re: "Its (sic) all political now"

Bouhammer at Bouhammer's Afghan and Military Blog (" A blog about Military Issues, Afghanistan, and everything in between ") provided a reminder of why we fight.

Money quote(s):

"Back in 2001 when we went into Afghanistan, it was for a noble cause. We were attacked as a country and lost thousands of our citizens because Afghanistan allowed the terrorist to train and thrive there. After we eliminated the enemy we began the process of rebuilding the country. It has been decimated starting with the Soviet occupation and then after that as the Taliban took control.

From 2001-2012 we have lost thousands of America’s sons and daughters there, 1891 to be exact. They fell giving their lives for the security of our country and for the good of the Afghan people and the world. The cause of this war was just and appropriate. Regardless of what people feel about why we went to war with Iraq, the war in Afghanistan was warranted." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"(W)ith SecDef Panetta’s slip of the tongue the other day stating that we are going to end the “combat’ role a year early in 2013, it really smells like our war strategy is now completely political. This screw up by the SecDef shocked many around the world, from the Afghans to Panetta’s own staff."

2/3

re: "Obama to reduce Iraq strength to 3,000, lose election… "

Moe Lane at RedState ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") is crystal-balling some crystal-balling.

Money quote(s):

"(S)et up the bank shot in 2016 for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton"

Since this post, the target troop strength for the end of this year has dropped another couple of zeros, to (essentially) nothing. The primary official U.S. presence by 2012 in Iraq will be the State Dept. mission there. This actually would seem to put the "blame line" firmly on Sec. Clinton's desk, should anything not go spectacularly well.

(Does anyone actually, seriously, forecast things going spectularly well in Iraq after our withdrawel?)

This would seem to defeat the purpose in setting up a bank shot for her.

(Unless it was a double bank shot intended to sink her.)

"(T)his would work as a long term strategy. Accept that the election’s lost, set up a disaster for the Republican President to inherit and take the blame for, and put the one brave truth-teller in position to come over in 2016 and save the day. It’s not optimal, but then it’s going to take a couple of years for the Democrats to fix everything that Obama’s done to their party. They might as well sabotage things for the GOP in the meantime."

It's not that political strategists can't/don't plan this far ahead, but this is shading past strategizing into the realm of conspiracy.

(Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity and incompetence.)

(9/6)

re: "The President Is No Churchill"

Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings ("Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!") noted some language deficiencies.

Money quote(s):

"Democrats are like the French in The Simpsons, for whom “victory” isn’t in their vocabulary, unless it applies to their domestic enemies."

Exiting (i.e., "retreating") as in "exit strategy" is not "winning."

As Chas. Sheen might add: DUH!

"To these people, wars are for “ending,” not “winning.” It was something that I and others noticed in the debates in 2008, but not enough others noticed. The funny thing is, I suspect that they even realize that we notice, but they just can’t bring themselves to use the word."

This speech defect is much older than merely 2008 vintage. I believe it was Sec. Rumsfeld who had a mini-tantrum where he spelled out that what was in fact appropriate was a "victory strategy."

re: "China: Please Repudiate Your T-Bills That We Own And Impose Trump-Level 1000% Tariffs On The Shoddy Crap We Sell You"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ knows (as does China) that warfare is fought in many dimensions.

Money quote(s):

"This was sort of inevitable, and it's pretty bad. China has long supported every indecent country in the world, because America has alliances with most of the decent ones."

China has, and has had, for decades, a Non-Interference Policy (NIP). That essentially meant that it would do business with you and not worry overmuch about your internal affairs. Sort of the stance China would like the rest of the world to take regarding China's internal affairs.

"China has now made it official: an attack on Pakistan (terrorist hunting) is now to be taken as an attack on China.

They have extended their own security zone to the terrorist state of Pakistan, which means China is now officially a terrorist sponsor."

Ace is, as usual, a few steps ahead of the rest of the United States, including with regards to treating the state of Pakistan as an actual enemy of the U.S., rather than as a partner in the war on terrorism, &tc.

I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong, but perhaps prematurely right.

"(L)ucky us. We just found a trillion and a half dollars we thought we were in the hole for, but now we're not."

Chinese strategists plan for assymetrical operations in all theaters, all dimensions, of war, particularly against peer or near-peer opponents. Included in those battlefields will be the financial and economic dimensions. Being prepared to return fire effectively isn't the worst idea I've ever heard.

re: "Libya Exit Strategy"

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") should know better than this.

Money quote(s):

"an elementary concept on war planning, the requirement for an exit strategy."

Actually, although it apparently took Sec. Rumsfeld until 2005 to say it, the Weekly Standard discussed it as early as 2003: you want a victory strategy, not an "exit strategy."

"It’s a fundamental precept of national security policy going back to at least the writings of Carl von Clausewitz that wars are fought to achieve political ends and it follows that military strategy must be tailored to achieve political ends. Indeed, countries can lose wars in which their armies are absolutely dominant on the field of battle–as American forces were in Vietnam–if the fighting does not achieve the sought political objectives.

In order for military planners to match tactics and strategy, they must know what the end game is. In the case of total war, such as we fought in World War II, that’s pretty simple: The unconditional surrender of the enemy. In the case of humanitarian interventions, counterinsurgencies, and stability operations, however, it’s much harder.

The concept of an exit strategy is designed to spotlight this dilemma. Simply put: How do we know when we’ve won the damn thing and can stop fighting?"

I'm as Clausewitzian as the next guy (perhaps more), and agree with Mr. Joyner about that. It's the notion of an exit strategy versus one for victory or even a set of objectives or goals, an end state that is worth all the trouble, blood, and treasure that vexes me.

Language is important. The very use of the word "exit" together with "strategy" messages our essential unseriousness about the dead serious business of warfare, and causes our allies many sleepless nights. It signals that our most important objective is to leave, to be uninvolved, even as we commit men and materiel to a conflict.

"The bottom line is that the colonels Ricks is hearing complaining about the lack of an exit strategy aren’t asking for all the answers, just the most important one: What are they fighting for?"

Here we agree. What is our strategic grand objective? From that all lesser operational and strategic issues must necessarily flow.