The GWOT Strategy

[NousDefionsDoc]

What's the current GWOT strategy? Is it the right one? If not, what is?

[Huey14]

I don't think invading whole countrys at the rate of one a year is the right way to do it. All it does is stretch out all the conventional forces so that if something does come up, which requires an invasion, then there wouldn't be enough troops to do said mission.

I think the surgeons knife type approach would work a bit better, plus it would keep the journos from being a pain in the arse.

EDIT: Afghanistan worked, I'm not saying all invasions are bad.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Did y'all NOT understand the question? :mad:

What I keep hearing the politicians say is "We're going to win by spreading freedom/democracy through out the ME." Is this the strategy?

I've got no problem with the engagements - they seem fairly cut and dry to me. "If you are a terrorist or enable terrorists - you must go."

But what is the strategy? What is the use of the engagement for what political purpose?

Do we really think we can force democracy/freedom on this culture? Do we want to? In this context I understand democracy/freedom as freedom to choice form of government. Do we not know they already did that? Do we knot know they will revert? Simply marking a piece of paper every couple of years is not going to override the influence of the mullahs in my opinion.

And I'm not real big on spending billions to help people that don't want to be helped.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

NDD I think that the question is really too narrow in scope. I think that we can't just look at GWOT as a distinct and separate issue but just where does it fit in our overall National Strategy in support of this country's national interests. I also do not think that the GWOT has a one size fits all and there are approaches where the military effort will have to be the supporting effort and other aspects of our national power take the lead. I know that doesn't specifically answer the question, but I just had Heinz ketchup on my hamburger and for some reason I can't come up with specific examples right now :o

Jack Moroney

[Achilles]

IMH-Cherrie-O

Imposing a democracy on a country usually creates some sort of a free trade market. Exporting goods/services (more than just oil) makes a LOT of money. Remember, war makes a lot of money, but peace makes a lot more. Iraq will be a highly productive country in the (near?) future. Furthermore, democracy generally promotes higher education, which will make the area more peaceful in addition to being productive. Of course this is no small task considering these people have been under totallitarian rule for thousands of years. Right now, it looks as if most Iraqis are in the "oh shit what is going on" state which should have been better mitigated by PSYOPS / Civil Affairs spreading leaflets or going out and educating. I know they did both those things to an extent, but IMO it wasn't planned as much as it should have been. Also, I think a large portion of the insurgency is just in a state of confusion and wouldn't be fighting us if they better knew what was going on.

Anyone agree / disagree?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Excellent topic, NDD. :munchin

[NousDefionsDoc]

NDD I think that the question is really too narrow in scope. I think that we can't just look at GWOT as a distinct and separate issue but just where does it fit in our overall National Strategy in support of this country's national interests. I also do not think that the GWOT has a one size fits all and there are approaches where the military effort will have to be the supporting effort and other aspects of our national power take the lead. I know that doesn't specifically answer the question, but I just had Heinz ketchup on my hamburger and for some reason I can't come up with specific examples right now :o

Jack Moroney
LOL@ketchup. I'm not following you. Maybe its me, but I don't know how to make it any broader. We have a declared war - the GWOT. We have troops engaged in several theaters. The tactics are clear and dependent on the AO. What is not clear to me are the political objectives and the strategy (ies) to fulfill them. I am indeed looking for the broadest of pictures. If I am phrasing my question poorly, any help would be appreciated.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I'll try this exercise from the OPFOR side. I'm sure Jimbo, AL and others will destroy it, but I'm game anyway. Lay on MacDuff, and be damned him that first cries hold!

AQ:
political objective - establish a Caliphate in key areas to ensure Sharia and other elements of their way.
strategy - eliminate the key obstacles to the political objective by destroying the political will of the enemy to oppose it
tactics - draw enemy into difficult area with much support, call jihad and flood the area with non-critical personnel, use suicide bombings, etc, to inflict maximum casualties - all the while having the white side protest the innocence of Islam and blaming the enemy's policies and claiming retribution for wrongs.

Something like that. Make sense?

[Roguish Lawyer]

AQ:
political objective - establish a Caliphate in key areas to ensure Sharia and other elements of their way.

From what I have read, the ultimate objective is to rule the entire world and enforce Sharia globally. The short-term objective is to expel the infidels from "muslim lands."

Can't wait for Jimbo and AL to show up in this thread. :munchin

[Huey14]

Apologies, NDD.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Apologies, NDD.
For what? You replied, I was talking to everybody that didn't.

[Airbornelawyer]

Did y'all NOT understand the question? :mad:

What I keep hearing the politicians say is "We're going to win by spreading freedom/democracy through out the ME." Is this the strategy?I was going to write something, but I am too tired and I remain too pissed over events on another forum.

Instead, here are some other people's views:

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html)
National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/counter_terrorism/counter_terrorism_strategy.pdf)
Bounding the Global War on Terrorism (http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubResult.cfm/hurl/PubID=207/BOUNDING_THE_GLOBAL_WAR_ON_TERRORISM.cfm) by Dr. Jeffrey Record of SSI, a critic of the Bush Administration's strategic direction.

And for those who want a better understanding of how strategy is formulated, try the U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy (http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=409)

[NousDefionsDoc]

Thanks for the links. That's what you get for playing with those ill-mannered children on another board. You need to stay here and play at home! ;)

[Air.177]

I think we sould Give AL a Break, after all, "He's Just a Caveman." and,"His Primative mind can't grasp these Concepts." Look, His Sig line says so:D

[Airbornelawyer]

Cutting a little to the chase, and noting that one is certainly free to disagree with his analysis, Record claims to have identified five GWOT objectives:

(1) destroy the perpetrators of 9/11--i.e., al-Qaeda;
(2) destroy or defeat other terrorist organizations of global reach, including the nexus of their regional and national analogs;
(3) delegitimize and ultimately eradicate the phenomenon of terrorism;
(4) transform Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy; and,
(5) transform the Middle East into a region of participatory self-government
and economic opportunity.

[Jimbo]

With the exception of #3 above, I think we are in the process of accomplishing many of those.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

What is not clear to me are the political objectives and the strategy (ies) to fulfill them. .

And herein lies my point. The GWOT cannot be won by military force alone but has to be won in concert with economic, diplomatic, political, and other actions. The military response is hammering the crap out of the bad guys but it is not attacking the multitude of problems that we are facing here. I think that in order to look at this you have to make some assumptions, some of which are that the fundamentalists want to co opt their religion and are willing to do it by any and all means possible. In order to do that they have to remove or discredit all influences that provide other members of the muslim faith a choice in life and we represent the biggest thorn in their side and have become the biggest obstacle for their achievement of their ultimate goals. Now with all the muslims in the world, if they were all fundamentalists, we would have a target rich environment and the job would be simple. Just kill them all and let Allah sort them out, so to speak. But it is just that, the sorting them out, that is causing the problem. So what is the strategy you ask? Good question, I answer. What should the strategy be you ask? Again, I answer, you have to look at what the national interests for this nation are and then ask the question again. Without sounding cynical let me sum this up in a nutshell. I think in many cases because this country has over the years bankrupt it economic, political and diplomatic clout where the military was used as the primary tool to back up our policies we have been left with a military that has now become the weapon of choice to establish our presence and resolve our short term problems until such time as we rebuild our political, economic and diplomatic capital to the level where we can once again reverse the rolls so that the military option is once again in a supporting roll to be used only when all other aspects have failed to produce results. Mind you, this did not happen overnight and it did not occur on the Bush watch, it is what Bush and company inherited. Now that may or may not make sense, but give me a break, I am old and broken and need to go to bed.

Jack Moroney

[NousDefionsDoc]

That's kind of my point. I think we are assuming they want all the economic, political, etc. Once again, I don't think we had a plan for after the ass whippin. I know we didn't after JC because we sat around for a month while they tried to figure out what to do. And we OWNED that place. I don't think they had any idea Al Sadr was going to get the following he did. I don't know, because I'm not the HFMIC and not there, but this seems to be a trend with us.

I haven't read AL's links yet, and I will manana.

I just think we should have a strategy and political objectives that can be clearly articulated before we start the fireworks. One that is unclassified and can be given to the public. Regime change the strategy? Well, SH is gone and we're still there. Besides, that shit never works - we invariably pick the wrong guy.

Fighting terrorism by spreading democracy/freedom is going to be a very expensive proposition - in many currencies.

And like I said before, I don't really give a shit if Hadji can vote or not - that's his problem.

Now if our strategy is to suck all the Islamic terrorists in the world into a place where we can bring our air and armor to bear on their collective asses, then it seems to be working. But we aren't really doing that anymore - for relations reasons it would seem. And if that's the plan, why are we spending billions to rebuild Iraq? Is it a range or not?

I don't see the cost benefit of following this line - mostly because I think as soon as we leave, instead of a trading partner and a friend in the region, those ass clowns are going to revert and make deals with the Phrench instead of us.

Seems like some people are envisioning another Israel. I think that's a fool's dream.

I don't think there is a strategy at all. But like I said, I'll read AL's links tomorrow.

Rant over.

[frznballz007]

Perhaps I am speaking out of turn here, but I am going to throw my $.02 in. I don't feel that the GWOT can ever be won, at least not in the traditional sense. As long as there are evil people out there, as long as one group feels that they are oppressed and have no other recourse, and as long as the world community as a whole lets people get away with it, there will always be terrorism.

The GWOT is not a "go forth and destroy the enemy" type war. It is a long, indeed never ending, campaign where upon terrorists must be hunted and destroyed wherever they have set themselves up. If that is Afghanistan, great. If it is Iraq cool, but we must be prepared for it to be, Idaho, Ireland, North Korea, South Africa, Mexico, FRANCE, or wherever else.

That said, I don't really think there is a "strategy". I highly doubt that at the grand political level they have spent much time at all discussing how these two campaigns are inter related. I would be very supprised to hear that they had any idea of how to proceed once we claim victory and pull out of Iraq.

As far as our short term political goals, I doubt very much that democracy will succeed in the ME (with the exception of Israel) at least not in our lifetimes. Not without FAR more effort over a LONGER term and with a far broader scale than Americans in general, and especially American polititians are willing to put forth. Diplomacy has no hope at all, Military action can punish those that have attacked us and those that aid them, but only a decent, secular, education (which is unavailable throughout most of the ME) is the only way any of this is going to change.


I don't know if this is the type of answer you had in mind NDD, but there are my thoughts on the matter.

[Airbornelawyer]

Another argument: World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=11802019_1). Podhoretz's argument is more political/grand strategy than military strategy, but it makes the big-picture argument from what may be described as the "neoconservative" perspective (though that term has been tarnished into a veiled anti-Semitic insult by a large number of left-wing commentators).

[NousDefionsDoc]

Cutting a little to the chase, and noting that one is certainly free to disagree with his analysis, Record claims to have identified five GWOT objectives:

(1) destroy the perpetrators of 9/11--i.e., al-Qaeda;
(2) destroy or defeat other terrorist organizations of global reach, including the nexus of their regional and national analogs;
(3) delegitimize and ultimately eradicate the phenomenon of terrorism;
(4) transform Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy; and,
(5) transform the Middle East into a region of participatory self-government
and economic opportunity.
What is your opinion (or anybody elses) on these five?

[frznballz007]

Okay here are my opinions:

1)destroy the perpetrators of 9/11--i.e., al-Qaeda;
We are well on our way but we are not going far enough. Some of that has to do with national alliances, some with oil, some has to do with both. Until we are ready to put the finger of death on some of the radical Islamic whackos, we won't ever truly destroy AQ.

2)destroy or defeat other terrorist organizations of global reach, including the nexus of their regional and national analogs;
This is something that is going to be an ongoing effort, one that outlasts this president and the next and the one after that. Unfortunately history shows us that presidents are better at talking a big game in this area than actually stepping up to the plate. If a singe terrorist act goes un punished or underpunished then the whole effort is for naught

3)delegitimize and ultimately eradicate the phenomenon of terrorism;
Never happen, unless we manage to create some sort of BS hippy/ Star Trek utopia and even then it may not happen. There are steps we can take in a particular area of the world (probably not the ME, they hate us too much) but everywhere? No way.

4)transform Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy;
We can do what we can but you get the government you deserve and they don't deserve it.

5)transform the Middle East into a region of participatory self-government
and economic opportunity.
This is more possible in some places than others. By and large, however, I revert to my answer to number 4. Also the big enemy to this is the Arab/ Israeli issue. As long as they are at each others throats, economic stability will be a problem.

[Roguish Lawyer]

OK, I'm going to join in despite my lack of qualifications. :eek:

I know Iraq is only part of GWOT, but to me it's the only controversial part of it. I don't hear anyone opposing hits on members of the global Salafi jihad wherever they are hiding, or even opposing Afghanistan.

It is not clear to me what our exact thinking was when we invaded Iraq (the thinking at the time and the after-the-fact justification aren't necessarily the same). I am sure there is an answer to that question, but we probably won't know the answer until a lot of classified stuff gets released.

I infer from what I have seen and read that we thought that Iraq: (1) had WMDs that were likely to be given to terrorists for use against us, and (2) was a haven for terrorists. #1 appears not to have been the case, although I still believe that we may find stockpiles in the future and that destroying immediate production capability is not so different from destroying stockpiles. #2 appears to have been the case at least to a degree -- Abu Nidal, for example -- although I don't know how many Salafi jihadists were hiding in Iraq at the time. Still, I think these are good objectives.

Were there others? I suspect that the attempted political transformation of Iraq is something we have to do because we made a mess achieving objectives 1 and 2 (by creating a power vacuum), not something we wanted as a primary objective. I don't believe we wanted Iraq as a firing range, although it seems to have become one, perhaps usefully so.

I suppose the ultimate question is whether these objectives warranted the expense in blood and treasure of the Iraq invasion. I find the costs of the war to be staggering despite what appear to me to be a relatively low number of casualties on our side (relative to what they could be in a conflict of this magnitude -- I do not mean to trivialize the human losses we have sustained). If Iran is next, as seems likely to me, then we may still be closer to the beginning than the end.

Ultimately, I guess the way I feel about it is that I don't completely understand everything we've done, but I have to trust those with access to national-level intelligence information to make the right decisions. I believe in cost-benefit analysis, and I assume that the potential threat to our citizens (both direct and indirect and over the long term) was great enough to warrant the expenses we are incurring. If there was an alternative to invading Iraq that should have been considered instead, I'd like to hear what it is.

:munchin

[frznballz007]

Good points RL,

I highly doubt Iran will be next. If you look at the stuff that leaks out of Iran you see this.

The Iran/Iraq war killed an entire generation of Iranians. What does that mean? It means that there are old people (by and large the hard line late 70s revolutionary crowd) and young people (by and large a group that wants more freedom). Just look at the mess in the Iranian Parliament last winter, almost 3/4 of the delegates walked out because of a decision the head Ayatollah (or however the hell you spell that) to not include anyone on the ballot who hadn't been picked by him. There is a revolution brewing in Iran, just give it time. I don't think anyone will actually be next. W/ all the grief that the Iraq deal has given us, I would be surprised to see another major conventional deployment.

[CRad]

The GWOT cannot be won by military force alone but has to be won in concert with economic, diplomatic, political, and other actions. The military response is hammering the crap out of the bad guys but it is not attacking the multitude of problems that we are facing here.

1. I am not picking on you. Your question is the best one when it comes to giving an answer.

2. the origingal question was "What's the current GWOT strategy? Is it the right one? If not, what is?" ( this answer comes from Gen Doug Brown.)

The one we are pursuing. Yes. there doesn't need to be a follow up.

___

Now, you said "The GWOT cannot be won by military force alone but has to be won in concert with economic, diplomatic, political, and other actions" and I am again going to quote from the General - He was asked if the GWOT could be won. His answer was this -

Yes, if our country could be made safe without giving up our liberties.

___

Not long ago someone asked me about the war on terror, and, from what I felt was an informed point of view I said it couldn't be won. After listening to General Brown I feel compelled to to revise my opinion.









__________________

[HoosGhost]

(1) destroy the perpetrators of 9/11--i.e., al-Qaeda;
(2) destroy or defeat other terrorist organizations of global reach, including the nexus of their regional and national analogs;
(3) delegitimize and ultimately eradicate the phenomenon of terrorism;
(4) transform Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy; and,
(5) transform the Middle East into a region of participatory self-government
and economic opportunity.
(1 and 2) There seems to be lots of dead/incarcerated bad guys. This is good. Seems like we have cooperation to continue the necessary pressure on AQ almost worldwide. That said, I believe more assets should be made available not forced upon countries in the SOUTHCOM AOR who are battling insurgencies. The Philippines should recieve assets to combat the MILF, as well as the Thais recieving continued aid to prevent a Salafist insurgency. Pakistan seems to be doing well; hopefully US political leadership does not lose focus. Russia should be offered assistance in training and equipment to chase the Salafists in Chechnya while seeking out less radical Chechen nationalists to engage in a political process; continue assistance to Georgia and those of the 'stans willing to accept. Let's not let Chechnya to continue to be a festering sore for the Russians: give thh Chechens a homeland and if they can't control the bad guys, Moscow starts with Spetznaz and can escalate to the 40th Motorized Rifles to Backfire bombers.

(3) I view terrorism as a tactic of an insurgent group. I'd imagine such a statement could be reversed and sound logical. I doubt that such a tactic can be eradicated.

(4 and 5) I believe we can declare victory on these two when each looks more like Singapore and less like their previous governments. There needs to be a respect for the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion and moderately transparent government: in essence the tenets of classical liberalism. The Afghans seem to be lightyears ahead of the Iraqis.

/Hoos