![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
meus-ovatio.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsHaving thoroughly buried himself with a bush-league mistake no serious operator could ever conceive of making, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has offered up, however inadvertently, an important lesson about American foreign policy:
Out of three possible, viable strategies, politics has ensured that our country chooses the one least likely to succeed. Given the fact that the American public has no interest in fighting wars beyond the capacity provided by volunteer forces, any and all military action is undertaken with a serious time limit.
What has happened here is further cracks showing themselves through the strain of a war nobody wanted to fight for 10 years. Just like how in Iraq we deployed an undermanned force so the voters wouldn't be too affected, we've pursued quarter-measure doctrines which sound nice, but don't really pan out. Given the stalemate we find ourselves in, rifts and disagreements simmer and boil over.
Going back to ancient history, Gen. Shinseki gave the only sensible military advice to give, at the dawn of the Iraq war: You send hundreds-of-thousands of troops, which allows you to accomplish the mission faster, provide effective security, and reduce your time-in-conflict. What is the better strategy? 100,000 troops for 15 years, or 400,000 troops for five or six? Which one will piss off more people, and fuel extremist recruiting? Which one will run your military down and wear out your resources with a serious case of the law of diminishing returns? Which one will bankrupt your country?
Don't get me wrong, I agree that counter-insurgencies "generally take 10 years" to "win", but that is only because we fight them in the most half-assed way possible: undermanned, and making sure to never disturb the American general populace in any way beyond flying some flags. But we can't just "quit" right? That would make us look weak. So the only other option is to go the Biden route, and adopt a counter-terrorism strategy and avoid nation-building. This is the only real option we have given our political realities.
Anyway, this isn't a partisan issue, as it stands. McChrystal has pissed off just about everybody, from the Pentagon to Congress to the White House. His hot-mouth which has already made him enemies with Eikenberry and others, is now associated with some aide taking cracks at Gen. Jones, the National Security Adviser and a highly respected military officer. He has shown he lacks what it takes to survive as a four-star general. N00b!
Out of three possible, viable strategies, politics has ensured that our country chooses the one least likely to succeed. Given the fact that the American public has no interest in fighting wars beyond the capacity provided by volunteer forces, any and all military action is undertaken with a serious time limit.
What has happened here is further cracks showing themselves through the strain of a war nobody wanted to fight for 10 years. Just like how in Iraq we deployed an undermanned force so the voters wouldn't be too affected, we've pursued quarter-measure doctrines which sound nice, but don't really pan out. Given the stalemate we find ourselves in, rifts and disagreements simmer and boil over.
Going back to ancient history, Gen. Shinseki gave the only sensible military advice to give, at the dawn of the Iraq war: You send hundreds-of-thousands of troops, which allows you to accomplish the mission faster, provide effective security, and reduce your time-in-conflict. What is the better strategy? 100,000 troops for 15 years, or 400,000 troops for five or six? Which one will piss off more people, and fuel extremist recruiting? Which one will run your military down and wear out your resources with a serious case of the law of diminishing returns? Which one will bankrupt your country?
Don't get me wrong, I agree that counter-insurgencies "generally take 10 years" to "win", but that is only because we fight them in the most half-assed way possible: undermanned, and making sure to never disturb the American general populace in any way beyond flying some flags. But we can't just "quit" right? That would make us look weak. So the only other option is to go the Biden route, and adopt a counter-terrorism strategy and avoid nation-building. This is the only real option we have given our political realities.
Anyway, this isn't a partisan issue, as it stands. McChrystal has pissed off just about everybody, from the Pentagon to Congress to the White House. His hot-mouth which has already made him enemies with Eikenberry and others, is now associated with some aide taking cracks at Gen. Jones, the National Security Adviser and a highly respected military officer. He has shown he lacks what it takes to survive as a four-star general. N00b!
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/10 12:58 (UTC)