Have We Lost the Will to Win Wars?

[Tigermike 3,039]

POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR

By RALPH PETERS

October 18, 2006 -- HAVE we lost the will to win wars? Not just in Iraq, but anywhere? Do we really believe that being nice is more important than victory?

It's hard enough to bear the timidity of our civilian leaders - anxious to start wars but without the guts to finish them - but now military leaders have fallen prey to political correctness. Unwilling to accept that war is, by its nature, a savage act and that defeat is immoral, influential officers are arguing for a kinder, gentler approach to our enemies.

They're going to lead us into failure, sacrificing our soldiers and Marines for nothing: Political correctness kills.

Obsessed with low-level "tactical" morality - war's inevitable mistakes - the officers in question have lost sight of the strategic morality of winning. Our Army and Marine Corps are about to suffer the imposition of a new counterinsurgency doctrine designed for fairy-tale conflicts and utterly inappropriate for the religion-fueled, ethnicity-driven hyper-violence of our time.

We're back to struggling to win hearts and minds that can't be won.

The good news is that the Army and Marine Corps worked together on the new counterinsurgency doctrine laid out in Field Manual 3-24 (the Army version). The bad news is that the doctrine writers and their superiors came up with fatally wrong prescriptions for combating today's insurgencies.

Astonishingly, the doctrine ignores faith-inspired terrorism and skirts ethnic issues in favor of analyzing yesteryear's political insurgencies. It would be a terri- fic manual if we returned to Vietnam circa 1963, but its recommendations are profoundly misguided when it comes to fighting terrorists intoxicated with religious visions and the smell of blood.

Why did the officers in question avoid the decisive question of religion? Because the answers would have been ugly.

Wars of faith and tribe are immeasurably crueler and tougher to resolve than ideological revolts. A Maoist in Malaya could be converted. But Islamist terrorists who regard death as a promotion are not going to reject their faith any more than an ethnic warrior can - or would wish to - change his blood identity.

So the doctrine writers ignored today's reality.

Al Qaeda and other terror organizations have stated explicitly and repeatedly that they're waging a global jihad to re-establish the caliphate. Yet the new manual ignores religious belief as a motivation.

The politically correct atmosphere in Washington deems any discussion of religion as a strategic factor indelicate: Let our troops die, just don't hurt anyone's feelings.

So the doctrine writers faked it, treating all insurgencies as political. As a result, they prescribed an excellent head-cold treatment - for a cancer patient. The text is a mush of pop-zen mantras such as "Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction," "The best weapons do not shoot," or "The more force used, the less effective it is."

That's just nutty. Should we have done nothing in the wake of 9/11? Would everything have been OK if we'd just been nicer? What non-lethal "best weapons" might have snagged Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, where the problem was too little military force, not too much violence?

Should we have sent fewer troops to Iraq, where inadequate numbers crippled everything we attempted? Will polite chats with tribal chiefs stop the sectarian violence drenching Iraq in blood?

On the surface, the doctrine appears sober and serious. But it's morally frivolous and intellectually inert, a pathetic rehashing of yesteryear's discredited "wisdom" on counterinsurgencies and, worst of all, driven by a stalker-quality infatuation with T.E. Lawrence, "Lawrence of Arabia," who not only was a huckster of the first order, but whose "revolt in the desert" was a near-meaningless sideshow of a sideshow.

Lawrence is quoted repeatedly, with reverence. We might as well cite the British generals of the Great War who sent men over the top in waves to face German machine guns.

You can trust two kinds of officers: Those who read a great deal and those who don't read at all. But beware the officer who reads just a little and falls in love with one book. A little education really is a dangerous thing.

The new manual is thick - length is supposed to substitute for insight. It should be 75 percent shorter and 100 percent more honest. If issued to our troops in its present form, it will lead to expensive failures. Various generals have already tried its prescriptions in Iraq - with discouraging results, to put it mildly.

We've reached a fateful point when senior officers seek to evade war's brute reality. Our leaders, in and out of uniform, must regain their moral courage. We can't fight wars of any kind if the entire chain of command runs for cover every time an ambitious journalist cries, "War crime!" And sorry: Soccer balls are no substitute for bullets when you face fanatics willing to kill every child on the playing field.

In war, you don't get points for good manners. It's about winning. Victory forgives.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine recommends forbearance, patience, understanding, non-violent solutions and even outright passivity. Unfortunately, our enemies won't sign up for a replay of the Summer of Love in San Francisco. We can't treat hardcore terrorists like Halloween pranksters on mid-term break from prep school.

Where is the spirit of FDR and George C. Marshall, who recognized that the one unbearable possibility was for the free world to lose?

We discount the value of ferocity - as a practical tool and as a deterrent. But war's immutable law - proven yet again in Iraq - is that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine is dishonest and cowardly.

We don't face half-hearted Marxists tired of living in the jungle, but religious zealots who behead prisoners to please their god and who torture captives by probing their skulls with electric drills. We're confronted by hatreds born of blood and belief and madmen whose appetite for blood is insatiable.

And we're afraid to fight.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer.

link

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Quite frankly, yes we have. Too concerned with painting orphanages than killing the enemy. Some of our leadership think the battle needs to be fought in a courtroom. Others are more than willing to sell out our brave soldiers in order to advance their selfish political agendas.

Can't win a fight when you tie your hands behind your back.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Who gives a ####? I know I don't give a ####.

It's not about winning anymore, not since WWII, it's about feeding the military industrial complex. They put in just enough troops to cause havoc and leave the country in worse shape than before they arrived (i.e. - Vietnam). I say "they" because it doesn't really apply to me anymore, as I have discovered what they are doing and desire no association (known since 1984). That's one of the reasons I ETS'd.

EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Command operation, troop advisors, overflight aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

HONDURAS 1983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

http://www.kominf.pp.fi/4extra.html

[Tigermike 3,039]

Who gives a ####? I know I don't give a ####.

It's not about winning anymore, not since WWII, it's about feeding the military industrial complex. They put in just enough troops to cause havoc and leave the country in worse shape than before they arrived (i.e. - Vietnam). I say "they" because it doesn't really apply to me anymore, as I have discovered what they are doing and desire no association (known since 1984). That's one of the reasons I ETS'd.

EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Command operation, troop advisors, overflight aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

HONDURAS 1983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

http://www.kominf.pp.fi/4extra.html

This is the second thread you have went on a rant about not giving a crap about. Here is a good rule to follow. If you don't give a crap, DON'T POST! If you have nothing to add to the thread, DON'T POST! That's not hard. Or it shouldn't be hard, even for you.

[Captain Liger 0]

Who gives a ####? I know I don't give a ####.

It's not about winning anymore, not since WWII, it's about feeding the military industrial complex. They put in just enough troops to cause havoc and leave the country in worse shape than before they arrived (i.e. - Vietnam). I say "they" because it doesn't really apply to me anymore, as I have discovered what they are doing and desire no association (known since 1984). That's one of the reasons I ETS'd.

EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Command operation, troop advisors, overflight aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

HONDURAS 1983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

http://www.kominf.pp.fi/4extra.html

This is the second thread you have went on a rant about not giving a crap about. Here is a good rule to follow. If you don't give a crap, DON'T POST! If you have nothing to add to the thread, DON'T POST! That's not hard. Or it shouldn't be hard, even for you.

TM, I think BF, in fact, does give a "####." Otherwise, he wouldn't ####'n waste his ####'n time to post the sort of #### that he does. If he truly didn't give a #### he wouldn't post anything. Maybe he doesn't have a choice BUT to give a #### since he's finding it hard to go #### himself.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Who gives a ####? I know I don't give a ####.

It's not about winning anymore, not since WWII, it's about feeding the military industrial complex. They put in just enough troops to cause havoc and leave the country in worse shape than before they arrived (i.e. - Vietnam). I say "they" because it doesn't really apply to me anymore, as I have discovered what they are doing and desire no association (known since 1984). That's one of the reasons I ETS'd.

EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Command operation, troop advisors, overflight aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

HONDURAS 1983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

http://www.kominf.pp.fi/4extra.html

This is the second thread you have went on a rant about not giving a crap about. Here is a good rule to follow. If you don't give a crap, DON'T POST! If you have nothing to add to the thread, DON'T POST! That's not hard. Or it shouldn't be hard, even for you.

TM, I think BF, in fact, does give a "####." Otherwise, he wouldn't ####'n waste his ####'n time to post the sort of #### that he does. If he truly didn't give a #### he wouldn't post anything. Maybe he doesn't have a choice BUT to give a #### since he's finding it hard to go #### himself.

You know your right.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Short answer. Yes. We kept hearing how we'd not make the same mistakes as were made in Vietnam. So instead, we made all new ones. Now lawyers , not generals, determine our course of actions on the battle field and how we treat our prisoners.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Don't forget the journalists. Our upper level shot callers over there are so afraid of these pencil necked opinion shifters that they are not willing to take any chances whatsoever to subdue the enemy.

[CCTAU 3,328]

It's time we stand up and be proud to be called war-mongerers. Because the word is now used for anyone who wants to protect themselves. Unless you are muslix. Then you are a victim of the war-mongerers.

[AUman43 5]

I sincerely believe that the statement about us not having the will to fight and win a war is quite possibly true! .....I don't know if the real reason is a tendency to feel that we are safe here and there's no need to send our troops out of the country; or perhaps the wars are being mismanaged, to some degree because of the bias of the media and press; or the blood paid is not worth it......whatever the reason. But I do believe this! I believe this nation is in serious trouble when pitted against organizations as brutal and ruthless as Al Quaida and the Taliban. As predominately Christians, we are taught that if you don't accept Christ you will go to Hell.......As Militant Muslims, they are taught to Kill all who are non-Muslims. There is a clear and disturbing message in this approach and it definately places the one who hesitates in a first strike at a distinct disadvantage.....Historically, that has been US because of our "humane nature." They (Militant Muslims) don't know the meaning of humane or mercy to non believers. As a nation and as a race of people, this is one war we CANNOT afford to lose!

[Tigermike 3,039]

Five years ago on this forum I said the democrats agenda was to destroy the will of the American people to fight the WOT. So far the dems have done nothing to make me think I was wrong in that assessment.

[AUman43 5]

It's simply that politics are more important to most of them now than national security. If it were the democrats leading the country in this war, the republicans would be trashing them. Neither party has a monoply on "trashing".