Obama And The McChrystal Gambit

[hrothgar]

I'm trying to think of any example where an outside military presence was able to use force to impose a stable, cetralized government that didn't involve something roughly akin to genocide.

The U.S. invasion of Panama would be an example I think.

In the case of Panama, we toppled an autocratic leader and replaced him with another government more to our liking.

 

The example I am looking for is one in which

 

1. There was no centralized government

2. Military occupation by an outside force

3. The existing people suddenly reap the benefits of democracy (what have you)

 

There many people some examples where this actually happened... The British, the French, or the Romans might have pulled something like this during the weird old days.

 

If they did, then I suspect that overwhelming military superiority (and a willingness to massacre) were necessary preconditions.

[hotShot]

The example I am looking for is one in which

 

1. There was no centralized government

2. Military occupation by an outside force

3. The existing people suddenly reap the benefits of democracy (what have you)

 

There many people some examples where this actually happened... The British, the French, or the Romans might have pulled something like this during the weird old days.

 

If they did, then I suspect that overwhelming military superiority (and a willingness to massacre) were necessary preconditions.

Would you accept the Church as a state and implementing a centralized religion instead of democracy?

 

Implementing Christian belief with the sword was quite successful in Europe around the year 1000.

[hrothgar]

Would you accept the Church as a state and implementing a centralized religion instead of democracy?

 

Implementing Christian belief with the sword was quite successful in Europe around the year 1000.

That is a really interesting counter example

 

I'm not sure if I buy it...

 

How does one measure "Religious Conversion"? its all fine and dandy for Olav Tryggvason to declare that Norway is now a Christian country. However, did this actually change anyone's behavior?

 

My impression is that most instances of mass conversion were assimilationist in nature, in which the new religion incorporated many elements of the old. Saturnalia turns into Christmas. Brigid becomes St Bridgid.

[NickRW]

I think the Roman invasions were reasonable counter examples - BUT - they went there essentially to exploit - they were there for keeps - they were reasonably friendly to the natives so long as you wanted to do business and otherwise keep your mouth shut - they had significant numbers in the occupying forces and were quite happy to send more if needed and to recruit whoever to their army in order to ensure the numbers - they were quite happy to kill, in numbers, if they thought it would do their side some good - and they were (sometimes) not that discriminating who they killed (no laser guided missiles sent to military targets only!)

 

Afghanistan is different in that there isn't much there to exploit - they're just a nuisance - more akin to the Germanic tribes that gave the Romans so much grief.

 

The so called "British Empire" also brought quite a lot of "democracy" to the world - but make no mistake the British Navy was, to a significant degree, a bunch of mercenaries under a state flag and the British were also there for the long term - to exploit. Other European powers, at the same sort of time, had similar effects in the other parts of the world that the British didn't get to first - mainly Spain, France and to some extent the Netherlands.

[PassedOut]

Afghanistan is different in that there isn't much there to exploit - they're just a nuisance - more akin to the Germanic tribes that gave the Romans so much grief.

Afghans say US team found huge potential mineral wealth

 

Afghanistan may have more than a trillion dollars worth of untapped mineral deposits, a spokesman for the ministry of mines has suggested.

 

...

 

The details of a US Geological Service survey of the country were released in 2007. The US assessment of the worth of the deposits was completed in December last year.

No doubt this factors into the "war of necessity" calculation.

[NickRW]

Afghanistan is different in that there isn't much there to exploit - they're just a nuisance - more akin to the Germanic tribes that gave the Romans so much grief.

Afghans say US team found huge potential mineral wealth

 

Afghanistan may have more than a trillion dollars worth of untapped mineral deposits, a spokesman for the ministry of mines has suggested.

 

...

 

The details of a US Geological Service survey of the country were released in 2007. The US assessment of the worth of the deposits was completed in December last year.

No doubt this factors into the "war of necessity" calculation.

Well, if that's true, lets stop pussy footing about with this "war against terror" that nobody with any intelligence ever believed in the first place and set up shop. I hate political correctness.

[helene_t]

Isn't the "war of necessity" slogan older than the discovery of the minerals?

[PassedOut]

Isn't the "war of necessity" slogan older than the discovery of the minerals?

For sure. I'm thinking of the post-2007 formulation.

[luke warm]

Isn't the "war of necessity" slogan older than the discovery of the minerals?

For sure. I'm thinking of the post-2007 formulation.

well we're gonna need pretty much all those minerals since the path we're on is unsustainable

[PassedOut]

well we're gonna need pretty much all those minerals since the path we're on is unsustainable

It certainly is, but I'm not sure the Afghanistan minerals will help.

[Winstonm]

To clarify my position, I do not advocate zero military force. I also happen to believe that as long as we continue with the macho "surrender first and then we'll negotiate" method of foreign policy that we only harden the terrorists' resolution.

[Winstonm]

..... I am posting the conclusions of the Rand Corporation Study: How Terrorist Groups End.

 

.....most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

 

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

 

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments.

Er - I kind of agree with you - but - statistics can be used to skew things. 7% were put out of business by the military and 40% were put out of business by the police and so on = 47% (nearly half) were put out of business by a non namby pamby solution. Probably the military were not used in many of these situations either (if "groups" means what I imagine it does).

 

On top of that, there doesn't seem to be much room for a real political solution at this time (given the apparent ideals of the US administration as compared with the Taliban) - though we probably shouldn't be in such a position in the first place.

Yeah, although the conclusion may be right these statistics don't really support it.

 

Maybe more useful to look at how often a particular strategy (say, military action) was successful as a proportion of the number of cases in which that strategy was employed.

 

But you would need to look at individual cases. Are there any cases that are similar to Afghanistan?

Btw, The Rand Report does address finding that military force victories primarily occured against organized insurgent forces - more along the lines of the U.S. Civil War insurgency I would think.

[Winstonm]

I'm trying to think of any example where an outside military presence was able to use force to impose a stable, centralized government that didn't involve something roughly akin to genocide.

 

The last known victory for the U.S. of this sort was Texas, although it is unclear whether anyone in the Texas government can be considered "stable".

[kenberg]

The example I am looking for is one in which

 

1.  There was no centralized government

2.  Military occupation by an outside force

3.  The existing people suddenly reap the benefits of democracy (what have you)

This is asking a lot. Looking at 1., what are some of the places where you would say "there is/was no centralized government"? Italy, Germany and Japan all became democracies after WWII, but of course they fail the test for your challenge because of previously having a centralized government. Same with Iraq. Whatever the outcome, they certainly had a centralized government. I am having trouble imagining what the test case would be here.

[Winstonm]

I am having trouble imagining what the test case would be here

 

I think that may have been the point Richard was trying to make.

[Winstonm]

'Winning Hearts and Minds in Afghanistan: Assessing the effectiveness of development aid in COIN operations'.

 

 

Indeed, many Afghans believe the main cause of insecurity to be their government, which is perceived to be massively corrupt, predatory and unjust. A COIN strategy premised on using aid to win the population over to such a negatively perceived government faces an uphill struggle, especially in a competitive environment where the Taliban are perceived by many to be more effective in addressing the people’s highest priority needs of security and access to justice.

 

I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that this entire COIN strategy is simply an extrapolation from the idea that Vietman could have been won "if only" - not a particularly ideal model for determining grand strategy.

[luke warm]

The example I am looking for is one in which

 

1.  There was no centralized government

2.  Military occupation by an outside force

3.  The existing people suddenly reap the benefits of democracy (what have you)

This is asking a lot. Looking at 1., what are some of the places where you would say "there is/was no centralized government"? Italy, Germany and Japan all became democracies after WWII, but of course they fail the test for your challenge because of previously having a centralized government. Same with Iraq. Whatever the outcome, they certainly had a centralized government. I am having trouble imagining what the test case would be here.

yes, it seems fairer to combine 1 and 2 into something like

 

military occupation by an outside force either established a centralized government or changed the nature/form of one that already existed

[kenberg]

I am having trouble imagining what the test case would be here

 

I think that may have been the point Richard was trying to make.

No, I doubt it. If there were no test cases then the non-existence of any successes would be meaningless.

 

I am not at all dissing Richard's approach. A question along the lines of "Under what circumstances might we envision success" is in fact crucial.

 

Sample variation on the question: Suppose (thought experiment, you don't have to debate/accept the supposition) we could somehow bring about a strong and stable central government in Afghanistan. Would most Afghans cheer? The answer is not self-evident and I lack the direct experience to have a strong opinion. If many Afghans prefer that most decisions be made, say, at the village level then we have a very uphill task on our hands in supporting the authority of a strong central government, even if it meets Western standards.

 

Most of the places where we are or have been involved involved have or have had a strong central government. Perhaps our brief involvement in Somalia was an exception. So I am more trying to clarify the question.

 

Just an add-on to my point about an empty set of test cases: In the early 60s I was friends (sort of) with a guy who ran for governor on the Socialist Labor Party ticket or maybe the Socialist Worker's Party ticket, whichever was the most anti-capitalist. He frequently made two claims, First, there has never been a truly Socialist government. Second, there has never been a war between two Socialist states. He was unmoved by my observation that if I accepted the first of his claims then the second would not be surprising,

[kenberg]

I have been thinking more and more that we need a national conversation along the following line: We cannot just keep on fighting in one country after another. Gulf war I, then Afghanistan, then Iraq igain, then back to Afghanistan (sure, we never left, but it was on the back burner), maybe something with Somalia, maybe a showdown with Iran, maybe a showdown with N Korea. And of course Bosni, Serbia, etc.

 

Whatever guffaws this may bring, I claim that this is not really a militaristic country. I don't know any war enthusiasts. I grew up in a different time and place, and I didn't know any then either. Our economy will not support perpetual war, and the people won't support it either.

 

I recognize the need for military force. But we are sliding, or have slid, into a situation where it just seems to be business as usual to send in the troops. There is a limit to how much money we can spend and there is a limit to how many troops we can send.

 

Realistic answers are badly needed.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

 

We may not always see eye-to-eye but you consistently make some really good observations.

 

No, I doubt it. If there were no test cases then the non-existence of any successes would be meaningless.

 

I am not at all dissing Richard's approach. A question along the lines of "Under what circumstances might we envision success" is in fact crucial.

 

I was reading a blog and the author made what I thought was an interesting observation in that COIN strategy is nothing new and in fact was practiced by the Romans - their success being determined by profit using cheap warriors, imposing taxes and tributes, capturing and selling slaves - and it wasn't until the costs of war became prohibitive by use of mercenaries that the empire collapsed.

 

 

I recognize the need for military force. But we are sliding, or have slid, into a situation where it just seems to be business as usual to send in the troops. There is a limit to how much money we can spend and there is a limit to how many troops we can send.

 

The Bacevich article I linked to above from WaPo deals with this somewhat. This is an interesting idea - multi-faceted - to understand even how we got to this point and how and where we should go from here.

 

Although by no means the only problem, I again point to the all-volunteer army - the standing army - as a huge piece of the puzzle and too tempting for any President to ignore the use of. Add to that temptation the fact that our foreign policy and intelligence people tend to be recycled and from a fairly small group and you have the ingredients for perpertual small wars.

 

I claim that this is not really a militaristic country

 

I agree with you - but even that agreement should lead to cognitive dissonance, don't you think? If we are non-militaristic, what is the cause of our militarism? I believe Ike warned us about just such an occurence - unwarranted influence.

 

A guy named Robert Logan made this observation and I think it is dead on:

When Bin Laden dies of old age or renal failure, the wrong war grinds on because the stupidity of the original strategy has never been questioned.  We committed ourselves to overthrowing the Taliban government of Afghanistan, not to capturing or killing the perpetrators of 9/11.

[blackshoe]

One of the reasons, I think, that this country grew as fast and as powerfully as it did was that, while it was growing, we most of the time had not much of an army at all. So the drain on the economy caused by a large standing army didn't exist. Now for the last half century and more we have had a large standing army, and it has been a drain. Add to that the unsurprising concurrent growth of the "military-industrial complex" and we have a self-perpetuating standing army. Eldridge Gerry was right when he wrote "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Professional soldiers as far back as Washington complain and have complained that the problem with a militia is that they are not sufficiently well trained. That problem can be overcome. Dismantling the "self-perpetuating machine" we have now will be difficult, but it is something we need to do. I say this, btw, from the perspective of having been a career Naval officer.

 

I found this article on the economics of defense rather interesting.

[Winstonm]

One of the reasons, I think, that this country grew as fast and as powerfully as it did was that, while it was growing, we most of the time had not much of an army at all. So the drain on the economy caused by a large standing army didn't exist. Now for the last half century and more we have had a large standing army, and it has been a drain. Add to that the unsurprising concurrent growth of the "military-industrial complex" and we have a self-perpetuating standing army. Eldridge Gerry was right when he wrote "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Professional soldiers as far back as Washington complain and have complained that the problem with a militia is that they are not sufficiently well trained. That problem can be overcome. Dismantling the "self-perpetuating machine" we have now will be difficult, but it is something we need to do. I say this, btw, from the perspective of having been a career Naval officer.

 

I found this article on the economics of defense rather interesting.

I find it interesting that two career military men reach a similar conclusion. I take a liberty and quote part of the conclusion of the WaPo article by Andrew Bacevich:

 

The responsibility facing the American people is clear. They need to reclaim ownership of their army.

 

Although Bacevich does not go so far as to recommend dismantling the standing army, he does imply the results of status quo:

 

Should the people choose neither course -- and thereby subject their troops to continuing abuse -- the damage to the army and to American democracy will be severe.

[PassedOut]

I agree that we in the US need to stop invading and occupying other countries. We can't afford it and we can't supply enough troops to do it successfully even if we could afford it. Unilateral nation-building is a fool's errand, whether it is authorized by democrats, republicans, or neo-cons. We should do nothing to support oppressive regimes of any kind, and it is utterly stupid to rely on such regimes to maintain military bases to support nation-building occupations.

 

I do believe in maintaining a lean but powerful defense, plus the ability to retaliate against attacks, terrorist or otherwise. But I certainly oppose all the useless "military spending" that consists of nothing but jobs programs for workers in the districts of long-time legislators.

 

In my view, we can contribute mightily to our own defense simply by being the best nation we can be. Killing folks around the world simply increases the number of maddened individuals desperate for revenge.

 

Given that, I think we do need to extricate ourselves from the present situation in an orderly and humane manner, taking care of those in Iraq and Afghanistan who have put their own lives on the line to assist the US. That will probably mean bringing in quite a few immigrants who would not survive the US withdrawal. But that immigration will cost a lot less than perpetual war.

 

Insofar as there are humanitarian needs in the world that demand outside action, I think that the US should work within the UN to advocate and participate in solutions to those problems. Yes, I understand that can be frustrating, indirect, and messy, but it beats unilateral nation-building hands down.

 

What I don't see is the path to get from where we are now to where we should be. Our education standards have fallen so drastically that many folks in the US lack the intellectual tools to identify and reject even the most simplistic propaganda. Only when the chickens come home to roost as they did toward the end of the last Bush administration can some of those folks see past the propaganda, and that vision is quickly obscured by the non-stop propaganda machine in the US media today.

[Winstonm]

Only when the chickens come home to roost as they did toward the end of the last Bush administration can some of those folks see past the propaganda, and that vision is quickly obscured by the non-stop propaganda machine in the US media today.

 

It is really difficult (for me) to get across this idea of how completely different our media is now than it was not so long ago. It used to be the case that media had an inate collective fear about being found to be biased - whereas now the only fear is losing access to insiders who then depend on those very media members to act as dull-witted scribes whose only job is to take accurate notes of the talking points in order to sell a one-sided version of the story. Once the talking point is established in one outlet, the original article is then quoted and repeated as proof of the news.

 

Once the story becomes common knowledge, it is considered "true", and then presenting facts that contradict the story becomes less effective in altering opinion.

[PassedOut]

It is really difficult (for me) to get across this idea of how completely different our media is now than it was not so long ago.  It used to be the case that media had an inate collective fear about being found to be biased - whereas now the only fear is losing access to insiders who then depend on those very media members to act as dull-witted scribes whose only job is to take accurate notes of the talking points in order to sell a one-sided version of the story.  Once the talking point is established in one outlet, the original article is then quoted and repeated as proof of the news.

 

Once the story becomes common knowledge, it is considered "true", and then presenting facts that contradict the story becomes less effective in altering opinion.

Well you see this and so do many others -- conservatives, liberals, and moderates. However, way too many people in the US don't see this, hence are manipulated by the constant propaganda.

 

I don't see any fast fix for this. Over the long haul, we simply must improve education in the US. Citizens of all persuasions here can and do agree with that, and some (very slow) progress can be seen. However, the forces of ignorance have been very strong in many states; for instance the textbook editing by Texas droolers serves to lower the standards in many states beyond Texas. So it's a long, hard fight...