What is war, anyway? And is there a connection with oil at $72 a barrel?
Most of us tend to think of war as armed conflict between military forces – whether regular or irregular – but I have come to the conclusion we would be wiser to adopt a much broader working definition, and to adapt ourselves accordingly. Right now we’re spending truly vast sums of the nation’s scarce resources on preparing for, and fighting, conventional wars, while ignoring a significant range of threats which can cause at least as much damage – and, arguably, more - to the essence of this country, compared with, for instance, conventional military weapons such as aircraft or tanks or submarines.
In short, we’re wearing intellectual blinkers which is never a good idea when one is surrounded by dangers which emanate from the full spectrum.
What are these additional threats – or, at least, those we know about? The range is wide, and includes both obvious menaces to our national wellbeing, such as economic warfare (which most people don’t understand), and much fuzzier dangers such as an inadequately educated and informed public, a Congress that is in thrall to commercial interests, a food chain that is in deep trouble, an infrastructure that is seriously frayed, the loss of our manufacturing base, a balance of payments deficit that is approaching a trillion dollars a year, a budget deficit that is approaching half a trillion dollars a year, an unhealthy addiction to oil – and so on; and on; and on.
We’ve acquired some bad habits over the years; and some very bad leaders. Circumstances, or someone’s deliberate design? Well, that is a very good question.
Now you may say that these additional threats not only have nothing to do with war, but are not being (and cannot be) used by our enemies – so should scarcely be the concern of our warfighters. In reply, I would merely request that you think more deeply about these issues because I think the logic of what I am saying will finally hit home. But, first let me add a little context.
It is my belief that our enemies – mostly smart people with patience - know perfectly well that they cannot defeat us in a head on traditional military confrontation, so, instead, have adopted a multi-faceted long term strategy in which we are encouraged to defeat ourselves – with a little help from behind the scenes. Here, I don’t see defeat as the U.S. being laid waste, much as Germany was in 1944, but more as a steady process whereby we are seriously weakened over time to a point where we can no longer influence events, and become irrelevant to the ambitions of others. You could call it ‘Defeat by a Thousand Cuts.’ Others may see it more as process of being bled to death; or being strangled very slowly. Ironically, may Americans may not even notice the whole business happening until the negative trends are irreversible. War by stealth, you might say. It is scarcely a new invention. Sun Tzu was born in China in 500BC and one of his most famous sayings is: “The best battle is the battle that is won without being fought.” He did not see war as breaking things and killing people – unless there was absolutely no alternative.
The trouble with our current, blinkered, attrition oriented approach is that not only are we failing to recognize the threats we are up against, but that we are producing warfighting leaders who are entirely inadequate to their tasks. To them, war is about blowing up a target set, and having Kellogg, Brown and Root provide “comfort while you kill.” The downside, that such mindless brutality creates enemies faster than we can kill them, both in the country in question, and internationally, seems to be missed.
As a consequence, we had Vietnam, but paid no attention to the clear lessons of that war. So, now we have Iraq at $6.8 billion a month out of the U.S. taxpayers’ pockets (and that is only part of it). And, as an added bonus, the price of oil has risen to $72 a barrel – over three times the price it was at before the invasion.
Worse yet, a great deal of that extra money is going to finance the very people and nations who hate us most. No wonder the Iranians can afford nuclear weapons. We’re giving them the money – and, by threatening them, and creating instability, we are driving up the price of oil.
We need to re-think how we think about the American way of war.
In short, we’re wearing intellectual blinkers which is never a good idea when one is surrounded by dangers which emanate from the full spectrum.
What are these additional threats – or, at least, those we know about? The range is wide, and includes both obvious menaces to our national wellbeing, such as economic warfare (which most people don’t understand), and much fuzzier dangers such as an inadequately educated and informed public, a Congress that is in thrall to commercial interests, a food chain that is in deep trouble, an infrastructure that is seriously frayed, the loss of our manufacturing base, a balance of payments deficit that is approaching a trillion dollars a year, a budget deficit that is approaching half a trillion dollars a year, an unhealthy addiction to oil – and so on; and on; and on.
We’ve acquired some bad habits over the years; and some very bad leaders. Circumstances, or someone’s deliberate design? Well, that is a very good question.
Now you may say that these additional threats not only have nothing to do with war, but are not being (and cannot be) used by our enemies – so should scarcely be the concern of our warfighters. In reply, I would merely request that you think more deeply about these issues because I think the logic of what I am saying will finally hit home. But, first let me add a little context.
It is my belief that our enemies – mostly smart people with patience - know perfectly well that they cannot defeat us in a head on traditional military confrontation, so, instead, have adopted a multi-faceted long term strategy in which we are encouraged to defeat ourselves – with a little help from behind the scenes. Here, I don’t see defeat as the U.S. being laid waste, much as Germany was in 1944, but more as a steady process whereby we are seriously weakened over time to a point where we can no longer influence events, and become irrelevant to the ambitions of others. You could call it ‘Defeat by a Thousand Cuts.’ Others may see it more as process of being bled to death; or being strangled very slowly. Ironically, may Americans may not even notice the whole business happening until the negative trends are irreversible. War by stealth, you might say. It is scarcely a new invention. Sun Tzu was born in China in 500BC and one of his most famous sayings is: “The best battle is the battle that is won without being fought.” He did not see war as breaking things and killing people – unless there was absolutely no alternative.
The trouble with our current, blinkered, attrition oriented approach is that not only are we failing to recognize the threats we are up against, but that we are producing warfighting leaders who are entirely inadequate to their tasks. To them, war is about blowing up a target set, and having Kellogg, Brown and Root provide “comfort while you kill.” The downside, that such mindless brutality creates enemies faster than we can kill them, both in the country in question, and internationally, seems to be missed.
As a consequence, we had Vietnam, but paid no attention to the clear lessons of that war. So, now we have Iraq at $6.8 billion a month out of the U.S. taxpayers’ pockets (and that is only part of it). And, as an added bonus, the price of oil has risen to $72 a barrel – over three times the price it was at before the invasion.
Worse yet, a great deal of that extra money is going to finance the very people and nations who hate us most. No wonder the Iranians can afford nuclear weapons. We’re giving them the money – and, by threatening them, and creating instability, we are driving up the price of oil.
We need to re-think how we think about the American way of war.
posted by Victor at
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
2 Comments:
I would dispute that we didn't pay attention to Vietnam. It was decided by our intellectual leaders in the military that the best course was "don't do inurgencies." Of course it couldn't work, but Shinseki and other GOs considered this a bit of brilliance and that's why they were more than a little reluctant to help out with Afghanistan and Iraq. They were smart enough to know that they weren't up to the challenge, if not smart enough to adapt to a new challenge.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 27, 2006
Perhaps the problem is that the U.S. military has never been forced to acknowledge defeat in war. When Napoleon beat the Prussian army, their response was to reconstitute themselves--and the reformed Prussian army became a model of military effectiveness. Again, the defeat of the German Army in World War I, and the Versailles-dictated "downsizing" of the Reichswehr to 100,000 men--gave rise to a cadre of elite professionals that had no room for incompetents. That cadre went on to form what is arguably one of the most effective military instruments of all time.
An army that loses a war and learns from it can become greater. An army that loses but refuses to acknowledge the loss remains an army of losers.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, September 14, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home