The Afghanistan 2050 Roundtable Continues…..
My question as an American taxpayer interested in getting the most bang for my defense dollar is this: why are we having this discussion at all? I’m no expert but, given the full range of active and possible threats that this nation faces, don’t we have a need for both high intensity capabilities like armor, motorized infantry, and artillery as well as low intensity capabilities like light infantry? Is it so hard to carve out the necessary resources necessary to sustain both high intensity and low intensity capabilities? Isn’t the logical solution to have some formations dedicated to maintaining high intensity combat skills and other formations dedicated to maintaining low intensity combat skills?
Before he turned to the dark side, Marshal Pétain summed up twentieth century warfare as “artillery conquers, infantry occupies”. This suggests a logical division of responsibilities for any post-World War I land force based on the more general principle that “fire conquers, infantry occupies”. The late Rear Admiral J. C. Wylie wrote in his classic Military Strategy that:
The primary aim of the strategist in the conduct of war is some selected degree of control of the enemy for the strategist’s own purpose; this is achieved by control of the pattern of war; and this control of the pattern of war is had by manipulation of the center of gravity of war to the advantage of the strategist and the disadvantage of the opponent.
In Wylie’s conception, control ranged from suasion through diplomacy to complete destruction. In a narrower military sense, destruction is a form of control and occupation is a form of control. Consequently, in war you try to control two human targets:
- you control the fighting enemy i.e. enemy control
- you control the target population i.e. population control
Last time I checked, every military in history has attempted to control both targets to whatever degree they select.
Read the rest of these posts at Chicago Boyz.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Afghanistan:
August 24th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
I am a regular visitor to Afghanistan and some of my conclusions about the factual situation can be summarized as:
Taliban are not very popular any where in Afghanistan and even in Helmand. If people would be given a chance to vote with out any pressure Taliban would never win. USA and Foreign Forces are even more Unpopular than Taliban and people hate the arrogant attitude of Young Soldiers posing as they are from the God.
Political Process in Afghanistan has people support but people want solution to their day to day problems and provisions of basic needs which is definitely not possible in years or even decades.
People blame the Foreigners and Foreign Forces for not delivering what they were promised.
99% of the Afghan people feel happy when Foreign Soldiers are killed. Afghans want the forces to stay and maintain peace. Average Afghan Look at the Foreigners as a threat to his culture, values, religion, and way of life.
99% Afghans believe that by promoting women rights west is promoting prostitution, and trying to destroy the Afghan society.
What options west has:
Women Lib organizations must be banned from Afghanistan. Talk of women rights must be stopped because that Ignite hatred.
Gender issue must be thrown behind and efforts must be concentrated on the followings:
Campaign against corruption, Development of Education, Medical, Road, Communication Infrastructure. Provision of Public Utilities.
Foreign forces must be brought in defensive positions and policing.
Talk of NEED TO DO MORE in public must be stopped because that ignite hatred. No nation would like to be lectured. Americans must understand that now they do not hold high moral grounds which they have buried in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Garaib, Iraq War, Kidnapping and Torture of the prisoners, detaining the people with out trial etc. so they should not lecture the world. People hate it and understand the hypocrisy.
Americans Citizens are being ruled by lobbyists and must not listen to them
They supported the war and now must stand behind the decision and have patience. THERE IS ONLY WORSE OPTIONS IF THEY WILL NOT HAVE PATIENCE & WOULD NOT STAND BEHIND THEIR LEADERS.
Sundog:
August 25th, 2010 at 7:01 am
Funny that the priorities of "Afghanistan" for that country are not so different from mine, for the US.
<i>Campaign against corruption, Development of Education, Medical, Road, Communication Infrastructure.</i>
Nice post, thank you!
The 2050 worm will be burrowing into my head for some time now, I think.
Abu Nasr:
August 28th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Zen,
Here’s a video that sums up the criticisms of the Petraeus-brand of pop-centric COIN as a strategy for Afghanistan.
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7011707/