Backing Into Yet Another Losing War
Gary Anderson
A day after leading his party into an election debacle that was at least partially enabled by his strategic ineptitude in foreign affairs, President Obama trumpeted his success in getting American troops out of Iraq; two days later, he announced that he was sending 1500 more troops into Iraq. American strategy is beginning to more resemble ALICE IN WONDERLAND than ON WAR.
From 1961 to 1965, when Lyndon Johnson finally committed American forces to full scale combat in Vietnam, the United States backed into war by incrementally sending troops to Vietnam in a manner that neither seriously impacted the conflict nor impressed the North Vietnamese. After that, Johnson pursued an equally ineffective bombing campaign in North Vietnam that did even less to impress our adversaries. The result was a loss of confidence in America abroad and at home. Many of my Baby Boom contemporaries refused to participate in an open-ended conflict that had no hope of a reasonable outcome. Johnson wanted the United States to dip its feet in the water in waging war; what he got was a quagmire.
In 1972, I wrote an article for the Marine Corps Gazette advocating a massive raid into North Vietnam that would destroy its military capability to provide a threat to South Vietnam for at least a decade. I believed that if we did not do this, our strategy of merely bombing the North into submission would result in a conventional invasion of South Vietnam. Like most articles by Second Lieutenants, it didn’t influence policy. Three years later, the South fell to the North in a conventional North Vietnamese invasion led by tanks. In fairness to the Nixon administration, it feared that an incursion into the North would lead to Chinese intervention. No such threat exists regarding the Islamic State; it has no protectors willing to take on the United States.
If we go into the areas of Iraq and Syria controlled by the Islamic State with massive force with the vowed limited intent of destroying its conventional military force, and leaving the residue to local forces to deal with, we can accomplish the end state of eliminating the immediate threat in the region and the well- funded existential threat to the United States. That will not solve the problem of how to govern the areas of Iraq that the Islamic State has overrun or the issues raised by the Syrian Civil War; those are problems the Syrians and Iraqis have to grapple with. We can help, but not with the sword of the Islamic State and other jihadist groups hanging over the region.
President Obama enabled the Islamic State’s forays into Iraq by the failure to keep engaged and continuing to help build both an effective government and a competent military capability. We can resume that project with a small but effective advisory presence, but not until the conventional military capability of the Islamic state is dismantled. Only we can do that.
We know how to advise client states in providing good governance and in creating effective militaries. However, we cannot do that unless we stay engaged. We left Iraq half done in 2011, and we never worked hard enough to create a Syrian alternative to Assad that was viable and militarily effective.
Obama’s incremental approach will not achieve success. Backing into a war never works. Obama’s new, slightly enhanced mission will produce body bags but not results.
Like Lyndon Johnson, our current President will find himself in a quagmire that he will continue to deny exists. He won’t fool the American people, our enemies, or our allies. Our prestige as a great power will continue to decay.
As we again commit the sin of amateur incremental engagement in a war against an enemy against a deadly and committed enemy, we face again the very real possibility of being humiliated by an opponent that we can beat if we take a serious approach to warfighting. President Obama has asked the Congress to authorize over five billion dollars to fund his latest strategic fiasco. Our lawmakers should give him a resounding NO! I’m not recommending defunding the war the way the lamentable 1974 Democratic Congressional class refused funding to South Vietnam; I am advising the Congress to force the President to wage real war.
The next Congress would be well advised to refuse to fund any more Mid East adventures until the President can lay out a coherent strategy with an obtainable end state. The President needs to hear things that he doesn’t want to hear. He currently has too many “yes” men and women on his national security team. If President Obama wants to hear only thinks that he likes, he should buy a good record collection.
Comments
Bill C---here is another view that basically says the Putin threat far outweighs anything the IS can currently carry out inside Europe or the US.
The Putin Doctrine is far more dangerous to Europe and the US than the IS call for a Caliphate in the ME.
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/putin-s-project-sp…
Putin’s militarized beachhead in eastern Ukraine offers a further benefit for Putin: It can focus independent Russian ultranationalists toward activity outside Russia, and away from challenging Putin’s corrupt state at home.
Putin’s creation of a mini-Sparta in Ukraine’s east is a serious challenge to the West. It reveals both the extent of Putin’s irrational calculations and the limits of Russian power. With an economy about 5 percent as big as that of the NATO alliance, Russia can ill-afford long-term isolation and accelerating economic decline. Nor can it afford a major military occupation of Ukrainian territory. What it can do is to promote long-term instability and regional violence.
With his new preparations in place for a long, renewed war, President Putin has now revealed all his cards in his fight against Ukrainian independence and democracy.
It is time for the West to respond.
Outlaw, while I share your alarm over Russian actions, it does not diminish the threat of ISIS and the Islamic extremism it represents. The multiple threats of the Middle East, East Europe, and the Pacific is precisely why a large active Army is essential with forward deployment and prepositioning in many areas. The article you linked was in the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" which obviously has a certain slant. The author is a Russian who previously represented the Soviets in Start I and II. That's not exactly an objective source. MAD still works and tactical nukes come dangerously close to violating it.
In addition, the article speaks of Russians using tactical nuclear strikes in the face of an existential threat or an attack they cannot overcome which to me applies to a ground offensive into Russia (which never would occur so why would we want to penetrate Russia with an LRS-B), not a NATO defensive action which includes its own nukes. The article also speaks of tactical nukes being necessary because the Russians lack the conventional strength of NATO...which unfortunately is far from East Europe and therefore largely irrelevant to a Russian fait accompli.
The Russian threat to NATO at some point will be a wake-up call to European nations to spend more and forward deploy defenses where needed. If monies are spent and heavier armor finds its way East, deterrence is restored. With ISIS, no conventional force other than the U.S. can defeat it. The threat of terror expanding into Europe and the U.S. has already been seen through U.S. lone wolf attacks. Imagine such a non-lone-wolf group with WMD access in say a U.S. sports stadium.
I do worry that both the Russians and Chinese eventually will get to the point where they can launch surprise conventional air and SOF attacks against U.S. installations. A DefenseNews.com article yesterday announced that DoD will reveal plans for a new "offset strategy" that is likely to remove funds from ground forces and manned aircraft such as the F-35, carriers, and surface ships.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141112/DEFREG02/311120050/Work-New…
When one hears that Russia will fly long range bombers off the southern U.S., envision sudden attacks of some of our few F-22s in Florida, Central Command and USSOCOM, Hurlburt Field, and Army Aviation training in south Alabama. Flights, subs, and "container ships" off the east coast could strike parked carriers at Norfolk and F-22s at Langley, not to mention CIA HQ and all the east coasts F-18E/Fs at Oceana NAS with conventional cruise missiles. Think of the West Coast in the same terms off the coast of San Diego. Does it make sense to put all our eggs into a few stealthy LRS-B, and N-UCAS/MQ-X in a few locations reliant on satellite data links and GPS? Or does dispersion of thousands of manned F-35s and hundreds of thousands of ground forces make more sense both in the <strong>central</strong> U.S. and in small groups when forward deployed?
If you really are hung up on tactical nukes, remember that Army armor able to withstand IEDs and large artillery blasts nearby is somewhat un-phased by tactical nukes that aren't that close not to mention conventional DF-21C attacks. Jon Solomon has a great article in Information Dissemination that in one of the final chapters outlines that there simply are not enough mid-range launchers and missiles to mount mid-range attacks against "forward" deployed bases in the Pacific. See the DF-21 Part 3 article at this link:
http://www.informationdissemination.net/
Disperse naval and air assets outside the range of most short-range missiles, use countermeasures against the Chinese Oceanic Surveillance System and missiles, and put small amounts of company-sized Army armor, air defenses, and MLRS with new air defense UAS and anti-ship rounds in as many bases and countries that will accept us on a rotational basis, and the PLA targeting challenge is too much for a successful surprise attack. Apply similar efforts in East Europe and deterrence will exist without war just as during the decades of the Cold War.
Bill C---does his article seem to you to indicate the seriousness of the Russian threat vs say a bunch of "black flag waving Islamists" stuck in Iraq and Syria?
As anyone pointed out the simple fact that the IS does not have nuclear weapons nor have they threatened tactical nuclear strikes against NATO and the US.
After reading the article ask the one simple question-- is IS more or less a serious threat to the US than say the somewhat loose cannon called Putin who actually believes he can use tactical nukes and so states it repeatedly or is the threat of a "black flag" waving on top of a hill somewhere in Syria ---far more dangerous than a Russian nuclear tipped battlefield tactical missile pointed at Poland and the Baltics--all members of NATO with Article 5 in their hip pocket?
A great read---
Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike "de-escalation"
http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escal…
Bill---what is more embarrassing is the simple fact that European/Ukranian and a few American/UK bloggers are providing a running info war that is both accurate and far faster than the entire US media and needless to say anything coming out of the White House/CIA/NSA/DIA at this time.
Via Russian social media they have been on the hunt to prove the Russian GRU was behind a lot of the Maidan violence and they hit pay dirt today.
This individual was identified about two months ago has having been first in the Crimea in the GRU seen there in a Burkat uniform then suddenly seen at the Maidan---some SWJ commenters here on the Ukraine military thread massively did not want to accept that information--- but now more has come in from other social media sites that tie it up nicely.
So again why are we spending so much money on intelligence when the intel types seem to remain extremely quiet right now--who has placed them in a "silence mode"?
With all the ISR assets floating over the Ukraine---they have seen nothing---nothing via at least GMTI---come on that is worse than Pearl Harbor.
25year old Maksim Akhmetov policeman fr #Chelyabinsk, #Russia,MIA unit #7438. Trained chemical & biohazard mil expert
pic.twitter.com/5fUqLVvjdv
Solid evidence emerge #Russian MIA forces were employed on Maidan, #Kiev. Here Dec 22 2013.
http://goo.gl/GGopPm
pic.twitter.com/RZS0Bbeu3k
Bill--just a short taste of the European bloggers towards the US right now;
SACEUR warns of RU invasion of #Ukraine, WH says nothing. Nada. How much longer can Obama pretend NATO isn't there? Civ-mil crisis, anyone?
When will the US civilian leadership finally call it what it is "a Russian invasion" regardless of what the uniform is---remember all of the troops and heavy equipment crosses FROM Russia INTO the Ukraine which is the definition of an "invasion"---the term "invasion" does not ask what and or who is wearing what kind of uniform.
Putin has three strategic goals right now and he is getting there quickly;
1. decouple the US from Europe
2. show that NATO is unwilling even when Article 5 is triggered to defend the central Europeans and the Baltics thus eliminating NATO as a military threat to Russia
3. destruction of the EU as an economic/political power
That is the significance of the Ukraine to US foreign policy.
Today the Russian Defense Minister stated they will start flying nuclear bombers into the Gulf of Mexico---never done even under the Soviets.
Why are we so focused on the IS--the last time I checked they have not threatened to blow up the main water tower in say Houston TX?
So again just what is the significance of the IS to US foreign policy when it was the US that triggered in the first place the slow movement to realigning the ME national borders in 2003.
The only thing that now will get Putin's attention is a huge STOP sign that is military in nature nothing less than that is going to even impress him at this stage.
Endless columns of #Russian trucks & armoured vehicles to #Ukraine, #Donetsk on November 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6UmJr94C2g
Outlaw's points (below) would seem to be well made, to wit:
a. In comparison with what is going on in the Ukraine,
b. Should the President place his focus there -- rather than entertain the author's suggestion that he "wage real war" in Iraq and Syria?
Or, perhaps a better question:
Are Iraq and Syria -- or, indeed, the Ukraine -- of sufficient strategic importance as to warrant either (a) a further commitment and/or (b) "real war?"
While the US is so fixated on the IS--- the Russian strategy of taking over and annexing eastern Ukraine as the "New Russia" is in full swing and still no word from the US.
The Russian UW strategy and their strategy for the Baltics should start worrying some in Washington.
More Russian "white dots" in Donbas, going soon to Mariupol and Kharkiv pic.twitter.com/4G6sIsgoaG
The Russian "peacekeeping" troops are already inside the Ukraine and yet not a single word from Washington---is that not strange or not?
This goes to my previous comment on why are we so wrapped up with the IS---when Russia has in over 40 incidents come dangerously close to triggering a war via their Air Force incursions which one almost hit/downed a civilian airliner, to threatening and practicing tactical nuclear strikes against Poland and the Baltic regions and now sending an unannounced Russian Naval convoy into Australian coastal waters as a show of force in the upcoming G20 meeting there when Putin will be challenged on MH17.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25496667/russian-warships-bearing-dow…
Last time I checked the IS has no nuclear weapons, has never threatened the US with a nuclear strike, does not have an Air Force with tactical nuclear cruise missiles and does not have a Navy, nor a well trained Special Operations Command.
So again why the massive emphasis on something that is no direct threat to the US BUT ignore on the other hand a very direct threat?
Again---while everyone is so totally focused on beating back the IS war is in effect breaking out in central Europe and that is not more important?
We failed to keep in the back of our minds the Putin "threat"---"he could take Kyiv in two weeks".
Nato commander Breedlove, quoted by AFP: "We have seen columns of Russian equipment... and Russian combat troops entering into #Ukraine"
NATO cmdr Breedlove: "Across last 2 days we've seen...columns of Russian equipment, primarily Russian tanks, Russian artillery..."
#BREAKING Ukraine preparing for combat in face of Russian build-up: defence minister via @AFP
This goes to the comment above---we hear countless comments both from the White House, Congress and the media concerning the IS---BUT after 96 hours of Russian troop movements into the Ukraine and nothing from anyone in the US.
This is reflecting a number of leading European decision makers right about now.
Every hour Obama makes no statement re Putin's overt invasion of #Ukraine gives Kyiv an hour to realize they, sadly, are on their own.
Why are we so dead set on "figuring it out" in Iraq and Syria and now with a "3200 total non boots on the ground approach" and heavy bombing---just what will it get us in the end state?
Yet on the other, the US/EU/NATO is actively being openly and directly militarily/politically challenged by Putin and his UW strategic/tactical strategy which for the US is far more politically dangerous than a bunch of black flag wavers.
We seemingly are simply standing by in a wait/see mode and are sort of aimless with the Ukraine when in fact the black flag wavers have never threatened the US and or NATO with the implied use of tactical nuclear weapons and have sent in an "invasion" army into a sovereign central European country 25 years after the fall of the Wall.
Here are a number of examples of totally new Russian military equipment being taken into the Ukraine and "field tested" against Ukrainian troops and not a single comment from the US/EU/NATO.
BREAKING From #Izvarino to #Ukraine for #Krasnodon 4 #Russian army mobile reconnaissance unit PRP-4 entered.
pic.twitter.com/M8G61NEd0P
Picture of #Russia's new 2S35 Coalition-SV artillery system off for testing. Looks like new turret design + 1 barrel
pic.twitter.com/CQOFhzVR9g
Heavy shelling and attacks of UA positions continued in all directions, artillery and rocket systems used. 1 soldier killed, 5 wounded
Terrorists continue preparation of aggressive actions against Ukraine, supported by Russian weapons and soldiers - col. Lysenko, NSDC spoks
But if the IS waves around a SAM 7 in a battle video the entire western media goes over the cliff with comments.
We are it appears even "scared" to make the hard call and use the word "invasion"---we split dictionary terms and settled on "incursion"- BUT after hundreds of tanks travelled from Russia to the Ukraine and now over 10,000 "vacationing Russian troops" are in the country---do we change the word?---no. In fact the more Russia moves militarily into the Ukraine the "quieter" the US gets.
National boundaries in the ME were always destined for change as they were artificially drawn up by the colonial powers after the fall of the Ottoman Empire--BUT European security for the last 25 years was built on the concept of sovereign borders that were not to be challenged especially via the use of military force.
So again why the deep concern in Iraq/Syria? ---but when it is virtually next door to the US/EU/NATO we the US wander aimlessly in circles?
Maybe the Ukrainians should start waving "black flags" and shouting "Praise to Allah" in order to get our attention.