Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMHO
war and debt creation, the primary job of DOD, is adept at turning great big world
powers into little bitty world powers. billions for superweapons which are easily
stalmated to a standstill by primative people with speedboats, IED's and soviet surplus small arms.
Hence the argument by Dr. Barnett that the US military be divided into units capable of dealing with both major threats and the kind to which you refer.
Humm...Good food for thought....
How do we make it work?
If the peace after the war is not good....then was the war?
Taking advantage of and promoting stability are desirable ends.....after the fighting stops. It doesn't make sense to wait for the all clear to ask..."O.K....Now what?" Like in everything else...we should be WAY ahead of the game on this....It's stupid and limp dk'd in the extreme to look around after the fight is over and go....'wow....no lights..no water...no sewer...no schools...etc etc..' The people who excel in that type of work should be on their way over BEFORE the fight ends...ready to deal with all the Civil Administration stuff that so many war-fighters detest so deeply....[with cause]
The plan outlined in the video presentation reminded me of the Marshal Plan....
Perhaps that type of plan SHOULD be developed into a standing community...
How do we make it work?
If the peace after the war is not good....then was the war?
Taking advantage of and promoting stability are desirable ends.....after the fighting stops. It doesn't make sense to wait for the all clear to ask..."O.K....Now what?"
I would hope that these questions would be every bit as important and fundamental as planning how to storm the towers in the first place. I'll continue my response below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Understand his main point, but disagree with it being a DoD responsibility. His portrayal of DoD is a little inaccurate.
A core problem is the coordination between the Military Services, the Army, Navy (Marines) and Air Force are all directly funded by Congress, and lobby for programs. It is a major reason for poor post war coordination, everyone strives for their piece, but the overall responsibility is difficult to execute, and less "top down" in decisionmaking then portrayed here. Though the SecDef is responsible for coordinating through the Unified Commands, but reconstruction (or post successful war) isn't part of the equation, especially for funding.
State Department should be coordinating efforts with stakeholders, primarily the European Union and African Union, concerning military efforts and the post war funding and reconstruction.
EU is executing their responsibilities in Kosovo, but the AU lacks the authority and autonomy to adequately execute. Planning for peace isn't just our responsibility, though it should be coordinated to extent possible (war typically has a short lead time):
Wouldn't you say it is prudent to first determine what the goal of a given conflict is first thing? Does it or shouldn't the goal have an influence over how a war is managed?
If the US were to engage in conflict to free US citizens on a jungle island the methodology, resources, intelligence, etc... are all far different than if you plan to invade a major country, remove its government and military apparatus, occupy that nation for a given amount of time in order for a new government and military to emerge. So the post conflict planning should not only be taken into account as to how the conflict is waged but how the entire campaign is planned in the first place, no?
In the current conflict in Iraq, I believe it is fairly safe to assume that the post invasion phase and subsequent occupation phase was either not planned for or grossly miscalculated, in either case it is reminiscent of a previous comment by another poster. "The castle is won, now what?"
Our engagement in Afghanistan wasn't centered around the notion of what to do after we capture or kill Bin Laden or wipe out Al Qaeda and the Taliban, our focus was and apparently still is simply ending their reign of terror.
Far different situation in Iraq where it was our CHOICE of how, when, and where to invade and the time frame in which this all would take place. The post invasion phase of this war has been a disaster by any use of the word and whether it is the responsibility of the State Dept. or the DoD, there was time to do this adequately and it was not. My question would then be, should this rest on the shoulders of Sect of State, or the Join Chiefs, of on the shoulders of the President himself?
All three plus any other neocon dreamer involved. Military defeat, "crash capitalism", ethnic cleansing, religious war, and limited oil production. "Great job,_____!"
Wouldn't you say it is prudent to first determine what the goal of a given conflict is first thing? Does it or shouldn't the goal have an influence over how a war is managed?
If the US were to engage in conflict to free US citizens on a jungle island the methodology, resources, intelligence, etc... are all far different than if you plan to invade a major country, remove its government and military apparatus, occupy that nation for a given amount of time in order for a new government and military to emerge. So the post conflict planning should not only be taken into account as to how the conflict is waged but how the entire campaign is planned in the first place, no?....
Far different situation in Iraq where it was our CHOICE of how, when, and where to invade and the time frame in which this all would take place. The post invasion phase of this war has been a disaster by any use of the word and whether it is the responsibility of the State Dept. or the DoD, there was time to do this adequately and it was not. My question would then be, should this rest on the shoulders of Sect of State, or the Join Chiefs, of on the shoulders of the President himself?
Recall the video, it was discussing how to organize for a comprehensive approach to military engagements. In my view, the failure is to include the State Dept in the discussions as the lead in the post conflict efforts. DoD is responsible for conflict engagement, while State Dept is responsible for continuing relationships. The Sec of State works for the Executive Office, so naturally the decisions are coordinated, and proposals from State Dept can be modified as needed.
Recall the video, it was discussing how to organize for a comprehensive approach to military engagements. In my view, the failure is to include the State Dept in the discussions as the lead in the post conflict efforts. DoD is responsible for conflict engagement, while State Dept is responsible for continuing relationships. The Sec of State works for the Executive Office, so naturally the decisions are coordinated, and proposals from State Dept can be modified as needed.
Well said. This analysis makes clear the current President's lack of comprehensive understanding not only of the current situation, but of any sophisticated and complex military situation. And not to bludgeon Mr. Bush unduly -- virtually no American politician that I can recall had even a middling grasp of international military strategy or statecraft of the level to which Barnett refers.
We may be reaching a point where our "learn-as-you-go" system of Commander-in-Chief as untutored neophyte has outlived its relevance. The problem, of course, is that the establishment of any viable alternative would presuppose an extraordinary degree of competence and honesty among professional military people and diplomats, while treading on Constitutional prerogatives and legitimate separation-of-powers concerns.
Recall the video, it was discussing how to organize for a comprehensive approach to military engagements. In my view, the failure is to include the State Dept in the discussions as the lead in the post conflict efforts. DoD is responsible for conflict engagement, while State Dept is responsible for continuing relationships. The Sec of State works for the Executive Office, so naturally the decisions are coordinated, and proposals from State Dept can be modified as needed.
I will have to go back and watch this more thoroughly as I was folding clothes and doing my domestic chores while half paying attention to it.
Video aside, you assert that the failure lies in including the State Dept in the lead in and that the DoD is responsible for engagement activities. My question would then be, who would be more aptly suited to deal with the post invasion-occupation phase when the region remains volatile and unstable. Kind of hard to rebuild and oversee a hospital with State Dept personnel when you are getting shot at by Sunni, Shiite, and terrorist elements.
If it is about a shared responsibility between the DoD and the State Dept. then I would be curious as to who is then responsible for the oversight that would be needed to ensure that a joint effort is being enacted instead of a turf war between various governmental dept's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Well said. This analysis makes clear the current President's lack of comprehensive understanding not only of the current situation, but of any sophisticated and complex military situation. And not to bludgeon Mr. Bush unduly -- virtually no American politician that I can recall had even a middling grasp of international military strategy or statecraft of the level to which Barnett refers.
We may be reaching a point where our "learn-as-you-go" system of Commander-in-Chief as untutored neophyte has outlived its relevance. The problem, of course, is that the establishment of any viable alternative would presuppose an extraordinary degree of competence and honesty among professional military people and diplomats, while treading on Constitutional prerogatives and legitimate separation-of-powers concerns.
Please, don't hold back with the bludgeon, and while you are at it, try flogging too.
While the separation of political power as well as a separation between the military establishment and the political establishment is always prudent, I for one have never been too objectionable to former military commanders becoming, "Commander and Chief". At the very least it isn't a bad idea to have a good executive-manager that has a reasonable and rational understanding of both tactical and strategic foreign policy concerns.
Given the option to choose between a so so military commander who has spent their life in the study of history, strategy, leadership, and been directly responsible for a great number of human lives or a polished career politician, I'll pick the general 9 times out of 10.
My question would then be, who would be more aptly suited to deal with the post invasion-occupation phase when the region remains volatile and unstable. Kind of hard to rebuild and oversee a hospital with State Dept personnel when you are getting shot at by Sunni, Shiite, and terrorist elements.
If it is about a shared responsibility between the DoD and the State Dept. then I would be curious as to who is then responsible for the oversight that would be needed to ensure that a joint effort is being enacted instead of a turf war between various governmental dept's.
State Dept should have oversight, and work through the DoD's US Central Command (US CENTCOM) for military and reconstruction (contract) support.
My main point though, is that unlike what was presented in the video, I don't think a reorganization is needed. We just need to get the proper organizations involved early enough, with clear objectives, to be effective.
State Dept should have oversight, and work through the DoD's US Central Command (US CENTCOM) for military and reconstruction (contract) support.
My main point though, is that unlike what was presented in the video, I don't think a reorganization is needed. We just need to get the proper organizations involved early enough, with clear objectives, to be effective.
I would certainly go along with that assessment as I do tend to favor a shrinking of bureaucracy and promotion of less is more approach to many things. Of course this might lead to questions about performance and or the abilities of Condoleezza Rice and or Colin Powell.
Why do we have this strange desire to expand government at a drop of a hat as though the creation of more bureaucracy is a cure or response to inefficiency in the first place. Truly baffling really.
While a bit off topic, I can point to this situation as a relevant comparison to the Dept. of Homeland Security. The US did fine for many years without a Dept. of Homeland Security and according to the 911 Commission, the most noticeable breakdown in intelligence was the inter-department communication. (ie, turf wars and sharing of intel) Has DHS fixed this problem or created more red tape and bureaucratic overhead to wade through making it even more difficult to get accurate assessments of threats?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
