RANGER AGAINST WAR: Why Must We? <

Friday, June 29, 2007

Why Must We?

Horrible Reality (2004), Zeljko Prebeg


Croatian artist Prebeg described his painting as follows: "After long time of the TV watching you can make only such a painting..." So just you watch out, couch potatoes.

When I read the title, "We Can Win This Kind of War, and We Must," I thought my respected McClatchy News service had betrayed me. I disagree with almost all of it. Then I realized this was a guest posting from a West Point grad, and all was forgiven.

In the piece, U.S. Army Capt. Brandon Anderson says past wars were simple.

"Counterinsurgency warfare is difficult, complex and often frustrating, especially in contrast to the seeming simplicity of past wars. We must avoid two extremes in order to understand and win the kind of wars our country is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq."

They were not simple, but rather, understandable as containing a sort of logic in a world where logic had broken down. In effect, wars served a larger corrective social purpose.

This is not so in COIN operations. Take Afghanistan, which the U.S. INVADED and now occupies with NATO compliance.

It is a kindness to call this a counterinsurgency, since there was not an insurgency when Afghanistan was subjected to the kind attention of the U.S. military invasion. It is more correct to call the insurgency a resistance movement formed to oust a foreign invader, similar to the reactions to the Japanese in China and the Germans in France during WW II.

Afghanistan is, without a doubt, a failed state, but foreign invasion has not undone this Gordian Knot, nor will it ever. The U.S. cannot dissipate its combat power and energy addressing such issues.

More appropriately, this should be addressed through United Nations channels and by letting others set up the puppet regimes. Puppet governments are an outgrowth of totalitarianism, and should be avoided at all costs. America does not need Karzai or Maliki--what is the point?

Anderson next says we mustn't use traditional metrics to determine success, nor must we despair when they don't show success. He says both approaches are "
intellectually lazy, and neither is appropriate if we care about protecting our way of life."

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with protecting our way of life, and everything to do with eroding our hard won democratic values.

They are about inflicting our way of life on unwilling persons. Hence the resistance. which we like to call an insurgency. fighting foreign invaders is a noble cause in the general fabric of history. That is, for those who bother to read history.

"The insurgencies that the West confronts have been fought and won before, in the Philippines, Malaya, Nicaragua and Peru."

And how did the supposed "winning" advance the cause of democracy or "protect our way of life"?
"Understanding how this kind of war is different is crucial."

Of course, this is only a war because we want it to be a war. If the U.S. leaves Iraq and Afghanistan, then the war stops for our forces. internal squabbles of Iraq and Afghanis are not the concern of the U.S. military machine. We have simply served to open Pandora's Box, thank you very much.

Personally, Ranger does not give a rat's ass about Iraq and Afghanistan; it should not be a concern for our combat forces. Doesn't America still have a State department? Don't we still fight only after all political approaches fail?

What horse does the U.S, have in either of these races? No matter who wins or loses in either scenario, America will still be America, and everybody can still remain fat, dumb and obliviously happy. The existence of the U.S. is not tied to either failed state.

"We can win this kind of war, and we must. Our security, and that of our children and our children's children hangs in the balance. The road will be difficult and progress won't look like it did in World War II. But it's just as important, and our way of life is in just as much danger."

Ranger wishes that just once somebody spouting these chauvanistic platitudes would demonstrate HOW this is a true statement.


Labels:

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hell, man...if we don't beat them tearists in Eye-Rack and Trashcanistan, then we'll be goin' toe-to-toe with 'em down at the end of our driveways as they come swingin' by on their camels to take our women, pop suitcase nukes and eat our childurn raw...ain't that right? President Cheney sez it is, I bleev. I mean, looky how we had to duke it out with the commies down on main street after we bugged out of SEA.

One t'other hand, if we don't cut and run but stay and "win", then tearism is over and done forever. Plus Walton's greedy kids can start buildin' WalMarts in and around Baghdad and Kabul, we can give every swingin' one of the citizenry half a dozen low interest credit cards, sell 'em cheap mortgages, give 'em work but then send their jobs to China once they're run up a tab, schedule a 20-city tour for Britney Spears, force feed 'em Faux News 24 hours a day (with Bill Oh Really as Middle East bureau chief) and just let 'em friggin enjoy *our* way of life by gar. That'll teach 'em.

..anon

Friday, June 29, 2007 at 3:19:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

anon,

Oh man, I'm being out-written by my commentators...!

What can I say--you've got the gestalt of the whole mess.
That's what I meant to say, by the way. Only somewhat less eloquently and concise.

Carry on with your fabulous additions to Ranger's work,

Lisa

Friday, June 29, 2007 at 5:07:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger PePere said...

Man -- Iraq isn't about "our way of life." It is about controlling the oil produced there. That's why we're building the huge embassy and all those permanent military bases.

Friday, June 29, 2007 at 5:35:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

b & j,

Yeah, not a whole lot to do with protecting our way of life over there in cuidad Baghdad. I don't understand how so many folks are hornswaggled by the sound bites.

Good lord--protect our way of life here. There's enough to do in every city in this country to keep us plenty busy with infrastructure alone--forget about the spit and polish.

Basic needs go unmet everywhere, while major overhauls of fundamental public works are bearing down on us. Look at New Orleans for an example of one such tragedy of underfunding.

How could anyone jump on the hypocritical bandwagon of pretending to export that which we ourselves have not gotten straight?

Profiteering motives alone, and the good people of America walk blindly on. Surely, if someone wears a big belt buckle and a 10-gallon hat, he is a patriot, no? America, the naive, xenophobic, sound bite, photo op nation.

Friday, June 29, 2007 at 5:53:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lurch said...

I see that CPT Anderson is a graduate of Army VoTech, and I am saddened to note that they no longer apparently have any Logic and Philosophy courses, wherein the gentle art of discriminatory thinking is taught.

I'm sorry, but I'm a snob. When a captain with less than four years in service can become a "founding member" of an interservice/international training school I'd want to take a long hard look at his 201 File as well as the credentials of the other "founders," including, apparently, teachers from NATO allies. (Actually, it appears the Academy is a satellite campus.)

As you noted, it ain't about keeping the dreaded throat-slitters from under my bed so much as keeping the preventers over there.

The apt quote for me was:

"A few nights ago, I was sitting in on a roundtable discussion in Kabul with Afghan security forces, NGOs and elders. The question of why the coalition was there was raised indirectly. What are you doing here? Are you an army of occupation? Are you here to stay indefinitely?"

If CPT Anderson had had those Logic and Philosophy courses he'd have been able to say, "Because the greedheads ruling my country wanted all the oil in the Middle East, and so the Europeans were forced to step in here to protect their flank."

Let's not forget that before the excuse of 9/11 it was well-known and well-publicized that the Taliban were turning Afghanistan into a 10th century country. There was just no impulse to do anything about it. At that time, all eyes were already on Iraq.

Friday, June 29, 2007 at 7:32:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

lurch,

As we used to say, we had more time in the T-10 than this guy had in a T-shirt.

Your remarks are a great extension, as always, to what I was trying to convey. My overall impression is from the vantage point of Ranger-simple; you always take it it to its logical conclusion.

You have to remember-- I am a Ranger. The scary thing is, Capt. Anderson is probably a future Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. There's a thought to cheer us all.

Friday, June 29, 2007 at 9:55:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ranger,

Don't forget, CPT Anderson is most likely a Ranger too...99% of VoTech grads who go IN branch are. That should cause you even more alarm.

Like Lurch, I'm less than impressed that a 20-something with four whole years of service is now lecturing old-timers like us how "simple" our wars were (by extension, does that make us "simplistic"?).

But make no mistake about it: by writing this piece, young CPT Anderson has guaranteed himself a below-the-zone promotion to O-4 and a seat on the fast-track express.

Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 8:53:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger The Minstrel Boy said...

they might end up having to take up the tactic of alexander. he married roxanne (daughter of the dominant warlord) and, on the same day, married off around 10,000 of his troops to afghan women. those men, with their wives, and their families were then left in place to protect his supply lines through to india (where his army simply broke. ten years of fighting was too much, they wanted to go home but weren't sure where that was anymore)

the city of kandahar was founded by alexander (who was called by the locals Ixkander) on the ruins of a trading city that was destroyed and every single inhabitant slaughtered to make room for an entirely new population.

in history, that was the only occupation that ever took hold there.

Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 9:26:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

minstrel boy,

Thank you for the history.

Even the 10,000 left behind were swallowed by Afghanistan.

Even by killing everyone and marrying off his troops, he didn't achieve his aims, which were to secure his LOC.

If I remember history correctly, Xenophon's march of the 10,000 details Alexander's retreat through Afghanistan after returning from India. So the ball got dropped somewhere.

Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 10:09:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

potp,

Jim's not here right now, but I can vouchsafe for the fact that he is not in the mainstream of typical Ranger thinking. And that is unfortunate, IMO.

Jim has explained that Rangers today are a somewhat different breed from his day--the primarily valued quality today being that they are pretty pumped up physical specimens.

Critical thinking--surely contrarian thinking--is not necessarily a prime qualifier for membership among the ranks.

Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 11:06:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger The Minstrel Boy said...

xenophon's march (which went from cunaxa in what is now iraq to the black sea coast of modern turkey) happened in 401-399 b.c.e. alexander was almost 50 years later. what happened to the greeks was that, since they had no other profession but arms after nearly 25 years of warfare between sparta and athens, they hired out as mercenaries in a power struggle between the brothers Cyrus the Younger (who was the one which hired the mercenaries) against Ataxerxes. they fought at cunaxa and won, but cyrus was killed in the fighting. nothing will stop a usurpation in its tracks as well as the death of the usurper. most of the command structure of the greeks was then killed by the local persian satrap. xenophon (who was in his very young 20's and on his first campaign) was among those elected by the remaining greeks to lead the walk out.

they were, probably luckily, nowhere near the afghans. they did have to bop their way home through the kurds, turkomen, armenians, cappadocians, and finally the turks. because their weapons technology was so vastly superior and their tactics of the phalanx were superbly matched against swarming cavalry and unco-ordinated infantry mobs seeking individual combat and glory they managed to bring home most of the folks who survived the battle at cunaxa.

during one of the roman civil wars, cato led another hellacious march along the northern coast of africa. cato's march was ultimately futile because the other romans, loyal to caesar, he was trying to evade simply leapfrogged over by sea and destroyed him utterly at utica.

alexander's march home from india was not on a level with either of those. his army had begun to degenerate and was almost at the point of complete collapse. they had been averaging nearly three major battles a year for ten years and they were simply done.

for a first person account of the march of the 10,000 from xenophon himself you can read Anabasis (the walk home) from project Gutenburg. it's fascinating. it is also one of the seminal works new students of classical greek are given because of the plain, unadorned soldier's report writing style. much the same way latin students are given caesar's commentaries on gaul.

Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 2:02:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Jiam and lisa,

Thank God for you guys and just to let you know. Rangers today are not all in lockstep with the BS. There are allot of us but we get kicked off all the other S.O. Websites becuase we're not "kewl guyz" I read your posts everyday and please ekkp up the good works and thanks for providing an island of sanity.

William Hazen B 2/75 Ranger 14-80 1979-82

Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 8:44:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

anon William,

Thanks so much. It's quite gratifying to hear such things, esp. from former Rangers like yourself.

The more we talk with folks, the more we realize that we are far from alone in our thinking. What was it Nixon said about the Silent Majority?

Thank you for being a patriot--a thinking American, for that is a patriot's duty, too.

You are always welcome here, and I hope you are surrounded by a like-minded community wherever you are,

We wish you all the best,

Lisa

Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 11:15:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

minstrel boy,

Thank you for the further elucidation on Xenophon's march. I am sure Jim may want to speak to this, but he is not here right now. Figured I'd get it on, anyway, 'til then,

Lisa

Monday, July 2, 2007 at 6:33:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home