The only recorded instances of democracies (since 1900, anyway) as we conceive of them engaging in a limited war and achieving anything NEAR their PRECONCEIVED objective are Great Britain in Malaya in the early 1950’s, and Bush 41 in Kuwait.
In the former case, Britain engaged, before TV NEWS, in tactics which were impossible for the Americans 10 years later at the nascence of visual reporting. Only much later, when no one was to answer for that were the winning tactics discussed. In other words, the conduct of the war was limited only by the desire to win. Such a situation will NEVER be presented again.
In the latter case the USA and a coalition undertook to reverse ONLY, a naked aggression with the full force of its deploy-able ground forces, air forces, and a significant striking force of the navy, reserving from all three ONLY strategic forces, which after the cold war, were already waning. 500,000 men. Thousands of M-1’s. Nearly ALL our A-10’s. Teh result was a strategic bombing campaign which set the ground for a lightning, NON ATTRITION victory of maneuver and overwhelming force which brought quick victory.
A VERY LIMITED GOAL.
UNLIMITED CONVENTIONAL APPLICATION OF FORCE.
QUICK RESOLUTION.
From April 1861 - April 1865 (4 years) the Union was losing until Sherman and Grant set about UNLIMITED WARFARE.
From Dec. 7, 1941- August 8,1945 (3 years and 8 months) we were getting kicked around until the application of our force was UNLIMITED.
In 1917-1918 (1 year) only when the million Americans made the Allies force, UNLIMITED was there a break in the Germans.
Democracies can fight and win today only when the people perceive there is no alternative to the use of unlimited force. This will to win cannot last long. No greater cause could have existed than that on 9/12/2001 yet the ultimate goal of a new Afghanistan in the model of a 1953 Germany and Japan took TOO LONG to achieve and the people lost patience AND WILL. Yet both the losing powers of WW2 were the victims of UNLIMITED FORCE to put them flat on their backs and amenable to a new way of life for their people. What we did in Afghanistan did not fit this mold.
This part of democracy and war has always been true. Athens and Sparta demonstrate this completely. Vietnam. Iraq.
And now, Syria.
There can be no more of a perfect case for avoiding any engagement than Syria.
1) As an ABSOLUTE PRIORITY - We MUST avoid any action which strengthens by function if not design Al Qaeda think alikes, as well as the main enemy.
2) At $569,000 a missile (let alone the launchers, crews, and deployment costs) we cannot afford to throw so many Tomahawks into the pointless effort of DEGRADING Assad’s chemical abilities.
3) This strategy cannot achieve a cessation of chemical actions by Assad if he decides he has more at stake than US action by pilot-less means
4) The people OPPOSE this mission, and ABSOLUTELY oppose anything more than this, in ENORMOUS NUMBERS
5) The general in charge of our armed forces „, CANNOT DEFINE OUR GOAL IN SYRIA and has admitted this in public.
DEMPSEY: I don’t know how the resolution will evolve, but I support –CORKER: What you’re seeking. What is it you’re seeking?DEMPSEY: I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.
6) Underpinning this entire mission is the idea of R2P. That we have a responsibility to protect anyone anywhere being assaulted by their own hideous govt. We need a national debate on this idea. Because we CANNOT FULFILL THIS FUNCTION. There may be a moral case for it, on a case by case basis, but we physically CANNOT DO IT.
To fight and WIN a war, democracies must have the support of the people, a clear cause which rouses the people, the means and the will to carry out unlimited warfare over a duration of no more than 4 years, and the realization that we are going to kill and be killed on LIVE TV and carry on. We must have a clear goal and a defined end.
If we cannot find these circumstances among as we consider warfare of any sort, then we are violating Sherman’s FIRST LAW.
We are trying to make war easy and safe.
And it will end just so.
Arguments?
0 comments:
Post a Comment