Category Archives: History

A Short Foreign Policy Primer for Dummies

Too many Americans, by and large, prefer to be spoon-fed foreign policy in a thick gruel; obediently they open their mouths wide and swallow without any conscious thought as to the ingredients or taste. Just as infants inherently trust their mothers, Americans trust in people with fancy degrees and fancy terminology. Well, this morning I thought it’s time for a short primer on how to think for yourself about foreign policy, without the fancy terminology and without needing to read piles of dusty history books.   All you need possess is common sense and an ability to think for yourself. Trust me on this one.

Foreign policy is basic human interaction writ large, so just think about how you get along with other people, how your schoolyard days replete with friends, enemies, cliques, bullies, classroom rules, and of course teachers operated. In the world, several international organizations and powerful countries serve as the teachers – they want to set the classroom rules, educate, monitor, and keep order in the classroom. All the rest of the countries in the world fit into the other categories and each might see itself differently than other countries see it, but the interactions are understandable in simple human terms. You don’t need to understand a lot of fancy terminology or theories, but you need to understand how humans interact.

A couple years ago, I wrote a simple explanation of how to look at foreign policy, in a piece on the Global Zero initiative, a group dedicated to eliminating nuclear weapons by 2030 :

“Let’s talk about people, since the solution to all human problems falls on our shoulders.  People always form groups –  it’s how we live.  Groups always compete and also many groups don’t get along (let’s face it Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, the long-running American TV show to teach kids to be “good neighbors” seems to be the global exception, not the rule).  So, let’s look at life in the “Neighborhood of Make Believe”, the imaginary setting in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood for his puppet show segment in each episode.  I watched Mr. Rogers Neighborhood for years when my kids were young and unlike many children’s shows, Fred Rogers’ show, highlighted important lessons on the people problems, that carry us further toward finding peaceful solutions than most of the touted geopolitical experts in the world. In the Neighborhood of Make Believe reigned a bullying, irrational, impulsive monarch, King Friday XIII – the worst type of leader to deal with and as his name implies – bad news.  Each episode highlighted a different “people problem” and solutions to work out these problems.  King Friday never wanted to admit he was wrong, but his calm, more rational wife, Queen Sara Saturday, usually intervened to help resolve the crisis and to calm down King Friday and try to reason with him.  Sadly, the Neighborhood of Make Believe mirrors our real world rather closely, except in the real world we don’t have enough level-headed, steady leaders, like Queen Sara Saturday, running things (yes, she made running a group, “Food for the World”, a primary duty).

King Friday often made impulsive, poorly thought out decisions and it’s leaders like him that pose the challenge on dealing with the nuclear proliferation issue.  While King Friday loved to give long-winded speeches (he didn’t own a teleprompter thankfully), he still could be reasoned with, but in the real world we must contend with the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of batshit crazy leaders, who don’t have a Queen Sara Saturday nearby to calm things down.”

Now, going back to the classroom, if everyday a bully told everyone that he was going to beat you up, it might be prudent on your part to first, believe he means you harm, second, be prepared to defend yourself.  Would you go and sit at the same lunch table with him and believe he wanted to be your friend or share his cookies with you?  Well, that is the Obama/Kerry nuclear weapons talks with Iran in a nutshell.  Iranian leaders rant, “Death to America!” and President Obama and John Kerry pretend Iran is trustworthy.  Truly, foreign policy experts and politicians like to ramble on about all sorts of other stuff and throw in fancy terminology, but at the end of the day it boils down to Iran means America harm and we shouldn’t trust them.

The second part is about the other thing to consider and that is how to decide on who or what is a “threat” we should be concerned about as a country.  We’ve got all sorts of academics pontificating about that, where there’s a strong contingent of them who believe America itself is America’s and the world’s greatest threat.  There are others who would like to align America with the worst bullies in the world and form all sorts of new ties.  Still others see existential threats in nature itself at every turn, like the climate change hysterics.  We also have traditionalists who seek historical examples of American strategic successes and try to parlay those into our present day circumstances.

Now back to that same piece, “Global Zero: Another Nothing-Burger Plan”, I tried to explain how to look at defining “threats”:

“Here’s another one of those home truths that I am so fond of using to make my point.  Let’s state what should be obvious, but apparently needs to be driven home once more – any weapon, be it a slingshot or a nuclear weapon, is an inanimate object.  Inanimate objects aren’t the problem.  Yep, it’s always the people that pose the problem and let’s be more precise here, it’s what’s in the hearts of man that can turn that slingshot or nuclear weapon into a “threat”.   We’ve always got to contend with people first and the rest of the inanimate objects truly rank as a secondary issue.”

Now unlike your average homemaker, I love reading piles of dusty history books and I especially love books on military strategy and foreign policy.  One of my favorite military strategists is Dr. Colin S. Gray.  Dr. Gray challenges theories with the question, “So what?”, while my favorite question is, “Why?”, but when it gets down to brass tacks, he offers such a wealth of historical knowledge to his arguments that I always come away feeling privileged to be able to learn from such an outstanding teacher.  It takes me forever to read his books, because often I’ll read just a paragraph or two and have to spend the rest of the day thinking about that, asking both, his “So what?” and my, “Why?”  Dr.  Gray published a short, excellent article, “Thucydides Was Right: Defining the Future Threat”, in an April 2015 Strategic Studies Institute monograph.  He talks about the importance of history in understanding military strategy;

“To understand future threat, it should be realized
that the 2 1/2 millennia of strategic history fairly accessible
to us can and should be utilized in order to
generate some theory with explanatory power, at
least potential, over the rich and characteristically
ever-changing flow of events. Fortunately, we do have
enough to hand some grip and grasp on the principal
factors that, in combination, often malign and drive
our strategic history.11 Specifically, strategic history
can be approached and understood as the ever dynamic
outcome of relations among human nature, political
process, and strategic logic and method. It is my
argument that none of these three broad driving forces
in history are discretionary. As human beings, we are
what we are and, effectively, always have been.”

The post-Soviet era led to an array of misguided, dangerous and flat out wrong theories on American foreign policy , assessing “threats” , and formulating plans for the future.  Dr. Gray doesn’t gloss over the failures.   There’s been a reliance on fancy terms, instead of getting down to the brass tacks of as he put it in simple formula: threat = capability X intentions. He states:

It is worth noting that, over the past century, many
scholars and politicians who should have known better
gave robust indication of their failure to grasp the
essential point just registered here. The whole modern
history of arms control has revealed confusion of
understanding about the significance of arms in their
relation to political intentions. Identity of political
ownership of weapons largely, though not absolutely
invariably, is key to understanding strategic and political
meaning. Military capability may well be rich
in strategic, operational, and tactical implications, but
the ascription of threat depends upon the political
ownership of the instruments of interest. Of course,
such ownership often will be innocent of malign intention,
or at the least will only be deemed likely to be
contingently menacing.

Since context typically drives contingency, and
given that context should lend itself to influence by
behavior that shapes political judgment, the grim possibilities
that one can identify with particular inert
military items may serve as providing timely warning
for statecraft. Episodically throughout recorded strategic
history, developments have been interpreted as
being in an adversarial context, and the identification,
possibly misidentification, of great security threats
has ensued.

What Dr. Gray made me think about is it’s really easy to focus on the weapons themselves and not pay enough attention to the intentions part of that equation.  He explains clearly that intentions, due to being reliant on the human element can change rapidly, just as school yard friends and foes change often based on events that transpire. The world is complex, but in the end  getting to know people is far more important than believing in fancy terminology and  strategic catchphrases that you can’t even really explain or  trusting in people because of their titles.

To be a better strategic thinker, here is my libertybelle advice:

1.  Get to know people, not about people.  Only by building trust can people resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.

2.  Ask Dr. Gray’s, “So what?”, but make sure you try to understand the “Why? too before you accept politicians’ and experts’ theories and policy prescriptions.  It’s a lot like taking a new medication on the market.  Read the fine print, read the list of possible side effects, but be aware there could be unforeseen bad reactions, just like even the best-intentioned foreign policy initiative might have unforeseen horrible consequences  too.  With bad drug reactions, we act swiftly and our doctor will tell us to stop taking that drug immediately.  Yet with foreign policy gone awry, for some inexplicable reason,way too many of our politicians and experts get entrenched in their pet theories and they refuse to stop taking the bad medicine and in fact, they often want to increase the dosage.

3.  Be prepared to be wrong and be prepared to change course.

4.  Follow the news.  Read  some history and if you have time, read lots of history.  Oh, and read Dr. Gray’s excellent monograph: “Thucydides was Right: Defining theFuture Threat”!

3 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Politics

LB Revisits a Christmas past….

Amazing admissions by Mike Morrell in the Washington Post: “Former CIA official cites agency’s failure to see al-Qaeda’s rebound”

So ridiculous to blame the Arab Spring and rapidly changing events – I’m too disgusted with these way too late admissions to comment a great deal. Any analyst with a brain should have seen the Arab Spring, as a huge destabilization of several governments in rapid succession, with collapsing governments,  through time immemorial creates “POWER VACUUMS” and those who are organized and willing to use force rise to fill them. The American democracy experiment, where thoughtful men met in the aftermath of a revolution to discuss and reach a peaceful consensus on the new government and worried about the rights of individuals, is the exception in history, not the rule. There were some of us who predicted this was the biggest boon to Islamists, who were prepared to seize this opportunity. There was no viable democracy movement in these countries to produce the miracle the Obama administration, the media and starry-eyed analysts waxed on about.

Time for a LB repost from a Christmas past:

December 25, 2012 · 8:12 pm | Edit
↓ Jump to Comments
Thoughts on the Arab Spring

Yes, I know it’s Christmas and I’ve already got my Christmas dinner started, so between dashes back to the kitchen to keep dinner moving along I’m going to jot down a few thoughts on why just about everyone in punditry, left, right and in between, gets it wrong on the Arab Spring. The first mistake many people make is what I’ll call cultural relativism, a natural off-shoot of our moral relativism, where we try to replace moral absolutes (i.e. right or wrong) with some ever-shifting sliding scale of excuse-making and finger-pointing of causes.. Once we muddy the water on defining behavior as right or wrong, we quickly get sucked down by underwater currents , akin to swimming in water-filled old quarry holes that abounded where I grew up in rural PA. As years of this muddled thinking spread by that contagion, I’ll refer to as the loons of academia, well, now many people hesitate to take a moral stance on just about any behavior, or they try to rationalize away individual responsibility for bad behavior. That same type of brainwashing on evaluating cultures spread like kudzu took root here in the American South, leading to our present strategic failures. If we start with all cultures are of equal merit and no culture has a superior value system, to better the life of its citizenry, then we end up quickly drowning in this swimming hole of cultural relativism. If we survive, we end up flailing about looking for some sound underpinnings to our understanding of what is going on in the world, what the likely outcomes of unfolding events will be and what these events mean to American interests.

The petals of optimism about the Arab Spring faded quickly, spreading seeds of discontent, disillusion and disconnected reasoning blowing across the strategic plain. Americans like everything fast, not just their cars and food, no, we like fast solutions, even when dealing with conflicts and cultures, dating back two millennia. I’ve read so much about the Arab Spring written by supposed experts on the Middle East, yet sadly most of these pages would serve a more useful purpose lining the bottom of a birdcage to catch the droppings. I’m quickly going to run through a few common fallacies that weave an uneven magic carpet of Arab pipe-dreams. My Christmas ham is happily baking so lets start with Islam (okay, I apologize that wasn’t culturally sensitive). Islam does not mean peace, it means submission to the will of God and obedience to his law. So, in Islam, God’s law is defined by the prophet, Mohammad and every aspect of Islamic culture is defined by this. The concept of separation of church and state falls as an anathema to Islamic teachings. Holding “democratic” elections does not a free, democratic, pluralistic society make. Cultures still steeped in tribal forms can’t jump the arc of historical enlightenment and instantaneously fall at the end, finding Jeffersonian democratic pots of gold. . And a last point is Islam lends itself more easily to autocratic forms of government, because the overwhelming consensus in these countries is that they want sharia law, which sets the stage for a theocracy (hint, that can never be a free, pluralistic society). Even the Puritans who fled persecution in England initially set-up a theocratic form of government and while lots of historians tend to miss this fact, cherry-picking only American themes they like (like how they tried communal living and it failed – strike one against communism in America) , the truth is they weren’t a pluralistic, welcoming group initially. There’s an excellent five-volume set of “The Life of George Washington” written by John Marshall and Volume 1 deals with a very detailed history of America’s founding from the very beginning (long before Washington’s birth). Marshall explains how other Protestants were run out of some Puritan towns, because they didn’t allow free exercise of religion, except for their own. This changed over time, but Catholics faced persecution in other colonies, as did various Protestant sects. So, our religious tolerance wasn’t at the high-water mark at America’s founding. The Marshall series is available for free at amazon.com (here) or volume 1 is at gutenberg.org (here).

So, then we reach the conundrum of why do some countries make successful democratic breakthroughs and others don’t and why are there so few successful democratic breakthroughs. There’s no exact recipe for democratic success, but having the basic mix of vital ingredients (free enterprise, democratic institutions within the society, property rights to list a few) helps increase the odds for success. The Mid-East, except for Israel, has none of the ingredients on hand. Trying to wing it with rhetorical substitutions and pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking won’t produce the desired results. I kept noticing this entrenched belief system when that clamor arose about the Palestinians and all the Jimmy Carteresque blather about holding elections, which led not to joyous democracy, instead it led to the posthaste election of Hamas. Even western-style image makeovers can’t turn a sow’s ear (like Arafat) into a silk purse and we end up with the same old dictators and tyrants. Here’s the best analysis of why the road to free, pluralistic, democratic governance has more potholes and road construction signs than highways in PA. It’s a book (sorry the kindle version isn’t free and the formatting is lacking) titled, “America’s Inadvertent Empire” by the late GEN William Odom and Robert Dujarric. GEN Odom’s wisdom will be sadly missed and I greatly admired him, in fact, I long for generals of his stature (alas, we’ve sunk to the GEN Casey/Petraeus/ Clapper politico types) . As a starting point in getting back on rational strategic terrain, this book maps out an excellent route toward understanding the landmarks to look for along the difficult road toward democracy. These are a few of my thoughts on what’s wrong with our American foreign policy in the Arab world. I’m not an expert on much of anything except needlework and homemaking, so I welcome opinions and comments. Time for Christmas dinner. Merry Christmas everyone!

2 Comments

Filed under Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Islam, Military, Politics, Terrorism, The Constitution

Suggested Reading

Here’s a timely, helpful short primer on your road to strategic-thinking :

“Thucydides Was Right: Defining the Future Threat” by Dr. Colin S. Gray

Another LB post from September 2014:

“Let’s not keep shooting elephants to avoid looking a fool”

Here’s an excellent read (it’s a book available for purchase) on America’s role in the world from the late General William E. Odom, which offers some wise counsel on our present convoluted foreign policy:

“America’s Inadvertent Empire”

Here’s a short thought-provoking piece from Cora Sol Goldstein that appeared in the 2012 Autumn Strategic Studies Institute edition:

“The Afghanistan Experience: Democratization By Force”

What you might ask am I going to read to be prepared – well, I’m going to get back to finishing reading General John J. Pershing’s two-volume, Pulitzer-prize winning,  autobiography on his experiences in World War I – like building a modern fighting force from pretty much the bottom up (might be timely as our military is being dismantled by social engineering from President Obama, feckless leadership at the top, and over a decade of futile missions in the ME):

“My Experiences in the World War”

Of course, Dr. Gray recommends reading Thucydides, so I’ve bookmarked that too:

“The History of the Peloponnesian War”

For a daily rundown and analysis of the world’s hotspots, I recommend John McCreary:

“Nightwatch”

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Islam, Military, Politics, Terrorism, Useful Links

A real discussion on ISIS

JK sent me a link to a War On The Rocks podcast, that’s worth listening to:

PODCAST: The Islamic State’s War in Iraq and Syria

It’s a round table kind of discussion on the debacle that is Iraq and Syria between a group of experts, who really offer a lot of interesting insights into the factions, politics, religious strife, policy approaches, history and also some opinions on ways forward at untangling this Gordian knot.  It’s a breath of fresh air to hear differing opinions and some discussion that is calm and filled with more than propaganda promoting an agenda.

1 Comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Islam, Military, Politics

David Duff on the Putin problem

David Duff across the pond at Duff and Nonsense penned an excellent piece, “So, huffing and puffing aside, what do we do next?”, exploring  Putin’s geopolitical ambitions and possible western responses:

So, huffing and puffing aside, what do we do next?

Before reading my uninformed guesswork it would be best if you began by reading Fraser Nelson’s very shrewd assessment of Putin’s 21st century geo-political ‘warfare’:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11438314/Vladimir-Putins-invisible-empire.html

So, that’s the way the world works today, by a judicious mix of money, sedition and soldiers – at a distance!  The lands bordering Russia are excellent testing grounds for this new strategy because amongst the indigenous population there are large-ish numbers of Russian ethnics.  Ukraine is perhaps the perfect example.

By coincidence I have just finished reading the chapters in Margaret MacMillan’s terrific history of the Versailles peace conference in 1919 which deal with the efforts of the victors to sort out the hideously complicated problems of who owns what in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.  It is a problem beyond solvability!  However, ‘Vlad’ thinks he can solve some of it simply by chewing up the Russian-speaking enclaves whilst standing at a distance, whistling quietly and looking ‘shocked, I tell you, shocked’ when anyone suggests that he is the one stirring things up. Like a naughty schoolboy he simply says, “Who, sir?  Me, sir? No, sir! Him, sir!”  The question then arises that if he is successful what will he try next?  And the second question is what do we do about it?

Well, we tried economic sanctions, or at least, some pathetic semblance of them, and they appear to have been a ‘Big Fail’.  Not the least of the reasons for their failure is that ‘Vlad’ doesn’t give a stuff if the standard of living drops in Russia.  He will, like political charlatans always do, lean on his secret police whilst appealing to his people’s patriotism and claim that poor Mother Russia is being bullied by the West.  They, being as stupid as every electorate anywhere, will swallow it whole!  The other reason for the failure of economic sanctions to really hurt Russia is that the West is not united in their application.  Suddenly, the Western politicians have realised that sanctions cut two ways!  You stop Russia using your banking system so they stop exporting gas to you.  In addition, western unity is under-mined because each country in the West has a different pain threshold vis-à-vis Russia.  For example, the French were on the point of selling two large warships to the Russians when this kicked off and they were under enormous pressure from their ‘friends and allies’ to cancel the sale.  (I never did quite find out what happened but my guess is that the deal went through in the end!)

Needless to say, here ‘in this our septic Isle’, the cold-war warriors are out in force squeaking that we must build up our armed forces to face the threat.  What threat, exactly, I ask, and how do you propose to deal with it militarily with an army, navy and air force  that, even if you doubled it, would be miniscule compared to what the Russian behemoth could put in the field?  (And anyway, given the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan would you trust our ‘Brass’ to manage an exercise on Salisbury Plain let alone Eastern Europe?)

Ah, cry the warriors, but in conjunction with our allies in NATO we would be a force to be reckoned with.  To which I would reply – what allies?  The Germans decided decades ago to minimise their army and instead to invest their money into Mercedes-Benz!  Well, lots of other German industries as well but you take my point.  They were able to cut their defence budgets and concentrate on making money whilst they nestled under the warm, comfortable protection of America throughout the cold war.  Consequently, their military today is even more pathetic than ours!  Not that they really want to get involved in a punch-up with Russia because they sell several ‘zillion’ Mercedes-Benz cars to them as well as relying on Russian imports of gas!

Needless to say, the most vocal people agitating for ‘strong counter-measures’ against Russia are the Euro fanatics in Brussels.  They realise that one of the outcomes of this Russian pressure could be the implosion of the European Union.  At this point, I would ask the more militaristic of my readers whether they are prepared to risk war with Russia for the sake of Mr. ‘Juncker the Drunker’?  The ‘Eurocrats’, of course, being almost totally concentrated on Europe have not quite realised that the great, big, magical, American umbrella under which they have lived so comfortably for so long has been quietly rolled up and put in a cupboard somewhere in the White House and no-one is quite sure where!

So, a new century and a new set of problems.  But at least let us try and face them intelligently and without recourse to old solutions to old problems.  Above all, let us deal with them realistically.  And by “us“, I mean Britain, not this mystical entity they call ‘Europe’.  I see absolutely no British interests at risk in Eastern Ukraine.  My advice is the same as that offered by Cpl. Jones to his platoon leader, “Don’t panic, Capt. Mainwaring!”

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Politics

Libertybelle learns the rules of the game

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” Obama told reporters during a White House news briefing. “We don’t have a strategy yet.”

– September 4, 2014 remark on fighting ISIS (from CNN)

President Obama’s admission last Fall that we don’t have a strategy to defeat ISIS (now IS) may be the most honest statement he has made during his presidency.  It may also mark the point where other world leaders determined America slipped from it’s world super power status, relegated to something akin to Whitney Houston trying to restart her sidelined singing career after descending into a downward spiral of drug and alcohol abuse.   The crowds still showed up when she sang, but often many walked out during her performances and the reviews were brutally negative.  Being a Whitney Houston fan, I remained ever hopeful that she would be able to beat the drug addiction and return to her halcyon days of glory, when she gracefully walked on stage, head held high.  Sadly, sometimes the sins of the parents do pass on to the children, as in the tragic case of Bobbi Kristina growing up with parents heavily into drugs.  America is at the point where the crowds still show up when the President of the United States speaks, but few walk away awed by the performance these days.

With Barack Obama holding the reins  we need to seriously worry that the horse has been put out to pasture and the cart disassembled for scrap lumber recycling, such is the state of American national security strategy.  So let’s take a little strategic-thinking horse and buggy ride through the vastly complex modern geopolitical sphere, hold on tight though, because libertybelle is holding these reins:-)

Let’s set aside the Obama administration’s complete and total cluelessness on foreign policy, grand strategy, history (particularly military history), geography, economics and people (cultures).  This post is about my personal big picture strategic learning  curve, which I’ll call “libertybelle learns the rules of the game”.  Long ago, in high school actually, I joined a club that met after school to play a board game called “Diplomacy“, where the players take on the mantle of head of state and commander of the armed forces of their respective country.  Players must form alliances and dupe other players to achieve their strategic objectives on the game board, which is a map of the pre-WWI world.  Being the only girl in this club, I tried to be friends with everyone and much to my dismay, I learned very quickly that the boys lied a lot to me, deliberately working together to defeat me quickly.  My feelings got crushed, because I didn’t want to lie and collude against other players and I didn’t understand why we all couldn’t just sit down and talk and reach a sensible solution.  Men like to fight, that’s what I took away from this game, but this game did pique my interest in grand strategy.

My parents, who I’ve mentioned many times on my blog , were hard-working, simple living country folks, of German ancestry.  We lived on the edge of a rural village in northeast PA, surrounded by fields and picturesque forests.  Most folks there, like my father’s entire family, could claim pre-Revolutionary War arrival to PA.  One of my direct ancestors was tasked with forming a militia of 82 local men in 1774 and  becoming a Captain, leading them and later joining the Continental Army, with some local members dying at Long Island.  My father, whom we referred to as Pop,  built roads for most of his adult life and he loved to pour over blueprints and road maps, a skill he insisted everyone should acquire.  Knowing the lay of the land where you plan to operate is crucial to mission success.  A huge part of knowing the lay of the land is knowing the people who reside there and here again, my Pop’s friendly, outgoing, generous personality served as a excellent role model.  He talked to everyone and more importantly, he listened to people.  Without open, honest dialogue among world leaders, we remain forever locked down in an endless cycle of hostility and distrust.  Don’t buy into parsing political claptrap about ‘leading from behind”.   Leadership is first and foremost about your character – so be honest, be forthright, but be humble and above all else listen to other people.   My Pop believed that if you give your word, you keep your word and I believe this too.

There’s no one course at college to take or one particular book to read on big picture strategic thinking that will turn you into a strategic thinker.  Here’s what I have learned from studying military strategy for almost 40 years (yes from my teens) – strategic thinking is a continual learning process, where you need to keep studying more history, keep reading the news, learn as much as you can about politics around the world, read about cultures (both ancient and modern), but above all else remain open to having all your preconceived “definitives” being ground into dust by new information.  New information must lead to a careful review and re-analysis of your current strategic planning.   Rigid political ideologues like President Obama or Hillary Clinton, rely on “experts” to spoon feed them “definitives’ on  the lay of the land and sadly, the “experts” upon whom they rely appear to have dual loyalties, as in Hillary’s MB- connected  aide, Huma Abedin or the circle of Muslim Brotherhood brothers, President Obama invites to the White House, while ignoring the advice coming from his top generals.  Hillary Clinton, too, has a disdain for the military.

Many people and many books shaped my strategic learning and even now I remain an amateur.  I had a high school German and Russian teacher, who loved US Army film footage and he surely had an amazing collection, which he loved to explain in detail.  I wrote about him long ago in my 2013 post, “Multiculturalism My Way”.  I was writing about foreign aid, but my assessment holds true for this long war we’ve waged pursuing our Islamic democracy project too:

“Over the years I’ve watched this alarming trend of our American efforts in the world to fall flat, despite our best intentions.  As we fixated on “multiculturalism”, we seemed more and more tone deaf about other cultures or ran off  organizing aid efforts that didn’t  reach those they were intended for or didn’t fit the needs of those we wanted to help.  Much of this I attribute to relying on shoddy “experts” in academia, who spend most of their  time projecting their radical politics on their judgments and assessments of what’s going on in the world.   Repeatedly I saw TV reports or read accounts about American efforts at helping in the world, both governmental and private, ending up unwanted, unneeded, or unable to reach the hands in need, due to failing to understand the basic ground truth of the situation we were dealing with.  We often short-shrift considerations of corruption  and civil strife, which dramatically impede our effort, yet  we rush to get rape or grief counselors on the ground.  In the process we often seem to throw away opportunities and much needed basic aid that could meet basic survival needs.”

I greatly admire military leadership and one of my prize possessions is my copy of General Marshall’s Report: “The Winning of the War in Europe and the Pacific”, I acquired in my teens.  Pop liked to take us on rides on weekends to look at all sorts of stuff.  One particular weekend, my Mom and I went along with Pop to look at an old abandoned home that  was going to be demolished and Pop’s boss told him that he could take anything he wanted from inside.  Pop got fixated on the lovely floor-to-ceiling built in bookcases in what must have been a well-stocked home library.  My Mom and I walked behind the house and there was an old shed with a rickety ladder that I scrambled up.  I found a few boxes with 1940s vintage post cards, which I added to my growing old post card collection, having been given some neat old post cards from North Africa during WWII that my great-grandmother received from her son, my great Uncle Kenneth, who was in the Army Corps of Engineers.  I found General Marshall’s Report and have read it several times and wherever I move this report goes with me.  My Pop carefully dismantled those built-in bookcases, carted them home in several trips and he installed some sections in their living room, where both my parents refinished them, creating a lovely focal point.  My Pop gave sections of those bookcases away too, because he didn’t have room for the rest.

I spent shy of two years on active duty, choosing to be a stay-at-home mom, when I married and had children.  In that short time on active duty, I met many wonderful men and women, but I learned about military leadership and military strategy from men.  Military history, almost without exception, is a male endeavor – that’s just the historical record, sorry to break it to the feminist revisionists.  To understand military history and the underlying military strategy  takes a great deal of effort at trying to understand the world of men and male egos, because frankly a lot of  what has happened shakes out to be not some top-lofty intellectual strategic-thinking, but male egos clashing and a lot of male beating upon chests type stuff.  Historians coin new terminology and geo-political theories , but at the end of the day, war has more to do about our leaders’ egos than it does about existential threats or even vital national security interests (which aren’t even unanimously agreed upon by “experts”).

In the modern era, there are a few more female leaders in the world, but by a large margin, the world is still run by men.  In the Muslim world, it is exclusively run by men.  All the multiculturalist kumbaya singing by the women in this administration will not alter that fact.  Failing to understand the men beating upon their chests in that neck of the world rests as more than putting the cart before the horse, it’s hiding behind the skirts of a bunch of silly women, who know absolutely nothing about men or war.  This President is perceived to be a wimp by other world leaders, particularly by those intent on destroying America.

My first battalion commander taught me about mission, from the big picture down to the little picture and he explained everyone’s role in accomplishing the mission.  I was in a Pershing missile battery and our unit crest had the motto, “Mission Accomplished” at the bottom.  I asked him what that meant and  he patiently explained “missions”, both large and small to a Private First Class, without talking down to me.  He explained how everyone has a role in completing the mission.  I believe not everyone needs to understand the entire complex big picture mission, but everyone’s got to know enough to instill confidence in the mission and the leaders.  President Obama exudes indecisiveness, vagueness and frankly cluelessness, all traits that undercut dynamic leadership.  He is a small man wearing a big hat and poorly educated on geography, history, military affairs and lacking in any understanding of grand strategy or diplomacy.  He’s a boring sloganeer of mindless phrases for morons to repeat, “Yes, we can!’   I personally would not support any “strategy” he comes up with, because I have ZERO confidence in his judgment and with any use of US military force comes a duty of our military leadership to never sacrifice American blood or treasure without a national purpose.  This administration couldn’t define American national interests if we were being overrun by marauding enemies.  They’d find excuses for them, instead of protecting, we, the American people.

But, here I’ll jump the partisan line and I’m going to state the truth – the Bush administration’s hope for building “democratic” states in Afghanistan and Iraq lacked any foundation in reality.  By setting up states where Sharia law ruled, any hope of “democratic” forms flew out the window.  We lacked a coherent big picture strategy beyond  the initial toppling the sitting governments and ended flying in a long, long holding pattern looking for some safe landing.  Sure, there were some smaller picture strategic successes, but the big picture mission of defining what success looked like defied all the facts on the ground.   Words like “defeat the enemy” ring hollow if we’re not prepared for the long slough after they’re defeated, because the powers ready to lead in that area of the world are not compatible with US notions of democracy.  Lacking a clear big picture strategic vision led to ad hoc fits and starts as we found ourselves with boots on the ground in inhospitable territory, where both the locals, neighboring states, and even other American adversaries worked behind the scenes to thwart our efforts.  We got mired down in nation-building, which the American political right spent the 1990s gravely warning against and here a Republican president led us into a utopian nation-building exercise.  It was a poor big picture strategy.

How to learn about military strategy, well, read a lot of books, get used to pouring over maps, become a news junkie, and whenever you think you’re an “expert”, it’s time to have someone knock you off that pedestal and eat some humble pie, because sure as the sun will come out tomorrow Annie, you’ll come across some new intel or fact to throw a wrench in your absolutely brilliant analysis.  Be prepared to back up and regroup and be prepared to be knocked down.  Learning how to pick yourself up, dust off your backside and trudge on is the best character builder in the world – learn to fight on.

And finally, jumping from modern education to ancient Chinese wisdom, let me end this long ramble with my own test of grand strategy for a state that wants to lead the world – in military strategy the acme of skill is learning how to win without fighting:

2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

– The Art of War by Sun Tzu from classics.mit.edu

2 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Islam, Military, Politics

A view from across the pond

Many thanks to David Duff for allowing me to repost his latest blog post.  He chronicles failed western foreign policy in Ukraine and Russia quite succinctly and with a bracing dose of honesty.  For more of David’s wit, military history writing and piercing foreign policy analysis, please stop by his blog, Duff and Nonsense.

Pity the poor statesman!

by David Duff

Oh, go on, give it a try because sometimes, just sometimes, you have to feel sorry for them.  Take the Ukrainian imbroglio for starters.  No-one can be certain until the history books are written – and by then will I give a toss? – but in my uninformed opinion it has been foolish western, and mostly European, over-reach which has provoked the current belligerent response from Russia. Instead of gradually edging ever closer to Russia’s exceedingly sensitive borders, western leaders should have leap-frogged over the old Warsaw pact nations decades ago and made every effort to entice Russia itself to become part of Europe.  Instead, by our gradual advances we have stoked their fears and resentments and driven them into the arms of the Chinese as well as providing their ‘gangsta‘ government with yet more excuses to harden their grip on the populace.

Well, we are where we are and now our ‘statesmen’ – who giggled? – need to decide how to proceed in the face of increased militarism from ‘Vlad the Impaler’ in eastern Ukraine.  I have just read two articles on the subject, one from The Streetwise Professor and another from Max Boot at the Commentary site.  Both are gung-ho to send in serious military aid to the Ukrainian government particularly in regard to sophisticated anti-tank missiles.  Their deployment and use would not only inflict serious material losses but would also cost the Russian suppliers a small fortune which, happily at the moment, they do not have!  Alas, shipping them, setting them up and training the Ukrainian army in their sophisticated use would take a considerable time and that may be one commodity we do not have because ‘Vlad’ seems determined to seize and hold the eastern Ukraine.

Let us suppose he succeeds, what then?  Possession is, famously, nine tenths of the law, so will we encourage the Ukrainians to beef up their army and counter-attack in order to take back what is rightfully theirs?  Well, if ‘Vlad’ is feeling down the back of his sofa to find the odd rouble to finance his war-games then the Ukrainians do not even have a sofa – they burned it to stay warm through this winter!  There-in, perhaps, is our way out.  The Ukrainian government is dead broke and will require enormous financial assistance from the West just to get its economy on the move.  We might be able to help a bit with that but re-arming and re-training its army would be prohibitively expensive.  Certainly there would be some complaints in Britain whose political class is determined to slash our own armed forces to a sort of ‘Dad’s Army‘ level.

The critical question is simple but deadly – are we prepared to fight for eastern Ukraine?  If the answer is ‘no’ then we should stop bluffing.  Then the next question rears up.  Are we prepared to fight for western Ukraine should ‘Vlad’s desperate need to distract his impoverished people from realising they have a kleptocratic loony in charge drive him to ‘go, west, young man, go west’?  In my view the answer is still ‘no’.  But then ‘Vlad’s ambitions will have been well and truly whetted and he will begin to flex his pecs in the direction of the Baltic states, all of whom contain large Russian populations eager to suckle Mother Russia’s teats again.  Do we fight for them?

Yes, I think on the whole being a blogger with absolutely no responsibility is infinitely preferable to being a prime minister or a president.

10 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Military, Politics

The Age of Musterbation

Another fantastic GMD read!

G. Murphy Donovan's avatarG. Murphy Donovan's Blog

                                               

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”  – E. R. Morrow

Media icons are often given credit for thoughts that originated with their betters. The “nation of sheep” metaphor is an example. Thomas Jefferson addressed the subject in the Federalist Papers, long before Edward R. Morrow. And before that, herd similes might be traced to the Old and New Testaments. William J. Lederer wrote a book on the subject in 1961, a follow up to the best-selling Ugly American (1958).

Lederer’s lament focused on a passive electorate, arrogant foreign policy apparatchiks, and myopic politicians;  the tendency of Americans to fail to educate themselves about issues and then throw good money after bad at home and abroad. In short, Lederer despaired…

View original post 2,061 more words

1 Comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Islam, Politics, Terrorism

“The Left and the Distortion of History”, by John L. Hancock at The American Thinker

In the fall of 1991, the relatively small and quiet university of Alfred University in New York State was engrossed in controversy. Indignant professors led students in protests, heated debates raged throughout the divided campus, editorials filled t….

3 Comments

Filed under Culture Wars, Education, General Interest, History, Politics

The Kagan battle plan (the “moderate” delusion redux)

They’re back…….  Oh my, the Kagans at the ISW have  “A strategy to defeat ISIS and –Win“……  Totally unrealistic expectations based on militarily defeating ISIS, more reliance on nation-building thrust into overdrive, expanded to Iraq and Syria being preserved as nation states, and a whole heap of expecting other regional players to be inanimate pieces on the chess board.  Of course,”moderates” form the lynchpin of their strategy.  Haven’t Kimberly Kagan’s think tank and her sister-in-law, Victoria Nuland, at the State Department caused enough damage to American foreign policy already?    Ms Kagan’s husband, military expert extraordinaire (NOT), Frederick Kagan,  helped draft this power point presentation worthy strategy of overly simplistic bullet point statements, lacking even a hint of feasibility at present due to the collapsed state status in Iraq and Syria, combined with American international prestige being at an all time low.

I wrote about the Kagans last year about this time of the year, “Better than none”……. the leading from behind refresher course:

With so many idiotic opinion pieces,  penned by “experts” no less, hitting the presses, it’s difficult to choose where to begin commenting.  Frederick Kagan, son of famous historian Donald Kagan, brother of Robert Kagan, brother-in-law of snarky Clinton State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland and husband of Kimberly Kagan, who heads the Institute for the Study of War (source of much of Syrian resistance “facts” swirling about) seems like a good choice.  Frederick Kagan offers his expertise in a laughably titled Washington Post piece, “On Syria, a weak strike is better than none”.  The title pretty much serves as a leitmotif for the leading-from-behind President.  Yes, I admit it, I laughed at the idiocy of some “military expert” proposing that a “weak” response is better than none.  What a clown!!!  He fits perfectly with this President and bunch of fools.  He rambles on about the morale of the Syrian resistance:

“Especially after this lengthy buildup and public debate, Syrian rebels and their supporters would view a U.S. failure to act as abandonment of their cause. In particular, the moderate Syrian opposition, which relies on support from the United States and its allies, would be devastated.”

Okay, I went on for several more paragraphs about the Kagans, our leader from behind and the neoconservative cabal who have been wrong on every foreign policy prediction since we listened to their nonsense about a cakewalk in Iraq.  How many times do they have to be wrong, before they lose their “military expert” status?

2 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Islam, Military, Politics