Goat Ropin'

What the fuck is there for us in Afghanistan
except goats and the men who love them?
--Gordon, at Alternate Brain

Mares eat oats and does eat oats,
and little lambs eat ivy;
a kid’ll eat ivy too, wouldn’t you?
--Mairzy Dotes, Drake/Hoffman/Livingston
______________

The new bill of goods being sold to the U.S. taxpaying bots is the Strategy Change in this, the United States of the Phony War on Terror (USPWOT ©).

Yes, we know it's morphed from a GWOT, TWOT or a WOT. However, the strategies underpinning the continued wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to be based upon GWOT strategic thinking, or what passes for strategic thinking (see seydlitz89's deconstruction of Gian Gentile's position paper on this matter at MilPub), so the outcome will not be different.

The reasoning supporting the PWOT © is faulty and violates the Principles of War. The new strategy, like the old, is doomed to military, political and economic failure because it ignores the basic principles. Simply: Any military or political endeavor that expends precious U.S. assets must pay off with a quantifiable dividend for our nation (not theirs). One does not fight for emotional, feel-good slogans.

Warfare is based upon rules and reality. The reality is survival, dominance, and the subjection of rivals. Even the Bible supports this approach. Fighting has a social and military aspect. Military operations affect social development, so what are we doing in Afghanistan? We don't want to steal their women, and it's not for the goats.

The principles of war evolved from primitive intelligence and are as applicable today as they were at the time of their development. Forget 4GW and asymmetrical warfare and all the other cute new terms. War has always been asymmetrical and the principles remain the same, whether one's goal is to steal women, goats, horses or countries. Wars are not fought to destroy countries, but rather to convert assets to your benefit.

Two of the main principles the U.S. is violating -- whether one views the wars as counterinsurgency or conventional warfare -- are failing to define the MISSION and OBJECTIVE. What are the benefits to us in our current theatres? Furthermore, what is the validity and purpose of our worldwide troop deployments?

It is clear that NATO is OBE, and that the European Union has no viable external enemies which threaten them on any level. It is laughable to claim the Taliban as a threat to NATO; ditto, Iran.

The U.S. is not the world's savior. Let's accept this comedown from our messiah complex, and allow other nations the luxury of expending their own money to protect their interests, a job not in the prospectus of the U.S. taxpayer.

Let Europe, Japan and Korea carry their own weight by expending their resources and getting out from under the U.S. funding/troop umbrella. While this approach may have been valid in 1950, it is no longer realistic or palatable in 2009.

It is hypocritical to ask Russia, North Korea and Iran to pull in their horns when we are unwilling to do the same.