Leaving behind unnecessary frivolities to win the Long War

This is disturbing. This article from the US Army War College's journal relies on a lot of jargon. But when you wade through it, it's an argument that Bush's Long War, aka, global war on terrorism, GWOT, War on Terror, etc., requires dispensing with some of the frivolous trappings of society we've been used to. Like a free press, dissent on military matters, political parties.

From Challenges in Fighting a Global Insurgency by Lt. Gen. (ret.) David Barno Parameters Summer 2006.

Finally, a growing phenomenon subtly capitalized on by our terrorist enemies is the instant politicization of distant battlefield events (especially reverses) in the American political process here at home. There are surely disturbing echoes of the bitter political contentiousness of Vietnam in today's party-centric debates over the nature and strategy of this war, but that debate also reflects a healthy symptom of politics in a free society. ["Politics in a free society" as a medical condition.] That said, it is unfortunate that in an era of continuous electoral politics, somehow successful activities in this war - from battles won to elections held to civil affairs projects completed - seem to be scored as "wins" for the present Administration, while tactical setbacks, bombings, heavy casualties, or local political reverses are construed as "losses," and seem to somehow be twisted to add to the political capital of the opposition party. Although largely unintentional, this perverse situation is flat-out wrong, and it does a disservice to our fighting men and women in harm's way. Wars should always supercede "politics as usual," especially in an age of Fourth Generation Warfare with the enemy deliberately targeting decisionmakers on the home front as part of its premeditated strategy. There was a time in American politics, especially in time of war, when politics stopped at the water’s edge and our friends and enemies alike saw a unified, bipartisanapproach to policy from American elected leaders. In the current "long war," fought out 24/7 under the bright lights of continuous talk shows, and where resolve, staying power, and American and allied unity are the very principles that the enemy is desperately trying to undermine, that once respected bipartisan principle in our foreign policy needs to be recaptured. (my emphasis)

Am I being unfair to characterize it that way? I don't think so. I discuss this article at much greater length in a separate post, Requirements for the Long War: you weren't so attached to all that "dissent" stuff, were you? 05/28/06.

This is a "highbrow" version of the stab-in-the-back theory for the loss of the Iraq War.

| +Save/Share | |