The Mission by Dana Priest

[CommoGeek]

Anyone have any experience with this....."book?" I made it about 100 pages into it before putting it down. She made some interesting points, but those were overshadowed by her utter lack of knowledge of SF (and she alledgedly spent time with SF. Her mistakes could be easily verified by a web search or talking to an SF Group PAO.) and her contention that the only US diplomatic presence in many countries is "overzealous Green Berets."

I thought the book sucked. Does anyone have any knowledge about it to confirm this or prove me wrong?

[PSYOP Rob]

Read it, also didnt think too much of it. What really gets me is this, I cant tell you how many times Ive been reading a book on the military and special operations in particular when Ive come across some glaring error. Its all open source, easily researched stuff too! Dont the publishers have at least a few proofreaders out there with service backgrounds? :confused:

[BMT (RIP)]

Dont the publishers have at least a few proofreaders out there with service backgrounds?

NOPE!!

BMT

[CommoGeek]

At one point she argued that SF wasn't in the business of diplomatic relations between the US and other countries.

Uh, really Dana? Guess we'd better recall that ODA that linked up with Karzai a few years back.... Moron.

Thanks gentlemen.

[chipw]

I picked this one up at the bookstore the other day. I haven’t read it yet but from the book jacket and skimming, it seems her premise is U.S. foreign policy would be better served if the military wasn’t so involved. The book seems to insinuate that the military is not doing a bad job but that diplomacy is a place for diplomats, not soldiers. I couldn’t disagree more. I would argue that after 9/11 the soldiers handling U.S. diplomacy have done a far better job then the career diplomats handling things previously.

I will read the book but my first impression is to disagree with the author’s way of thinking.

[DunbarFC]

I read about 3/5 of it

After a while it was her using the similar situations to prove her point over and over again

Had she narrowed down to a few examples and fleshed them out further perhaps this would have been a better work

That said she is first and foremost a news paper reporter so perhaps her writing style is best suited to that medium

[Team Sergeant]

Originally posted by chipw
I The book seems to insinuate that the military is not doing a bad job but that diplomacy is a place for diplomats, not soldiers.

Someone should inform her that the major reason we go off to war is because the diplomats fail to perform their duties.

Team Sergeant

[The Reaper]

I think she needs to read some Clausewitz.

TR


"War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means"
This is from a translated version of "On War" from 1976

"The majority of people are timid by nature, and that is why they constantly exaggerate danger. All influences on the military leader, therefore, combine to give him a false impression of his opponent's strength, and from this arises a new source of indecision."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"After we have thought out everything carefully in advance and have sought and found without prejudice the most plausible plan, we must not be ready to abandon it at the slightest provocation. Should this certainty be lacking, we must tell ourselves that nothing is accomplished in warfare without daring; that the nature of war certainly does not let us see at all times where we are going; that what is probable will always be probable though at the moment it may not seem so; and finally, that we cannot be readily ruined by a single error, if we have made reasonable preparations."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"The first and most important rule to observe...is to use our entire forces with the utmost energy. The second rule is to concentrate our power as much as possible against that section where the chief blows are to be delivered and to incur disadvantages elsewhere, so that our chances of success may increase at the decisive point. The third rule is never to waste time. Unless important advantages are to be gained from hesitation, it is necessary to set to work at once. By this speed a hundred enemy measures are nipped in the bud, and public opinion is won most rapidly. Finally, the fourth rule is to follow up our successes with the utmost energy. Only pursuit of the beaten enemy gives the fruits of victory."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"The best form of defense is attack."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"War is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"There is only one decisive victory: the last."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"a certain grasp of military affairs is vital for those in charge of general policy."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"no one starts a war-or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so-without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it."
- Karl von Clausewitz

If the leader is filled with high ambition and if he pursues his aims with audacity and strength of will, he will reach them in spite of all obstacles.
- Karl von Clausewitz

"Pursue one great decisive aim with force and determination."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"The bloody solution of the crisis, the effort for the destruction of the enemy's forces, is the first-born son of war."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"Only great and general battles can produce great results"
- Karl von Clausewitz

"Blood is the price of victory"
- Karl von Clausewitz

"If the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make. The hardships of the situation must not be merely transient - at least not in appearance. Otherwise, the enemy would not give in, but would wait for things to improve."
- Karl Von Clausewitz

[Basenshukai]

I read the book. I saw it for what it was and enjoyed it.

While it is true that Special Forces has led the way as a stabilizing force in many areas of the world, I would not want to commit to define ourselves to others as "diplomats". I think our version of diplomacy and the version that elected officials understand are two different animals.

One of the most interesting comments that have I heard in a while was from a senior SF NCO who said that the best thing that has happened to SF in the last 10 years has been its current focus in OEF and OIF. He made the point that the various conventional CINCs and the National Command Authority now really understand that SF is truly an elite force that has proven that it is extremely effective at the art of killing the enemy. For a long time, it seems, the ill-perceived stigma of SF as merely well-trained "teachers" became almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. For the sake of our future as warriors, we must walk these lines carefully.

When we define ourselves as “diplomats� to our peers, we understand it as it being an expression of our ability to shape the battlefield by unconventional means. We understand the meaning of these words whereas they pertain to us. Civilians, and elected officials do not make the same distinctions we do. If we keep touting ourselves as diplomats to those that cannot make the distinction between "Warrior Diplomat" and "Diplomat", we might find ourselves fighting a new incorrect stigma that might some day be a prophecy that others might try to fulfill against our best interest. If we are “diplomats� of any kind, we are “Warrior Diplomats� and the hand-guards of our swords sit very lightly upon the mouth of their scabbards.

[Guy]

Originally posted by The Reaper
I think she needs to read some Clausewitz.

"The majority of people are timid by nature, and that is why they constantly exaggerate danger. All influences on the military leader, therefore, combine to give him a false impression of his opponent's strength, and from this arises a new source of indecision."
- Karl von Clausewitz

This is the difference between a PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS and a civilians way of thinking.

[NousDefionsDoc]

LOL - The Reaper quoting Clausewitz? What's next, dogs laying with cats?

:munchin

[The Reaper]

Jomini is better, but Clausewitz was more appropriate in this case, and had several that applied.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Cut the tail and moved it to General Discussion "Conflict Resolution"