Are We Using Our Military Wisely?
It's time to look reality in the face. Over the weekend reports started to surface that the CIA is operating armed drones in Yemen. This brings the number of countries that we are involved in hostilities with up to five. The others are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya. Five countries that we are shooting weapons into or have troops on the ground. Has anyone bothered to ask "Why?"
We really don't know what the "why" is anymore. Afghanistan and Iraq started on George W Bush's watch. While we supported the ass-kicking assigned to Afghanistan as a payback for 9/11, we never imagined that we'd have troops there for 10 years and counting. It's not like there's any strategic significance to the area other than the Taliban gave haven to Al Qaeda. This was supposed to be a smackdown and come home - not adopting a basket case of a country.
We never much understood the bait and switch into Iraq. We can accept the argument that Saddam was an evil thug capable of threatening the neighborhood with weapons of mass destruction. Still, there are ways to bring about that change short of a full scale war, and then a Marshall plan to create a nation out of whole cloth. To paraphrase former SecDef Rumsfeld, supporting an internal uprising would be cheaper than a war, and a single bullet would cost even less.
That gets us to the adventures that are all Obama. Our military is conducting boots on the ground operations in Pakistan, which Obama did say he would do during Campaign 2008. You remember the quip from one of the Democrat debates during the primaries - that he would act on intelligence to get OBL. Biden and Hillary both had a cow saying that you couldn't threaten to invade an ally. Pakistan really isn't much of an ally. They have been playing both sides and cashing the checks we cut them, while dragging their feet in helping out.
We are providing air and logistical support to NATO for the thumping of Gadaffi in Libya. Ground troops are poised to go if needed. We have absolutely no vital interests in Libya. We are just carrying water for France and Britain who can't do this mission on their own because they are too busy paying for their social programs to buy bullets. Even Germany sat this one out. Can you ever remember a time when Germany passed on invading a country?
Now Yemen. Of course it's not a military action - the CIA is running it. That makes us feel better. By the way, Yemen was where all of those "detainees" at Gitmo were shipped off to. Guess that wasn't so well thought out. Those are the people we are trying to take out with the Predator drones.
All of this has been very ad-hoc, with no serious engagement by the administration. Iraq has been ignored except as a campaign issue. The drawdown is the one Bush negotiated in 2008. There's not a single Obama fingerprint on it. At least we got a semi-functioning government out of all of the blood and treasure we spent there.
Not so much in Afghanistan, where Obama committed to a surge, and an exit date. Then he promptly lost interest except to fire a general for talking smack about poor civilian leadership. We don't even have a functioning government there - just a den of thieves that controls about 10% of the country as long as we provide the muscle. The minute that we leave, Karzai will meet Allah in a direct sense. I'm sure that Gorbachev is appreciating the irony. We have become the Soviets.
As to the rest, there is no coherent plan or policy. It's all reactionary and knee-jerk. It seems as if Obama is busy doing whatever he is interested in, and a situation comes up in the world and smacks him in the head. His response is generally annoyance that his attention is getting diverted. Then he dithers for awhile. Then he either gives a speech or looks at the military, and tells them to handle it, but not to make too much noise. This is no way to conduct military policy, and provides no justification for placing our troops in harm's way.
Our troops and American interests are not well served by their current deployment. We believe that the American military role in the Mideast need to be redefined. We firmly believe that immediate withdrawal of all troops is in order. This call does not come from some pacifist leanings, or out of weakness, or any particular fondness for Islam. It comes from the realization that our young men and women are being placed in harm's way by an administration with no plan, no strategy, no desire for victory, and no coherent policy. Under the current circumstances, not one more drop of American blood should be shed, and not one nickel more spent.
Instead of fighting a major war on five fronts with no way to measure success or define a mission, we suggest an alternative. Define our interests and protect them. That would be killing terrorists and keeping the oil flowing. There are no other vital interests in the area that require deployment of US troops.
No nation building. Democracy is not an export. It cannot be imposed. It is an import to a willing nation. It is homegrown. We will help nurture it where it takes root. That is the job of the State Department, not the military. No bribes (foreign aid) without getting something of equal value in return. No going to bail out rebels in places we don't care about anyway. It's nice to help out, but we seldom get a good result. Example: Afghanistan.
To enforce and defend our interests we hold one secure and fortified staging base in the Mideast. It will house a carrier group and a rotating contingent of special forces / delta team / SEALS, and the support required to maintain the core mission of defending vital interests. The carrier group keeps the oil flowing, the SEALs go on missions to kill selected bad guys (a la bin Laden.) No wars, no meddling in internal affairs of other countries, no carrying water for other nation's vital interests. No more nanny America, no more policeman for the world. No one shows any appreciation for our help anyway. Example: France.
It doesn't matter where the base is, though Bahrain would be the most suitable existing base. And while it would be nice to have the permission of the host country, it isn't necessary. We have a huge naval base on Cuba that we are sure Castro does not approve of. Should the host country become hostile,we defend the base by any means necessary.
Common Sense Dictates
This suggestion is a coherent military policy. It is thought out, practical and doable. It provides a clear mission in a volatile area of the world. It is a judicious use of our military. It is not just reacting inconsistently to whatever bad thing jumps up, which has been the case especially lately in the current administration..
When it comes to committing troops, the troops and the American citizens deserve better than a disengaged President who comes off as being bothered by the inconvenience of dealing with overseas problems. They deserve an engaged President, who has put in the work and effort to understand why a goal must be pursued by military means. He must then be able to explain that decision in clear terms to the American public. You cannot ask a soldier to put his life at risk if you can't explain the reason that you are asking. To do so shows not only disrespect to the military and their families who serve with them, but contempt. It is shameful.
We are making the gift of a better plan to you President Obama. Now implement the plan. It will allow America to make better use of our military resources, and not risk our troops on anything other than pursuit of American vital interests. Common Sense and common decency demand that much.
RLB
Categories: National Security, Foreign Affairs, political leadership
Tags: foreign policy national security political leadership war on terror
how can we use our military wisely when we have over 80% of them stuck on bases all around the world and not combat trained? over 2 million active duty, ~450 bases on US soil, another 1100+ overseas, yet we could only muster 200k of troops to go into Iraq and Afghanistan before we had to pull the reserve in?
Reply to this
No, we aren't. No common sense in any of this thrown together semi-policy.
Reply to this
Jeremy has a good point. We have bases everywhere, shouldn't we be concentrating on the trouble spots? If we have a 2 million person military, why is it necessary to dip into the reserves to get 200,000 soldiers in an actual war zone?
Reply to this
This is going to be a long one. First, yeah, changes need to be made in the mission, and clear goals need to be set. I think this plan pulls back a little too much, but we are spread too thin.
For the points made about how many bases we have, it's a product of a couple of things. When Bush43 was elected, Rumsfeld was tasked with rebuilding the military from the Clinton cutbacks. He wanted to transform the military from a big army cold war model, to a lean mobile fighting force. Fast response to smaller threats was the guide. That requires logistics spread all over the place, so we put in a lot of newer bases in fairly friendly countries, and we need the personnel there to maintain equipment and supplies.
The WWII era and Cold War bases were supposed to be scaled back. Our allies in NATO weren't too keen on the idea for two main reasons. They still don't trust Russia (which is valid), and these bases generate a lot of economic activity in areas that don't have much else going for them. American soldiers defend these allies and American dollars pour into their pockets. It's the same way people stateside howl when a base gets shut down. It was part of the plan to trim those back though - it just hasn't happened yet.
As to changing strategy now, yes it needs to be done, but it isn't going to be Obama doing it. He makes the gestures, but the Armed Forces, and really anything happening overseas doesn't really interest him. He's 100% domestic policy. I don't expect to see any smarter strategy, just more "limited" work piled onto an already stretched force. That just how it is.
Reply to this
Ok, so when Bush wants to head to war, you guys are all in. When Obama takes over you want out. Now who is playingpolitics with the troops?
Reply to this
Val, that is ignorant, even for you. It has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat - it has to do with the welfare of the troops. Bush had a plan (granted not a great one) whiich he laid out and seemed to make sense. He also committed to victory. Obama upgraded Afghanistan and declared withdrawal in the same speech. Then didn't give his generals asked for. He has no committment to victory, and seriously, with Libya it looks like he told them to help out but not really. He doesn't take the job of C in C seriously. At least Bush did. I agree that no more blood should be shed by our troops unless Obama can figure out what he's trying to do. Getting shot for no reason is beyond the call of duty.
Reply to this
Look, I'll admit that Afghanistan grew way beyond original mission. I wouldn't have gone along with it if it was clear in the beginning that we had to make a nation. Iraq was a disaster until the "surge". Bush gets credit for realizing the mission in Iraq was going bad and got a new plan. Iraq is on the path that Bush set out on. This is Obama'smoment to realize that he needs a better plan for Afghanistan, and an actual policy for when the military is used. Right now it's a crapshoot as to what the big O will do. That's dangerous.
Reply to this
I think that we really need to look at what we are trying to accomplish in the Mideast. Still 50K troop in Iraq, somewhere around 130k in Afghanistan, a carrier group off of Libya. We should figure out what we want to do there and make adjustments.
Reply to this
I just wonder what happened to bringing all the troops home. Another promise not kept.
Reply to this
I think obama wants them all over the place, so they wont be HERE.
Reply to this
If the military, many of whom are oath keepers, is on foreign soil, Obummer's Nazi-like forces have a better chance of herding us into modern day concentration camps.
Reply to this
"One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful, subduing the enemy's military without battle is the most skillful." - Sun Tzu
Reply to this
I BELIEVE ONE OF HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES WAS TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW IBELIEVE WE HAVE 5 OR 6 WARS OR SQUIRMISHES STARTED I THINK HE IS SENDIND IN ARMED RONES TO YEMEN NOW HES GOT HIS EYE ON SYRIA AND GOD KNOWS WHO ELSE WILL SOMEONE TELL ...THIS LIL DICTATOR WE ARE NOT THE WORLDS POLICE AND OUR PEOPLE AND CHILDREN ARE HOMELESS HUNGRY AND JOBLESS WE DONT HAVE HEALTHCARE BUT SEND MILLS TO ALL IN EAST BUT ISRAEL KHADAFI KIDS GRANDCHILDREN ETC AND ENDLESS CITIZENS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY US DOCS ARE TOLD NOT TO TREAT THM KHADAFI HAS AND IS HIS FRIEND SO TTELL ME WHATS UP THERE ? THESE COUNTRIES HATE US BUT GLADLY TAKE OUR MONEY AND SPIT ON OUR FLAG ITS TIME WE DID ANYTHING TO STOP THIS PERSON AS AMERICA IS CERTAINLY DOOMED NW I HEAR HE MAY HAVE A 5 YR OLD DAUGHTER BY HIS HOUSEKEEPER NOT TO JUDGE BUT WHY ARE WE ALLOWING PEOPLE LIKE THAT TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS FOR US BET THE BANKS IN SWITZERLAND ARE REALLY RAKING IT IN
Reply to this
You danced up really close to Ron Paul iolationism here. Sometimes using the military in far off places IS acting in our own interests. I agree that there's not a whole lot of coordination going on now and we need to make better use of our military, but we can't pull out of the world unless weare directly attacked.
Reply to this
The ONLY reason that the Mideast is going through all of this "freedom" is that no one is taking Obama seriously. You might think Bush was a boob, but he promoted freedom without starting Islamic revolutions throughout the area. This is out of control, and the military role is expanded because Obama doesn't have any idea of what to do in the area, and it shows.
Reply to this
For all of the abuse hurled at John McCain, I think that this issue is one where we would have benefitted from him defeating Obama. There would have been no confusion as to where America stood, and there would not be all of this chaos going on. We need to keep that in mind come 2012.
Reply to this
You're not going to get me to come to McCain's defense, but it is obvious that there is no sort of plan in place. The changes occur almost daily, and you never know what Obama is going to do. We do need a plan. We need a strategy. We have neither right now.
Reply to this
It really is like this has been on auto-pilot since day one - really, like Obama just didn't even bother to look except for that brief stand he made on Afghanistan. One dead terrorist does not a policy make.
Reply to this
This is really well timed considering that Obama is trying to come up with how many troops to pull out of Afghanistan. We can't just pull them all out on a minute's notice, but I agree that there doesn't seem to be any end goal. All we are doing s propping up a corrupt government that is making nice with the people we are shooting at. lmost like Pakistan. Sincethis s what we can expect I support minimizing the force, and just shooting terrorists. Let Afghanistan sort out how it wants to live.
Reply to this
We don't need a change in mission. We need a change in Commander-In-Chief.
Reply to this
I didn't know what to do with Obama's speech. To me it sounded like thered be a few more months for us to kill them and for them to kill us,but then there will be a steady withdrawal. I hear even his generals thought this was a bad idea. Maybe that's why Petraeus wasn't around. If there's not a good reason for being there, bring our troops home.
Reply to this
This "nation building" is the New Deal, Part Deux. It's also a blatant attempt at snowing us, yet again, with his nicely creased pants and his ever so eloquent rhetoric. However, the American people have caught on that actions speak louder than empty, droning words.
Reply to this
Just mentioned this in the 2nd amendment article - a man defending his home is worth a hundred paid soldiers. We've overstayed our mission, and the White House doesn't have a plan. They want out, but they don't have tha balls to pull out. Meanwhile our young men and women pay the price every day for the indecision of our President. I agree with the premise - either win this or pull out now.
Reply to this
We haven't had a plan since WWII. That's why we keep getting our butts handed to us on a platter. If we don't have a plan TO WIN, then we need to stay home. I'm sick of us snatching defeat from the hands of victory.
Reply to this
Is our military defending OUR borders. No - they're babysitting a bunch of 3rd World camel lots. To answer your question: HELL NO WE"RE NOT!
Reply to this
Oh no... the Globalist controlled U.S. Presidency HAS a definite plan.
Demonize country, Invade said country, demonize...invade, demonize...invade.
They will keep this predictable regimen up until our economy collapses due to trillions and trillions dumped into the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex owners.
Then the U.N. backed Globalist Banking families will come with international forces and take over all of our resources (including us) since it/we have all been staked as collateral on this unpayable debt.
Great plan huh?
Reply to this
A well targeted volley of both tactical and stragegic nuclear weapons, delivered to the taliwacker towelheads in Oct 2001, would have left the grandest canyon in the world, and would have ridden the world of the people and their 7th century ideology. [bin laden would have been killed back then, and none of our brave soldiers]
Reply to this
Sun Tzu's "Art of War" (which West Point has always taught) clearly says to avoid protracted occupations in foreign lands.
There are MANY reasons of danger to avoid this; but primarily because it drains the morale of the troops and the coffers of the Nation's citizenry.
Reply to this
Some say invasion isn't necessary nor prudent.
Occupation is even less so.
Espionage is far cheaper. Spies, assassins, sabateurs...
Having our military FAR from home leaves us and them vulnerable; and also drains the public coffers.
I am only parroting Sun Tsu.
Reply to this
Simply Chemically Nuke the Golden Cresent region's growing area. Destroy the soil so NO poppy can grew. No money source, no weapons. They then must get real jobs, ones NOT involving the slaughter of innocent human life.
Reply to this