Getting Beyond Stalemate to Win a War

[Beowulf]

Getting Beyond Stalemate to Win a War

By John Batiste and Pete Hegseth
Saturday, December 8, 2007; A17

Congress has been entangled in a war-funding debate that pits war "supporters" against antiwar "defeatists." With all sides seemingly entrenched, a stalemate looms. The Pentagon, meanwhile, will soon begin stripping money from its training budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our military men and women deserve better than partisan politics; they deserve honest assessments of our nation's performance in fighting the Long War.

We are veterans of the Iraq war with vastly different experiences. Both of us commanded troops in Iraq. We, too, held seemingly entrenched, and incompatible, views upon our return. One of us spoke out against mismanagement of the war -- failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection. The other championed the cause of successfully completing our mission.

Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.

It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.

Overall, this will require learning from our strategic blunders, acknowledging successes achieved by our courageous military and forging a bold path. We believe America can and must rally around five fundamental tenets:

First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.

Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.

Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery -- tools yet sufficiently utilized. Today's tactical gains in Iraq -- while a necessary pre-condition for political reconciliation -- will crumble without a deliberate and comprehensive strategy.

Fourth, our strategy in fighting the Long War must address Iran. Much has been made this week of the intelligence judgments that Iran has stopped its weapons program. No matter what, Iran must not be permitted to become a nuclear power. All options should be exhausted before we use military force, but force, nonetheless, should never be off the table. Diplomatic efforts -- from a position of strength, both regionally and globally -- must be used to engage our friends and coerce our enemies to apply pressure on the Iranian regime.

Fifth, our military capabilities need to match our national strategy. Our military is stretched thin and will be hard-pressed to maintain its current cycle of deployments. At this critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and capacity matter.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America was not mobilized for the Long War. This was an opportunity lost, but it is not too late. Many Americans are frustrated by the war effort, the burden of which has been shouldered by less than one percent of our citizenry. Our country is accustomed to winning. We deserve a comprehensive strategy that is focused on victory and guided by decisive leadership. America must succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also cannot focus too narrowly on those conflicts. We need a regional and global strategy to defeat worldwide Islamic extremism to ensure a safer world today and for future generations.

The day after his famous Pearl Harbor speech, President Franklin D. Roosevelt again addressed the nation. "I was about to add that ahead there lies sacrifice for all of us," he said. "But it is not correct to use that word. The United States does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can, to give one's best to our nation, when the nation is fighting for its existence and its future life." His words inspired the "Greatest Generation," and they should inspire us again today.

Americans must mobilize for the Long War -- bolster our strained military, galvanize industry to supply troops with what they need right now and fund the strategy with long-term solutions. We have no doubt that Americans will rally behind a call to arms.

America's veterans -- young and old -- are resolved to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This commitment, and nothing less, should compel us to stand together, in and out of uniform. Would that Congress finds the courage to bury its pride and do the same.

Maj. Gen. (Ret.) John Batiste commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq from 2004 to early 2005. Lt. Pete Hegseth served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from 2005 to 2006 and is executive director of Vets for Freedom.

Posted without comment

[Edi]

Nothing but empty words. As soon as the US tackles the domestic enemies hellbent on reducing your vaunted freedoms to nothing, it can get cracking on the rest of this. That means getting Bush and the neocons out of the White House and then reassessing the situation on the basis of facts instead of wishful thinking, which seems to be the currently preferred approach of those in power. The article above provides a lot of talking points, but does not make any suggestions at all about how to achive any of the goals, all of which are characterized as vital, nonnegotiable and absolutely necessary.

It's worth precisely nothing.

[Guardsman Bass]

It's pretty much a restatement of the consensus positions on the issues addressed, in areas like Iran, Iraq, and the war on terror. It certainly doesn't raise any questions, as Edi mentioned, about how to get to any of these goals (such as political reconciliation in Iraq, if it is really possible on a realistic timescale).

[SirNitram]

'The troops don't deserve partisan politics with funding'. Right. So go bitch to your Commander In Chief whose trying to veto the authorization to fund the war you believe is so iconic and desperately needed.

[Sidewinder]

The Pentagon, meanwhile, will soon begin stripping money from its training budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's a recipe for disaster. Whoever proposed this should be charged with dereliction of duty.

[SirNitram]

The Pentagon, meanwhile, will soon begin stripping money from its training budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's a recipe for disaster. Whoever proposed this should be charged with dereliction of duty.

Hey, who needs trained troops? The only other place to take it is from the shiny new gizmo budget, and those gizmos will make the war over in ten second flat. Honest. That's what the companies' powerpoint presentation said.

[Ace Pace]

The Pentagon, meanwhile, will soon begin stripping money from its training budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's a recipe for disaster. Whoever proposed this should be charged with dereliction of duty.

Hey, who needs trained troops? The only other place to take it is from the shiny new gizmo budget, and those gizmos will make the war over in ten second flat. Honest. That's what the companies' powerpoint presentation said.

And these companies said that if we don't buy their products, the nice men from congress are going to be very mad at us.

The entire defense industry is intimately tangled up here.

[brianeyci]

I was going to do a point by point of the article, but I don't want to get into a debate. All I have to say is turn on bullshit detector, and it reeks of stink. It reeks like diarrhea after a night of chili, and the air freshener sprayed over the shit is the idea they are "compromising" by saying they want to move beyond labels while repeating the same boring ideas that Iraq can't be allowed to become an ally of Syria or Iran.

One point I will bash directly is "long war." Think of all the countries who participate in this mentality of "long war" and see where they went: North Korea, the Soviet Union, etc., etc. I'm not saying that the US will become a Soviet Union or a North Korea, but imagine fifty years of McCarthyism or fifty years of Bush Administration mentality (even without invasion of foreign lands) and imagine where the US could be. Secret police to root out the "spies" and "enemies within," suspension of habeus corpus, secret prisons... oh wait, that's happening now, only to a smaller scale. Imagine if it was rampant.

The way to defeat extremism and terrorism is Interpol, education, economics, social networks, spies, informants. In short, police work. Characterizing this as a "war" either extends the meaning of war to mean any struggle -- might as well say my exams are a "war" -- or advances the idea the country needs to be on a war footing every day and every second to defeat the terrorists. I believe the authors of this piece want the latter. Which of course, has dire consequences in the form of curtailing civil liberties, poor investment in healthcare and education (whose consequences conveniently take decades to show up so by the time you see them it's too late) and granting extraordinary powers to lawmakers.

Think of where the word dictator comes from.

[Guardsman Bass]

The Pentagon, meanwhile, will soon begin stripping money from its training budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's a recipe for disaster. Whoever proposed this should be charged with dereliction of duty.

Hey, who needs trained troops? The only other place to take it is from the shiny new gizmo budget, and those gizmos will make the war over in ten second flat. Honest. That's what the companies' powerpoint presentation said.

But don't you know, SirNitram, that future wars will be fought in space (or on very high mountain tops) with very small robots? Our duty is clear - we must build and maintain those robots, no matter the cost (in Iraq)!

Looking at that prompt got me wondering. Now, I'm not a fan of nuclear proliferation - usually the wider spread of them makes international relations more complicated. But how dangerous would an Iran with a nuclear deterrent be?

There's usually a lot of rhetoric about how they are dangerous fanatics who want to wipe Israel off the map, and they have supported terrorism in the form of groups like Hezbollah in the past. But from what I've read, they are hardly stupid (which the US may be tacitly admitting when Ambassador Crocker thanked the efforts of the Iranians in reining in Al'Sadr), and they generally make policy decisions on the basis that most authoritarian regimes do; i.e. how to stay in power.

I mean, we've worked towards eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons, but we generally assume that they aren't insane enough to simply launch them willy-nilly, and try to work towards their elimination with diplomacy. What makes Iran so different?

[Androsphinx]

The article above provides a lot of talking points, but does not make any suggestions at all about how to achive any of the goals, all of which are characterized as vital, nonnegotiable and absolutely necessary.

It's worth precisely nothing.

Strange, because the article I read said, amongst other things:

Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis

So at the very least it's criticising the call for immediate withdrawal endorsed by, in some manner or another, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Clinton. Seeing how they want to see withdrawals in significant numbers this year (that is, before they are elected), one might think that addressing that might take priority (in a purely chronological sense) over what will happen after January 2009.

[Androsphinx]

That said, Batiste, IIRC, never criticised the war itself, only the strategies and tactics used to fight it. Which - as is obvious from the above - has nothing to do with his entirely partisan view of what exactly this war should be, and how (and whether) it should be fought. Frankly, how anyone can refer to the "Long War" and pretend to be neutral and above "partisan politics" is beyond me.

[brianeyci]

It's that way because supporting the military is considered a non-partisan issue. War is now non-partisan, and so is military spending with everybody trying to jump to the front of the line bragging about how much he's helped the good old doughboys. Hillary ran ads that said she was responsible for giving medical care to reservists when they had it long before she came into office, and Kerry was bashed for even daring to suggest get an education in order to avoid military service.

I want to remain neutral on all issues of military funding: give the military a mission and the military comes back with a price. But the instant I see serious movement towards a military dictatorship is when I start actively bashing the military. What if a President pushes for a bill that raises all military salaries by 100%? 200%? 500%? 1000%? Let's see who in the military will sound an uproar when they're basking like kings compared to the destitute citizens. Every man has a price, even soldiers as the Barracks Emperors knew (especially soldiers.) What if a President takes this military wanking to the extreme and becomes a perpetual war President? Laugh all you want but the ground is fertile for that kind of shit, and all it will take is someone smarter than Wonder Chimp with delusions of grandeur to pull off a Caesar (along with a few world disasters.)

A few of the current Republican crop could go a long way to making this nightmare reality *cough* Giulaini *cough*.

[Darth Wong]

Our military men and women deserve better than partisan politics; they deserve honest assessments of our nation's performance in fighting the Long War.

Notice how he never says they deserve honest assessments of the nation's strategy in pursuing this so-called "Long War" in the first place: only its performance in implementing that strategy.

We are veterans of the Iraq war with vastly different experiences. Both of us commanded troops in Iraq. We, too, held seemingly entrenched, and incompatible, views upon our return. One of us spoke out against mismanagement of the war -- failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection. The other championed the cause of successfully completing our mission.

Again, notice how neither perspective asks whether the whole idea is a bad one.

Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.

It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.

Of course, "the way forward" is a euphemism for "stay the course, but don't fuck it up this time". That's what the "forward" means; it's DoubleSpeak for "continue in the same direction".

Overall, this will require learning from our strategic blunders, acknowledging successes achieved by our courageous military and forging a bold path.

Better to be "bold" than to be intelligent, right?

We believe America can and must rally around five fundamental tenets:

"Can and must" because those tenets are not necessarily justifiable in terms of logic, therefore they "must" be adopted before this discussion can continue along the lines preferred by Mr. G.I. Joe here.

First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute.

Sheer idiocy. It cannot succeed even given 50 years to try; Americans cannot even wipe out religious extremism in their own ranks, never mind eradicating it around the world. They are only at war with Al-Quaeda, not "worldwide Islamic extremism". The first tenet of national strategy has to be limiting your enemies in order to keep your strategy manageable, rather than deliberately multiplying them.

Failure is not an option.

Verily, none can stand before the power of corny slogans.

Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.

Iraq is only central to the fight against Al-Quaeda because America made it that way. If America left Iraq, Al-Quaeda in Iraq would be wiped out soon afterwards.

Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery -- tools yet sufficiently utilized. Today's tactical gains in Iraq -- while a necessary pre-condition for political reconciliation -- will crumble without a deliberate and comprehensive strategy.

Even if the US is able to successfully stabilize Iraq after a very long time and much more bloodshed, the Iraqis will still want them out, and Al-Quaeda will still be strengthened by the whole ordeal.

Fourth, our strategy in fighting the Long War must address Iran. Much has been made this week of the intelligence judgments that Iran has stopped its weapons program. No matter what, Iran must not be permitted to become a nuclear power. All options should be exhausted before we use military force, but force, nonetheless, should never be off the table. Diplomatic efforts -- from a position of strength, both regionally and globally -- must be used to engage our friends and coerce our enemies to apply pressure on the Iranian regime.

Sounds like exactly the same thing people were saying about Iraq, back before they developed the 20/20 hindsight necessary to see what others could see before the fact.

Fifth, our military capabilities need to match our national strategy. Our military is stretched thin and will be hard-pressed to maintain its current cycle of deployments. At this critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and capacity matter.

Why not adjust your national strategy to suit your military capabilities, rather than going the other way around? Especially when the expansive strategy you are currently pursuing has been a dismal failure?

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America was not mobilized for the Long War. This was an opportunity lost, but it is not too late. Many Americans are frustrated by the war effort, the burden of which has been shouldered by less than one percent of our citizenry. Our country is accustomed to winning. We deserve a comprehensive strategy that is focused on victory and guided by decisive leadership. America must succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also cannot focus too narrowly on those conflicts. We need a regional and global strategy to defeat worldwide Islamic extremism to ensure a safer world today and for future generations.

It is impossible to "defeat worldwide Islamic extremism". Isn't it an indispensable tenet of national strategy to adopt achievable goals?

The day after his famous Pearl Harbor speech, President Franklin D. Roosevelt again addressed the nation. "I was about to add that ahead there lies sacrifice for all of us," he said. "But it is not correct to use that word. The United States does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can, to give one's best to our nation, when the nation is fighting for its existence and its future life." His words inspired the "Greatest Generation," and they should inspire us again today.

FDR declared war against three specific sovereign nations: Japan, Germany, and Italy. If he had been idiotic enough to declare a War Against Despotism, then the US would still be fighting that war today.

Americans must mobilize for the Long War -- bolster our strained military, galvanize industry to supply troops with what they need right now and fund the strategy with long-term solutions. We have no doubt that Americans will rally behind a call to arms.

America's veterans -- young and old -- are resolved to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This commitment, and nothing less, should compel us to stand together, in and out of uniform. Would that Congress finds the courage to bury its pride and do the same.

Rah rah rah! Cheer cheer cheer! USA USA USA!!! Where are my pom-poms?

[Illuminatus Primus]

It sounds like a bad Michael Bay movie script. But of course, that's what right-wing apologists who spooge on this like Beowulf think is great.

[aerius]

The whole thing could be summarized with something like "Freedom! Be strong! Fight the war!"

[Darth Wong]

It sounds like a bad Michael Bay movie script. But of course, that's what right-wing apologists who spooge on this like Beowulf think is great.

No doubt he will retort that he made no comment in order to retain plausible deniability. As if someone would post an article he thought was retarded in its entirety with no comment.

Anyway, a couple of extra thoughts come to mind about the article:

1) The term "Long War" is a misleading name for a war against "global Islamic extremism". It should be called "Infinite War", since it has no defined endpoint. But the insane grandiosity and self-delusion of "Infinite War" would be much too obvious to the voting public, so they have adopted "Long War" instead.

2) It may be cliche to say that the people pushing this war are exhibiting a medieval Crusade mentality, but it's hard to find any other psychological reason for it. By taking a war against a specific terror group and using it as a pretense to declare war on Islamic fundamentalism all around the world, they have changed the nature of this entire campaign from a punitive action to an ideological crusade.

3) Instead of adjusting national strategy to suit realistic military capabilities, he seeks to adjust military capabilities to suit his preferred national strategy. To this end, has he bothered actually determining what kind of military and economic resources would be necessary in order to defeat "global Islamic extremism"? I have never seen anyone anywhere even attempt to define the resource requirements for such a fantastic goal. At best, they define some optimistic projections for stabilizing Iraq, but that would in no way "defeat global Islamic extremism" even if everything goes exactly according to plan (and I think we all know what Murphy would have to say about that).

[J]

3) Instead of adjusting national strategy to suit realistic military capabilities, he seeks to adjust military capabilities to suit his preferred national strategy. To this end, has he bothered actually determining what kind of military and economic resources would be necessary in order to defeat "global Islamic extremism"? I have never seen anyone anywhere even attempt to define the resource requirements for such a fantastic goal. At best, they define some optimistic projections for stabilizing Iraq, but that would in no way "defeat global Islamic extremism" even if everything goes exactly according to plan (and I think we all know what Murphy would have to say about that).

As you know, there's always The Shep Solution™ for ending the global Mohamedian problem. I believe he said something about requiring more nukular weapons...

[brianeyci]

Does anybody find the article really patronizing?

"This was an opportunity lost, but it is not too late."

We cannot... we must... we this we that.

[SirNitram]

Does anybody find the article really patronizing?

"This was an opportunity lost, but it is not too late."

We cannot... we must... we this we that.

All this tripe is phrased like that. It tries to anchor the neoconservative, ill-defined eternal war to the common man, so that the writers can reassure themselves they speak for everyone but the Dirty Fucking Hippies.

[brianeyci]

What scares me is it is highly educated men writing this... or supposedly highly educated men. All that military college and training had to include writing essays. Anne Coulter is one thing, or Scary Bill, but military men not seeing the fog over their own glasses is disconcerting.

The style of writing only works because of anti-intellectualism. If intelligence was valued over all other things, patriotism, "boldness", etc., it would be incredibly... insulting to the "common man."

It's also scary that they don't read military history. The Germans had to purge all the shit down (were forced actually) to a 100,000 man army post World War I. This forced them to revolutionize the way they fought. Switching from set piece battles to "winning hearts and minds" whatever the hell that is, is arguably a monumental task just as difficult which requires downsizing and rededication of resources before scaling upwards with a proven model. But they want to open the flood gates, introduce hordes of soldier, as if that would solve the problem. Cutting funding for training may be the right choice, if the training is irrelevant, but the old war dogs just have to have their way and want more and more, nevermind the quality keeps going to the shitter the more they want.

[Darth Wong]

Does anybody find the article really patronizing?

"This was an opportunity lost, but it is not too late."

We cannot... we must... we this we that.

All this tripe is phrased like that. It tries to anchor the neoconservative, ill-defined eternal war to the common man, so that the writers can reassure themselves they speak for everyone but the Dirty Fucking Hippies.

I think it's a lot simpler than that: they've been watching too much Tony Robbins, so they phrase their speeches and articles like motivational lectures. What they don't realize is that they're locked into assuming that the current goals are written in stone. It is this assumption that leads them to think that it is entirely a question of:

1. Motivating people to succeed at that goal, no matter the cost.
2. Pushing people to equip the military for that goal, no matter how unrealistic.
3. Marginalizing those who are pessimistic about achieving that goal, by calling them "defeatists". The same term that Hindenburg used to deride those in Germany who thought they were losing WW1.

Really, their behaviour makes perfect sense if you assume that the goal of "defeating global Islamic extremism" was handed down from God and must be pursued at any cost, without question. Once you accept that whopper, it is quite logical to do all the things they're doing and say all the things they're saying.

What scares me is it is highly educated men writing this... or supposedly highly educated men. All that military college and training had to include writing essays. Anne Coulter is one thing, or Scary Bill, but military men not seeing the fog over their own glasses is disconcerting.

AFAIK, military training does not exactly give you a mindset which is conducive to harshly questioning the orders that come down the chain of command.

[Lusankya]

Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.

It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.

Of course, "the way forward" is a euphemism for "stay the course, but don't fuck it up this time". That's what the "forward" means; it's DoubleSpeak for "continue in the same direction".

Just a nitpick here: "forward" isn't DoubleSpeak for "continue in the same direction". It just plain means "continue in the same direction".

[Aaron]

What scares me is it is highly educated men writing this... or supposedly highly educated men. All that military college and training had to include writing essays. Anne Coulter is one thing, or Scary Bill, but military men not seeing the fog over their own glasses is disconcerting.

Don't assume that because they are officers that they are well educated, or at least educated in a field that produces rational, grounded individuals. Military institutions offer all kinds of degrees, from ones focusing on nuclear theory to philosphy. There's only a few trades that require a trade specific degree, for the rest you just have to have a degree. And if you commission from the ranks the standard is even worse.

[Aaron]

AFAIK, military training does not exactly give you a mindset which is conducive to harshly questioning the orders that come down the chain of command.

There's so many factors involved in that it's hard to pin down what exactly is going on. Most junior officers and NCM's don't ask questions, the higher you go the more willing and able they are to actually say something. To the point where some SM's and senior officers will flat out refuse an order or say "seen" and do what they originally intended, like Lew Mackenzie taking HE mortar rounds and TOW's to Yugoslavia. That being said the people that do this often end up shunned (like Mackenzie) and retired early.

Your supposed to look at your orders with a critical eye but like everywhere else there's plenty of mindless sheep.

[Rye]

Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.

It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.

Of course, "the way forward" is a euphemism for "stay the course, but don't fuck it up this time". That's what the "forward" means; it's DoubleSpeak for "continue in the same direction".

Just a nitpick here: "forward" isn't DoubleSpeak for "continue in the same direction". It just plain means "continue in the same direction".

While that's true, it's clearly used to mean "progress" rather than blindly running everything into the ground.