The Architects Of War: Where Are They Now?

[10thzodiac]

http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/ (http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/)

:p

[Echo_Four_Bravo]

Why would anyone expect the Bush administration to fire people that did exactly what he wanted them to do? I get so tired of the liberal BS. No, Bush didn't fire the people that helped him plan the second phase of the war on terror.

[Marinewing]

Nice quote from Butler. You know why the Corps never taught the boots anything about him past his medals right? I'm assuming you do and so will save the details. Long story short, he was a world class flake that became a tool of the farthest Left socialist party politicians after his retirement.

[Marinewing]

As for the blog you linked to, there's really not a lot to comment on unless you're just looking for a new way to argue about the Iraq war.

I'm game for such discussions, but they really should start with a little more detail than this.

[10thzodiac]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Marinewing
As for the blog you linked to, there's really not a lot to comment on unless you're just looking for a new way to argue about the Iraq war.

I'm game for such discussions, but they really should start with a little more detail than this.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



3022 detailed reasons to argue about the Iraq war
Faces of the Fallen
9/27/06

« Previous 100 | Next 100 » (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/page2/)



"Oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs" ~ Henry Kissinger

[Marinewing]

Still pretty vague argument there.

Is there no just war? The faces of the fallen ploy works only along those lines, that no war is just.

It is fitting however, in as much that only an ideology of complete pacifism could witness the brutal hatred of the Muslim world and the war they have been waging on civilization for years now, and say that simply “Men have died, the war is thusly wrong.”

[10thzodiac]

[quote] Still pretty vague argument there.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
[Answer] Vague maybe, unless you are one of the faces of the fallen 3,022

[quote] Is there no just war? The faces of the fallen ploy works only along those lines, that no war is just.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p> </O:p>
[Answer] "Just War theory" refers to modern political doctrines which promote the view that war is "just" (ie. justice), given satisfactory conditions. As "conditions" tend to be variable, open to interpretation, and otherwise subject to political obfuscation, the concept of Just War itself, even apart from any specific formulated doctrines, is controversial.<O:p></O:p>

While proponents claim such views have a long "tradition," critics claim the application of "Just war" is only relativistic and directly contradicts more universal philosophical traditions such as th Ethic of Reciprocity.<O:p></O:p>

[quote] It is fitting however, in as much that only an ideology of complete pacifism could witness the brutal hatred of the Muslim world and the war they have been waging on civilization for years now, and say that simply “Men have died, the war is thusly wrong.”
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
[Answer] John Quincy Adams's Warning Against the Search for "Monsters to Destroy," 1821. And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice, which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and ofequal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence; she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....<O:p></O:p>

Notice: 10thZodiac, will be devoting his time to another venue and will not be actively posting here any longer. I will stop by frequently to read your postings and say hi.

Best of tomorrows to all !

Semper Fidelis

10thZodiac

[Marinewing]

"Just War theory" refers to modern political doctrines
Actually it goes back to the earliest Christian church as they struggled to make the separation between “thou shall not kill” and war.

Why do you post such ambiguous ramblings, and then duck and run when someone wants to actually get into the details. You’ve made grandiose statements about war in general, attempted to tug someone’s heart strings with photos of dead Americans, but you still haven’t said squat about the war in Iraq and why it’s wrong.

Your initial response seemed to be the absolutist position that all war is wrong, and thus I could disagree, but not argue any further as such a belief is just that, a belief more akin to faith than mere opinion.

Now, I can only guess that you’re not saying that all war is wrong, only that, that. . . you don’t like this present administration or this war, but you’re at a loss as to say exactly why.

Nice.

And please, save the whole "We can't solve anything on the internet" thing. While that may be true, but it's turned into a dodge for people who get themselves into arguments that they cannot effectively extract themselves from.

[OLE SARG]

That's the leftist way!!

Well stated retort and I love the "ambiguous ramblings" part! It fits.

SEMPER FI,

[Marinewing]

The guy PM'd me.

Told me I was good with my BS, accused me of being a ringer, and that he has better venues than this.

Strange guy.

What exactly would constitute a ringer in internet forum context? A professional forum debater? What a gig huh?

On another Marine forum, I posited this analogy.

What if Churchill had somehow come to power in the mid-30s and acted to stop Hitler before the Nazis had Europe by the throat? It would have looked much like it does today for the Iraq war politically speaking.

The Brits would be heavily engaged with the Germans at the Maginot Line. The Vichy French would be fighting along side the Nazis, causing the NYTimes to declare that Churchill was creating new terrori. . . um new Nazis. Paris would be in civil unrest with a large portion of their populace saying that the British should leave their country, and that they will simply let the Nazis in and they'll learn how to co-habitate in a peaceful way.

Of course Churchill would know that once the Germans were in France, next stop would be London. On this he would be shouted down as a warmonger, and fearmonger.

So for many, until they are personally taken by the throat, the threat is not real, and those that react to it are doing so for unjust or wrong reasons.

[USMC-FO]

MarineWing:

Great to see and read a cogent sentence for a change; kudo's !

I am not sure I completely agree this is the right war (Iraq) in the right place but I think often on that and appreciate your points. Of one thing I am certain is that this war has been as poorly managed and thought out as is possible in my view. I lay that at the feet of this administration and "Rummy" and to degree to a US public that is fearful of any sort of conflict and continues to delude themselves into believing that if we just go away and mind our own business--such as that is to be determained--then the radical muslim jihadists will leave us alone. That, in my opinion, would be a disaster.

Semper Fi

[Marinewing]

I wouldn't blame Rumsfeld. He's a maneuver warfare advocate from way back, and his efforts to streamline the military predate the war on terror. He received something of an education on Fourth Generation Warfare, which, practically applied gives us maneuver warfare, and his circle of people included many Marines, particularly Al Gray.

As much as I would fault President Bush, I would do so with reservations. It's easy to say that a leader or politician should just throw diplomacy and political considerations to the wind, but that's just not realistic.

I'm not saying that we should excuse all such behavior either, but certain things need to be taken into account. Now, having said that, I'm looking at a book on my table here titled Dirty Little Secrets of WWII by James Dunnigan. Interesting read, as is most of Dunnigan's stuff, but its relevance here is that it chronicles many of the little known facts about how badly much of our WWII effort went. And looking at every war we've ever fought, mistakes are plentiful.

Point being that war is a messy business, and just bombing a country back to the stone age might be the simplest way of doing something, in the real world, there are just a lot of things to consider, and we never know the perfect way until all is said and done.

Author and former Marine Bing West has been a vocal critic of Bush. An example critique is that the out of work Bathists military should have been absorbed into the new military, instead of being pushed out of the loop, and into the arms of the insurgency.

He makes the example as if it were obvious, and without room for error or peril. Inviting a bunch of cutthroats to be a part of the solution could have been disastrous, and just let one former Bathists obtain some authority, and Bush's administration would have been crucified for putting the "bad guys" back in power.

There's just no way to pull any of this off without being at fault with someone, somewhere.

[USMC-FO]

I don't believe the issue, particularly as applied by Rumesfeld, is the application of maneuver warfare. I am aware of his efforts on that front and support them. Maneuver warefare worked well in 2003 when this war began. The issue is, as we have seen, what happens afterward. The facets of rapid maneuver don't apply well to a largely static based force missioned to provide security for our politically motivated efforts in a dubious, in my mind, endeavour at "Nation Building". For that you need many many more troops--or shooters as I like to call them--than we have certainly in place or it seems even available. This call for a larger force application--aka troops--goes back to the begining of this particular war and continues to this day. I am inclined to believe that Rumesfeld directly and the administration in general continue to void those requests for political reasons and the practical reality that we simply do not have the troops to spare.

There are, of course, ways to fix that but the administration and the nation in general don't have the stones to do that it seems. The left then prattles on about a "quick departure" which is a mistake as I see it for reasons I noted earlier--the jhadists will leave us alone--nonsense. The right is largely content to say "give it time and this will work". Which I believe is also wrong and for reasons to extensive to go into here. The sum of all this then is read by me as mismanagement of the war, and the directors of this epic are, of course, this administration. The lead won't change for two more years but once can certainly move the lower level administrators as needed.

I think that needs to be done. Get some different ideas going, cuz this ain't workin....

So it goes.....

[Marinewing]

You're correct in that maneuver warfare tends to identify more or less the offensive portion of a campaign, but the overall or larger doctrine still implies leaving a smaller footprint. And I would still separate Rumsfeld from Bush on what mistakes have been made.

Long story short, if 150K troops is seen as an oppressive foreign presence, 500K would be that much more so.

A good case study is Vietnam, and the differing views on how to accomplish what they originally intended.

The elder Gen. Krulak wrote a pretty good book on the Corps with a chapter dedicated to the early part of the war, and the Marines' CAP teams. A handful of Marines would live along side the Vietnamese, and they achieved great results. Bing West wrote an entire book on it called The Village. It would have to be applied differently in Iraq, but the point is that in unconventional warfare such as this, you either have to completely wipe thousands of people out, or change their minds. A big footprint, or even a small one without getting to the people, is costly.

You can look even farther back at the Marine Corps' own effort during the first half of the 20th century. Marine officers said plainly that the only way to achieve peace in Haiti, was to completely change their social infrastructure. Anything else would be a bandaid over a festering wound, and 70 years later, Haiti is still a mess.

Having said all of that, we need to keep in mind that American interests come first, and we're over there to stop state sponsored terrorism. It makes sense to attempt to bring democracy to such a violent land, but even if we left them in tatters, the main point is take away another financial source for the terrorists while also denying them a sanctuary. I'm not condoning that we necessarily do it as such, but only that we have certain priorities, and the elimination of state sponsored terrorism is at the top.

[USMC-FO]

In the end Marinewing, I think we're really not on opposite sides of this discussion. We differ, I suspect on Rumesfeld, but for the most part we're likley walking point down the same path. Good discussion Marine !

[Marinewing]

I give Rummy the benefit of the doubt because I know for a fact that he's been involved in the maneuver warfare movement since the 70s where he had much contact with senior Marines, including Al Gray. He was streamlining the military before 9/11, not just haphazardly after the fireworks began. And that I know from my own studies that also predate 9/11, that the larger military establishment has resisted maneuver warfare as it directly affects their bottom line budget wise.

That's the real kicker there. The military brass, or many of them, are making a killing on gold plated weaponry that is useless in the field. They are techno-centric, not troop-centric.

Techno-centric says a war of attrition with more men, more gear, and billions and billions of more dollars.

Troop-centric says a smaller footprint, a leaner military with fewer gadgets, or at least better gadgets, and relatively less money.

The status quo opens doors for senior Pentagon military brass to steer contracts this way or that. Then when they retire, they go to work for those same contractors, making 7 figures easily.

That's known.

What's not known, is the motivation for a streamlined military, if it's not a more efficient fighting machine. More money? Nope. More "power" as in more gear and men? Nope. Then what?

A good primer on this is the biography Boyd about Air Force Lt. Col John Boyd.

Semper Fi