Thank you!

You’re letting your opinion on strategic issues taint a tactical discussion. Whether we should be in Afghanistan, whether we should have gone into Iraq, the fact is that the military must make the most of the mission that the country’s political leaders have given it. Thus, discussion of the most appropriate tactics is salient whatever objective justification there is for any particular war. This is true for both force-on-force conflicts and for counterinsurgency. Surely you wouldn’t have the U.S. Army stop teaching BRM or battle drills just because it launched an ill-advised invasion of another country?

But I’ll bite. Let’s discuss the strategic level. The types of clear-cut wars you desire don’t exist. Countries must settle for using force to set the conditions for the desired outcome to happen. They can’t use force to make that outcome happen. This inherently means “figure[ing] out what we're doing, how to keep score, [and] when we might be winning.” Even if we were to fight the big one against China, the specter of nuclear weapons would force us to stop short of our desired objective.

This doesn’t change with force-on-force conflict operations against non-nuclear nations. The conflict will end, and the military will have to play a part in establishing a peace that hopefully justifies the reason the country went to war in the first place. Invariably, it involves some COIN-like approach. This happened in World War II, the most stereotypical “conventional war.” It should have happened in Iraq. Should we not prepare for this eventuality?

This view of COIN magic and other metric silliness has the potential to be the most insidious thing to come out of these wars. That Weinberger doctrine mindset is responsible for many of the missteps that led us into this mess in the first place. It also so severely curtails the use of force that it is no longer an effective policy tool.

Sure, we should limit our use of COIN as much as possible, just as we should limit any form of intervention to only the times it is necessary. But dismissing a whole doctrine is just as foolish as the mistakes that led us into these admittedly bungled wars.

Who are the most dangerous people in Afghanistan today? COIN salesmen with laptop computers armed with PowerPoint software!

And if the North Vietnamese prevail in South Vietnam, the dominoes will tumble and all Asia will be locked in the grip of Communism. And if we don't strike Saddam, he will wreak untold horror on us with his weapons of mass destruction. And if we don't cross the Yalu, China will conquer Korea. Etc.

Somehow these plausible premises are less the sure thing than made out beforehand. And the logic offered also requires invasion of Somalia, Yemen, perhaps Indonesia, perhaps ... Germany and England, wherein all these places dwell Al Qaeda cells. Somehow we defeated our most formidable enemy, the Soviet Union, with containment, diplomacy, and the strength of our economic and political system. That did not require occupation or COIN or any of the other versions of ain't-war-but-fight-it-that-way.

You contend the mission is nation-building. Say so. Problem is, there already is a nation there. Has been for centuries. Tribal. Atavistic. Intolerant. Cruel. Stone age.

Oh! Not that nation! No, we want a different nation. Well, that's not nation-building, it's imperialism. Say so.

I wonder if there is a single serious soul who is willing to say that this mess in Afghanistan will turn around and come out just swell in - say - five years. Or ten. Or fifty. It's a mug's game and we should be seeking a graceful, honorable exit .... and rue the failure of the previous Ship of Fools to execute a simple mission well in 2002 and 2003. Talk about snatching disaster from the jaws of victory...

You might want to check Afghanistan History and the problems it and we will have with Pakistan if we do just bail, not to mention the long term problems. I mean, you know that by us abandoning and ignoring Pakistan and Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War is what got us into this mess in the first place right?

And don't forget the old standby, "Our Credibility as a Nation will be damaged" card that hack generals trot out during Congressional Dog and Pony shows. But wait, didn't that already happen when the last Marine chopper departed the capitol of that country in Southeast Asia in 1975?

Ignoring Pakistan and Afghanistan caused a rich guy from Saudi Arabia to attack the Twin Towers? Who'd a thunk it...

And love your time estimate. Just two years left, huh?

And the Taliban? I guess I wouldn't want my sister date one of them, but terrorists they are not. Harbor terrorists? Maybe, if it suits their interests. Biden had a good idea: target the terrorists themselves. Attempting to revamp Afghanistan and Pakistan to tamp down terrorists is a bit like plowing a county to plant a daisy.

Yes, if the only tool you know is a hammer, it all looks like nails. But combat operations nor the sweet lure of COIN are not going to transform the Middle East. Nor need we. Let's protect the United States, not remake the world.

Ducky, first, the Middle East is not Afgahnistan and Pakistan, the Bedouin culture and the Pashtun culture have Islam in common, that is about it. Next, it is not two more years, never said that, an average insurgency lasts 10 years, I take it you just used math and then put words into my mouth to come up with "my" estimation on the 2 years thing? Oye, Ducky, oye...We will be there for at least 10 more years I think and maintain a footprint for years after that I am willing to bet.
As for your view Ducky, yeah, it always looks good for us long term when we commit then jump out because a few people trot out the old "we are tired of war", GP had it right, very few have actual skin in the game, the only people who are tired are the pundits and anti-war folk who would feel that way no matter what anyway.

I certainly applaud Eric III's point that 'Allah's bomb' proliferation from Pakistan is part of our war vs diplomacy calculus. But my reading does not supporting the 'because we ignored it before' meme. "Misunderstood it, before key actions were undertaken' is more like it.

This week Marines are bridging a Helmand river canal network that the US engineered and paid for in the 60's and 70's, at a cost that would be measured in billions today. Prior to embarrassing Ike by not dying, Gary Powers' U2 mission was launched from Pakistan, while we were arming Islamabad agin Delhi. In 'Nixon and Mao', I read that policy wonks considered whether letting Pakistan go nuclear was the easy way to deal with Russian influence in India. (China apparently voted for proliferation, trading bomb designs for Kahn's improved centrifuge.) Prior to 9-11 (1998-2001) the US seemed to be onboard with proliferating Pakistan, in backing Kazak & Tajik pipelines thru a Taliban-stabilized Afghanistan. Condi Rice and Khalilzad were involved commercially in promoting big gas pipeline deals as containment of Iran, putting the Kush squarely on the neocon map.

There is ample evidence of a lot of US cold war and post-Soviet era meddling in the AfPak region, without getting into Casey/CIA/Saudi/ISI direct-action dealings during the Soviet war.

Where is this war's equivalent of a Pentagon Papers review of our involvement? Intel starts at home, by knowing our motivations and past actions.

Got it. 18 years.

The Army is already doing a conflict history of Iraq and Afghanistan, I am assuming they hired RAND to do it since they tend to get those types of contracts and it is a bit ironic that they they wrote the Pentagon Papers too. I do not think you will find much that is not already known though, just more details I am sure.

You know I am an NCO, so I will toss it back at you meatpounder ;)
As for the 10 years, yeah, that is the unfortunate historical truth of insurgencies, most counter-insurgencies win but either way, the average is just shy of 10 years, some decades, N. Ireland for instance.

That's akin to calling a Marine a Soldier! Rank aside, 10 years is nuts! As a nation, we're broke, and going broker by the minute! Mr. and Mrs. America couldn't locate Iraq or Afghanistan on a globe, and have "no skin in the fight."Our war fighters are tired and their equipment is worn out. COIN be damned, it's long past the time to pack our sh*t and come back to CONUS from NATO, ROK, JAP and everywhere else!

I agree with you on the "no sking in the fight" but the money is not that much in the big picture, we give most of our federal dollars to social programs actually. The entire Military Budget is only about 6 cents on the dollar of what you pay in taxes.

I'm on your side, to a point, but the taxpaying public isn't! All they hear and see in the media are horror stories about KBR, and all the other civilian contractors ripping them off. And there's no end in sight! Then they get in their cars and drive on roads and bridges that are literally crumbing under the weight of their vehicles!

You will not get much of a peep out of me on the contractor situation, they are a necessary evil but some of these guys might as well belong to Unions the way they work and go on about what their contracts say they can and cannot do, crazy. You would be shocked at some of the things that we contract for or are on lease, totally mindblowing.
Good point on China too, not a freaking peep that they are getting mining rights while we are doing the shooting. Joke

The CHICOMs followed right behind us in Iraq and got a sweet oil deal from the swell guys in Baghdad. At the same time, they struck a deal with the drug dealers running Afghanistan, to buy the largest known deposit of copper in the world. And to date, I haven't heard a peep from any of our "leaders about it! Does anyone know the whereabouts of "Baghdad Bob?" God I miss that guy!

Over 60% of our Federal Dollars go to Social Programs and Intrest on the debt, estimate for 2020 are that it will rise to 80%, so you are looking in the wrong direction if you are looking at the military for costing us to much and as for the "Graveyard of Empires", dude, save the line for the coffee shop, it has been so much on here it is cliche.

It’s not about how many entries on the expense side of the ledger are for military spending; the problem is that our bottom line is written in bright red ink.

China is our biggest creditor, and we’re insolvent.

Yes, we are but due to our tax and social spending system. Corps get an almost 40% tax laid on them, you couple that with that they get taxed overseas for profits there in the host country they make the money in and then get nailed again if they bring the money back here as well. The expeditionary money is a drop in the bucket in relative terms. Not to say we could not do it smarter but it is not the culprit for our economic problems, our system is.

We’ll just tell China that the liberals are to blame for our insolvency, and that meanwhile China should keep sending us checks to underwrite the campaign against themselves.

The IRC is skewed in favor of corporations. They have the financial resources to hire topnotch lobbyist who bribe members of the Congressional Ways and Means Committee, which writes the tax code. We have the worst government that money can buy! HNWIs=High Net Worth Individuals. OPSEC aside, what line of work are you in?

The whole thing is just mis-managed, not the fault of the left or the right, both pander to the elderly and anyone else they can, many things are third rail (JPREWL, thanks). It does not take a lot of research to find out how much we spend and on what. The money we borrow and the interest we pay is a big kicker on what the feds pay but even if you do cut ALL military spending and put towards other costs then we go from 80% of the budget to dent interest and social programs to 74-75%, umm...still not a good deal.

...would get along famously. Little regard for the facts and a total disregard for reality. Bad arguments and shrill behavior all around.

What is shrill about what I just said or any of my facts Hunter?

That was in ref to GP's Bagdhad Bob comment, not yours.

The queing of these messge threads leaves something to be desired. that and the inability to edit our comments makes me long for the old system on this board.

Hunter, right now over 60% of our Fed Budget goes to Social Security, Safety Net Programs, Medicaid/Care, CHP and Interest on our debt. The 80% is an estimate of where we will be at 2020 if it does not change. How am I wrong on that or do you want to go after another posts, or any past posts? Inform me, I am lost. As for shrill, how? You guys are ultra sensitive if that is what you think. Someone says let's blame the liberals, I merely laugh and say that is not what I meant and that is shrill? No harm was meant, no CAPs were used, no !!???, no swears, just a giggle. Wow, if that is shrill I will try to walk on egg shells then. ;) (Yes, that was being a wise ass with the ;) )

Ok, I am going to try to pry my foot out of my mouth with an crowbar, may take a while. So sorry Hunter! Thought you were talking to me, I am just gonna go shower and get the slime off of me now lol Sorry dude.

Hint: You can write your drivel in Microsoft Word, then click on Tools and do a spelling and grammar check! Then cut and paste it under Comment. FF.

Quick Watson, bring the needle. Yes, China does hold a large amount of U.S. paper - too much. But the majority of America's debt is held by other investers, both private, institutional, banks, energy companies, states' pension funds, etc. - the list goes on.

However, your point isn't lost. This is the first time in U.S. history that we can't pay for a war and are fighting it on a credit card. And though going-off the subject, many senior officers in the military do not know what it is like to scrimp and budget - I'm happy for them, but they may be in for a rude awakening in a few years at the cost of refitting and resetting the military as a result of our longer than anticipated wars.

That said, of interest might be the fact that the Pentagon's biggest expenditure is personnel costs which also includes the retiree community, which exceeds anything else.

For someone who claims to have been a Marine enlistedman and an Army officer you lack the decorum of either of those services.

Your posts are routinely senseless diatribes that add little to the conversation. You complain loudly about the war and the various services and offer no worthwhile recommendations. Your military experience is obviously so dated as to be irrelevant.

Honestly you remind of the crotchety old man who yells "get off of my lawn." I usually don't like to get into pissing contests on online forums - or lower myself to your level - but since you feel the compulsion to insult me repeatedly when you know nothing about me...so be it.

Those of us still serving in the military have a vested interest in its success. Come up with viable solutions to the problems, beyond desktop whining and sniping, or kindly shut up.

That retiree money comes out of the DoD budget? I always thougt it was under the Fed Employees Retiree Budget. Did not know that. How much of a percent is it, do you know by chance?

“China passed Japan to become the U.S. government's largest foreign creditor … China, in fact, may be the government's largest creditor, period … Analysts say a decision by China to move out of U.S. government bonds, for economic or political reasons, could lead a herd of other investors to follow suit. That would drive up the cost of U.S. borrowing.” (WaPo 11/19/08)

The US has always been loath to admit that our military interventions have been about oil & gas. (That’s why they still won’t tell us about the energy task force that VP Cheney convened in his second week in office.)

We prefer to talk about counter terrorism, counter insurgency, nation building, democracy spreading, and improving the status of women. These are important objectives, and I know that many Americans sincerely believe in our altruistic intentions, but I respectfully suggest that those beliefs are naïve, and that our AfPak policy is driven by the pecuniary interests of the security establishment and a handful of privately-held energy companies.

China on the other hand makes no secret that Central Asia looms large in its energy plans. (That’s why they built Gwadar.)

So my point is that while our highly-paid economic wizards, both Dem and Repub, have transformed the basis of our economy from production to borrowing, our soldiers are being deceived about the nature of their mission -- a mission whose success would require support and subsidization by the enemy against whom it is directed.

I recently saw them advertised on TV and they're supposed to provide longer lasting relief. As to your whining, how disbanding the JCS and VOLAR, initiating mandatory military service and cutting all military pensions by fifty percent! And while we’re at it, sell the Pentagon to Trump! Fact is, for whatever reason, U.S. military hasn't won a war/combat action/police action/ operation or goat-f**k since August 1945--that's 65 years for those of you keeping score at home!

You've proven my point perfectly. More trolling.

ERIC - I don't know the breakdown of what the retiree community adds, but remember, to attract and retain a solid all-volunteer force, certain incentives have to be offered and it is incumbet upon the Pentagon to carry retirees also.

In perspective, the personnel account of the DoD budget represents about 25% per cent of the total budget, which includes active duty, dependents, the retiree community and their dependents, etc.). If viewd on a pie graph it would represent the largest segment piece, i. e. bigger than procurement, war fighting, R & D, etc.

What is troubling is as Sun Tzu stated, "there is no historic evidence of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare. Wars can be necessary; all are by choice, but with extenuating circumstances. However, all money spent thus far in prosecuting Iraq and Afganistan will be money never having been spent to correct Social Security, Medicare, national infrastructure development, and education.

We need to understand the limitations of COIN. It can be an attractive afrodisiac
for solving unsolveable problems. However, the reality is we are were we are, and let's try to get it right. But in the end, we must be willing to recognize if we can't and not prolong it any longer than necessary - we are heaping debt on the next several generations to come.

You have some good points on China, but Japan just became our number one creditor again and I do think that they (China) are a danger.
I have to disagree with you about the motives, Afgahnistan/Pakistan is not about natural resources. They do not have enough of what we would need nor is it easy to get at. This is about stable areas in the region that we help forget about after the cold war and need to re-establish not just to keep terroists incidents from happening again but to make sure a Nuclear Pakistan is stable, that Afghanistan is stable and that it also does not bleed over into any other countries and to keep certain nations happy as I think we are looking to hedge in China via India, Pakistan and having Air Bases in the area that could hit both China and Iran.

...an amazing grasp of the obvious.

Any time you measure something and hope to glean information to make recommendations or decisions from that data you must account for the validity and reliability of the data.

Validity is simply described as are you really measuring what you think you are measuring, or are you measuring the right thing? Reliability is simply described as is the data you measured accurate and reliable enough to glean anything from it.

As a statistical exercise reliability is pretty easy to determine. But validity is where most everyone messes things up....because figures lie and liars figure, or (if you prefer) lies, damned lies and statistics.

Even the most dilligent and discriminate person who attempts to do the absolute right thing can mess up the validity problem. Because correlation of the data doesn't mean causation. You may think that measuring CERP data is worthwhile in determining your good works in Afghanistan - and you might be right - but it doesn't necessarily imply a causal relationship between spending money on a e.g. new well for a village and actually having them come over to your side of the insurgency. Indeed they may thank you for the well and then provide all the water to your opponents.

In the end the classic COIN strategy is to secure the population and make them more comfortable with the counter-insurgent way of life than the insurgent way of life. Kilcullen has a great laundry list of measurables that are likely better than the ones most of the units are using. But it still isn't a panacea for the problem.

I share many of the concerns about too much data, too many dumb slides, too much feeding of the information beast. If the analysis results in paralysis or the data doesn't assist in the development of a new course of action or feed the commander's intent then it isn't paying dividends and it needs to be re-evaluated or discarded. Often times the staffs are measuring things for the sake of measuring them - with no established relationship between the data, the stats, and the desired endstate.

It's all ball bearings. It goes back to validity. If you are into masochism more on that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)