War: Can the U.S. ever win any war?

[!Fluffy!]

What is war?

The face of war has changed. The mechanics of war no longer depend solely upon men and weapons to win, but rely heavily on the will of the people and the effects of media and education (propaganda).

The very idea of winning a war is *almost* a concept whose true meaning is lost on Americans today.

I first started thinking about this when another poster on tweb provided a link to "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation" (was it the Gerbz? I don't remember but thanks are in order). http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm

"The distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between 'civilian' and 'military' may disappear."

After reading it through the second or third time, I became doubtful about our ability to ever win a war again...convinced we no longer have what it takes to win a war of the Fourth Generation, or even the Third Generation type.

Just a few snippets:

"...Again, we are not suggesting terrorism is the fourth generation. It is not a new phenomenon, and so far it has proven largely ineffective. However, what do we see if we combine terrorism with some of the new technology we have discussed? For example, what effectiveness might the terrorist have if his car bomb were a product of genetic engineering rather than high explosives? To draw our potential fourth generation out still further, what if we combined terrorism, high technology, and the following additional elements?"

"* A non-national or transnational base, such as an ideology or religion. Our national security capabilities are designed to operate within a nation-state framework. Outside that framework, they have great difficulties..."
"* A direct attack on the enemy's culture. Such an attack works from within as well as from without..."
"* Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through manipulation of the media, particularly television news..."


The sad, really sad thing about all of this was that this was written in 1989, twelve years before 9/11. Obviously no one listened, or if they did it was already too late to do much to affect the slow turning wheels of an outdated, overgrown bureaucracy - let alone our national psyche.


If the distinction between soldier/civilian has been blurred (as I believe it has, whether people will acknowledge it or not), each of us would have to ask ourselves what side we are on, what we believe in, what we are willing to do to prevail in a conflict with an enemy. Most people wouldn't have a satisfactory answer, I don't believe. At least not one favorable to the continuation of the U.S. as an international superpower.

The Fourth Generation Website:
http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm

[!Fluffy!]

Please tell me I have come to the wrong conclusion... and why!

[themuzicman]

Well, we won a war in 1991.

In fact, we won the Iraq war. Our problem wasn't winning the war, but leaving the region having successfully improved our national interests.

And, of course, there is the fact that somehow imperialism is inherently wrong. Granted that the US has no interest in taking over the world. However, the notion that we could go into a primarily Muslim country and establish a western democracy is about as foreign as creating an individualistic marketing campaign in Thailand. It may be possible, but it's going to be an uphill battle.

To be honest, the problem really isn't the terrorists. They're a fairly minor nuisance in the bigger picture. Yes, if we let them go unchecked, they'd probably bring a civil war, which is why we're still there.

The problems are twofold:

1) As you stated, we have a political party in the US invested in our military failure using the major media outlets to promote their propaganda, and being fairly successful at it. The reason they weren' successful in 1991 is that we were finished with the job with only 130 or so deaths in a matter of months. Without the political will at home to finish the job (and do what it takes to get that job done), this phase becomes almost impossible. We'd be much further along if congresscritters desperate for face time on TV would hold their tongues, and the major media would report all the news rather than all the propaganda.

2) Imposition of western philosophy into a Muslim culture. The Muslim culture is invested in domination as authority. Their factions kill each other to gain an upper hand. Violence and death are a part of the Muslim political scene. Perhaps the biggest evidence of that necessity is Saddam himself. The idea of free speech, freedom of religion and the peaceful transition of power and the voice of the minority are simply foreign to the Muslim mind. To impose a western democracy with western philosophical ideas on that setting is simply not going to be easy.

I don't think the nature of war is a huge deal. We've gear ourselves to fight nations who respect the Geneva convention rather than terrorists who see civilians as shields rather than human beings, but we've made many adaptations to deal with them and continue to do so. The question remains whether the US public will succumb to peacenik propaganda and allow millions of Iraqis to die in the wake of a US pullout.

Michael

[Ryokan]

What is war? The use of violent force by a state or extra state actors to convince the target of a force to do one thing or another.

The face of war has changed. The mechanics of war no longer depend solely upon men and weapons to win, but rely heavily on the will of the people and the effects of media and education (propaganda).
This sin't particularly new, and "men and weapons" have always counted more in certain kinds of wars than others.
The very idea of winning a war is *almost* a concept whose true meaning is lost on Americans today. Pretty much. The American public was spoiled by the second world war. Now anything less than a total unconditional surrender by the enemy is a military defeat. Its a bizarre ahistorical position, but there it is.

I first started thinking about this when another poster on tweb provided a link to "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation" (was it the Gerbz? I don't remember but thanks are in order). http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm

"The distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between 'civilian' and 'military' may disappear." I think alot of this "Fourth Generational warfare" literature over reaches a bit. i am by no means an expert of course.

After reading it through the second or third time, I became doubtful about our ability to ever win a war again...convinced we no longer have what it takes to win a war of the Fourth Generation, or even the Third Generation type. It appears that, despite serious errors, we are going to win in Afghanistan. It also appears we won in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia. We've more or less won in the Phillipines. We won the first gulf war. We may even win in Haiti. We win most of the fights we pick. We are bad at large scale occupations and fighting against large scale insurgencies. We need to get better.

Just a few snippets:

"...Again, we are not suggesting terrorism is the fourth generation. It is not a new phenomenon, and so far it has proven largely ineffective. However, what do we see if we combine terrorism with some of the new technology we have discussed? For example, what effectiveness might the terrorist have if his car bomb were a product of genetic engineering rather than high explosives? To draw our potential fourth generation out still further, what if we combined terrorism, high technology, and the following additional elements?"

"* A non-national or transnational base, such as an ideology or religion. Our national security capabilities are designed to operate within a nation-state framework. Outside that framework, they have great difficulties..."
"* A direct attack on the enemy's culture. Such an attack works from within as well as from without..."
"* Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through manipulation of the media, particularly television news..."


The sad, really sad thing about all of this was that this was written in 1989, twelve years before 9/11. Obviously no one listened, or if they did it was already too late to do much to affect the slow turning wheels of an outdated, overgrown bureaucracy - let alone our national psyche. Except that terrorism has been shockingly ineffective. Al Queda has failed in nearly all its major aims. Outside of Iraq it is a greatly, dramatically weakened organization. Hezbollah to has been unsuccessful at seizing control of the Lebanese government, and if anythign is recieving a backlash because of its "victory" in the recent conflict. Hamas has had to form a unity govenrment with Fatah. For all intents and purposes the IRA is gone. No other international terror groups can hope to achieve even a fraction of the strength or influence of these organizations. Fourth generational warfare is largely effective in terms of fighting occupational forces, like our forces in iraqi, and in pushing failing states into states of civil war.


If the distinction between soldier/civilian has been blurred (as I believe it has, whether people will acknowledge it or not), each of us would have to ask ourselves what side we are on, what we believe in, what we are willing to do to prevail in a conflict with an enemy. Most people wouldn't have a satisfactory answer, I don't believe. At least not one favorable to the continuation of the U.S. as an international superpower.

The Fourth Generation Website:
http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm
My unexpert opinion is that fourth generational warfare is getting more common because it is cheap and flashy, but has not proved very effective in most cases. it is hard to successfully wage it.

[Wyzaard]

Most people wouldn't have a satisfactory answer, I don't believe. At least not one favorable to the continuation of the U.S. as an international superpower.


Well then... perhaps we shouldn't be one. The conflicts we are engaged in today are the blowback from our past and present policies of maintaining eco-political hegemony, mostly for the benefit of a very few. Perhaps, just perhaps... we should simply let go.

[Alchemist]

One of the "lessons learned" from Vietnam was that the U.S. (or for that matter any nation) cannot defeat an insurgency in a foriegn nation. Only the inhabitants of that nation can.

That is why occupations never work unless the occupying force is capable and willing of committing genocide. Thats how Saddam kept Iraq under control. Start an uprising? Then I'll destroy you, your family, and your hometown. The U.S. of course would never result to that to win, but nothing short of it would be successful because only the Iraqi's can make Iraq peaceful. I think our only real option is to divide the country up and "balkanize" it. To me that is the only thing that we could to that might get the Sunni's and Shia's to cool down for a bit.

And, of course, there is the fact that somehow imperialism is inherently wrong. Granted that the US has no interest in taking over the world. However, the notion that we could go into a primarily Muslim country and establish a western democracy is about as foreign as creating an individualistic marketing campaign in Thailand. It may be possible, but it's going to be an uphill battle.

We could not go into any country and impose a western democracy unless the people in that country truly wanted a western democracy. Only the people in the village can make it better you could say.

Speaking of Muslims and democracy. The most populace Muslim nation, Indonesia, is also a democracy. But the people of Indonesia made it that way, no one did nor could do it for them.

The problems are twofold:

1) As you stated, we have a political party in the US invested in our military failure using the major media outlets to promote their propaganda, and being fairly successful at it. The reason they weren' successful in 1991 is that we were finished with the job with only 130 or so deaths in a matter of months. Without the political will at home to finish the job (and do what it takes to get that job done), this phase becomes almost impossible. We'd be much further along if congresscritters desperate for face time on TV would hold their tongues, and the major media would report all the news rather than all the propaganda.

2) Imposition of western philosophy into a Muslim culture. The Muslim culture is invested in domination as authority. Their factions kill each other to gain an upper hand. Violence and death are a part of the Muslim political scene. Perhaps the biggest evidence of that necessity is Saddam himself. The idea of free speech, freedom of religion and the peaceful transition of power and the voice of the minority are simply foreign to the Muslim mind. To impose a western democracy with western philosophical ideas on that setting is simply not going to be easy.


The reason the 1991 war was so successful and the current one is not has to do with why we are there. In 1991 Iraq had invaded and occupied an allied nation. Our goal was to remove Iraq from Kuwait and prevent Saddam from doing something like that again. Very straightfoward and realistic. The national leadership was upfront and honest about why we were going to war and the American people believed it to be in our national interest to do so.

In the current conflict the reason people are turning against the war has nothing to do with the fact that it isn't going well or the media or congress. Its because the American people (and rightfully so) see no good reason as to why we started the war. The reasons given at the begining were complete BS. Most Americans don't see a national interest in staying there and therefore don't deem it acceptable that thousands of Americans have died fighting in Iraq.

Look at Afghanistan for contrast. No one (except the crazies) is saying we should leave there despite the problems we are facing. That is because Americans know that we are there because of 9/11. That we are fighting the people who attacked us and slaughtered our citizens six years ago. We have the will to fight there because most people can see the reasons we are there and agree it is in our national interest to stay and fight until Al Qeada and Osama bin Laden are destroyed.

[Tladatsi]

1) "War is the continuation of politics by other, i.e. violent means." War is violent politics. This what von Clauswitz said 200 years ago it is still true. This true whether it is a traditional set piece war (like WW II) or less conventional guerrilla style war. Understand the politics and you understand the war.

2) The goal of war is to force a leaders will on an other nation, to force that other nation to bend to the will of the leader.

3) The problem with the Iraq war is not that the American people lack the will to win but they do not like the politics. First they were lied to about what the what the war was about (MWDs, Al Qaeda, Democracy). The real politics is about the control of the second largest proven oil reserve in the world and about establishing a pro-US government in the heart of the SW Asia. The lie was needed to cover the real poitics. Second, the occupation and reconstruction was executed with great incompetence and corruption. Finally, it is clear that the war is lost, not the war against Saddam's army, but the war against Shia based militias and death squads and the Sunni based insurgents (al Qaeda is really a minor player, albeit one that gets a lot of press in the US).

If the politics are right, the US can win any war. If they are wrong, probably not.

QUOTE=Moon Woman;1860096]Please tell me I have come to the wrong conclusion... and why![/QUOTE]

[Jimmy Higgins]

1) As you stated, we have a political party in the US invested in our military failure using the major media outlets to promote their propaganda, and being fairly successful at it. The reason they weren' successful in 1991 is that we were finished with the job with only 130 or so deaths in a matter of months. Without the political will at home to finish the job (and do what it takes to get that job done), this phase becomes almost impossible. We'd be much further along if congresscritters desperate for face time on TV would hold their tongues, and the major media would report all the news rather than all the propaganda.There is a problem with this defined problem... as in it is absolute bull fluff.

I don't think the nature of war is a huge deal. We've gear ourselves to fight nations who respect the Geneva convention rather than terrorists who see civilians as shields rather than human beings, but we've made many adaptations to deal with them and continue to do so.Or maybe, just maybe, the Bush Administration has been trying to fight an asymetrical war with symetrical military power, after not initially stabilizing the nation of Iraq during the invasion.

The question remains whether the US public will succumb to peacenik propaganda and allow millions of Iraqis to die in the wake of a US pullout.Maybe the better question is, do Americans have the stomach to send more US troops to their death in order to not abandon the nation in which they introduced chaos and anarchy.

Or better yet, will someone come forward with a plan that includes a reduction in US troop numbers in the Middle East, while sustaining a greater level of stability in Iraq and an actual positive affect on removing deleterious forces/factions in Iraq. This is the solution that is needed. Reduce up front US military presence, but concentrate the power and effectiveness of those remaining.

[Ryokan]

Or maybe, just maybe, the Bush Administration has been trying to fight an asymetrical war with symetrical military power, after not initially stabilizing the nation of Iraq during the invasion. I think the unpleasant truth is that governments, or at least democracies, cannot use truly effective asymetrical warfare. It is not political viable, as it requires terror attacks, collective punishment, death squads.... Sometimes thats okay, like in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia. Sometimes not, like in Iraq.

Maybe the better question is, do Americans have the stomach to send more US troops to their death in order to not abandon the nation in which they introduced chaos and anarchy. Hopefully, but I am not optimistic.

Or better yet, will someone come forward with a plan that includes a reduction in US troop numbers in the Middle East, while sustaining a greater level of stability in Iraq and an actual positive affect on removing deleterious forces/factions in Iraq. This is the solution that is needed. Reduce up front US military presence, but concentrate the power and effectiveness of those remaining.I don't believe such a plan is possible.

[Wyzaard]

I think the unpleasant truth is that governments, or at least democracies, cannot use truly effective asymetrical warfare. It is not political viable, as it requires terror attacks, collective punishment, death squads.... Sometimes thats okay, like in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia. Sometimes not, like in Iraq.

Well, the US has had a long history of waging such conflicts... such as all over Central and South America... and has done pretty well with covering up and/or rationalizing the atrocities to the Amewrican public.

But perhaps not for too much longer...

[Ryokan]

Well, the US has had a long history of waging such conflicts... such as all over Central and South America... and has done pretty well with covering up and/or rationalizing the atrocities to the Amewrican public. Via proxy, and very squeamishly. American GI's can't be used for such purposes.

But perhaps not for too much longer...
Its unlikely the US will feel the need for such a policy in the near future and modern media would make such a thing very tough.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the unpleasant truth is that governments, or at least democracies, cannot use truly effective asymetrical warfare. It is not political viable, as it requires terror attacks, collective punishment, death squads.... Sometimes thats okay, like in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia. Sometimes not, like in Iraq.I wasn't suggesting those techniques. I meant fighting a war against an enemy in a different way... in the shadows. Right now, we are in full view of anyone who wants to kill us. I'm sure there must be something in The Art of War that denotes that as being incredibly stupid.

Also, we are trying to win Iraq as if we were trying to defeat termites by driving a tank into the side of a house.

[Ryokan]

I wasn't suggesting those techniques. I know. i was suggesting those are the only effective asymmetrical techniques available in this sort of conflict. I meant fighting a war against an enemy in a different way... in the shadows. You sound like Darth, with some magic special forces/CIA solution. That doesn't exist. If we didn't care what happened in Iraq and jsut wanted one group or another defeated it might work, but since we want to prevent a region destabilizing civil war we need a different solution. Right now, we are in full view of anyone who wants to kill us. Well, as an occupying force that is pretty much our only option. We can't secretly police the streets. I'm sure there must be something in The Art of War that denotes that as being incredibly stupid. What Sun Tzu would have recommended is along the lines of what we both rejected.

Also, we are trying to win Iraq as if we were trying to defeat termites by driving a tank into the side of a house.
Its not a good analogy. What we are trying to do is provide security on the streets so some of the causes of the civil war, the political problem and the massive unemployment, have a chance to be resolved. Which may not work anyway. But it certainly won't be resolved by fighting some shadow war with handcuffs on. Not if we want to achieve a stable Iraq.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I know. i was suggesting those are the only effective asymmetrical techniques available in this sort of conflict. You sound like Darth, with some magic special forces/CIA solution. That doesn't exist. If we didn't care what happened in Iraq and jsut wanted one group or another defeated it might work, but since we want to prevent a region destabilizing civil war we need a different solution. Well, as an occupying force that is pretty much our only option. We can't secretly police the streets. What Sun Tzu would have recommended is along the lines of what we both rejected.I really should stop talking like I've got the solution for Iraq. :blush:

[Ryokan]

I really should stop talking like I've got the solution for Iraq. :blush:

I don't either. :shrug: :eek: Staying has a host of problems so does leaving. I should never have supported the the war from the get go, so you have me there. I tend to support keeping more troops on the general idea that American forces are the only thing holding the country together at all right now. But we can't stay forever. So...

[Wyzaard]

Via proxy, and very squeamishly. American GI's can't be used for such purposes.

Not always by proxy, and the sheer number of actions and their direct connections to corporate power, not very squeamish indeed.

GI's have been and ARE being used for these purposes...

http://www.flagrancy.net/timeline.html


Its unlikely the US will feel the need for such a policy in the near future and modern media would make such a thing very tough.

Ummm... kinda missed the drumming for war, huh?

[djdavo]

things certainly have changed since WWII, as we really don't have a specific country to target. i happen to think the general stance that "if your country harbors & helps terrorists you're as bad as the terrorists" is a good policy.

heard an interesting interview with Thomas Barnett, who wrote "the pentagon's new map" and he says there needs to be a bifurcation of our army: one part to wage actual war, and a second part to perform "policing" actions, and train other countries' troops.

[HerodionRomulus]

djdavo

Interesting avatar. Is that an original version of the re-imaged toaster?

[Yankee_Doodle]

things certainly have changed since WWII, as we really don't have a specific country to target. i happen to think the general stance that "if your country harbors & helps terrorists you're as bad as the terrorists" is a good policy.

heard an interesting interview with Thomas Barnett, who wrote "the pentagon's new map" and he says there needs to be a bifurcation of our army: one part to wage actual war, and a second part to perform "policing" actions, and train other countries' troops.

That's an interesting perspective. Our Army has tried to do this; albeit obviously not to the extent necessary. For example, the army reserve system has "civil affairs" units, which basically are nation builders. However, the importance that the Army has placed on this function is made obvious by the fact that there's no substantial active duty assets devoted to it. Don't get me wrong, the reserves do a fine job at this, as the skill sets necessary for civil affairs are generally found in the private sector. However, with no active duty support it doesn't get the recogition in terms of funding and other assets it needs to succeed in its mission.

I would say completely splitting the functions is not feasible or efficient given the overlap. However, a command restructuring is probably in order. For example, once the war is over & we transition to policing & nation building, our policing and nation building units should command the theater; not combat commanders. The combat troops should revert to supporting civil affairs (with perhaps the State Department involved in the decision making, although I would not give a non-DOD agency any command or veto power over army decisions). Infantry troops would be used at the behest of civil affairs in more of an MP role to keep the peace, while civil affairs & psy ops works on winning the hearts & minds. I would also say engineering units should probably share command with civil affairs, and again the reserves are instrumental here because that's where you have real civil engineers with private sector and municipal government experience running projects.

Of course it's equally instrumental to give intelligence an equal seat at the table, as they tend to be important in determining the threat level (not that it's easy to determine the threat level). Obviously we don't have winning hearts & minds down to a science like say in WWII, as its rather impossible given the differences in subduing the German population as compared to something as culturally remote as Iraq. However, combat commanders won't give up theater command easily.

I frankly think with this war we made a mistake by trying to reinvent an already well oiled machine. Had we deployed overwhelming force to the theater we would not be here now. I've heard the news & the statements by our public officials who proclaim hind sight is 20/20; but that doesn't cut it for me. On the back of a proven strategy (which we utilized in the first gulf war) there was little excuse for this error. IMO we overestimated the usefulness of new technology & underestimated the enemy, right from the very beginning. In addition, there were many diplomatic failures to blame. For example, our failure to secure Turkey's assent to allow the 4th ID to create a north-western front. However, that doesn't change the fact that we went in undermanned. I don't know how many of you remember some of the stories from the beginning of the war. A story that sticks with me is the one about a 101st airborne unit that came across a cache of a couple hundred tons of weapons. They didn't even stick around to guard it. By the time they came back it was gone.

It's hard to know who to blame for that. Was it too few troops, or was it the commander who made the call to not assign soldiers to guard those assets? I imagine there's probably dozens of stories like that & those mistakes allowed the insurgency to get off the ground. However, whatever the reasoning is behind the insurgents getting a hold of these weapons, the fact remains that too few troops from the beginning is to blame. The worse thing is for the soldiers who gave it all is that politics & the American people is too blame for that decision. The Bush Administration kept initial troop levels low because he wanted to make the war look like it wouldn't cost us much money. The Democrats, trying to make theirselves relevant (at a time where they were crushed politically) made a big deal over cost. The American people were all gung ho in the beginning. But all those couch potato war mongers wouldn't tolerate a nudge up in their tax bills. I'm disgusted that American's could remain so greedy & self involved in a time of war. We sent our troops into harms way on the cheap. Now everyone wants to blame Bush because he's an easy target, because it helps them to avoid looking into the mirror and seeing who is really to blame. I used to always like to think that the book that calls the WWII generation the greatest generation is a fallacy. That if our generation was presented with such a challenge, we would rise up with the resolve, dedication, and selflessness of our grand & great grand parents. I used to love Reagan because he believed Americans had the capacity to rise up and meet any challenge when called (even though I was in grade school I still remember him). However, I think he may have been wrong? I think Americans owe it to their service men & women to reach into their wallets. When I hear someone complain about their taxes or how much the war is costing it's truly upsetting. Can these people even begin to imagine what it's like for a soldier who left his leg in Iraq? I'll vote for the man or woman who states they'll institute a war tax and start selling war bonds (over the internet so those wall street parisites can't get their greasy hands on it) so we can get the war on terror over with by really placing ourselves on a war time footing. If our enemies understood that every single American man and woman will sacrifice to win this war, believe me the war will be over before it even starts. Then we'll see where America's heart really is (or isn't). A candidate who has enough cahona's to lose if America isn't willing to sacrifice along with our troops. A candidate who states flat out he or she wouldn't want to lead an America who would send her troops to their possible death on the cheap. And a candidate who states we will take care of our troops when them come home, whatever the cost. That's who will get my vote. Unfortunately, I suspect I probably won't be voting this coming election.

[HerodionRomulus]

It's not hard to know who to blame.
Where does the "buck" stop?
Some of us knew it was a mistake months before we did it but Bush came into office determined to conquor Iraq and as the commander-in-chief, it is his fault as well as Rumsfeld. And most of the cowards in congress who opposed it but were more afraid of losing votes than doing what was right.

Where is Osama bin-laden?