Army Wrong

I keep a close watch on this heart of mine
I keep my eyes wide open all the time
I keep the ends out for the tie that binds
Because you're mine, I walk the line 
--I Walk the Line, Johnny Cash

We're pitiful, self-indulgent cowards
that can't connect with reality
and are ashamed of ourselves 
Scenes From a Marriage (1973)

The rules of fair play
do not apply in love and war 
--Euphueus, John Lyly

 ____________________

[Lisa’s got the 3,000 yr. pop cultural perspective soon. Today, Ranger's effort at Maxim meets SOF -- no sop to feminists.]

As military men, we see everything as mission and objective.  As a result, it is natural to objectify women and subsequent sexual encounters.   The infusion of women into the military fosters and enables this thinking.

The military objectives of warfare and those of sex are similar in many respects, hence this discursion.

What is the purpose of the objective in combat operations?  We attack, defend and delay in order to facilitate future operations.  CGSC teaches us, never plan an operation that does not facilitate future operations.

In short, every military objective serves a purpose; nothing is done just for giggles.  Can or should the same be said about sexual objectives?  Is the latter as logical and coldly calculating as are military objectives?  Or, have military objective post-1963 (post-Vietnam War) become as emotional, haphazard and illogical as the selection of a sex partner at a juke joint's closing time?

Our major religions espouse sex as a divine gift from god for the purpose of procreation; some more radical priests will allow that the act itself can be the consecration (but not all).  The point here is that sex is a contradicted act, both sacred and profane, whereas military objectives are (should be) as clearly-delineated and identifiable as a computer program.

Both activities share the aspect of subterfuge: In combat, it is the ruse or diversionary attack employed to further one's objective; in sex, the ruse is employed to gain any number of advantages, both short- and long-term. Attack, defend, delay, retreat or retrograde, done as a planned or hasty operation for clearly understood and defined reasons.  Both arenas of activity employ similar tactics. 

It gets fuzzy when we act without clear objectives.

We fight a war without military objectives, but no one seems to object; there is little discussion, even when Presidential administrations change.  Strangely, slavering over David Petraeus's sex life has garnered more ink in the popular press than did both the Iraq and Afghanistan surges, including the battles of Fallujah, Kandahar, etc.

Nobody questioned why or how we chose to attack and destroy Fallujah, or the purpose of the brutal combat.  Was this just foreplay for a United States Marine Corps Division?  Was it a platform to win a key objective, or was it merely an act of frustration prompted by hubris and single-minded vengeance -- just to prove we could destroy a city and break the will of the insurgents?

Fallujah and all the battles of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) are as meaningless as a back seat coupling of drunken fools.  What is gained in either instance?    When our military objectives become as random as sexual encounters then we are rendered impotent.  All of our technology and fancy gadgets are as meaningless as a hand job on prom night, as impressive as an 80-year-old hoping for some Levitra action at the expense of a stroke.

From the military perspective of the expenditure of assets to achieve objectives, the PWOT again fails.  Too many recent battles turn into meat grinders chewing up friendly assets, the final impotent movement, to abandon the fought-for objective; witness Khe Sanh, Hamburger Hill, Dak To, LZ X-Ray, Wanat, Waygul, Marjah, et. al.  This is because there is no military value to the event beyond the flash and gash.

It is the same equation with Petraeus's unfortunate dalliance with Mrs. Broadwell: Petraeus expended his assets breaching an expendable asset. One should never expend assets or attack objectives that have  no value.  Unfortunately, this has been the template for the PWOT.  Ditto indiscriminate, objectiveless couplings that foster or facilitate no present or future benefits (= operations).  It is easy to see the genesis of DP's moral lassitude.

When analogizing sexual liaisons to military operations one must wonder why some objectives are chosen for exploitation and others are bypassed: What factors determine the engagement (consummation?)  After all, the selection of objectives is the key to successful military operations.  Faulty selection leads to catastrophe (= military failure; divorce; nuts in a vice, etc.)

The objective of a successful operation should not be to reach a local penetration but to reach deep targets, which will ensure the commander's control of his battle assets. (In the PWOT, we have never experienced such a deep battle, nor will we.)  The ultimate goal of one's objectives is to force the enemy to surrender, withdraw or be defeated [take a DIP (Die in Place)].

By performing a local penetration which could not be further exploited, Petraeus was flanked.  He thought he was controlling the battle area, but he was ultimately denied Command and Control of his assets.

General Petraeus obtained shallow objectives that facilitated no future benefit, on both battlefields.