The first mistake is what McMaster called "a raiding mentality": the idea that we'll get a "fast, cheap, and efficient" victory if we can only identify the crucial "nodes" -- enemy leaders, nuclear weapons sites, whatever -- and take them out, whether with a Special Ops team like the one that killed Bin Laden, a long-range smart weapon, or a drone, McMaster said in his remarks at theCenter for Strategic and International Studies.The discussion is fully engaged. The entire Special Operations Command led by McRaven has adopted the Raids, Raids and more Raids philosophy and it appears that Army Special Forces is finally pushing back.
"That's a fundamentally unrealistic conception," said McMaster. "We know raiding and an attritional approach" -- i.e. just killing enemies until the survivors give up -- "did not solve the problem in Iraq" (or for that matter Vietnam). "Targeting does not equal strategy."
At its worst, a raiding approach is a militarized version of "George Costanza in Seinfeld, 'leave on an up note' -- just go in, do a lot of damage, and leave," McMaster said to laughter.
Its a refreshing development and its an indication that US Army Special Operations (meaning Special Forces, Rangers and 160th) are ahead of the game when it comes to adjusting to life after Afghanistan.
It'll be interesting to see how Marine and Air Force Special Ops adjusts to the new reality. I don't see Navy SEALs making any changes, but if SOCOM as an organization is gonna make a change then it will require different leadership.
As strange as it would seem, I would recommend a member of Army Special Forces Command to get the top reigns. With a turn to the Pacific its essential that roles, and responsibilities be ironed out, duplication eradicated and a SMOOTHING of ties to the conventional forces established.
Alfred Turney-High was an anthropologist who studied tribal cultures and the way they go to war. He said there was a 'military horizon'. Anything below that horizon meant that a culture used warfare as largely ceremonial or ritualistic purpose. It's effects were tied to the honor of the tribe, but were rarely decisive or effective in defeating an enemy militarily. Guys lined up, threw spears, some guys got hurt, most didn't and everybody went home happy their honor was defended. raids were another form of this tribal warfare for the purposes of counting coup, not necessarily inflicting permanent damage. If somebody got killed, so be it, but most didn't.
ReplyDeleteCultures that were above the "horizon" were capable of putting trained warriors into the field, supplying them, and sought out decisive battles that would result in the military defeat of the enemy through violent, lethal means.
It seems to me that the drone attacks and commando raids are nothing more than counting coup on the strategic level. We go in, kick their shit, steal some ponies and ride back to the enjoy the praise of the women and children.
We are unwilling or unable to exact military defeat upon the enemy because it is costly in terms of lives and national treasure. It is also difficult to sustain in a democracy that tires of wars which are not short, sharp and conclusive.
we placate ourselves into thinking taking out low-level flunkies in AQ or whatever is effective, thump our chest and think we're making a difference.
Meanwhile we forget that for every middle-management in AQ we blowup, we are killing many others and enraging them, thus multiplying our enemies and perpetuating this cycle of raids and retaliation.
It also allows us to indulge in the fantasy our hands are clean AND we've increased security. McMasters is on to something.
If it were up to me, I'd ditch every flag officer and promote the captain, majors and colonels who actually have some idea of what we're doing.
wow. extremely well said! let me hit you with this. what if Bush had fought the war differently and decided to send reinforcements when Bin Laden was trapped at Tora Bora. say we got him and then promptly left, never invaded Iraq and didn't get involved in the civil war in Afghanistan.
Deletewe would have achieved victory, not gotten involved in nation building, Bush would be a hero, Sadam would be contained and working for our interests in keeping Iran bottled up...the world would have been a totally different place if we had better leaders...both military and civilian.
That would have been wonderful.
DeleteMaybe we could have taken that trillion or so dollars we've spent on the GWOT, refined electric cars technology and bankrupted the entire Middle-East's oil-based economy. We defeat our enemy, bankrupt their societies and tell them to pound all that fine, talc-like desert sand.
Hezbollah dries up like week old dogsh** and Israel can make peace with a weak, ineffective PLO instead of a cocky, funded Hamas.
oh you haven't heard? we can still end up telling the middle east to pound sand. the US and Canada have more natural gas than the rest of the world combined. if we switch our cars to run on it we can be energy independent in less than 10 years AND become an energy exporter. all we need is for the Administration to approve it.
DeleteDon't get me started. While fracking makes it more expensive than we think, it still makes more sense than importing oil.
DeleteIt would take coordination of the power utilities and natural gas companies by government, but I don't see any political leadership in Washington willing to put the effort into it, Democrat or Republican. They'd rather piss and moan than cooperate and lead.