At 12-9, the US military has a journeyman baseball pitcher's W/L record
September 29, 2016 9:39 AM Subscribe
"If, in SOCOM’s accounting, the United States has engaged in relatively few actual wars, don’t credit “deterrence.” Instead, the command has done its best to simply redefine war out of existence, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, in favor of those “gray zone challenges.”
If one accepts that quasi-wars are actually war, then the Defense Department has done little to deter conflict. The United States has, in fact, been involved in some kind of military action — by SOCOM’s definition — in every year since 1980."
How's successful has the US been in achieving those aims, reducing conflict, and actually succeeding in it's objectives? Face it, America doesn't win a lot of wars.
More saliently, these grey zone conflicts don't seem to be dying down or going away. How effective has our policy of low level conflict been at reducing the overall conflict? A paper from SOCOM (Special Operations Command) investigates American's win/loss record and how the notion of war and peace is different than the actual realities of conflict.
More saliently, these grey zone conflicts don't seem to be dying down or going away. How effective has our policy of low level conflict been at reducing the overall conflict? A paper from SOCOM (Special Operations Command) investigates American's win/loss record and how the notion of war and peace is different than the actual realities of conflict.
I think they're counting this won/loss record using the wrong metrics. War is economics, and on that front the US has been a winner throughout.
“Don't forget the real business of war is buying and selling. The murdering and violence are self-policing, and can be entrusted to non-professionals. The mass nature of wartime death is useful in many ways. It serves as spectacle, as diversion from the real movements of the War. It provides raw material to be recorded into History, so that children may be taught History as sequences of violence, battle after battle, and be more prepared for the adult world. Best of all, mass death's a stimolous to just ordinary folks, little fellows, to try 'n' grab a piece of that Pie while they're still here to gobble it up. The true war is a celebration of markets.” ― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow
posted by chavenet at 9:49 AM on September 29, 2016 [10 favorites]
“Don't forget the real business of war is buying and selling. The murdering and violence are self-policing, and can be entrusted to non-professionals. The mass nature of wartime death is useful in many ways. It serves as spectacle, as diversion from the real movements of the War. It provides raw material to be recorded into History, so that children may be taught History as sequences of violence, battle after battle, and be more prepared for the adult world. Best of all, mass death's a stimolous to just ordinary folks, little fellows, to try 'n' grab a piece of that Pie while they're still here to gobble it up. The true war is a celebration of markets.” ― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow
posted by chavenet at 9:49 AM on September 29, 2016 [10 favorites]
I suspect that if the US were fighting wars for the reasons wars used to be fought -- to achieve domination and expansion of empire (literal empire, not the imperialism that the US actually does practice), we'd win all our wars, with our military might. We'd just march in and completely dominate with force, collateral damage be damned, and we'd just take over.
But the wars we have fought, even since before my lifetime, aren't those kinds of wars. They're nearly all being fought on behalf of someone else. Sure, we went into Afghanistan because the Taliban executed the 9/11 attacks, but the war, as I understand it, was fought to free Afghanistan from the hold of the Taliban, not to make Afghanistan a satellite state of the US as part of Empire. Etc, etc.
Fighting a war on behalf of someone else while trying to limit ancillary damage to the country in question so that country might be able to rebuild itself and forge a new independent path is sort of a strange, modern kind of war that isn't really the historical way wars have been fought. I think the anomaly of WWII, where we fought a war that on a lot of levels wasn't for our own purposes, and then we pulled out and helped the affected countries rebuild (including that of the wartime enemy) and the result was independent countries once again functioning, has colored our thinking on what we are capable of accomplishing through military intervention.
We need to rethink the whole thing, IMO.
posted by hippybear at 9:49 AM on September 29, 2016 [9 favorites]
But the wars we have fought, even since before my lifetime, aren't those kinds of wars. They're nearly all being fought on behalf of someone else. Sure, we went into Afghanistan because the Taliban executed the 9/11 attacks, but the war, as I understand it, was fought to free Afghanistan from the hold of the Taliban, not to make Afghanistan a satellite state of the US as part of Empire. Etc, etc.
Fighting a war on behalf of someone else while trying to limit ancillary damage to the country in question so that country might be able to rebuild itself and forge a new independent path is sort of a strange, modern kind of war that isn't really the historical way wars have been fought. I think the anomaly of WWII, where we fought a war that on a lot of levels wasn't for our own purposes, and then we pulled out and helped the affected countries rebuild (including that of the wartime enemy) and the result was independent countries once again functioning, has colored our thinking on what we are capable of accomplishing through military intervention.
We need to rethink the whole thing, IMO.
posted by hippybear at 9:49 AM on September 29, 2016 [9 favorites]
The baseball analogy in the post title fits at first, but true hot stove statisticians know to apply advanced saber-rattling-metrics.
posted by delfin at 9:50 AM on September 29, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by delfin at 9:50 AM on September 29, 2016 [14 favorites]
Fighting a war on behalf of someone else while trying to limit ancillary damage to the country in question so that country might be able to rebuild itself and forge a new independent path is sort of a strange, modern kind of war that isn't really the historical way wars have been fought. I think the anomaly of WWII, where we fought a war that on a lot of levels wasn't for our own purposes, and then we pulled out and helped the affected countries rebuild (including that of the wartime enemy) and the result was independent countries once again functioning, has colored our thinking on what we are capable of accomplishing through military intervention.
Also I think of interest is that things changed perhaps with the notion of the nation state hippybear. One thing that strikes me as I listen to history podcasts is that there's a fair bit of work to ensure the peasants have a vested interest to keep fighting. If you change one lord to another as a tenant farmer, there's not as much pride of a nation, or the shame of a people thing going on as you can find in certain more modern conflicts.
posted by Carillon at 9:55 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also I think of interest is that things changed perhaps with the notion of the nation state hippybear. One thing that strikes me as I listen to history podcasts is that there's a fair bit of work to ensure the peasants have a vested interest to keep fighting. If you change one lord to another as a tenant farmer, there's not as much pride of a nation, or the shame of a people thing going on as you can find in certain more modern conflicts.
posted by Carillon at 9:55 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some other parts of the equation:
1) You want as many of your hot-headed, violent young yahoos out of the country as possible to avoid them stirring up shit at home, and
2) You want some kind of armed forces with experience around for when shit really hits the fan.
posted by sexyrobot at 9:58 AM on September 29, 2016
1) You want as many of your hot-headed, violent young yahoos out of the country as possible to avoid them stirring up shit at home, and
2) You want some kind of armed forces with experience around for when shit really hits the fan.
posted by sexyrobot at 9:58 AM on September 29, 2016
Chavenet has the right of this and Gravity's Rainbow is arguably an attempt, among other things, at answering this question of industrialized war's provenance.
The United States military, like many other parts of its nationhood, has become more and more an engine for transferring the public wealth of its many taxpayers and the public bodies of its many citizens to the pockets and purposes of a few private hands. Seen in this light, the endless hum of low-level violence becomes easier to comprehend.
posted by selfnoise at 10:02 AM on September 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
The United States military, like many other parts of its nationhood, has become more and more an engine for transferring the public wealth of its many taxpayers and the public bodies of its many citizens to the pockets and purposes of a few private hands. Seen in this light, the endless hum of low-level violence becomes easier to comprehend.
posted by selfnoise at 10:02 AM on September 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
One thing that strikes me as I listen to history podcasts is that there's a fair bit of work to ensure the peasants have a vested interest to keep fighting. If you change one lord to another as a tenant farmer, there's not as much pride of a nation, or the shame of a people thing going on as you can find in certain more modern conflicts.
Yeah, I can see that. The increased ability to communicate as well as the unfolding of history has taught the world exactly what local identity means and what colonialism means and the growing emphasis placed on preserving traditions and diversity has definitely led to a greater sense of urgency amongst embattled people to keep from being dominated by an external, intervening third party.
Still, the "win the fight but then leave when the fight is done" strategy we've employed over the past while seems to have only made things worse, especially in this century.
posted by hippybear at 10:04 AM on September 29, 2016
Yeah, I can see that. The increased ability to communicate as well as the unfolding of history has taught the world exactly what local identity means and what colonialism means and the growing emphasis placed on preserving traditions and diversity has definitely led to a greater sense of urgency amongst embattled people to keep from being dominated by an external, intervening third party.
Still, the "win the fight but then leave when the fight is done" strategy we've employed over the past while seems to have only made things worse, especially in this century.
posted by hippybear at 10:04 AM on September 29, 2016
an engine for transferring the public wealth of its many taxpayers and the public bodies of its many citizens to the pockets and purposes of a few private hands
I don't remember where I read this, but at one point I heard that military spending is the right-wing's largest ever wealth redistribution program. To be fair, the money doesn't only go into a few pockets -- the number of people employed in all 50 states working on military programs is mammoth, and that money paid to those people (not the executives, the actual assembly-line people) gets fed into local economies and helps drive the economic engine.
If only infrastructure maintenance and major public works projects were as enthusiastically promoted, backed, and defended as military spending. We'd not have to keep fighting wars to keep the economy rolling.
posted by hippybear at 10:08 AM on September 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't remember where I read this, but at one point I heard that military spending is the right-wing's largest ever wealth redistribution program. To be fair, the money doesn't only go into a few pockets -- the number of people employed in all 50 states working on military programs is mammoth, and that money paid to those people (not the executives, the actual assembly-line people) gets fed into local economies and helps drive the economic engine.
If only infrastructure maintenance and major public works projects were as enthusiastically promoted, backed, and defended as military spending. We'd not have to keep fighting wars to keep the economy rolling.
posted by hippybear at 10:08 AM on September 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
(Also, I want to make clear, I'm not advocating for US colonialism or empire-building with my above comments. I'm making observations, not pushing a cause.)
posted by hippybear at 10:09 AM on September 29, 2016
posted by hippybear at 10:09 AM on September 29, 2016
Another way to look at it is that, yes, we don't fight the wars we used to win - because we used to not start them. Our ascension to the top ranks of military might in the world coincided with the dramatic shift from not even having a standing army prior to WW2 to active military adventurism during the Cold War and beyond. If you look back at the history of wars won and lost, not just by the US but worldwide, and you exclude civil wars and focus just on wars between nations, you have to go all the way back to the 1800s to find a war won by the aggressor - and the US, since WW2, has largely been the aggressor. The central paradigm shift of the industrialization of war hasn't gone away - that the defense is stronger than the offense - and it's been augmented by the ever-increasing distaste for the horror and toll of war. The one recent conflict the US was involved in that was pushing against an invader - Desert Storm - we crushed the opposing forces flat. I think a lot of the reason why we don't win that many wars anymore is because we're simply starting too many of them.
posted by Punkey at 10:12 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Punkey at 10:12 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's also worth mentioning, in discussions like this one, the domestic policy element - specifically, that the U.S. Military is the only full employment program the GOP will support.
posted by mhoye at 10:12 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mhoye at 10:12 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also to I think it important to look at the redefinition of a 'victory', or at least the shifting emphasis on the different parts. It's a trap I see people running into with say Vietnam, where it becomes a question of oh well we didn't lose militarily, we lost politically (irrespective of how true that may or may not have been), with out realizing that the political aspect is what matters in terms of victory, and has since at least Pyrrhus.
Also Punkey, how would you classify the annexation of Crimea by Russia? Civil war? Not a war ut a grey zone conflict?
posted by Carillon at 10:28 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also Punkey, how would you classify the annexation of Crimea by Russia? Civil war? Not a war ut a grey zone conflict?
posted by Carillon at 10:28 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
the U.S. Military is the only full employment program the GOP will support.
...for the able.
posted by Etrigan at 10:29 AM on September 29, 2016
...for the able.
posted by Etrigan at 10:29 AM on September 29, 2016
At 12-9, that's a winning percentage of 0.571. That's Steve Carlton, Catfish Hunter and Luis Tiant range.
I've always argued that we won the Korean War. We set out with a specific limited objective: to push North Korea back. And it's held for 65 years.
I've had a grudging admiration for George H.W. Bush. (I cannot have anything more than a grudging admiration because he bombed Panama when my wife was there.) He set a limited goal for the Desert Storm war. Only a complete idiot would try to destabilize the region by removing Hussein.
If you look at World War I, with an objective described as "Make the World Safe for Democracy," we divided up the Middle East into colonies and we laid the foundation for Hitler, Moussolini, and Stalin.
World War II, if you say, "Get rid of Hitler and Japanese militarism" were the goals, then we won. If you say, "Free Europe and the Far East from tyranny," well we expanded Stalin's control, started a nuclear arms race, helped turn China communist, and started the Cold War (and its hundred progeny wars including Vietnam).
To sum up, I would count the wins and losses very differently. And Steve Carlton was a great pitcher.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:34 AM on September 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've always argued that we won the Korean War. We set out with a specific limited objective: to push North Korea back. And it's held for 65 years.
I've had a grudging admiration for George H.W. Bush. (I cannot have anything more than a grudging admiration because he bombed Panama when my wife was there.) He set a limited goal for the Desert Storm war. Only a complete idiot would try to destabilize the region by removing Hussein.
If you look at World War I, with an objective described as "Make the World Safe for Democracy," we divided up the Middle East into colonies and we laid the foundation for Hitler, Moussolini, and Stalin.
World War II, if you say, "Get rid of Hitler and Japanese militarism" were the goals, then we won. If you say, "Free Europe and the Far East from tyranny," well we expanded Stalin's control, started a nuclear arms race, helped turn China communist, and started the Cold War (and its hundred progeny wars including Vietnam).
To sum up, I would count the wins and losses very differently. And Steve Carlton was a great pitcher.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:34 AM on September 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
topic feels like a double. have a feeling it was discussed in an earlier FPP
posted by infini at 10:35 AM on September 29, 2016
posted by infini at 10:35 AM on September 29, 2016
Interested to see this. Criticizing the military is such a taboo that no one ever seems to have realized that the US is not actually very good at war, and hasn't been for a good half century or more. Other comments point to possible reasons, and the military does seem to accomplish those objectives (benefiting contractors, etc.), but the claim that "the US military is the world's finest fighting force" seems just untrue.
posted by kevinbelt at 10:38 AM on September 29, 2016
posted by kevinbelt at 10:38 AM on September 29, 2016
topic feels like a double. have a feeling it was discussed in an earlier FPP
The number of FPPs could be reduced significantly if this were an applied rubric. :)
posted by hippybear at 10:41 AM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
The number of FPPs could be reduced significantly if this were an applied rubric. :)
posted by hippybear at 10:41 AM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Except I'm not.
posted by ElDiabloConQueso at 10:42 AM on September 29, 2016
Except I'm not.
posted by ElDiabloConQueso at 10:42 AM on September 29, 2016
After reading Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East I'm of the opinion that for the most part, the US is achieving their goals, militarily, in the region--keep the oil flowing, protect the KSA, and most recently (with the Obama administration's deal with Iran) apparently try and balance the influence of KSA with Iranian power. In that sense, it's to the US' advantage to keep the civil war in Syria going--it diverts resources from both KSA and Iran into a regional proxy war, rather than turning those resources to other, probably less-beneficial (again, to US power interests) tasks. Same reason the administration has almost nothing to say about Saudi repression of their own internal Shia population, and their use of American arms to put down Yemeni resistance to their dominance.
It all tends to hang together pretty well if you look at everything we've done in the region since Carter as a function of keeping the oil flowing. We're not going to war for anybody else besides petroleum industries and the American petroleum-based economy.
posted by turntraitor at 10:57 AM on September 29, 2016
It all tends to hang together pretty well if you look at everything we've done in the region since Carter as a function of keeping the oil flowing. We're not going to war for anybody else besides petroleum industries and the American petroleum-based economy.
posted by turntraitor at 10:57 AM on September 29, 2016
The US has been starting wars that ended without tangible gains, but with benefits to its economic interests since the beginning.
What the US (and everyone else) has failed to figure out, is a reliable method to end conflicts that requires neither murdering, enslaving, or displacing populations nor redefining the borders of states.
Many post colonial/imperial governments have required all those methods and more to forge new states. Still, the USSR, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Syria, India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, and Iraq all belie the notion that even those measures are sustainable or effective.
If your definition of victory is ending conflict, then no one has really won anything in a long time. However, if one defines winning in terms of remediating conflict in a way beneficial to at least one of the sides, then the US exhibits terrifying capability and an enviable record.
posted by ethansr at 11:43 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
What the US (and everyone else) has failed to figure out, is a reliable method to end conflicts that requires neither murdering, enslaving, or displacing populations nor redefining the borders of states.
Many post colonial/imperial governments have required all those methods and more to forge new states. Still, the USSR, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Syria, India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, and Iraq all belie the notion that even those measures are sustainable or effective.
If your definition of victory is ending conflict, then no one has really won anything in a long time. However, if one defines winning in terms of remediating conflict in a way beneficial to at least one of the sides, then the US exhibits terrifying capability and an enviable record.
posted by ethansr at 11:43 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't remember where I read this, but at one point I heard that military spending is the right-wing's largest ever wealth redistribution program.
Puts the idea of "shovel-ready" projects in a different light.
And to ruin the joke, the thing here is that instead of the shovels being used to build bridges and roads, they're for digging graves.
posted by GuyZero at 11:53 AM on September 29, 2016
Puts the idea of "shovel-ready" projects in a different light.
And to ruin the joke, the thing here is that instead of the shovels being used to build bridges and roads, they're for digging graves.
posted by GuyZero at 11:53 AM on September 29, 2016
Easy enough badmouth our nation's conflicts and wars, but the one that truly counted was WWI and WWII, and had we not entered and won those two, with of course our allies, we would not be at our keyboards today badmouthing our record to date.
posted by Postroad at 1:03 PM on September 29, 2016
posted by Postroad at 1:03 PM on September 29, 2016
Well because all of history would be different? I'm not sure how arguing that the entente losing wwi would make the world a very different place means that we shouldn't talk about America's military record?
posted by Carillon at 1:11 PM on September 29, 2016
posted by Carillon at 1:11 PM on September 29, 2016
the one that truly counted was WWI and WWII, and had we not entered and won those two, with of course our allies, we would not be at our keyboards today badmouthing our record to date
Cite?
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 1:25 PM on September 29, 2016
Cite?
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 1:25 PM on September 29, 2016
Also is criticizing conflicts and wars and talking about how unnecessary some of them seem to be effectively reduced to badmouthing? Badmouthing was something I did in middle school, not sure why talking about a mixed and checked history of success is equivalent.
posted by Carillon at 1:29 PM on September 29, 2016
posted by Carillon at 1:29 PM on September 29, 2016
I did not mean to imply that our military adventures were all good and necessary..I am sorry for that possible implication. As for the Korean War...yes, we ended exactly where we had begun but as noted above that was our mission...to keep the North from taking over the South. But then, and I was there for that one, it was usually not even called a war but rather a "police action."
If unsure what a military action really is, you need simply find out if being a part of it, you qualify for the G.I.Bill
posted by Postroad at 2:33 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
If unsure what a military action really is, you need simply find out if being a part of it, you qualify for the G.I.Bill
posted by Postroad at 2:33 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I think they're counting this won/loss record using the wrong metrics. War is economics, and on that front the US has been a winner throughout. "
To be fair, rating pitchers on games won is a terrible metric too, with at least as much to do with the team behind them as the pitcher themselves.
posted by klangklangston at 3:38 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
To be fair, rating pitchers on games won is a terrible metric too, with at least as much to do with the team behind them as the pitcher themselves.
posted by klangklangston at 3:38 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
The smug tone of the main article irritated me, in exactly the same way that people who keep mental score of how many wars the US has "really" lost (because it was political not military! or something) irritate me. It's not a sporting match, whether you are a neanderthal or trolling neanderthals.
It's also a lousy point except as a troll. I'm not a strict pacifist and if I thought something was worth fighting for "slightly more likely to win than lose" would not be discouraging. Or looked at another way, would you turn down a non-military humanitarian intervention next time if it turned out our record were like two and fourteen?
The problems with foreign military interventions tend not to be the win/loss chances. The Iraq invasion would have been a horrible idea even if we ended up with a strongman client in power.
posted by mark k at 11:28 PM on September 29, 2016
It's also a lousy point except as a troll. I'm not a strict pacifist and if I thought something was worth fighting for "slightly more likely to win than lose" would not be discouraging. Or looked at another way, would you turn down a non-military humanitarian intervention next time if it turned out our record were like two and fourteen?
The problems with foreign military interventions tend not to be the win/loss chances. The Iraq invasion would have been a horrible idea even if we ended up with a strongman client in power.
posted by mark k at 11:28 PM on September 29, 2016
Another question though--I'm in my mid-40s. When I was in elementary and high school the narrative of the US was anything but pride in our military. The heroes brilliant military exploits tended to be individuals who had nothing to do with us (Napoleon, Alexander) or even those on the other side (Rommel, Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Geronimo). (I'm not a southerner, obviously.) We had Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson and laws and business and innovation. Our military might was at best the hardware, like the atom bomb, and that showed up after our best wars had been fought.
Is that just me or just the post-Vietnam zeitgeist? Did most people grow up with this narrative about our military prowess that you were supposed to internalize?
posted by mark k at 11:34 PM on September 29, 2016
Is that just me or just the post-Vietnam zeitgeist? Did most people grow up with this narrative about our military prowess that you were supposed to internalize?
posted by mark k at 11:34 PM on September 29, 2016
Criticizing the military is such a taboo that no one ever seems to have realized that the US is not actually very good at war, and hasn't been for a good half century or more.
I'd say we have exactly the opposite problem: we're too good at war. Any war we took seriously would be over in a couple days, and there would be very little of the enemy.
But for the last 70 years, our opponents have been divided either into those we can't afford to go to war with, and those we don't want to destroy. So we end up with repeated clusterfucks.
posted by happyroach at 12:56 PM on September 30, 2016
I'd say we have exactly the opposite problem: we're too good at war. Any war we took seriously would be over in a couple days, and there would be very little of the enemy.
But for the last 70 years, our opponents have been divided either into those we can't afford to go to war with, and those we don't want to destroy. So we end up with repeated clusterfucks.
posted by happyroach at 12:56 PM on September 30, 2016
« Older Who Tells Their Story? | [Election 2016] If you stand for nothing, what’ll... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
All that death and devastation, however, led to few victories. Worse yet for the armed forces, the win-loss record of this highly professionalized, technologically sophisticated, and exceptionally well-funded military has, since assuming the mantle of the finest fighting force in the history of the world, plummeted precipitously, as SOCOM’s Intelligence Directorate points out.
An American century of carnage and combat has yielded many lessons learned, but not, it seems, the most important one when it comes to military conflict. “We can kill people, we can break things,” Bacevich observes, “but we don’t accomplish our political goals.”
"
posted by Carillon at 9:39 AM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]