Superior Force, Submission, and Cooperation

[Thin Black Line]

"You can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone."

LOL, well, maybe not.

http://www.newsobserver.com/110/story/537568.html

Nation & World Home / Nation & World

Published: Jan 30, 2007 12:30 AM
Modified: Jan 30, 2007 06:43 AM


History might have warned of a long slog in Iraq

Shankar Vedantam, The Washington Post


Whenever the United States goes to war, pro-war and anti-war advocates immediately reach for different history books. Hawks always equate the situation to a Hitler-Chamberlain standoff to show why hesitation can be fatal. Doves invariably pull the Vietnam War off the shelf to argue that plunging ahead can be foolhardy.

Two wars that the United States has launched against Iraq perfectly illustrate the problem with cherry-picking your history. Hawks and doves made their usual arguments before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Anti-war advocates who predicted that forcing Saddam Hussein to retreat from Kuwait would result in thousands of U.S. casualties were proved wrong by Operation Desert Storm. And the neoconservatives who warned that ignoring Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was like appeasing Hitler now have egg dribbling down their faces.

The history book getting the most attention right now is about the 1954-1962 French colonial war in Algeria. Hundreds of thousands of people died in that conflict before Algerian guerrillas handed the French army a humiliating defeat. President Bush said he is reading Alistair Horne's account of the conflict, "A Savage War for Peace," to glean insights about the U.S. predicament in Iraq. Horne, a British historian, recently told PBS's Charlie Rose that he sees similarities and differences between the U.S. war in Iraq and the French war in Algeria -- and hopes his book will help Bush find a way to succeed in Iraq.

Political scientist Patricia Sullivan recently decided to take a different tack than the political pundits. Rather than look for a single war to provide insight, Sullivan decided to look at all post-World War II conflicts between the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and weaker nations.

Her findings will probably surprise you -- and would make for sober reading at the White House: Although the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China were militarily superior to their opponents in every one of the 122 conflicts that Sullivan studied, these powerful countries did not win an astonishing 39 percent of their wars against weaker opponents.

What is critically important to understand, said Sullivan, who works at the University of Georgia, is that the strong countries were not militarily defeated in the post-World War II conflicts. Despite their vastly stronger military capabilities, these countries unilaterally withdrew or got stuck in a stalemate, as the United States did in Korea, in two of every five conflicts.

The United States' withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 -- precipitated by events chronicled in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down" -- was perhaps the most dramatic post-World War II example, "despite the fact that its military was, at most, only marginally degraded," Sullivan wrote in a paper she plans to publish in the Journal of Conflict Resolution.

For all the talk of "shock and awe" before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Sullivan's research shows that military power alone is not a useful predictor of victory.

Battle for the heart

Sullivan found that powerful nations tend to win wars when all they seek is an opponent's submission but tend to lose when victory requires an opponent's cooperation.

Sullivan found that the five Security Council permanent members won three-quarters of conflicts in which their aims did not require their opponents' cooperation, but only half of the conflicts in which they did.

For the United States, the disparity was even greater -- winning 81 percent of conflicts when cooperation was not required, but only 44 percent of the military interventions, such as in Laos in 1964 and Lebanon in 1982, that Sullivan described as having "coercive" goals.

"In other words," Sullivan concluded, "the United States has withdrawn its troops without attaining its primary political objective in 56 percent of the military interventions it initiated with a coercive war aim."

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff has a long, long memory...

During World War Two this country was united. While there was a lot of debate and hesitation about getting involved in a “European War” all of it ended on Sunday, December 7, 1941 when we got bombed at Pearl Harbor. At that point the anti-war movement disappeared, never to be seen again during the conflict. Our terms were unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, and we didn’t stop before we got it.

In Korea there was a fiction that we were fighting with/for the United Nations, and when China and Russia got involved on the North Korean side, President Truman looked for a way out and found it. We negotiated a stalemate that remains today.

In Viet Nam out fighting forces did a well as they could, but they always had to do it with one hand tied behind their back. Pres. Lyndon Johnson was a gutless wonder who tried to micro-manage the war on one hand, and believed in gradual escalation on the other. The North Vietnamese believed in winning, no mater what the cost. Eventually the liberal, left-wing anti-war movement (who generally opposed any war we might have with a communist country) became powerful enough to undercut the war effort. North Vietnam won that war for the same reason we won World War Two. They had the will and guts to win. On the home front, we didn’t.

We have somewhat the same situation in the Middle East today. Where in 1941 our motto was, “unconditional surrender,” today it’s “win fast, win easy, or cut and run.” This country doesn’t have the fortitude and resolve it once had, and is obviously a “house divided.”

But there is one thing few understand. In the 1940’s and 50’s this country was for all practical purposes, self-sufficient. We didn’t depend on anyone for anything. We made our manufactured products from our own raw materials. Today we are a dependent country. Our manufactured products come from China, and our oil from the Middle East. The Democrats may pull us out, but if that area goes up in flames we may end up thinking $3.00/gal gas was cheap as the pump price starts to double. If we want to be our own little Fortress America we’d better find a way to become self-sufficient again. Otherwise we’d better learn how to protect our own interests, and get about doing it. Exporting our manufacturing jobs and technology to foreign countries that won’t take what we produce in a one-way Global Economy isn’t going to work either. Maybe folks will wake up and sell the coffee, but don't bet on it.

 

[JohnL2]

It's rather early for me but I will comment.

It seems that mankind keeps fighting the same battles over and over. The means of destruction are outstripping the capacity for reason.

 

[Leatherneck]

I think the Old Fuff just wrote the most concise and insightful summary of "my" war I've ever read:

In Viet Nam out fighting forces did a well as they could, but they always had to do it with one hand tied behind their back. Pres. Lyndon Johnson was a gutless wonder who tried to micro-manage the war on one hand, and believed in gradual escalation on the other. The North Vietnamese believed in winning, no mater what the cost. Eventually the liberal, left-wing anti-war movement (who generally opposed any war we might have with a communist country) became powerful enough to undercut the war effort. North Vietnam won that war for the same reason we won World War Two. They had the will and guts to win. On the home front, we didn’t.

And it's true that we've become, as a nation, intolerant of war casualties. Not a bad thing necessarily, but it poorly equips a nation to fight to win.

TC

 

[ojibweindian]

We've been, as a nation, pansies ever since the boomers came of age in the mid-to-late 60s.

And nothing's going to change until the boomers, as a whole, do us later generations a favor and die off.

 

[ojibweindian]

Now that I think about it, my generation, Gen X, isn't any better.

 

[nhhillbilly]

Read the Sling and Stone 4th generation warfare. From that book and other readings the predominate reason nations win wars if will. At all costs. The side that wants to win at all costs normally prevails. In Asia they think about winning in terms of decades. We think about winning in weeks.

 

[Henry Bowman]

History might have warned of a long slog in Iraq

I recall President Bush repeatedly warning us of this in advance. Somehow the media has succeeded in erasing those warnings from the memory of the masses.

Perception is reality.

 

[ptmmatssc]

Just an observaion , but , since WWII the only time we were attacked was WWII itself (by a country) . It is a lot easier to get behind a war when it's brought to your own shores .


John Quincy Adams , "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."


Funny how we speak so highly of our forefathers when it comes to RKBA , but forget little tidbits like this .

 

[October]

Read the Sling and Stone 4th generation warfare. From that book and other readings the predominate reason nations win wars if will. At all costs. The side that wants to win at all costs normally prevails. In Asia they think about winning in terms of decades. We think about winning in weeks.

The Cold War is at odds with this theory. The reason the Soviet Union lost was because they couldn’t afford the cost of winning.

There’s a reason we have the term “pyrrhic victory.” Some wins aren’t worth the cost.

 

[Old Fuff]

Just an observaion , but , since WWII the only time we were attacked was WWII itself (by a country) . It is a lot easier to get behind a war when it's brought to your own shores .

Neither Germany or Japan seriously considered invading the continental United States... They wanted to intimidate us into keeping out of their ball park.

And as I pointed out, this country wasn't dependent on others at that time. It would be nice if this wasn't so today, but the truth is that we have some national interests to defend overseas if we want to keep our way of life.

Of course there are a lot of Leftists that don’t believe we should. The United States with a third-world lifestyle seems attractive to them.

 

[mbt2001]

Listen, Sun Tzu said millenia ago that War is serious and should not be undertaken lightly...

I believe that there are several problems with the current mode of thought about war. I am not sure how much of it extends to the Pentagon, but obviously there are some misunderstandings.

Iraq is not a war. Iraq if a protracted LA riots situation. In my opinion we need to get the bulk of the troops and equipment out of there and leave 10,000 Army Ranger / Light Infantry type operators with some light armored support and some air support. We should do "snatch and grabs" and assination / Guerrilla war for our part and support the Iraqi army and police who have the main job of securing the borders and country.

We are fighting this like a war... But where are the front lines? Where are the enemy supply lines and the enemy army?

Also, there is no thing as "surgical war" / "precision war". There are tons of Generals who quoted on this point. I will use Sherman. "War is hell." Not just that it sucks to be in war... but literally it is TOTAL. Weapons are prescise, WAR is encompassing...

 

[ceetee]

WWII was the last time we had clearly defined enemies, with clearly defined borders, a clearly defined mission, and clearly defined allies to fight with. Gulf War I under Poppa Bush comes close.

Americans can't really rally behind the war in Iraq, because they realize that we're not fighting the proper enemy. Saddam never blatantly attacked us the way Japan did at Pearl. Unfortunately, our leaders have decided that settling old grudges is more important than finding and killing those who actually did attack us. These same leaders have decided that it's not good for us to be self-sufficient. They've decided that it's not in our own best interests to produce all of our own energy, food, or consumer goods.

Sheep that we are, we let them tell us what's good for us, instead of telling them how we want our country run.

Baaaaaaaaaaa......

 

[ptmmatssc]

Old Fuff , whether or not they INTENDED to invade the US , they (japanese) DID attack us . And they , germany/italy/japan did declare war on us .

1941: Germany and Italy declare war on US
Germany and Italy have announced they are at war with the United States. America immediately responded by declaring war on the two Axis powers.

Three days ago, US President Franklin Roosevelt announced America was at war with Japan, the third Axis power, following the surprise attack on its naval base at Pearl Harbor.

Now as far as "national interests" , you of course mean "corporate" interests because there are many things that can be done to be more self sufficient here in the states . Problem is , it does not contribute to the bottom line of certian companies . The only real item that we NEED to get from out of the country is oil . Easy enough to fix , but truthfully , the american people don't want to give up that easy to get and easy to use oil.

 

[Thefabulousfink]

Unfortunatly now that we are entering an era of ideological wars where the enemy is often indistinguishable from the innocent population, I feel that we are leaving the "Age of Limited Warfare". The religious and factional conflict of the Thirty Years War brought about the death of millions in Europe from conflict, famine, and disease. Fields would be burned to deny the enemy food, entire towns would be raped and killed by invading armies. After the massive, unchecked devistation caused by the Thirty Years War, the nations of Europe decided that wars needed to be fought in a more professional manner. They came up with a series of guidlines limiting what their armies could do to fight the enemy. This generally structured the way that the Europeans fought wars up till the end of WWII.

Limited warfare worked fine against other professional armies, generally helped spare civilians in occupied areas from the autrocites that were common in the Thirty Years War (at least reduced the likelyhood). However, in the post-WWII world we began to realize that limited warfare only has limited results against non-standard enemies. If Ideological conflict spreads, I fear that countries like Israel, who don't have the luxury of fighting a protracted police-action far from their home, will adopt policies of killing the terrorist AND the population that they hide in. Eventually this conflict might reach the point where countries start deciding "it's either US or THEM" and that thousands of innocents killed in anouther country is better than thousands killed in this country.

If it gets this far....then god help us.

 

[TallPine]

President Bush said he is reading Alistair Horne's account of the conflict, "A Savage War for Peace," to glean insights about the U.S. predicament in Iraq.

Too bad he didn't read some books like that before invading Iraq in 2003

 

[ksnecktieman]

I think we did good. We went into IRAQ, and removed a despotic, vicious dictator. NOW, our troops are in an area where three distinct religious factions have been fighting for 1,500 years, (and may continue that much longer). Our troops are reduced to the position of being "reactive targets". They can NOT fire unless fired on, and even then they have to have witnesses to prove it to the world. I think we should bring them home, OR take off the gloves. I approve of EITHER action. My preference would be to fight this war to the end. What we have now is bad.

If our soldiers take fire from a block in any town,,, any town, there should be an airstrike, or a tomahawk, or a naval bombardment to remove that block and leave nothing living. If that block contains a hospital, or a school, that is the fault of the shooter, not the defender, and we should hold our head high, and say,,, yes, he hid in a hospital, or a school, and he killed the innocents, by his actions, not us.

 

[Thin Black Line]

The Democrats may pull us out, but if that area goes up in flames we may end up thinking $3.00/gal gas was cheap as the pump price starts to double. If we want to be our own little Fortress America we’d better find a way to become self-sufficient again. Otherwise we’d better learn how to protect our own interests, and get about doing it. Exporting our manufacturing jobs and technology to foreign countries that won’t take what we produce in a one-way Global Economy isn’t going to work either.

I have always been in favor of the Fortress America concept --and not just
because I'm a recovering neo-con. Yes, we need to be self-sufficient and
the course this country has taken over the last few decades has not been
helpful in that regard. Also, we need to come to grips that the age of cheap
oil is about to come to a screeching halt --maybe a train wreck-- and slow
down a bit. This will require people to leave the warm glow of their 50"
plasma TVs, conserve, etc.....all this stuff will have to be done regardless
of how things turn out in the Middle East in the near future.

In regards to War, it's about killing people and destroying things. Re-building
a nation for the same people who you've been recently killing and destroying
their things is not going to go well. It's even harder in an area where people
are not homogeneous. The Middle East is not Germany or Japan.

About the only way for the US to handle the Middle East --if we must intervene
in an actual defensive operation, is to do what the Israelis did in Lebanon
last Summer. You break it and then you leave. You don't sit around
and try to glue all the pieces back together.

You want to take out a terrorist who poses a genuine threat, you kill him.
You want the goods from a particular area, use a middle man. Simple. Done.

 

[carebear]

ks,

1,500? It goes back 10,000 or more.

The tribes of "Iraq" were fighting each other since long before Islam came along.

They were fighting when they were hunter-gatherers, they were fighting when they were little farming villages, they were fighting when they coalesced into Ur and Babylon and they've continued through today.

The only thing that kept a lid on the internecine squabbling throughout history was when someone got big enough to start putting boots on necks. As soon as they weakened it kicked off again until the next big set of feet popped up.

Until they subsume their tribal and clan and sectarian associations to something resembling a national identity they aren't likely to stop.

Remember, of all the nations of the ME it was thought that Iraq was the most likely to join the grown-up world of nation-states due to its modern history of being secular. Apparently the veneer of civilization was thinner than anyone thought.

 

[Thin Black Line]

The only thing that kept a lid on the internecine squabbling throughout history was when someone got big enough to start putting boots on necks. As soon as they weakened it kicked off again until the next big set of feet popped up.

It's not "boots on necks" --it's Boots on the Ground.

Apparently the veneer of civilization was thinner than anyone thought.

This is true of anywhere --Najaf, Iraq or Naperville, IL. People are fairly pleasant
when their bellies are full, the TV is on, they have a soft bed, and know they
will have a hot shower in the morning. In fact, they don't even think about
stuff like that --they take it all for granted.

It's those comfortable people who see no "need" for you to have a gun, yet
will be part of the mob pulling people out of cars and breaking into houses
when the lights have been out for too long and their fear turns to anger.

 

[gc70]

After the massive, unchecked devastation caused by the Thirty Years War, the nations of Europe decided that wars needed to be fought in a more professional manner. They came up with a series of guidelines limiting what their armies could do to fight the enemy.

The European rules of war that are cited are a strange beast. The rules originally only applied to "civilized" countries that mutually agreed to abide by those rules. The rules did not apply to native populations in the European countries' colonial empires, at least not until the twentieth century. Somewhat recently, we developed the strange conceit that it wold be nice if everyone played by our rules and that everyone would do so if we wished hard enough for it to happen.

Today, we face opponents who do not subscribe to the carefully choreographed dance referred to as war in western civilization. The sooner we realize that real warfare is not a game won on style points, the sooner we will be able to win when we do have to go to war.

 

[strambo]

We are not technically "at war" in Iraq or Afghanistan. We certainly can't wage war on an emotion, nor are we fighting any resistance organized or homogenized enough to declare war on.

These are called Stability and Support Operations which fall into the MOOTW (Military Operations Other Than War) category. The aim is to stabalize the security situation enough to build the infra structure. Lots of missions involving presence patrols, handing out humanitarian aid, joint ops with local police and military. You seek to get the populace to recognize the new government as a viable authority and get their buy in as opposed to simple indifference or support for the opposition.

The center of gravity in MOOTW is based on the level of civilian support, civil authority and civilian buy in and commitment, not any military objective like a city captured or # of enemy killed. Neither of these conflicts can be won by killing enemy. There will always be more...the Madrasas in Pakistan turn these whackos out by the thousands.

We get civilian buy in and committment by protecting them, supporting them and creating jobs for them. A contractor earning a good living on a FOB or on projects in town has a lot to lose if the new government fails. Enough of this and you get locals ratting out, or executing insurgents that come in their area. Happens a lot here, Afghanistan is farther along than Iraq...but Iraq isn't nearly as bad as the media (who only report bad stuff) or the defeatist politicians make it out to be.

SASO/MOOTW operations can take a long time, especially in countries as devastated as Iraq and especially A-Stan (not even 3rd world). Stabalizing a 2nd world country that got invaded, then we kicked the invaders back out quickly would be a lot easier.

 

[raybsc]

Superior Force, Submission and Cooperation

The problem arises that the people that pull out their history books, Vietnam etc don't pull out the right book and follow the plan of war.
Check out the Old Testament in the Bible.
Everywhere that Israel carried out Gods method of war, killing everything, men, women, children, livestock, everything, never again did Israel have problems with that people group. However when they failed to follow Gods plan and directions by making agreements or accepting tributes and allowed some of the enemy to survive, that same people(enemy) returned later and caused them more grief. Everytime. What can we learn from this?
If you determine that war is the solution fight it completely or not at all.
We are currently in Iraq because we did not complete the task originally.
We will be back again if we do not destroy the enemy completely.
What we are doing there now only causes trouble, it does not finish it.
If this is a Holy war, we need to fight it as such or be losers.

 

[Thin Black Line]

The rules did not apply to native populations in the European countries' colonial empires, at least not until the twentieth century. Somewhat recently, we developed the strange conceit that it wold be nice if everyone played by our rules and that everyone would do so if we wished hard enough for it to happen.

You bring up a good point. During the time when "chivalry" continued to play
out among countries of the West, their stated policy was "kill all the brutes"
everywhere else.

SASO/MOOTW operations can take a long time, especially in countries as devastated as Iraq and especially A-Stan (not even 3rd world). Stabalizing a 2nd world country that got invaded, then we kicked the invaders back out quickly would be a lot easier.

Agreed. But we stepped into that sunni-shiite thing that had only been put
on hold while Saddam was in power. Religious splinter cults that seek to
blow up their former "brothers" during major religious holidays do not form
overnight, nor only a couple years. There was weird stuff I ran into in Iraq
that had no resemblance to any mainstream form of Islam.

I'm not sure how the US can intervene without appearing to promote Sunni
over Shiite (or vice versa), or one splinter within one or the other, to the
people that live there. The Sunni will complain we (the US) are favoring
the Shiite and vice versa. This is where it becomes a no win situation.

Since books are a little too long for most people to read I would suggest a
movie called The Man Who Would be King when it comes to Western involvement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpp-r58UhrU

If this is a Holy war, we need to fight it as such or be losers.

Nothing wrong with leaving the area israeli style as I mentioned previously.
2 Kings 3

 

[JohnL2]

Also, there is no thing as "surgical war" / "precision war". There are tons of Generals who quoted on this point. I will use Sherman. "War is hell." Not just that it sucks to be in war... but literally it is TOTAL. Weapons are prescise, WAR is encompassing...

I'd like to add to that. The full quote is "War is Hell. You cannot refine it.".
He also said, "Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.".

Somehow we don't like to learn from the figures who have walked through the fire. We think we know better.
Even if you are taught the material, it is seriously watered down to the point of out of context vapidness.