Small Wars Journal

NATO Commander Breedlove Discusses Implications of Hybrid War

Mon, 03/23/2015 - 7:23pm

NATO Commander Breedlove Discusses Implications of Hybrid War

By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, March 23, 2015 – Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove discussed the implications of hybrid war during a presentation to the Brussels Forum over the weekend.

Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe and commander of U.S. European Command, said Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea and continued actions in the rest of Eastern Ukraine is a form of hybrid war.

Russia is using diplomacy, information warfare, and its military and economic means to wage this campaign, he added.

Aspects of Hybrid War

One of the first aspects of the hybrid war is to attack credibility and to try to separate a nation from its support mechanisms, the general said.

“Informationally, this is probably the most impressive new part of this hybrid war, all of the different tools to create a false narrative,” he said. “We begin to talk about the speed and the power of a lie, how to get a false narrative out, and then how to sustain that false narrative through all of the new tools that are out there.”

Military tools remain relatively unchanged, he said. “But how they are used or how they are hidden in their use, is the new part of this hybrid war,” the general said. “How do we recognize, how do we characterize and then how do we attribute this new employment of the military in a way that is built to bring about ambiguity?”

An Across-government Approach

Using the economic tool, he said, hybrid warfare allows a country to bring pressure on economies, but also on energy.

“What the military needs to do is to use those traditional military intelligence tools to develop the truth. The way you attack a lie is with the truth,” Breedlove said. “I think that you have to attack an all of a government approach with an all of government approach. The military needs to be able to do its part, but we need to bring exposure to those diplomatic pressures and return the diplomatic pressure. We need to, as a Western group of nations or as an alliance, engage in this information warfare to … drag the false narrative out into the light and expose it.”

Regarding Western response to Russian actions in Ukraine, no tool should be off the table, Breedlove said.

“In Ukraine, what we see is what we talked about earlier, diplomatic tools being used, informational tools being used, military tools being used, economic tools being used against Ukraine,” he said. “We, I think, in the West, should consider all of our tools in reply. Could it be destabilizing? The answer is yes. Also, inaction could be destabilizing.”

Comments

Bill M.

Sat, 05/02/2015 - 7:57am

In reply to by Outlaw 09

Outlaw 09- I don't think access to raw resources is a new strategic concern, that has been a driving factor for war since the beginning of history, but I do think globalization is a major factor that we don't fully understand. We love to harp the benefits of globalization, but when we do so at the expense of not recognizing how it destabilizes and threatens some states (to include the U.S.) then we become the proverbial three monkeys (blind, deaf, and mute). I suspect we'll start seeing a backlash against excessive globalization and more of a shift to regional economic blocs over time. Bill Clinton was the first President, I believe, who was a major advocate of what I would call modern hyper-globalization. It is an ideology that has been proven to create as much harm as it does good. Unfortunately, once it becomes an ideology, rational thought is no longer desired. I'm not against anti-globalization, quite the opposite, but we need to take two steps back and look at the bigger picture and assess its real impacts versus the impacts the theories thought it would have and adjust accordingly.

The following link discusses Bill's views on foreign policy, and to Bill C., that doesn't mean every politician in the U.S. embraces that view. In fact, his wife is getting forced to back away from it somewhat. I personally like the vision, but much like the revolution in military affairs (RMA), the theory sounds nice, but in practice it becomes something else.

Link and small excerpt relevant to the topic of NATO.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-10.html

"Our Alliances with Europe and Asia are the Cornerstone of Our National Security, but They Must be Constantly Adapted to Meet Emerging Challenges.

These core alliances are today stronger and arguably more durable because they are organized to advance an enduring set of shared interests, rather than to defeat a single threat. President Clinton broke new ground in 1993 by welcoming our European and Asian allies' desire to play a more responsible role while maintaining our troops and adapting our alliances in both regions."

Outlaw 09

Sat, 05/02/2015 - 1:04am

In reply to by Bill M.

billM--notice that in few of my previous comments I mention the siple question--"are we seeing in Russia, Iranian and Chinese non linear warfare the first true military clashes over the effects of globalization and or fighting to secure future raw resources". Look at the real reason about the Russian dislike of the EU Association Agreement and the Ukraine--fear of lost markets and lost millions in trade--it is their bottom line.

It still is a valid question. It has nothing to do with past behaviors on the part of the US good or bad, it has nothing to do with ideologies or political beliefs as those are the means--it is all about economics and who will controls that future space.

Control that space and you control vast areas or "spheres of influence"--Russia has basically stated that in her dream of an economic zone from Portugal to the Russian Far East and the US recently repeated their dream of the European TTIP and the Pacific TPP.

It is al about the color of money and the influence/power that goes with that money.

Bill M.

Fri, 05/01/2015 - 7:41pm

In reply to by Bill C.

@ Bill C.,

You're fixated on one small aspect of our national security. There are four enduring interests: security, prosperity, international order (your fixation), and promoting values. They all are mutually supporting. To address your fixation, we are less likely to be attacked when the majority of international actors abide by a set of rules. If certain values are followed, such as respect for human rights, we're much less likely to see conflicts emerge within nations that can cross borders, or draw us into the fight to protect economic interests. Think of the critical straights around the world essential to global trade, and what it would mean if the countries in those areas became terrorist hot beds. I'm with you that our Department of State pushes democracy like evangelists, and while I can't speak for everyone in the military, I know I and many of friends are tiring of their naïve and disruptive interference with other countries' internal affairs as long as human rights are protected. Furthermore, the form of capitalism we're pushing is disruptive and not only creates a greater wealth gap in our country, but within other countries and between other countries that could lead to dangerous levels of instability. Read "World on Fire," for one perspective on this, there are many others.

In the end I agree with our four enduring interests; however, I disagree with pushing our form of governance and economics upon others. Elections are coming up, vote wisely. Also note Hillary is backing away from the "Trans Pacific Partnership." Noting how everything is connected, some people, and not without merit, are tying the troubles in Baltimore to excessive globalization. Baltimore's industrial base has been hollowed out, because the companies were either out competed by foreign companies (usually due to cheap labor and government subsidies), or the companies moved overseas to benefit from cheap labor and limited environmental rules. Greed works to a point, when it becomes the sole focus capitalism fails. It's complex, so overly simplistic explanations like mine don't address the nuances, but there is still truth in this argument.

Bill C.

Fri, 05/01/2015 - 6:36pm

In reply to by Outlaw 09

Let's look at strategy from the perspective of:

a. First, George Soros' and his "Global Open Societies" (cir. 1998). And,

b. Then, compare Soros' thoughts to President Obama's -- re: key passages in the President's 2015 National Security Strategy.

Herein, to give some consideration, IN THE CONTEXT OFFERED BY SOROS AND THE PRESIDENT, on (1) greater military spending to NATO versus (2) helping Russia become both more democratic and more prosperous.

PART I: First: Soros, and the fundamental problem of global capitalism, to wit: the NEED for a "global open society:"

"But the real deficiencies are outside the economic field. The state can no longer play the role it played previously. In many ways that is a blessing, but some of the state's functions remain unfulfilled. We do not have adequate international institutions for the protection of individual freedoms, human rights, and the environment, or for the promotion of social justice -- not to mention the preservation of peace. Most of the institutions we do have are associations of states, and states usually put their own interests ahead of the common interest. The United Nations is constitutionally incapable of fulfilling the promises contained in the preamble of its charter. Moreover, there is no consensus on the need for better international institutions."

"As regards security and peace, the liberal democracies of the world ought to take the lead and forge a global network of alliances that could work with or without the United Nations. NATO is a case in point. The primary purpose of these alliances would be to preserve peace; but crisis prevention cannot start early enough. What goes on inside states is of consequence to their neighbors and to the world at large. The promotion of freedom and democracy in and around these alliances ought to become an important policy objective. For instance, a democratic and prosperous Russia would make a greater contribution to peace in the region than would any amount of military spending by NATO. Interfering in other countries' internal affairs is fraught with difficulties -- but not interfering can be even more dangerous."

"With the passage of time the deficiencies are likely to make their effect felt, and the boom is likely to turn into a bust. But the ever-looming breakdown can be avoided if we recognize the flaws in time. What is imperfect can be improved. For the global capitalist system to survive, it needs a society that is constantly striving to correct its deficiencies: a global open society."

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98jan/opensoc.htm

PART II: Next: President Obama and his determination to (1) CREATE a global open society -- so as to (2) provide for global capitalism:

"Underpinning it all, we are upholding our enduring commitment to the advancement of democracy and human rights and building new coalitions to combat corruption and to support open governments and open societies. In doing so, we are working to support democratic transitions, while also reaching out to the drivers of change in this century: young people and entrepreneurs."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_secur…

Anyone, other than me, see the similarity in certain words, phrases and purposes -- this, Soros and Obama?

PART III: Thus, and re: strategy we have:

a. The master that strategy must serve (not the U.S. or the western world but, rather, global capitalism). And

b. The deficiency that must be overcome in this regard (the need for a global open society). These matters being resolved, then

c. The goal of strategy must be to produce such a global open society.

d. In this regard to see the common purpose -- if not the common approach -- of both our recent past, and indeed our present, national security strategies?

Outlaw 09

Thu, 04/30/2015 - 4:19pm

In reply to by Outlaw 09

SACEUR nails exactly what I have been saying for a year now--this White House has no strategy for Russian and has basically not been leading at all in Europe and has left it for the French and Germans.

On top of it all they vastly under estimated Putin and his military--even the SACEUR admits national IC also blew it--too many years at fighting COIN which has been basically heading since 9/11 in the wrong direction

US leadership in Europe "perhaps more important now than at any time in recent history"

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/commander-of-us-militar… … pic.twitter.com/zxPjdZST4g

Outlaw 09

Thu, 04/30/2015 - 3:46pm

In reply to by Outlaw 09

This is the result when one does not immediately push back on Russian non linear warfare. "Soft power" was never the correct way forward starting with Crimea and the economic nuclear option of "cutting Russia from SWIFT" should have been the way forward. Putin always uses "negotiations" as a "time killer" in order to achieve other goals.

This is one of those "what the heck" comments from Putin--meaning when Minsk 2 has completely fallen apart in the last few days he is blowing smoke on "what progress" when he cannot even support a simple thing called a "ceasefire". So is this statement for Russian internal consumption or western consumption????? Russian has been in total non compliance and yet he claims the West is basically approving Russian actions as being "positive" and DC sees this smokescreen right?????

Russia Says Western Leaders Note Progress In Cease-Fire In Ukraine http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-france-ukraine-germany-cease-fire-p… … via @RFERL 30 April

Gen. @PMBreedlove: Crisis "is about more than just Ukraine. Russian activities are destabilizing neighboring states"

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/commander-of-us-militar…

It has been from the beginning about Putin's three geo political "end states"--non linear warfare has always just been the "means".

Outlaw 09

Thu, 04/30/2015 - 2:25pm

Seems the SACEUR is the only one outside of DC that is fully understanding Russian actions in the Ukraine.

Attack and shellings have reach pre Minsk 2 levels and not a single comment out of DC.

Russian non linear warfare is going into a critical phase and yet nothing out of the White House nor the NSC.

#Ukraine Army reports about 50 #Russia attacks on the defense line between midnight and 6 pm. New record since #Minsk2!!!

We've had widening civ-mil gap between WH & EUCOM over #Ukraine for some time. SACEUR's comments on RU moves in #Ukraine are the next phase.

NATO suspects that Russia is preparing an offensive in Donbas pic.twitter.com/AW8huJgjY2 http://liveuamap.com/en/2015/30-april-nato-suspects-that-russia-is-prep…

#NATO SACEUR warns of threat to Ukraine: Russian forces actions "consistent with preparations for another offensive." http://eucom.mil/media-library/article/33031/senate-armed-services-comm…

NOTICE the interesting collusion between Russian and Chinese non linear warfare and at the same time the US is being challenged by Iranian non linear warfare over a US ship after threatening one before the capture.

A total of nine ships from #Russia and #China to conduct joint exercise in Mediterranean next month http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-china-to-hold-joint-n…

A kind of a full court non linear press by the three critical players and YET from DC????

We are not even in the political warfare game--we have not even left the closet.

Outlaw 09

Thu, 04/30/2015 - 7:00am

RC--you might appreciate this:

Appears the Ukrainian guerrilla units are stating to kick in with their attacks on Russian mercenaries and Russian troops.

There have been six recorded rail cuts on rail lines providing direct Russian rail resupplies from Russia to their troops and mercenaries with one of the rail cuts being actually in the Rostov area, two sabotage acts against Russian mercenary munitions and equipment storage areas also in occupied territory and the sabotage attack against an extremely large Russian munitions and fuel depot at a large Russian training base for personnel and mercenaries headed to the Ukraine along the border to the Ukraine near Rostov.

Outlaw 09

Wed, 04/29/2015 - 11:03am

In reply to by Outlaw 09

One has to "love" the Iranian creative messaging at work--now the court document allowing for the seizure is from an unnamed Iranian company rumored to be under control of the IRGC and then this today:

Maersk Tigris Held By Iranians Over 10-Year Old Missing Cargo http://gcaptain.com/maersk-tigris-at-anchor-in-bandar-abbas-crew-safe/

Really ---stopping a ship in the legal open waters over a ten year old alleged missing cargo by an "unnamed" Iranian company alleged to be IRGC owned makes for a great script so "WHAT" was the real reason especially after the IRGC actions the previous Friday??

This particular ship has been in and out of Iran multiple times over the past years and NOW the court "finds something"??

AND this is not an intended "message" for the US and our reaction was what again--"we are monitoring the situation"??

BTW--the US was extremely quick to point out (really quick to point out) the ship was "technically" in Iranian waters while in the Strait but per the online ship tracker it was not.

Outlaw 09

Wed, 04/29/2015 - 1:19am

In reply to by Outlaw 09

Interesting yesterday to watch the use of information by the IRGC in "freezing" the US into inaction.

As the ship was being taken over they immediately released statements that it was a "legal dispute" and "they had a court order" AND behold the US Navy slacks off.

After the last Friday's IRGC "incident" and following Maritime warnings
WHAT was the response of the White House--only after the second ship was pirated did they send in a DDG into the area--why was not one in the area immediately after the first incident??

More importantly is the question why was the first incident basically nowhere to be seen nor reported by any western media??

That particular Iranian messaging made it even into the western media cycles.

THEN once the ship was landed IRGC messaging "changed" the ship was stopped due to it violating of Iranian territorial waters--WHICH via social media seems to be a "fake" as the online tracker of ship movements fully indicated it was in international waters when stopped by the IRGC based on the satellite inputs from the ships' own transponder.

Now we see the limitations of "soft power" and "negotiations"--some on social media placed an interesting question into the net--"just how much humiliation" will this White House accept in order to achieve a "nuclear deal" which now appears really only for a "legacy" as the deal does not stop the Iranian ability to "break out" in three months to a nuclear weapon if they wanted/desired too.

If one really looks at the Iranian version of non linear warfare you can see a thread between this pirate act and the massive recent loses on the battlefield in Syria where US supported moderate Sunni's together with moderate Islamists have been basically beating up on the SAA and Hezbollah badly. the TOW/MILAN being the difference with a far better coordination not seen by the groups prior to this offensive then follow the thread into US/IRGC interactions in Iraq--and there is no connections??

Outlaw 09

Tue, 04/28/2015 - 4:26pm

In reply to by Outlaw 09

The first incident never made western media it seems:

Four Iranian vessels surrounded US-flagged Maersk Kensington in Strait of Hormuz last Friday http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/politics/iran-seizes-commercial-ship-u-s-…

2 dangerous IRGCN incidents in 4 days with Maersk vessels in the Gulf...it's almost like the Pasdaran are sending USG a message ....

IRGC was probably gauging US response in preparation for today's seizure

Outlaw 09

Tue, 04/28/2015 - 2:23pm

In reply to by Outlaw 09

Evidently the freighter was in fact in international waters so actually either an act of war or piracy--either way a new version of non linear warfare--one cannot twist the words as in the Ukraine ie incursion vs invasion.

Maersk Tigris was clearly in international waters and diverted by Iranian navy pic.twitter.com/3hVbLy0KlG

MV Tigris can be tracked via this online ship tracking program--still heading to port--last reported location was just over two hours ago.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:56.28555/centery:27.01…

There was a warning about IRGC small boat threat === apparently did not raise many eyebrows.

Notice to Mariners put out 26 April warning of IRGC small boat threat after Kensington incident but little noticed

Outlaw 09

Tue, 04/28/2015 - 11:45am

Since we are busy with the Russian non linear warfare Iran decides to test drive their own version.

We tend to overlook the Iranian version and it is now biting us back for that mistake--it was basically forgotten in the drive to get an Iranian nuclear agreement--many pointed that out but they were ignored.

Did Iran just perpetrate an act of war against the USA? Say goodbye 2 Obama's presidency, functionally, if it's true.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/04/28/Iran-holds-…

Tom Nichols @RadioFreeTom
#Iran is going to test to see where the edges of the envelope really are. It's what that kind of regime does.

It'd have been stupid to seize a US-flagged vessel. Marshall Islands was brilliant: kinda US, kinda not US…ambiguous but sends the message.

There's a word for what IRGCN did today: Piracy. When states do it, cannot be ignored. If Pasdaran doesn't let #MaerskTigris go soon........

What if Moscow & Tehran understand they will never face a weaker POTUS than a lame duck Obama and they actually kinda want war now?

Ponder that for a moment as some of us have been saying Putin is on a collision course in eastern Ukraine with NATO ie the US and he is not side stepping that collision.

Outlaw 09

Tue, 04/28/2015 - 5:33am

One way to stop Russian non linear warfare activities dead in their tracks--think the Russian Navy got the "message"????

#Finnish navy has observed underwater activity in front of #Helsinki yesterday. Warned with depth charges. In Finnish

http://yle.fi/uutiset/merivoimat_hav...stalla/7958858

Outlaw 09

Tue, 04/28/2015 - 5:58am

In reply to by RantCorp

RC--right out of my 60s SF training for sabotage of rail lines--classic attack common to all behind lines UW ops.

Sabotage attack right out of the 60s USSF handbook—conducted on rail line inside Russia that leads to the Ukraine—then photo and location uploaded via social media in near real time for the rear to analyze

pic.twitter.com/ULcplLbd1F

Second "rumored" sabotgage UW operation from today--classical attack against a major ammo depot AND just across the border-thus doable.

Alleged to have been started by a "fire" after a SPG blew up.

#Rostov rgn: Field ammo depot on fire photo @GirkinGirkin pic.twitter.com/d1mFaZW4Oq see https://twitter.com/loogunda/status/592949760899833856

View from Taganrog :) Russian Army ammo/fuel dump burning, western Rostov region 28 April (via @GirkinGirkin) pic.twitter.com/juZR8v237Q

Outlaw 09

Tue, 04/28/2015 - 4:04am

In reply to by RantCorp

RC--you might find this article agrees with most of what you are saying--probably one of the best currently available analysis of Russian military moves.

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_russias_military_options_in_ukrai…

BTW has been an interesting shift in the Syrian fighting with the Sunni moderates and even the Islamists recently uniting multiple times on the battlefield to defeat Assad forces and are on a roll right now--we see a number of things at play that were not there six months ago;

1. far better tactical coordination between the Sunni fighting groups following a clear tactical strategy which means to me--western intel agencies are in the fight now --even the Sunni fighting groups have taken on IS and defeated them as well
2. a tactical shift to using the US TOW and French MILAN ATMs to dominate the battlefield as Assad relied heavily on tanks and APCs
3.--this is the interesting piece--when after winning a fight instead of headlong racing onto the next town or city was is typical for Arab fighters-there is a methodical hold in place, then reorg and then selection of the next target sets--ie influenced now by western intel or via the KSA intel

BUT it has been the TOW and MILAN that have tipped the fight--THAT is why the TOW is so important for the Ukraine--many in DC state they are afraid of the UA going on the offensive but they fully understand their weaknesses--they just need to take the armor advantage away from the Russians and then the price for Russia climbs beyond what they are willing to pay--the same for counter battery to take some of the artillery pressure off them.

Taken from the above linked article:

The myth of Russian escalation dominance

Western policymakers, particularly in Western Europe, often say “there is no military solution to the conflict”. The phrase is misleading and self-defeating. All military conflicts are ended by diplomatic agreements – but the military situation dictates the terms of the agreement. And as long as the West refrains from further engagement, Russia can pursue its own military solution.

As long as the West refrains from further engagement, Russia can pursue its own military solution.

Moreover, the idea that Russia will escalate the conflict as soon as Western lethal aid arrives in Kyiv is out of touch with reality. In Russian propaganda, Russia is already fighting a proxy war in Ukraine against NATO, the US, or a Western conspiracy. Russia does not care whether its lies are “confirmed” by the West’s actions or not. Russia refrains from total escalation because of costs, not Western behaviour. Russia’s aggressive rhetoric aims to scare off the West – the more seriously the West takes Moscow’s empty threats, the more effective they are.The problem for Moscow is that as long as the US are able to shift forces to the European continent, the West will be capable to mount a military response Russia cannot match. Russia knows that it would lose a major war with the West. But this situation would change if Russia could split the West, especially by splitting the US from Europe. And Russia knows that Western policy makers are hesitant to resort to military means – hence Russia uses military threats for intimidation. Especially nuclear threats are aimed at subverting Western unity and willingness to react to Russian aggression. Since 2008, top Russian officials have threatened to use deep nuclear strikes against selective high-value targets should the West interfere in a conflict in Russia’s immediate neighbourhood. Vladimir Putin entered this game for the first time during the annexation of Crimea, with his remarks about raising the state of alert of Russia’s nuclear weapons. In the past, aggressive rhetoric about pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formed part of an intimidation strategy to dissuade Europe from engaging in Russia’s “sphere of influence”. But the West could escalate even a nuclear war to Russia’s disadvantage.

Russia is betting that in a nuclear game of chicken, the West would back down first.

However, if Russia finds that it cannot deter the West with these kinds of threats, it will hardly escalate further. The West possesses the ultimate escalation dominance. And as long as the West is ambiguous about the support it will provide Kyiv, Russia needs to be careful about the risks it is prepared to take.

RantCorp

Mon, 04/27/2015 - 5:20pm

Outlaw,

Is it possible he intends to take the ISI approach to the threat posed by Pathan and Baluchi nationalism in neighboring Af and Iran? The inevitable triumphant of a ‘Partisan War’ (by either side) suggests to me Putin (like the ISI) just wants an ungovernable space, racked by skirmish, ambush, IEDs and given an extra spike by the occasional armored penetration or artillery bombardment.

He doesn’t seek victory in the traditional sense, he just wants the Ukraine to fall apart and stay that way.

Putin’s primary objective would be to prevent the possibility of a Russian version of the Maidan protests spinning out of a politically stable but dynamic Ukrainian society. The secondary task would be to create a buffer zone to western encroachment – so instead of an Iron Curtain we would have a dividing no-mans-land wherein UW raged

I have never believed in the strategic depth reasons for the Pak UW Campaign in AF. I mean to say what kind of Pak army could retreat thru the Durrand Line. The terrain rules out almost anything but infantry and in a nuclear exchange there would be no Pakistan left leave alone a Pak Army. Further south the Pak’s would be retreating into Shite Iran.

I mean to say Putin knows he can’t win a ‘Partisan War’ but perhaps he hopes to keep it running for decades. IMO that’s why we need to keep the Partisan/UW/NL conflict in the Donetsk enclave. Putin’s intention is to create a violent badlands stoked by the occasional foray by tanks and artillery to make the Ukraine a political basket-case – just like the Pak’s have done to AF.

Furthermore I imagine the Costa Nostra is eyeing the fertile Ukraine bread-basket greedily. An endless prairie for poppy cultivation to open a second narco-front to complement their Afghan enterprise.

RC

Outlaw 09

Mon, 04/27/2015 - 8:46am

Have been looking for a really good example of the Russian "information conflict" in their non linear warfare or what we call informational warfare/weaponization of information and finally found one that depicts a number of twists and turns.

http://sputniknews.com/us/20150427/1021431612.html#ixzz3YVrWD7Ha

US is No Longer a Democracy – Princeton Study

US
14:38 27.04.2015(updated 14:44 27.04.2015)

A recent study of the University of Princeton came to a stunning result: The US is no longer a democracy, because political decisions don’t serve the needs of citizens, but rather the interests of a small economic elite.

The findings of the recent Princeton research study showed that economic elites and organized groups have a substantial influence on the policy of the US government while groups representing the interests of the mass of Americans as well as ordinary citizens have little or no influence on politics.

The main conclusion of the study is that the US society is far from being a democratic one as the majority of Americans actually have little opportunity to influence policies pursued by the US government.

Obama's Successor Unlikely to Soften US Stance on Russia
“When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it,” the study said.

The findings are also important in terms of foreign policy. In case of military conflicts or political confrontation with Russia the US government does not represent the interests of the American people, but those of the business and political elites.

Many Western politicians and experts argue that those who criticize US policy betray one of the oldest and most vibrant democracies in the world, the German magazine “Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten” wrote.

However, when one of the most respected and elite US universities comes to such a stunning conclusion, it is reason to rethink the existing conceptions and don’t take “Western democratic values” for granted.

“Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened,” the Princeton research concluded.

Outlaw 09

Sun, 04/26/2015 - 3:25pm

http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.de/...ut-he-can.html

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Putin Can’t Conquer Ukraine But He Can Start a Third World War, Smeshko Says

Paul Goble

Staunton, April 26 – In an address to the Lennart Meri Conference in Tallinn yesterday, Igor Smeshko pointed to one of the most dangerous asymmetries of the situation in Ukraine: Vladimir Putin, he said, cannot occupy Ukraine and subdue a partisan war, but the Kremlin leader can “provoke a global conflict.”

The former head of the SBU and an advisor to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, says this is the reason that the conflict must be of concern to all of Europe and the West more generally (gordonua.com/news/war/Smeshko-Okkupirovat-Ukrainu-i-vyigrat-partizanskuyu-voynu-s-ney-nevozmozhno-no-vpolne-realno-sprovocirovat-konflikt-globalnogo-masshtaba-77653.html).

“The armed conflict in Ukraine is not simply a local contest between Ukraine and Russia but a clash between two civilizations, the Euro-Atlantic and the so-called ‘Russian world,’” Smeshko said. Were Ukraine to lose, this would be “a threat not only for the post-Soviet space, including the Baltic countries but for all of Europe.”

What is at stake, he argued, is whether Russia will be able to “stop the processes of European integration,” acquire a strong voice in European affairs, and set itself up as a global counterweight to the United States.

Asked why Vladimir Putin decided to engage in this direct confrontation of the West, Smeshko said that Moscow was shocked by the two Maidan protests in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014. “Those protests showed,” he said, “that a developed civil society already exists in Ukraine and that the ideas of democracy are spreading ever closer to Russian borders.”

“The conversion of Ukraine into a flourishing and strong democratic country would be a death sentence for the existing authoritarian regime in Russia and even represent a danger for its disintegration,” the Ukrainian presidential advisor said. Consequently, Putin felt he had to suppress Ukraine in order to protect his personal power.

A second reason Putin has moved in Ukraine, Smeshko says, is that the West has not pursued a sufficiently well-developed security strategy. Instead, “the leadership of the US has been concentrated not on the development of Euro-Atlantic civilization but on the problems of ‘global peace,’ and this could have played a role.”

Putin will pursue his plans to restore a post-Soviet empire “just as far as he is permitted to do so,” the former intelligence agency head said, adding that his listeners should remember what the ancient Romans said: “”Strength restrains; weakness provokes.”” That is true “not only regarding Ukraine,” he argued.

The current conflict may go on for a long time, given the size of the countries involved, but Smeshko suggested that it will not be solved by military means alone. Ukrainians will continue to fight and consequently, it will be “impossible” for Moscow “to occupy Ukraine and win a partisan war” there.

Smeshko said that in addition to the fortitude and bravery of ordinary Ukrainians, Western sanctions on Russia are “working.” Moscow cannot now “repeat the Crimean scenario in the east of Ukraine,” and it faces ever more problems at home. The question now is how long will Russians believe they see on television over what they don’t see in their refrigerators?

The West must remain united regarding sanctions because any break in them will be exploited by Moscow and seen by the Kremlin as an indication that it can win through, especially given the financial help it is providing to “ultra-right and ultra-left” groups in the West who are giving it support.

Outlaw 09

Mon, 04/27/2015 - 6:35am

In reply to by Outlaw 09

AND the shelling attacks just keep on intensifying AND then we get this from the Germans--that the Ukraine needs to implement the Minsk 2 agreement--notice it is not Germany that is getting shelled IN direct violation of Minsk 2 WHICH Germany says nothing about--is in fact Germany shifting to a proRussian stance?????

The first three key points have never been implemented by the Russian troops and her mercenaries;
1. full exchange of all POWs-stopped by Russia
2. full verified pullback of all heavy weapons of more than 100mm--and what is being fired today at the UA positions heavy artillery and MRLSs which are back at the contact line
3. a "true ceasefire" meaning no shooting

"Germany urges Ukraine to fulfil Minsk ceasefire agreement" http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/51a31...#axzz3YUeO9Kba

This is exactly how the Ukraine is holding to Minsk 2--heavy artillery shellings with man sized craters and direct tank fire AND they only respond with 82mm mortars?????

Rus proxies attacked UA troops in #Shyrokyne all day long, used 120,152mm weapons. UA command allowed response w 82mm http://www.0629.com.ua/news/810008

THEN this minutes ago and the Ukraine is to respond using 82mm mortars--AND still today not a single verbal response to the increased shellings by the Germans, French or the US.

Reports of at least 5 rockets launched from #Novoazovsk, smoke column in the air, possibly fired towards #Shyrokyne. Tornado rockets?

BREAKING
The @OSCE_SMM counted 17 main battle tanks, 3 self-propellered howitzers & 60(!!!) armored fighting vehicles 50 km N of #Shyrokyne

Outlaw 09

Mon, 04/27/2015 - 1:29am

In reply to by Outlaw 09

Here is a comment indicating exactly what I have been mentioning about the role of Germany and France in basically telling the Ukraine to hold to Minsk 2 meaning they are getting shelled and attacked now at a level that is full warfare AND yet nothing is being stated/done by France, Germany AND the US.

Means even the Ukrainians while being shelled and attacked are simply not returning fire and the Russians know that and just keep raising the attack numbers. Ukrainians loss numbers are climbing as a result.

WHY is that? AND at the same time nothing is being undertaken by Germany, France and the US to increase the pressure on Russia--Why is that?

Consistent reports, incl. by @FT: #Merkel & #Hollande R twisting #Ukraine hands 2 make us fulfil #Minsk deal - WHILE RUSSIA'S BREAKING IT.

EVEN OSCE yesterday took note of the massive shelling and indicated the massing of Russian troops.

At least they make comments but that is about it.

Outlaw 09

Sun, 04/26/2015 - 3:29am

Getting back to the Russian non linear warfare which I believe all here now assume is the "means" I have always asked the question and answered it--what is the "end state"??

BTW--there was an interesting series of comments coming out of the ICDS Tallinn yesterday around the concept that Russian "information conflict" wants nothing but "narratives" to be the focal point and the more the merry as then no one really at a point fully understands the problem and nor can formulate policy as everyone is tied up in the "narratives"--interesting comment on current Russian info warfare.

Currently Russia has a single "end state" composed of three elements;
1.discredit and damage NATO
2. discredit and damage the EU
3. disconnect for good the US from Europe

This supports the single "end state" that Putin is striving for--superpower hegemon status over all of Europe and the destruction of "neo liberalism".

I have said here a number of times--the Ukraine/EU issue for Putin is all about "economics" and what the EU and our President had not figured out is that in demanding multiple changes to the EU Association agreement with the Ukraine Putin has effectively gotten a sit at the table on all future EU decisions if it tangates Russian economic interests--this is an unintended consequence of the EU allowing Putin a voice in the debate.

The pusher of the Russia voice at the table is none other than Germany who from the very beginning years ago blocked the Ukraine from both the EU and NATO and still does regardless of what they formally state.

Notice also since the fighting and shellings have drastically increased Germany is in an utter silence mode--not a single major push back on Russia in the face of even massive convoys going into the Ukraine from Russia in the last week.

Notice Germany "negotiates" Minsk 2 fully knowing Putin kept repeating over and over Debaltseve was "Russian" not Ukrainian and yet Merkel let it slide.

In the following German letter to the entire EU notice the position Germany is now taking ---not in the least supportive of the Ukraine.

In the initial EU AA the EU did in fact provide Russian an alternative solution which it accepted but then demanded another 13 changes which would have actually killed the agreement thus blocking the Ukraine which is still their goal.

Read the German letter and you will notice an interesting formulation by the Germans--

"He added that "the economic stability of Ukraine can hardly succeed without the participation of Russia" and called for a "pragmatic, interest-based and political approach without preconditions."

Some Europeans are saying privately German is throwing the Ukraine under the bus with this comment.
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-eu-trade-deal-steinmeier-russian-c…

Putin promises an 'immediate response' if EU-Ukraine trade agreement goes through

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Rikard Jozwiak, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Apr. 24, 2015, 11:28 AM

BRUSSELS -- A leaked letter from German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier urges the European Union to quickly ease "Russian concerns" regarding the implementation of a free-trade agreement with Ukraine.

In the letter addressed to European Commission President Jean-Paul Juncker, which was made available to RFE/RL, Steinmeier called for a resumption of three-way talks between the EU, Ukraine, and Russia in order to identify "practical solutions."

Russia has voiced opposition to the creation of a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), the economic core of a wide-ranging Association Agreement concluded in March 2014 by the European Union and Ukraine.

Critics in Russia say the deal would have a negative impact on the Russian economy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned Ukraine that changing national legislation to prepare for the agreement would trigger "an immediate response from Moscow."

Ukraine, in turn, argues that Russia is not a party to the Association Agreement and has no right to interfere.

After being postponed amid Russian resistance, the DCFTA is due to enter force by January 1, 2016.

In the letter, dated April 2, Steinmeier urged the European Commission to "use the considerable flexibility that the agreement offers."

He said Germany strongly supported the swift implementation of the DFCTA, adding that "time is running short."

He added that "the economic stability of Ukraine can hardly succeed without the participation of Russia" and called for a "pragmatic, interest-based and political approach without preconditions."

The protests in Kyiv that led to the ouster of Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 were sparked by his abrupt to decision to shelve plans to sign an Association Agreement with the EU and bolster trade ties with Moscow instead.

Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and its support for separatists fighting government forces in eastern Ukraine have further strained Moscow's relations with Ukraine and the European Union.

Outlaw 09

Sat, 04/25/2015 - 5:09pm

And the US next move is what....more press releases and DoS statements?????

Ru surrounded Ukr from three directions. 100,000 troops & over 500 tanks deployed at border

http://en.censor.net.ua/n275708 pic.twitter.com/Es3Dp80o47

These figures where from middle March and the convoys of heavy equipment and troops has massively increased over the last six days.

Bill C.

Sat, 04/25/2015 - 7:21pm

In reply to by Move Forward

Sigh.

Move Forward:

We are discussing whether the (purported) "universal appeal" -- and "great positive galvanizing power" -- of our way of life, our way of governance and our corresponding values, attitudes and beliefs (a) ring true and (b) have value; this, in the following foreign policy and national security sense, to wit: as to whether these such ideas and influence tend to cause native populations, thus inspired, to:

(1) Stay in their countries.

(2) Fight and defeat our (and their) enemies therein. (Those with differing state and societal ordering ideas.) Thereafter, these like-minded natives:

(3) Working diligently -- with us -- to transform their states and societies such that these might become organized, oriented and ordered more along modern western political, economic and social lines.

It is in this specific foreign policy and national security sense that we must, I believe, determine whether the "universal appeal" -- and "great positive galvanizing power" -- of our way of life, our way of governance, etc., (a) exists and, if they exist, (b) have the power needed to achieve our goals.

Move Forward:

In this regard, the information that you provide above and below, while being both very interesting and, indeed, very inspiring, appears to have, would you agree, little or no bearing?

Outlaw 09

Sat, 04/25/2015 - 7:52am

In reply to by Move Forward

MF--the current dispute with Putin and the West is really a deeper "values" conflict just as was the ideological dispute of the Cold War of US democracy vs communism of the SU--that has shifted just as the current Russia has shifted to a more conservative neo fascist belief system vs what Putin and his inner circle view to be the negative aspects of neo liberalism such as gay rights, gays, the current economic model, the internet and latest technology being used by the younger generations etc.

It has to a degree become an obsession ie hatred that he and especially his chief ideologue Dugin all the time now.

AND Dugin at the invitation of American Nazi's in Texas is giving a speech on "The Destruction of Liberalism" at Texas A&M AND there is not much pushback from most media in the States.

US universities have laways prided themselves on open debates and campaigns against most injustices but allowing a "Russian fascist" who advocates the destruction of the Ukrainian nation and genocide for the Ukrainian civil society a public chance to speak in the backyard of the "enemy" then that crosses a fine line and yet it is the social media that picks up on it and pushes back--ever wonder why?

You are right we still are the "bright light" but when say the civil society of the Ukraine steps up and decides to change using the US as the example and holds out in sub freezing weather getting killed by FSB/GRU snipers who then take on the most advanced army next to the US as a rag tag outfit who then makes it into the big leagues and is holding their own but need some help in the drone, night vision, counter battery fire and ATM side of the house. Here is for the first time a nation just asking for material assistance not US ground troops.

What military to include the current US military has sustained an average of over 150 tons of artillery and MRLSs shells being fired at them 24 X 7 just during the last round of fighting?

Especially since the Russian mercenaries now have more tanks, heavy artillery and MRLSs than five EU/NATO armies--we the US remain amazingly silent.

So much for the "bright lights" when those that are suppose to "represent us" do not get it or do not want to engage out of fear and right now Putin accurately assess the unwillingness of our President to use US hard power when needed and is playing that single weakness to the hilt.

Some might say sending a CVN to Yemen was a great display of US power but not really --the Iranians are not dumb and would not have forced the issue and that was known in the entire ME so it was a great "display" not really a strong presidential hardpower move.

US troops to the Ukraine for training--just how many times was stated yes, then silence, then delayed until now--ALL hoping to not provoke Putin who has just in the last six days sent armored convoy after convoy into the Ukraine AND that is not a provocation?

The next Russian offensive is just around the corner and I will take bets now the US response will be what it has been --silence or just press releases.

BTW--an interesting Texas, Russia, eastern Ukrainian mercenary connection:

After we liberate #Ukraine maybe we'll liberate Europe & then we'll head west: Pro-Russia fighter from Texas

https://news.vice.com/video/russian-roulette-dispatch-107

Now will he be picked up by the FBI and charged as a terrorist when he returns as are IS fighters???

Move Forward

Sat, 04/25/2015 - 5:57am

In reply to by Bill C.

Sigh. If the U.S. is not a “great positive galvanizing power” with “universal appeal,” you can’t get much closer despite the propaganda of naysayer competitors. Just about anything is possible in the U.S. and thankfully we get more lions than sheep as Outlaw puts it. Even those who choose to stay in their native lands realize the potential our country offers:

• President Obama’s father was not an American. Two Republican 2016 candidates are sons of Cuban immigrants. A former California governator started out in Austria as a weight lifter turned actor. The Governors of Louisiana and South Carolina both have Indian immigrant parents.

• Most of us have stayed in mom and pop motels owned by immigrants. Our local Dairy Queen was purchased and greatly improved by Pakistani immigrants. How many of us have eaten at Mexican restaurants owned by early generation immigrants?

• A local club friend is the son of Indian immigrants and recently married an Indian woman who came to the U.S. Another friend from that club works for a German metal pipe company that gets steel in part from a German steel factory near Mobile. Airbus has factories in the relative vicinity as does an Australian ship manufacturer Austral.

• I predict Dr. Madhu is the daughter of Indian immigrants.

• My son and his friend rent a farmhouse from a Greek elderly couple who have operated 7 restaurants over the year. They are now U.S. citizens although they still own a villa in Greece.

• My daughter attended medical school with numerous early generation immigrant kids. She was roommates for over a year with a daughter of African immigrants.

• Years ago as a temp my daughter worked briefly at a Hyundai plant with many immigrants and drove by a Mercedes plant frequently near the University of Alabama. I’ve owned numerous Japanese cars over the years and many were built in the southern U.S. When we visit our kids we pass Michelin and BMW factories en route off I-85.

• My wife is half German. Her now U.S. citizen mother married a G.I. and now lives in the U.S. Her mother still cries when telling the story of leaving the now Czech Republic with her parents as a young child and witnessing a German Soldier shoot and kill someone who refused to give up jewelry before getting on a train fleeing the Soviets.

• At a recent event with thousands of attendees, people spoke about the need to retain jobs at the local military base. A local German woman business owner spoke eloquently about her support for Soldiers and the local city chamber and her retired G.I. husband also spoke.

• Another local German woman recently retired from Walmart where she worked many years to include as a manager.

Notice that none of these folks came from current enemy countries although some were past enemies and allies. We are a melting pot nation that unfortunately has mistakenly assumed that other countries could govern and conduct free market commerce identically. When they couldn’t, refugees and immigrants often resulted from resulting in-fighting frequently aggravated by neighbors. Russians and Chinese are not our enemies either nor are their governments. They are trading partners in many cases who occasionally do dumb stuff threatening neighbors which is how most U.S. war involvement unfortunately has begun…not due to recent U.S. expansionism/colonialism or desire to seize and retain other’s territory.

If you think about it, just about anyone here can cite similar anecdotes. Suspect many of these immigrants and sons/daughter thereof stay in contact with others in their former countries and relay the truth about the U.S. rather than the ill-conceived spin and conspiracy theories.

Outlaw 09

Sat, 04/25/2015 - 5:30am

In reply to by Bill C.

Bill C--I have been commenting here too many times on our weak President and his NSC and no strategy anywhere to be seen that makes any coherent sense.

This social media quote today from a major ongoing conference seems to hit it on the head:

Brilliant by @AnIllarionov - sheep led by lion will beat lions led by sheep. West losing because of weak leadership/willpower

BTW--I have been repeating this mantra for awhile now as the core driver for the Russian/Putin three geo political goals which is the end state he is driving for using non linear warfare as the "means".

Putin wants grand bargain with US: divide Europe into spheres if influence again, says Andrei Illarionov at #lennartmeri

Putin approach is not 19th century -- it is to restore 1945 Yalta-Potsdam world says @AnIllarionov

Reference your comment of the ability of Russians to get outside information upon which to makes their own decisions:

"Only 2% of Russian TV is on domestic issues," says @peterpomeranzev. "The 98% of the rest is Putin with kittens and chaos in Ukraine."

Former finance minister says Moscow wages information war against its own citizens https://meduza.io/en/news/2015/04/24/former-finance-minister-says-mosco… … via @meduza_en

Bill M, RantCorp, Outlaw, et al:

I have provided to Move Forward -- at my Bill C. | April 24, 2015 - 3:57pm comment below -- a (hopefully) more clear and more concise explanation of my thoughts on refugee flows -- such as RantCorps, Bill M. and others have brought forward and addressed.

I would appreciate you guys' thoughts, also, on my such ideas.

Outlaw 09

Fri, 04/24/2015 - 11:24am

In reply to by Outlaw 09

We need to remember that Phases seven and eight of the Russian non linear warfare use conventional forces.

If this does not grab attention in DC --not sure what will??

@NATO spokeperson - Separatists in #Ukraine have now more tanks than most of EU member states

There was even a convoy of T-90s spotted crossing into the Ukraine yesterday and more heavy weapons seem to be crossing today from Russia.

A major Russian offensive is just days away now as the shellings have taken on a softing up tactic, heavy weapons ie tanks, heavy artillery and MRLSs have been moved to the contact line and Russian troops and her mercenaries are in large really large exercises which will allow them to go straight into offensive operations without a warning of any kind.

Surprising that in non linear warfare the Russian military is still using their old fashioned battle tactics of the WW2 even though we are in the 21st century.

Outlaw 09

Fri, 04/24/2015 - 10:17am

This today out of the Russian General Staff--seems "they are calling their own kettle black" as it is their own non linear warfare they NOW accuse the US of using?????

Russian Federation stated that USA and Allies began phase 1 of a hybrid war against it. FFS! http://inforesist.org/v-rf-zayavili-chto-ssha-i-soyuzniki-nachali-gibri… … pic.twitter.com/Klyqr3VR70

Reminder Phase One of the Russian non linear warfare is as follows:
First Phase: non-military asymmetric warfare (encompassing information, moral, psychological,
ideological, diplomatic, and economic measures as part of a plan to establish a favorable
political, economic, and military setup).

Kind of a bold statement. Russian general staff:"The US is the mastermind behind all military conflicts in the world" http://lifenews.ru/mobile/news/153028

As Russian forces build up against Ukraine's border, the Russian General Staff's paranoia reaches a new height. https://twitter.com/tassagency_en/status/591568567306481664

This last one is interesting in that they now have a far lager invasion force since October 2014 in place literally next to the Ukrainian border and yet "claim" the US is building a global network of military points of presence in 100 countires.

Outlaw 09

Fri, 04/24/2015 - 10:17am

This today out of the Russian General Staff--seems "they are calling their own kettle black" as it is their own non linear warfare they NOW accuse the US of using?????

Russian Federation stated that USA and Allies began phase 1 of a hybrid war against it. FFS! http://inforesist.org/v-rf-zayavili-chto-ssha-i-soyuzniki-nachali-gibri… … pic.twitter.com/Klyqr3VR70

Reminder Phase One of the Russian non linear warfare is as follows:
First Phase: non-military asymmetric warfare (encompassing information, moral, psychological,
ideological, diplomatic, and economic measures as part of a plan to establish a favorable
political, economic, and military setup).

Kind of a bold statement. Russian general staff:"The US is the mastermind behind all military conflicts in the world" http://lifenews.ru/mobile/news/153028

As Russian forces build up against Ukraine's border, the Russian General Staff's paranoia reaches a new height. https://twitter.com/tassagency_en/status/591568567306481664

This last one is interesting in that they now have a far lager invasion force since October 2014 in place literally next to the Ukrainian border and yet "claim" the US is building a global network of military points of presence in 100 countires.

Move Forward

Fri, 04/24/2015 - 5:34pm

In reply to by RantCorp

<blockquote>I’m not opposed to a Revolution in Military Affairs. If we managed to master UW that would definitely be a RMA. The problem is what many consider a revolution in most weapon systems is in fact an evolution – not a revolution - from the systems that ensured victory in WW2. The RMA of WW2 was driven by the very necessary and honorable objective to annihilate the enemy in order to end a world war that cost 150 million lives.

The pinnacle RMA - the nuclear attack on Japan - probably spared the lives of ten million people. From the incredibly tough fighting on Iwo and Okinawa the US expected a million US casualties taking the Japanese homeland. As it happened there were no US casualties and perhaps 250K Japanese dead – a typical week of B-29 firebombing. A miraculous turn of events delivered by a revolutionary weapon.

The problem is this type of war is currently redundant and much of the RMA it inspired likewise. </blockquote>

Suspect we largely agree that RMA is problematic, but that has little to do with modernizing ground forces which largely are left out of most RMA and “offset strategy” concepts and procurements. High RMA costs are most prevalent in USAF and Navy airpower, naval, and nuclear forces. Lack of actual procurement of modernized systems and early cancellations are a problem the Army has experienced.

To be sure, the firebombing of Tokyo and Germany killed far more enemy civilians than two smallish atomic bombs. But as we both know, megatons of current hydrogen bombs would lay waste to far more civilians. That is why A2/AD and offset strategy concepts of deep penetration using bombers and missiles are so dangerous a strategy insofar as they easily could lead to mistakes in escalation. In contrast, ground forces providing forward deterrence present no nuclear escalation threat. And unlike SF/SOF and CIA UW tools, they often possess the requisite armor and anti-armor capability to deter and fight if necessary enemy armored and aircraft elements. Their armor also helps to withstand enemy indirect fires which threaten lighter forces and SF/SOF more than they do Stryker and armored BCTs.

<blockquote>The enemy respects this overwhelming power and neutralizes it by ‘swimming in the sea of people’. We stupidly keep deploying more and more powerful annihilators until we disappear up our own ass and go home beaten and broke. We have invested huge amounts of treasure for a form of war-fighting that is currently redundant. Certainly, as you point out, the proportion of our taxes invested is not as significant as in the past but in a liberal democracy, wherein soccer mums decide who governs the country, we have to prioritize.

Obviously the reason it is redundant is our supreme ability to annihilate and we need to maintain the capacity (something the Europeans, and recently even the Brits, have forgotten) but we need to adjust as we are taking hits and bleeding out.</blockquote>

The problem of enemies hidden “swimming in the sea of people” is that without boots on the ground we cannot drive enemies into the open. When only one quarter of current flights against ISIL actually release ordnance and those often involve tactical small targets, it reflects the problem of relying on airpower without the ground facilitators needed to optimize air attacks. In addition, you can bomb to your heart’s delight and not put a dent in subsequent stabilization problems that only boots on the ground enforcing smart diplomacy can achieve.

Redundancy in capability to annihilate is not the problem. Cost of modernized ground systems also is not the primary issue as most soccer moms are conservatives who would support that. It is the single moms, the ignorantly uninformed masses and worse, the college-educated in other areas who think-they-are-informed that vote against broader use of ground force and forward deterrence.

<blockquote>What we need to do is uncouple our revolutionary targeting ability from the annihilation legacy of WW2. Currently our war-winning targeting capability is being completely undermined by the ‘destroy the village in order to save it’ mode. All the hell-yeah tough guy talk of bomb them and let Allah sort it out doesn’t work when a western liberal democracy is paying the bill.

The ISI, Mabahith, FSB believe it does but that is what makes them fascists.</blockquote>

The fact that we are not fascists and will never again fire bomb and cause indiscriminate collateral damage is why all Joint forces require precision annihilation capability. The wholesale carpet bombing of Vietnam and even Desert Storm can now be replicated with greater precision and effect using far less ordnance. However, credible ground forces must be present threatening enemies embedded within urban areas to force them into the open for targeting. A UW force embedded with allied militaries unfortunately either lacks the credibility to force large enemies into the open, as exemplified by ISIL and Iraq forces, or is so well hidden to avoid being targeted themselves that the enemy does not know it should expose itself to fight.

<blockquote>The perfect example of the folly of slaving precision to HE in the current fight is the killing of OBL. For a good 3 months we just stared at him pacing his courtyard, hoeing his vegetable patch and milking his cow. Our decision-makers were caught on the horns of the dilemma by the inadequacy of our RMA. The only option the entire RMA arsenal offered was to annihilate the compound and possibility damaging many neighboring dwellings.

Despite the fact they could probably hit him with the nose-cone of a JDAM whilst he milked his cow they would have to flatten the whole compound to ensure it was him and not the only other 6’ 7” man on the Asian landmass. Not to mention a dozen innocent children, no positive ID of success, a more blatant violation of Pak sovereignty etc.etc.</blockquote>
As someone who once taught Hellfire gunnery, I would argue that OBL could have been taken out with something smaller than a JDAM. But that would have required overflight much farther inland into Pakistan than is typical of most UAS/RPA flights at medium altitudes and slow speeds. To be clear, I know nothing about CIA or military UAS/RPA attacks into Pakistan but have seen 1:250,000 maps of frequently reported attack sites that are close to the AfPak border, not as far inland as Abottabad. True a stealth F-22 might have done the job but I’m not sure the small diameter bomb was an option back then at half the weight of a JDAM. The net result was a rather gutsy decision to use SOF and their aircraft to do the job to ensure he was dead---and gather all kinds of information on computers in the process.

However, that is the rare HVT/HVI option as opposed to something like Ukraine where lots of conventional targets are present. In Iraq and Syria, lots of hidden targets are embedded that ground forces could force into the open to optimize both ground and air discriminate attacks without killing many civilians. But if the National Command Authority is unwilling to use all his Joint tools, then airpower will continue to be only marginally effective and stability operations will never occur.

Even the night raid, "drone" strike, and SF/SOF option does not always work as exemplified by the collateral damage of two aid workers back in January when other al Qaeda members were killed. However, that just shows that USAID without the protection of boots on the ground is never going to be a solution. The sad result of those who try to do the right thing peacefully has too often resulted recently in beheadings, captivity, and now collateral damage. The last thing we need is such collateral damage becoming an excuse not to employ the useful tool of UAS/RPA strikes that so successfully have kept threat leaders on the defensive or in the grave.

<blockquote>All fantastic stuff but we would need 100K SF and 10K stealth helicopters if we did this to every bad guy who deserved it and many of those would have considerably more than two sleeping guards, 20 odd women and kids and a mud wall as a defense. This is obviously impossible and the ISI, IS, FSB and assorted Fruitcake know it.

It is this lack of power to deal with opponents who understand a western liberal democracy can’t afford the political cost of a war of annihilation that has caused all our defeats since WW2. My contempt for what many consider to be RMA is not a rejection of revolutionary technology it is a rejection of the folly of military design created by people who do not understand the kind of war we need to be capable of fighting.</blockquote>

We need to be capable of fighting DPRK infiltrators and regular forces on both sides of the DMZ. We need to be able to defeat and deter Russian T-72s and more modern armor while withstanding their artillery and rockets/missiles. Even Taiwan is an argument for capability to land conventional airborne and air assault forces along with Marines on the east side of the island to fight any PLA invasion.

None of those scenarios can exclusively be solved with 100K SF or SOF aircraft or any UW-exclusive approach and force design. They can be solved with an adequately sized forward-deployed and prepositioned active Army that is modernized and teamed with other Joint and Coalition forces and UW elements.

<blockquote>I have always maintained the strategic reason for mastering CUW is to prevent nuclear proliferation. Already the KSA is saying if Iran goes nuclear they will do likewise. I imagine the day after a Shite bomb is tested the KSA will test the Pak one the Wahhabi paid for. The IS are starting to murder innocents in eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban are appalled their franchise has competition. It will only be a matter of time they start working their ‘magic’ in Pakistan.

Things are beginning to spin out of control.

IMO if we want to stop the downward spiral our effort can be low tech, high tech or no tech - as long as it’s UW.</blockquote>

Not sure I buy your argument that UW is the answer to proliferation either. After all, the Israelis have solved their past nuclear proliferation issues with air attacks into Iraq and Syria. At some point, suspect they may take similar matters into their own hands with air and missile attacks targeting Iran.

Meanwhile, we have other problems deterring elements like ISIL and Putin’s conventional attacks into more of the Ukraine and NATO states. All Joint force elements will be required to succeed in any full scale warfare necessary after failed attempts to appease, sanction, and win by bombing alone, or UW sneaking and peaking without much combat power.

Outlaw 09

Fri, 04/24/2015 - 2:48pm

In reply to by Bill C.

Bill C---

If you truly believe the following sentence then you truly do not understand the sheer amount of information warfare that streams hourly, daily and weekly into the living rooms of a average Russian via Russian media of all types----print, TV, internet and radio.

Russian informational warfare is actually far more focused on their own civil society with the West in second place.

These such negative trends in a world in which the Russians (et.al) have greater access -- than every before -- to a very wide range of ideas, opinions, evidence, etc., via the internet and other modern media.

At the beginning of Crimea the Director of Russia Today stated--"give me a crowd and a video camera and I will give you a revolution".

Bill C.

Fri, 04/24/2015 - 4:57pm

In reply to by Move Forward

Move Forward:

I think that you, as yet, may not have caught my drift.

Let me try to be more clear:

a. Generally speaking -- and from a foreign policy and national security perspective -- the fact that a certain number of people (who may think as we do) depart their country -- for ideological, persecution, civil war, economic and/or other reasons -- and, thus, LEAVE THEIR COUNTRY IN THE HANDS OF OUR ENEMIES; this can be seen as a foreign policy and national security "disaster"/"failure" and, in general, an invalidation of (1) if not our "universal values," etc., ideas themselves, then (2) their foreign policy/national security utility.

b. In stark contrast, and again from a foreign policy and national security perspective, "success" is thought to be achieved -- and the "universal appeal" and "great positive galvanizing power" of our way of life, etc., validated (and/or its utility) -- when these same folks, and others, stay in their country, fight our enemies, win the contest and, thereafter, work hard to transform their state and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines.

Thus, at "a" above (folks leave their country to our enemies and come to America or Europe); this is considered, in many ways, to be a foreign policy/national security disaster/failure, and an invalidation of, if not our ideas, then certainly their foreign policy and national security utility.

This, while at "b" above (like-minded folks stay in their country, fight and defeat our enemies and, thereafter, stay to transform their state and societies more along modern western lines); this is considered to be a foreign policy/national security triumph/success, and a validation of, if not (1) the "universal appeal" and "great positive galvanizing power" of our way life etc., then (2) certainly the foreign and national security utility of these such ideas.

Are these -- possibly more clear and concise -- explanations helpful?

Do they ring true and make sense?

With these (hopefully more clear) explanations now before you, how now to you see foreign refugees coming to our or Europe's shore?

Move Forward

Fri, 04/24/2015 - 1:43pm

In reply to by Bill C.

Bill C, suggest you google the "Russian Public Opinion Research Center" to learn that it is a state-owned organization whose original founders/employees all left back in 2003 when the state gained excessive influence over its operations and board. In other words, it is an extension of Russian information operations.

Again, your claims of failure of our way of life, our governance, and corresponding values, attitudes and beliefs is unsupported by reality. If we have fewer recent post-Cold War friends, I would argue that it reflects our new-found isolationism that leads others not to trust us.

On an anecdotal note that reflects one person's experience with immigrants and their attitudes toward us, one of my brothers married and had a child with a Russian, a Chinese woman has rented a room from my mother in Silicon Valley for years as she attends college there, and I rented my former business location from a former South Korean for a decade. All three are now U.S. citizens and I doubt you could get any of them to say much negative about the U.S.

When I look at how the demographics of Silicon Valley have changed since I went to high school and junior college there before enlisting and later becoming an officer, it is somewhat astounding to see how immigrants flooded the valley with computer skills and positive attitudes about the U.S. Any way you look at it, if you opened our borders to unlimited immigration we would be flooded by those seeking our better way of life. In contrast, nations such as China and Russia have become areas where the best and brightest would just as soon leave in search of greener pastures....no matter what their propaganda arms state to the contrary.

Bill C.

Fri, 04/24/2015 - 1:14pm

In reply to by RantCorp

THIS, I believe is what we have to worry about; and it is THIS, accordingly, that I believe that we must address (via CUW or otherwise):

"According to the latest data from the Global Indicators Database, just 23 percent of Russians held a positive feeling toward the United States in 2014, compared with 51 percent the prior year. An October 2014 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center also found that 22 percent of Russians view the United States as the “main source of terrorist threats” to the motherland."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/27/meet-americas-new-public-enemy-no-1/

These such negative trends in a world in which the Russians (et.al) have greater access -- than every before -- to a very wide range of ideas, opinions, evidence, etc., via the internet and other modern media.

Thus, these negative trends even:

a. In the age of the Internet, etc., and

b. After a full quarter century, post-Cold War; wherein, the United States/the West has had no great power and no great ideological rival.

Even in this amazingly favorable and unprecedented(?) environment, "victory," in terms of more (important?) friends and less enemies has not seemed to come our way.

And this, in spite of the (purported) "universal appeal" -- and "great, positive galvanizing power" -- of our way of life, our way of governance, and our corresponding values, attitudes and beliefs.

Thus, should such negative trends, as outlined above, be viewed from the perspective of [1] the failure of our way of life, our way of governance and our corresponding values, attitudes and beliefs to [2] produce a post-Cold War world in which we had many more friends and many less enemies?

Our CUW approaches, etc., to be both informed by, and undertaken with, this such understanding in mind?

RantCorp

Fri, 04/24/2015 - 5:37am

MF,

I’m not opposed to a Revolution in Military Affairs. If we managed to master UW that would definitely be a RMA. The problem is what many consider a revolution in most weapon systems is in fact an evolution – not a revolution - from the systems that ensured victory in WW2. The RMA of WW2 was driven by the very necessary and honorable objective to annihilate the enemy in order to end a world war that cost 150 million lives.

The pinnacle RMA - the nuclear attack on Japan - probably spared the lives of ten million people. From the incredibly tough fighting on Iwo and Okinawa the US expected a million US casualties taking the Japanese homeland. As it happened there were no US casualties and perhaps 250K Japanese dead – a typical week of B-29 firebombing. A miraculous turn of events delivered by a revolutionary weapon.

The problem is this type of war is currently redundant and much of the RMA it inspired likewise.

The enemy respects this overwhelming power and neutralizes it by ‘swimming in the sea of people’. We stupidly keep deploying more and more powerful annihilators until we disappear up our own ass and go home beaten and broke. We have invested huge amounts of treasure for a form of war-fighting that is currently redundant. Certainly, as you point out, the proportion of our taxes invested is not as significant as in the past but in a liberal democracy, wherein soccer mums decide who governs the country, we have to prioritize.

Obviously the reason it is redundant is our supreme ability to annihilate and we need to maintain the capacity (something the Europeans, and recently even the Brits, have forgotten) but we need to adjust as we are taking hits and bleeding out.

What we need to do is uncouple our revolutionary targeting ability from the annihilation legacy of WW2. Currently our war-winning targeting capability is being completely undermined by the ‘destroy the village in order to save it’ mode. All the hell-yeah tough guy talk of bomb them and let Allah sort it out doesn’t work when a western liberal democracy is paying the bill.

The ISI, Mabahith, FSB believe it does but that is what makes them fascists.

The perfect example of the folly of slaving precision to HE in the current fight is the killing of OBL. For a good 3 months we just stared at him pacing his courtyard, hoeing his vegetable patch and milking his cow. Our decision-makers were caught on the horns of the dilemma by the inadequacy of our RMA. The only option the entire RMA arsenal offered was to annihilate the compound and possibility damaging many neighboring dwellings.

Despite the fact they could probably hit him with the nose-cone of a JDAM whilst he milked his cow they would have to flatten the whole compound to ensure it was him and not the only other 6’ 7” man on the Asian landmass. Not to mention a dozen innocent children, no positive ID of success, a more blatant violation of Pak sovereignty etc.etc. Further insult to injury he was perfectly aware of this capability gap and knew we would have to kick in his bedroom door to get him hence the series of locked reinforced internal doors within the house.

As it happened he was too clever by half and his ‘little house on the prairie’ defense ruled out the possibility of a few HMG or ATGMs over-watching from the neighboring compounds that would have destroyed the assault force. As it happened the SEALS were able land unopposed (excluding the efforts of a mud wall) and kicked in a few doors and killed him, three other men, one women and no kids.

All fantastic stuff but we would need 100K SF and 10K stealth helicopters if we did this to every bad guy who deserved it and many of those would have considerably more than two sleeping guards, 20 odd women and kids and a mud wall as a defense. This is obviously impossible and the ISI, IS, FSB and assorted Fruitcake know it.

It is this lack of power to deal with opponents who understand a western liberal democracy can’t afford the political cost of a war of annihilation that has caused all our defeats since WW2. My contempt for what many consider to be RMA is not a rejection of revolutionary technology it is a rejection of the folly of military design created by people who do not understand the kind of war we need to be capable of fighting.

I have always maintained the strategic reason for mastering CUW is to prevent nuclear proliferation. Already the KSA is saying if Iran goes nuclear they will do likewise. I imagine the day after a Shite bomb is tested the KSA will test the Pak one the Wahhabi paid for. The IS are starting to murder innocents in eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban are appalled their franchise has competition.It will only be a matter of time they start working their ‘magic’ in Pakistan.

Things are beginning to spin out of control.

IMO if we want to stop the downward spiral our effort can be low tech, high tech or no tech - as long as it’s UW.

RC

Bill M.

Thu, 04/23/2015 - 7:51pm

In reply to by Bill C.

Post Cold War ideas? Really?

There was this document developed over 200 years ago that started like this,

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Clearly American ideas regarding universal values are not new. The people ruled by Saddam, the Taliban, Noriega, Kim Jung un, Stalin, Putin, Crazy Mullahs in Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, Military dictators in Thailand, Maliki in Iraq (now replaced by another proxy), Karzai in Afghanistan (maybe the new President is actually legitimate), etc. didn't and don't represent the majority of the people in their state. In most cases they retained power through terror, facilitated by dividing their people into sects, political groups, and leveraging the strong groups to retain power. Obviously when they're removed from power, there will be an eruption of social and political chaos.

The real issues have little to do with what you claim they are. We went into both Afghanistan and Iraq as a matter of self-defense (real or perceived), and since reinstalling a dictator post Cold War we attempted to do something that we couldn't do. Install a democratic government, neither country was prepared for democracy, so we basically formed illegitimate governments (actually contrary to our ideas), and then defended them, and became part of the problem.

People have to find their own path, we can assist, guide, etc., but we can't impose unless we're going to do so with sufficient force. Note that those who impose us won't hesitate to use sufficient force to impose their way of life. It sure as hell isn't the majority of their population supporting them. I want to see Kim Jung Un removed from power, and while you apparently support a regime that is starving and imprisoning their population, I don't support it. However, removing them and then declaring that the people are free to vote would be crazy. In many cases, these societies will need to develop their human capital before they can pursue a democracy if they want one. As long as the government is seen as legitimate by the people it really doesn't matter if it is a democracy or not. Our Neocons couldn't grasp that idea.

As for the world rejecting our way. I have been around a good part of the world, and I don't see it. I see oppressive leaders who are scared of our way of life. I see religious extremists who leverage anti-Western views to gain political power.

We caused all this? Lenin took power long before we were a superpower. The religious crazies have been fighting for centuries, they can now fight again because of the power of balance has been altered in the Middle East. Yes, we altered the balance of power, but the drivers of this conflict existed long before changed it. IS will be defeated, Iranians will eventually reject the Mullahs, Russia? Who knows, they have a long history (before the U.S. had anything to do with Europe) of seeking empire. War is natural, countries somewhere in the world are at war every year, you can view it as its all our fault if you like. It is certainly in style to do that. We made mistakes, but we don't have near the power you think we do.

You still didn't answer RantCorp's questions addressing why people are fleeing the countries you say reject our life style in large numbers. Again, you choose to ignore facts, and continue to present the same unsupportable argument. You do so on every thread, so that should be a sign it is a conspiracy instead of a theory. You see it everywhere.

Bill M., Outlaw, RantCorp, Move Forward, et al:

Guys: I think this is really not as hard as we are making it out to be.

Thus, and to get to the heart of the matter, might I ask these few questions:

a. Should we consider the hybrid, unconventional, conventional, etc., warfare threats that we and our allies now face -- and the state of world today -- as a validation of:

(1) Our post-Cold War ideas of the "universal appeal" and "great positive galvanizing effect" of our way of life, our way of governance, etc., and

(2) The actions, post-the Cold War, that we undertook in these concepts name?

b. Or would it be more correct to say that the threats that we face today (hybrid, unconventional, convention, etc.; these, from such diverse quarters as the Greater Middle East, Europe, and Asia) -- and the state of world today -- these such matters:

(1) Invalidate our such ideas and suggest that

(2) The actions that we undertook -- in these idea's name -- were ill-advised?

Herein to consider, for example, whether:

My "a" above (foreign policy success based on "universal values," etc.) or my "b" above (foreign policy failure based on same) best addresses and explains the civil wars, chaos, suffering, dangers, deprivations, refugee flows (see RantCorp and Bill M. below) -- and the various and sundry threats (hybrid, unconventional, conventional, etc.) -- that we, and others, face today?

This, a full quarter century after the ending of the Cold War. (A decent period of time -- and very favorable environment -- wherein, if accurate and true, "universal values," etc., should have been able to prove both their validity and their worth?)

Outlaw 09

Thu, 04/23/2015 - 1:22pm

This is a critical statement as it is appearing to now NATO that Russia is heading to a major offensive to take the entire eastern Ukraine.

#NATO Sec Gen @jensstoltenberg on Russian forces/militias: "...capacity to launch big offensive with little warning"[/B] https://twitter.com/NATOpress/status/591285584280346624

The ability to attack out of a standing position is something this Russian army has been training for over the last five years and intensively the last year with multiple snap exercises.

The West feared this ability in the 80s and they did not have it then --they do now.

By the way Bill M had picked up on that ability as a critical problem for the West.

Outlaw 09

Thu, 04/23/2015 - 5:39am

In reply to by Outlaw 09

This morning in eastern Ukraine--heavy shellings by Russian mercenaries and or Russian troops, movements of heavy weapons in violation of Minsk 2 up to the contact line under the cover of darkness, several large Russian military convoy's spotted next to Ukrainian border yesterday not seen today thus have already crossed into the Ukraine and another today moving across the border as I write this which was videoed.

Minsk 2 is for all practical purposes now dead--AND what is the next US move--silence???

All the "complaining by the US of Russian Minsk violations" via newspapers and social media is not going to stop Putin the last time I checked.

When will this White House realize "soft power ie diplomacy" is dead and buried with Russia?

It has always been about deterrence and or the perception of deterrence and the US currently has none available outside of talking and talking has historically never stopped an aggressor which Russia is even using the Webster's definition standards.

Outlaw 09

Thu, 04/23/2015 - 1:26am

When we are honest with ourselves the core problem we are having with the Russian non linear warfare as well as that of Iran, IS and China's non linear warfare is that we have as a nation one of the weakest Presidents and his NSC in the last 30 or so years.

They simply do not have any idea what they want, what the world wants from the US and even what it is the US as a nation wants from the world--meaning they are literally all over the map and we then expect the rest of the world to "figure out what it is we want from them"--is it really that hard when even social media knows what to do?????

Perfect example from Iran and Russia:

#Obama 2011-15: #Syria air-defense insurmountable for #USAF

#Obama 2015: #Iran air-defense with #Russia S-300 no problem for #US Air Force

#Obama 2013-14: #Iran 1 year from nukes- so enough time to negotiate

#Obama 2015: #Iran 2-3 months from nuke- so Congress must bless my deal

Ukraine truce: US accuses Russia of violating deal - BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32425602

Social media has picked up the single fact--that yes Russia is massively attacking the Ukraine, that it has more tanks inside the Ukraine than the total number of tanks in three NATO armies and on and on---AND now even the US is "complaining" Russia is in violation of Minsk 2 YET the US will in the end do nothing.

Worse yet some in Europe as openly saying the US has "swapped" the Ukraine for Russian efforts with Iran all in the name of a presidential legacy.

IE they just decided to take the last remaining AH64 apaches copters out of Europe which was designed to counter Russian armor another nod to Russia all in the name of "saving dollars"??

Seems social media is better at formulating US foreign policy than those that get paid to do it.

Bill C.

Thu, 04/23/2015 - 12:23pm

In reply to by Bill M.

Bill M:

Relying almost completely (and imprudently it now appears) on our belief in the universal appeal and great galvanizing power of our way of life, our way of government, etc., we recently, in fact, got rid of and/or helped get rid of many of the tyrants that you describe, to wit: those who ran what we believed to be oppressive governments (Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saddam, the Taliban, etc.).

The result of this such (imprudent) reliance and these such (ill-advised) removals has not been "success" but, rather, "failure" and, this, on an almost unprecedented scale.

Nicholas Burns, the former United States Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and the former United States Permanent Representative to NATO (both under the George W. Bush presidential administrations), as recently as yesterday characterized the chaos that has resulted from our such imprudent reliance and ill-advised actions as a:

" ... Middle East ... simply broken apart ... four states in open civil war ... a Middle East that we haven't seen really in a hundred years, since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War."

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/22/401540493/yemen-crisis-creates-even-tough…

Thus, "thousands fleeing these (and/or other) countries for the West?" This to be best understood in the "failure" terms addressed by myself and Nicholas Burns above.

Why? Because these such departures (of people with aspirations similar to our own) detracts from -- rather than provides for and supports -- US foreign policy goals and objectives for these countries.

Thus, it is our understanding -- to our great dismay and disappointment -- that our way of life, our way of governance, etc., even post-the Cold War, clearly DOES NOT garner "universal appeal" and clearly DOES NOT generate great galvanizing power (in this regard also, note the decision of the Russian people to support Putin's rather than Western initiatives), that the United States/the West has been forced to go back to "Square One."

"Square One" being the need to redouble our efforts to, indeed, make our way of life, our way of governance, etc., (1) much more universally attractive and (2) much more galvanizing; this, before we consider embarking on such "liberating" actions (and/or NATO expansions?) as we have in the recent past.

Bill C.

Thu, 04/23/2015 - 12:01pm

In reply to by Move Forward

Move Forward:

As I have indicated above, the correct way, I believe, to measure (1) the "universal appeal" and (2) "great galvanizing power" of one's way of life, way of governance, etc., is via the number of people who stay and fight; this, so as to, for example, transform their state and society more along modern western political, economic and social lines.

Those who, instead, (1) simply depart their country and/or (2) get drunk; this, I believe, is not as good an indicator of the "universal appeal" -- and/or "great galvanizing power" -- of our, or indeed other's, way of life, way of government, etc.

Likewise, having people simply leave their country -- to those whose way of life, way of governance, etc., is diametrically opposed to our own -- this does not, obviously, help us re: our foreign policy goals and objectives for these countries.

Move Forward

Wed, 04/22/2015 - 9:20pm

In reply to by Bill M.

Yep, RantCorp nailed it partially although I disagree vehemently with his continued rants about modern military tools. His references to Eisenhower and the military industrial complex speech were responded to long ago after the "Slow Motion Coup" article in SWJ. See my comments after the article, Rant, to compare the vast differences between the MIC then and now.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-slow-motion-coup-militarizatio…

I'll add this recent link that shows in graphic form and in written analysis that emigration of the best out of Russia increased dramatically in 2014 to over 200,000 (many coming to the U.S. and Europe) after a similarly high 180K+ in 2013. The graph midway through the article shows this increase is a fairly recent phenomenon. Bill C. please show us how many Westerners (Europeans and U.S.) or Asians without a Russian background immigrated to Russia out of the 300,000 lower skilled outsiders who did.

http://imrussia.org/en/analysis/nation/2224-a-new-emigration-the-best-a…

Add to this article that a 2009 study indicated that over half of male Russian deaths from 15 to 54 are attributed to alcohol abuse compared to 4% in the rest of the world, and you get an idea of how many Russians are content with their lot in Mother Russia. Is that the fault of an expansionist West, Bill C?

Bill M.

Wed, 04/22/2015 - 8:51pm

In reply to by Bill C.

Bill C.

Did you even read RantCorp's post? Your post sticks to your same old argument, which has already been countered with numerous facts you choose to ignore. The so called majority that reject our way of life are generally the few tyrants who run oppressive governments, not their people. The flood gates are closed, yet thousands flee these countries for the West, not seeing a flood going the other way, unless Snowden was the beginning of a new wave or reverse migration?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Bill C.

Wed, 04/22/2015 - 6:54pm

In reply to by RantCorp

RantCorp:

Because, post-the Cold War, we believed in -- and, more importantly, came to rely upon -- the idea of the "universal appeal" of our way of life, etc., we did not foresee, and therefore did not plan on and/or prepare for, a post-Cold War world in which:

a. People (possibly the majority but at least, it appears, the stronger group).

b. Who had values, attitudes and beliefs -- and hopes and aspirations -- diametrically opposed to our own,

c. Would stay, sacrifice, fight and claw -- so that they might "rule the roost."

Thus, and accordingly, we did not foresee, and therefore did not plan and/or prepare for, a post-Cold War world in which::

1. People (possibly the minority but at least, it appears, the weaker group),

2. Who had values, attitudes and beliefs -- and hopes and aspirations -- similar to our own,

3. Would, more or less, throw up their hands, run and hide and/or simply (as you describe above) flee the scene.

This, rather than (as their opposites at "a" - "c" above have shown themselves willing to do) stand and fight.

Likewise, I suggest, the "universal appeal" of our way of life, etc., -- which we relied and acted upon post-the Cold War -- has not been sufficient to cause the people of Russia, in the face of an expanding NATO, to rally to our, rather than their Russian governments' (Yeltsin's and/or Putin's), cause.

Thus, the ending suggestion in my related comment below, to wit: that our effort must be to cause the appeal of our way of life, etc., to become -- unlike it obviously is now -- both (a) more "universal" and (b) more powerful.

This, before we can hope to rely upon it to provide for our safety, security and prosperity.

Final note in this vein:

The fact that we must consider the deployment of military force (and such innovative measures as BPC) in the greater Middle East, in Europe, and in Asia today; this seems to confirm and acknowledge that the appeal of our way of life, our way of governance, etc., is (1) nowhere near "universal" and (2) certainly not powerful enough for us to rely upon. In fact, it (3) -- because of various dumb moves on our part -- may even be heading downhill.

RantCorp

Wed, 04/22/2015 - 4:26pm

Bill C wrote,

‘As I have argued repeatedly, the flaw in our thinking is, I believe, not related so much to our imprudent reliance on military force, RMA, etc., but, rather, on our imprudent reliance on the "universal" appeal of our way of life, our way of governance, our related institutions and our associated values, attitudes and beliefs. THIS is the form of reliance, I suggest, that has gotten us into -- and kept us in -- the very deep kimchi. ‘

Whilst I obviously disagree with your sentiment in regards to the explanation for the lack of native buy-in where we attempted COIN I am willing to accept my experience and my bias have rendered my opinions , if not completely wrong, at least considerably flawed. However I do have a question for you.

In what direction are the boat-people who are currently drowning like rats in the Mediterranean heading? Are they going north or south? I unfortunately have to rely on the media to ascertain where they are heading. The media are 100 % certain the boat-people are seeking a way of life you repeatedly argue many Muslims so violently oppose, they attack our aid efforts on a basis of repugnance.

The evidence from those who manage to survive indicates they prefer death rather than a return to their place of birth. Furthermore the nationalities of those who manage to survive indicates many countries in Africa propagate a way of life that many of their citizens are determined to escape, even if it kills them.

If you examine the boat-people heading to Australia the sentiment expressed by the refugees is very similar and the spread of nationalities is equally as diverse. The country-of-origin of the Pacific boat-people extends from the ME across to China.That's half the world's population.

I believe it is important to point out these wretched folk are illegal immigrants. The tens of millions of legal immigrants who are on the move are also attempting to cast off their native culture and embrace the westernized modernity you claim many of those same cultures violently reject.

Strange as it may seem the Europeans on the Mediterranean coast hate the folks coming from North Africa and have done so since before the birth of Christ. I too am somewhat perplexed why these Muslims (in the main) are so desperate to press themselves to the bosom of their nearest westernized neighbors – but what would I know.

I understand what they seek but I don’t believe they realize how unwelcome they are across Europe as a whole, and especially so in Southern Europe. But still they come.

I find your argument less convincing when you offer it as a cause of conflict amongst Europeans. The notion that the Western way of life offends Russians, Ukrainians, and Georgians etc. to the degree that they willfully kill their own people, whose only crime is an aspiration to live a more Western life-style, is an argument my experience finds without foundation.

Perhaps before Communism imploded the universal austere life-style under Communism gave your argument more gravitas. However, the former communist citizenry I know strongly disagree with this view and by and large maintain an opinion of their former political past that mirrors the attitude of the survivors being washed ashore in southern Europe.

Certainly all the young people from former communist countries I have encountered have nothing but scorn for the past their parents endured. In fact they would ridicule your suggestion the ‘way of life’ in France, German, Britain, Italy etc. is somehow imprudent or degrading compared to the present day Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Hungary, Russia, Belarus etc.

I am at one with your condemnation of one aspect of westernization we deliver abroad and that is the type of military force we apply to foreign political problems. Perhaps your discord with all things western/modern we attempt to impose/introduce upon non-Western societies is a consequence of us applying the wrong type of military force? I realize that is not your position but we put an enormous amount taxes into the military and we seem to gain very little dividend for the staggering cost. Rightly so many taxpayers have every right to be scathing in our foreign military adventures.

Whether we like it or not there are occasions when military force is necessary. Obviously if the problem is a domestic political aspiration (VN & Iraq) no form of foreign military force will alleviate the problem. However in cases wherein we are attacked (Pearl Harbor& 9/11) or an ally is attacked (WW1, Kuwait, and Korea) then a military response on our behalf is inevitable whether we like it or not.

RMA Mickey-Mouse was first identified as a threat to the US by President Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address. His main fear was the MIC would bankrupt America – what would he know. Unhappily what he didn’t mention was it would also lose us wars.

The present day MIC builds weapon systems that evolved from the victories RMA ‘weapons of annihilation’ delivered in WW2. The ultimate form of this approach to warfighting are Fusion weapons - hydrogen bombs. Everyone, except us and our friends, got the drift (Mao & Ho especially so) and cut their cloth to avoid being ‘annihilated in order to be saved’. We haven’t recognized this adjustment and have consequently been losing wars ever since.

In AF & Uk the military option to avoid this ‘annihilation’ is UW. The Pakistan military have gone one better by getting us to pay for their UW campaign that defeated our RMA – Ike just turned in his grave. No surprise the KSA have clocked this absurdity and are doing the same number on us with their IS proxy. The old KGB snake Putin is getting in on the act and decided to attack completely innocent Ukrainians for reasons that seem insane. He too appreciates the ability of UW to defeat RMA.

There are a depressing number of corrupt one man /one party totalitarian states that have also identified the folly of our RMA madness and the relative ease UW can defeat it. The tsunami of human misery that is being washed up on the coast of Italy and Greece or is devoured by sharks in the Timor Sea is the tip of an ice-berg of people trying to escape tyrants who are emboldened by the success of the ISI, IS and the FSB.

We need to resurrect our ability to fight CUW. In the face of tyranny (evidenced by the fleeing masses on sinking boats) eloquent reflection upon the merits of The Enlightenment, French Revolution and Jefferson are just grist to the mill of human misery.

The conflict in the Ukraine offers us the opportunity to recover the important skill of defeating a tyrant who employs UW. The alien operational environment of VN, Iraq and AF clouded the lens thru which we attempted to shape a successful strategy to such a degree that we acted if completely blind. In the Ukraine the Christian, European, prairie-like characteristics of the battle eco-system gives us the opportunity to identify the true nature of what UW tyranny is and how to successfully counter it.

RC

Outlaw 09

Wed, 04/22/2015 - 3:40pm

Bill C--we seem to never fully understand the Russian move to neo fascism.

Dugin is the chief ideologue for Putin and his inner cirlce and is a "fascist" to the core.

#Dugin: Extremist supporter of murder & terrorism, advocate of "New Russia", allowed to hold lecture in #US #Texas? pic.twitter.com/3vQ79x9lgD

US & Russia "patriots" on same page?! Far-right Dugin talks at TexasA&M on "American Liberalism must be destroyed" https://m.facebook.com/events/1625378057747741/

American Neo-Nazi Organizes Lecture for Russian Ultrarightist Aleksandr Dugin at Texas A&M http://bit.ly/1IJ66K1 pic.twitter.com/OUkb19zilJ

So it begs the question--everything to do with IS in the US is "evil" and inviting via a US travel visa a well known Russian "fascist" who has called for the complete destruction of the Ukraine and that Ukrainians are not a "people worth saving" has a free run into the US?????

So is Islamic fascism any different than Russian fascism????