The GWOT Strategy
 

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

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.

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.

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

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?

Excellent topic, NDD. :munchin

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.

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?

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

Apologies, NDD.

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

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
• National Strategy for Combating Terrorism
• Bounding the Global War on Terrorism 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

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! ;)

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

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.