re: "Voodoo Science; Praetorians; borrowing to pay bunny inspectors; missed opportunities; and more."

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook.") dealt with several topics of interest.

Money quote(s):

"(T)the Iron Law of Bureaucracy applies to military and policy organizations, particularly in peace time; it’s not quite so visible or severe because the standards for admission to the organization can and often are kept high, and the Mamelukes and Janissaries and Praetorians do not admit fools and cowards to their brotherhood; but of course that may change in peace time.

We live in a Republic founded by political leaders who were very much aware of Roman history, who had read their Plutarch, who seriously debated the working of the Venetian Republic – in 1787 the longest surviving Republic in the history of mankind, not yet ended by Napoleon and the bayonets of the French Army – and who were quite familiar with the careers of Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony, Octavian, Marius, and Sulla, the Gracchi – most of whom are known to modern Americans from movies."

Iron Law of Bureaucracy?

Oh yeah, that.

Our military is an armed bureaucracy, at least some of the time.

"The French want us to sit on Fritz. The Germans like having Americans spend money in Germany, and not having to have a large Wehrmacht. The troops like it in Europe. The taxpayers have never read George Washington’s advice on entangling alliances and not being involved in overseas territorial disputes. So it goes."

The taxpayers (and their representatives) in the immediate post-WW2 period should, perhaps, be forgiven their understandable desire to not have to come back and settle the Jerries hash, so to speak, for a third time; the second time being perceived as the result of their disengagement after the first time.


"Europe could afford Socialism because they didn’t need to defend their territory against Russia during the Cold war. It’s a tradition."

Likewise, Russia harbors lingering fears about various of its neighbors to the west; that too is tradition and it informs their view of geopolitics even today.


"The Marines acted without thinking of the consequences and must be made to realize that; but I have always believed that far more serious acts take place in every combat action. War is Hell. A rational army would run away. Those men did not run away, and I’d far rather have troops who urinate on the enemy than troops who surrender to get their throats cut while in captivity."

That about sums it up.

_____

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

1/15

re: "Yep, LTC West, that About Sums it Up, Sir"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VRWC.") considered LTC West's take.

Money quote(s):

"It all sums up to “was it wrong? Yes. Should everybody get their knickers in a wad as if this little incident was a combination of My Lai, Malmedy, Auschwitz and the Rape of Nanking all rolled into one as some pundits have been hyperventilating? No. It was wrong, the guilty should be properly and appropriately punished and, oh by the way:

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

I wouldn’t go quite that far, everybody is certainly entitled to their opinion whether they’ve been in The Suck or not (although the latter group does have a perspective that the former can never have), it’s just that in some quarters it has gone from disapproval to F-5 hysteria. But I get the sentiment.

"

In retrospect, it seems like much more fuss has been made about the near-burning of some Taliban-desecrated korans than this earlier incident ever generated.

1/13

re: "U.S. Marines Urinate on a DEAD Taliban Fighter"

SOLOW guest-posted at Blonde Sagacity ("the conservative that liberals hate to love") gave the perspective of a former marine.

Money quote(s):

"I'm disgusted by it, quite literally. No, I'm not like a great many people who are shocked at what the Marines in question may or may not have done - I'm disgusted by the so-called Americans who say that THEY are disgusted/disgraced/embarrassed/whatever by what the Marines appear to have done. The first thing that went through my mind was whether or not they remember the stories of our soldiers (and civilians) being beheaded and subsequently mutilated after their death(s)." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Disgusted? Not really. Disgraced? Not even close. Embarrassed? Maybe a little (at least by the poor judgment in putting it on YouTube).

The act, and its subsequent publicization, are unhelpful the counter-insurgency fight.

"That people are afraid to get prosecuted for what they do in a combat zone, therefore they hesitate at some of the worst possible moments. If you ask me, this is a pretty good example of hanging somebody up by a yardarm for what amounts to be a practical joke in the mind of a combat Marine."

1/13

re: "Counterinsurgency is not peeing on people…"

Peter Van Buren at We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People") rated this event as unhelpful to the counterinsurgency mission.

Money quote(s):

"The world is awash in urine-soaked statements by various idiots defending the Marines who peed on the bodies of dead Taliban. The defense is either a) the Taliban deserved it because they are our enemies or b) well, the Taliban have done worse things to us."

Just because the two defenses are completely true doesn't make them useful.

"The Taliban aren’t fighting a counterinsurgency war.

We are.

We are the invading foreigners trying to win the support of the people. Pissing on them is not a good way to do that.

This is part of the whole losing proposition of such war– we have to get it right (almost) all the time to have a shot at winning."

And therein lies the rub.

Dave Schuler addresses the root of this problem here. Take a few minutes and give it a look.

(CAA will still be here when you get back.)

_____

_____

_____

_____

Okay, back yet?

In the corporate world, in any business, you start with the basic question: what business are we in?

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

(It's not.)

It's the reason that lots of corporations (and government entities) have things called "mission statements." They're a good touchstone for determining if something you're considering attempting is something you should be attempting.

In questions of strategy, you face similar questions. What are our goals? What is the end-state we would like to see? What instruments of national power and influence can be brought to bear in support of this mission?

Mr. Schuler believes what CAA has long suspected: nation-building (and the related mission of counter-insurgency) in Afghanistan is not what the U.S. should have attempted there.

So while Brother Van Buren's points about the marine micturition incident (MMI) are on-point and well-taken, they may miss the larger targets. Indeed, much of U.S. policy over the past decade-plus may have done so.

1/13

re: "Marines May Face Prosecution For Peeing On Corpses"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ considered the motivations.

Money quote(s):

"The real crime was the felony stupid of videotaping it.

A lot of people seem upset by this. I think it's upsetting that now these guys are probably going to get cashiered over a stupid act. But the act itself doesn't really upset me.

The whole point of a rule against corpse desecration is that you show respect and honor to the fallen one. But what if that fallen one had been trying to kill you not ten minutes before, and in fact you had killed him before he killed you?"

Hmm. Actually, I'm not sure about the precise rationale for non-desecration as part of the law of warfare, but assuming Ace's reasoning is correct (and upon reflection, it probably is) it's not a stand-alone value. It's part-and-parcel of a larger set of values having to do with an adversary being a lawful combatant who follows the same (or a quite similar) set of values known collectively as the laws of war.

Little things like wearing a uniform, not targeting peaceful civilians, taking surrenders, treating prisoners humanely, behaving with honor, &tc.

(None of which is stuff the Taliban are particularly noted for.)

"I'm not sure there's any other way you can feel about a terrorist dirtbag who was just trying to kill you and your friends -- so you're not naturally going to feel that you should treat the corpse with respect.

Your training and discipline should kick in to supplement that and keep you from doing this, but your natural moral sense isn't there. Because, seriously, the hell with this terrorist."

1/13

re: "Action Figure Therapy"

Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes ("") remarked on a disconnect between civilian leadership (and military leadership at the policy-making level) and the troops.

Money quote(s):

"One of the objectives that it would be nice to see a SECDEF try to achieve, is to retain some semblance of respect from the troops. That is not a vital and minimalist goal, of course…you could say it is one for the Generals but not for the suits that hold civilian command over the armed forces…but it would be good if the working relationship was a good one, or if there was at least some effort expended to make it a good one."

Well, if you're planning to get-rid-of (i.e., "downsize," "re-engineer," or otherwise "rightsize" a lot of them anyway, what matter if you have a good relationship?

"I understand this argument about recruited-terrorists, how when these pictures appear it makes it look like the United States is declaring a war on Islam, which is not a perception we can afford to have out there. But there is something about this that I’m having a tough time figuring out: One, this would obviously be a vexing puzzle for us, and a dangerous one, far more important than many of the others. How do we expect to win at it, then, without discussing it more openly? Since 2004 the only rule that’s been in place about it is “just don’t do it” — with a strong undertone of don’t talk about it."

This has been an ongoing sore point with a lot of folks since just after the 9/11 national realization that someone is at war with us.

(And that we have real problems talking about or defining just who that someone might be.)

"(T)wo: Has it ever occurred to these geniuses that some may be reacting to situations like this with a quite reasonable attitude of “I’m not going to take you seriously if you don’t take yourself seriously”? There’s quite a lot to be said for a response, from the top, of: Look, if you don’t want your dead body defiled, don’t shoot at our guys."

Just so.

1/13

re: "The Nature of Warriors...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has a soldier's eye for historical perspective on warfare.

Money quote(s):

"Wars and battle are ugly things. The very insides of the dark side of humanity and the razor thin margins of how close we come to being animals when we fight our enemies rises to the very top for all to see. It is not pretty and it is not polite. When you fight an enemy that prefers death to surrender and straps bombs to little children and records it for posterity to blast out all over the world wide web, you need to start fighting a little fire with fire. Spending every day with death tugging at your elbow while, in some cases, watching your men die, some of them good friends. Seeing this happen right in front of you every day can lead to a thirst for revenge and pay back those life debts that few will ever know."

Into each dead terrorist's violently-ended life a little rain, or something, may fall.

One aside: what's the "correct' procedure for enemy remains handling/disposal in Afghanistan? Do we FedEx or DHL them to the nearest U.S. Navy ship for the appropriate funeral rites, a la UBL?

It would be a shame if friendly graves registration folks had to get any USMC urine on them.

"Al-Reuters has their panties firmly bunched because they think this might stir anti-American sentiment after a decade of war. Really? This is what is gonna lose the war for us? The fact that we are attempting to satisfy these subhuman POS's from the 7th Century who behead those who will not comply tells me just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole.

The nature of warriors is something that only warriors will ever know. Those that have never experienced this will never know why these men felt the need to do what they did. But if our military is going to be effective in the long run, our enemies must fear us. They must believe that we are capable of unspeakable evil and every now and then, we have to pull back the curtain a little and let them see a smidgen of what we are holding the lid on while we bomb them further into the stone age. That fear of what those warriors are capable of will save lives.

Was it wrong for these Marines to do this? Sure. Was there a breakdown in leadership? No Doubt. Do I understand with 100 percent certainty why they did it? Absolutely." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

1/12

re: "Golden Shower Boarding"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VWRC.") had some strong words for the weak-willed.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he outrage, OUTRAGE is deafening across the blogosphere. How could they so disrespectfully treat the noble bodies of our valiant enemies??? It’s not like any one of the cadavers, prior to their overdue assumption of room temperature, might have been strapping bombs to little girls, beheading captive infidels with rusty scimitars or blowing up nuns. Oh, wait…

Of course CAIR, the unindicted front organization for pisslamic terrorism, is howling like stuck pigs which, needless to say, is music to our ears. Nothing that makes them scream like little bitches can possibly be a Bad Thing™. If you haven’t yet pissed off those fifth columnist swine, you’re not doing it right, so get your shit together already!"

CAIR is sort of the mirror-effect for actual, red-blooded, patriotic Americans. Pretty much anything they're against, you should be in favor of.

(Of course, the "broken-clock" rule of being right twice a day may still apply, but I haven't seen it happen yet.)

"(N)ow that the video has been leaked, the Corps pretty much has to pretend to give a shit. Our only hope is that they follow the mold of the Royal Danish Army and announce, five minutes after having promised a full investigation, that they have found, after a thorough review and interview with all parties involved, that the video doesn’t prove anything conclusively so, move along. Nothing to see here. Yes, that is the way it’s done over there. And once Army High Command states that there’s nothing to see, there is. nothing. to. see.

It’s our way over there of saying: “Dear hyperventilating civilians who sent us over here to get shot at, blown to shreds and otherwise inconvenienced in utterly brutal ways so that you could stay safe and snug in bed at home: War is nasty, brutal and ugly. That is why you send us to do it so you won’t get your hands dirty. If you don’t like how we perform your bidding, you are welcome to come take over. We wouldn’t dream of standing in your way. So put up or shut up, please. Warm regards from the ones whom you sent, because we sure as fuck didn’t write our own marching orders. Have a nice day and, by the way, YOU’RE WELCOME!” " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Armchair criticism from those who've never had, and never will have, "skin in the game" is neither welcome nor appreciated. That goes double for those who actively work to have our side lose.

"(T)he very bottom line: The Armed Forces don’t ask to be sent, they’re sent by the very same hypocrites who, when confronted with the harsh realities of a situation that they didn’t have the guts to deal with themselves, get the vapors and call for the persecution of those whom they sent. I spit on them. If they don’t like what they demand done in their names by better men than they can ever hope to be, they can just not issue the order to go.

War ain’t bean bag, and those on the sharp, brutal, life-threatening end of the spear can’t be expected to behave like good Catholic Choir Boys in the midst of death, danger and mayhem. You drop somebody in a toxic environment, toxic behavior is going to ensue and, as long as that behavior doesn’t include brutal treatment of innocents I couldn’t care less if I studied Advanced Indifference at Don’t Give a Shit University for two decades.

To those who still don’t get it, I repeat the offer: Suit up and go show the rest of us brutes how it’s done. Go teach the world to sing in perfect harmony while your buddies, your brothers whom you know better than anybody in the world and with whom you’ve gone through hell on earth, are getting shot, blown up, mutilated and brutalized all around you. You go do that and show us backwards Neanderthals how to maintain your cheery disposition and fair and open-minded behavior towards those who murdered the guy you went through The Suck™ with, his brains getting splattered all over your face. Please. DO IT!
Or shut the fuck up." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

John Adams (in a letter to his wife Abigail dated May 12, 1780) wrote:

"I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty
to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine."

Sadly, we must still study war and politics, although generations past have been successful enough at those that many may study instead the less-bloody sciences. The most vociferic (and fluff-headed) critics apparently passed on all that and seem to have studied non-sciences undreamed of in Founder Adams' day.

"(D)on’t anybody give us the old tired “this is only going to inflame the Hajjis further and help their cause” line, will you? Because we were getting along just dandy up until now, weren’t we?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Sadly, the culture of perpetual tribal offense would find grounds for grievance if they were hanged with a golden rope. Piss on 'em.


1/12

re: "Yes, Pamela, Some People Do Care — Including the U.S. Military"

Kevin Jon Heller at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") conflates the public urination video with the taking of body parts as trophies.

The part I agree with:

"The military’s response to the blossoming controversy has been admirable."

If, that is, you equate "admirable" with "swift" or even "hasty."

1/12

re: "Not Very Helpful"

LTCOL P at OPFOR ("Fair Specimens of Citizen Soldiers") summed this up nicely:

"Putting aside the gross irony of the Taliban calling anything barbaric, this is an unwelcome development at an inopportune moment."

1/12

re: "The Latest Outrage"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") offers a historical parallel.

Money quote(s):

"(M)en – good men- can descend into a kind of inhumanity when faced with a truly hated, fanatical foe."

&

"The Taliban, with their indiscriminate murders and their cowardly tactics, have probably earned a very great deal of enmity from those who have been grappling with them for going on eleven years now. The danger when good men confront evil is that, over time, they may become what they beheld.

None of the foregoing is meant to excuse.

But it may help to explain."

Despite the ill-judgment evidenced by this lapse of discipline, our marines have some considerable distance (astronomical units? light years? parsecs?) to go before they descend to the abysmally routine depths inhabited by the Taliban.

1/12

re: "PISSING ON THE TALIBAN"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit also had a few things to say about disrespecting the enemy dead.

Money quote(s):

"I have to say I can’t seem to work up any outrage."

If anything, this is psychological warfare (as distinct from public diplomacy) on the cheap.

(We'd already killed them, after all. Sunken costs, just like UBL's funeral.)

"(I)t is easier for civilized men to act like barbarians than for barbarians to act like civilized men, and plenty of events in Afghanistan illustrate this."

A good bit of basic (and advanced) combat training is designed deliberately to sandblast off a bit of that highly civilized behavior, the part about not killing people to be precise.

"CAIR is a bunch of pro-terrorist stooges. Everyone knows that. Okay, maybe not “a bunch,” as their membership is minuscule and I’m pretty sure their money comes mostly from abroad."

1/12

re: "Days eaten by locusts; a Marine urination kafloozle."

Dr. Jerry Pournelle from Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook.") gave this possible lapse in discipline some sober thought.

Money quote(s):

"(S)some things are pretty clear. First, they allowed a comrade to tape this, and he put it up on a social medium, and it got loose. Is anyone here astonished? Which says several things about these particular Marines.

First, they won their battle. It’s them that’s doing the urinating, not being urinated on. Urinating on the enemy is a practice of war from at least 3,000 years ago, and probably a lot longer. It’s better to be the guy letting fly than the recipient. When you send young men into combat and they win this is what happens.

Second, none of these guys is ready for promotion to any kind of command NCO level. They may be good as combat leaders and may not – they did win this fight, after all – but they don’t think through enough. This hands the Taliban a bit of a propaganda device, but then we have plenty of tapes the Taliban made about themselves.

Third, this is a Marine matter, and if it were left to me I’d leave it to the Company Commander. That’s what company grade officers are for. There will be howls from the media, of course. It’s a free country. Of course it’s free because we have troopers like these.

And fourth, if nobody else wants them, in the extremely unlikely event that they post me to a combat command over there, I’ll take them. They look like good troops to me."

That pretty much sums it up.

1/11