Operational Success: DOA

What are you fighting for?
It's not my security
--Broken English, Maryanne Faithfull

Why do something just for the sake of doing it to show face,
when it doesn't have any tactical value?
--Dogs and Ponies, "Gruntshit," The Sandbox (3/21/08)

But tactical victory did not translate
to operational success
--WWII Magazine, April/May 2008

"So?"
--VP Dick Cheney, on being told 2/3 of Americans
favor withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan
___________

The statement from WWII Magazine grabbed my attention. The German 11th Panzer on the Chir River in December '42 fought against the odds, defeating large enemy formations. But those successes were not translated into operational successes, as the Germans had lost the strategic ability to impose their will upon the enemy.

They are parallels with Iraq and Afghanistan, but of course, neither of the latter are actual theatre Army scenarios which see conventional forces arrayed for classic ground combat. Both countries are unconventional/guerrilla warfare (UW/GW) arenas and as such operational success will not be measured by conventional yardsticks such as destruction of enemy forces and the ability and will of the enemy to engage in meaningful operations.

In fact, simply defining who or what the enemy is can be a difficult task in both scenarios. Moreover, defining the mission seems even more difficult than defining the enemy, and a clearly-defined mission statement should be the first step in any military operation.

Regardless of the nature of a conflict -- whether conventional or UW -- the mission statement lays out what the engaged troops are expected to achieve. What does success entail -- does it smell like napalm in the morning, or will it be a quiet walk in the bazaar for visiting senators? Today's parallel with 1942 is the current inability to translate tactical successes into operational successes.

The difficulty is defining a mission that [1] entails destruction of al-Qaeda, [2] establishes functioning governments AND [3] instills democracy. That is a mish-mash. Such missions are not and can not be stated in a military manner. The destruction of al-Qaeda and the Taliban on the battlefield sounds easy ("mission accomplished"), but it doesn't translate so neatly into operational success.

You can kill the people fighting you, but you can not force them to love America or the phony puppet regimes established solely via our combat power. There is no meaningful military way to describe operational success in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if you can't describe it, you can't achieve it. What one sees is the entire U.S. Army pissing up a rope.

Without a doubt, the U.S. Army is performing admirably at the Battalion and Company level. The Brigades and Divisions are performing their assigned missions. But to borrow Mr. Cheney's unfortunate interrogative--"So?"

Operational success accrues to theatre armies and echelons above corps (EAC). The captains are successfully fighting their Companies, so too Battalion, Brigade and Division Commanders. But how is that winning an unquantifiable, undefinable war lacking a clear definition of what success would entail?

The German 11th Armor defeated an entire Russian tank army, but Stalingrad was not relieved and everyone knows how it ended. In the U.S. involvements in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. dominated the military equation yet there is today a North Korea and a united Communist Vietnam. Close to 100,000 Americans died for those illusions. Now 4,000 have died for the current fiction that these countries are essential struggles in the survival of the U.S.

If tactical successes can't be translated into operational opportunities, then these were all meaningless exercises in futility.

Gambler's Fallacy

"Al Qaida has been defeated completely.
They're shifting their operations outside of Iraq.
They will not have a safe home here anymore."
--Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, Chicago Tribune (11/18/07)

Money, its a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
--Money, Pink Floyd

Think where man's glory most begins and ends,
And say my glory was I had such friends
--William Butler Yeats
_________

Delightful. Let's see -- our actions create a reaction, in the form of the organization of a terrorist entity which didn't exist prior to our presence (= al Qaida in Mesopotamia), then we move 'em out onto the world stage, which is where we sit. Now there is something to warm the cockles of your heart.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke recently of the latest plans to lob money and weapons at Afghanistan to "counter a growing threat from al Qaida fighters" (More Recruits, U.S. Arms Planned for Afghan Military). So it's really like a game of badminton; a really costly, hopeless game of badminton.

"The Pentagon is also working to speed the flow of weaponry and armor to the Afghan forces, who suffer most of their casualties -- up to 90 percent, according to Afghan army officials -- in roadside bombings. The weapons include 5,000 U.S. M-16 rifles, due to arrive this month, with another 10,000 each month after that, for a total of 60,000, said Army Maj. Gen. Robert W. Cone, head of the training command."

Yes, the 60,000 U.S. M-16's should counter the IED threat causing 90% of the Afghan casualties nicely. A fairly typical U.S. solution--arm them to the teeth and pretend they are our friends. And friends who are happy to take a pretty payout, too. Consider the following:

"In an appearance with Gates, President Hamid Karzai also made a broad public appeal for increased assistance. "If you are asking me whether we need more, I will never say no. I will keep asking for more," he said at a packed news conference at his presidential palace in Kabul."

Now, that's a friend with a certain chutzpah, who has correctly identified his Daddy Warbucks. And get this: Afghanistan is a third-world, mud-hut sort of a place, yet Mr. Karzai is holding forth from his palace, a palace probably funded by U.S. tax dollars. Ain't democracy grand?

To the troglodyte called Ranger, the VN experience remains instructive. When the NVA conquered the South, where did all those millions of M-16 rifles and untold numbers of pistols and grenades, at least 90,000 M60 machine guns, M-60 tanks and heavy artillery go?

Two places:

• The new Vietnam sold them on the world surplus market and they ended up in PFLP, IRA, PLO, Black September and FARC arms rooms. They did not magically disappear, but were merely shifted around the troubled world and were instrumental in the growth of violence and terrorism worldwide. Just as we provided for Vietnam, we are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• In the late 70's and 80's the Japs were kicking Detroit's auto-making ass. The steel was provided by U.S.-made heavy armaments left behind and abandoned by the VN army. The Japs bought the steel surplus and melted them down to provide Toyotas and Hondas to the ever-gullible U.S. taxpayer.

Again from the article, "In a visit to the eastern province of Khost. . .Gates met with U.S. commanders who described a dramatic drop in attacks as U.S. forces partnered with the local government and boosted aid. Before an attack Monday night, 'we went seven months without an attack on a district center,' said Lt. Col. Scott Custer."

Lt. Custer's statement signifies nothing, though it is parroted by many to indicate progress. Correlation does not indicate causation. It is the logical fallacy of cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. The U.S. has not been a target of a significant terrorist attack since 9-11, but we are still wasting billions on a gambler's fallacy.

Since this LTC's name is "Custer," he should know that seven months of quiet can be nothing but a prelude to a significant event. Everything regresses toward the mean.

Finally, in a terribly patronizing moment in his recent visit, Gates, upon espying one Afghan private who was particularly skilled at shooting, said "If I'm in a foxhole, I want you next to me," to Pvt. Hussein, 18, from Nardak.

Gates has never been a foxhole, nor has he ever dug one. If Gates wants Pvt. Hussein next to him, then he should just kiss him on the ear. Pvt. Hussein would surely follow him home.

"Repeatedly during the trip, Gates voiced frustration that other countries are not fulfilling their financial and military commitments to Afghanistan. He also bristled at NATO's failure, so far, to supply an additional 3,500 trainers for the Afghan police and two more infantry battalions, and said he planned to raise the matter at a NATO meeting in Scotland this month."

When did the Afghanistan debacle become NATO's concern? Did the administration request NATO support and compliance before unilaterally invading? The U.S. position is, as always, arrogant and unilateral. NATO is well-advised to avoid that quagmire which foolhardy U.S. leaders so precipitously and stupidly embraced.

If America has a yen to nation-build, let's start in New Orleans. Their need has primacy over Kabul or Baghdad. When did U.S. taxpayers sign on as caretakers for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Ranger is disgusted by the waste, fraud and destruction that are the hallmarks of these phony wars. Let's get our focus back on the realities and welfare of America.