Give War A Chance?
Wars always seem to produce inappropriately cute phrases in American culture. These usually have origins in military shorthand and are then picked up by politicians and pundits and used ad nauseam until everyone just ignores the inherent dehumanization of the language. Examples from the past abound: "domino theory," "Vietnamization," "limited warfare," "surgical bombing," and a more recent example that I always personally objected to (mostly for its "aren't pirates cute" nature) -- "blood and treasure." This time around, of course, the phrase now on everyone's lips is: "boots on the ground."
Boots on the ground -- no matter what ground -- is not actually any sort of problem. If a war could be solved with boots on the ground alone, then the United States would have no problem shipping tens of thousands of boots, combat-ready, to any conflict on the face of the Earth. Cartons of boots could be air-dropped into just about anywhere, and the fighting would then assumably soon be over and the war won by the heroic American footwear.
Of course, I am being facetious. But that's kind of my point -- by using "boots on the ground" as shorthand for "American men and women in combat," the human factor is erased. Boots on their own -- whether combat or high style -- do not fight ground wars. People do. It's the people wearing the boots we're actually talking about, and refusing to use this inside-the-Beltway, "I'm so hip, I got briefed at the Pentagon once" phrasing so popular right now is but one small step towards a proper definition of the concept. I'd suggest "combat troops on the ground" instead, since it is more accurate and less dehumanizing all around.
Semantics aside, though, America is indeed in a new war. Our nightly news will likely be filled with videos fresh from the Pentagon showing pinpoint bombing (truck in the crosshairs... truck in the crosshairs... BOOM!) for some time to come. The American people -- at the present time -- largely support President Obama launching airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria. The American people, however, are notably fickle when it comes to supporting long, drawn out conflicts of this nature (without adequately-defined criteria for success), so we'll have to wait and see what the polls say in six months or a year.
The new war is an unusual one in domestic politics, since a Democratic president launched it. The normal hawk/dove divide is turned on its head, in other words. There are few protests in the streets from ardent anti-war types these days, and even fewer Republicans praising Obama for boldly waging war. This is a complete reversal of the days of President Bush, it hardly needs pointing out.
Democrats are (for the most part) timidly supportive of Obama, with a close eye on public opinion. Hillary Clinton proved (in 2008) that blithely voting for war can come back to haunt a Democrat's future political prospects -- a lesson few Democrats have forgotten. Republicans, on the other hand, are in an even worse quandary, since they are (for the most part) gung-ho for warring against the Islamic State, but they also cannot bring themselves to speak a good word about Barack Obama under any circumstance. Mostly, they are left on the sidelines carping about how they'd have a much better plan for waging this war (without ever specifying exactly how that plan would differ from what Obama is doing). They are heavily constrained in this, of course, because few hawkish Republicans are currently advocating any American combat troops on the ground (or their boots, for that matter). So we are left with Democrats attempting to sing a refrain of (with the most sincere apologies to John Lennon): "All we are saying... is give war a chance," while Republicans prepare to do their best Monday-morning quarterbacking, eagerly helpful to point out any mistakes Obama might be making in his war plan.
Last week saw a media frenzy over a fairly innocuous and realistic answer given by a high-ranking military man in front of a congressional committee. When asked specifically if he would ever recommend inserting troops on the ground if the military situation changed, he gave the only possible answer an honest military planner could give: if the situation changes and could be improved by combat ground troops, then of course he would tell the president this -- doing so, after all, is his job and his duty. This was spun into some sort of "Pentagon disagrees with Obama -- boots on the ground will be needed!" rift in the administration's policy. This rift was entirely fictional and manufactured for political reasons, of course. A member of Congress could easily have asked something along the lines of: "When would you recommend nuclear bombs be used?" and any honest military answer given could just have easily have been spun into a "Pentagon wants to nuke ISIS!" headline. So it goes, in Washington.
Military professionals are given a mission, and they are trained to implement that mission as best they know how, using the resources available to them. It is far, far too early to tell what the eventual outcome will be of the mission the military has been given in Iraq and Syria. The mission, like almost all post-World War II missions, is vague and nebulous in part. Such is the nature of modern warfare. No exit scenario currently exists (that I am aware of, at any rate), which is the biggest flaw in our war plans to date. When will we be able to say "we won" and go home? Nobody seems to know.
A military mission can be executed flawlessly, achieve the exact goals set out, and countries can still be "lost" as a result. Libya is the best example of this -- an example which, strangely enough, nobody wants to even bring up in the debate over the Islamic State war. The American military was given a very similar objective in Libya as they are now being given in Iraq and Syria: use overwhelming air power and targeted bombing to degrade the opponent on the battlefield enough so that the "good guys" on the ground can win the fight, take and hold territory, and eventually wipe out the opposition completely. All of this was resoundingly accomplished in Libya, without the loss of a single American pilot's life. No American ground troops were officially used. And yet the conflict can only be seen today as an abject failure (and rightly so).
But the failure was a diplomatic one, not a military one. That's a big distinction, when talking about war and troops on the ground. The military was smashingly successful, and then they left an enormous void which was never filled because part of the diplomatic mission (as opposed to the military one) was "no nation-building -- Americans are tired of nation-building." Benghazi, and the chaos which reigns today in Libya were both direct results of this strategy -- although, to be fair, nobody can accurately say whether a nation-building strategy would have worked out any better.
This is an instructive example for many reasons, which is why it is odd that nobody seems to want to bring it up now. Attacking the Islamic State fighters from the air while urging on the "good guys" we have designated on the ground could indeed work. It won't work overnight, it'll take some very long months (possibly years) before anyone will be able to call it a success. But it is not -- as many are now rushing to proclaim -- guaranteed to fail. It could achieve the military mission set out, and erase the Islamic State from the maps of both countries.
The real question is what comes afterwards. The answer to that is obviously easier to contemplate in Iraq than in Syria. President Obama is not being given enough credit for refusing to act in Iraq until they formed a new government and got rid of Prime Minister Maliki. This may not be enough to reconcile Sunnis to the Iraqi government, but at least there is a chance of doing so now, instead of the zero chance which existed under Maliki's rule. The rosiest exit scenario now possible in Iraq is that America relentlessly bombs the Islamic State fighters, the Iraqi army finds its backbone and retakes cities and territory, and after all the dust settles Sunnis are treated as equals by the new government without discrimination. Call it Sunni Awakening II, perhaps. In this perfect outcome, Iran gracefully withdraws its militias (whom we are now supporting with airstrikes, it bears mentioning), and stops trying to meddle in Iraqi affairs quite so blatantly. The Kurds gain more autonomy, Sunnis are given top military and governmental positions and real political power, and the United States Air Force flies triumphantly off into the sunset. What the chances of this happening are, nobody accurately knows. The chance that at least some of this rosy scenario plays out, though, is at least a solid possibility. Things could generally work out for the better in Iraq, but that's really a pretty low bar to clear when "better" just means "not having murderous psychopathic thugs in charge of our town."
Whatever the chances are of an acceptable outcome in Iraq, however, an acceptable outcome in Syria is almost impossible to even describe, at this point. Part of the problem is the American public simply is not being told of the complexity of the situation. We like our wars to be two-sided, after all, with clear distinctions between the white hats and the black hats. This is not possible in Syria. It is a civil war with multiple sides, shifting alliances, and so many armed groups you'd need a very long scorecard to even accurately keep count. Even the "good guys" we have designated don't actually exist as a singular unit -- the "Free Syrian Army" is nothing more than a loose coalition of armed groups whom the United States has agreed to back because they are "moderates." In our definition, "moderate" merely means "wants to depose Assad, fight the Islamic State, and doesn't want to attack America" -- which stretches the dictionary definition of "moderate" almost beyond recognition. The "bad guys," however, seem to endlessly multiply -- we just sent cruise missiles to bomb a group which hadn't even been previously mentioned in the public debate about the war. That is a stunning thought, because it immediately leads one to wonder: "How many other groups are we going to have to bomb in Syria that we've never even previously heard of?" So far, this is an unanswered question, which shows the futility of even attempting to predict any sort of acceptable outcome (for America) in this war. Even if the Islamic State can be rolled back successfully in Iraq within six months or a year, pushing them back into the seething cauldron of Syria is still going to leave an awfully complicated situation.
In Iraq, we are essentially now fighting on the side of Iran, while in Syria we are essentially now fighting on the side of the Assad government. Strange bedfellows indeed, no matter how many times the "enemy of my enemy" concept is cited. Such "allies" make predicting the future outcome a fool's game, at this point.
While American politicians snipe at each other to try to find partisan advantages to use in the upcoming midterm elections, the hard questions are going unasked. Republicans would truly like to see a victory in what they still call the "Global War On Terrorism," but they do not want to begrudge any political credit to this president for leading the effort. Democrats, on the other hand, are reduced to meekly suggesting we "give war a chance," and not to joggle Obama's elbow while he's leading an air war. Neither side, for differing reasons, wants to even talk about how this thing ends. Neither side is even willing to try to define what the contours of "victory" would look like, in fact. They posture about "boots on the ground" in insincere ways, preferring to talk military tactics and strategies rather than to adequately lay out what the mission's success can even be defined as. That is a problem with semantics that is a lot more serious than my objections to a single phrase, I have to say.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
"When will we be able to say "we won" and go home?"
This is obvious. We win when nobody can ever make a viral snuff vid with an American hostage ever again.
Speaking of inappropriately cute phrases, what is this war called? Doing Stupid Shitstorm?
Speaking of inappropriately cute phrases, what is this war called? Doing Stupid Shitstorm?
Hardly.
What do you find so stupid about how this war is being waged?
Try to keep the snark to a minimum, if that's possible for you.
Chris,
A military mission can be executed flawlessly, achieve the exact goals set out, and countries can still be "lost" as a result.
This is a key statement. Because, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of what the mission is or what it should be.
I'm not sure what the precise mission is but I do have an idea about what it should be. The US mission in Iraq and Syria, insofar as the air strikes in Syria and Iraq are concerned, is not to defeat and destroy IS or any other brand of evil operating there. (I love that phrase, by the way ... I think, from now on, I shall refer to IS as a special brand of evil)
The objective of the air strikes by the US and larger coalition, particularly the Arab partners, is to put the special brand of evil on its heels and keep it contained, buying enough time for the other components of President Obama's comprehensive and long-term strategy to take shape.
How long is it going to take to ultimately defeat and destroy the special brand of evil and its ilk? That's easy ... as long as it takes the Sunni moderates - or should I say, modernizers - along with the rest of the Arab world to get its collective and concerted act together.
The military was smashingly successful, and then they left an enormous void which was never filled because part of the diplomatic mission (as opposed to the military one) was "no nation-building -- Americans are tired of nation-building." (my emphasis)
Well, that's pretty hilarious. Or, I don't understand what nation-building is.
Because, as far as I've been able to discern, there has been NO SERIOUS EFFORT on the part of the US to facilitate or even promote any nation-building, anywhere since the 9/11 attacks. How is it possible that Americans can be tired of doing something that has rarely ever been contemplated, much less tried. Unless, of course, nation-building is just another term for removing a brutal dictator from power by force, full stop.
Sunni Awakening II
I like that phrase. And, for any real success to be realized then the second Sunni Awakening has to be a broader phenomenon, extending throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
Oh, yes, this is indeed a multi-generational proposition.
Elizabeth, as often happens, I found myself nodding with some vigor at your remarks ~ but they prompted a memory, from years ago (when the US went into Afghanistan,) by a British commentator who remarked that the Afghans had outlasted invasion by the 19th Century's most powerful Empire (Britain), then a century later eviscerated and enervated the Russian Army, and now were not all that impressed with an invasion by a third "Most Powerful Nation in the World" (the US) predicting that they would rely on patient guerrilla tactics to out wait-us as well.
"Multi-generational" indeed.
Hawk Owl,
Great minds think alike, or something ... :)
I hear what you're saying but, I am hoping that the US approach to solving the problem of violent extremism is finally on the right track, or should I say, multiple tracks.
I think the current administration, at least, has learned the lessons of the past decade and a half as well as the lessons you allude to.
This effort is going to be multi-generational because that's how long I think it will take for the Arab world to change its spots, number one ... and, number two, it will be the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa who will have to ultimately solve the problem of violent extremism in their midst, NOT the US and its western allies.
Another way to gauge when we've "won" is when we chase the last evildoer through "the gates of hell". I'm not sure where that is (somebody's basement?), but apparently we can follow them to the "gates of hell" w/o "boots on the ground". Let's hope that the "gates of hell" is not where al-Zawahiri has been hanging out because we obviously don't know where that is and won't be following ISIL there any time soon. In fact, if I were ISIL, I would stay away from the "gates of hell" because CNN has already broadcast that strategy to "crush" and "destroy" ISIL.
Great job CW, you've hacked through the clutter, which is situation normal, but worth pointing out!
Everybody must now put up with my own take:
Obama's approach to Da?esh* can be accurately summed up as Libya 2.0, revised and rescaled to fit the geography and geopolitics of the region. You can sum it up as: isolate and degrade the enemy so that local forces on the ground can sort things out. Like Libya 1.0, and as you've alluded, the locals we chose to support will be very imperfect, with their own agendas and very likely at odds with each other. Doesn't matter, the military objective is to smash Da'esh, not nation building. We will not be choosey, because there isn't a lot to chose from, personnel wise. When things get bad enough, you push the reset button. That's typically what wars do. Anything else is diplomacy.
Unlike Libya 1.0, the US is going to have to shoulder the bulk of the air strike burden, if for no other reason than available basing options and the larger scale of the operational area. Aerial refueling and aircraft carriers, nobody can do this at the level of the US military. If Turkey allows the use of it's airfields, things become a lot easier and quicker. Turkey is the big unknown.
As in Libya 1.0, there will probably be a naval blockade component to keep Da?esh land locked. Turkey, again. It would be nice if they kept their border locked down, and given the refugee influx, they have a greater incentive to do so than before...but who knows.
Economic restrictions. Da?esh attracts recruits with generous salaries AND social support for their families back home. Air strikes are already knocking out makeshift refining plants. (By the way, 3 -6 million? a day of oil income is peanuts when it comes to war financing). I suspect oil pipelines and pumping terminals will be next. Power plants and water distribution will follow. This exacerbate the refugee crisis, but again it isolates the enemy from resources. As general Sherman more or less put it, war is cruelty and you cannot refine it that much. Da?esh occupies very little territory and its lines of communication are long and tenuous. Any convoy moving along them is likely to get hit from the air.
Obama is hoping the Kurds are going to go on the offensive into Da?esh occupied regions of Sunni majority Iraq. I doubt it, at least on a large scale. The Kurds are fighting for independence from Iraq. The most likely end point of this conflict involves the break up of Iraq as we have known it, to be replaced by a Kurdish state, a Sunni state and a Shiite state.
Obama is counting on Da?esh being self-limiting. Think Sunni Awakening in Iraq. That's not an unreasonable hope. Da?esh is oppressive and more importantly, a significantly foreign occupying army. Foreign occupiers stick out like sore thumbs and wear out their welcome, especially as their money gets tight and they resort to confiscation.
* I prefer this neutral sounding term to ISIS/ISIL because it doesn't promote the group's agenda of being seen as Islamic and a state.
Just checking to see if this reply makes it through...2 earlier ones didn't.
There are few protests in the streets from ardent anti-war types these days, and even fewer Republicans praising Obama for boldly waging war. This is a complete reversal of the days of President Bush, it hardly needs pointing out.
That's what ya have ME for!!! :D
Military professionals are given a mission, and they are trained to implement that mission as best they know how, using the resources available to them.
The problem comes when the Commander In Chief publically and unequivocally ties one hand of the military behind it's back..
In warfare, you never.. NEVER... EVER take options off the table...
NEVER.... EVER....
It is far, far too early to tell what the eventual outcome will be of the mission the military has been given in Iraq and Syria
But, considering the recent past where Obama implemented similar restraints on the military in Libya, once can make an educated guess as to what the outcome will be..
It will be a disaster...
This is an instructive example for many reasons, which is why it is odd that nobody seems to want to bring it up now.
Well, except for your's truly... :D
Michale
JFC,
Credit where credit is due..
Speaking of inappropriately cute phrases, what is this war called? Doing Stupid Shitstorm?
THAT was funny!!!! :D
Liz,
Re: #3
Well said.. You are absolutely correct.. Obama bit off WAY more than he could chew by stating the goal of the mission.
But you see, that is the problem we have when we have a POTUS who cares more for the political dimension than he does the reality on the ground...
Obama needs to take off his Campaigner In Chief hat when he puts on his Commander In Chief hat..
I think the current administration, at least, has learned the lessons of the past decade and a half as well as the lessons you allude to.
I have to disagree..
This administration, simply by being involved in this manner are making the same mistakes they (and previous administrations before them) have made..
"We're not going to be making the same mistakes, I can tell you!!"
"No, no, no.. You're making all new mistakes.."
-JURASSIC PARK II
This effort is going to be multi-generational because that's how long I think it will take for the Arab world to change its spots, number one ... and, number two, it will be the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa who will have to ultimately solve the problem of violent extremism in their midst, NOT the US and its western allies.
The problem here is the concept of Islam... The bedrock of the Bible is the Golden Rule.
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you."
The bedrock of the Koran is to argue and fight and kill until everyone is under Islam...
I have said it before and I'll say it again... Islam is now where Christianity was a thousand years ago... Brutal, aggressive, unforgiving and convinced of it's righteousness as their lord god allows them to see what is right.. And anyone who doesn't agree?? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS...
Unless they kill each other off totally and completely, we'll have to wait a thousand years for peace to come to the Middle East..
JFC,
I'm not sure where that is (somebody's basement?), but apparently we can follow them to the "gates of hell" w/o "boots on the ground".
It's funny.. The troops in Iraq aren't even allowed to go outside the Green Zone...
So, I guess we have to hope that the "gates of hell" are some where in the Green Zone...
Michale
Just checking to see if this reply makes it through...2 earlier ones didn't.
You watch STAR TREK???
TOS episode THE PARADISE SYNDROME???
Certain vowels and consonants in a certain order produce a harmonic effect that opens up the Obelisk...
That's what's happening here... Certain phrases or combinations of words open a portal to NNL....
Michale
The biggest problem Obama is going to face is that he is utterly and completely clueless about the real world...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/24/curl-obamas-breathtaking-naivete-at-the-united-nat/
He thinks that soaring rhetoric and sincere apologies for so-called wrongdoing is all that is needed to turn enemies into friends...
His apology for Ferguson, where none was warranted, is a perfect example...
Michale
TheStig -
Sorry, they've been posted now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention...
-CW
Open question:
Anybody else have a problem with "boots on the ground," or is it just me?
-CW
Michale -
One other question. What did you think of the paragraph starting:
Last week saw a media frenzy over a fairly innocuous and realistic answer given by a high-ranking military man in front of a congressional committee.
I saw this episode as an attempt by a politician to force a military brass guy to say something that the politician could use politically, when in fact if you parsed his answer it was really nothing more than "what ELSE do you think I should do in that situation?" exasperation from the general. But I'd be interested to hear your take on the episode.
-CW
Anyone wanna lay any bets on what happens when the US starts taking casualties???
Michale
"Anybody else have a problem with "boots on the ground" or is it just me?"
I'm with you.
"I'd suggest "combat troops on the ground" instead"
I'd suggest "sending young people to kill and die in the Middle Eastern meat grinder".
CW,
I saw this episode as an attempt by a politician to force a military brass guy to say something that the politician could use politically, when in fact if you parsed his answer it was really nothing more than "what ELSE do you think I should do in that situation?" exasperation from the general. But I'd be interested to hear your take on the episode.
It was exactly as you said..
A military man giving a straight answer to a somewhat trick question...
But I disagree with your assessment that there really wasn't any disagreement between the POTUS and the military.
There quite clearly IS a disagreement.
Obama has unequivocally stated that there will be NO American combat troops deployed..
The military has unequivocally stated that they will need AND recommend American combat troops on the ground to accomplish the mission as the POTUS has defined the mission..
So, clearly there is a disagreement..
But you are dead on ballz accurate. The General acted honorably and answered the question as it was put to him... Which is exactly what his job is...
Anybody else have a problem with "boots on the ground," or is it just me?
I really don't have too much of a problem with it. It's PR, but it's accurate...
How about "Troops In TOP"??
Michale
"Anybody else have a problem with "boots on the ground," or is it just me?"
Oh my, yes! CW, you nailed it with the "inside the beltway label."
No boots on the ground has strong implications...
No combat troops. Nobody is going to get hurt.
Yet, when you ask a few questions, everything becomes hopelessly vague. In large part because BOG has a semantic evil bother called Special Forces. SF wear boots, on the ground, yet they are not "boots on the ground." In the course of advising, training, scouting, spotting and maybe some rescuing, they may take some enemy fire.
Another semantic relative is the black arts bunch, such as CIA and the organization formally known as Black Water, who do rough stuff and have been known to take casualties while doing so.
and so on along the escalator.
The phrase NO boots on the ground is both hopeful and hopelessly vague. Ideally suited to the beltway crowd.
Another term I can't abide. "In harms way." Sappy.
Making war demands clear thinking and clear language.
A non-evasive piece of military slang from the "age of sail."....."the butcher's bill." Says something and means what it says.
Making war demands clear thinking and clear language.
Which is why war should be left to the military and not to politicians...
Michale
using "boots on the ground" as shorthand for "American men and women in combat,"
Is it now used specifically to refer to US personnel in combat? I thought it referred to personnel (combat or otherwise) present at the actual location of whatever is under discussion, either soldiers or people described by analogy to soldiers. So, for example, UN peacekeepers sent to a trouble spot in hopes of avoiding combat would be included as "boots on the ground", as I understand the phrase. So would special forces. It contrasts with analysts in echo chambers, with air support for local forces, with "aid" (usually consisting of loans with strings attached), with threats, and with any other attempt to accomplish military missions on the cheap in ways that usually wind up being expensive and unsuccessful.
But then again, I'm outside the Beltway. If I were paying attention to how it's used nowadays, I might have a problem with it.
Dang it. I've got to get into the habit of doing preview. Only the quoted line and the words "in combat" are supposed to be italicized.
I thought it referred to personnel (combat or otherwise) present at the actual location of whatever is under discussion, either soldiers or people described by analogy to soldiers.
That's not the political definition.
The current political definition is "boots on the ground" means combat soldiers who are in Theater to personally perform offensive actions against the enemy in larger than company strength..
This allows the administration to deploy SF operators and thousands of "embassy security" personnel and still cling to and feed the useful idiots the fantasy that there are no "boots on the ground"..
[/cynical]
:D
Michale
Chris,
Anybody else have a problem with "boots on the ground," or is it just me?
Well, to me, "boots on the ground" means "American men and women in combat" and are really interchangeable phrases. Both mean that US servicemen and women are going to be put in harms way and that their lives are at risk. I guess that's why I don't have a problem with the phrase, either phrase.
I would just add that, regardless of what phrase is used, there are many distinctions to be made insofar as the numbers of troops we are talking about or the description of troops.
It's just like what we refer to as 'war' and how we make distinctions between an all out invasion of Iraq as in 2003 and sending a number of US military advisors and/or special forces to the country to assist Iraqi Security Forces.
I think these questions are more important than whether we say "boots on the ground" or "US military men and women in combat".