Comments on: Warriors: Politicians by other means http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/warriors-politicians-by-other-means/ Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:57:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Martin Knutsen http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/warriors-politicians-by-other-means/comment-page-1/#comment-4332 Martin Knutsen Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:55:44 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=3292#comment-4332 Gunrunner: Sir, you write, of the US military: "They are, frankly, well enough educated (and mature), and therefore quite capable of making go-to-war decisions. " Sir, isnt the very example of the looting of Baghdad and "The Curious Case of the Missing Phase IV" proof that military minds are too focused on their own scale of priority? And as for cultural senistivity, may I cite the example of Fallujah? Gunrunner: Sir, you write, of the US military: “They are, frankly, well enough educated (and mature), and therefore quite capable of making go-to-war decisions. ”

Sir, isnt the very example of the looting of Baghdad and “The Curious Case of the Missing Phase IV” proof that military minds are too focused on their own scale of priority? And as for cultural senistivity, may I cite the example of Fallujah?

]]> By: Gunrunner http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/warriors-politicians-by-other-means/comment-page-1/#comment-4306 Gunrunner Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:48:47 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=3292#comment-4306 Formerly Grant: (Written from an American point of view) While I can’t agree more with your opposition to the idea that military experts should decide when to go to war, regrettably, there are parts of your opinion that I find myself in disagreement. First, where I agree. I have a core belief that the military is in service to the people of a nation, not their master, and if the military decides when to go to war, or not, that gives the military too much power over the government and people. While politicians are not raised and trained to serve in an altruistic capacity like Plato’s philosopher-kings, they are, nonetheless, elected by the people to perform that very task. The military, on the other hand, are raised and trained as warriors, to protect the vital national security interest as established and dictated by politicians/the people. Political leadership provides to the military a political end-state for the military to achieve. The military, in turn, develops a strategy to accomplish this goal. From those goals, objectives and specific tasks are constructed and a “war plan” is conceptualized and implemented. This is all done in pursuit of an end-state that is established by the political leadership, accountable to the people and achieved by the military. I disagree with your premise that “soldiers are not generally trained in accepting different forms of government as an unpleasant reality, nor are they typically taught how to successfully negotiate the end of a conflict.” Soldiers (warriors) are indeed well trained in this regard. They have to operate around the world; they are experienced in dealing with different political and belief systems. To the warrior, they simply deal with that reality and do not view critically or otherwise, the form of government that exists where they may serve. Being involved in negotiating an end to a conflict is done at all levels of the military, from the one-on-one engagement when the enemy is persuaded to surrender (either die or quit), to the mid-level battalion commander establishing terms and conditions to encourage an adversary to surrender his battalion. Senior military leaders engage in negotiations to end campaigns and theater-wide engagements because political leadership is not usually on an active battlefield. Warriors are trained and equipped to fight in all sorts of environment and do act, firstly and rightly so, to protect themselves. Secondly, they do what is required to accomplish the task at hand and if unconventional tactics are required, there are warriors that do that sort of thing. There is no duality of action on the part of the warrior (overreact or don’t react). The force application continuum is at play. The example of the rioting during the Iraq invasion is partially correct. However, most of the warriors were still actively engaged in a war, finding the enemy and engaging in combat. Therefore, placing a warrior outside a museum, while a nice photo-op, reduces unit effectiveness and places the soldier (or unit) at a lethal disadvantage because he/they are now a static target, unable to move, shoot and communicate. During active combat he is a warrior, not a policeman. So, yes, there are sound tactical and strategic reasons for not engaging looters. Not their problem is number one; they are there to fight a war. Stopping a looter would not end the war sooner and exposes the warrior to unwarranted danger. The bottom line is the military will well staffed by very well educated professionals that understand national security strategy and the best means to protect the nation. They are, frankly, well enough educated (and mature), and therefore quite capable of making go-to-war decisions. However, it is simply not their role as servant of the people. Oh, I couldn’t agree more with your point of view as summarized in the past paragraph of your post. Formerly Grant:

(Written from an American point of view)

While I can’t agree more with your opposition to the idea that military experts should decide when to go to war, regrettably, there are parts of your opinion that I find myself in disagreement.

First, where I agree. I have a core belief that the military is in service to the people of a nation, not their master, and if the military decides when to go to war, or not, that gives the military too much power over the government and people. While politicians are not raised and trained to serve in an altruistic capacity like Plato’s philosopher-kings, they are, nonetheless, elected by the people to perform that very task. The military, on the other hand, are raised and trained as warriors, to protect the vital national security interest as established and dictated by politicians/the people.

Political leadership provides to the military a political end-state for the military to achieve. The military, in turn, develops a strategy to accomplish this goal. From those goals, objectives and specific tasks are constructed and a “war plan” is conceptualized and implemented. This is all done in pursuit of an end-state that is established by the political leadership, accountable to the people and achieved by the military.

I disagree with your premise that “soldiers are not generally trained in accepting different forms of government as an unpleasant reality, nor are they typically taught how to successfully negotiate the end of a conflict.” Soldiers (warriors) are indeed well trained in this regard. They have to operate around the world; they are experienced in dealing with different political and belief systems. To the warrior, they simply deal with that reality and do not view critically or otherwise, the form of government that exists where they may serve. Being involved in negotiating an end to a conflict is done at all levels of the military, from the one-on-one engagement when the enemy is persuaded to surrender (either die or quit), to the mid-level battalion commander establishing terms and conditions to encourage an adversary to surrender his battalion. Senior military leaders engage in negotiations to end campaigns and theater-wide engagements because political leadership is not usually on an active battlefield.

Warriors are trained and equipped to fight in all sorts of environment and do act, firstly and rightly so, to protect themselves. Secondly, they do what is required to accomplish the task at hand and if unconventional tactics are required, there are warriors that do that sort of thing. There is no duality of action on the part of the warrior (overreact or don’t react). The force application continuum is at play.

The example of the rioting during the Iraq invasion is partially correct. However, most of the warriors were still actively engaged in a war, finding the enemy and engaging in combat. Therefore, placing a warrior outside a museum, while a nice photo-op, reduces unit effectiveness and places the soldier (or unit) at a lethal disadvantage because he/they are now a static target, unable to move, shoot and communicate. During active combat he is a warrior, not a policeman. So, yes, there are sound tactical and strategic reasons for not engaging looters. Not their problem is number one; they are there to fight a war. Stopping a looter would not end the war sooner and exposes the warrior to unwarranted danger.

The bottom line is the military will well staffed by very well educated professionals that understand national security strategy and the best means to protect the nation. They are, frankly, well enough educated (and mature), and therefore quite capable of making go-to-war decisions. However, it is simply not their role as servant of the people.

Oh, I couldn’t agree more with your point of view as summarized in the past paragraph of your post.

]]> By: Formerly Grant http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/warriors-politicians-by-other-means/comment-page-1/#comment-4265 Formerly Grant Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:47:19 +0000 http://kingsofwar.org.uk/?p=3292#comment-4265 I could not disagree with the gentleman's theory more. Indeed, I consider his statement to be a rather dangerous one that should not be encouraged. Soldiers are men (and women) who are taught to shoot guns and to think in terms of how they and their comrades can move to cause damage to their enemy while preventing their enemies from doing the same to them. Soldiers are not generally trained in accepting different forms of government as an unpleasant reality, nor are they typically taught how to successfully negotiate the end of a conflict. As evidence of this I present the Japanese strategy in the Second World War. In a government heavily dominated by soldiers the Japanese decided to attack the United States, gambling that they would be able to make the United States sue for peace before attrition wrecked them. When this did not work it appears that the Japanese government managed to convince itself that if they could only defeat the Chinese once and for all this would somehow convince America to come to terms. Even by 1945, when a sane leader would have seen reality, they still were coming up with plans for how to defend the nation. It wasn't until the Emperor and the civilian wing forced it to a vote that they decided on surrender. Further, soldiers do not seem to be in their element when dealing with conflicts that do not involve conventional combat. In that scenario soldiers all too often either overreact, or do not react at all. As an example I provide Iraq in 2003, just after Saddam Hussein and the Baathist government were driven from power. In that time, with a vacuum of authority, the people of Baghdad quickly began to loot the city while the American soldiers remained outside the matter. Admittedly the American soldiers were not equipped with riot gear capable of efficiently and safely driving away rioters without killing them, but that hardly excuses them for not making any effort. To summarize, I would indeed prefer for soldiers to have a greater political sense of things. Indeed I would prefer more soldiers (and citizens in general) to have more involvement in civic matters. However, I think it one of the most important hallmarks of a liberal democracy that the decision to go to war is not left to the military to decide. I could not disagree with the gentleman’s theory more. Indeed, I consider his statement to be a rather dangerous one that should not be encouraged.
Soldiers are men (and women) who are taught to shoot guns and to think in terms of how they and their comrades can move to cause damage to their enemy while preventing their enemies from doing the same to them. Soldiers are not generally trained in accepting different forms of government as an unpleasant reality, nor are they typically taught how to successfully negotiate the end of a conflict.
As evidence of this I present the Japanese strategy in the Second World War. In a government heavily dominated by soldiers the Japanese decided to attack the United States, gambling that they would be able to make the United States sue for peace before attrition wrecked them. When this did not work it appears that the Japanese government managed to convince itself that if they could only defeat the Chinese once and for all this would somehow convince America to come to terms. Even by 1945, when a sane leader would have seen reality, they still were coming up with plans for how to defend the nation. It wasn’t until the Emperor and the civilian wing forced it to a vote that they decided on surrender.
Further, soldiers do not seem to be in their element when dealing with conflicts that do not involve conventional combat. In that scenario soldiers all too often either overreact, or do not react at all.
As an example I provide Iraq in 2003, just after Saddam Hussein and the Baathist government were driven from power. In that time, with a vacuum of authority, the people of Baghdad quickly began to loot the city while the American soldiers remained outside the matter. Admittedly the American soldiers were not equipped with riot gear capable of efficiently and safely driving away rioters without killing them, but that hardly excuses them for not making any effort.
To summarize, I would indeed prefer for soldiers to have a greater political sense of things. Indeed I would prefer more soldiers (and citizens in general) to have more involvement in civic matters. However, I think it one of the most important hallmarks of a liberal democracy that the decision to go to war is not left to the military to decide.

]]>