Theoretical Solutions to Non-Sequiturian Problems

Military officers are trained to do two things. They know how to give orders and they know take orders. General David Howell Petraeus was ordered to devise a comprehensive strategy for counter insurgency and that he did. <link> The problems was, why and for what purpose?

If the purpose was for our operations in Iraq, as his monumental work indicates, we, the US military and the US civilian political leaders committed virtually every blunder one could commit at the critical and formative early stages of our invasion and subsequent occupation, to make General Petraeus’ plan for success, irrelevant. But let’s not cry over spilt camel milk.

General Petraeus was directed to devise a counter insurgency strategy based upon a few false assumptions and like any good soldier, he didn’t question the underlying precedent to his orders. In the United States of America, Generals do not commit us to wars or end wars, civilian politicians do. The President of the United States is not only the chief civilian political leader, he is "Commander & Chief" of all the nations military forces and as such, resides on top of the chain of command that General Portraeus must follow. That supreme military commander, issued an order to compile a report on a subject that he may have thought was, as we lawyers like to say, "was on all fours with" the actual situation on the ground, but it wasn’t!

Then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, thought outside of the military chain of command, "follow orders" mode when he proffered the now famous six-word caveat that he termed the Pottery Barn Principal; "break it and you bought it". Implicit in that principal is that with ownership comes responsibility which can include three options,

1. Repair and restore it,
2. Completely destroy and dispose of it or,
3. Abandon it to allow others to hurt themselves and others (in law it is called an attractive nuisance).

The civilian leaders in the Bush Administration like to compare our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq with those of WW II Japan & Germany or Korea and Viet Nam. They do this without a thought on their part or a query on ours to the appropriateness of the analogies. In virtually all wars on this planet, the combatants were from two geographically diverse and separate territories and the victor demanded and received total and absolute surrender and capitulation from the vanquished as symbolized by the keys to the kingdom or the tender of the sword, or both. With this tender by the conquered and acceptance by the conqueror one could rely upon an infrastructure of bureaucracy, civilian & military, to remain in place and at the command of the conqueror.

In the instant "wars", there is and was no political or national enemy from the inception. If Iraq, through it’s leader Saddam, was or enemy, upon his removal from office, our war was over and indeed, Bush was accurate in proclaiming, "Mission Accomplished!"

Modern Militaries are built and maintained for three purposes and three purposes, only:

1: To project a nation’s political will upon others

2. To break things

3. To kill people

These three things we do better then any military in the history of this planet. In fact, since World War II, with our reliance on nuclear deterrent, instead of large conventional forces, (Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction – MAD) our ability to kill & destroy efficiently was and is our strategy. The only problem is that only overwhelming force that assures destruction of things of value can only deter organized, civilized and industrialized nation states. Causes, criminals, psychopaths, sociopaths and fanatics aren’t impressed, deterred or dissuaded. In fact, they encourage military reaction and over reaction to establish both their legitimacy and righteousness.

General Petraeus fails to cite a single war and subsequent occupation against a non-governmental group where his strategies have succeeded because there have been no wars against non-governmental groups. In the legend of Robin Hood, Robin stole from the rich and gave to the poor and thus was protected and sequestered from the corrupt and brutal government of Prince John. The so called insurgents brutalize both rich and poor, Americans and Iraqis and have played the cards that they have been dealt. They will be there long after America leaves and America will leave, eventually. Whether next year or next century, leave we must and leave we shall and at that time, ancient animosities and prejudices will once again surface. The smart money will always recognize "home-field" advantage and even now, the reluctance of the Iraqi government to commit to a so-called reconciliation is that the politicians of Iraq are acknowledging the inescapable fact that when America leaves, nothing has changed.

Bush’s blunder and Petraeus’ flawed plan to address Bush’s blunder is that no military, in the 21st century, can successfully occupy a country that doesn’t want to be occupied. Russia couldn’t do it in Afghanistan in the 80s and they were not constrained with the ethics, morals or laws that we are. We could never dream of being as brutal as they were and it still didn’t work

The closest model for Petraeus to look after and emulate was the Nazis who occupied relatively devoid of open insurgency by employing political collaborators, maintaining career bureaucrats, and by arbitrarily executing 10 civilians (in the public square) for every German soldier injured or killed in that town. Genghis Kahn killed 1 out of ever ten and destroyed ten percent of everything in the town he conquered ("Decimation", from the decimal concept) just to get the vanquished attention and to demonstrate the folly of harboring or giving comfort to an insurgency. Now that’s "Shock & Awe"!

General Petraeus didn’t betray us, he just followed orders and is trying to write the second edition of his book, by attending the laboratory of Iraq. If ever another civilian leader decides to play general by breaking all the rules, maybe, Petraues will have a "second-half" football game plan for the President who decides to play the first half with 8 players, no shoes and blindfolds.

Thank goodness you are not President. While you criticize the Iraqi conflict your diatribe meanders to both ends of the spectrum. The paradigm of your spewed regurgitation of buzz words and political triteness is:

"Bush’s blunder and Petraeus’ flawed plan to address Bush’s blunder is that no military, in the 21st century, can successfully occupy a country that doesn’t want to be occupied."

Name a country that ever wanted to be occupied?

21st century is less than 7 years old. Quite the in depth historian aren't you?

There are many military leaders that do address what they consider to be flawed plans of the duly elected officials, but most of them historically have been in Central and South America.

Do you really want generals making public and foreign policy?

"Military officers are trained to do two things. They know how to give orders and they know take orders."

I see you've never been a military officer. Our superpowers extend quite a bit beyond that.

"General Petraeus was directed to devise a counter insurgency strategy based upon a few false assumptions and like any good soldier, he didn’t question the underlying precedent to his orders."

Technically, he was ordered to implement the counterinsurgency strategy he'd already devised and codified in the Army's field manual on the subject, but perhaps I'm splitting hairs.

"Modern Militaries are built and maintained for three purposes and three purposes, only:"

We occasionally supply food to tens of thousands of displaced people after a tsunami lays waste to their homes. Again, you have an astonishingly simplistic view of the military's roles and capabilities. I agree that we're not the weapon of choice for nation building, but you seem to have gotten your impression of what we do from first-person shooters and John Wayne movies.

"General Petraeus fails to cite a single war and subsequent occupation against a non-governmental group where his strategies have succeeded because there have been no wars against non-governmental groups."

Not ever? Check your history again.

"The closest model for Petraeus to look after and emulate was the Nazis who occupied relatively devoid of open insurgency by employing political collaborators, maintaining career bureaucrats, and by arbitrarily executing 10 civilians (in the public square) for every German soldier injured or killed in that town."

I think the Philippines was a bit closer to his mind than the Nazis.

"General Petraeus didn’t betray us, he just followed orders and is trying to write the second edition of his book, by attending the laboratory of Iraq."

Here, we agree. Iraq is a laboratory for a strategy that is so far untried in the modern world. He's in a bad position and I don't envy him, but I also don't think he's betrayed the American people. As we say, every rule is written in blood. I'm sure the lessons we learn in Iraq will carry over to the next generation. I hope, anyway.

You grasp the concept my friend. There are no countries that want to be occupied so therefore there are no successful occupations in the last several decades Thank you for so eloquently restating my point..

No, I don't want generals making policy decisions nor do I want generals deciding and committing us to war. That is the job, in non-Central American, South American and African nations of the elected executive who prefers to let the generals not the elected officials decide.

The officers, of which I was a Captain, do not have super powers and are neither policy makers nor charged with any duty other then to follow orders and implement them. In the course of doing that, they acquire or are possedssed of many skills and talents, including jurisprudence, medical treatment, feeding the hungary and building bridges, but none of these talens are unleached until ordered to, so I repeat, officers give orders and take orders in futherance of civil direction. I may have been asleep in current events class but do not recall our war against any non-governmental groups in the Philippines while not be3ing at war with the government, puppet or otherwise. The Urban Warfare of sectarian civil war, concurrent with insurgency and foreign agitation is relatively unique. Nuances such as a war against Nazis not Germany or Japanese military not civilians was lost on Hiroshima & Nagasaki and the US citizens who overwhelmingly perceived the enemy to be more then a political party or religious splinter group. If you are aware of the US or another country conducting a successful occupation of another country with our declared enemy being a non-uniformed, non-govenmental group, living within a friendly ally and partner, please refresh my memory.

"The officers, of which I was a Captain, do not have super powers and are neither policy makers nor charged with any duty other then to follow orders and implement them."

You didn't have any superpowers? I'm sorry. Must just be me. ;-)

"In the course of doing that, they acquire or are possedssed of many skills and talents, including jurisprudence, medical treatment, feeding the hungary and building bridges, but none of these talens are unleached until ordered to, so I repeat, officers give orders and take orders in futherance of civil direction."

Happy for the clarification. Your original post sounded like the diatribes that one usually hears from civilians painting us like a pack of cybernetic drones devoid of free will or any congitive abilities. I seem to have misunderstood the intent of what you said.

"I may have been asleep in current events class but do not recall our war against any non-governmental groups in the Philippines while not be3ing at war with the government, puppet or otherwise."

You might have been. In the Phillipines, among other places, we have fought insurgencies before. Generally they're prolonged, bloody affairs that require significant draconian measures applied over years if not decades to quell. If you look back farther, you'll find that the British fought similar battles during their colonial period with a number of enemies. If you go back farther, you see that occupiers almost always have to fight the former masters of whatever land they happen to have conquered, unless they either exterminate them or absorb them into the larger imperial structure. The Romans had difficulties of that sort in a variety of places, though they were better at holding conquered territory than most. It's nothing new, it's just something we haven't had to do for a long time due in part to the Cold War's artificial polarization of the globe, so perhaps it wasn't covered in a current events class.

"If you are aware of the US or another country conducting a successful occupation of another country with our declared enemy being a non-uniformed, non-govenmental group, living within a friendly ally and partner, please refresh my memory."

First of all, that hardly describes Iraq. I think I've covered the rest above.

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are horrible analogies for Iraq because the political climate of both countries was saturated by an overwhelming sense of national unity. Iraq is practically defined by the absence of it. For more information on dealing with peacekeeping in a fractured society with religious and ethnic divisions, Bosnia might be a good place to start digging. I agree there is no perfect parallel, but the pieces are there, scattered through the centuries.

I think, particulars aside, that we probably have a very similar opinion of both OIF and President Bush.

***

"I may have been asleep in current events class but do not recall our war against any non-governmental groups in the Philippines while not be3ing at war with the government, puppet or otherwise."

You might have been. In the Phillipines, among other places, we have fought insurgencies before. Generally they're prolonged, bloody affairs that require significant draconian measures applied over years if not decades to quell. If you look back farther, you'll find that the British fought similar battles during their colonial period with a number of enemies. If you go back farther, you see that occupiers almost always have to fight the former masters of whatever land they happen to have conquered, unless they either exterminate them or absorb them into the larger imperial structure. The Romans had difficulties of that sort in a variety of places, though they were better at holding conquered territory than most. It's nothing new, it's just something we haven't had to do for a long time due in part to the Cold War's artificial polarization of the globe, so perhaps it wasn't covered in a current events class.***

I was inarticulate. Let me rephrasw the rhetorical (or not) question. What country has been invaded as an enemy, preemtively or reactively, then occupied, then had a new war conducted by the invading/occupying force, not against the country & the citizenry invaded/occupied but against indistiquishable insurgents, provacateurs, "Islamo-faschists" (whatever that is) sectarionists and selected tennents in the same building?

You tell 'em Quill. For you interest, ANYONE can google US Military Humanitarian..so I did;

U.S. Military Humanitarian Efforts Planned for 99 Nations
<link>
<link> <link>
<link>
<link>
<link>
<link>
<link>
<link>

BTW, Has anyone realized the common thread in most of these postings?

Yep, you guessed it. It seems we have been horribly wrong here in the USA. Instead of tasking military generals, theorists, etc. (Military brass who actually study war) to draw up plans. All we have to do is ask the "know-it-all's" here in the blogosphere.

It's an absolute joke how some of you think you know more than those who have years of studying and practical know-how in military matters. Anyone ever hear of the War College? It's the oldest school in the country and I'll bet less than half of you can tell me where it is.