Posted on Sep 23, 2016
After 15 years of war, America's military has about had | Military Times
1.75K
15
11
5
5
0
Afghanistan
Iraq
Terrorism
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
I don't find this attitude surprising at all. The military is mostly made up of young service members, most of whom have very little knowledge or experience beyond tactical level operations. Most mid-grade service members have very little knowledge or experience beyond the operational level. Nation building happens at the strategic level and is something that takes years, if not decades. Back in late 2001 a few months after the attacks on 9/11, I remember my battalion commander telling us that this is a war that will last at least a decade. Many of us didn't believe him back then, but time has proven him right.
Most service members don't see this fight for what it really is. To most, they can't understand why we are engaged in the long fight. After all, the Taliban were toppled in mere months and the Iraqi Army didn't last much longer. This fight is about building and maintaining our sphere of influence which directly impacts the security and economic success of our nation. To understand it and see the reasons behind it though, you have to dig deep and understand the root causes of the conflict and the subsequent fundamental shift in US strategy.
Our strategy is no longer the quick in and out that defined the conflicts of the 1980's and 1990's. It is about maintaining a persistent presence, knowing and understanding the culture of a region, and investing resources to stop or reduce the influence of violent extremism and radical ideology. To a private carrying a rifle in the Infantry, this seems like nonsense because all he sees is the world at the tactical level. This is the kind of thinking that let Iraq and Afghanistan devolve into the situations they are in now when many of our senior leaders just focused on the military victory and little thought was given to the follow through and we are having to put forth double the effort to correct these early mistakes.
Most service members don't see this fight for what it really is. To most, they can't understand why we are engaged in the long fight. After all, the Taliban were toppled in mere months and the Iraqi Army didn't last much longer. This fight is about building and maintaining our sphere of influence which directly impacts the security and economic success of our nation. To understand it and see the reasons behind it though, you have to dig deep and understand the root causes of the conflict and the subsequent fundamental shift in US strategy.
Our strategy is no longer the quick in and out that defined the conflicts of the 1980's and 1990's. It is about maintaining a persistent presence, knowing and understanding the culture of a region, and investing resources to stop or reduce the influence of violent extremism and radical ideology. To a private carrying a rifle in the Infantry, this seems like nonsense because all he sees is the world at the tactical level. This is the kind of thinking that let Iraq and Afghanistan devolve into the situations they are in now when many of our senior leaders just focused on the military victory and little thought was given to the follow through and we are having to put forth double the effort to correct these early mistakes.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
COL Lee Flemming - I always look forward to the big brain topics you bring up. Getting a chance to discuss and debate these kinds of topics I think really helps to broaden your views on a subject
(1)
(0)
COL Lee Flemming
SFC (Join to see) - I wouldn't call them big brain topics, but you absolutely know my stance. Of all the missions we have our SMs conducting I have the biggest issue with Nation Building. Sure we on some scale conduct them, sure our SMs are executing at a high level, but I still believe that NB is outside of the core competency of the majority of the force responsible for executing the duty. And as CSM (Join to see) mentioned, it is dangerous work...probably even more so than flat out kinetic operations. And for what...?
And no African retorts which is a mixed bag too... You know exactly what missions we are talking about here!!
And no African retorts which is a mixed bag too... You know exactly what missions we are talking about here!!
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
COL Lee Flemming - No, you are correct, it is dangerous. It is an environment that is usually inherently hostile, but you can't resort to just kinetic operations as you stated which is what the US military does best. This hamstrings us in many ways. I remember that troops deployed to Kosovo and Bosnia had to tape over their magazines to add in another layer of deliberate action before they could use deadly force even in a self defense scenario.
To answer the "so what" we need to look at the history of Afghanistan. Deobandism is an ultra-orthodox version of Sunni Islam that began to see a resurgence in India and Pakistan in the late 1950's and early 1960's. It gained popularity in Afghanistan in the late 1970's with the beginning of the Soviet Afghan War. Deobandism, the concept of the ummah, and the international call for Muslims to wage (lesser) jihad against the Soviets by Jalauddin Haqqani (a mujahideen commander) led to Afghanistan becoming a centralized location for radical ideology. During this period the US supported various mujahideen groups that fought against the Soviets. Some of the foreign fighters who responded to Haqqani's call to (lesser) jihad would eventually form the core of Al Qaeda and give rise to the concept of Global Jihad.
After the Soviets left Afghanistan, the US pulled all assets and we lost visibility of what was going on inside the country. The Taliban rose up to instill control in the country and radical ideology took root and it became a safe haven for terrorist. So we supported a struggling nation and then left it to fail and become a breeding ground for extremist to take over and it cost us dearly. The 9/11 attacks cost the US billions of dollars and only cost Al Qaeda a few hundred thousand to plan and execute.
So the US has a vested interest to get involved and stay involved in struggling nations where this kind of radical ideology can take root. The most efficient way to accomplish this goal is to provide military and economic support that enables that country to eventually provide its own security. US military intervention in a foreign country often provides millions of dollars of direct and indirect economic stimulus to a region. Considering a lack of jobs is a key contributing factoring that allows radical ideology to take root, this alone is a reason for the US to continue being involved.
While the State Department ultimately has lead and final say so on US foreign relations, it is extremely reliant on the US military because of of its capabilities and logistic support. On top of that, the US military has the titles and authorities which are coded into law that allows it to use assets and funds not available to the State Department.
Let's not forget that the rush to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the current presidency is what really derailed an effective end state for these two countries. If we look back to Germany and Japan after WWII, it took decades to get these countries back on their feet. In Germany, we not only had to deal with the Soviets, there was also an active attempt at an insurgency that had to be dealt with in the post war years (werwolf). There were more US troops stationed in Germany as an Army of Occupation than were ever committed to Afghanistan.
To answer the "so what" we need to look at the history of Afghanistan. Deobandism is an ultra-orthodox version of Sunni Islam that began to see a resurgence in India and Pakistan in the late 1950's and early 1960's. It gained popularity in Afghanistan in the late 1970's with the beginning of the Soviet Afghan War. Deobandism, the concept of the ummah, and the international call for Muslims to wage (lesser) jihad against the Soviets by Jalauddin Haqqani (a mujahideen commander) led to Afghanistan becoming a centralized location for radical ideology. During this period the US supported various mujahideen groups that fought against the Soviets. Some of the foreign fighters who responded to Haqqani's call to (lesser) jihad would eventually form the core of Al Qaeda and give rise to the concept of Global Jihad.
After the Soviets left Afghanistan, the US pulled all assets and we lost visibility of what was going on inside the country. The Taliban rose up to instill control in the country and radical ideology took root and it became a safe haven for terrorist. So we supported a struggling nation and then left it to fail and become a breeding ground for extremist to take over and it cost us dearly. The 9/11 attacks cost the US billions of dollars and only cost Al Qaeda a few hundred thousand to plan and execute.
So the US has a vested interest to get involved and stay involved in struggling nations where this kind of radical ideology can take root. The most efficient way to accomplish this goal is to provide military and economic support that enables that country to eventually provide its own security. US military intervention in a foreign country often provides millions of dollars of direct and indirect economic stimulus to a region. Considering a lack of jobs is a key contributing factoring that allows radical ideology to take root, this alone is a reason for the US to continue being involved.
While the State Department ultimately has lead and final say so on US foreign relations, it is extremely reliant on the US military because of of its capabilities and logistic support. On top of that, the US military has the titles and authorities which are coded into law that allows it to use assets and funds not available to the State Department.
Let's not forget that the rush to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the current presidency is what really derailed an effective end state for these two countries. If we look back to Germany and Japan after WWII, it took decades to get these countries back on their feet. In Germany, we not only had to deal with the Soviets, there was also an active attempt at an insurgency that had to be dealt with in the post war years (werwolf). There were more US troops stationed in Germany as an Army of Occupation than were ever committed to Afghanistan.
(1)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) - I agree with every thing you said, as I have been on the SOFT side of these operations (Seabee) all over and they still are doing CA/HA Projects all over Africa, and missions in South/Central America and yes in the Middle east, and some in the old eastern blocks.
I found first hand working, and coordinating projects and missions with DOS, that we were there to help with sphere of influence, and to fight their (as in bad guys and countries like China)CA/HA elements that are trying to spread their sphere of influence, and spreading there message, and yes Hamas has a CA/HA type element, we had Hams CA/HA side working on same school house property, that we were working on in Pakistan, competing to win hearts and minds. In south America there was Chines agencies, doing same thing we were.
This all being said is why we need to continue doing these type of missions, have done many of them, and believed they were the right mission. I think you are involved in this,and keep doing as I feel we need to keep conducting them, or we will lose, our influence around the world.
The other thing I will add is Iraq and AFG yes that was nation building, but Africa and other places are Sphere of influence, and our helping nations provide Security for themselves.
I found first hand working, and coordinating projects and missions with DOS, that we were there to help with sphere of influence, and to fight their (as in bad guys and countries like China)CA/HA elements that are trying to spread their sphere of influence, and spreading there message, and yes Hamas has a CA/HA type element, we had Hams CA/HA side working on same school house property, that we were working on in Pakistan, competing to win hearts and minds. In south America there was Chines agencies, doing same thing we were.
This all being said is why we need to continue doing these type of missions, have done many of them, and believed they were the right mission. I think you are involved in this,and keep doing as I feel we need to keep conducting them, or we will lose, our influence around the world.
The other thing I will add is Iraq and AFG yes that was nation building, but Africa and other places are Sphere of influence, and our helping nations provide Security for themselves.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The wear and tear on equipment, aircraft especially, has significantly reduced our defense capability in the event of near-peer conflict! All the blood and treasure expended with little or, in some cases, absolutely nothing to show for it, but broken individuals and further debt demonstrates NOTHING tangible or beneficial to our nation's defense!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
COL,
This is a very interesting topic. I read every post here.
My concern for our country is as follows under this NB and global war on terror: Those so called radicals, or so call extremists appear to be following Muhammad. Was Muhammad extreme?
The Madrassas across the Ummah are indoctrinating the next wave of so called extremists.
The Arab spring holiday of blood appears to be to the benifit of the Muslim Brotherhood, the new Sunni Caliphate and the destruction of western culture by Islamic immigration into the west. A new civilization by force.
Endless war has never benefited a nation. At what cost physical and mental to our military personnel is it enough?
Perhaps, if we deport those preaching hate against our country in their Mosques, the live and let live Muslims will begin to fear America more than the so called extremists.
Have a good day COL.
M. Morris RVT
This is a very interesting topic. I read every post here.
My concern for our country is as follows under this NB and global war on terror: Those so called radicals, or so call extremists appear to be following Muhammad. Was Muhammad extreme?
The Madrassas across the Ummah are indoctrinating the next wave of so called extremists.
The Arab spring holiday of blood appears to be to the benifit of the Muslim Brotherhood, the new Sunni Caliphate and the destruction of western culture by Islamic immigration into the west. A new civilization by force.
Endless war has never benefited a nation. At what cost physical and mental to our military personnel is it enough?
Perhaps, if we deport those preaching hate against our country in their Mosques, the live and let live Muslims will begin to fear America more than the so called extremists.
Have a good day COL.
M. Morris RVT
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google