The wages of war without strategy

[Peter1469]

The wages of war without strategy

This is a long but good article about the theory and practice of foreign policy. It is a bit critical of the aimless direction the US has taken since the end of the Cold War and particularly since 9-11.

War and violence decoupled from strategy and policy—or worse yet, mistaken for strategy and policy—have contributed to perpetual war, or what has seemed like 15 years of “Groundhog War.” In its wars since 11 September 2001, the United States has arguably cultivated the best-equipped, most capable, and fully seasoned combat forces in remembered history. They attack, kill, capture, and win battles with great nimbleness and strength. But absent strategy, these victories are fleeting. Divorced from political objectives, successful tactics are without meaning.

In theory, we fight wars to fulfill a political purpose and to achieve objectives by aligning the means and methods of war toward that purpose. In theory, the purpose of war is a better peace. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but as history has shown repeatedly, in practice there is.



The purpose of war is to serve policy. Unchecked by reason, unguided by policy, the nature of war is to serve itself. When war and violence serve each other, absent strategy, it is fruitless killing. World War I was a conspicuous example of war for war’s sake, and serves as “an excellent cautionary tale about the dangers of carelessly blundering into a pointless and catastrophic conflagration.” The war in Iraq and the strategic stalemate in Afghanistan, are simply contemporary examples of the same.

[Peter1469]

A second article that goes deeper into theory.

Blocpolitik


The author takes traditional realist policy, that holds the nation state acts according to its own interests and expands that to blocks on nations, each centered around a great power

The degree of inertia in geopolitics should be a particular embarrassment for the realist school of international-relations theory. Conventional realism holds that alliances are temporary responses to external threats and that when the threats disappear, the alliances should be abandoned or transformed. When realists turn from description to prescription, they generally favor one or another variant of an offshore-balancing strategy, with the United States shifting its weight to the least threatening great powers in a multipolar world. (I called a version of this a “concert-balance strategy” in my 2006 book The American Way of Strategy.)
In the long run, realists may turn out to be right. The NATO and U.S.-Japan alliances may wither away; the United States may retrench and adopt a policy of offshore balancing. These developments may simply take more time. It has been only twenty-eight years since the Berlin Wall fell and only twenty-six years since the Soviet Union dissolved.


But those of us who consider ourselves realists must reevaluate whether we are, in fact, realistic. Realists of the offshore- balancing school may be wrong, without it being the case that neoconservative and neoliberal promoters of American global “empire” are correct. There are more than the two options of ever-shifting alliances and American global hegemony or empire. The third option is the division of the world among long-lasting geopolitical blocs.


BLOCS ARE far from unfamiliar. The division of the globe among superpower-led blocs was the central fact of the Cold War from the end of World War II until the 1990s.

Read more at the link.

[RollingWave]

The biggest problem was that once your committed to regime change you are basically committing yourself to nation building. Unless the US goes way out of it's way to rebuild Iraq etc , it's going to remain a hot mess for a long time.

And this ties back into a greater problem that the US can't actually just "go away" , because the entire region was inherently on relatively thin ice even before 2003, and if people are convinced the US is just not going to intervene, regional war is inevitable and the outcome is unlikely to be favorable to the US , not to mention in the process oil price will go to hell (though this part the US is now much more isolated against. )

[decedent]

The traditional rules of warfare no longer apply in late modernity.

In 2011, the US government assassinated one of its own citizens. One might ask why due process rights were bypassed in the "land of the free." The target, American Anwar al-Awlaki, was in Yemen at the time and aiding a known anti-American terrorist organization, al-Qaeda. He wore no uniform, he was not a soldier of a foreign nation, and his killing raises new questions about the applicability of international laws for warfare. In today’s world, where war is often waged not just between nation states but against groups, where no declaration of war is made, and where the enemy fits seamlessly and invisibly into his own society, words like ‘enemy’ and ‘war’ and even ‘citizen’ become ambiguous.

I believe that any state's right to self defense remains inviolable regardless of the circumstances. I have supported the Bush doctrine for 14 years, and my stance will ever change -- whether it's a kid being bullied at school or a nation state under threat.

[Peter1469]

I don't believe a nation-state is absolutely committed to B because it did A. Pottery Barn rules apply to individuals.

The concept of nation building in Iraq was risky enough- three groups of people inside Iraq who hate one another along with corruption and tribalism.

The concept of nation building in Afghanistan was clearly and forseeably a fools erand.

The Middle East use to be a vital spot for US interests. Less so today. Yes, oil/gas prices would go up if there was a regional war; that would spurn the growth of alternative fuels. That is a good thing. If the Sunni and Shia are going to clash, perhaps we should sell weapons and ammo to both sides.

The biggest problem was that once your committed to regime change you are basically committing yourself to nation building. Unless the US goes way out of it's way to rebuild Iraq etc , it's going to remain a hot mess for a long time.

And this ties back into a greater problem that the US can't actually just "go away" , because the entire region was inherently on relatively thin ice even before 2003, and if people are convinced the US is just not going to intervene, regional war is inevitable and the outcome is unlikely to be favorable to the US , not to mention in the process oil price will go to hell (though this part the US is now much more isolated against. )

[Peter1469]

I would say that the international laws of war are evolving, rather than being disregarded. You are correct: currently there are two types of people in a war: combatants and civilians.

Bush hinted at it, although he dropped the ball. The law is evolving into a third catagory to account for stateless actors, such as transnational terrorists.

Your first example of Obama assassinating an American doesn't really fall under international law, but rather US constitutional law.

The traditional rules of warfare no longer apply in late modernity.

In 2011, the US government assassinated one of its own citizens. One might ask why due process rights were bypassed in the "land of the free." The target, American Anwar al-Awlaki, was in Yemen at the time and aiding a known anti-American terrorist organization, al-Qaeda. He wore no uniform, he was not a soldier of a foreign nation, and his killing raises new questions about the applicability of international laws for warfare. In today’s world, where war is often waged not just between nation states but against groups, where no declaration of war is made, and where the enemy fits seamlessly and invisibly into his own society, words like ‘enemy’ and ‘war’ and even ‘citizen’ become ambiguous.

I believe that any state's right to self defense remains inviolable regardless of the circumstances. I have supported the Bush doctrine for 14 years, and my stance will ever change -- whether it's a kid being bullied at school or a nation state under threat.

[RollingWave]

I don't believe a nation-state is absolutely committed to B because it did A. Pottery Barn rules apply to individuals.
The concept of nation building in Iraq was risky enough- three groups of people inside Iraq who hate one another along with corruption and tribalism.
The concept of nation building in Afghanistan was clearly and forseeably a fools erand.
The Middle East use to be a vital spot for US interests. Less so today. Yes, oil/gas prices would go up if there was a regional war; that would spurn the growth of alternative fuels. That is a good thing. If the Sunni and Shia are going to clash, perhaps we should sell weapons and ammo to both sides.

Nation building can imply many things, the US could have you know.. moved the population and then break the country in 3. but that obviously opens other can of worm.

We should also note though, there's good evidence to point out that sectarian divide got wayyyy worse after 2003 .

But this does go back to your general point, without a good plan on the political strategy , the military is going to be wasting a loooot of efforts.

[Peter1469]

Nation building can imply many things, the US could have you know.. moved the population and then break the country in 3. but that obviously opens other can of worm.

We should also note though, there's good evidence to point out that sectarian divide got wayyyy worse after 2003 .

But this does go back to your general point, without a good plan on the political strategy , the military is going to be wasting a loooot of efforts.

The secatrian divide got much worse when we replaced an autocrate with Jeffersonian democracy.

We should have replaced Saddam with a military officer that agreed with us. None of the last decade in Iraq would have happened- so long as we didnlt mother-hen over human righsts abuses and allowed the new dictator to use the plastic shredders on the Jihadists like Saddam did.

[RollingWave]

The secatrian divide got much worse when we replaced an autocrate with Jeffersonian democracy.

We should have replaced Saddam with a military officer that agreed with us. None of the last decade in Iraq would have happened- so long as we didnlt mother-hen over human righsts abuses and allowed the new dictator to use the plastic shredders on the Jihadists like Saddam did.

While true, the problem is that since they went in and didn't find WMD, they changed their rhetoric to "spreading democracy" (probably the single dumbest $#@! in American foreign policy history.) that would have been very very difficult. and for that guy to be remotely effective he probably need to resort to stuff that isn't too different from Saddam anyway.

The problem is that most of the long term dispute are complicated, that should be obvious to anyone who you know... are in position of power. there's not a lot of simple solution unless it's some really brutal big brush ( you know, genocide.) the US in the post cold war world seem to have gotten into their head that they can solve problems that have roots century in the making. just by waltzing their military in and tell the local what to do.

[Trish]

The traditional rules of warfare no longer apply in late modernity.

In 2011, the US government assassinated one of its own citizens. One might ask why due process rights were bypassed in the "land of the free." The target, American Anwar al-Awlaki, was in Yemen at the time and aiding a known anti-American terrorist organization, al-Qaeda. He wore no uniform, he was not a soldier of a foreign nation, and his killing raises new questions about the applicability of international laws for warfare. In today’s world, where war is often waged not just between nation states but against groups, where no declaration of war is made, and where the enemy fits seamlessly and invisibly into his own society, words like ‘enemy’ and ‘war’ and even ‘citizen’ become ambiguous.

I believe that any state's right to self defense remains inviolable regardless of the circumstances. I have supported the Bush doctrine for 14 years, and my stance will ever change -- whether it's a kid being bullied at school or a nation state under threat.

Good post and important points explaining why we are fighting open ended wars that aren't so easily defined as wins or losses. War is a hot mess and although our military knows how (and I have confidence could win these wars) it would do so at their own detriment. The public is not prepared to accept those realities. Until we are, these endless wars will continue at the cost of our soldiers and our freedoms, imo.