Posted on 05/15/2008 6:23:16 PM PDT by Barbarian6
To better understand the Quranic basis of jihad as practiced by extremists without sifting through a library of interpretations, you should read one book above all others, says Lt. Col. Joseph Myers.
“The Quranic Concept of War,” by Pakistani Brig. Gen. S.K. Malik in the late 1970s, isn’t much studied in the West.
But it should be, Myers said, if America, and more specifically, the U.S. military, wants to gain a better understanding of the enemy in the war on terrorism...
..."I think the significant strategic shortcoming or failing in the war on terror is that we have not gone through the strategic, doctrinal analysis of the enemy, we haven’t distilled and elaborated his threat doctrine."
Q: If you could speak to the members of Congress or members of the federal government, is there anything they could do about that situation?
(Excerpt) Read more at cqpolitics.com ...
Putting a bomb on Zarqawi's house is a tactic. It is not a strategic goal. We keep getting back to the fact that we went in without clearly articulated strategic goals, didn't even make them up as we went along, and the defenders of this policy, such as you, don't even know what a [-n achievable] strategic goal would look like
” putting lives at risk without due concern for ensuring that all blood expended is for valid well defined strategic goals “
The strategic goals for Operation Iraqi Freedom are listed within the congressional authorization.
“Putting a bomb on Zarqawi’s house is a tactic. It is not a strategic goal.”
Eliminated threats to the security of an allied, democratic Iraq is a strategic goal. Killing leaders of AQI is part of this strategic goal.
First, you are begging lots of questions in your statement, the resolution of whihc are profoundly important in developing a strategy. Second. like I said, you are clueless as to what a strategy looks like.
BTW large number of experienced 4 stars have also criticized this government for not having a strategy in Iraq, not that I put the opinions of others over my own knowledge, experience and analysis, but for those who are persuaded by opinion - there you are.
Besides all of which, persuading me - which you are not going to do - is competely irrelevant. You need to go convince all the voters who are ready to lynch the Republican party over just these issues. Insulting them, etc. will not make them adherents to your cause.
“BTW large number of experienced 4 stars have also criticized this government for not having a strategy in Iraq”
like who?
“Insulting them, etc.”
Like calling them bushbots, telling them they are clueless, accusing them of being on drugs,ect...Those kind of insults? Our strategic goals are listed within the congressional authorization, which includes removing from power Saddam’s regime and replacing that regime with a democratic government. This has been achived. This is what you refer to as ‘fantasy’. Infuriated at our success in achieving such goals, you spout nonsense.
What strategically important goals have we achieved? Decreased terrorist threat? HAH? Improved access to oil supplies? You've got to be kidding with oil at $127 a barrel? Greater strategic mobility and ability to respond to emerging issues? We are more despised around the world than ever - even the Saudis are now kicking us around. And we are so up to our eyeballs in hock and with a dropping dollar, and a banking system that is teetering on the edge of ruin that it will be a long time before we try another bootless escapade like this one.
We do not have a stable democratic government in power in Iraq, and have severely weakened the power of the US in the process. Which strategic goal did we achieve again?
Them that thunk we did not have a strategy in WWII, yes, those uns are just slightly clueless.
There was no plan for WWII, no way to predict that Hitler would declare war against the United States. It took longer than a year for the U.S. to get all its shit in one sock after Pearl Harbor. The carriers weren’t at Pearl when it was attacked, so they were at least paying attention.
Now the French though, they always had war plans, even built elaborate defenses. No matter, they ended up over run by the Germans anyway.
It is a truism that when any war starts, everyone begins by using the last war’s tactics. We do a pretty good job of staying ahead of that truism, but you have to remember that as of the early 1990s, our Armed Forces had achieved their stated goals of being the strongest military force on the ground, air, and oceans. So every administration since then has been in a quandary: what now?
Excoriating Bush, or neocons, for not having “PLANS” is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Once a war starts it is on a tragectory all its own.
You should stop eating broken glass with your wheaties in the morning, sweetie.
Military strategy is about the managment of violence to achieve a desired end. This war is not on a trajectory all of its own. We can diengage and withdrawn on any day we like, as we entirely control the initiative to engage or disnegage. Therefore, every day we remain we renew the decision to continue to engage this war to achieve some desired end. What end and how do we intend to manage our projection of force to achieve that end. That is all I ask. That is all I have ever asked.
The pubbies face getting tossed out on their behinds and chased down the streets of DC by a lynchmob. Some analysis as to why this is happening is not unfit. Reform cannot start from denial.
“What strategically important goals have we achieved?”
Read the objectives within the congressional authorization, which was supported by majorities in both parties.
“We are more despised around the world than ever...and have severely weakened the power of the US...”
None of these DNC talking points is supported by any evidence. A democratic ally in the heart of the middle east who hunts down and captures/kills international terrorists of al-Qaeda and Iran strengthens our position in the region. The fact that you are unwilling to recognize this doesn’t suprise me any. Your use of such terms like ‘bushbot’ and ‘neocon’ was a dead giveaway.
“We do not have a stable democratic government in power in Iraq”
al-Sadr is becoming increasing ostracized and the democratically elected government’s security forces, consisting of both Shia and Sunnis, is actively hunting down our common enemies (ie, Iranian backed terrorists and al-qaeda terrorists).
Know your enemy ... what a concept! What the good Colonel is saying is, this book will help to do that.
So much for the oft-repeated "kill 'em all" strategy so favored by some of the Keyboard Kommandos hereabouts.
It appears that Andy's real complaint is apparently that the war has not been won to his satisfaction in the amount of time he can hold his breath.
That, and his use of "Strategy" doesn't seem to be in accord with the typical usage of the word. The top-level strategy has not changed -- it is to achieve just the things you've mentioned.
There were errors of implementation, as in all wars; and in certain specific areas (e.g., dealing with the insurgencies) the lower-level strategies have needed to be changed. But the top-level strategy remains the same.
Not just errors, but strategic blunders of the first order. Not figuring out that there would be an insurgency figuring out how to deal with it was not "must" a "mistake" but a first order strategic failure that has cost a fortune of treasure and the shedding of a lot of American blood.
Among these major blunders were disbanding the Iraqi army and deba'athification - which did two things. Destroyed the aparatus that could have dealt with an insurgency and greatly multiplied that insurgency by giving Iraq's best trained, educated and most aggressive individuals nowhere to turn to but to join the insurgency.
I am not interested in the typically ignorant use of the word on this forum. I mean the term exactly as Sun Tsu describes strategy, comprehensively, in The Art of War.
Did our estimates when we laid out our goals - and the required actions and forces to achieve them - include:
1. How we were going to handle the army and deba'athification in a manner that minimized rather than multiplied and radicalized the insurgency, as in fact happened under the Cheney - Bremer policies that were put into place.
2. How many troops were required to occupy hostile territory literally on the other side of the world.
3. The impact on our own strategic mobility and responsiveness of getting tied down to committement in Iraq, which will continue for the next 5 years.
4. The strategic impact of adding $3 Trillion to our national debt, including a tottering banking system, rampant inflation and a falling dollar.
5. The sacrifice of the entirety of the conservative agenda in order to prosecute a war in Iraq.
6. The impact on our national prestige to this entire action. (e.g. even the Saudis who were entirely dependent upon our support for their continuation in power are happy to kick us around).
7. The impact on our own democracy of turning lose Homeland Security on the American public.
8. The impact of $127 oil on an economy that has always relied upon "cheap oil" as our national energy strategy, and the sacrifice of efforts to start down a real road to energy security to the imperatives of a war that has predictably gone on a lot longer than its originators figured on.
Those are just some of the issues that even a cursory and shallow application of a couple of precepts of Sun Tzu would have addressed. This is very short of what a professional strategic planning staff would have considered.
So I don't know how you intend to use the word strategy, and frankly I really don't care.
But you don't actually want to apply that to how we should have conducted THIS war. Amazing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.