The "War" Behind The War

The real conflict is being fought not in Afghanistan but rather over Afghanistan. The war behind the war is the one over how the US should fight in Afghanistan. It is a war between opponents even more bitter in their opposition than is the ISAF and Taliban.

The semi-covert war behind the overt one in Afghanistan is waged between conventional soldiers and the special operators. This war started long before Osama bin Laden came to realize that Allah or someone was calling upon him to wage jihad against the "Crusaders." It is a war which has been fought with greater and lesser vigor ever since the first conventional forces were sent to a predictable failure in Vietnam. It is likely to continue long after the last American boot has shaken the soil of Afghanistan from its sole.

The conduct and outcome of the war behind the war will do much to determine the degree to which the US succeeds or fails to achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing" in Afghanistan. The process of the war behind the war will also do much to dictate not only if the US will have to stage a rematch of the Civilized World versus the Islamists but also whether or not it will succeed or fail the next time around.

The firing of General McChrystal was one small skirmish in the war behind the war. McChrystal was the very definition of special operator. His entire active career was in special operations. McChrystal's intellectual focus was on the requirements for success in the most difficult of unconventional military operations, those of an interventionary nature, the wars of insurgency and its counter.

The astute observer would have counted McChrystal's days as numbered the moment he released his operational doctrine with its curtailment of American usage of artillery and air delivered firepower. With his reorientation on protecting civilian lives even at the cost of placing more Americans at greater risk, General McChrystal directly challenged a definer of the uniquely American way of war which has existed nearly long as the doctrine of civilian supremacy. The American way of war gelled in the aftermath of the War Between the States and its overwhelmingly high butcher's bill.

Ever since the Civil War, the sine qua non of US military operations has been the curtailment of American losses. Over the years and through the many, many wars which have occurred since 1865, the US has spent much time, much money, and a very great deal of industrial and technological innovation on the challenge of replacing loss of blood with the expenditure of munitions.

The defining profligacy of American firepower has been commented upon repeatedly by our allies and adversaries alike. During World War II, where either the British or the Germans would have sent a patrol, the Americans heaved tons of munitions downrange from artillery tubes almost beyond counting and aircraft formations which darkened the noon sky. The lavish expenditure of munitions went a very long way to assuring that American troops came home on their own two legs and not on a stretcher or in a body bag.

There is no doubt that in a peer-to-peer conflict, the American way of war is both effective and easily justified by its results. Even in a limited war in support of policy such as the Korean War, the American way of war limited costs to mere dollars and not lives. Nonetheless, the US did have to spill blood at meaningless terrain features such as Pork Chop Hill so as to convince the Chinese that we had the political will to fight on regardless of loss.

Hostile observers have long concluded that the American unwillingness to shed the blood of its troops constituted a fatal weakness. When this reluctance was linked (as it inevitably has been) to our equal distaste for expending time on something so wasteful as a war, some adversaries have become convinced that the sovereign counter to the US was to be found in combining the infliction of casualties upon us with the prolongation of the war.

The second part of the How To Defeat The Americans Theory has been called into question by the evident willingness of two presidents to keep on keeping on regardless of the prospect of "victory" or the growing unpopularity of the war with We the People. However, the first part, the more important part of the Recipe For Defeating the American Infidels, is still operative, still to be placed to a full and effective test.

Insofar as General McChrystal's operational concept of "courageous restraint" provided a real change in the views held by Afghan civilians toward the Americans, it was an operational and tactical success. A comparative consideration of enemy initiated versus friendly initiated and meeting engagements covering the months before and after the McChrystal ordered change shows the balance was shifting decisively in favor of the foreigners.

Not to put too sharp a point on the matter, the McChrystal doctrine turned the battlefield and political tides from the negative to the positive. McChrystal's sound understanding of the political and psychological nature of the insurgent-counterinsurgent conflict with its emphasis upon protecting the uncommitted majority from the harm of battle was paying off.

Ironically the successes, preliminary and incomplete as they were, had no impact upon the majority of the troops, particularly the officers, carrying out the new order of battle. To the men on the sharp end of the stick, the new rules of engagement were tantamount to fighting while leaving our best, most lethal, weapons left back at base.

No man, as the Geek well knows, likes the idea of taking more risks than the minimum necessary. The nature of operations in Afghanistan assures there are risks enough without seeming to add to them by limiting the use of artillery and air support. There is no surprise that the McChrystal approach would result in more than a little bit of bitching and moaning--particularly as the operational tempo ticked up with casualties doing the same.

The degree of complaint was far greater, however, than could easily be justified by actual combat losses, which showed no undue increase given the enhanced tempo of operations. But, the McChrystal approach did more than simply enhance the perceived (as distinguished from actual) risks on the battlefield, it called into question the entire "find, fix, and destroy" doctrine which has governed US military doctrine since before World War II.

Despite the fact that the "firepower kills and killing equals victory" approach to war was proven massively irrelevant in the Vietnam War, it was followed both in Iraq and Afghanistan far too long.

In Iraq, the change in American fortunes came with the "surge" but not because of the "surge." Rather the increase in American success came with a decrease in US inflicted Iraqi casualties. It came because the Marines and some Army units went from the "shoot-move-communicate" understanding of war to one which emphasized the human factors, the reality that the battleground which mattered was the perceptions and attitudes of the uncommitted majority of the Iraqi population coupled with constant pressure on the hard core of insurgent true believers.

General McChrystal's special forces played a very key role in the successes in Iraq attributed in the media and on the Hill to General Petraeus. McChrystal carried the lessons of Iraq along with the broader lessons of counterinsurgency with him to Afghanistan.

The mere fact that McChrystal, a lifelong member of the Special Forces, the red-headed stepchild of the Army, was jumped to command in Afghanistan was a major irritant to the conventional soldiers. McChrystal's predecessors were all good conventional troops, distinguished treadheads in the main. Nonetheless, they had lost control of the battlefield to the enemy.

When McChrystal's new approach bore immediate positive results, the irritation grew to overwhelming proportions. Making the irritation all the worse was SecDef Gate's view that the US would be facing asymmetrical conflicts and not peer-to-peer wars in the near- and mid-term future. If McChrystal's new doctrine were to succeed, the future for the treadheads and big bore tube meisters of the conventional army would be grim to say the least.

With that as context it isn't surprising that no voices were raised in defense of McChrystal's ill-advised words in Rolling Stone. It isn't surprising that all ran for cover behind the spurious notion that the outspoken spec-ops guy was an out of control rogue. Nor is it shocking that he was speedily replaced by a man, General Petraeus, who is a good, conventional man at heart.

Petraeus' dedication to the "firepower kills and killing brings victory" notion became evident during his confirmation hearings when he promised to "review" the limitations imposed on artillery and air delivered firepower. He will conduct the review and, in highest probability, slacken the restrictions.

Any slackening, any backing off from "courageous restraint" will inevitably result in collateral civilian causalities. With the best of intents, the closest of command and control, big guns and fast movers will kill non-combatants. As a result, the uncommitted majority of the Afghan population will once again swing toward Taliban and away from the US and ISAF. The situation will return to the status quo ante McChrystal.

At the same time, responsibility for the American failure will be offloaded to the Afghan government and security forces. There is much reason to do so. The Karzai government has a very laid back attitude toward the massive corruption which is and always has been a component of Afghan political life. The Karzai government is given to the notion of a separate peace with Taliban as such is in its own best interests given the conviction that the Americans will not stay the course and lack both the will and ability to defeat Taliban et al militarily.

While it matters only slightly to the US what sort of government rules in Afghanistan, it is a matter of key national importance as to whether or not the future government of the place thinks it is safe in offering safe haven to Islamist entities planning harm to the US and its interests or those of its allies. It is a matter of great national importance if other Islamist groups around the world are emboldened by the perception of an American military failure in Afghanistan.

However, it appears that these larger, longer term potentials resident in an American military failure is of far less concern to the conventional soldiers of the high ranks. Their lodestone is the superiority of the treads, tubes, and gunships of the "real" Army. Their hope is that another "incomplete policy success" in Afghanistan such as that experienced in Vietnam will end any consideration of future US involvement in these nasty little wars of intervention.

"No more Afghanistans" will join "No more Vietnams" as a way of allowing the generals and other budgeteers to get on with the real mission of preparing for wars the US is less likely rather than more to be fighting in the years to come. The "peace at any price" and "blame America first" contingents of the American political and media elite will embrace the same two slogans in their never ending campaign to assure the US drops to the second tier of nation-states.

Is China Just One More Country With A DC Lobby?

The WaPo has an article reporting on the increased effectiveness of China's lobbying efforts inside the Beltway. The tone of the piece is more than a tad laudatory.

A number of members of both houses of Congress (all of the Democratic Party persuasion) are quoted. All have nothing but nice things to say about China and the Gnomes of Beijing who run the place.

The WaPo grudgingly allows that this upbeat tone on the Hill does not reflect the views of the majority of Americans. The writer, John Promfit assigns this backwards attitude on the part of many in We the People to either China's Communist past or its record in the human rights department.

Duh!

Just how could so many otherwise sensible Americans be so wrong? How could affairs have come to such a sorry pass that We the People do not, as does one of the Congressional worthies notes, see "the Chinese as Chinese and not Communists?"

Guess it must be the sheer cussed reactionary nature of so many of us in the hoi polloi. Right, Senator Kerry? How else can it be that your wave of applause for the munificent and benevolent Chinese is not shared by every American who has not been duped by the barely concealed populist fascists of the Tea Party movement?

Or, to advance an alternative which is both more parsimonious and more rooted in the real world of evidence and behavior: The Americans who distrust the Chinese (even while buying the products of their factories and slave labor camps) have a far more accurate understanding of the Chinese government, its past and its future intentions than the assorted Democrats. Rather than irrational fear or the after effects of "a Cold War mentality," the distrust of China evinced in recent public opinion polls might be based on a coolly reasoned appraisal of the policies, actions, and rhetoric of the Chinese government.

While the Congresspeople and Senators may not know it, the only political party in the People's Republic of China is the Chinese Communist Party. (OK for you detail minded folks: There are another eight small parties, all controlled by the CCP.) This fact implies strongly that China is, in fact, a Communist country even though there is an obvious and large number of privately owned enterprises--all of which exist on government sufferance and will continue to operate only as long as it is the interests of the state and government.

Thus the distrust of Beijing because it is Communist is not a relic of the bad old days of the Cold War but a realistic appraisal of the current and future reality of China. Score one for the benighted American public.

While the Congresspeople and Senators may not know it, China is not, as one of the quoted Democrats averred, just like the UK, France, or Germany--but trying to play catchup in its lobbying activities. The UK, France, Germany may undertake a little discrete espionage against the US. Each of these long standing allies of the US may periodically undertake a bit of bash-on-Uncle-Sam.

China is in an entirely different category all together. Its espionage actions, including those of a cyber nature, far transcend in frequency, persistence, and breadth those of any other nation including the far-from-friendly Russia. On the diplomatic front China is normally opposed to any demarche at the UN and elsewhere which is supported by the US or its Western European associates. Whether the Iranian nuclear question, anthropogenic climate change, or any other matter of seemingly shared concerns, Beijing is always within the opposition.

The American hoi polloi is both aware of these facts and, unlike the aforementioned Democrats, factors its awareness into its appreciation of China's relation with the US both at the present and in the future. Score two for We the People.

Unmentioned in the encomiums flowing from the Democratic Party statesmen is the explosive growth of the Peoples Liberation Army. The Chinese possess a military capacity far surpassing any legitimate defense need. Further, all the straws in the defense wind indicate that the Chinese are neither slowing nor likely to slow the continued development of the PLA. Given the absence of any current or near-term threat to Chinese territory, the only plausible reason for the ongoing investment in the military is the utility of a large, modern and well equipped military as a diplomatic support instrument. (Whether a nation speaks loudly or softly it is more likely to be heard if it possesses a very big stick.

The American public is aware of this unmentioned T. rex at the dinner table even if the Deep Thinkers of the Democratic Party on the Hill are oblivious. Score three for We the People.

One fact of life mentioned by the Democrats is both real and very, very potent. China holds a lot of dollars and dollar denominated IOUs of American origin. This is the well known remember-boy-we-hold-your-note approach to life. The very fact that the Gnomes of Beijing hold multiple billions of our dollars and IOUs assures them of a quite respectful hearing on the Hill.

The attention and respect given to the needs, desires, and views of the Gnomes of Beijing grow in tandem with the Congressionally driven need to borrow ever increasing mountains of money to fund the dreams of the Progressive Caucus's (and President Obama's) Great Transformational Agenda. It may be mere coincidence but it is of more than passing interest that each and every of the quoted cheerleaders for China has voted for (1) TARP, (2) the stimulus bill, and (3) the most expensive of the health care overhaul measures (as well as other assorted "progressive" spending measures of dubious utility.

With the deficit already in numbers with which only astronomers are comfortable and the high probability it will go ever higher, the need for borrowing back more of the dollars spent by We the People on items of Chinese provenance comes more and more pressing. Since most if not all of the quoted Democrats are committed internationalists, the notion of exchanging diplomatic freedom as well as American national and strategic security for a large mess of potage is quite thinkable.

Perhaps the lure of more easily borrowed money is of such power that the assorted fine folks quoted can overlook such bagatelles as this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the midpoint of the Great Famine which accompanied the Chinese Great Leap Forward and cost, according to Chinese governmental figures, some fifty million Chinese lives. To this day the Beijing regime has never, never acknowledged the famine occurred as a result of state policy, state planning, state indifference, and state control of all aspects of Chinese life--and death.

Some of the people quoted in the WaPo article might be inclined to toss out that bit of critical history as irrelevant to today's world politics. Such cavalier dismissal of the greatest man-made famine in human history is, self-evidently, wrong.

Within today's Chinese senior leadership are to be found men who were present in junior roles during the two "Greats," the famine and the leap forward. They knew and know what happened and see no ethical problem. Instead they see lessons learned: Collectivism does not work, control, total control, of the media of communication, the writing of history, and the collective memory of the nation all work very well for regime maintenance.

Germany admitted its collective culpability for the Holocaust. The Soviet Union, long before its dissolution, acknowledged the central role played by both Stalin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the vast famine in the Ukraine and elsewhere during its forced draft move to collectivize agriculture.

The Chinese government has never accepted the reality that its failed policy was the direct cause of the massive three year die-off of its own people. Nor is there any probability that Beijing will ever do so--even though the tail can be pinned on the dead donkey of Mao.

Compared to the Great Famine or the devastation brought by the Cultural Revolution, the more recent human rights abuses of the Beijing regime pale into virtual insignificance. This in no way downplays the responsibility of the Chinese government in its ongoing suppression of basic human rights. It in no way relieves the Gnomes of Beijing from their direct, personal guilt for the egregious violation of international conventions to which the regime has formally subscribed.

China is not like other countries. It is not like Germany, France, the UK or even Russia. It is not even in the same minor leagues of total disregard for basic human rights as the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Sudanese. It is one of a kind. A league of its own.

The American public--or at least a large portion of it--is evidently aware of this. The Democratic Party "China Lobby" is apparently not.

This degree of willful self-delusion must exist for a reason. There is a reason. It is to be found in that great nearly final line in the film Fargo. Perhaps you remember it--

"All of this. For a little bit of money."

Let's Feed CIA To The "Progressives"

While President Obama is hiding behind Attorney-General Holder in this despicable affair, there is no getting around the unpleasant thought that the special prosecutor taking out after alleged CIA abuses and abusive officers (or contractors) is a matter of heaving a sacrifice to the progressive base and Progressive Caucus in Congress. All in the name of getting health care reform through even absent the so-called "public option."

The heavily redacted but still usable CIA Inspector General's report which serves, in part, to justify the special prosecutor's proceedings shows questionable tactics to be sure. But, more importantly it shows positive results. Even the MSM including those usually eager to join in eviscerating the Agency are willing to acknowledge this fact.

True, the negative leads, but for those willing to wade on through to the end, the accomplishments of the interrogation are noted. The Agency should have and did investigate the way over the edge zeal of some employees and contractors. The worst offenses were apparently stopped.

That should have been that. The episodes were finished, over, done with. Even the Nice Young Man From Chicago seemed to go along with that during his high visibility visit to Langley some months ago. At that time he seemed, appeared to, kind of, sort of, commit himself and his administration to not persecuting (oops! Bad Geek!) that is prosecuting officers and others who complied with the legal opinions issued by the relevant lawyers for guidance. There was no mention of going after those who might have, in the very real heat of the moment, let the need for actionable information outweigh the fine points of legal debate.

The Geek is not without personal familiarity with the difficulties of interrogating very highly motivated, very experienced individuals deeply hostile to the US. While his approach did not include the various techniques authorized by the Bush/Cheney administration legal personnel let alone include the objectionable add-ons mentioned in the IG's report, he is not prepared to condemn those who went over the edge.

There is no reason to disbelieve that the urgencies of the moment seemed in the best judgement of those conducting the interrogations to demand the use of every means short of damaging physical torture necessary to acquire the necessary information. These people were not simple minded sadists, nor were they threatening for the joy of doing so. No. They were under the clear pressure of time and the urgent need to both protect the US and Americans from possible harm and to better understand the structure and nature of the command and operational echelons of al-Qaeda and Taliban.

As is the general case in military jurisprudence regarding both proportionality and the infliction of civilian casualties, the central matter is intent. If the commander and those under his command had no intent to use disproportionate means nor inflict civilian casualties, than any harm which occurs is held to be incidental, not intended: not a crime.

Poor supervision, lack of clear guidance as mentioned in the IG report do not constitute a criminal intent. Nor do the methods employed in and of themselves. In this matter, the matter of interrogating hostile prisoners, the core issue up and down the chain of command as well as on the part of the person conducting the interrogation is simply intent.

There is no indication of any intent to violate either law or customs of war. While the actual conduct of interrogations may not be the most sharply defined area of the laws and customs of war, and the Agency is not one which is specifically military, the same thinking should, no, must be employed.

That was the case during the Bush/Cheney administration. And, it appeared to be the case with the Obama administration until the past few days. The current Director of Central Intelligence must have been very well aware of the new direction in which the wind was blowing.

Leon Panetta is a consummate Washington insider. He well knows how the game is played. He knows that the progressives in and out of congress are in a hissy-fit over the presumed junking of the "public option" in the health care overhaul bill. He knows that bones have to be thrown to the ravening horde of progressives in return for any backsliding on letting the federal government take over health care.

Not only did this ultimate insider not act to protect the Agency--his Agency--he acted to presage the current Roman circus. He ran panting and sweating to Congress and media over a program which never was, breathless with indignation and fermenting in purity of mind and soul.

Leon The Gutless is more than simply willing to see the emasculation of the Agency even though the threats it confronts daily are not waning but rather still waxing. He is willing to place the Agency on the chopping block if it will protect the president from the ire of the "progressives."

Without even the transient justifications which allowed William Colby to turn over the "family jewels" to the Church and Pike committees a third of a century ago, Panetta is willing to see the long knives plunged into the back of a very, very important outfit: CIA. This is not only politics at its most base, it is a short-sighted act of self-inflicted defeat for the nation. In a time of war.

President Obama knows all of this. His spineless hiding behind the man he appointed Attorney-General is the act of a politician from Chicago--not an American president. The President is ably supported in his exercise in feeding the base by two other unscrupulous politicians for whom the success of the Agenda of Transformation is far, far more important than the well-being and safety of Americans and America.

To call it shameful is entirely too mild, too forgiving. But, to be accurate would require a mastery of epithet far surpassing the Geek's ability.