Military Victory is Dead

Standard

war-is-dead

“MODERN WAR INSTITUTE AT WEST POINT”

“Victory’s been defeated; it’s time we recognized that and moved on to what we actually can accomplish.

We’ve reached the end of victory’s road, and at this juncture it’s time to embrace other terms, a less-loaded lexicon, like “strategic advantage,” “relative gain,” and “sustainable marginalization.”

A few weeks back, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and Harvard Professor Steven Pinker triumphantly announced the peace deal between the government of Columbia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC). While positive, this declaration rings hollow as the exception that proves the rule – a tentative treaty, however, at the end, roughly 7,000 guerrillas held a country of 50 million hostage over 50 years at a cost of some 220,000 lives. Churchill would be aghast: Never in the history of human conflict were so many so threatened by so few.

One reason this occasion merited a more somber statement: military victory is dead. And it was killed by a bunch of cheap stuff.

The term “victory” is loaded, so let’s stipulate it means unambiguous, unchallenged, and unquestioned strategic success – something more than a “win,” because, while one might “eke out a win,” no one “ekes out a victory.” Wins are represented by a mere letter (“w”); victory is a tickertape with tanks.

Which is something I’ll never see in my military career; I should explain. When a government has a political goal that cannot be obtained other than by force, the military gets involved and selects some objective designed to obtain said goal. Those military objectives can be classified broadly, as Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz did, into either a limited aim (i.e. “occupy some…frontier-districts” to use “for bargaining”), or a larger aim to completely disarm the enemy, “render[ing] him politically helpless or military impotent.” Lo, we’ve arrived at the problem: War has become so inexpensive that anyone can afford the traditional military means of strategic significance – so we can never fully disarm the enemy. And a perpetually armed enemy means no more parades (particularly in Nice).

Never in the history of human conflict were so many so threatened by so few.

It’s a buyer’s market in war, and the baseline capabilities (shoot, move, and communicate) are at snake-belly prices. Tactical weaponry, like AK-47s are plentiful, rented, and shipped from battlefield to battlefield, and the most lethal weapon U.S. forces encountered at the height of the Iraq War, the improvised explosive device, could be had for as little as $265. Moving is cost-effective too in the “pickup truck era of warfare,” and reports on foreign fighters in Syria remind us that cheap, global travel makes it possible for nearly anyone on the planet to rapidly arrive in an active war zone with money to spare. Also, while the terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba shut down the megacity Mumbai in 2008 for less than what many traveling youth soccer teams spend in a season, using unprotected social media networks, communication has gotten even easier for the emerging warrior with today’s widely available unhackable phones and apps. These low and no-cost commo systems are the glue that binds single wolves into coordinated wolf-packs with guns, exponentially greater than the sum of their parts. The good news: Ukraine can crowdfund aerial surveillance against Russian incursions. The less-good news: strikes, like 9/11, cost less than three seconds of a single Super Bowl ad. With prices so low, why would anyone ever give up their fire, maneuver, and control platforms?

All of which explains why military victory has gone away. Consider the Middle East, and the recent comment by a Hezbollah leader, “This can go on for a hundred years,” and his comrade’s complementary analysis, that “as long as we are there, nobody will win.” With such a modestly priced war stock on offer, it’s no wonder Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies agrees with the insurgents, recently concluding, of the four wars currently burning across the region, the U.S. has “no prospect” of strategic victory in any. Or that Modern War Institute scholar Andrew Bacevich assesses bluntly, “If winning implies achieving stated political objectives, U.S. forces don’t win.” This is what happens when David’s slingshot is always full.

The guerrillas know what many don’t: It’s the era, stupid. This is the nature of the age, as Joshua Cooper Ramos describes, “a nightmare reality in which we must fight adaptive microthreats and ideas, both of which appear to be impossible to destroy even with the most expensive weapons.” Largely correct, one point merits minor amendment – it’s meaningless to destroy when it’s so cheap to get back in the game, a hallmark of a time in which Wolverine-like regeneration is regular.

This theme even extends to more civilized conflicts. Take the Gawker case: begrudged hedge fund giant Peter Thiel funded former wrestler Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against the journalistic insurrectionists at Gawker Media, which forced the website’s writers to lay down their keyboards. However, as author Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out – Gawker’s leader, Nick Denton, can literally walk across the street, with a few dollars, and start right over. Another journalist opined, “Mr. Thiel’s victory was a hollow one – you might even say he lost. While he may have killed Gawker, its sensibility and influence on the rest of the news business survive.” Perhaps Thiel should have waited 50 more years, as Columbia had to, to write his “victory” op-ed? He may come to regret the essay as his own “Mission Accomplished” moment.

True with websites, so it goes with warfare. We live in the cheap war era, where the attacker has the advantage and the violent veto is always possible. Political leaders can speak and say tough stuff, promise ruthless revenge – it doesn’t matter, ultimately, because if you can’t disarm the enemy, you can’t parade the tanks.”

Military Victory is Dead

 

Advertisements

50 responses »

  1. Pingback: America, when Military Victory is Dead | Eslkevin's Blog

  2. Pingback: What kind of technology would be needed to repel any kind of military attack? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  3. Pingback: If the US already spends 3.5 percent of it’s GDP on it’s military, how much would the country spend in the event of a very large war? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  4. Pingback: Is that possible to have a direct limited war between any two of the big three: USA, Russia, and China? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  5. Pingback: Is total nuclear retaliation against the US mainland, the only way China can escape the wrath of the mighty American military industrial … | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  6. Pingback: Is World War III on its way right now? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  7. Pingback: What do Americans think of placing the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system in South Korea? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  8. Pingback: What would be the effect of America investing their entire military budget in healthcare/small businesses for the next 50 years? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  9. Pingback: Should you go into war with good friends by your side? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  10. Pingback: Why do we honor our warriors more than our diplomats? Example Tier 1 operators are in every book or TV show but nothing about Negotiators… | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  11. Pingback: Are all wars useless? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  12. Pingback: Can the USA “win” in Iraq? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  13. Mr. Larson I arrived here following your answer to my question on Quora regarding the feasibility of “victory” in Iraq, and find that the above commentary on modern realities of conflict somewhat confirm my outsider’s view of the situation. Given this reality, why engage in the first place? It would seem that the only path to complete threat elimination is total annihilation of the indigenous population, combatants and bystanders alike, which is morally unconscionable in all but the most dire of circumstances.

    • Thanks for the remark and I agree with you in general. However, the US did not engage in this debacle with the current outcome in mind. It (the current outcome) is one phase in a series of cause and effect relationships. An observer of our military actions over the last two decades in the Middle East could in no way have predicted the splintered, irrational, “Turn-Your-Back-And-You-Have-Two-New-Enemies”, scenario the US faces today.

      We have been very poor at learning from our misadventures in places like Vietnam, to which I was a party. We must learn from our mistakes.

      CAUSE: The US fights a just and honorable war assisting many Middle East allies and other countries free Kuwait.

      EFFECT: Saddam Hussein is driven from Kuwait and the country is returned to its rightful government.

      CAUSE: The US does not leave the Middle East after rescuing Kuwait, but rather, stays in peripheral countries militarily “To Protect Our Interests” with an imperialist attitude resented by cultures that have an ingrained,religious hatred for that type of presence by foreigners.

      EFFECT: The rise of Bin Laden and many more like him today and the deaths of 3,000 Ameri- The US fights a just and honorable war assisting many Middle East allies and other countries free Kuwait.EFFECT- Saddam Hussein is driven from Kuwait and the country is returned to its rightful government.CAUSE- The US does not leave the Middle East after rescuing Kuwait, but rather, stays in peripheral countries militarily “To Protect Our Interests” with an imperialist attitude resented by cultures that have an ingrained,religious hatred for that type of presence by foreigners-cans on our soil, attacked in our homeland because we did not leave the Middle East.

      CAUSE: The US reacts to 911 by setting up an elaborate Homeland Security apparatus and beefing up the National Security Agency by orders of magnitude, technologically, while putting in place a carefully concealed legal apparatus to counter terrorism.

      EFFECT: The US has no outside terrorist incidents of a 911 magnitude since the Twin Towers fell in 2001 but Americans develop real concerns about our government and its role in controlling our lives as whistle blower disclosures regarding the apparatus of intelligence operation reveal potential constitutional issues.

      CAUSE: The US invades Iraq fed by false, intentionally staged intelligence, fronted by agencies and industries bent on economic gain. The US sets about war fighting and nation building programs that seek to displace a culture that had evolved through conflict and war lords for hundreds of years and is tied to the absolute requirement that religious practices be part and parcel of government, a principle the US has rejected as unworkable since our Constitution was written

      EFFECT: Failure to build anything substantial in the form of a nation over a 15 year period. The deaths or crippling of our finest soldiers, dramatic increases in our national debt and a cynicism among our citizens with respect to the $Billions that have gone into the pockets of corporations supporting our huge Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and wasteful USAID Programs by companies that spend more lobbying Congress than they pay in taxes.

      CAUSE: The present Middle East unrest due to ISIS/ISIL and other splinter groups we thought had been scattered to the winds.

      EFFECT: UN Security Council meets with many nations talking and less than a half dozen nations carefully and selectively participating in an air war against terrorism while the remainder watch the outcome. Our military and corporate defense establishment (MIC) shout, “Sequestration to reduce military spending must end!” and estimates two years will be required with more American boots on the ground to train an Iraq force that we had already trained for a decade before the Iraq government disbanded it.

      CAUSE (PROJECTED): A political battle like none seen in recent times driven by concerned American citizens and their view of the US role in the Middle East, our burgeoning national debt approaching $20 Trillion and the fact that the culture in that part of the world has had a very difficult time figuring out how we can help them over the last two decades while we near energy independence from oil and require some nation building of our own in the homeland.

      EFFECT (PROJECTED): A leader and a political climate that will permit prudence, tough decisions, carefully avoidance of bad intelligence and overreaction so that we do not continue to sink into the oil and blood soaked desert of Middle East cultural revolutions as global corporations consuming the MIC and USAID tax payer dollars prosper, parking their assets overseas while our young become indebted for generations.

      https://rosecoveredglasses.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/applying-cause-and-effect-to-us-military-incursions/

  14. Pingback: Why did the USA allow massive looting to happen after the fall of Saddam’s government? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  15. Pingback: Does anybody disagree with Trump’s core policy: “America First”? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  16. Pingback: How could Vietnam and the US have a better relationship? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  17. Pingback: Why Did the U.S Allow Massive Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Iraq? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  18. Pingback: What could replace the tank? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  19. Pingback: What is the best military weapon used? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  20. Pingback: Why is the US in conflict with most of world? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  21. Pingback: What should every foreigner know about your country? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  22. Pingback: What will the future structure of the world be like, now that both the US and UK are withdrawing? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  23. Pingback: What do you think of the USA’s new budget plan? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  24. Pingback: China owns over $1 trillion in US treasury. Is this an advantage or disadvantage for China when it comes to a face-off against the US in … | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  25. Pingback: Does 9/11 still touch a nerve? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  26. Pingback: What makes the United States military superior to others around the world? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  27. Pingback: When will the United States’ war with the Middle East end? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  28. Pingback: What is the impact created by the unilateral approach by America towards global terrorism? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  29. Pingback: Trump announced and USA attacked Syria with 60 tomahawks prior to Syrian chemical attack your thoughts? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  30. Pingback: Who’s more of a madman, Bashar al-Assad or Kim Jong-Un? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  31. Pingback: Assuming the current Syrian regime is toppled, how would an effective democratic and prosperous government be established? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  32. Pingback: What are the US’s better plans for crippling NK before it orders its military to fire into a neighboring country? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  33. Pingback: What are some regrets that Iraq War vets have, and learned a lesson from, that they would like to express to aspiring soldiers? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  34. Pingback: Do you think President Bush should have ordered the invasion of Iraq? Why or why not? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  35. Pingback: How powerful is our military? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  36. Pingback: What lessons did the United States receive from 911? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  37. Pingback: Does the US keep having wars just to keep its military industry in demand? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  38. Pingback: What is the greatest persuasion tactic to use? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  39. Pingback: Would the US have won the Vietnam war if they continued fighting? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  40. Pingback: Why can’t a powerful country like the US defeat ISIS? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  41. Pingback: Wars to Keep the Military Industry in Demand | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  42. Pingback: If one country should be blamed for the mess in Syria, which country that would be? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  43. Pingback: What is meant by the statement that the Iraq War was largely about oil? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  44. Pingback: Can China become a major non-NATO ally? Would the USA consider it if proposed by the Chinese? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  45. Pingback: What angers you (most) about the federal government? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  46. Pingback: Why are so many people who live outside the United States so controversial and judgemental towards Americans, their belief, or their cons… | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  47. Pingback: How would the US have fared in Vietnam if China had been fully engaged as it was in Korea? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

  48. Pingback: Do Americans feel sorry about the current situation in Iraq? | ROSE COVERED GLASSES

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s