Monday, November 16, 2015
Fmr. CIA Deputy Director Morrell: “Crystal Clear” ISIS Strategy “Not Working”
We're not going to be able to "do it on the cheap" that way is a manifest failure but sadly inevitable with the "we're out of money!" morons in control. At least this guy can realize its not working but he's not there any longer either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Don't worry about the money, worry about the strategy. What is US strategy? The "War" on Terror? LOL
Here's a solution that I'm sure everyone on the left will be able to work with. It's a mind game:
...pretend all the refugees are low skilled, right wing, fundamentalist, conservative Christians. The leftists will become immediate Minutemen here and around the globe, ensuring instant deportations and border security the likes of which has heretofore been unseen. The military industrial complex won't be happy...
What is US strategy?
Strategy is determined by policy and tactics by strategy. US policy is permanent global hegemony, and US grand strategy is based on projecting power forward to control events, ergo, US forces in 147 countries and clandestine intelligence operative globally. There are different regional and local strategies under the grand strategy as a strategic framework. The amount of expenditure both on budget and off, either black or special appropriations, shows that money is no object for the US.
The irony is that is a fair description of the majority of immigrants crossing the US southern border. These people would be Republicans if the GOP weren't so down on them. It's actually the great fear of Democrats and they are rolling on the floor laughing that the GOP is shooting itself in the head demographically. Similar with Asians. They are also more like to go GOP cet par, but of course all things are not equal.
There are different regional and local strategies under the grand strategy as a strategic framework.
Lets narrow it down. What are the regional and local strategies for dealing with ISIS?
The US leadership realizes that its weakness is political. The US public is adamantly opposed to foreign wars that are not resolved immediately and become entanglements. So strategy has to be bent to that.
The US grand strategy now is to "lead from behind," meaning to get others to do the heavy lifting with the US providing the funding, logistics, intelligence, training, etc. but nothing more on the ground than"advisers," that is, special forces. This is backed up through US economic influence through control of the global financial system, sanctions, etc.
Regionally in MENA, this means that the US cannot commit more boots on the ground short of something like another 9/11 that would drastically change public opinion, or else a lot of domestic psy ops to change the American mindset and public mood. That is being invested now in demonizing Russia and China in preparation for war with them.
The US leadership is unconcerned with the supposed danger that ISIS, AQ and associated groups present the US, which they regard as minimal. They are using these as resources in the overall strategy of leading from behind, just as the US did the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. As far as the deep state is concerned ISIS is still an asset and when it might become a liability, then the US has the resources to deal with it using a combination of intelligence and drones to decapitate the organization. But that is a back pocket strategy at present, since there are bigger fish to fry now and "radical Islam" is a resource in that.
I don't think it has to do with income, skill, IQ, religion, etc.
Asian immigrants are similar ideologically to Latinos in being essentially conservative ("right-wing") even though they differ in these other respects. And also in not looking European.
Immigrants from the South and East are more conservatively bent than liberally (in US terms) and would naturally gravitate to the GOP if they were encouraged to do so. More would even if they were not encouraged, if they were not discouraged — for not looking European enough.
The Democrats are happy to have them though.
What is US strategy?
It's this "low cost" SOF stuff that has been de regueur in DoD for over the last 20+ years...
Just the other day they did a press release that they were sending in 50 SOF personnel, etc...
(50.... ??????)
It's a whole doctrine... they claim they can get these 50 in there and they will pay/bribe factions/ train/ provide intel/ call in strikes/etc as a "force multiplier", etc...
Here: "The decade 2003–2012 saw U.S. national security strategy rely on special operations to an unprecedented degree."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_operations
They say things like "50 can do the same work as a whole division..blah, blah, blah..."
Let's call this experiment off it is has been a failure...
Back to in your face top level diplomacy backed up by credible overwhelming conventional NATO forces...
and EU needs to ramp up their defense spending as % big league....
I don't get why Democrats (and many Republicans) are happy to have largely non-democratically agreed upon on illegal immigration given 9/11? It also puzzles me how they ignore the onerous wage suppression and or lost jobs that disproportionately harms their black and other low income constituents. It's simply a cynical way to do politics and endangers us all in ways unfathomable to right reason.
Matt,
Ramp up defense spending and secure the borders, and expel all not vetted properly or in countries illegally.
Mal I'm not optimistic...
The "we're out of money!" morons remain in complete control I just cant get past this dont have the temperament ... this ignorance/incompetence turning directly lethal now from a national security perspective (Mike predicted this probably 10 years ago when he presented at US Army War College...) after having been so from a socio-economic perspective for some time...
The chief reason that the US has the level of illegal immigration is does is well-established — jobs are available in the US because business likes it that way.
If firms were fined onerously and management prosecuted for hiring illegals that would end the issue post haste.
US prices would undergo a one-off increase in some sectors, chiefly agriculture and construction. But those jobs would eventually be mechanized, automated and robotized.
former CJCS Mullen is an actual Peterson apostle now... getting people killed...
Matt,
I suggest you read what Tom wrote re. regional strategies. Money is NOT an issue.
US has never spent more on defense than nowadays, ok with the exception of 2010-1013, and has nothing to show for it. Military spending is more than TWICE in 2001. Maybe ask the right questions: why all the mismanagement and the high rate of failures in all those projects? Giving good ammunition to the "governments can't do anything right" crowd lol. There is no better example of "bridges to no where" than US military spending.
Anyway, conventional big armies FOR WHAT? They are are no use for them right now. No one wants to sit idle inside bases in the middle of the desert while surrounded by chaos. Modern military forces are not occupation and policing forces, and if you believe having idle soldiers inside bases in the desert is going to stop the odd terrorist attack in the West (which TPTB don't care about anyway, always good to have excuses to ramp up of spying and controlling your population, which is the real danger) you haven't been paying attention the last 14 years.
That has been the whole 'strategy' for 14 years. A single terrorist attack here and there each 10 years is a little annoyance, the strategy is working great while the oil and gas keeps flowing, no one cares about those shitty deserts except their inhabitants, and if they are keep in chaos all the best.
Yep, money isn't the problem, despite fear mongering campaigns no one gives a shit about there (Paris attack will be forgotten in a couple weeks and then is back to normal, see how no one is contemplating deploying ground troops there? the militaries themselves around the world neither want to deal with that).
As Admiral Fallon said, the US is not going to be attacking Iran on my watch.
President Obama: Don't do stupid stuff.
Increasing conventional forces (manpower) is a waste of money since there is no likely scenario for conventional warfare with divisions and battle groups.
The US strategy is to lead from behind and that is not going to change any time soon.
Just want to make it clear, I'm all for immigration as long as it's legal and democratically arrived at. I don't give a hoot what the ethnic makeup of said immigrants consists of either. And even though I'm of German and Irish descent, I would be just as opposed to those folks coming here illegally as any other.
Bottom line: in a post 9/11 world I want strong borders and a zero tolerance policy for illegal immigration, and 100% accurate vetting of refugee populations, especially like we've seen in Europe, which has consisted of mostly able bodied men absent women and children. That simply doesn't pass the smell test . Of course the military industrial complex want otherwise for obvious reasons.
Bob my friend Tom is in fantasyland on this...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/06/us-usa-defense-budget-idUSBREA1501020140206#DFCSU6k5yyo7JFIy.97
He somehow thinks we are preparing for strategic conflicts while cutting that part of the budgets....
"the US is not going to be attacking Iran on my watch."
No shit ?
I will go even further and say that the only way that the US be defeated and lose its global position is through starting a conventional ground war, since the only place that is remotely likely and only if the US provokes it is in Eurasia.
The US would lose that war through attrition, and the US powers that be know it. Moreover, even if the US would win, it would not be able to successfully occupy and establish permanent dominance there. It's not just a military issue but also an economic and political one. Only the armchair admirals think differently and they aren't in a position to do much about it.
That kind of thinking is just crazy.
The big thing we have to be concerned with mission creep and getting sucked in by events including unintended consequences. There is also the chance of accident provoking events that no one has planned for or wants. This is why playing with dynamite is dangerous.
Putin: "Do you realize what you have done?"
Bob my friend Tom is in fantasyland on this...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/06/us-usa-defense-budget-idUSBREA1501020140206#DFCSU6k5yyo7JFIy.97
He somehow thinks we are preparing for strategic conflicts while cutting that part of the budgets....
More Kool-Aid, Matt. You gotta stop drinking that stuff.
I'm for a very strong defense, but oft times wonder if the "Deep State" part of the Defense Dept muddies the waters in insidious ways unseen.
Tom,
9 < 10
8 < 9
7 < 8
etc.... go over this a few times...
"I will go even further and say that the only way that the US be defeated and lose its global position is through starting a conventional ground war,"
Tom, the guy just got done telling you that is not going to happen:
"As Admiral Fallon said, the US is not going to be attacking Iran on my watch."
Why?
Because he doesnt have the resources...
We couldnt even do the Balkans operation again today....
Numbers are meaningless until attached to something real. There are two problems with this. The first is disagreement over effectiveness of methods and weapons system relative to potential threats. The second is potential corruption when trillions in units of account are on the table.
A "strong military" has little to do with the absolute amounts spend. It's literally bang for the buck.
Throwing money at the military to "build a strong defense" Is not only stupid, it invites corruption, which is already rife.
There are also unintended consequences. Force-building sends a message to others that may be a noisly signal that results in people who see themselves threatened ramping up where they otherwise would not, and setting them on edge risking over-reaction in case of accident or misreading.
The US could cut its military budget by at three quarters without making the US less save. Most of the military budget is offensive rathe rather than defensive.
A sane US would give up imperial pretensions and cut its military back to defense.
Right now, the imperial military is a protection scheme for the US mafia (transnational corporatism).
The way it works is to keep Americans constantly in fear using Kool-Aid to dope them up, as well as to feed their bestial tendencies toward aggression.
This has ruined every empire in the past, and it will ruin the American empire, too.
Just as physical causes have physical effects, social action produces social consequences. It's called "karma."
"Live by the sword, die by the sword."
This is national insanity that is now morphing from international to domestic as the domestic security force is concentrated (DHS) and militarized, and police brutality, repression and intimidation are glorified.
America itself is turning into a hellhole right before our eyes.
Because he doesnt have the resources...
The US doesn't have the potential resources to attack even Iran without suffering losses that are unacceptable, not to mention attacking Russia or China.
Your argument is like the conservatives argument that the US didn't have enough resources to prevail in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Or didn't commit enough of the resources it had. Or didn't have he will because the left stabbed it in the back. Etc.
The reality is that these were resources trap where it didn't matter how much was thrown in, it was never enough.
At a certain point, the manpower resources dry up without a draft. This happened during Iraq when the Army had to lower its standard taking sub-standard personnel into the professional ranks, including known gang members and criminals. That predictably degraded the force.
Interesting to veterans who served during wartime, it is also interesting how many of the armchair generals never served or avoided service, like Darth Cheney and most of the neocons.
At least John McCain served and paid a price. I am surprised that he is so cavalier today. Maybe the brianwashing.
BTW, here is a post about our "allies" in Syria.
It's Complicated: US, ISIS and the FSA - the Love and Hate Triangle
Malmo's Ghost,
I love your sentiment about not letting in any Irish/ Germans today..... Classy!
I'm sure indigenous Americans felt the same.
If anything happens to your farm, don't come a knocking on my door.
Post a Comment