War and Aftermath

August 10, 2003 3:40 PM

Beware technology that disconnects war from politics.This is a very interesting article by Fredrick Kagan on the growing gulf between America's military means and political ends. "Unless the direction and nature of military transformation change dramatically, the American public should expect to see in the future many more wars in which U.S. armed forces triumph but the American political vision fails."
posted by homunculus (16 comments total)

There was a time when a significant portion of US lawmakers and politicians had military experience, but as the WWII veterans die off and the Vietnam generation ages, that's increasingly less true. To the extent that this disconnect is valid, it can only grow worse as the martial aspect of our cultural tradition becomes more insular.
posted by alumshubby at 4:47 PM on August 10, 2003

I have managed to work myh way through this rather long and thought-out essay but fail to see notice taken that in Afghanistan and now in Iraq we are dealing not just with tribal warlords, variations on Islamic groupings, but additionally Muslim states throughout the world refuse to lend any support, credence, vocal encouragement--they side with our "foe," or remain silent or send financial support. I would recommend Sword of Islam as a fine intro to the history of Islamic jihad from medieval times to this week. I
posted by Postroad at 5:13 PM on August 10, 2003

I would recommend Sword of Islam as a fine intro to the history of Islamic jihad from medieval times to this week. I...

...have just fallen on the sword of islam.
posted by quonsar at 5:34 PM on August 10, 2003

but additionally Muslim states throughout the world refuse to lend any support, credence, vocal encouragement

Gee, I wonder why that might be.
posted by influx at 6:14 PM on August 10, 2003

Gee, I wonder why that might be.

You should ask Postroad - I heard he's read a great book that explains it all.
posted by andrew cooke at 6:41 PM on August 10, 2003

There has long been a disconnect between the civilian and military leadership in the US. It has also long been criticized by both civilians and the military. Examples in WWII, WWI, the Spanish American War, even the Civil War.

But before war can happen, excepting spontaneous nuclear exchange, some consensus must be built in many places.
The President must consult with the Senate, or its senior leadership. The Pentagon must be consulted as to feasibility of both military actions, that is strategy and tactics; and logistics to support these actions, along with contingencies. The military must have an approved plan before it can march.

If the military does not see a rational reason to fight, it will fudge the plan--its inertia against war is impressive--or it will stall and delay, cost overrun, and generally botch things. And, I fear, if the President is adamant in doing something stupid, the military may sacrifice a few lives to humiliate him back to his senses.

And the military is not alone in obstinate bureaucracy. While generally amiable to the Commander and Chief, other parts of the government, say the Intelligence community, can make a frivolous expedition very difficult.
The State Department, too, has its ways.

The President is just one man.
posted by kablam at 7:51 PM on August 10, 2003

Plan for success. The article in a nutshell.
posted by stbalbach at 7:52 PM on August 10, 2003

I often wonder what it would take to get these people off our back. I cannot take how it happens to be that many of Bush's comments that contain God references can be easily wrapped up as " Crusader" by extremist Muslims.

Perhaps if we would just get the hell out of Saudi Arabia...

What ever happened to " beware of foreign entanglements"
posted by RubberHen at 8:06 PM on August 10, 2003

Plan for success. The article in a nutshell.

This "plan" boils down to To effect regime change, U.S. forces must be positively in control of the enemy’s territory and population as rapidly and continuously as possible., which is essentially an idea old as civilization.

Mr. Kaplan is arguing that we need to take the Roman route of empire -- conquer the lands, and leave legions there to control them.
posted by moonbiter at 8:20 PM on August 10, 2003

[T]he Roman route of empire -- conquer the lands, and leave legions there to control them.

Don't forget the taking of hostages. Collect the firstborn of the families in power, bring them to the capital, teach them the Empire's ideals and fashions, then send them back to rule the next generation.

America: winning the hearts and minds of the world, one burger at a time.
posted by SPrintF at 8:34 PM on August 10, 2003

Mr. Kaplan Kagan is arguing that we need to take the Roman route of empire

Niall Ferguson and Stanley Kurtz think we should take the British route of "liberal imperialism," and I imagine Kagan would agree with them. But Ferguson and Kurtz also realize that the US has neither the appetite nor the stomach for empire.
posted by homunculus at 8:50 PM on August 10, 2003

Manifesto Warns of Dangers Associated With an Empire
posted by homunculus at 9:00 PM on August 10, 2003

...and leave legions there to control them.

moonbiter: I also think that last paragraph sums it up rather nicely, although I'm not sure "control them" is what Kagan means. Just before your quote...

The overwhelming majority[of the enemy], however, have to be persuaded. They must be persuaded not merely of the shocking awfulness of American power, but of the desirability of pursuing the policies the U.S. wishes them to pursue. And they must not be driven away from the pursuit of those policies by the horrors and opportunities presented by a chaotic, lawless vacuum created by our precision weapons.
posted by jaronson at 9:00 PM on August 10, 2003

I'm not sure "control them" is what Kagan means

We'll have to agree to disagree then, because from my reading of the article I'm pretty sure he meant persuasion in the "Mafia-enforcer" sense. What's good for the Boss is good for everyone, riiight?

homunculus: thanks for the catch.
posted by moonbiter at 9:07 PM on August 10, 2003

Yeah, I actually did think of the Mafia perspective.

Interesting article homunculus. You consistantly do good work. Thanks.
posted by jaronson at 9:29 PM on August 10, 2003

The technological core of the Objective Force — the Army of the future — is the Future Combat System (fcs). The fcs is a “family of systems” including the equivalents of tanks and infantry carriers as well as unmanned aerial vehicles and robots.

Not Skynet! Noooooooooooooooooooo!
posted by solistrato at 11:27 AM on August 11, 2003