Analyst's note: Absolutely must read. The American people are being mislead and misinformed by our own politicians and media as well as, in some cases, by our Admirals and Generals who try for political correctness. Are you tired of it yet?
How many more sons and daughters must you lose to the enemy to get your attention? Often repeated here is the phrase, "Political correctness is killing Americans." Although not the stated intend of his article, General Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (Retired) explains in this article why this statement is true.
“Some nations are finally and overtly coming to grips with the reality that blunt military responses are the path to progress and victory whether it is against jihadists or Somali pirates. The engagement in an attempted “kinder, gentler war” to quell and restrict unconventional warfare is simply not working, nor should it have ever been expected to work in places such as Afghanistan (except the fall of 2001). After all, war is not the realm of benevolence – it is the realm of violence, and the whole point of engaging in war is to subdue the enemy’s will to fight to bring about a better situation than previously existed and achieve Victory over the enemy – to neutralize any threat to the United States and its people. War is not, despite what many experts are putting forth, some form of bridge and nation building contest. (1) (A.E. Stahl, 2011)
Changing military doctrine so that soldiers become nation builders, construction workers, or worse, baby sitters, straddles the insane. Counterinsurgency (COIN) efforts have mutated into extremely costly and lengthy wars – wars that the U.S., for example, cannot sustain and makes no sense. If states battling violent and unconventional actors want to win (e.g. reach policy objectives), they must fully embrace certain strategies however unpalatable they may seem. This is where targeted warfare has come into play.
Targeted warfare, even as outlined by A.E. Stahl in the Armed Forces Journal, from established lily pads (launch bases), is simply a strategic and tactical warfare term that refers to the application of targeted terminations carried out by a state against unconventional, violent actors through various tactics – whether by drones, fighter jets, combat helicopter or conventional/special operations forces.
A targeted termination is a state-level, intentionally focused operation using every resource that intelligence agencies and armed forces have at their disposal with the objective of forcefully and permanently eliminating specific individuals and physical targets from the threat zone or at the very least deterring them from partaking in armed hostilities and aggression. While targeted warfare has and will continue to result in unintentional noncombatant casualties, it is overall the most surgical military force possible.
In fact, targeted warfare is probably the most humane application of warfare in the whole bloody realm of armed conflict. Despite this, much of the American military and political leadership, not to mention the American public, is being told that such activity is illegal, unethical and ineffective – none of which is correct. The U.S. is embroiled in what can be best understood as unconventional warfare. This is happening in Afghanistan, with hostilities occurring in areas of Pakistan and America’s Southern Border – the latter being the prime hot bed of violent, irregular and highly ideological and criminal militants. There are a number of other theaters of operations in which the American military is active and where targeted warfare is should occur.
COIN is proving to be a better theory on paper than in practice, so the U.S. security establishment must return to other, more logical methods to eliminate the armed enemies against the United States and its assets.
There are other examples of a state engaging in correct strategy. The Israel Defense Forces and its symbiotic relationship with domestic intelligence and police agencies have resulted in necessary and effective targeted warfare against those who belong to armed organizations that use violence as a means to set policy. Even the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled in favor of the use of targeted warfare, albeit under specific conditions. That progressive ruling is recognition of unique security dilemmas facing the Israelis.
Nevertheless, this is not an article on the efficacy of targeted killings. Rather, this is about providing “recognitions” directly related to targeted warfare – recognitions on law, conflict, strategy and examples from others’ experiences in targeted warfare. The purpose of these four basic recognitions is to help bring a better understanding to a widely misunderstood topic to both military and political leadership and, in turn, the very people they are protecting: the American public.
Generally speaking, one of the major problems that Americans suffer from is the misunderstanding of the type of conflict in which they are involved. This misunderstanding leads to much confusion about an applied strategy of targeted warfare. For Americans, a surface-level explanation sees the mass media being the main culprit in confusion and living in what I call the “Sea of Ambiguity”. Reporters often borrow specific military terminology in a fast and loose manner, using terms interchangeably, applying multiple and varying terms at once, or simply using incorrect terminology. However, a deeper-level explanation can be understood as mainly emanating from three spheres: legal commentary, military leadership and a misunderstanding of the strategy.”
We need leaders (including the Admirals and Generals) now who are master planners and strategists that can frame Endgame strategies and tactics to secure America and lead us to peace and stability. Current warfare strategies do not lead us to that. We need a winning team now more than ever!
Paul E. Vallely (MG US Army Retired) is Chairman of Stand Up America
Notes:
1 – This article is based on excerpts/adaptations extracted from the Armed Forces Journal authored by A.E. Stahl, “Hunt to kill”, Targeted Warfare Has a Legitimate place on the Irregular Battlefield. January 2011. Terms and definitions were included in the draft Lily Pad Strategy as open source material with credit given to original author."
Our friend and associate John Bernard recently provided further insight regarding the disasters associated with the COIN (counter-insurgency) theory being used today in the Middle East. Bernard's take on Gens. Petraeus and McChrystal, changing the ROEs (rules of engagement) are treated here in a extraordinarily thoughtful discussion here and in An Interview with John Bernard that we referenced in a STRATFOR article called "Never Fight a Land War in Asia." See the embedded URLs herein for additional insight.
As the American citizens who do the fighting and the funding, we should consider what John is saying here as he speaks about the dangers and disasters with the counter-insurgency strategy now being used to "protect" our United States. He has certainly earned the right to be heard. John Bernard spent 26 years in the USMC, both active and reserve and has spent 47 years in the trade. He believes we have an innate responsibility to defend these shores, it's citizenry and especially the US Constitution and further believes the oath he took IS UNTO DEATH. One of his children, a son was KIA (killed in action) in Dahaneh 08/14/09).
"It requires vast resources and large numbers of troops that outstrip the interest. Low-cost counter-insurgency with insufficient forces will always fail. Since the United States uses limited forces because it has to, counterinsurgency is the most dangerous kind of war for the United States. The idea has always been that the people prefer the U.S. occupation to the threats posed by their fellow countrymen and that the United States can protect those who genuinely do prefer the former. That may be the idea, but there is never enough U.S. force available."
They just can't get it; No amount of counter intelligence effort or CIA insertion can be deep enough - or broad enough to determine this to be true. We have no history there, no familial ties, no understanding of their religious doctrine, no fundamental-from-birth understanding of either their language(s) or their tribal bindings. Suggesting there was a way to implement a Malaya style counter insurgency presence there is naive or just plain blinding. It is really a form of vanity and pride; 'I can do what all others have failed to'. The fact is; it is a crap shoot. Forget gambling and go with what you know. The one thing that is sure is man's limit where pain is concerned. Exert enough painful force and he will eventually yield; even the 'peaceful' Muslims.
Of course the real issue is that the great pontificators are all too willing to put someone else's ass where their theories are and they are largely insulated from the realities and fruit of their presumptions. There was only ever, one way to deal with the identified existential threat and this government - regardless of the color of the majority in power, who does not have the will; they don't have the will because they do not have the moral authority; they do not have the moral authority because they have not yielded themselves, personally, to any authority outside themselves. It is largely a case of individuals seeking fame and fortune at the cost of their constituencies and the blood of the current generation while listening to the advice of deftly placed operatives of the enemy.
Given that; how do you conceive of a victory?"
Like John Bernard, First Sergeant, USMC (Retired), and General Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (Retired), I believe that our Warriors must be provided the tools and freedom they need to prosecute this war to its logical conclusion -- victory over the enemy. This must be done in a way as to provide our Warriors with the best chance for survival.
I further suggest that all federal level politicians who vote for war, and their supporting staff, should be possible participants in the said war. All their names should be entered into a pool from which 90% are drawn by a contingent of U.S. Marines (all decisions are final). A few politicians need to be left in D.C. to help those newly elected to fill their positions find the "head."
Once so identified, these politicians MUST participate in the balance of the war and fighting at the front as a private in the U.S. Marine Corps. There must be no exceptions. Those with valid medical excuses that may arise from time to time will remain "in theater" as close to the front as possible. Those who survive the war, may reclaim their elected postion once the war is over. This would produce some strain on your Marines, but one that can handled. Problem solved of willingness to .
Semper Fidelis
