via The Free Beacon.
America, or more specifically, certain parts of the American military are going BACK to war in the Middle East.
The COIN Mafia should be proud. They've succeeded in pushing us back into the "generational" war against terrorism...or should I follow the herd and call this a war against an ideology? SOCOM will without a doubt pull conventional forces into the fight to provide security on the objective, to guard their bases and provide logistical support. But SOCOM should be concerned. From the outside looking in they're already fracturing and the force is showing serious signs of strain.
Even more alarming is the fact that the drawdown is continuing and word on the street is that all the services are having recruiting troubles.
Speaking more broadly nothing has changed budget wise. Sequestration still looms. Budget Hawks are still flying high and defense can expect no plus ups and the F-35 still hangs like an albatross around the neck of the Pentagon.
Is it possible that we can look at this decision by the President, pushed by the COIN Mafia as the major incident that causes us to lose a war against a moderately capable opponent in the future?
I hope not, but worry that it is.
Finally, I AM PISSED at how easily the US people have been manipulated into worrying about ISIS. When I was having a shit fit about them murdering and cruicifying Christians and others, the news media couldn't care less. When I was going ape about them driving US supplied vehicles in the open with no US response, the news media could care less.
Then we have 2. I repeat two, journalist killed on camera it suddenly becomes an action that leads to another conflict? Don't get me wrong but it doesn't make sense! The killing of two journalists is a tragedy, but to go to war over that is insanity.
We're setting ourselves up for a strategic mistake of huge proportions and no one seems to be thinking past public opinion polls.
Obama said the program will involve a broad coalition “to roll back this terrorist threat.”Well there it is.
“Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy,” he said.
In deference to his liberal anti-war supporters, the president sought to distance the new war from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil,” Obama said. “This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground.”
America, or more specifically, certain parts of the American military are going BACK to war in the Middle East.
The COIN Mafia should be proud. They've succeeded in pushing us back into the "generational" war against terrorism...or should I follow the herd and call this a war against an ideology? SOCOM will without a doubt pull conventional forces into the fight to provide security on the objective, to guard their bases and provide logistical support. But SOCOM should be concerned. From the outside looking in they're already fracturing and the force is showing serious signs of strain.
Even more alarming is the fact that the drawdown is continuing and word on the street is that all the services are having recruiting troubles.
Speaking more broadly nothing has changed budget wise. Sequestration still looms. Budget Hawks are still flying high and defense can expect no plus ups and the F-35 still hangs like an albatross around the neck of the Pentagon.
Is it possible that we can look at this decision by the President, pushed by the COIN Mafia as the major incident that causes us to lose a war against a moderately capable opponent in the future?
I hope not, but worry that it is.
Finally, I AM PISSED at how easily the US people have been manipulated into worrying about ISIS. When I was having a shit fit about them murdering and cruicifying Christians and others, the news media couldn't care less. When I was going ape about them driving US supplied vehicles in the open with no US response, the news media could care less.
Then we have 2. I repeat two, journalist killed on camera it suddenly becomes an action that leads to another conflict? Don't get me wrong but it doesn't make sense! The killing of two journalists is a tragedy, but to go to war over that is insanity.
We're setting ourselves up for a strategic mistake of huge proportions and no one seems to be thinking past public opinion polls.
Remember how the US did the exit from Vietnam? Pull out ground forces and promise the South Vietnamese continued Air Support?
ReplyDeleteThat didn't work out so well for the South Vietnamese.
Victory through air power is one of the most pernicious myths in military doctrine. It failed in WWII against Germany. It failed in WWII against Japan (Russia entering the conflict as a beligerent cut off Japans last remaining diplomatic avenue, which is why they didn't surrender after the first bomb but did after they had no diplomatic options). Victory through air power failed in Vietnam. A decade of "air patrols" over Iraq did nothing for "victory."
This is not a victory for the COIN mafia, this is a victory for backwards thinking.
interesting that you would comment on this article as i was about to link to your information warfare series on how we just got dragged into this mess again by a form of it coming from the media because they were outraged at the killing of one of their own.
Deletei think that this isn't an airpower think tank thing though. if this is an airpower advocate thing then they're more stupid than even i imagined.
this is just adding another log to the fire that is seeing the F-35 consumed. the more money they have to program to current operations the less they will have for procurement. additionally the savings that come from cutting personnel is a one time thing. so they have no where else to cut to get the savings they want so they're screwed....royally screwed.
I'm not surprised about people manipulated by media. Politics should be driven by consensus so when consensus is missing politicians create it using media to propagate fear. In modern democracies people don't like war but can accept it if they are scared, the formula is very easy and it has been applied in the past several times, leaders create the "casus belli" and media scares the population then You can go to war. The real problem is accomplishing the mission and take to the end what you start. Too many times we started wars that we didn't have to courage to get to the end when things got dirty. IMHO Obama is "selling" US people a "clean War" in which nobody will die falling from the skies. Unfortunately nobody in 20.000 years history has ever seen a "clean War" and Obama knows very well that someone else will have to take over when things will get dirty at the end of his 2nd mandate...
DeleteThis will not work without boots on the ground. So, the question arises - whose boots will it be? US is assembling a "big coalition", so, my guess is they plan on someone else providing the meat. Which leads to another question - who has good enough ground forces to commit to this "campaign". Kurds are already in it, but they are stretched very thin, and are more concerned with their own statehood and keeping IS out. They may commit, but only if you promise them something big. Iran...unlikely, besides, Iran is under a lot of strain lately, from their involvement in Syrian conflict. Gulf Arab states - maybe, but they are currently suffering from various levels of political instability at home, and will be reluctant to dedicate their troops to fight outside their borders, for fear of not having them around when they need to supress the next unrest. Egypt....well, Egypt is a good option. If only al-Sisi didn't hate US in general, and Obama in particular for their support of Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey might be an option as well, but Turks would prefer to sit on the fence and watch how the mess unfolds, hoping to grab something for them. I simply don't know what state will provide troops for that operation. And without a solid ground force fighting IS, this whole campaign is a waste of perfectly good air/ground ordnance.
ReplyDelete- whose boots will it be?
Delete"Moderate" rebels will be trained for this purpose, according to Obama.
My guess? They wil get ripped to shreds and IS will have more equipment to use.
I think the problem is the idea we are going to defeat terrorist. That is not going to happen unless we are ready for two major conclusions 1. Radical Islam is the problem and so the root i.e. imans that preach the radical strain here there everywhere must be hunted down and eliminated period. 2. because of conclusion one we will have to accept ole school Roman and understand admit we very may well have to eliminate directly or proxy 5-20% of the world Muslim population that follow/support radical islamist.
ReplyDeleteThe above is not going to happen so we should go with the plan B Bush started. Simply attack the concentrations, leadership, and training camps, while at the same time supporting any western leaning or moderate elements willing to kill the Islamist strains. Keep the terrorist in their box and to weak to attack US or our interest in any major way. Airpower and some limited SOF, with lots of weapons going to any locals willing, considering they are not just another shade of Radical Islamist. We should lay down the marker that if you cannot control your territory and so allow terrorist to build a threat to the US we will take the liberty to attack and destroy that sanctuary at our will, if you get in the way well don't be mad it aint personal. The drones attacking training camps and leadership is adequate to hold a lid as long as the list grows as needed, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Mali, adding Syria, Iraq should have been done many moons ago when ISIS was still a minor threat. We let ISIS grow fester in Syria and now they threaten our allies like the Kurds whatever is left of the FSA (which was gutted by ISIS and Nursa). Nursa should be added to the list aswell they are of the Zawahiri camp were as ISIS is of the Zarqawi camp, either way neither should be allowed to grow to be a threat to US or our allies.
Boots on the ground would be regional. The Kurds across northern Iraq and NorthEast Syria, the Iraqi army Baghdad regions, whatever is left or can be reconstituted of the Sunni Tribes in Anbar, whatever is left of the moderate Syrian rebels in the eastern Syria. End of day the ME or fertile cresent as some ole books would say will look more like a sectarian map than it does today. Kurdistan (northern Iraq NE Syria), Iraq (Shia Baghdad regions and south), Syria (the Alawite/Chritian coastal strip), Sunni land (Damascus to Tikrit running the Euphrates valley cities). If the Sunni moderates cannot secure this region and the other sunni states don't wish to do it for them keep the drones over head and let it wallow as a desert wasteland nibbled at on the edges by the others who can control their lands.