http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:46:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-13534 The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: August 21, 2009 Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:12:53 +0000 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-13534 [...] Noncouncil: zenpundit - On Afghanistan and Strategy [...] […] Noncouncil: zenpundit - On Afghanistan and Strategy […]

]]> http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12790 The Council Has Spoken! Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:03:02 +0000 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12790 [...] winning non-Council post was zenpundit’s “On Afghanistan and Strategy” which I nominated and for which I voted. Second place [...] […] winning non-Council post was zenpundit’s “On Afghanistan and Strategy” which I nominated and for which I voted. Second place […]

]]> http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12738 Bookworm Room » Results from the Watcher’s Council Mon, 24 Aug 2009 03:54:27 +0000 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12738 [...] First place with 2 points! – zenpundit - On Afghanistan and Strategy [...] […] First place with 2 points! – zenpundit - On Afghanistan and Strategy […]

]]> http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12731 The Strategic Debate Over Afghanistan | Schaefer's Blog Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:11:12 +0000 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12731 [...] On Afghanistan and Strategy @ Zen Pundit - an excellent overview of the various locations and specifics of the various voices roaring around the web as of late, mainly regarding the findings of General McChrystal’s advisory team. [...] […] On Afghanistan and Strategy @ Zen Pundit - an excellent overview of the various locations and specifics of the various voices roaring around the web as of late, mainly regarding the findings of General McChrystal’s advisory team. […]

]]> http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12709 Watcher of Weasels » Ideologues are not Minimalists Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:10:19 +0000 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12709 [...] the Non-Council side zenpundit discusses a minimalist strategy for winning the war on terror with a particular emphasis on Afghanistan. ZP also discusses why [...] […] the Non-Council side zenpundit discusses a minimalist strategy for winning the war on terror with a particular emphasis on Afghanistan. ZP also discusses why […]

]]> http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12692 Bookworm Room » Nominations for this week’s Watcher’s Council Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:55:01 +0000 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12692 [...] Submitted By:  The Glittering Eye – zenpundit - On Afghanistan and Strategy [...] […] Submitted By:  The Glittering Eye – zenpundit - On Afghanistan and Strategy […]

]]> http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12678 Watcher of Weasels » Alinsky Actors: Playing the Part of a Phony Doctor at a Town Hall Meeting Near You! Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:52:34 +0000 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12678 [...] Submitted By:  The Glittering Eye – zenpundit - On Afghanistan and Strategy [...] […] Submitted By:  The Glittering Eye – zenpundit - On Afghanistan and Strategy […]

]]> http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12640 zen Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:16:55 +0000 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12640 Hi A. Scott Crawford, . You bring up many valid points regarding NATO, which has been searching for a durable raison d'etre since 1991 and the elephant in the room is that NATO is in reality a political alliance that functions as a sharply stratified two or three tier military alliance. This was justifiable during the Cold War but not so much now but leaders of all the NATO states have other priorities beyond reforming NATO as an institution ( most of them like the status quo as contributions are far from equitable). Hi A. Scott Crawford,
.
You bring up many valid points regarding NATO, which has been searching for a durable raison d’etre since 1991 and the elephant in the room is that NATO is in reality a political alliance that functions as a sharply stratified two or three tier military alliance. This was justifiable during the Cold War but not so much now but leaders of all the NATO states have other priorities beyond reforming NATO as an institution ( most of them like the status quo as contributions are far from equitable).

]]> http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12637 A. Scott Crawford Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:14:50 +0000 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12637 Zen,I think there's another point worth including in this thread, namely the continued existence of NATO and viability of maintaining our current (very expensive) position in Europe if the liabilities outweigh the benefits.  When the U.S. was attacked, Article V of the NATO treaty was evoked and accepted by the NATO members, requiring specific obligations be met according to Treaty terms between Nations.  Otherwise, assuming (and observing) that those Treaty terms between the United States and the NATO member Nations are openly violated, ignored, acted upon in bad faith, and etc., the U.S. military and diplomatic corps and Atlanticist faction of U.S. policy in general would then be reasonably expected to defend the United States continued commitment to NATO, constitutionally, materially, and otherwise, in it's current form, and would be hard pressed to do so in relation to the liabilities this entails.   Whereas the finale of the UN and US/UK's misadventure in the Gulf spanning almost twenty years was a proof, or disproof, of the United States ability to rely on the UNSC to resolve disputes the U.S. (and some other Nations) are willing to go to war over, Afghanistan is proof, or disproof, of the value of the continuation of the NATO Treaty to the United States in it's current form given the current eras geo-political and strategic challenges.  Bluntly put, if Article V of the Treaty is no longer a zero-sum mandatory commitment to jointly engage in war against a non-member aggressor, which judging from the other members actions is the case in their polity's view, then the sooner the United States disengages itself likewise, the better (in my personal opinion).  Yet this exact prospect, of the Atlanticist set having to justify the budgets, strategic value, liabilities, and etc. of maintaining our one directional commitment to Europe, to an American electorate already over-taxed and committed elsewhere, threatens the entire post-cold war patchwork military industrial systems status quo... as it's an argument they'll certainly lose, fiscally and strategically.  Tragically for the Afghani's, but happily for the beltway and Atlanticists, whilst Afghanistan and the Taliban/AQ have the sheen of a NATO 'war', the issue can be put off a while longer.  (God forbid Congress has to actually formally declare war, rather than cynically deferring to this or that international Treaty!  lol). Zen,I think there’s another point worth including in this thread, namely the continued existence of NATO and viability of maintaining our current (very expensive) position in Europe if the liabilities outweigh the benefits.  When the U.S. was attacked, Article V of the NATO treaty was evoked and accepted by the NATO members, requiring specific obligations be met according to Treaty terms between Nations.  Otherwise, assuming (and observing) that those Treaty terms between the United States and the NATO member Nations are openly violated, ignored, acted upon in bad faith, and etc., the U.S. military and diplomatic corps and Atlanticist faction of U.S. policy in general would then be reasonably expected to defend the United States continued commitment to NATO, constitutionally, materially, and otherwise, in it’s current form, and would be hard pressed to do so in relation to the liabilities this entails.   Whereas the finale of the UN and US/UK’s misadventure in the Gulf spanning almost twenty years was a proof, or disproof, of the United States ability to rely on the UNSC to resolve disputes the U.S. (and some other Nations) are willing to go to war over, Afghanistan is proof, or disproof, of the value of the continuation of the NATO Treaty to the United States in it’s current form given the current eras geo-political and strategic challenges.  Bluntly put, if Article V of the Treaty is no longer a zero-sum mandatory commitment to jointly engage in war against a non-member aggressor, which judging from the other members actions is the case in their polity’s view, then the sooner the United States disengages itself likewise, the better (in my personal opinion).  Yet this exact prospect, of the Atlanticist set having to justify the budgets, strategic value, liabilities, and etc. of maintaining our one directional commitment to Europe, to an American electorate already over-taxed and committed elsewhere, threatens the entire post-cold war patchwork military industrial systems status quo… as it’s an argument they’ll certainly lose, fiscally and strategically.  Tragically for the Afghani’s, but happily for the beltway and Atlanticists, whilst Afghanistan and the Taliban/AQ have the sheen of a NATO ‘war’, the issue can be put off a while longer.  (God forbid Congress has to actually formally declare war, rather than cynically deferring to this or that international Treaty!  lol).

]]> http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12609 zen Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:01:04 +0000 http://zenpundit.com/?p=3181#comment-12609 hi everyone! . Thank you all for the very kind words! I was just trying to shift my own gears in light of Dave's post. . <strong>Chris</strong> - the "eye toward electoral politics" is a continual problem with US foreign policy and one that keeps us from making strategic moves over the long haul. It would be better, if we had a recognizable grand strategy, as <strong>T.Greer</strong> suggested to provide a rough framework for our ad hoc tactical moves, but we do not and have not since 1991. . <strong>Shlok</strong> - Pat Lang suggested buying up poppies and it strikes me as simple and easy to implement. I think the idea of US military personnel collecting metric tons of opium gives some wonks/activists in DC the heebie-jeebies but we need to get over our entire self-injuring drug war policies ( fixing that would undermine 90% of the insurgencies on earth as the price of contraband plummeted) . <strong>Slapout & Lex</strong> - see the addendum. Lex, getting the USG to be satisfied with acheivable goals is very hard. It almost requires a lack of public  interest to effect. . <strong>George</strong> - Sorry, no disrespect meant to USN pilots but using the Indian ocean as a platform raises the issue of  sending warplanes into Pakistani airspace on a regular basis in a manner that aggravates regional tensions ( sure we violate airspace from the north and drones themselves are a violation, but it is a "quieter" violation andthe Pakistani military can be pretty sure it isn't India. Coming from a carrier requires more overt cooperation from Islamabad). <strong>. Von</strong> - I still think local jihadist groups will be problematic but they will be problematic for America in the "one step removed" way that Hamas and Hezbollah are. We are not their primary targets and they do not want a direct conflict with the US military if they can help it. . hi everyone!
.
Thank you all for the very kind words! I was just trying to shift my own gears in light of Dave’s post.
.
Chris - the "eye toward electoral politics" is a continual problem with US foreign policy and one that keeps us from making strategic moves over the long haul. It would be better, if we had a recognizable grand strategy, as T.Greer suggested to provide a rough framework for our ad hoc tactical moves, but we do not and have not since 1991.
.
Shlok - Pat Lang suggested buying up poppies and it strikes me as simple and easy to implement. I think the idea of US military personnel collecting metric tons of opium gives some wonks/activists in DC the heebie-jeebies but we need to get over our entire self-injuring drug war policies ( fixing that would undermine 90% of the insurgencies on earth as the price of contraband plummeted)
.
Slapout & Lex - see the addendum. Lex, getting the USG to be satisfied with acheivable goals is very hard. It almost requires a lack of public  interest to effect.
.
George - Sorry, no disrespect meant to USN pilots but using the Indian ocean as a platform raises the issue of  sending warplanes into Pakistani airspace on a regular basis in a manner that aggravates regional tensions ( sure we violate airspace from the north and drones themselves are a violation, but it is a "quieter" violation andthe Pakistani military can be pretty sure it isn’t India. Coming from a carrier requires more overt cooperation from Islamabad).
.
Von - I still think local jihadist groups will be problematic but they will be problematic for America in the "one step removed" way that Hamas and Hezbollah are. We are not their primary targets and they do not want a direct conflict with the US military if they can help it.
.

]]>