Mattis loosens RoE in Afghanistan

[Mihalik]

This is really exciting!

This is not exciting. None of this is exciting. War is never exciting. And if anything this likely just going to prolong the conflict, thus cause more death's on both sides.

[ringpriest]

It's "better" until its your family.

And we will never 'kill all the terrorists'. We're actually on our third or fourth "generation" of them. Or do you think the people we're fighting now are the same ones the US has been warring against since 9/11. They're not. These people were six to fifteen years old back then.

Fighting Islamic radicalism with conventional military forces is an ineffective, self defeating and utterly pointless waste of time, lives, resources and money. Terrorism is the job of security services, the police, intelligence agencies, and occasionally special operations. The armed forces must be designed for their core mission, which is far more important: deterring nation state aggressors, namely Russia and China.

Every soldier, aircraft and dollar spent on Afghanistan is one not spent on Asia-Pacific or Europe, where things that actually matter happen.

This is so, so very true. I've disagreed with Skroe a lot on geopolitics (and on what the US should do with it's military and how it should do it), but on terrorism (especially Islamic terrorism) and how it should be dealt with he is hitting the nail on the head here.

And it's worse than merely waste or misallocation of (always scarce, even for superpowers) military resources, it's that "counter-insurgency" or "security" operations can inculcate sloppiness and bad habits - while having a military with a high-proportion of soldiers who have "seen the elephant" and know how to work with real combat operations going on is of real value, having a military that has become habituated to completely outclassing it's opposition on nearly all axes (save perhaps knowledge of the terrain, morale, and maybe practical small-unit tactics) is a terrible thing to do if you are likely to be fighting a near-peer competitor; and when that starts driving procurement and doctrine, then the military in question has dug itself into a real hole.

[Skroe]

This is so, so very true. I've disagreed with Skroe a lot on geopolitics (and on what the US should do with it's military and how it should do it), but on terrorism (especially Islamic terrorism) and how it should be dealt with he is hitting the nail on the head here.

And it's worse than merely waste or misallocation of (always scarce, even for superpowers) military resources, it's that "counter-insurgency" or "security" operations can inculcate sloppiness and bad habits - while having a military with a high-proportion of soldiers who have "seen the elephant" and know how to work with real combat operations going on is of real value, having a military that has become habituated to completely outclassing it's opposition on nearly all axes (save perhaps knowledge of the terrain, morale, and maybe practical small-unit tactics) is a terrible thing to do if you are likely to be fighting a near-peer competitor; and when that starts driving procurement and doctrine, then the military in question has dug itself into a real hole.

Yep. Exactly. This was in fact, Mattis' #1 goal to rectify. By virtue of his congressional testimony during his hearings.

The Secretary of Defense doesn't run the war effort (you know this ringpriest, for the benefit of thers). He is the guy who makes sure that the trains run on time and are fueled so the combatant commanders can. And his top concern was that the emphasis on Counter insurgency and counter terrorism sharply eroded the US Military's principal requirement, which is to be a largely conventional deterrent against military aggression.

What he is doing is ENTIRELY in line with rectifying that. A refocus on heavy armor maneuver warfare for the Army, Amphibious operations for the Marines, and Blue Water operations for the Navy. For the Air Force, getting pilots back to their historical flight hours. And Pentagon wide, going on a munitions spending spree, realizing that having 300 anti-ship missiles world wide probably isn't enough to take down both Russia and China simultaneously.

A deeper footprint in Afghanistan flies entirely in the face of this effort. It just wears down equipment and people.

I'm often called a "warmonger" here by people who speed read my posts. That's ironic because I've been saying for the past four years that the US is entirely unsuited to fight a major military conflict until the mid-to-late 2020s, barring any kind of fiscal disaster, which would delay it further. That is the long cost of the Iraq War princpally (and to a lesser extend Afghanistan). The US entered the 2000s with a 25 year lead on China and Russia. Thanks to investing in bad programs and the wrong type of programs, and paying for the wars, the US lead today stands at around 12 years. Maybe less. In some places, like Short Range Air Defense, tactical use of drones and maybe Cyber, we're behind. If the US got in a fight with North Korea or Iran - something Trumpkins would be sure to cheer - you can cut our lead against Russia or China down to maybe 5 years, probably less.

This "warmonger" wants the US to sit home and train, and replace old shit with new shit, until 2030, so that we can enter the second third of this century with our conventional deterrence back to where it was before Osama bin Laden took down the Twin Towers, and we made nearly every decision wrongly thereafter.

[Mormolyce]

Maybe less. In some places, like Short Range Air Defense, tactical use of drones and maybe Cyber, we're behind.

I think we can safely say you're behind in cyber.

I mean Russia was using age-old techniques, but they worked.

Let loose the dogs of war!!!!

You realise this war is 16 years old right?

And somehow you're still fighting the Taliban.

[Skroe]

I think we can safely say you're behind in cyber.

I mean Russia was using age-old techniques, but they worked.

Probably cyber in application, not cyber in theory.

I think it's a policy difference rather than a technical shortfall. The NSA is regarded to have by far the most cutting cyber program in the world. But Obama particularly, and America generally has been navel gazing about the use of Cyber warfare tools for years.

Vladmir Putin just ordered his cyber forces to go and do things.


I understand Obama's viewpoint. He wanted to establish "rules of the road" and "norms" akin to how the "norms" of nuclear weapons were developed in the 1950s (for example, there is no treaty that says only a Head of State/Government can order their use: that emerged out of events an international consensus over what the norm should be). But he was too slow to react and didn't appreciate that Vladmir Putin had little use for such norms to take root when he had so much more to gain than lose.

I'd say this extends to how the US procrastinated for five years about what to do in the South China Sea, or giving deadly weapons to Ukraine, or militarizing space. There is such thing as doing due diligence. Then there is doing nothing because we're petrified as to the consequences. The US has become very, very good at the latter.

I mean, Vlamdir Putin runs for re-election in March right? The NSA should shut down every bit of the Russian power grid it can just to make a point and humiliate Putin. It's believed it can do just that. It needs to be told to do so.

But this is the part where some slick talking John Kerry figure comes in and says "we need Russia's help on Iran/North Korea/Syria or some nonsense (as if the Russians actually want to help."

We're only behind in Cyber because America is too hesitant at throwing punches.

You realise this war is 16 years old right?

And somehow you're still fighting the Taliban.

The core mistake the US made in Afghanistan remains we didn't differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Fighting Al Qaeda made sense. Trying to uproot the Taliban? Madness.

[Deleted]

I think we can safely say you're behind in cyber.

I mean Russia was using age-old techniques, but they worked.

I disagree Russia knew it was behind (after the colour revolutions) and has only ever been able to copy the US because its still behind.

[Mormolyce]

Probably cyber in application, not cyber in theory.

I think it's a policy difference rather than a technical shortfall. The NSA is regarded to have by far the most cutting cyber program in the world. But Obama particularly, and America generally has been navel gazing about the use of Cyber warfare tools for years.

Vladmir Putin just ordered his cyber forces to go and do things.


I understand Obama's viewpoint. He wanted to establish "rules of the road" and "norms" akin to how the "norms" of nuclear weapons were developed in the 1950s (for example, there is no treaty that says only a Head of State/Government can order their use: that emerged out of events an international consensus over what the norm should be). But he was too slow to react and didn't appreciate that Vladmir Putin had little use for such norms to take root when he had so much more to gain than lose.

I'd say this extends to how the US procrastinated for five years about what to do in the South China Sea, or giving deadly weapons to Ukraine, or militarizing space. There is such thing as doing due diligence. Then there is doing nothing because we're petrified as to the consequences. The US has become very, very good at the latter.

I mean, Vlamdir Putin runs for re-election in March right? The NSA should shut down every bit of the Russian power grid it can just to make a point and humiliate Putin. It's believed it can do just that. It needs to be told to do so.

But this is the part where some slick talking John Kerry figure comes in and says "we need Russia's help on Iran/North Korea/Syria or some nonsense (as if the Russians actually want to help."

We're only behind in Cyber because America is too hesitant at throwing punches.

It's true that the US doesn't get to show off what it can do in that particular arena. Do you really want the US using troll farms to attempt to manipulate public discourse through state run propaganda?

But I think "cyber" includes countering cyber attacks, and that's pretty definitely behind.

[Skroe]

It's true that the US doesn't get to show off what it can do in that particular arena. Do you really want the US using troll farms to attempt to manipulate public discourse through state run propaganda?

Nah I was actually thinking more along the lines of causing rolling blackouts in Russia and making it difficult for every day Russians to use a cell phone. That kind of thing. Actual cyber attacks, not a broader information warfare campaign. Though that is something else the US has to do, like it did against the USSR.

But I think "cyber" includes countering cyber attacks, and that's pretty definitely behind.

It's unclear the degree to which it is a matter of it being allowed and it being possible.

It's a matter of public record now, thanks to the Times and Post reporting, that Obama was slow to realize and slow and timid to respond to Russia's attacks. I think the problem is political. It's a political consequence aversion.

I think there is a direct connection between the fact that Congress somehow can't write a new AUMF against ISIS (instead, barely legally, utilizing the post-9/11 AUMF), and America's timidity with Cyberwarfare. Our elected officials are petrified in the face of potential consequences of the decisions they made. Part of that is practical - these are complicated issues. Part of that is the legacy of nearly everyone who voted for the Iraq War paying for it with their careers.

For example, as I said before, I think if the US started bombing North Korea tomorrow, I don't think there would be an AUMF. Oh it would be funded in full via an appropriations bill. But it would rely, barely legitimately, on the Korean War authorization from the 1950s.

American action internationally, space and in cyberspace is going to be greatly constrained I think, until this political problem is resolved and politicians learn to make decisive decisions again, rather than live in fear of an opposition campaign.

[Deleted]

Do you really want the US using troll farms to attempt to manipulate public discourse through state run propaganda?

They already do that though...

[JohnBrown1917]

Well the previous wars did not kill all terrorists.

Collateral damage is SAD!
Still, better to kill 1 innocent to kill 100 terrorists, than let 1 terrorist live that would kill 100 humans.

Which creates more terrorists, good job.

- - - Updated - - -

I would advise anyone in the vicinity of terrorists to run like hell. The bald eagle is pissed, and the claws are out.

And people wonder why the US is so hated.

[Skroe]

And people wonder why the US is so hated.

I mean the US should consider world opinion, but not be slave to it.

That being said, realitytrembles rhetoric there is so dated as to be beyond cliche. That's just cheap immediate post-9/11 shit talk. Most everybody alive during that spell who engaged in such ridiculous talk is just deeply embarrassed about it at this point.






Everything from those days is just completely stupid.

[Auxora]

The current Vietnam War series by Ken Burns on PBS is enlightening too in the parallels with Afghanistan. I thought I knew the Vietnam War pretty well and there was a lot I learned from it, highly recommended. Especially things like how the Vietnamese viewed all foreigners as invaders (including the US) after the French, attacking from a neighboring country and sneaking back, the US getting a base hit and then knee-jerk reaction is send more troops, bombing not really being effective, etc.

[Mormolyce]

They already do that though...

If so they're doing a terrible job.

[Realitytrembles]

I mean the US should consider world opinion, but not be slave to it.

That being said, realitytrembles rhetoric there is so dated as to be beyond cliche. That's just cheap immediate post-9/11 shit talk. Most everybody alive during that spell who engaged in such ridiculous talk is just deeply embarrassed about it at this point.
.

For me it's neither rhetoric or cliche. It's my true feelings. Economically, I'm a democratic socialist. On social issues, I'm as liberal as all hell.

But on national security, American power, and so forth, I'm as hard right as they come. In my ideal world, other countries would have three choices:

Help, stay out of the way, or burn.

Which creates more terrorists, good job.

- - - Updated - - -



And people wonder why the US is so hated.

I know why we are: a mixture of jealousy and impotent rage on the part of the haters.

To that I say: /yawn.

[sarahtasher]

Yes, the good old ''let's kill everything that move'' worked so well in Vietnam. Especially with people loathing the ''natives''.

I mean, for frack sake, it's not very complicated. People dislike massively being invaded and bombed by foreigners. Between brutal insurgents and brutal invaders, they tend to chose the insurgents

[Deleted]

If so they're doing a terrible job.

Dunno they seem to have a big role in Hollywood, Eglin Air Force Base, FL came up as one the most addicted cities to reddit, and Trump won with the same sort of destabilised perception tactics seen elsewhere. US is pretty good at it.

[JohnBrown1917]

I know why we are: a mixture of jealousy and impotent rage on the part of the haters.

To that I say: /yawn.

Ye, people getting angry over you guys killing innocent families.. very strange! SAD!



You're also the only person in the whole world claiming to be a Dem Soc who supports the military industrial complex, you gotta take a better look at yourself and find the ideology that fits you better.

[Skroe]

For me it's neither rhetoric or cliche. It's my true feelings. Economically, I'm a democratic socialist. On social issues, I'm as liberal as all hell.

But on national security, American power, and so forth, I'm as hard right as they come. In my ideal world, other countries would have three choices:

Help, stay out of the way, or burn.
.

Yeah the US actually tried that. It doesn't work. The world isn't so simple as for stupid tough guy talk like that to get actual results.

Also power is a finite thing. It is an expendable resource that must be diligently cultivated and only ever judiciously expended. The US used its power with reckless abandon thanks to 9/11, and then the Iraq War. The only reason we are not weaker than we are today is because the financial crisis and various reasons have caused most of our competitors, especially the European Union and Russia, to either fall far short of their intended levels of power, or outright decline. America is more powerful today compared to the rest of the world than it was, but that has little to do with anything we did. We got lucky.

The exception is China, also known as the true Winner of America's Global War on Terror. There power relative to us has rapidly gained. And it continues to gain pace. While we waste our time convincing ourselves that terrorists in caves are existential threats, China has, you know, diligently cultivated its power. It's not very good at wielding it yet. It's made some major missteps. But it gets better at it ever year.

Your "help us, stay out of the way, or burn" rhetoric? You know what happens when you throw power words like that around? It pisses off potential partners who deserve to be treated with respect. And what will happen, as has happened, is they will look for alternative partners, who do treat them with respect. And it will be us who "burns", in a manner of speaking.

America is spoiled rotten with excellent leaders who left behind timeless lessons and wisdom. But we're stupid in that we find creative, bullshit excuses why this time it's different. Teddy Roosevelt had this figured this out over a century ago. Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick. Do you know why he said that? Because the United States was by far the world's largest economy at that point in time and a leading industrial power, but its geographic and political isolation rendered it kind of a weird hermit country compared to the center of the World, which was Europe at the time. Roosevelt knew that for the United States to cultivate power and influence and gain that long sought after "seat at the table", it needed to convince the rest of the world it was a reliable partner that can be trusted and pragmatic. And the results came quick. Consider the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Somehow the United States, 20 years prior this hermit country, was allocated ship tonnage limits equal to the mighty British Empire at its peak, far beyond the Japanese Empire, France or Italy (almost over double in fact that of Japan).

But no. Modern Americans and what passes for 'power'. We have to act like we are cutting a WWE promo. The only thing missing from your power line there is "The Rock Says..."

No what America has to do is shut up, assume a low profile for 10 years and work the backroom. We have a shitstorm the likes of which the world hasn't seen in 80 years coming down the pipe from China in and around 2030. We have barely begun to get ready for that. We need to. By repairing critical relationships and slowly building trust again, so when the time comes, we surround China, rather than America, having alienated everybody, finds itself surrounded (in a manner of speaking).

[Flarelaine]

In some places, like Short Range Air Defense, tactical use of drones and maybe Cyber, we're behind.

Which probably ties into your other recurring rant on there being too many MBAs and not enough IT guys. I don't think the Russians have cyber know-how that Uncle Sam does not, but I suspect military/government employment is more competitive there as in America.

[Realitytrembles]

No what America has to do is shut up, assume a low profile for 10 years and work the backroom. We have a shitstorm the likes of which the world hasn't seen in 80 years coming down the pipe from China in and around 2030. We have barely begun to get ready for that. We need to. By repairing critical relationships and slowly building trust again, so when the time comes, we surround China, rather than America, having alienated everybody, finds itself surrounded (in a manner of speaking).

Alternatively (as regards China) we can do the obvious thing, which is both smart and savage.

Nuclear first strike while their arsenal is still small. As you've pointed out, their 200+ missiles are inherently vulnerable to first strike and what few survived would be easily intercepted.

OTOH, their military would cease to exist (because we'd be hitting conventional targets too). And of course you'd want to do it during one of their Party Congresses so you can decapitate their leadership in one shot.

So: no wmd deterrent left, no conventional military to speak of, and all the CCP leadership so much radioactive ash. Result? Qin Shi Huang Di's achievement of a unified China comes to a permanent end. And the world is reminded that when you truly, existentially threaten the US, you are erased.

Barbaric? You're gddmn right.

"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph." --- Robert E Howard