Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiExpanding War, Contracting Meaning
The Next President and the Global War on Terror
A week ago, I had a long conversation with a four-star U.S. military officer who, until his recent retirement, had played a central role in directing the global war on terror. I asked him: what exactly is the strategy that guides the Bush administration's conduct of this war? His dismaying, if not exactly surprising, answer: there is none.
President Bush will bequeath to his successor the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone. To defense contractors, lobbyists, think-tankers, ambitious military officers, the hosts of Sunday morning talk shows, and the Douglas Feith-like creatures who maneuver to become players in the ultimate power game, the Global War on Terror is a boon, an enterprise redolent with opportunity and promising to extend decades into the future.
Yet, to a considerable extent, that very enterprise has become a fiction, a gimmicky phrase employed to lend an appearance of cohesion to a panoply of activities that, in reality, are contradictory, counterproductive, or at the very least beside the point. In this sense, the global war on terror relates to terrorism precisely as the war on drugs relates to drug abuse and dependence: declaring a state of permanent "war" sustains the pretense of actually dealing with a serious problem, even as policymakers pay lip-service to the problem's actual sources. The war on drugs is a very expensive fraud. So, too, is the Global War on Terror.
Anyone intent on identifying some unifying idea that explains U.S. actions, military and otherwise, across the Greater Middle East is in for a disappointment. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt laid down "Germany first" and then "unconditional surrender" as core principles. Early in the Cold War, the Truman administration devised the concept of containment, which for decades thereafter provided a conceptual framework to which policymakers adhered. Yet seven years into its Global War on Terror, the Bush administration is without a compass, wandering in the arid wilderness. To the extent that any inkling of a strategy once existed -- the preposterous neoconservative vision of employing American power to "transform" the Islamic world -- events have long since demolished the assumptions on which it was based.
Rather than one single war, the United States is presently engaged in several.
Ranking first in importance is the war for Bush's legacy, better known as Iraq. The President himself will never back away from his insistence that here lies the "central front" of the conflict he initiated after 9/11. Hunkered down in their bunker, Bush and his few remaining supporters would have us believe that the "surge" has, at long last, brought victory in sight and with it some prospect of redeeming this otherwise misbegotten and mismanaged endeavor. If the President can leave office spouting assurances that light is finally visible somewhere at the far end of a very long, very dark Mesopotamian tunnel, he will claim at least partial vindication. And if actual developments subsequent to January 20 don't turn out well, he can always blame the outcome on his successor.
Next comes the orphan war. This is Afghanistan, a conflict now in its eighth year with no signs of ending anytime soon. Given the attention lavished on Iraq, developments in Afghanistan have until recently attracted only intermittent notice. Lately, however, U.S. officials have awakened to the fact that things are going poorly, both politically and militarily. Al Qaeda persists. The Taliban is reasserting itself. Expectations that NATO might ride to the rescue have proven illusory. Apart from enabling Afghanistan to reclaim its status as the world's number one producer of opium, U.S. efforts to pacify that nation and nudge it toward modernity have produced little.
The Pentagon calls its intervention in Afghanistan Operation Enduring Freedom. The emphasis was supposed to be on the noun. Unfortunately, the adjective conveys the campaign's defining characteristic: enduring as in endless. Barring a radical re-definition of purpose, this is an enterprise which promises to continue, consuming lives and treasure, for a long, long time.
In neighboring Pakistan, meanwhile, there is the war-hidden-in-plain-sight. Reports of U.S. military action in Pakistan have now become everyday fare. Air strikes, typically launched from missile-carrying drones, are commonplace, and U.S. ground forces have also conducted at least one cross-border raid from inside Afghanistan. Although the White House doesn't call this a war, it is -- a gradually escalating war of attrition in which we are killing both terrorists and noncombatants. Unfortunately, we are killing too few of the former to make a difference and more than enough of the latter to facilitate the recruitment of new terrorists to replace those we eliminate.
Finally -- skipping past the wars-in-waiting, which are Syria and Iran -- there is Condi's war. This clash, which does not directly involve U.S. forces, may actually be the most important of all. The war that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has made her own is the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Having for years dismissed the insistence of Muslims, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, that the plight of the Palestinians constitutes a problem of paramount importance, Rice now embraces that view. With the fervor of a convert, she has vowed to broker an end to that conflict prior to leaving office in January 2009.
Given that Rice brings little -- perhaps nothing -- to the effort in the way of fresh ideas, her prospects of making good as a peacemaker appear slight. Yet, as with Bush and Iraq, so too with Rice and the Palestinian problem: she has a lot riding on the effort. If she flops, history will remember her as America's least effective secretary of state since Cordell Hull spent World War II being ignored, bypassed, and humiliated by Franklin Roosevelt. She will depart Foggy Bottom having accomplished nothing.
There's nothing inherently wrong in fighting simultaneously on several fronts, as long as actions on front A are compatible with those on front B, and together contribute to overall success. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Global War on Terror. We have instead an illustration of what Winston Churchill once referred to as a pudding without a theme: a war devoid of strategic purpose.
This absence of cohesion -- by now a hallmark of the Bush administration -- is both a disaster and an opportunity. It is a disaster in the sense that we have, over the past seven years, expended enormous resources, while gaining precious little in return.
Bush's supporters beg to differ, of course. They credit the president with having averted a recurrence of 9/11, doubtless a commendable achievement but one primarily attributable to the fact that the United States no longer neglects airport security. To argue that, say, the invasion and occupation of Iraq have prevented terrorist attacks against the United States is the equivalent of contending that Israel's occupation of the West Bank since in 1967 has prevented terrorist attacks against the state of Israel.
Yet the existing strategic vacuum is also an opportunity. When it comes to national security at least, the agenda of the next administration all but sets itself. There is no need to waste time arguing about which issues demand priority action.
First-order questions are begging for attention. How should we gauge the threat? What are the principles that should inform our response? What forms of power are most relevant to implementing that response? Are the means at hand adequate to the task? If not, how should national priorities be adjusted to provide the means required? Given the challenges ahead, how should the government organize itself? Who -- both agencies and individuals -- will lead?
To each and every one of these questions, the Bush administration devised answers that turned out to be dead wrong. The next administration needs to do better. The place to begin is with the candid recognition that the Global War on Terror has effectively ceased to exist. When it comes to national security strategy, we need to start over from scratch.
74 Comments so far
Show AllGeorge C. Brown - Andrew J. Bacevich is one of a rather few analysts and commentators of the U.S. situation in the area of World Politics and history who really knows that about which he speaks. The next administration would do well to pay heed! (Obama very well might, but don't count on McBush). To get an idea of the background of this commentary of Andrew Bacevich', read his excellent book entitled, "The Limits Of Power: The End To American Exceptionalism".
snydly
War is a business plan. War is a conscious choice, the preferred method of concentrating and maintaining wealth and power. War is the signature of a failed species.
War on Terror means "let's surround our old commie enemies and pump alot of money into our #1 bread and butter American business- Killing Machines Inc."
"War on terror" is terrorism itself.
That sums it up.
I thought that "the strategy that guides the Bush administration's conduct" of the global war on terror was the highly touted, brilliant success of the surge.
At least, that's the way John McCain described it in the first presidential debate, taunting away at Obama about how victory in Iraq was now in sight, and that the whole point of the exercise was to bravely march forth and apply General Petraeus's successful counterinsurgency tactical mix over in the Afghanistan theatre. That is what McCain said. That is what I understand the Bush/McCain strategy to be.
In other words, the strategy is to combine Operation Phoenix-like intelligence gathering among the civilian population of the occupied country with systematic neighborhood arrest sweeps, mass detentions, torture, check points, blast walls, special forces forays, death squad black ops of infinite variety - often coordinated with the collaborating local junta against the politican opposition - accompanied by unrelenting hi tech manned and unmanned airstrikes against any group or individual who tries to resist. Think Battle of Algiers.
Fine tune, refine, and stay the course with this counterinsurgency strategy of "low intensity" warfare indefinitely, having the military occupation force continuously play local political groups, tribes, and sectarian factions off against one another with bribery, false flag operations, and ever-shifting alliances. Think British colonial administration techniques under the Raj, or in Africa.
As this bloody merry-go-round spins, blame spikes in violence upon foreign terrorist cults, or clandestine cross-border Machivellian meddling by neighboring rogue nation states. Whenever the violence slacks off, trumpet it as proof positive that the theory is sound and the system works.
Then package up and sell the whole project to the sheeple back in the homeland as being the price that must be paid, the patriotic burden that must must be borne, to keep innocent families safe from lurking, swarthy evil doers jealous of America's wealth and freedoms. Stir in more fear mongering. Attack the patriotism, and mock the sperm count, of every domestic critic who disagrees.
Along the way, sure there's lots of money to be made or stolen outright while the gravy train rolls through. And in the case of Iraq at least, there's also oil in that big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
This seems to me to be a quite coherent strategy: wage endless war abroad, in order to wield political power at home.
Bill from Saginaw
"This seems to me to be a quite coherent strategy: wage endless war abroad, in order to wield political power at home."
I was worried that you were losing it till I got to the last sentence.
The US is like a overweight arrogant General that barks out orders, goes wherever he wants, and expects everyone to obey, no matter how insane the orders. However inside that bloated mass is the first signs of a terminal illness and unless he gets home, reassess his health, listens to the needs of his family and learns to chill out, he's going to end up collapsing in a foreign land while the buzzards tear apart his carcass.
"There's nothing inherently wrong in fighting simultaneously on several fronts, as long as actions on front A are compatible with those on front B, and together contribute to overall success"
War is wrong on all levels, there is no argument for war which can make any sense, ever.
War is waged on orders of the Ruling Elite for many reasons which include control of the population by fear, to increase the power of the Ruling Elite by land grabbing and profits from the military-industrial complex which they own, to restrict civil rights, to divide us and turn us into flag-waving zombies. War has never solved a single problem and war only breeds hatred and will only lead to more violence.
It appears that the majority of the planet wants to see an end to all wars however the politicians controlled by the Ruling Elite want to increase wars all over the planet and damn everything else.
All the resources and manpower which is put to the research and manufacture of weapons of destruction at the detriment of welfare of people, health service, education is criminal enough and then when the Ruling Elite's banking interests appear to be having a bad time they find billions to bail them out yet thousands upon thousands are having their houses repossessed, can't afford health care, not being able to feed themselves properly just increases the crimes of the Ruling Elite and their puppets in government.
If humanity is to have a chance to survive we have to think outside the pyramid and put an end to all wars and work together to the betterment of all, that is every man, woman and child on the planet. We also have to remember that we are all part of the bio-entity we call Earth and at the minute we are just a cancer to this beautiful bio-entity, it is time to realise that we are the guaridans of the Earth and to help heal the harm that we have allowed to happen by allowing the Ruling Elite and their puppets to cause massive disease to our home and ourselves.
Revolution Now!
Equalitism Now!
.The war on terror is a war for profit.
The words of Andrew Bacevich, retired military and current conservative, illustrate a commonality in which progressive and conservative can come together in opposition to that war. I find it a pity that some here fail to give full value to the article and its contents....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"The war on terror is a war for profit"
Truer words never spoken. And the proof is on our Southern border.
The phony and murderous "War on Terror" seems to be morphing into total madness. There is a debate going on in China prompted by reports that the Rand Corporation is lobbying the Pentagon for war against a major power (not a smaller power) in order to push up the failing stock market and deflect the fallout from a collapsing world economy. The Chinese--and I'm sure the Russians--are taking note as to whether they are at the head of the list of targets. It seems just too, too insane. But can there be truth to such a development, considering the madness of the last eight years??
There should be an article coming out this afternoon by Paul Joseph Watson, UK reporter for Alex Jones INFOWARS.
This could also have something to do with predictions by the Pentagon, Colin Powell, and Joe Biden, concerning a situation Obama will have to deal with in the first 6 months of his presidency.
I'm wondering aloud what Obama supporters will say & do once he starts invading other countries? Will they remain loyal & braindead or will they finally get it?? Wish they would understand this NOW before it's too late for hundreds of thousands (nay: millions) of people. McCain might be worse, who knows? Lives will be lost, that's for certain.
As importantly , when if/when Obama starts invading these other countries, what will the REPUBLICAN supporters who continued to insist the war needed and is protecting America from attack say?
I've thought about this, especially when people on this site talk about the "symbolism" of Obama being (perceived) "black" comes up.
When the white working class (like every other working class American) gets bitten on the ass by Obama's policies, the spike in racism could be huge. The blacklash would be very ugly indeed.
Wider war, economic austery, and Obama will become "the N-word in the White House" very very quickly among poor whites, especially the ones who trusted a vote for him would make their lives better.
When you think about it, nothing could be worse for race relations than putting a business-friendly, pro-war non-white in the White House. This could set us back decades.
.Apropos of nothing in particular...
I have heard that Obama's fund raising zillions coupled with his failure to share some of that wealth with those democrats in tight races is creating some ill will in the party...Especially among those seeking to win 61 seats in the Senate and thus obtaining a filibuster proof majority.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I'm reading Dennis Lippen's "Savage Mules: The Democrats And Endless War". I'm wondering aloud why exactly do Democratic party supporters not get that DEMOCRATS have begun more wars than Republicans? Both parties are equally terrible, but I focus more on Dems because they should know better. Why do so many pretend they are against endless wars yet actually support them?? Could it be that Obama supporters really don't mind these endless wars??
I keep having this argument with my Democrat friends and sadly I have to say they show no signs of giving two craps. :( Very disappointing. I'm actually beginning to wonder about some of them as people.
We are not "at war."
We have illegally invaded other countries.
Bush, Cheney & co. like Iraq - Obama likes Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia...
The MIC is not going anywhere come next Tuesday.
yeah and they both suck
Dennis Lippen's book "Savage Mules: The Democrats And Endless Wars", really excellent! (:
I ask that others STOP being complicit in these murderous wars through their votes for parties & candidates that are pro-war imperialists. That means YOU if you vote for McCain, Obama, Republicans, or Democrats!
"With the fervor of a convert, she has vowed to broker an end to that conflict prior to leaving office in January 2009."
The only thing that stumbling Fool is going to broker is a cushy job for herself at Stanford (alongside Rumsfeld) or its appendage, the Hoover Institute. That's Hoover, as in Herbert Hoover, not the vacuum cleaner.
at any rate, they hoover up the garbage...
The Pentagon calls its intervention in Afghanistan Operation Enduring Freedom.
During World War II, the military employed such names as: Operation Overlord, Operation Anvil, Operation Dragoon, etc. Now they employ these Madison Avenue, K Street monikers that are so patently insulting and phony they make you want to hurl. It may sound trivial, but this insistence on using Boy Scout/Sunday School language for this kind of thing is a measure of how far down the toilet this nation really is. Ten-hut!
according to the author the war on terror has no cohesion - now that's a surprise
the war on drugs is a hoax - another shocker
here's the truth - the war on terror is a cover for the us military to facilitate the flow of stolen oil from iraq and heroin from afghanistan
the american public is so stupid they don't know squat about their own country and its evil presence in the world
there is just some bullshit about apple pie
cheers, b
Now here's a man, Bacevich, who would make a truly good president.
Mr Bacevich, along with many other conservatives who write often at antiwar.com have excellent ideas about US foreign policy, but often their domestic policy ideas are less good.
Here's hoping:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE
Yup, change is on the way.
The soldier in Iraq will soon be moved to Afghanistan or maybe even Pakistan.
As long as we keep draining US resources on endless warfare, don't expect much help on domestic issues.
These kids are coming home sooner than you think. This is coming to a close. We seem to be moving equipmernt out of Iraq already to Afganistan.
Patreaus strategy of talking to the Taliban makes sense to me.
.I am not a betting man, Thomas, but I would be very willing to wager something (pixellated six pack perhaps? Pearl, in honor of your own home state?) that one year into President Obama's first term there are an equal number of troops deployed as there are now, perhaps in differing locales, but deployed still.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I believe I'll take that bet. How about a six pack of Guinness though? Two six packs??
.Elitist!
I prefer Negro Modelo myself, but your on!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Nope! Guinness is Irish and we are known for our low tastes.
.Irish mist has laid me low on several occasions!
Hey, didnt this used to be a political site...hmmmm.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Whats more political than booze?
Fresh Guinness, ahhhhh!
Actually it's "Negra Modelo". I like it too but it's hard to find over here.
.OMG, I have drunk cases of the stuff and never noticed that spelling....doh!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
If the "kids are coming home", one has to wonder why Mr. Obama has called for an increase in the number of military personnel.
Will they be used to guard the homeland?
The "war on terror" is caused by US imperialism in the Middle East. I don't condone the methods of groups like Al Qaeda; I also don't condone 760 US military bases sprinkled all over the world. Will those "kids" be coming home too? I haven't heard a single word from Mr. Obama about closing down those bases.
When Kerry campaigned in 2004, he talked about getting out of Iraq in 6 months!! SIX MONTHS. Four years later and Obama is still using wiggle words about SIXTEEN MONTHS and that's far from guaranteed. The way to end the "war on terror" is not to expand the war in Afghanistan, as Mr. Obama has called for. If we really want to make the country safer, we need to put an end to imperialism and militarism. Has Obama called for a reduction in the bloated military budget?
Obama, like McCain, supports the pro-corporate military-industrial complex. Obama, like McCain, supports the continued deployment of more than 760 US military bases all over the world. It's all madness. Is it "left wing" to call for putting an end to it? It seems to me to be the first step required to putting the US back on its feet.
"If the "kids are coming home", one has to wonder why Mr. Obama has called for an increase in the number of military personnel."
The main reason is our present forces are undermanned as you can tell by the need for Guard troops continued deploymets. Secondly, the contractors need to be replaced. We don't need these contract agencies supplying us at higher costs than the military can do for themselves. And we sure don't need mercenaries like Blackwater.
I voted for Kerry, but only a fool would have said that about 6 months. I think we will be withdrawing within the year and thats fairly fast. Obama won't have as much to do with it as the military will, unless he opposes it.
I don't know about Obama, but give the guy a chance before deciding what he will do. Things change, only fools don't change with them.
"Obama, like McCain, supports the continued deployment of more than 760 US military bases all over the world."
That I've never heard him discuss. And I don't know if he wants to get in trouble with these countries in his first year by closing bases. But before 2 years are up, I'd think so. Remember, its not just the people that are going to have to change the way we do a few things, the government will too.
Its not a question of supporting the MIC, its a case of how large should it be. Obviously you can't shut it down.
Only hard left if you are talking about unilateral disarmament and shutting down the defense industry completely, disbanding our armed forces and I know thats not what you mean. But a more efficient armed forces, at a lower cost, smaller in size but larger in troop size...getting rid of contractors, a reduction in the military budget, disengaging our forces from these silly engagements in the middle east, reducing our bases around the world, reducing the size of the MIC, no more cost over runs and staying out of other peoples countries militarily unless we have no choice is what I think you mean. And if so, we agree, because thats what I think we should do.
Seems like nobody knows what Obama want's. Wonder why they vote for him?
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!!!
Vote for PEACE
End the wars
Bring the troops home
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Simply a better choice than McCain. At least I think so.
'Let me get this straight - CommonDreams is now running articles that simply want our Middle East wars RUN BETTER?!'
Yes, this explains a lot more than just CD's pushing of the 'lesser of 2 evil' drug, too, Chris. It also explains why the 'peace people' are in line in large numbers to attend Obama rallies daily in Colorado, a swing state, yet won't actually carry antiwar signs, chant NO MORE WAR, or do anything other than just act embarrassed and look away when I and one other do just that.
Effectively, we have had these people blocking antiwar protest for the longest time, as they prefer to hid away in their churches, talk 'non-violence' up, and do nothing to build protest, which they simply say doesn't work (for them. Oh, and out here in Colorado Springs, they are into hugging the police chief, and attending meetings with policing officials to be supposedly more responsible, I guess? They do that instead of building solidarity for victims of this very same policing! They are Democrats, and the Democratic Party is the party of scabs. That's why they are voting for the man who wants more US troops occupying other peoples' countries.... countries like Afghanistan, Sudan, and Somalia to name just a few besides Iraq.
I notice the same thing. I'm in an anti-war group and no one will protest Obama's agenda, his funding the war, etc. I tried to get a group together when he was in my state recently, to go to his talk and hold anti-war signs. They wouldn't do it because they thought it might hurt his chances.
It's like a religion. Reason and logic don't enter in, it's all faith. They always start out with, "I believe that Obama will .... blah, blah" It's never a comment on Obama's record, his actual stated agenda, which I guess they would rather just ignore.
Who knows, maybe they "know" something we don't. I've never had any inclination I was prescient.
Please let O'Bama wallow in the extreme right gutter. That's the only way to get him elected.
.Oh yeah, thats the ticket. Vote for someone REGARDLESS of what he says he plans for the course of this nation., After all we know he's only kidding...wink, nod.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
.logansafi,
Is that really all you got from that article? Seriously?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The lesser of two evils can run the lesser of two evil wars.
He said....we have no overall strategy. We have several wars going on. Several engagements. There is no "war on terror" That we need to start over on national security. Thats all he said.
Yep.
It is close to both Halloween and an election though, so the moonbats will be particularly active.
Darn! Not more moonbats!
.and MY moonbats are way more intelligent and perceptive than ever are yours...so there. Ever noticed that it is difficult to debate when one is so in love with ones own positions that those of others are simply a distraction?
Not you, Thomas, but many here.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Thanks.....my problem is I can't find my moonbats!
You can't find them because you're spelling it wrong ...
here ya go ...
.Those are foreign moonbatz, my own are homegrown American moonbatS thank you very much....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
You mean My moonbatz were made in China? Yee Gods!
ardee - thanks for the chuckle!!
I've found them!!!! Thanks very much. My spelling has never been something to write home about.
A very telling article at this link:
Two Parties, One Imperial Mission- The US Empire will Survive Bush
http://www.counterpunch.org/mayer10292008.html
Strange how I can read Bacevich's books and articles and listen to him interviewed, and then learn from the comments here that I just don't understand what he is really saying.
I would never have known that he is a closet imperialist if the smart people here didn't tell me "who you gonna believe, me, or your own lying eyes?"
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
"Strange how I can read Bacevich's books and articles and listen to him interviewed, and then learn from the comments here that I just don't understand what he is really saying. I would never have known that he is a closet imperialist.."
If you had read his books, you would have easily understood the context and direction of this article. If you have, which I seriously doubt, cite from the article how Bacevich demonstrates that he is a "closet imperialist."
Read slower and you might catch the sarcasm.
I'm not sure if you were addressing my post above with your comment but, just for the record, I don't see Bacevich as an imperialist at all.
I think he did an excellent job highlighting the way that the overthrow of Mossadeq set in motion a chain of events that might well have been the distant cause of the 9/11 attack.
My view of him is that he has an astute sensitivity to the problems that imperialism creates. I just don't agree with him on what the motivations for US imperialism are.
He sees them as well-meaning but misguided; I see them as corrupt (and misguided).
No disrespect intended, however:
The USA is not in a state of "war" in Iraq, either officially or Constitutionally. And the same can be said about Afghanistan. The fact that we are using war tactics and weapons against natives who would prefer not being under the control of foreign troops does not mean we are at "war."
AB also forgot to mention Somalia, another country we have been lobbing missiles into for nearly two years - which, technically, are acts of war (if Mexico lobbed missiles into Dallas in pursuit of narco-terrorists, we would certainly consider that an act of war.)
And nobody ever mentions the fact that Turkey continues to bomb northern Iraq and launch cross-border "raids." What is it called when an ally attacks an ally? Or, in this case, an ally attaching an allied country whose security is our responsibility? When Iran does it, we threaten to attack them, but when Turkey does it... we pretend it's not happening...?
Let me get this straight - CommonDreams is now running articles that simply want our Middle East wars RUN BETTER?!
This would explain the daily Obama agit-prop.
No, that is not what Bacevich is saying here or what he has ever said. His fundamental point here is that our wars in the Middle East are fundamentally wrong headed and strategically incoherent. Such wars cannot be "done better." The purposes, means, and priorities of national security need to be reassessed and reformulated from scratch.
I suggest reading Bacevich's book, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism," if you want to understand his position.
How does this passage suggest "fundamentally wrong":
"There's nothing inherently wrong in fighting simultaneously on several fronts, as long as actions on front A are compatible with those on front B, and together contribute to overall success. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Global War on Terror. We have instead an illustration of what Winston Churchill once referred to as a pudding without a theme: a war devoid of strategic purpose.
This absence of cohesion -- by now a hallmark of the Bush administration -- is both a disaster and an opportunity. It is a disaster in the sense that we have, over the past seven years, expended enormous resources, while gaining precious little in return."
I haven't read his book(s), but this piece only complains that the wars aren't being run well. A progressive article would say that they CAN'T be run well.
"I haven't read his book(s), but this piece only complains that the wars aren't being run well. A progressive article would say that they CAN'T be run well."
Bacevich is not a pacifist, and I do not see why pacifism should be a prerequisite for progressive thinking rather than simply a subset of it. From the point of view of a non-pacifist, strategic incoherence is the same as being "fundamentally wrong" in national security policy.
I'm not talking about pacificism, I said THESE wars. He has no apparent problem with THESE wars other than the way they are managed. I have no time for that.
.I believe that you read into Mr. Bacevichs' words that which you wish to see there. As a former military man he cites the ABILITY to fight wars on multiple fronts, but nowhere does he advocate fighting the current wars.
Can you cite proof of the opposite?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I have the ABILITY to mug old people and I don't have as good of an ABILITY to rob grown men my size. So what? I shouldn't be mugging people. I don't imagine that anyone would condone an article that stated that I really shouldn't be mugging people if my size.
Again, I haven't read this guy's books, but out of context this article complains about tactics in a vacuum. I imagine Colin Powell has some tactical issues with things now too, but I don't care to hear them.
There's nothing here which suggests that there was anything wrong, for example, with invading Grenada. I'd expect better than conservative critique on a progressive site. There are plenty of conservative sites out there, and I rather doubt we get much ink in those.
.Now we consider Grenada? I have had the priviledge of listening to Bacevich being interviewed by Bill Moyers. I suggest you spend a moment to search for that interview and read it, or listen to it if you have that capability.
This is one article, its scope is confined while you seek to criticize it for not mentioning everything, quite a reach in my opinion. Bacevich is rather critical of the Pentagon, the Bush administration and the war effort in general, why not accept what he confines himself to noting and not expect an article that would turn into a rather large book?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Mr. Bacevich was recently interviewed on C-Span's Book TV.
He made some excellent points about American empire. However, and it's a really, really important "however", Mr. Bacevich sees US imperialism as a policy being waged to benefit the United States and the American people.
He far too quickly dismisses the possibility that US foreign policy (and domestic policy too) is being waged to benefit powerful multi-national corporations.
For example, he astutely pointed to the US/British overthrow in 1953 of Mossadeq, Iran's democratically elected leader and how that event is still having global implications today. What he fails to do, however, is cite the reason Mossadeq was overthrown.
This Wiki article provides an explanation:
He (Mossadeq) is most famous as the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry,[3] which had been under British control through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), today known as Beyond Petroleum (BP)."
Bacevich also downplays charges that the corporations in the military-industrial complex play a major role in directing US foreign policy to enhance their profits.
The problem with these views is that they fail to give any recognition at all to the Bush administration's pushing of "fear, fear and more fear." They fail to recognize the all-time record profits Big Oil has realized since the US invasion of Iraq. They fail to recognize the degree to which companies like Lockheed-Martin have profited from the "war on terror." They fail to recognize that the more than 760 US military bases around the world are deployed primarily to guard private, commercial oil pipelines. They fail to recognize that the military-industrial complex itself is little more than a massive taxpayer subsidy to Big Oil with direct contracts also benefiting military hardware firms. They fail to recognize the revolving door between government and Big Oil and the heavy infestation of Big Oil people in the Bush administration.
Mr. Bacevich makes some excellent observations about American empire but ultimately comes up short because he does not seem to understand the underlying motivations for US conduct in the world. This is not about greed and exploitation to benefit the American people; it's all about greed and exploitation to benefit a wealthy, powerful few.
"He far too quickly dismisses the possibility that US foreign policy (and domestic policy too) is being waged to benefit powerful multi-national corporations."
re: "War, Inc."
"... developments in Afghanistan have until recently attracted only intermittent notice. Lately, however, U.S. officials have awakened to the fact that things are going poorly, both politically and militarily."
Yes, but by design.
http://www.knoph.com/pics/laffghanistan.jpg