http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/how-short-term-thinking-makes-the-us-worse-at-fighting-wars/255292/#.T3so9YkoNCA.facebook
Article by
- Joshua Foust is a fellow at the American Security Project and the author ofAfghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. He is also a member of the Young Atlanticist Working Group.
Though I can agree with the author's thinking, I disagree that the main "cause" of our poor performance is the 12-month deployment cycle. I believe that the cause is rooted more in the POLITICAL realm that exercises its' own "deployment cycle" that we call the "election cycle." This election cycle and the more recent inability to develop and approve the federal budget necessarily drives the behavior of the US Armed Forces.
Military strategy will never progress from the current planning cycle until the National Command Authority (President, SecDef, SecState, Joint Staff) stops their use of military forces for short-term political gains. That is what we have done since the Korean War 1950's. The employment of military forces is a POLITICAL DECISION. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, our POLITICAL "leaders" have engaged the US Military without having first defined a solid strategic plan that is based on sound principles. Instead, we entered sovereign nations and toppled governments (no matter how dysfunctional) without taking into consideration the long-term effects on the country that was invaded or the costs to our own country.
In Iraq, the military's planning and execution for removing Saddam Hussein from power and defeating the Iraqi armed forces was excellent. The evidence lies in the rapid defeat of the Iraqi military. Our nation however, had no follow-on plan. Military forces can provide the force needed to defeat an enemy. Military forces can provide security for a short period of time while diplomatic assets take control of the defeated country's infrastructure. The military should never be the lead agency for "Nation Building." That is not what the armed forces are equipped and trained to do.
The stagnation in Iraq and Afghanistan is the direct result of a POLITICAL failure. In both countries, the POLITICAL "leadership" relies upon the US Military to perform both military and diplomatic missions. There is no coherent long-term strategy. The only "strategy" is tied to the election cycle and the intent of the "strategy" only reflects a desire to provide political gains and damnation for the opposing political party. That is no strategy at all.
So, if we want success in military engagements, our POLITICAL leadership first needs to ONLY use military force,
When absolutely required to defend our country or ally.
ALL diplomatic efforts should be exhausted BEFORE military operations begin.
A well developed strategy is formulated that defines detailed objectives for each phase of the operation, from the initial invasion to the return of power to the invaded nation's government.
Clearly defined missions for all US Gov't departments involved in each phase of the operation.
A detailed budget that supports each phase of the operation.
Military strategy will never progress from the current planning cycle until the National Command Authority (President, SecDef, SecState, Joint Staff) stops their use of military forces for short-term political gains. That is what we have done since the Korean War 1950's. The employment of military forces is a POLITICAL DECISION. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, our POLITICAL "leaders" have engaged the US Military without having first defined a solid strategic plan that is based on sound principles. Instead, we entered sovereign nations and toppled governments (no matter how dysfunctional) without taking into consideration the long-term effects on the country that was invaded or the costs to our own country.
In Iraq, the military's planning and execution for removing Saddam Hussein from power and defeating the Iraqi armed forces was excellent. The evidence lies in the rapid defeat of the Iraqi military. Our nation however, had no follow-on plan. Military forces can provide the force needed to defeat an enemy. Military forces can provide security for a short period of time while diplomatic assets take control of the defeated country's infrastructure. The military should never be the lead agency for "Nation Building." That is not what the armed forces are equipped and trained to do.
The stagnation in Iraq and Afghanistan is the direct result of a POLITICAL failure. In both countries, the POLITICAL "leadership" relies upon the US Military to perform both military and diplomatic missions. There is no coherent long-term strategy. The only "strategy" is tied to the election cycle and the intent of the "strategy" only reflects a desire to provide political gains and damnation for the opposing political party. That is no strategy at all.
So, if we want success in military engagements, our POLITICAL leadership first needs to ONLY use military force,
When absolutely required to defend our country or ally.
ALL diplomatic efforts should be exhausted BEFORE military operations begin.
A well developed strategy is formulated that defines detailed objectives for each phase of the operation, from the initial invasion to the return of power to the invaded nation's government.
Clearly defined missions for all US Gov't departments involved in each phase of the operation.
A detailed budget that supports each phase of the operation.
