The American Way Of War & how to never learn anything

Remove all ads!

The American Way Of War
By Fred Reed
1-27-7

Being a military thinker of the profoundest sort, I offer the following manual of martial affairs for nations yearning to copy the American way of war. Read it carefully. Great clarity will result. The steps limned below will facilitate disaster without imposing the burden of reinventing it. The Pentagon may print copies for distribution.

(1) Underestimate the enemy. Fortunately this is easy when a technologically advanced power prepares to attack an underdeveloped nation. Its enemy's citizens will readily be seen as gadgetless, primitive, probably genetically stupid, and hardly worth the attention of a real military.

(2) Avoid learning anything about the enemy * his culture, religion, language, history, or response to past invasions. These things don't matter since the enemy is gadgetless, primitive, and probably genetically stupid. Anyway, knowledge would only make the enlisted ranks restive, and confuse the officer corps.

Blank ignorance of the language is especially desirable (as well as virtually guaranteed). For one thing, it will allow your troops to be seen as brutal invaders having nothing in common with the population; this helps in winning hearts and minds. For another, it will allow English-speaking officials of the puppet government to vet such information about the country as they permit you to have.

(3) Explain the invasion to the American public in simple moral terms suitable for middle-school children at an evangelical summer camp: We are bombing cities to bring the gift of democracy and American values, or to defeat some vague but frightening evil, perhaps lurking under the bed, or to get rid of a bad dictator no longer of service to us, or to bring freedom and prosperity to any survivors. (This doesn't work in Europe, which is honestly imperialistic. ) The public can then feel a sense of unappreciated virtue when the primitives resist. Sententious moralism should always trump reason.

(4) A misunderstanding of military reality helps. Besides, comprehension would only lead to depression. As Napoleon said, or may have, in war the moral is to the material as three is to one, which implies that unpleasant facts should be played down in favor of cultivating a cheerful attitude. Most especially, it should not be noted that a few tens of thousands of determined, probably genetically-stupid primitives with small arms can tie down a cheerful force however gaudily armed.

Pay no attention to tactics, which are boring. It should never enter your mind that in this sort of war, if you don't win, you lose; if the enemy doesn't lose, he wins. Think about something else. Above all, do not understand that the enemy's target is not you, but public opinion at home. You don't need to remember this, as the enemy will remember it for you.

(5) Do not forget that a military's reason for existence is to close with the enemy and destroy him. An army is not in the social-services busines. Do not let the mission be impeded by touchy-feely considerations. If you have to kill seventeen children to get a sniper, so be it. The enemy must realize that you mean business. Ignore cultural traits, which are of concern only to idealistic civilians. Grope the enemy's women. High-profile rapes are a good idea as they teach respect. It is better to be feared than loved. Be sure the embassy has a helipad.

(6) Intellectual insularity should be a primary goal, as it avoids distraction. This salubrious condition can be achieved by having officers read Tom Clancy instead of history. In military discourse it also helps to encourage the use of phrases like "force multiplier" and "multi-dimensional warfare," as these increase confidence without meaning anything.

Remember that doctrine and optimism should always outweigh history and common sense. Discourage colonels and above from reading about similar campaigns fought by other armies, as this might lead to nagging doubts, conceivably even to thought. Encourage the belief that other countries have lost wars by being inferior to the United States. "The French lost in Viet Nam? What else would you expect from the French? Never happen to us."

Some military philosophers favor actually removing from military libraries books on what happened to the French in Viet Nam, the Americans in Viet Nam, the Russians in Afghanistan, the Americans in Afghanistan (a work in progress), the French in Algeria, the Americans in Iraq (also in progress), the Israelis in Lebanon the first time, the Israelis in Lebanon the last time, the Americans in Lebanon 1983, the Americans in Somalia the first time, and so on. However, the best thinkers hold that it doesn't matter what books are in military libraries, as only those on stirring victories will be checked out.

(7) Keep up to date with the latest nostrums and silver bullets. Organize your military as a lean, mean, high-tech force characterized by lightning mobility, enormous firepower, and extraordinary unsuitability for the kind of wars it will actually have to fight. Flacks from the PR department of Lockheed will help in this. Recognize that an advanced fighter plane costing two hundred million dollars, invisible to radar, employing dazzling electronic countermeasures, and able to cruise at supersonic speed, is exactly the thing for fighting a rifleman in a basement in Baghdad. Such aircraft are crucial force multipliers in multi-dimensional warfare. Anyway, Al Quaeda might field an advanced air force at any moment. It pays to be ready.

(8) It is a good idea to bracket your exposure. Be ready for wars past and future, but not present. The Pentagon does this well. Note that the current military, an advanced version of the WWII force, is ready should the Imperial Japanese Navy return. It also has phenomenally advanced weaponry in the pipeline to take on a space-age enemy, perhaps from Mars, should one appear. It is only the present for which the US is not prepared.

(9) View things in a large context. People who have little comprehension of the military tend to focus exclusively on winning wars, missing the greater importance of the Pentagon as an economic flywheel. Jobs are more important than wars fought in bush-world countries. An American military ought to think of Americans first. This is simple patriotism. It is essential to spend as much money as possible on advanced weapons that have no current use, and none in sight, but produce jobs in congressional districts. Good examples are the F-22 fighter, the F-35, the Airborne Laser, the V-22, and the ABM.

(10) Insist that the US military never loses wars. Instead, it is betrayed, stabbed in the back, and brought low by treason. For example, argue furiously that the US didn't lose in Viet Nam, but won gloriously; the withdrawal was due to the treachery of Democrats, Jews, hippies, the press, most of the military, and a majority of the general population, all of whom were traitors. This avoids the unpleasantness of learning anything from defeat. Further, it facilitates a focus on controlling the press, who are the real enemy, along with the Democrats and the general population.

(11) Avoid institutional memory. Not having lost of course means that there is nothing to remember. Instead, read stirring novels and cultivate a cheerful, can-do attitude unintimidated by primitives in sand-lot countries, who are probably genetically stupid.

(12) Do it all again next time.

[ February 02, 2007, 16:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

so basically what he has summerised is what most countries has done and still do when they go to war.

Demonize the enemy, make it look like an easy victory and makes sure, to insure the countries population that what you are doing is right thing...

 

Mr. Reed, in all his overt sarcasm, makes a couple of good points, like this one: 'The public can then feel a sense of unappreciated virtue when the primitives resist.' Darth Cheney only a couple of days ago did just that, when blamed the Iraqis for lack of cooperation in 'liberating them'.

As for "The French lost in Viet Nam? What else would you expect from the French? Never happen to us." I read stuff like that once here on SP. You can find more like it searching the archives or National Review, WSJ's Opinion Journal, Washington Times or the New York Post - or, of course, Free Republic and Little Green Footballs. That is likely where the then enthusiasts for that view took their inspiration from.

Also spot on is this: "In military discourse it also helps to encourage the use of phrases like "force multiplier" and "multi-dimensional warfare," as these increase confidence without meaning anything."
I mean, "multi-dimensional warefare"? Whoa. Like fighting in past, present and future simultaneously? Uh, no ... or like war in the air, on land, on and under water? Stunning! Never heared of such a thing before! And "force multiplier" ... like radio, a computer and e-mail instead of paperwork and telex? Or navigation aids? Awesome! Just awesome!

 

(10) Insist that the US military never loses wars. Instead, it is betrayed, stabbed in the back, and brought low by treason. For example, argue furiously that the US didn't lose in Viet Nam, but won gloriously; the withdrawal was due to the treachery of Democrats, Jews, hippies, the press, most of the military, and a majority of the general population, all of whom were traitors.

You know, that's hauntingly similar to the ideas of the Nazi about losing WWI. I hadn't noticed it so far...

 

Check this link

How again did that famous exchange go? In Hanoi, a week before the fall of Saigon an American colonel and his North Vietnamese Army counterpart, one Colonel Tu, meet. "You know you never beat us on the battlefield," the American tells his North Vietnamese enemy. "That may be so," the Northerner responds, "but it is also irrelevant."

 

It is a good summary of US understanding of war, at least how it looks liike. Especially 1,2,3,5,10 and 11 are very well observed and told.

 

If you are the CEO of a corporation that benefits financially from war, then these are all very good tips! Never-ending wars are good for profits! Of course, you must remember to make it all look like incompetence so folks never catch on to your true agenda.

 

Retreating with your tail between your legs is still losing the war. It doesn't matter that "you could have won" if you run away.

 

Cúchulainn ,
that is why Bush insists on not-leaving. By making America stay the course, (which he, or course, never ever said!), he wants to demonstrate strength, demonstrate that the US are winning -- which is mistaken, because as long as they 'need' to stay for stability they have clearly not won, and by not winning, they lose.

I got to admit that reading Fred's ravings changed my mind about Israel. Fred offers a good dose of common sense, and besides, I like his humour.

 

Changed your mind in what way? I liked the column where he stated the IDF was clearly the worst force for pacifying Muslims in the world, because it's had fifty years and hasn't managed it yet.

 

Changed my mind in the sense that the Israelis, no matter how undesirable their general situation may be, are there, and that as long as they're there they will try their best to deal with a difficult situation. If I were an Israeli I'd probably be paranoid and agressive, too. For good reason.

Which doesn't mean they do it right, much less that they do well even if they do it right, which they rarely enough do, but their atrocities are generally not much worse than those the Palestinians commit. It's only that their vastly superior firepower makes their blundering more clearly visible, in the sense that a thousand kilo bomb in a residential aerea leaves a larger crater than a waistbelt bomb on a bus.
Look what the IAF did to Beirut this summer in a desperacte act of collective punishment. The difference between bombing Lebanon's infrastructure in an attempt to drive the Lebanese to act against Hezbollah is equivalent to blowing up buses in Haifa to make the Israelis turn on their government to withdraw from the occupied terrotories. It's also equivalent in stupidity and futility. The war plan was not only ill conceived, all evidence hints toward Israel's government not having a plan at all, beyond a vague feeling of having to 'retaliate' and 'win'.

And I still think, though Fred will perhaps disagree with me, that the Israelis should know better.

He's also with me on that Israel's future looks bleak.

[ February 01, 2007, 10:05: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Oh, sure. Right there with you.

 

Thats why most generals call them "tatical retreats"

 

What about strategical disengangement?

Or unilateral withdrawal (as a result of the utter lack of cooperation on part of, say, the Iraqis)?

 

Sometimes what would have to be done to win is not worth it and it's time to say, this ain't working, lets go home. This is what was done in Viet Nam and Iraq does look like round 2. As I have stated before in other posts history should be learned from or it will bite your a**. Too bad Bush and almost all of his people somehow missed our last -Iraq- in Asia.

Ragusa, you make some good points but make it hard to get past being pissed while reading. I glad I stuck to it and read some of your stuff twice. Keep to the logical progression and thinking. Thought provoking if you don't get too wound up!

 

Well, it is a thing to get angry about, isn't it? And nice to hear that my posts aren't merely for my own distraction.

When Bush sais he will not invate Iran, he didn't say he won't bomb it - and he didn't lie when he does (I'm not using 'if', to make a point) Maybe mislead a little, but isn't 'mislead' an intolerably vague term? The semantic difference between 'bombing' something and 'invading' is obvious (nevermind that you first got to invade airspace, which is part of a nations sovereign terrotiory as well. Details, schmetails.) What is 'truth' anyway? Let's take the partisanship and bias out of all this. Let's be constructive. Can't we just agree that, for the sake of argument, the administration 'is right'?

I am at a point where I can pretty much predict the smooth, spun and brazen arguments the serving administration will probably make, for whatever given reason.
The result will always be

I find it hard not to be sarcastic in fac of this.

Two weeks ago I told a friend that, if the US look real bad, or someoeone does something very skillful, like the Najaf attack, the US will pin it on Iran, with the following argument: "The Iraqis are incompetent wusses. The sophistication suggests Iranian involvement! The Iraqis alone could have never been that good!" I was served.

Why, I wonder. Because the Iraqis are 'genetically stupid'? I mean, the Iraqi Sunnis had time to reconnoitre, practice, gather intensive field experience against as formidable an enemy as the US, time to develop leaders under combat conditions, and are manned or led by members of Saddam's former from military and intelligence. Their insurgency has inflicted damage on US troops, and has survived US onslaughts for 3 years. They must be more than just capable to absorb a severe beating and regenerate. If they were not much more than practice targets for US firepower, the US wouldn't find itself in all the trouble they're in in places like the 'Sunni Triangle'. They just cannot have always been lucky. Else, they'd have run out of luck long ago. If they're still fighting they must do something right.

Which also suggests that the fools wanting to escalate into Iran underestimate the Iraqis, and if their judgement on Iran is of the same quality, good night. Nevertheless, the Bushies are eager not only to fight three insurgencies (AQ, Sunni, and now Sadr's Shia) simultaneously, they want to add a fourth enemy to their list, Iran, because it's all another cakewalk.

I am watching this danse macabre for so long now and even today there is an inertia in DC that is just incomprehensible. It's like watching a sleepwalker, falling from one cliff, getting up and walking toward the next.

See, Fred again, having never made mistakes in Iran avoids the unpleasantness of learning anything. That is why simply repeating the approach toward Iraq on Iran is seen as such a splendid idea.

 

@Ragusa
I think you missed a bit on this one. I do believe the points you made are correct but you miss out on one line of thinking. Irans help and support for the Iraq Shia as well as anywhere a mess can be created has been verified more than once. I do not think the Suni are idiots or fools, that does not prove Iran is not providing support for the Shea splinter groups. One does not lead to the other. The tactics of the attack are old for insurgents all over the world, look at what the Germans faced in WWII in occupied countries. Uniforms and equiptment "borrowed" for a raid being a supprise just show how uniformed about history the writer of your sticky was and how woefully bad the Sunni are underestimated by our leaders as you pointed out. Unhappily for me I drew the conclusion (as I said in one post, another place) that our buildup, lets call it what it is, is aimed at Iran. Unfortunately Irans support is playing right into Bushs hands for what he needs for people to wonder and just wait to see what happens. It takes a long time for a big country and government to change directions and it seems to me we are in the middle of a change of ideas and actions. You have stated your anger and distrust are aimed at our leaders not at americans, look at our polls and election results. We are disgusted with a lot of decisions too and want something better.

 

I think that whatever happens, right now the US administration and on their orders, the military, will blame it on Iran. The raid could have been conducted by Santa Claus and Rudolph the red-nosed rendeer, and broadcasted life - they would still blame Iran. Basically it's totally beside the point who did the raid. After all, imaginary WMD were as good a reason to invade Iraq as real ones. By simply blaming Iran, they're creating their own reality. As soon as the government claims it, Iran's (alleged) involvement in the raid becomes an issue to be adressed, and becomes a political argument to serve a political purpose. Because the political purpose is imperative, they have no use for facts.
I think the only ones really interested in the who-did-it are in the military. After all they're the ones being shot at, and it could happen to them, too. If their investigation comes to a dissatisfying result, it will be classified by the politicos. If by the time it get's declassified or even leaked the incident has served it's purpose, justifying a given policy against Iran, splendid. Then it has worked.

That said, I have little illusion about what Iran does in Iraq. They are just being sensible. They basically do two things: They want to ensure that a friendly government emerges as their neighbour. If the rhetoric of the US administratiojn is any indication, the US would rather like to see a hostile one. Iran does not want to see anything resembling their war with Iraq again. Malikis sudden blaming of Iran is quite evidently a result of US armtwisting, result of fiscal realities: 'We pay your f*cking salary, so f*cking do as we say or be sacked.'

The second point is also defensive in nature, it's about deterrence: Of course they're supporting the Shia. Iran wants to have friendlies in Iraq just in case it becomes necessary to disrupt the long and exposed US supply lines in retaliation for a US attack. US moves against Iranian assets in Iran are offensive in nature as they attack Iran's deterrent potential. As such they are preparatory. Iran doesn't need to pick a fight with the US in Iraq. Their friends are already taking over quietly and ensure that a friendly government emerges and stays in Baghdad. Iran doesn't need to pick fights because their Shia partners are a majority and cooperate freely, willingly. Many Shiite leaders have lived in exile in Iraq. They have friendships with Iranians, have fought together. Much stonger bonds, especially culturally, than everything the US have to offer.

The Bushies are now trying to eliminiate the cultural and soft power leverage the Iranians have through using military force against them. It's the equivalent of switching from chess to checkers in mid-game, after beating your superior opponent in the face for daring to take your queen -- insisting that he plays on and loses, without resisting, or else.

And while it is technically true that the Iranian meddle, it would not not neccessarly pose a provocation, unless you still believe the US can and must have it their way. It's not about Iraq, but it calls into question the entire ideological basis of Bush's foreign policy.

The Bushies are serious about escalation. IMO they will first pick Sadr, and harass and provoke Iranian diplomats for instance, in hope that the Iranians provide them with a 'Tonking Incident' that gives them their long desired opportunity to, finally, bomb Iran. The goal of regime change remains top goal of Bush's non-policy toward Iran. There evidently has been no realisation that this failed in Iraq, and that trying to repeat it will not work either.

What the Bush men do is to deny having lost, and so they're insisting on 'doubling' their bet in order to fix everything that went wrong. That cannot possibly work. After neo-con Kagan presented his surge plan to Bush, he reportedly reacted with: "That means we can still win?"

The neo-cons currently drumming the hot 'escalation rhytm' also are in deep denial that their policy has failed, and instead try to do it all again, the same way. Rather bomb Iran rather than admitting failure. They will be the future advantgarde of the next 'stab in the back' legend. They're grasping straws, and are willing to kill rather than giving up hold. You meet people like that in Las Vegas I presume.

The key problem with something as maximalist as 'regime change' as the only basis to deal with Iran is that it quite naturally leads to war. It will run there on it's own steam as Bush's sabre rattering will not result in Iran caving in, which will be interpreted in return as evidence for their evil nature. War is more or less inevitable, and I take it as a given that it is totally beside the point what Iran does -- it will not affect Bush's thinking (if there is any). If Iran yields, Bush will see it as a sign of US strength, and refuse while increasing pressure, because if they're so weak as to yield, regime change is just around the corner, the Bushies get what they want without concessions.
That is basically why the Bushies refused Iran's once-in-a-lifetime offer for normalisation. They thought them intimidated, and thought that their policy worked. Still high on RMA, they felt in a position strong enough to allow themselves the luxury to refuse. In their eyes they would get it all for free, later.

[ February 02, 2007, 17:30: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

It's worth pointing out that the US's interventions have been almost uniformly disastrous since 1890ish.

There's a reason the bulk of Latin America is 'leftist' these days, and it's not because they hate freedom. There's a reason folks in the Mid East aren't so fond of us, and it's not because they hate freedom, either.

For that matter, America has a history of disastrous foreign policy in general. The Marshall Plan, the USSR's collapse, and the (temporary; see the antagonistic dance we're slowly sliding into with 'em) thawing of relations with China are exceptions, not typical.

It may well be that Thucydides wasn't totally nuts when he claimed democracy ain't so good for foreign policy. Kennan elaborated on this point rather convincingly.