The United States's long war

Mail & Guardian (South Africa) ^ | 15 February 2006 | Mail & Guardian

[Cornpone]

The message from General Peter Pace, the chairperson of the United States joint chiefs of staff, was apocalyptic. "We are at a critical time in the history of this great country and find ourselves challenged in ways we did not expect. We face a ruthless enemy intent on destroying our way of life and an uncertain future."

Pace was endorsing the Pentagon's four-yearly strategy review, presented to Congress last week. The report sets out a plan for prosecuting what the the Pentagon describes in the preface as "The Long War", which replaces the "war on terror". The long war represents more than just a linguistic shift: it reflects the ongoing development of US strategic thinking since the September 11 attacks.

Looking beyond the Iraq and Afghan battlefields, US commanders envisage a war unlimited in time and space against global Islamist extremism. "The struggle ... may well be fought in dozens of other countries simultaneously and for many years to come," the report says. The emphasis switches from large-scale, conventional military operations, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, towards a rapid deployment of highly mobile, often covert, counter-terrorist forces.

Among specific measures proposed are: an increase in special operations forces by 15%; an extra 3 000 personnel in psychological operations and civil affairs units -- an increase of 33%; nearly double the number of unmanned aerial drones; the conversion of submarine-launched Trident nuclear missiles for use in conventional strikes; new close-to-shore, high-speed naval capabilities; special teams trained to detect and render safe nuclear weapons quickly anywhere in the world; and a new long-range bomber force.

The Pentagon does not pinpoint the countries it sees as future areas of operations but they will stretch beyond the Middle East to the Horn of Africa, North Africa, Central and South-East Asia and the northern Caucasus.

The Cold War dominated the world from 1946 to 1991: the long war could determine the shape of the world for decades to come. The plan rests heavily on a much higher level of cooperation and integration with Britain and other Nato allies, and the increased recruitment of regional governments through the use of economic, political, military and security means. It calls on allies to build their capacity "to share the risks and responsibilities of today's complex challenges".

The Pentagon must become adept at working with interior ministries as well as defence ministries, the report says. It describes this as "a substantial shift in emphasis that demands broader and more flexible legal authorities and cooperative mechanisms ... Bringing all the elements of US power to bear to win the long war requires overhauling traditional foreign assistance and export control activities and laws."

Unconventional approach The report, whose consequences are still being assessed in European capitals, states: "This war requires the US military to adopt unconventional and indirect approaches." It adds: "We have been adjusting the US global force posture, making long overdue adjustments to US basing by moving away from a static defence in obsolete Cold War garrisons, and placing emphasis on the ability to surge quickly to troublespots across the globe."

The strategy mirrors in some respects a recent readjustment in British strategic thinking but it is on a vastly greater scale, funded by an overall 2007 US defence spending request of more than $513-billion.

As well as big expenditure projects, the report calls for: investments in signals and human intelligence gathering -- spies on the ground; funding for the Nato intelligence fusion centre; increased space radar capability; the expansion of the global information grid (a protected information network); and an information-sharing strategy "to guide operations with federal, state, local and coalition partners". A push will also be made to improve forces' linguistic skills, with an emphasis on Arabic, Chinese and Farsi.

The US plan, developed by military and civilian staff at the Pentagon in concert with other branches of the US government, will raise concerns about exacerbating the "clash of civilisations" and about the respect accorded to international law and human rights. To wage the long war, the report urges Congress to grant the Pentagon and its agencies expanded permanent legal authority of the kind used in Iraq, which may give US commanders greatly extended powers.

"Long duration, complex operations involving the US military, other government agencies and international partners will be waged simultaneously in multiple countries round the world, relying on a combination of direct [visible] and indirect [clandestine] approaches," the report says. "Above all they will require persistent surveillance and vastly better intelligence to locate enemy capabilities and personnel. They will also require global mobility, rapid strike, sustained unconventional warfare, foreign internal defence, counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency capabilities. Maintaining a long-term, low-visibility presence in many areas of the world where US forces do not traditionally operate will be required."

The report exposes the sheer ambition of the US attempt to mastermind global security. "The US will work to ensure that all major and emerging powers are integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the international system. It will also seek to ensure that no foreign power can dictate the terms of regional or global security.

Building partnerships "It will attempt to dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive capabilities that could enable regional hegemony or hostile action against the US and friendly countries."

Briefing reporters in Washington, Ryan Henry, a Pentagon policy official, said: "When we refer to the long war, that is the war against terrorist extremists and the ideology that feeds it, and that is something that we do see going on for decades." He added that the strategy was aimed at responding to the "uncertainty and unpredictability" of this conflict. "We in the defence department feel fairly confident that our forces will be called on to be engaged somewhere in the world in the next decade where they're currently not engaged, but we have no idea whatsoever where that might be, when that might be or in what circumstances that they might be engaged.

"We realise that almost in all circumstances others will be able to do the job less expensively than we can because we tend to have a very cost-intensive force. But many times they'll be able to do it more effectively too because they'll understand the local language, the local customs, they'll be culturally adept and be able to get things accomplished that we can't do. So building a partnership capability is a critical lesson learned.

"The operational realm for that will not necessarily be Afghanistan and Iraq; rather, that there are large swaths of the world that that's involved in and we are engaged today. We are engaged in things in the Philippines, in the Horn of Africa. There are issues in the pan-Sahel region of North Africa.

"There's a number of different places where there are activities where terrorist elements are out there and that we need to counter them, we need to be able to attack and disrupt their networks."

Priorities The report identifies four priority areas: Defeating terrorist networks, defending the homeland in depth, shaping the choices of countries at strategic crossroads and preventing hostile states and non-state actors from acquiring or using weapons of mass destruction

Lawrence's legacy The Pentagon planners who drew up the long war strategy had a host of experts to draw on for inspiration. But they credit only one in the report: Lawrence of Arabia.

The authors anticipate US forces being engaged in irregular warfare around the world. They advocate "an indirect approach", building and working with others, and seeking "to unbalance adversaries physically and psychologically, rather than attacking them where they are strongest or in the manner they expect to be attacked.

They write: "One historical example that illustrates both concepts comes from the Arab revolt in 1917 in a distant theatre of the first world war, when British Colonel TE Lawrence and a group of lightly armed Bedouin tribesmen seized the Ottoman port city of Aqaba by attacking from an undefended desert side, rather than confronting the garrison's coastal artillery by attacking from the sea."

[Calpernia]

Well, I guess it is a what came first, chicken or egg type thing then. Kinda of moot since the LCN and Sicilian Mafia formed alliance with the Russian Networks anyway.

[Supernatural]

At this point in my life, I am resigned to the fact that there will be a major world war between "the forces of light and the forces of darkness". China and Russia are aiding our enemies, in this case muslims, as they have always done.

The longer we wait before we strike, the stronger our enemies become.

The longer we wait before we strike, the more risk we take of our enemies striking us first.

The only brightness I see in the future is the brightness coming from nuclear blasts.

The clash is inevitable.

[Fishrrman]

Briefing reporters in Washington, Ryan Henry, a Pentagon policy official, said: "When we refer to the long war, that is the war against terrorist extremists and the ideology that feeds it, and that is something that we do see going on for decades."

Why not call a spade a spade, and call this war what it is: The War Against Islam.

"The Long War" describes a period of time that the conflict will last, and artfully dodges the nature of what the war is _about_ and with whom it is waged.

But at least it's one small politically non-correct step away from the euphemism of "War Against Terror".

And, at least a little credit to Mr. Henry for including that the war is being fought against an "ideology that feeds it" (terrorism). But again, he dodges his aim as to what the "ideology" _is_.

So long as we are unwilling to even recognize and acknowledge the enemy with whom we are engaged, we may wound it here and there, but we cannot DEFEAT it.

- John

[Fishrrman]

The plan rests heavily on a much higher level of cooperation and integration with Britain and other Nato allies, and the increased recruitment of regional governments through the use of economic, political, military and security means. It calls on allies to build their capacity "to share the risks and responsibilities of today's complex challenges".

One nuke going off in The West is gonna blow all The Pentagon's plans to Kingdom Come.

- John

[FreedomPoster]

Oh, yeah, I rank him as the worst President, from a foreign policy perspective, of my lifetime. LBJ being the worst from a domestive policy perspective.

[livius]

I agree - and Islam goes away only when it is firmly defeated militarily. However, the problem in the past is that it has not been torn out root and branch, but simply knocked back until it feels strong enough to attack again. This has been going on for almost 1400 years, people; the only difference is that now, through its misuse of modern technology, Islam finally feels that it can achieve its goal of world domination and there actually is some possibilty that it will.

My feeling about this analysis is that it makes a fundamental mistake: it assumes that the timeline is ours. It's not: Islam is the force that is calling the shots, and we are still in a feeble responsive mode.

Islam, furthermore, would have no qualms whatsover about destroying the entire world, while we would - and this is something that gives them an advantage. My theory is that Islam must be destroyed, and as soon as possible. I don't think we have 30 years to peck away at it.

[tonycavanagh]

Ok now you got what you thought about Europe of your chest can we get back to the discussion in question this present or future strategy and where will it lead.

[Lucky Dog]

Beyond military action, nearly all wars have some economic impetus as well as some political and/or ideological components. Consequently, successful prosecution of any war should address not just military action but all of the components and sources of the conflict. Therefore, in the case of the War on Terrorism, or as it now more correctly labeled, the Long War, the world in general, and the US, in particular, must strategically address all of the components of war.

The ideological component of the current struggle is the so-called clash of civilizations. However, this should more correctly be called the clash of radical Islamism with modernity. The most successful, ideological approach to negating this component is probably a marginalization of its underlying religious tenets. This marginalization could be accomplished though internal religious reformation movement(s); a successful psychological war campaign convincing current and/or potential adherents of the intellectual and religious bankruptcy of the radical Islam position; continual, rapid decapitation of the ideological movement leadership; or a combination of these approaches. However, it is important to remember that marginalization of radical Islam can only be accomplished if it is ideologically and politically separated from mainstream Islam which claims over 2 billion adherents world-wide. Consequently, any successful strategy in this component of war must continually create an ideological perception (real or not) of separate identities in mainstream Islam and radical Islam and continually stress these separate, perceived identities.

The military component of the current struggle dissolves into traditional military warfare and something called asymmetric warfare. The traditional warfare side of the equation is, ironically, limited by the overwhelming success of the western world’s (US) superiority in war machinery, training, logistics and military leadership. Few states in Islamic world dare to directly face the US militarily, especially since Afghanistan and Iraq. However, there is more than willingness among radical Islamists and those states sponsoring them to engage the western world in asymmetric warfare as have been demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past.

The models for military success against asymmetric warfare enemies are limited. The most successful model comes from ancient times (e.g., Romans) although still successful in the 19th century (e.g., American Indian wars). This method consists of complete and overwhelming military domination of enemy population and physical occupation, in mass, of enemy territory. Unfortunately, this model is very expensive in many ways and requires hugely more of the long term, economic and political/ideological impetus than the traditional military warfare method for success. The next most successful military model against asymmetric warfare is two pronged. These two prongs are rapid response, military engagement of enemy elements wherever and whenever possible to attrite their personnel and resources while simultaneously fostering foment/creation/support of internal conflict among the supporters/prosecutors of asymmetric warfare. Long term success in terms of removal of the asymmetric threat involves substitution through military/economic/political support of competing leadership elements internal to the opposition that is, if not friendly, at least, not antagonistic.

The economic component of warfare is frequently understated and even overlooked by some historians. However, as an example of its successful application, one need look no further than Reagan’s successful strategy in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Additionally, in terms of the current conflict, few could argue that the Islamic radicals could not be fairly easily dealt with militarily and/or politically, were it not for the fact that the Islamic world controls a significant portion of the planet’s petroleum resources (a huge economic lever).

Consequently, the obvious economic warfare approach is to remove their “lever.” This could be potentially accomplished through outright military conquest. However, this approach would be politically untenable internationally as well as potentially destructive of the very resource over which control was sought. Another, potentially more successful approach would be to remove the economic dependence of the western world on Islamic controlled petroleum, i.e., alternative energy supplies, either in terms of alternative petroleum sources or alternatives such as hydrogen, coal, or nuclear sources. This approach has double benefits in that it removes the enemy’s economic lever and simultaneously reduces military complications to an open military conflict if necessary.

If one looks carefully and dispassionately at the public statements, actions and published intentions of the current administration, the above strategies can be easily seen. However, their strategic success is going depend primarily upon steady, long term application. Given the current opposition party’s publicly announced positions and internal coalition composition, if they come to power electorally, there is some serious doubt about whether or not the steady application of this strategy would continue.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

In the coming global conflict, Islam is only the first wave of the foreign enemies.

Our domestic enemies are far more dangerous than the hosts alligned against us.

[jpsb]

"The report exposes the sheer ambition of the US attempt to mastermind global security"

I wonder if this is not a "Bridge to Far", but I suppose we have no choice since we have grown so dependent on global producers to supply us with the necessities of life. Another bonus of free trade? "continuous, global war?"

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

We have always been at war with Oceana.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[USF]

Agree we have to use a multifaceted approach, and have pointed out many of the fault lines and divisions withing the ummah in the past. Understanding the enemy and exploiting these advantages are in our interest of course.

I don't agree with some of your terminology, for eg "radical islam." Islam IS a radical ideology and the self declared "true believers," salafis, followers of Ibn Taymiyya, Sayyid Qutb, and many others are those who want discard later "innovations" bidah, and "shirk" to return to pure islam as preached and practiced by mohammed himself and recorded in the koran, hadeeth and noted by islamic scholars themselves. You'll be hard pressed to get muslim scholars to define "mainstream islam" as it would depend on which of the sects they follow and which school of thought they come from. The claims of over 2 billion adherents world-wide is also excessive. Even islamic sites that tend to overemphasize islams importance tend to quote figures between 1.2 to 1.5 million.

However, getting beyond that, in order to delegitimize the message of those who are behind the major push of dawah on a global scale today, one must acknowledge all roads lead to mecca, as center of two of the 5 pillars of faith, and the custodians of the holy sites have their message legitimized and enforced in the eyes of the ummah.

My long term thinking has often revolved around exploiting the ummahs divisions and delegitimizing their role and the possible return of the hijaz to Hashemite control.

However dawah, the ideological war, does not only occur in the islamic world, and we face many dangers at home, and this especially, is were I think we need to be honest about islam and warn others about the ideology and its objectives.

I've lived in islamic countries for years as a dhimmi expat, and seen first hand what islam does to muslims and non-muslims alike. Its an experience I dont want to repeat.

[Fishrrman]

livius writes:
I agree - and Islam goes away only when it is firmly defeated militarily. However, the problem in the past is that it has not been torn out root and branch, but simply knocked back until it feels strong enough to attack again.

Very interesting, the words you use: "root and branch".

I have a parable that I wanted to include in my original post, but didn't. Here it is:

I realized this first in the late fall of 2001.

In my backyard, there are two apple trees. The apples really aren't good for anything, but each and every year, the apples fall from the tree, and I have to collect them and toss them out.

I get rid of all the bad apples this year, but next year, they will grow anew and fall again, necessitating another cleanup.

If I want to rid myself once and for all of having to put up with the bad apples, what must I do?

This years crop of terrorists are this year's "bad apples". We can get rid of them, but what will happen next year?

If we want to cleanse the world of them once and for all, what must we do?

Cheers!
- John

[Wonder Warthog]

"Ok now you got what you thought about Europe of your chest can we get back to the discussion in question this present or future strategy and where will it lead."

I think Pace already covered that pretty adequately. Future strategy is obvioulsy going to go in two directions.

First are situations like Iraq and Afghanistan, where the actual leadership of the country is in "full cahoots" with terrorists, or are terrorists themselves (Iran--this means you) and for which the only solution is removal of the current leadership of the country.

Second are situations like Afghanistan is now, where the current leadership is opposed to the terrorists, and where the solution is to send in covert and overt teams with the collaboration of the host country (overt OR covert) to kill the terrorist leadership specifically. I think Pakistan is somewhat in this area now.

Obviously, there will be a lot more "type 2" than "type 1" efforts.

The difficulty is that Europe hasn't awakened to the necessity to do either.

[Dark Skies]

Excellent post! Thx for the ping.

[ohioman]

America's greatest enemies remain her many traitors within Government (e.g., the leftist scum in the CIA and State Department), the media, and the universities.

We can survive nation building, however, no nation can forever survive with a dedicated enemy within. Cicero summed this up nicely.

I just hope that one day these folks are made to pay.

[jordan8]

We face a ruthless enemy intent on destroying our way of life and an uncertain future.

Unfortunately that enemy is internal. There is no clash of civilizations because Islamic nations are not strong enough to confront the West, nor is neither the West or Islam united. The threat to the West is internationalism, the internal aspect of which is multiculturalism and immigration, and those are policies of the Western elite, not Islam.

[Wiseghy]

This simply replaces the notion of permanent peace which was at the root of the foreign policies of GB-I and Clinton. It was a naive notion, that ignored the development of WMD's as a threat to civilization.

The struggle of civilization against the forces of barbarism is a very old one, dating to the first cities 5000 years ago. Military technology, leadership and preparedness usually dictated the victor over the millenia.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Here's the most current list of the Treason Within Club.

You might enjoy browsing through it.

http://www.geocities.com/benribqqq/cfr2005roster.html