-
“Fediting 101”
June 13, 2013 | 1 comment
-
National Security and the Difficult Debate
June 10, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Just Because I’m Paranoid…
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
A veteran U.S. army officer has broken ranks, and written a scathing article about the war in Afghanistan.
In so doing, he’s publicly confessed what many American servicemen have been hinting at for years, in private: reports of progress from the Pentagon are little more than window-dressing on a faltering campaign.
Davis, a 27 year vet with four combat deployments under his belt, spent the last year assigned to the Army’s Rapid Equipping Forces, traveling over 9,000 miles to visit every important area where American soldiers engage the enemy. He now contends that there is a growing inconsistency between official statements offered to the American public and hard truth on the ground. As the mission drags on, and hopes of “victory” wane, this credibility gap is becoming chasmal.
LTC Davis reports our Afghan “partners” habitually refuse to fight the Taliban — hedging their bets against a U.S. drawdown designed to exit the majority of forces over the next 24 months. According to his article for the Armed Forces Journal and a story published in concert with the New York Times, local governments are unable to provide basic services and the Taliban insurgency has free rein in territory outside U.S. eyeshot. At times, Davis plainly observed Afghan Security conspiring with the opposition.
According to Davis:
In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described — and many, many more I could mention — had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.
Understandably, American troop morale sits at an all time low.
Is any of this so shocking?
Probably not. One of the conditions that define American exceptionalism is our stubborn refusal to warm to defeat or failure. We do not casually quit the field. But according to Davis, current perspective and policy is based on illusion, not reality.
For his part, Davis is on a mission to see that the military brass quits “cherry-picking” the facts they’re feeding us, back home. In his words:
What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground…
No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan. But we do expect — and the men who do the living, fighting and dying deserve — to have our leaders tell us the truth about what’s going on.
Let’s face some facts. Despite the unstinting bravery of American troops, stable, constitutional democracy exists beyond the capacity of our dubious partners in the Afghan government. President Karzai serves his nation as the mayor of Kabul — and a rapaciously corrupt one, at that. Yet victory in Afghanistan, as we have come to imagine it, requires a stable, liberal democracy that’s generally pro-American. At present, such victory is off the table.
To expect any Afghan leader — particularly one clever and strong enough to ply together his country’s ragged tapestry of tribal, ethnic and religious identity — to be pro-American AND to share our evolving goals for South Asia is to abandon prudence.
I imagine we can disagree about the strength and purpose of our mission in Afghanistan, how the war should be fought, and when it’s time to pull up stakes. LTC Davis’s report from the field shouldn’t shock us… Afghanistan isn’t a pleasant place to fight a war.
And far be it from me, from the comfort of my desk in Washington, to accuse senior military leaders of lying about what is going on in Afghanistan. More likely, we’re receiving overly optimistic missives from military higher-ups who are famously reluctant to admit an unfavorable outcome. But, Davis raises an important question:
Is American military leadership changing its strategic logic to survive and win on the battlefield…or are they responding to pressures — perhaps leveraged by President Obama and his staff — to outlive opposition inside the Beltway and in next year’s general election?
View all comments (50) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/09/exposing-truth-and-lies-in-afg
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Lehrman Standard
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
crazy| 2.9.12 @ 3:24PM
Careerism and wishful thinking. Wars are won when victory is the way home not a scheduled rotation date. Korea, VietNam, Iraq, Afghanistan - all different and yet all the same.
Jack in Wi.| 2.9.12 @ 3:39PM
A long list of wars that should have never been fought. I can't think of one war that could not have been avoided by sane leadership. That includes all the wars America has fought since the Revolution. It probably should include the Revolution, as well. War is nothing by waste of blood and treasure. Chicken Hawks who lied us into Iraq and Afganistan, are now trying to lie us into Iran. I say to hell with all of them.
Conservative Bob| 2.9.12 @ 4:14PM
Jack you sincerely think that we should not have responded to Pearl Harbor?
The Revolutionary War honestly?
Dixie Pixie| 2.9.12 @ 5:04PM
Bob....Before WWII, America supplied more than 80% of Japanese oil and over 40% of its coal.
A fact the Democrats have covered up for years.
In the pursuit of more resources to fuel their exploding economy, Japan invaded China.
FDR's mistake was to shut off Japans energy supply to get Japan out of China.
Instead of leaving China and all the material resources Japan spent decades in developing, the Japanese simply went south and took over the oil resources in Dutch Indonesia.
Naturally, the Japanese wanted to make sure of no further interference from America, so they invaded the Philippines and bombed Pearl Harbor.
The Pacific War was caused by a series of mistaken judgments and military action based on delusional beliefs by both sides.
The Pacific War could have been easily avoided with a little less arrogance and a lot better political intelligence on both sides.
The European War, on the other hand, was deliberate and unstoppable.
Hobbes| 2.9.12 @ 5:39PM
Ask 100 Americans why the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor, and 100 will have no clue. FDR was begging them to attack. They had been our allies in WWI and should have been our allies in WWII, if not for Churchill.
Hobbes| 2.9.12 @ 5:48PM
Oh yeah, and we allied ourselves with the Soviet Union, China and Vietnam against Japan. How'd that work out for us in the long run?
Occam's Tool| 2.9.12 @ 6:33PM
Well, considering that the Japanese behaved like inhuman animals, they probably needed a beat down. They received it; they;ve been much better behaved since. Their beatdown and the results should serve as an example of what to do with our current enemy; also, it should be noted that the battle was won by air---which can be done if one disposes of fastidiousness---boots on the ground allow for fewer casualties to one's enemies, but more for one's own forces.
If you recall, I have supported mass bombings in Afghanistan rather than boots on the ground. I care not about their casualties; I care about ours. The Islamic world will always be the enemy of the West until it is beaten to a pulp; it has been for 1400 years.
The only way to change their minds is to beat them to a pulp, as was done to Germany and Japan. This time, though, the aerial battle will be much more one-sided, as it should be. Iran does not need to be invaded; it needs to be beaten to within an inch of its life.
Occam's Tool| 2.9.12 @ 6:34PM
"They've."
And, incidentally, when they stop trying to kill other people and desire peace genuinely, we can then help truly rebuild Iran into a decent country, as per Germany and Japan.
Clint| 2.9.12 @ 6:54PM
The Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk RINO-CINO Coward,Tool Job Wants To Use American Warriors & More American Taxpayer Money Policing The World, Blowing It Up Then Rebuilding It.
Why Don't Ya Get Your Rough Puff Israeli Girlfriends To Do Their Own Fighting And Stop Attempting To Use Our American Military And Our National Treasure To Carry Out Your Israel Firster Agenda.
You Could Even Ride An Israeli Nuke Down Like Slim Pickens.
vtwin| 2.9.12 @ 8:16PM
Clint, wash your overstretched anus before we allow you to fart on this site. You stink.
You guys should have nuked the pakis from the very start. I'm a brit, I know ragheads because they're a domestic nuisance. Fighting muslim fanatics (pleonasm) with the help of muslim fanatics was not the best strategy. And please Clinty boy, don't insult Jews. You may not like them but you don't even know why.
Clint| 2.10.12 @ 6:44AM
Why Don't Try And Make Me ObamaGitlie vtwin Sugar Pockets ?
You Don't Know Me Nor My Jewish Buddies, Obama Nancy & You Ain't Man Enough To Do Anything About It.
Occam's Tool| 2.9.12 @ 9:40PM
OK, Clint, I guess you think it's a great idea for the Iranians to nuke the Vatican. They will be within range.
Clint| 2.10.12 @ 6:51AM
I Guess Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Tool Job Thinks That We'll Fall For His Israel Firster Smear Bund Disinformation Campaign.
Barry Rubin,
" So why are Israelis talking about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Because that’s a good way – indeed, the only way Israel has — to pressure Western countries to work harder on the issue, to increase sanction and diplomatic efforts. If one believes that somehow pushing Tehran into slowing down or stopping its nuclear weapons drive is the only alternative to war, that greatly concentrates policymakers’ minds. Personally, I don’t participate — consciously or as an instrument — in disinformation campaigns, even if they are for a good cause."
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Smear Bund Clown, Tool Job.
Dixie Pixie| 2.9.12 @ 8:41PM
O..T...It is a adage that everything created by Man is “Artificial”.
Then it stands to reason the most “Artificial” of Man's creations are the political structures called Governments.
Personally, I blame George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld for the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascoes.
They simply refused to impose a government compatible to American interests and beliefs.
The traditional military solution to a foreign political problem is to utterly destroy the offending government and impose a new government.
If this is not done the only two options are to permanently occupy the foreign lands and run it ourselves.
The second option is to join the conquered land to the homelands as a permanent conquest.
Bush 43 and Rumsfeld refused to do any of the above under the addled-headed idea the US only needed to kill the bad guys and every thing would fall into place.
After 10 years, it still has not happened and never will.
PS....The Japanese have always utilized oriental philosophy, customs, traditions, beliefs and Laws.
They were never part of the Judeo-Christian traditions until the USA taught Japan the virtue and power of those traditions and beliefs.
When the US hold over Japan fades, they may go back to the traditional methodology.
But it is most likely Japan will compose a workable hybrid of the two philosophies.
Dixie Pixie| 2.9.12 @ 6:52PM
Hobbes.....It is a little known fact that Dean Acheson boasted in his autobiography, that he was the one who started WWII by orchestrating the oil embargo against Japan.
The Democrats have been hiding their role in starting WWII for years despite documentary evidence pointing to Democratic arrogance and stupidity in starting it.
Not that the Japanese were blameless, but it is a historical fact the Pacific War could have been avoided with a lot less arrogance and political stupidity by both sides.
Not that the Democrats have learned anything from the experience as proved by Obama Democrats actions in the “Arab Spring” revolutions.
How could they, when they are so delusional about their own history.
PS....It was PM Churchill how did every thing he could to bring the USA to the Allies side in WWII.
The British Empire would have lost if it did not have America's help.
Europe would look a lot different today if the US had not intervened as the USSR was fully capable of smashing Hitlers Germanic Empire and was doing so.
I hate to think of growing up in a world where the USSR controlled the European and Asia lands from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Then it would the USSR who would be the lone Superpower not the USA.
What a nasty thought that is.
Anthony M| 2.9.12 @ 9:04PM
Wow, the USSR was defeating the Germans? Without US supplies and assistance the Russkies would've all been speaking German and building volkswagons. Gemany would've been the lone superpower in Europe, but they still would've been no match for the industrial might of the once great USA.
As for the Japs, their list of atrocities in Korea, China, Vietnam, and the rest of Asia are among the worst in recent history. Their mistreatment of POWs, their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor as well as sanctioned rape (a favorite of the soviets, too) bar them from any discussion of civilized culture.
Occam's Tool| 2.9.12 @ 9:44PM
Anthony: our aid greatly helped the Russians win---but 90% of all German Army divisions were engaged (and destroyed) on the Eastern, not the Western, front.
Without the Russians, we would have had to strike the Germans with The Big One (SAC, figure 1947) to win. Fun novel on the subject by Stuart Slade.
Clint| 2.10.12 @ 7:01AM
We Notice That These Israel Firster Traitor Bastards Have A Bad & Repeated Habit Of Badmouthing Our Veteran Military Officers And Our American Warriors' Sacrifice & Strategic Combat In The ETO.
Without The Sacrifice & Bravery Of American Combat Officers Like My Dad & His Troopers Europe Would Have Been Under The Control Of Communist Governments.
Occam's Tool| 2.9.12 @ 9:46PM
Anthony:
With regard to the Japanese, you are completely correct: Hiroshima and nagansaki were just deserts.
You are also right about the need for US assistance for the Russians to win---but their sacrifice WAS much greater than ours, and, without the Russians, we would not have been able to beat the Germans without nukes. 90% of the German Army was fighting the Russians---just 10% fought us.
Hobbes| 2.10.12 @ 3:45PM
The American people have had enough crusading democratism.
GetitRight| 2.10.12 @ 4:53PM
90% vs. just 10%???? OT, you are out of your ever-so-arrogant mind. Or were the Russians fighting the Germans also in the Med, the Atlantic, the Balkans, Greece, Cyprus, the Italian boot, southern France, the Benelux, Norway?
Drek| 2.9.12 @ 5:02PM
There's nothing inherently wrong with rotation schedules. Just so long as the schedules go along with a war effort that does not allow the enemy to cross borders into rest areas.
The enemy in South Vietnam was allowed to rest and requip in Cambodia and North Vietnam. Of course then our efforts were likley to meet with failure.
Pursue and destroy the enemy. If the enemy crosses into the tribal areas, then move in strength into those tribal areas and obliterate the enemy, crushing and destroying any group that sides with our enemy.
Of course Bush had no business making our war effort metric whether or not we dragged honour killing dirtballs from the 7th century into the 20th.
That was ALWAYS going to be fraught with difficulties, to say the least.
The foremost sponsor of muslim mayhem on the face of the earth, for the last 30 years, has been and continues to be Iran.
So after 9/11, we should have moved on that fountain of muslim insanity, that epicenter, Tehran, and crushed the enemy in his capital.
We should have simultaneously told the IDF to move on Syria, and settle all scores once and for all.
Then after that, ---------- we should have pivoted on the main spiritual and financial supporters of muslim mayhem. Which would have been Saudi Arabia.
Warrior | 2.9.12 @ 10:09PM
Of course there is something seriously wrong with rotation schedules. You are part of an occupying force to need them. Kill the enemy with extreme prejudice, with a totality that leaves no doubt what would be in store for anyone who crossed us and then whatever is left alive can pick up the pieces. Our military would have been home in a few short weeks instead of our current ten years and counting.
Old Salt| 2.10.12 @ 4:01PM
Of course there is something wrong with an ONGOING rotation of troops: It ensures that you will always have newbies who are naive and have no idea what transpired on the ground 12, 18, 24, and 30 months prior.
It ensures that these newbies (newly enlisted, servicemembers in their 5 or 7th years of service but not yet deployed to that zone) don't then demand of senior leadershit: What are we doing here??? Why are we still just cowering in the same FOBs? Why are the Afghani police still so inept, so untrustworthy, so corrupt, so ready to thieve from us? Why are the Afghani soldiers and officers cowards, feckless, and still unable to speak English with us after 10 years? Why do we dole out billions of $$ and have nothing to show for it?
Oh, rotations matter.
They keep the lid on truth.
When you keep rotating (over years) it means we never ask ourselves the hard questions and DEMAND the requisite solutions. You never have that brash, selfless mouthy guy who has seen all of this garbage already for the last 60 months straight up close & personal and he isn't going to put his butt or his buddies' butts or taxpayers' money on the line for people who CANNOT and WILL NOT help themselves.
This is why the Pentagon rotates the troops in and out. (And promotes those who keep their mouths shut)
Hobbes| 2.9.12 @ 5:50PM
President Karzai has already promised to take Pakistan's side in a US-Pakistan War. What more do you need to know?
Jack in Wi.| 2.10.12 @ 12:11AM
The Japanese prime minister Konoye offered the Americans a full settlement before the war. It included almost all of what Roosevelt had demanded. He offered to travel to the USA, to perhaps Alaska, to personally negotiate a settlement with Roosevelt. Roosevelt rejected all efforts to make peace. Konoye was replaced by the more hard line Tojo. Even Tojo wanted to make peace but could get nothing out of Roosevelt who was determined to push Japan into attacking the USA so that he could justify a war. He just misscalculated on how bad the attack would be. All this is well known. It is fully documented in Herbert Hoover's great book, ' Freedom Betrayed,' reviewed here about 2 months ago. War with Japan was easily avoidable, if we had good leadership. Instead we had another chicken hawk warmonger, who lied us into another war. He had run on the promise that he would never send American boys into war. He never ever had any intention of keeping that promise. He allied himself with Hitler's partner in starting the war Stalin. Stalin was a a worse murderer then Hitler. He then gave Stalin half of Europe and that led to a 50 year cold war. Hitler winning the war could not have been much worse.
The reason the 22nd amendment was passed after the war, by both parties, was no one ever wanted to see another Roosevelt again. To think that FDR is Nutt Gingrich's favorite president say it all.
Hobbes| 2.10.12 @ 3:50PM
NeoCons are simply “selfish and uninstructed radicals and progressives, wishing to pour cement all over the country and make the world safe for democracy, well beyond the dreams of Wilson.” Russell Kirk
Dixie Pixie| 2.9.12 @ 4:37PM
Systematic lying throughout an organization is always the fault of the organizational leadership.
The military is unique from all other Federal organizations because it reports to and is personally linked through the “Chain of Command”, to the President.
Naturally, when the President is a compulsive liar who will not tolerate “Bad News” or any suggestion of failure, then the subordinate organizations will implement that mythology.
It is a common failure mechanism in a “Top-Down Hierarchy”, in which the top brass demands an impossible vision to be made real and the lower ranks can not do so.
So the lower ranks create misinformation of success and the upper ranks utilize that misinformation for further planning.
In time, the “Top-Down Hierarchical” organization will increasing diverge from reality until all actions and beliefs are based on delusions.
When both the the civilian leadership and organizational leadership are delusional, then a multiplier effect occurs which magnifies the delusions.
The organization then repeatedly crashes into and conflicts with reality, until the effected organization destroys itself.
DOD is well down that well-traveled path.
Drek| 2.9.12 @ 5:05PM
Let's not forget that this insanity of lying and deception about our "good muslim allies" began under GW's reign.
You can thank Powell, you can thank the Bush family ever so fond of "Bandar Bush." You can thank Condi, of course you're always supposed to throw an exclamation point after her name, so it comes out ------------ "Condi!"
Those are the morons who tethered America's military to civilizing monsters with a soft spot for the seventh century.
Dixie Pixie| 2.9.12 @ 5:29PM
Drek....Arab Muslims are unrecognized experts in “Playing” outsiders for their benefit.
They have thousands of years worth of experience of lying for military, political and religious gain.
The ever so gullible American Elite was easy prey for Muslim predation.
America has pored Trillions of dollars into the Middle East and the only result is the Arab Muslims are more powerful than they have been in hundreds of years.
70 years ago it was Islam who was facing extinction, now it is the Jews and Christians that are being exterminated.
Drek| 2.9.12 @ 6:20PM
Yea, that's true.
But the Bush family never needed to be played. They, along with James Baker and a few others, have ALWAYS been with the Arab.
Recall when the IAF went after Iraq's reactor, the resulting furor in the Reagan cabinet pitted Bush acolytes against Reagan and Haig.
Even then, way before 9/11, they've been more than willing to parrot the Arab party line.
Dixie Pixie| 2.9.12 @ 7:40PM
Drek.....The problem is far worse than your imagination.
Read “House of Bush, House of Saud...”, by Craig Unger.
The Bushies and the Saudis were joined together by financial interests years before the Bush family went into politics.
“Played” is only a minor aspect of their intertwining relationships.
Also see:::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan
Please note the Saudi children and grandchildren are old school chums with the Bushies.
Dan| 2.9.12 @ 4:57PM
No counter insurgency effort has ever been successful when the insurgents enjoy sanctuary status across a border.
So long as Pakistan has been allowed to provide sanctuary to the enemy, reorganizing them, requipping them, retraining them and reinserting them into the battlespace, just so long has our efforts in Afghanistan been likely to fail.
Either we get serious about Pakistan, or we allow Pakistan, {really, the Pathans} to control Afghanistan.
Old Salt| 2.10.12 @ 4:09PM
Dan, thank you. Concisely put. And any armchair Lazy-Boy channel flipper in America knows this same folly in his overstretched gut.
Yet Admirals and Generals and all their boot and brass kissing staffers who now all earn well northwards of $128,000 per annum want to tell us Joe Six Pacs that they know how to do this.
Please add that China aids and resupplies Pakistan in large part (but not exclusively) to aid and resupply, train, etc. those in Afghanistan whom we fight.
We don't get any truth telling on the part of ANY of this to the American people, to the service members who are younger than 30, and to their families.
The lies and dishonor is too much to bear. Yet is goes on month after month after month.
Hobbes| 2.9.12 @ 5:41PM
The war is lost. No one can win in Afghanistan. Alexander the Great knew that. The Brits knew that. The Red Army knew that. Too bad the Chickenhawk NeoCons didn't read their history.
Drek| 2.9.12 @ 6:21PM
Then kill massive numbers of the enemy on both sides of the border, and only then leave.
But don't leave without one massive contribution to the kill count.
Occam's Tool| 2.9.12 @ 6:35PM
Actually, I have, and noted that our concern for Afghan casualties was a weakness. But the Great Khan did beat the Afghans. It can be done if one is willing to pile up the enemy corpses.
Warrior | 2.10.12 @ 9:47AM
This could be accomplished simply by rearming the Northern Alliance and leaving them to their own devices. We would save billions of dollars and still control a puppet more effective than Karzai.
albert constantine jr.| 2.9.12 @ 5:48PM
I read LTC Davis’ article earlier this week, and I was impressed with what he had to say, and the integrity he has for saying it. While he spoke with many others of various ranks and assignments throughout Afghanistan, his report is the observation of a field grade officer for a given period of time. He might be correct about his overall assessment, and certainly seems to have identified significant tactical weaknesses and strategic deficiencies. However, before I abandon any hope of achieving any satisfactory outcome in Afghanistan, I’d like to hear from more of the troops, commanders and staff on the ground to hear their thoughts.
Reid Smith| 2.9.12 @ 6:10PM
Likewise.
I was unimpressed with George Little's dismissal over his report over at the Pentagon, but I agree with you...more needs to be heard from the front.
Drek| 2.9.12 @ 6:22PM
We don't need necessarily to hear from the front.
What we need are orders sent forth to pursue and kill the enemy, this side of the border or on the Pakistan side. Doesn't really matter.
Cut loose the inherent aggressiveness of the American combat infantryman! Let him go after his enemy! And let them kill them in droves!
Hobbes| 2.10.12 @ 12:51PM
Typical psychotic chickenhawk drivel. This is why the NeoCons are on their way out.
OS| 2.10.12 @ 4:20PM
Don't worry. LTC Davis will be marginalized and shut up poste haste. Even though there's nothing in his assessments that could be considered inflammatory.
I have a very close friend who would like to do more than LTC Davis to jostle American and Pentagon leadership into a radical alteration of compounded zero real gains year after year. However, his inbred Academy induced DNA to just toe the line, sadly, still brainwashes what would otherwise be a decent gent.
Rule #1 for most officers: Take care of Number One.
Most officers, once hitting 0-4 (certainly by 0-5/LTC rank) are NEVER EVER going to speak the truth. The only reason they are still there is the sweet retirement benefits to be accrued after 20 years to be followed by perhaps and potential lucrative offers from the 10,000 Beltway Bandit Forture 1000 companies that service the multi-billion dollar annual DOD expenditures.
An officer won't get that sweet landing in a mid-level $120,000 per year starting salary defense contractor job if he has a history and bio that speaks of his "Candid Views."
This whole apparatus thrives on men in their 40's and 50's who WILL NEVER rock the boat.
If LTC Davis is STILL JUST a LTC after 27 years, then he is summarily dismissed as a loser that somehow someone somewhere had pity on and let continue to serve.
I'd say more. Readers here who know whereof I speak know I speak of truth here.
Thom| 2.9.12 @ 6:36PM
What LTC Davis has written and worse has been known for years…..both inside and outside uniform services in Afghanistan. George W. Bush as you will remember didn’t engage in this COIN operation in Afghanistan and for a good reason. It was King Obama that made this the “good war” and embraced the same failed policies that have mirrored Vietnam to the letter. There are still people that will argue with me that we “won” in Vietnam…..
The writing was on the wall when the handpicked Democrat General’s minimum recommendation for force levels was undercut by 25% and said General pulled a MacArthur and got free of a sure loser….. As others have mentioned you can’t win an insurgency that maintains safe havens external to the primary battle space. Seeding the initiative to the enemy in such cases allows them to pick and choose the place and time they are willing to make their efforts and control their losses. You win wars by killing the other side quicker than they can replace their losses and taking ground from them so they can’t operate at will against your flanks. That isn’t going to happen with $16,000,000 model airplanes. This is why COIN is inherently flawed and enormously expensive to overcome the weaknesses it has. Simply put, you need a magnitude of order more forces to cover all your bases just to prevent a single successful attack. Anyone with an ounce of military tactical, operational and strategic training knows this from countless history lessons.
Add to this a strategy of telegraphing our every move to the enemy in advance, continually trying to negotiate from a position of weakness and announcing withdrawal dates in advance without regard to actual conditions on the ground and who would be surprised that the Taliban is just biding for time just as the NVA did for years. Things like COIN work only under ideal lab like conditions with enormous advantages in force levels between the two sides. We and Nato don’t have such an advantage over the Taliban forces. The overall kill ratio in Afghanistan is running about 3 to 1 in our (NATO and Afghan forces) favor but in Vietnam we held over 10 to 1 and still lost. You can’t keep the Taliban out of as large and difficult a place as Afghanistan with a force made up of primarily non-combat people in uniform. The bulk of our people there are such “beer and the gear” troops. The Taliban’s logistic tail is relatively short while our stretches half way around the globe and much of it must be Air Mailed in at enormous expense regardless of actual combat operations. And then there is the culture which has seen this half arsed kind of effort before time and time again. The bulk of the people in Afghanistan sees nothing but weakness in our approach to the Taliban. We are just renting space in their country for a while.
You won’t find many in the upper echelons of the military high command that will let integrity stand between them and a pay check. You don’t get to the top by speaking your mind in public that disagrees with the man at the top. Good people are trying to make the best out of a terrible situation and protect their people at the same time. It’s the people at the very top that have dropped the ball out of political correctness. They’ve failed the people under them. If they had integrity they would resign rather protect their paychecks and cushy jobs.
OS| 2.10.12 @ 4:37PM
Agreed. There are many reasons the brass (and senior government civil servants, senior contractors, etc.) wish this all to go on in perpetuity.
Rank! Promotions! Faster promotions! MORE MONEY! New staff creations! More fame. Better springboard to that CNN, Raytheon, Boeing, N-Gruman, Cisco, GM, GE, AT&T, or General Dynamics job!
Better bios for the memoirs, future speaking engagements, $1,000 per plate banquets, another big chit on their resumes. A better spot on the rostrum at the Army Navy Club.
It never has anything at all to with: Doing the right thing.
Yes, the people at the top "drop the ball." They've never known how to carry that ball -- called "mature, selfless responsibility."
NEVER.
DeaN| 2.9.12 @ 10:45PM
In fairness to Bush,we were not really losing many men over there until Hussein became potus.
As for the 1981 Iraq reactor,pretty much everyone in Reagan's administration opposed what Israel did. Turns out they were wrong.
Also remember that Reagan sold planes to Saudi Arabia despite strong Israel objections. Menachem Begin even lobbied congress. Voting to approve the sale cost Sen. Charles Percy his job.Another congressman,Paul Findley from my downstate illinois district lost his seat to Dick Turban Durbin for that vote too.
Ricco| 2.10.12 @ 9:40AM
This guy spent a year in the sandbox driving a truck covering less ground than the majority of the operators in a month and now he has foisted himself as THE person who has THE clear perspective on THE situation.
Right.
Next stop: "I'm running for Congress."
All American American| 2.10.12 @ 1:08PM
Its funny I was saying this about 4 years ago on this board and all the folks who post on here claiming to be active-duty O-6s who've seen combat up close and personal told me I was a sorry sack of excrement. Where they at now???
The elephant in the room is right over there and he's wearing a turbin and prostrating himself towards mecca.