|
I my earlier comments, I did not mean to come across as criticizing the decision to conduct the cross-border operation into Syria. Operations like this one are viscerally satisfying. It feels good to strike back, to disrupt the enemy in his preparations to attack us. Clearly this operation was a tactical success.
It makes me proud that we have the people who can conduct operations like this one in such a professional manner and be so effective. Few nations can. To my knowledge, we do it better than any.
But I did ask the question if, from a strategic point of view, it was the best decision. I am not saying I have the answer to that question—I am keeping an open mind. Several posters’ responses suggest that there was indeed strategic value to this operation; I appreciate their thoughtfulness. But I don’t think adopting an attitude of ‘screw your sovereignty, we’ll kick down any door we want ‘ is the best way to win a focused conflict and garner international support and cooperation.
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. “ -- Sun Tzu
OK, I am way ‘out of my lane.’ I have not ‘stood a post’: my AFSC keeps me mostly out of harm’s way. I have lost a couple friends and comrades. My brother is in the Big Army and does end up in harm’s way at times (He’s mostly behind the wire with his precious 155’s.). This is important to me personally as well as professionally.
I recognize I am one of the ‘academics,’ as The Reaper says. Fair enough. But does that mean I can’t ask the question? I think to answer ‘yes’ would be arrogant. I know how to follow orders, but I also feel I can ask a few questions along the way.
I submit this post with humility and without the intent to offend anyone.
|