging this war. Time will tell how right he is. [A Man with a Ph.D. - Richard Gayle's Weblog] There is more going on. The first issue is who is in charge? Traditionally the Chain of Command would be the Theatre Commander (Franks) who would report to the Chief who reports to the President. The Secretary is not normally a line commander. Rumsfeld has inserted himself in the COC. There is no doubt that politicians should control the military but I have doubts that a politician should control military operations. Running an Army is not like running a  bank or a corporation. Not only is there a different culture (you have to "know" the character and abilities of the top men who you have to know) but you have to have a lot of experience to have the right "feel". You also have to have room to sack the military if things don't go the right way - The MacArthur deal. With the Secretary in operational control you have none of these things. The second issue is that there is indeed a revolution of military affairs going on. This was started by Boyd. Boyd and Cheney were very close. Boyd's view is that war has to be taken to the mind of the enemy. Hence the development of the ideas of Shock and Awe. This has too been misread. Shock and Awe is not about lots of bombs but about working on the mind to disorientate the enemy. The Boyd thinkers reject America's tradition of Attrition Warfare where the US simply grinds the enemy down and relies on overwhelming force to do this. The Boyd view would be to use elegance. Rumsfeld took to this because it would enable him to cut the costs of the military and increase its effectiveness. It is also intellectually very stimulating and I admit to being an advocate myself. Early signs indicated that he was correct. It takes too long to deploy the traditional forces that were designed for war in Europe. These forces are also very unwieldy when it comes to fighting irregulars who will be most of the US threat. The risk is when you are between two doctrines and you may end up doing both badly. I fear that we may be here. So what I think that we have is a new Command and Control line up putting an committed ideologue politician in charge of a war who is determined to show that the new lighter more elegant type of warfare is the one. I have two concerns. I think that we have ended up with civilian operational control which is in itself a risk. If Rumsfeld could not get the Chief to do what he needed he should have found one who would. Secondly I think that we have a compromise in action. Not enough heavy stuff to punch through the Republican Guard, not enough special forces to deal with all the mess and not enough backup to deal with contingencies.   7:06:57 AM    comment []