RE: http://www.military.com/opinio...15202,193738,00.html

quote:

The Obama administration has decided to continue its predecessor's quixotic commitment to unattainable strategic objectives, i.e., changing entire societies. Afghanistan is to be made into a liberal, democratic, secular country with "rights for women" as defined by American Feminists. That is baying for the moon, and it can have no other outcome but failure. Setting unattainable objectives makes doctrine irrelevant, because it guarantees defeat. America could have Alexander the Great as its commander in Afghanistan, with Napoleon and von Moltke as his deputies, and we would still lose.

If the administration is seriously going to attempt changing a country like Afghanistan into a liberal democracy with equal rights for women and transform it into a secular society: we might as well accept the fact that we lost this effort.

However, from Ivan Eland's editorial, I find the following:

quote:

Obama has also demonstrated an orientation toward realism by stating publicly that the goal of transforming Iraq and Afghanistan into pro-Western democracies should no longer be the U.S. goal. George W. Bush was clearly committed to achieving this neo-conservative nirvana.

So my question is, which is it? It seems that the sources of information used by My. Lind and Mr. Eland are opposed to one another.

That said, anyone that believes that we can change thousands of years of tradition and culture, and dream that a liberal democracy could exist in a nation (such as it is) that has absolutely no history in that regard, let alone a reasonably educated population, needs to step back and rethink their position. They might as well believe in the Easter Bunny & Great Pumpkin...

At least in Iraq, they had an educated population, a (comparitively) modern society, female professionals, and infrastructure (Afghanistan has precious little of these).

A more realistic goal, would be to stabilize the government sufficiently so they can control thier country enough to prevent Al Queda's and Taliban's from taking root or otherwise gaining sanctuary, and otherwise provide essential services for (and protect) their citizens. The rest would have to happen over time...

While there are points I disagree with when presented by Mr. Lind, it is difficult to ignore his opinions pertaining to generational warfare. He certainly has the concepts down pat and presents them in a fashion, and with material easily verified from the historical record.

Afghanistan is a bottomless pit, it sucks up a military like a black hole, distorts it and spits it out. Why members of our military, and other military leaders throughout the world think and believe we can work some kind of magic in Afghanistan, and the Middle-East for that matter, defies logic and historical relevant evidence to the contrary.

The only way I can see the US accomplishing anything meaningful in that part of the world, is to institute clandestine operations using locals willing to be paid to fight. It would be more effective and certainly much cheaper than posting a large fighting force in the area. It would be a risk but one that would endanger fewer American lives.

While not fullproof, Operation Phoenix when utilized in Nam, appeared to have some success. Perhaps if we were to refine its concepts, ideas and tactics, it is a plan we could reintroduce. It may not work but it seems our main objective should be to disrupt our enemies and their ability to export terror to America and the rest of the world. I do not believe any large concentration of military forces are condusive to obtaining relevant human intel about an enemy. If we are resented by many of the locals because we look like, and act like an army of occupation, we have lost. And that is how many in the Middle-East look at the US, an army of occupation. I think a low profile but intense effort on small unit tactics with the help of locals is probably the best approach to our problems in that area of the world...drones and bombs are not getting the job done.

Of course, and as Mr. Lind comments, such tactics and their adoption would take a huge reversal in the mindset of our military brass and many government officials...they seem to believe, displaying and using the 'big stick' approach will always work, when history has clearly demonstrated, in these types of conflicts in never does obtain the desired results...in fact, you lose.

S/F Gordon

If Lind is so convinced in his analysis, then I wonder WHY he has not been hired by the DoD to teach this? Lind might want to consider some introspect.

quote:

Of course, and as Mr. Lind comments, such tactics and their adoption would take a huge

I was with MACVSOG and thus was part of Operation Phoenix...which later evolved into another name...but I don't recall as over time I have tried very hard to not remember as much as possible..BUT...Phoenix was good and it was successful...other than the bribes that had to be paid to political figures and factions, the rest of the money was well spent, and the resulting fighting force was very dedicated, very good and they performed extremely well.

I think it would work in both Afganistan and Iraq...why not, we tried everything else.

I think I read from the poster a reference to a dark hole which sucks up our military...and ultimately spits it out?...Yes, it has, it will and it is a neverending losing battle just to save face...makes no sense..either try something that has proven its value...compliment it...and after a certain span...exit..OR..GET OUT NOW...if the administration is not serious about its commitment..after all it is the troops that ultimately suffer for the errors of others.

Freddy

Freddy:

The ideas and concepts of fourth generational warfare are not new and have been utilized for centuries. It has been during the past fifty to sixty years where the concept has been refined and codified. Early American efforts in the concepts were initiated by the establishment of the Marine Raiders and OSS. There had been earlier attempts but with little backing from our government and the military. It wasn't until Operation Phoenix where the government and the military put some effort behind the concept. But remember, Special Forces aka the Green Berets was considered a career ender for anyone who took that route in the Army. In fact, even today, despite the money and lip service from those in command, our military for the most part still adheres to the concept of second generational warfare...and it should not do so.

If anyone has had the opportunity, and has read the book published by DoD, I believe in 1969 and titled The Communist Infracture of The Republic of South Vietnam, nearly all of the answers to many of our military problems is contained within its pages. It was originally classified as a Top Secret publication, I do not know if it still is classified as such, it may now be available from the government under FOIA? I do know this, if anyone has read the current Counterinsurgency Manual, it is obvious, the authors had to have read the book mentioned above (The Communist Infracture of South Vietnam), as there are too many similarities to be accidental.

Like you, I also participated in a few SOG missions in the I Corps area of RVN. As a crew chief, we had the opportunity to volunteer for such missions...and they were usually quite exciting to say the least. I do know this, the missions I participated in were successful based upon the debriefings. Despite the success, Phoenix was ended due to some very damaging publicity about a mission to eliminate a certain person who set up a little kingdom of their own on the Nam/Lao border...the story was front page news for weeks here in the US and abroad...with most of the info presented as to what happened being in error. But it was enough to end the program, and since then, we have been loathe to consider reestablishing another. And in the war on terrorism, it would be an ideal program...but our military brass refuse to consider such a program, as it would blow away their consistent defense of second generational warfare tactics/philosophy and the amount of dollars fed into the military industrial complex.

S/F Gordon
____________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by 21800797:

quote:

Of course, and as Mr. Lind comments, such tactics and their adoption would take a huge

I was with MACVSOG and thus was part of Operation Phoenix...which later evolved into another name...but I don't recall as over time I have tried very hard to not remember as much as possible..BUT...Phoenix was good and it was successful...other than the bribes that had to be paid to political figures and factions, the rest of the money was well spent, and the resulting fighting force was very dedicated, very good and they performed extremely well.

I think it would work in both Afganistan and Iraq...why not, we tried everything else.

I think I read from the poster a reference to a dark hole which sucks up our military...and ultimately spits it out?...Yes, it has, it will and it is a neverending losing battle just to save face...makes no sense..either try something that has proven its value...compliment it...and after a certain span...exit..OR..GET OUT NOW...if the administration is not serious about its commitment..after all it is the troops that ultimately suffer for the errors of others.

Freddy

Perhaps you should read a little about the man, his history and bio........

S/F gordon
______________________________________________


yanqui69
Posted Wed 01 July 2009 12:57 AM
If Lind is so convinced in his analysis, then I wonder WHY he has not been hired by the DoD to teach this? Lind might want to consider some introspect.

I would like to read some more on his background, other than his education from Dartmouth College in 1969 and from Princeton University in 1971 with a Masters in History, also serving as legislative aide to ultra conservative Robert A Taft Jr and liberal Gary Hart. Some varied experiences to say the least.

What I saw that stands out to me: he is one of the originators of Fourth Generation War theory.

Mr. Lind served as a legislative aide for the armed services for Senator Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio from 1973 through 1976 and held a similar position with Senator Gary Hart of Colorado from 1977 through 1986. He is the author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook and co-author, with Gary Hart, of America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform.

He is an opponent of the Iraq War, has written for the Marine Corps Gazette, and Defense and the National Interest.

Robert Coram stated in his book "Boyd" during lectures on maneuver warfare Mr. Lind was criticized for having never served in the military, "never dodged a bullet, he had never led men in combat, he had never even worn a uniform". Robert Coram also stated in the book when challenged by an officer, Mr. Lind "cut him off at the knees."

Colonel David Hackworth used the phrase "never wore a soldier suit" when he wrote of the press and commentators who had never been there and never done that, yet are experts on the subject of waging war and how it should be done.

I personally have no problem with Mr. Lind and his articles, as some are very well written and to a good point. Those who served the nation in the armed forces have done so to protect the freedoms of those who did not. Also many who never wore the uniform of the armed forces, do make excellent points in today's political scene.

quote:

Originally posted by PolicyWonk:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinio...15202,193738,00.html

quote:

The Obama administration has decided to continue its predecessor's quixotic commitment to unattainable strategic objectives, i.e., changing entire societies. Afghanistan is to be made into a liberal, democratic, secular country with "rights for women" as defined by American Feminists. That is baying for the moon, and it can have no other outcome but failure. Setting unattainable objectives makes doctrine irrelevant, because it guarantees defeat. America could have Alexander the Great as its commander in Afghanistan, with Napoleon and von Moltke as his deputies, and we would still lose.

If the administration is seriously going to attempt changing a country like Afghanistan into a liberal democracy with equal rights for women and transform it into a secular society: we might as well accept the fact that we lost this effort.

However, from Ivan Eland's editorial, I find the following:

quote:

Obama has also demonstrated an orientation toward realism by stating publicly that the goal of transforming Iraq and Afghanistan into pro-Western democracies should no longer be the U.S. goal. George W. Bush was clearly committed to achieving this neo-conservative nirvana.

So my question is, which is it? It seems that the sources of information used by My. Lind and Mr. Eland are opposed to one another.

That said, anyone that believes that we can change thousands of years of tradition and culture, and dream that a liberal democracy could exist in a nation (such as it is) that has absolutely no history in that regard, let alone a reasonably educated population, needs to step back and rethink their position. They might as well believe in the Easter Bunny & Great Pumpkin...

At least in Iraq, they had an educated population, a (comparitively) modern society, female professionals, and infrastructure (Afghanistan has precious little of these).

A more realistic goal, would be to stabilize the government sufficiently so they can control thier country enough to prevent Al Queda's and Taliban's from taking root or otherwise gaining sanctuary, and otherwise provide essential services for (and protect) their citizens. The rest would have to happen over time...

Afghanistan has had some notable and interesting attempts at modern forms of government, which might have succeeded if they had not been interfered with by outside forces.

It's the current form of government and the stabilization of which is at the root of the problem. Mr. Karzai's 'democratic mandate' to rule was instituted, and is maintained, at the muzzle of American grenade launchers. You're restating the, as yet to show a glimmer of success, obvious.

I agree with Lind, pedalling faster on the stationary bike doesn't result in moving ahead.

quote:

Originally posted by uh34d:
Perhaps you should read a little about the man, his history and bio........

S/F gordon
______________________________________________


yanqui69
Posted Wed 01 July 2009 12:57 AM
If Lind is so convinced in his analysis, then I wonder WHY he has not been hired by the DoD to teach this? Lind might want to consider some introspect.

I have read what I could find about him and it explains a lot of his "focused" thinking on 4GW. Dr. Echevarria picks him apart pretty good on his 4GW theories.

Huge amount of words to say... We have again decided to fight another war with one hand tied behind our backs.
The news clip of the air support requesting permission 6 times before they could fire..then they had to ask to fire a second round when the bad guys, who had been firing at our base, were clearly out in the open!?
Let us get rid of the bad guys keeping our brave men as safe as possible.
Then we can sit down and talk.

quote:

Originally posted by maoms:
Huge amount of words to say... We have again decided to fight another war with one hand tied behind our backs.
The news clip of the air support requesting permission 6 times before they could fire..then they had to ask to fire a second round when the bad guys, who had been firing at our base, were clearly out in the open!?
Let us get rid of the bad guys keeping our brave men as safe as possible.
Then we can sit down and talk.

HERE! HERE!

This is what happens when we become involved in politics dictating tactics...and the reason why I blame the brass for having no brass. Any Star rank individual should be educated enough, and have enough brass to stand up to politicians who make fatal decisions by sending our troops to fight a war that cannot be won. Most politicians have no idea what the military should be used for...they have half baked ideas about limiting a military footprint, which clearly demonstrates just on that basis alone, they have no idea what they are talking about. It is taking the concept of limited warfare (a bankrupt philosophy if there ever was one) and thinking wars can be won in such a fashion...it cannot.

I go back to the brass and their lack of guts, or maybe it is macho stupidity that allows them to rationalize it is okay to fight wars that limits tactical decision making. If they truly had any courage at all, there would be mass resignations or taking early retirement to make the point...either fight a war to win, or don't get involved!

Sadly, our troops pay the ultimate price due to this lack of courage by our military leaders and the ignorance and stupidity of our politicians. Guess no one bothered to study the recent history involving Russia...they had massive amounts of troops, fire power and were brutal...and they still tucked their tail and departed Afghanistan. Of course, we're smarter than the Russians...the constant batch of 'The Best and the Brightest' who arrive in DC and taking their shot is a real problem for America.

S/F Gordon
______________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by maoms:
Huge amount of words to say... We have again decided to fight another war with one hand tied behind our backs.
The news clip of the air support requesting permission 6 times before they could fire..then they had to ask to fire a second round when the bad guys, who had been firing at our base, were clearly out in the open!?
Let us get rid of the bad guys keeping our brave men as safe as possible.
Then we can sit down and talk.