![[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: 23/6/10 09:14 (UTC)It's an unwinnable clusterfuck that should have never happened in the first place, an excuse for chickenhawks to show everyone how big their penises supposedly are.
(no subject)
Date: 23/6/10 10:15 (UTC)The problem is you're thinking like a rational person and not a politician.
What is the smartest thing to do 'in the moment'? Do you want people 15 years down the road to say 'hey, he was a pretty smart guy', or do you want to get re-elected?
It's like when someone who passed 3rd grade math and social studies tells you the stimulus was a bad idea. They have an excellent grasp of economics, but no grasp of politics.
Sure, it's a bad idea for 10 years from now; for between now and up to 4 years? Genius.
All that aside, if those mines they found a few weeks back end up being as good as they say they were, maybe that war won't be a complete failure, assuming we get a cut. (I haven't heard anything else about them, and haven't bothered to look it up)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 23/6/10 13:05 (UTC)Troops are not pawns in a chess game, but are actual people with actual families who actually mourn the loss of loved ones. This is why much of the American public has a distaste for war and why we don't want to prolong it.
We need more troops to win? Win what? What is the metric, break the back of the Taliban? Get real. What have we 'won' in Iraq? How much of a threat is Vietnam since we pulled out with our tail between our legs?
This is just deja-vu all over again.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 23/6/10 21:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/6/10 22:06 (UTC)> 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.
Policy maker's level of concern with preventing any "inconveniencing" of the general public by a current war action is a pretty straightforward result of the fact that the current action is not very necessary in the first place.
The more you ask people to sacrifice, and the more people you ask it of, the more likely those people are to question the priorities that demand that sacrifice. If you don't think the priorities can stand such questioning, best to limit it as much as possible.