How Do You Solve A Problem Like McCrystal?

[John Adams]

Not quite as ludicrous as it seems. There is a decent amount of overlap between business management and military campaign management. General staff officers usually have MBAs, because the resource management skills learned getting the degree turn out to be very valuable in managing military campaigns.

 

Of course, I'm not defending any sort of "I manage a law firm, so I have a better plan for Iraq and Afghanistan". That's just silly. There's overlap, not perfect congruence.

 

I disregard your opinion because you don't have an MBA. That and the analogy was absurd. Businesses have a million options, none of which cost trillions and get people killed.

[OCinBuffalo]

All of you:

 

Nowhere did I say:

1. continue to fight with no war aims

2. the Army fighting an endless war is a good idea

3. the current strategies and tactics are effective

4. the other departments of the government don't have to a job to do, and do well, for these wars to end

 

First and foremost, unbelievably, for an Army that prides itself on its command of history and ability to apply it, in both wars, we have ignored the history and culture of the people, enemy and friend alike. We chose to fight a European war in Iraq, and a South American war in Afghanistan. I have no idea why. Honestly. It doesn't make sense.

 

If we simply cut and run, without giving our Army a chance to fight and win, if we NEVER give them any "goals" and just tell them to pack their gear and run, then we will do massive damage that will take years to repair and cost additional trillions.

 

Now if you want to have a further discussion, please speak to what I am saying and not what I am not.

[Dan]

All of you:

 

Nowhere did I say:

1. continue to fight with no war aims

2. the Army fighting an endless war is a good idea

3. the current strategies and tactics are effective

4. the other departments of the government don't have to a job to do, and do well, for these wars to end

 

First and foremost, unbelievably, for an Army that prides itself on its command of history and ability to apply it, in both wars, we have ignored the history and culture of the people, enemy and friend alike. We chose to fight a European war in Iraq, and a South American war in Afghanistan. I have no idea why. Honestly. It doesn't make sense.

 

If we simply cut and run, without giving our Army a chance to fight and win, if we NEVER give them any "goals" and just tell them to pack their gear and run, then we will do massive damage that will take years to repair and cost additional trillions.

 

Now if you want to have a further discussion, please speak to what I am saying and not what I am not.

You've said you have a strategic plan that you think is better. I would like to hear it, regardless of the verbosity of the post. Seriously, I would appeciate the perspective.

[DC Tom]

You've said you have a strategic plan that you think is better. I would like to hear it, regardless of the verbosity of the post. Seriously, I would appeciate the perspective.

 

I'd like to say up-front that it won't work. But I'll explain why after I hear it.

 

Actually...I don't need to wait. I can explain now: the leadership in Afghanistan won't get behind it.

[John Adams]

You've said you have a strategic plan that you think is better. I would like to hear it, regardless of the verbosity of the post. Seriously, I would appeciate the perspective.

 

BTW, the verbosity jabs to OC go way back. It hits a soft spot on him so I keep doing it. Guy blathers on more than a drunk 19 year old co-ed after a Jonas Brothers concert.

[Dan]

I'd like to say up-front that it won't work. But I'll explain why after I hear it.

 

Actually...I don't need to wait. I can explain now: the leadership in Afghanistan won't get behind it.

 

 

BTW, the verbosity jabs to OC go way back. It hits a soft spot on him so I keep doing it. Guy blathers on more than a drunk 19 year old co-ed after a Jonas Brothers concert.

Thanks. I'm a relatively new/infrequent visitor to this forum. But, lately it's far more interesting than discusing why Lynch is/isn't a thug.

[OCinBuffalo]

That's a weak argument. I value the opinions of the service on military matters more than others but that doesn't mean others can't be right. If your POV was right, we'd all be slave to only giving input on matters in which we are expert.

 

Back a bit more on topic, I know LOTS of people who have served who want us to get the eff out of both these dumb wars because they think we're sending these kids out to die with no way to "win," whatever winning even is. And I agree with them. Or they with me.

 

The question I put to you is "How do you win in Afghanistan to honor the fallen?"

First of all its a question of basics. If you don't know the basics, there's no way you can be right, other than by dumb luck.

 

So, you have learned one of the basics: your average soldier NEVER wants to fight anywhere, any time(and neither does his officers, btw). "Soldiers run on booze and bitching". You can't get them to walk 20 miles, without trying to get out of it. It's a game kinda. The officer's job, all the way through the chain up to the President, is to motivate that soldier, one way or the other. Another basic is: if I am going to motivate you, you have to have some idea what we are doing. No argument there, with them, or you, WRT the premise, or the argument. It's the conclusion that causes me the pain here. Saying we haven't defined goals is not the same as saying we can't define goals. Get me? Not even trying to define goals and simply running away is what I am arguing against.

 

As Tom has said, Genghis Khan won there because he killed everything that moved. Assuming that strategy is off the table, and since, it didn't really work for the Russians, we have to go with the only other guy who was able to do some winning there: Alexander.

 

The tribal culture has placed "the better man" above all. This was true long before Islam, and it continues today. Alexander was able to convince the average joe that he was the better man, and they loved him for it. Mostly because, he respected them enough to fight them man to man. It has to do with competition, being on the same field, etc. Hitting them from the air etc. is dishonorable in their view. It means we are weak. If we are weak, in their eyes, we can be defeated, and therefore, they are obligated to fight us. If they don't, then they are weak. This is culture. It may not make sense to us. But the warrior fighting 1v1 is still pretty much how they think. And they don't get out much. They are loyal to their little village, and have no real concept of "country".

 

The question is: how do we apply Alexander's tactics in the modern world?(I know, but this is already "verbose" so I will stop and let you comment)

[John Adams]

The question is: how do we apply Alexander's tactics in the modern world?(I know, but this is already "verbose" so I will stop and let you comment)

 

Please proceed.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'd like to say up-front that it won't work. But I'll explain why after I hear it.

 

Actually...I don't need to wait. I can explain now: the leadership in Afghanistan won't get behind it.

Ahh, and that's why we don't use them. We use the real leaders, not the "made-for-tv" ones.

 

But go ahead, this is fun, defending what I am not saying is my favorite

[OCinBuffalo]

Please proceed.

By your leave, sir

 

The average Afghan, hates the people in the village next door more than he will ever hate some foreign invader. If you read your Kipling, this usually has to do with pissing in the river upstream, or stealing. They will get together to stop the foreigners, and when the are done, go right back to fighting each other. Again, this not because they are crazy. It's simply a question of culture. Believe it or not, we do the same thing, but in different ways.

 

The average Afghan must prove himself to the men of the village. In either single combat or stealing stuff, whatever shows he has balls. There is no greater proof of being ballsy than standing up to the American Army. So, that's why the initial hit and run war with the limited SF and Rangers was so effective. You didn't see any Americans, so you couldn't stand up to them. They were not prepared for our tactics, and that's why they lost so quick = they were frazzled. They expected to be fighting us, instead they were fighting the guys from a few villages away, who had the benefit of air power.

 

The structure of the village is something we are familiar with, so I won't bother. It comes down to a chief. (Incidentally, this also remains true in Iraq, in terms of sheiks) Loyalty is given to a chief, period. The vast majority of Afghans, even the educated and worldly ones, still hold their village chief in high regard. It is ultimately his opinion of them that counts.

 

pause for comment and to limit verboseness

[IDBillzFan]

You've planned the occupation of a foreign country?

If by "foreign country" you mean "vagina," then, yes. Yes I have.

[3rdnlng]

If by "foreign country" you mean "vagina," then, yes. Yes I have.

 

I hope for her sake it was a long occupation.

[OCinBuffalo]

If by "foreign country" you mean "vagina," then, yes. Yes I have.

Moving on...

 

Clearly we believe in a Federal Government based on our founder's principles of a Republic. Getting the average Afghani to believe in a centralized government, with loyalty to the village replaced by loyalty to a province or country, is like getting me to become a Dolphins fan. It ain't gonna happen. Getting them to believe in Communism was even harder.

 

We are talking about the ultimate decentralized system here. Imagine if you cared more about who your mayor was, than the President. These traditions are 1000s of years old, and we aren't going to change them, no matter how well the Special Forces political people do their jobs.

 

But, we can't very well have a country, next to Iran, that can't act as a country when necessary. And, we also can't allow a country to be taken over by a bunch of lunatics every other year either. Finally, we can't allow a country to exist where parts of it is used to train terrorists, while other parts have no clue that is happening, and expect to hold the whole country accountable.

 

Those of you talking about setting up faux democracies? The above paragraph is why we need some form of centralized command and control. No amount of attacking Bush removes the problems defined above. So stop. Its an ignorant POV, and it doesn't solve anything.

 

So, we need something that is congruent with how the Afghans already operate, united against interlopers, but respectful of how the country actually operates. This is the problem defined, and, we use Alexander's tactics as the method. The goal, if I may be so bold, is NOT democracy as we know it. Rather we create a parliament of chiefs.

 

Paused, etc.

[Jim in Anchorage]

If by "foreign country" you mean "vagina," then, yes. Yes I have.

occupation and a limited engagement with a withdraw timetable are not the same.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The military isn't about being right. From what I understand, McCrystal is a highly decorated and very competent person- he had a brain fart, but he made a critical mistake and did it publicly. Our society doesn't accept that. Our society is wrong about many, many things.

 

Thus the "too bad" part of the post.

[DC Tom]

Moving on...

 

Clearly we believe in a Federal Government based on our founder's principles of a Republic. Getting the average Afghani to believe in a centralized government, with loyalty to the village replaced by loyalty to a province or country, is like getting me to become a Dolphins fan. It ain't gonna happen. Getting them to believe in Communism was even harder.

 

We are talking about the ultimate decentralized system here. Imagine if you cared more about who your mayor was, than the President. These traditions are 1000s of years old, and we aren't going to change them, no matter how well the Special Forces political people do their jobs.

 

But, we can't very well have a country, next to Iran, that can't act as a country when necessary. And, we also can't allow a country to be taken over by a bunch of lunatics every other year either. Finally, we can't allow a country to exist where parts of it is used to train terrorists, while other parts have no clue that is happening, and expect to hold the whole country accountable.

 

Those of you talking about setting up faux democracies? The above paragraph is why we need some form of centralized command and control. No amount of attacking Bush removes the problems defined above. So stop. Its an ignorant POV, and it doesn't solve anything.

 

So, we need something that is congruent with how the Afghans already operate, united against interlopers, but respectful of how the country actually operates. This is the problem defined, and, we use Alexander's tactics as the method. The goal, if I may be so bold, is NOT democracy as we know it. Rather we create a parliament of chiefs.

 

Paused, etc.

 

You've already failed. Afghanistan is a "country" only for extremely generous definitions of "country"; the people of that region themselves don't accept the idea of Afghanistan being a country (which is why the NWFP exists - no one on either side of the border actually recognizes the border.) Like I said: the Afghanistanis themselves won't accept it...because there's no unifying concept of "Afghanistan". You mention that above yourself...then go on to ignore your very mention of it.

 

You also need to address the very considerable role of Pakistan - both culturally and governmentally - which means you also have to address Kashmir and India. And don't pretend you can to any degree create an Afghanistan independent of Iran, considering that the western half of Afghanistan (the Herat region) is solidly Shi'ite, and has been backed by Iran even in very recent history.

[3rdnlng]

occupation and a limited engagement with a withdraw timetable are not the same.

 

I think that is a premature reaction to a hard problem to lick.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh, and btw, for those of you who haven't noticed: the reason we attacked Iraq right after Afghanistan is because we wanted to create the potential for a 2 front war for Iran, complete with a direct supply route to the sea(through Kuwait and Iraq), thereby cutting the # of Iranian troops we have to fight on either front in half. Look at the map again. Not sure if we could take their whole army on one front given that we could only get 2 Corps?(Tom probably knows better) in the Iraqi front while maintaining the initiative, but I am sure we can take half of it, given air and fire superiority.

 

The above is the strategic plan, and was begun due to limited, and ONLY military options we will have if Iran develops nukes. B word all you want, but that's clearly the intention. We will lose a hell of lot less troops with this deployment. So, for all of you keeping score at home?

 

Yes, Iraq/Afghanistan aren't even the real war. They are merely being taken for support. Iran will essentially be cut off because nobody on the rest of their borders will do a thing to help them. Least of all the Russians. We will be removing a problem regime for them, and replacing it with one that is just as likely to buy their weapons.

 

Ok...that's the strategy, back to the tactics...

 

I said the opinion of the chief is what counts. Opinions can be changed/bought/etc. Alexander would attack each village, and then sit down with the chief and negotiate. This is because he was a great believer in people, and had a great vision which he wanted to share with them. Allegory aside, it came down to finding out what the chief wanted, and giving him some of it, and promising more given ongoing loyalty, and, promising protection.

 

Well, we can't do that, but, we can:

1. Fight the men of the village, win, and then sit down with the chief and give him the respect he deserves. I know that sounds weird, but it is what it is. Alexander had no problem sitting down with the chief and he was "the great". I don't think it's a big deal for one of our brigade commanders to do the same. Hell we could hire an actor to be "the Big General" they would never know Dress him up like Patton.

2. Convince the chief that if he joins the Parliament, he will get good things for himself and his people. In return he has to send men/supply whenever he is called. Basically the Feudal thing, and definitely link the chief's honor to participating in Parliament. He has given his word, after all.

3. NOT LEAVE until we have an honorable agreement, however long that takes.

4. Do something(I like a shooting contest, horse racing, something) where we bet on who will win. We get our snipers, our guys from Texas, whatever, to win the contest. We do something, man to man, and prove we are worthy of the chief's respect. I don't know if we could get into the marrying daughters thing....

5. Accept the men that the chief will give us, and promise "the spoils" of attacking the next village. Um, those spoils provided by us farmers and dropped by air, not actually pillaged, which give the guys that win something to take home. Then, we repeat the process all over again. The chief gets a win, the guys get the stuff, we got the support of the village, time to move on. We promise to resolve any disputes between villages, with many goats and sheep, whatever, handed out to make everybody happy.

6. No taking women, that's the deal. No beating women. Leave the broads alone, and let them go to school, or no deal.

7. Let them keep their own local laws, but create an arbitration/appeal system that is appointed by the parliament. If a chief is not keeping his word, or is acting crazy, a jury of chiefs is appointed, the trial is held in the village, and its run like a court martial.

 

If we do these basic things, the tactics win us the chiefs. We win the chiefs, we get the Parliament. We get the Parliament, we get our central government as necessary. We win the war. Every time there is a problem, we drop in the necessary sheep and goats, we buff up the chief in question, and he stays loyal.

 

They will turn on the Taliban like mother in laws if their chiefs tell them. The chiefs can't do that unless they are sure we will protect them from Taliban, and always will. Its a symbiotic thing. People hold grudges for generations there. They have to know that if there is trouble then can at least count on our air to help them out, forever. Maybe if we get more developed countries to help out, like Pakistan and Turkey?

 

Pause

[erynthered]

Oh, and btw, for those of you who haven't noticed: the reason we attacked Iraq right after Afghanistan is because we wanted to create the potential for a 2 front war for Iran, complete with a direct supply route to the sea(through Kuwait and Iraq), thereby cutting the # of Iranian troops we have to fight on either front in half. Look at the map again. Not sure if we could take their whole army on one front given that we could only get 2 Corps?(Tom probably knows better) in the Iraqi front while maintaining the initiative, but I am sure we can take half of it, given air and fire superiority.

 

The above is the strategic plan, and was begun due to limited, and ONLY military options we will have if Iran develops nukes. B word all you want, but that's clearly the intention. We will lose a hell of lot less troops with this deployment. So, for all of you keeping score at home?

 

Yes, Iraq/Afghanistan aren't even the real war. They are merely being taken for support. Iran will essentially be cut off because nobody on the rest of their borders will do a thing to help them. Least of all the Russians. We will be removing a problem regime for them, and replacing it with one that is just as likely to buy their weapons.

 

Ok...that's the strategy, back to the tactics...

 

I said the opinion of the chief is what counts. Opinions can be changed/bought/etc. Alexander would attack each village, and then sit down with the chief and negotiate. This is because he was a great believer in people, and had a great vision which he wanted to share with them. Allegory aside, it came down to finding out what the chief wanted, and giving him some of it, and promising more given ongoing loyalty, and, promising protection.

 

Well, we can't do that, but, we can:

1. Fight the men of the village, win, and then sit down with the chief and give him the respect he deserves. I know that sounds weird, but it is what it is. Alexander had no problem sitting down with the chief and he was "the great". I don't think it's a big deal for one of our brigade commanders to do the same. Hell we could hire an actor to be "the Big General" they would never know Dress him up like Patton.

2. Convince the chief that if he joins the Parliament, he will get good things for himself and his people. In return he has to send men/supply whenever he is called. Basically the Feudal thing, and definitely link the chief's honor to participating in Parliament. He has given his word, after all.

3. NOT LEAVE until we have an honorable agreement, however long that takes.

4. Do something(I like a shooting contest, horse racing, something) where we bet on who will win. We get our snipers, our guys from Texas, whatever, to win the contest. We do something, man to man, and prove we are worthy of the chief's respect. I don't know if we could get into the marrying daughters thing....

5. Accept the men that the chief will give us, and promise "the spoils" of attacking the next village. Um, those spoils provided by us farmers and dropped by air, not actually pillaged, which give the guys that win something to take home. Then, we repeat the process all over again. The chief gets a win, the guys get the stuff, we got the support of the village, time to move on. We promise to resolve any disputes between villages, with many goats and sheep, whatever, handed out to make everybody happy.

6. No taking women, that's the deal. No beating women. Leave the broads alone, and let them go to school, or no deal.

7. Let them keep their own local laws, but create an arbitration/appeal system that is appointed by the parliament. If a chief is not keeping his word, or is acting crazy, a jury of chiefs is appointed, the trial is held in the village, and its run like a court martial.

 

If we do these basic things, the tactics win us the chiefs. We win the chiefs, we get the Parliament. We get the Parliament, we get our central government as necessary. We win the war. Every time there is a problem, we drop in the necessary sheep and goats, we buff up the chief in question, and he stays loyal.

 

They will turn on the Taliban like mother in laws if their chiefs tell them. The chiefs can't do that unless they are sure we will protect them from Taliban, and always will. Its a symbiotic thing. People hold grudges for generations there. They have to know that if there is trouble then can at least count on our air to help them out, forever. Maybe if we get more developed countries to help out, like Pakistan and Turkey?

 

Pause

 

 

........sounds like that Kevin Costner movie, Dances with Wolves.

[Adam]

Since I have really done this, and never done it on an XBOX? Your comments are disrespectful and ignorant. Now go back to your XBOX. This is about real life and real people trying to do a difficult job for very little reward. It is also about officers trying to keep their command populated with at least some people who know what they are doing.

 

But go ahead and keep talking down to me...as if...

 

Oh, and setting up faux democracies is the State Departments job, sometimes the CIAs, so please just stop. You might see some Special Forces to set up some initial relationships, but that's about it.

We already set up a faux democracy in Iraq.

 

The XBOX comment (XBOX 360, bu the way lol), was more about troops and citizens are dying for no reason, as the war has had no goal since the removal of the taliban. It has been a meaningless occupation. We should have helped them to set up a viable government- not a faux democracy, but anything that the citizens wanted. Then we should have left- that would have been victory. But our government got ADD and moved on to another administration in another country they didn't like (Iraq)