The Boering Wars

--Goal in Afghanistan
Paresh Nath (UAE)

For the first time in our history, ideology and theology
hold a monopoly of power in Washington
--Bill Moyers
________________

[Ranger feels that the "Long Wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve a more inventive name, befitting future discussions; something like Wars of the Roses, which is evocative.

A new name for the Phony Wars on Terror (PWOT ©) could be The Boering Wars, a sort-of homonym with a hat tip to the colonial + wanna-be commando nature of the project. Other titles are welcome.]

In the May-Aug Army Echoes, the bulletin for retired soldiers, Chief of Staff [C/S] General George Casey, Jr. writes:

"This edition of Army Echoes coincides with our Army's Birthday. In mid-June, we turn 235 years old. And we remain the best at what we do -- despite the stress and strain of fighting the longest war in the history of the All-volunteer Force [AVF]."

Is this really a war? Is this really the Army's 235th year?

The old Army died and was buried in 1972. It had learned not to get into long and endless wars. Maybe because that was because the old Army had Chiefs of Staff that wore valor awards topped by Combat Infantry Badges.

The new Army is 38 years old. The New Army is the AVF that is totally out of sync with the history of the old, once-proud, Army.

General Casey continues, "[The Army in 2001] was too small to do what the nation had asked us to do." He describes it as an Army "designed to fight large, armored battles on the plains of Europe or in the deserts of Saudi Arabia." The Army was NOT "too small".

If it was too small to fight a miniscule Terrorism threat, then how can we believe it could stop the Russians or Chinese? The Army did what it was asked -- the problem is that it attempted to do what we didn't ask.

We asked it to invade countries and protect us from terrorism. We did not ask the Army to be a nation-building fanatic. The Army does combat well, but Counterinsurgency, not so much.

He says, "We are engaged in a long-term ideological conflict, and -- while we know that we will prevail militarily -- we recognize that any successful strategy requires long-term commitment, patience and national will."

Again, NO. The Army is not engaged in an ideological conflict. That the adversary (defined as Terrorism) is clearly ideological doesn't make our reaction ideological. Ideological wars are difficult to define and to win.

The Army C/S classifies the U.S. operations as ideological, but fails to define what a successful strategy would entail. Probably, a solid National Will, which has instead nixed these phony wars since 2006. The military is fighting a war that is separate and distinct from the national will, a war supported completely solely by the political and military elite.

General Casey's messages are always poorly-supported propaganda.

It is amazing that old soldiers fail to see this fact.