"AFG was initially a response to 9/11 (legitimate in casus belli and scope IMO). We ran the al-queda supporting taliban out of their comfortable position of power. Mission accomplished. Where things got hard was when we felt obligated to stay and keep the taliban at bay and attempt to "save" the locals. Obviously a much harder proposition (ask the brits or rooskies), but it's kind of in our nature to try to clean up messes we make."

I agree with the initial response to 9/11 up until the decision to walk into the "Big Bear trap" by staying. Defense grand strategy says that you leave. The arbitrary british boundary lines would have dissolved to form more accomodating cultural/tribal boundaries. Yes there would have been bloodshed as Tajiks and Pashtuns tried to establish control, but it was going to happen now or later. Trying to "Save" the locals by spreading liberal democracy is simply failed logic. The easiest way to make an enemy is to try to conform them to image that you think they should be. Are the Taliban (Pashtun) culturally abhorent according to our standards...absolutely. John Boyd would shake his head in disbelief at how US forces utterly suck at this war on the mental and moral level.

"Also, BTW our future defense planning is moving away from COIN in favor of low-intensity special operations and other asymmetric methods (cyber, etc)."

That's a good thing...COIN was a necessary mental stepping stone to shift focus towards future emerging threats. The new threat will use social media and cyber to organize and communicate on some level, but it still doesn't replace HUMINT. Technology in the right circumstance is a help, but if you are dependent on it, it can also be your weakness.


"Economics alone dictate that there are less-than-even odds of open conflict with china. But the balance of POTENTIAL military power in the pacific will likely dictate how forward leaning china is as it attempts to expand and consolidate it's regional power. If we leave a vacuum, they will fill it, and it will be by force or implied threat of force (favorable access to resources and trade deals)."

That's why it's important to avoid occupation of a failed state in order to assert full-spectrum dominance over resources and trade. While we have been busy spreading liberal democracy, China has established favorable agreements in Africa and much of the world. We should strive to control the world through trade and finance much like the British rather than costly wars that have destroyed empires of the past. Sadly, OIF/OEF have weaken our position and put the dollar at risk as the reserve currency.

The wild-card you're forgetting is oil supply and demand. If we don't PRO-ACTIVELY establish alternative energy/fuel infrastructure before oil prices begin their peak-oil climb to infinity, there will be open conflict of some sort during the ensuing catastrophic global economic collapse.

I agree. For now, nothing comes close to burning carbon. To remain an informal empire we must preserve our economic interest. Globalization is the most immediate threat to our dominance. Last thing this world needs is 2 billion people in Brazil, China, and India trying to emerge into the middle class to compete for finite resources.

I say keep the F-22, they're paid for. CANX the F-35 IMMEDIATELY, buy advanced hornets and eagles for interim air superiority through 2030 and roll the F-35 technology and lessons learned into a clean-sheet, less-capable but still 5th gen fighter that is designed from the ground-up for affordability. But that's not going to happen unless we have another economic collapse.

I think that's a fair argument...Just try convincing the Pentagon and their buddies at Lockheed. Profit motive and future job prospects tend to trump what's best for national security.


Probably true for the third-world, but I wouldn't entirely write off open state vs. state conflict either. It's hard right now because US/UN/NATO/EU won't let it happen but if the western powers get distracted by serious economic or social problems there are still people who will take advantage of such an opportunity.

What happens when the third-world from N. Africa shows up on your doorstep like it has in France and other parts of W. Europe and doesn't want to assimilate or aculturate? Most have forgotten the Muslim youth that rioted a few years ago. That is the harbinger of things to come with a failing economy and open borders. At some point the existing culture is threatened, the state is unable to maintain order, and low-level civil war could result. This is real possiblity in France or any country in W. Europe. It has already happened in the Balkans.


Mexico sucks no doubt, but I don't think it requires a military solution. We just need to tighten the border to control who gets in and allow a practical, documented guest worker program to accommodate the workers we so obviously have a need for. At legal wages. A far as the ultimate solution down there? Hope they sort out their corruption issues through technology-enabled transparency and social communication. An invasion or even low-intensity ops is politically out of the question. That's one crusade we can't fight.

I believe it requires a military solution, just not an invasion. The Ballpark figure of 50,000-60,000 killed in drug related violence in the northern mexican states and the SW USA, demand a military response. What upsets me more than anything regarding immigration, is that it has become a philosophical opposed agenda for both parties. Republican strategy promotes economicism "what's good for business is good for everyone". The problem is that while business benefits from cheap labor, my community rots from the inside out from all the "refugees" coming to take jobs that should pay a livable wage. Education and basic services are flooded with people that shouldn't be here. Democrats on the other hand view them as future constituents who shouldn't have to assimilate(ie spanish emersion for native children in public schools). It's a complete fallacy to compare the current immigration challenges to those faced at the turn of the 20th century.


We have a fair number of fine young people who have recently served or are currently serving. Given a worthy cause I think we can still assemble a capable military force.

Well Said.

 

The link you posted is relevant to the mental hurdles faced today by the private based on a FOB in Eastern Afghanistan, all the way to SecDef.

The first time I went to OEF in 07 as a brand new 1Lt, I was naive enough to believe that we held the moral high ground from the Afghan perspective. What I saw with my own eyes raised more questions than answers. Primarily, We are spending our blood and treasure to bring these people into the modern century by establishing democracy, why won't they embrace it? To show my ignorance, I really thought that they hated us because of "our freedoms". Sad I know, I was only aware of one narrative. I had no idea that there is a world narrative that doesn't protray the USA as the world savior. To be clear, I believe there is truth to be found in both.

During my first deployment in 07, I happened to read about John Boyd. His theories on Patterns of Conflict, OODA, the Moral, Mental, and Physical levels of war. It helped to provide perspective and context to what I saw with my own eyes. Around that sametime I ran across Lind's "On War" Blog. I was blown away by his articulate, well thought out views on warfare; primarily generational warfare.

The article you provided shows the mental transition that must happen if a military wants to remain relevant. Lind is masterful in his explanation of generational warfare. The problem with the USA is that basic doctrine for convential forces is rooted in 2nd generational warfare(2GW) based on mass of firepower. That's wonderful, until you fight someone who is practicing manuever warfare(3rd generation) or 4th generation(militia, insurgency, etc.) It speaks to fundemental problems with our military theory, The USA is no longer capable of winning the wars we face today or in the future. If you go in residence to a Professional Military Education course (PME), it briefly covers history and the same ineffective regurgitated (2GW) BS that renders useless.

It's safe to say I never thought about war same way ever again.

 

Many of us have come to understand that war is one thing, it does have goals and easily defined purpose, but nation building is something else entirely. The goals can be very fuzzy, and it can only work if the people as a whole have the same vision of success as those promoting it.

Ultimately it is the people of a country who are responsible for the shape of their country. Some countries are going to be left behind and some will prosper, it is not something to be molded with force of arms-it is something that must be made with force of reason. Some will never reason.

 

Macht Nix to me, just burn and salt the poppy fields on the way out. May not accomplish anything other than a large Kilroy was here.

 

On the subject of world wars:

Contrary to what Western intellectuals think, the world is getting more, and not less, religious. Additionally, despite the wishes of transnational statists, nationalism is no less potent today than it was 98 years ago Thursday. The table is set. While I don't think a general war is likely, but it is probably a bit more likely than it was before the demise of the USSR. Some possibilities are:

--a Muslim-Christian conflict in Nigeria becoming a continental (or beyond) war.

--a Hindu-Muslim conflict starts in Kashmir and grows to a larger Asian war.

--etc.

Be happy that you live in North America or Australia.

WW

 

The only thing that can unite humankind will be an external threat to our existence.
"Independence Day", while only a movie, I think gives a good 'what if' illustration.
Independence Day (1996) - IMDb

 

O-Rlly? I'd say that 99% of the time, it's not the 30something-yr-olds that make decisions, serving as congressmen, as president, and so on, so you must think that all of these disciplined leaders we have now and had in the past got our country on track right? We must never have ballooned spending in the 80s and even prior way past what we could ever pay back? I served in the military, but I don't see what you see, and even if I did, then I'd ask: "well, who got us in this mess?". Doesn't matter what the intentions are, just the results. Were things really "better" when we were living in excess and not realizing the consequences of our actions? That seems fundamentally flawed.

 

I,m going to ask this question again and again and again .
After all these years whose interests are we really protecting in Afghanistan ?
It used to be that we would go in and get the job done and then get the hell out .

'It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it'

'The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.'

'The world is in a constant conspiracy against the brave. It's the age-old struggle: the roar of the crowd on the one side, and the voice of your conscience on the other.'

Gen.Douglas MacArthur


BTW what would you classify the 'Cold War' as ?