Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

“Droning On” Something Commander in Chief Obama might consider in his Afghanistan War.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 02:58 PM
Original message
“Droning On” Something Commander in Chief Obama might consider in his Afghanistan War.
Droning On (The American Conservative)
When TAC asked me for a piece on military drones, I had to consider which variety of drone was most important: the drone aircraft, the drones who operate the aircraft, or the drones back in the Pentagon who think drive-by shootings can win wars.

• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

To answer these questions, we must grasp a basic fact about war that the American military cannot understand, namely that there is more to it than putting firepower on targets. American military doctrine—with the exception of the Marine Corps—is Second Generation doctrine, sometimes called firepower/attrition warfare. Derived from French Army doctrine of the interwar years, it reduces war to putting fire on targets in a contest of mutual attrition: think Verdun. The French summarized it as “the firepower conquers, the infantry occupies.” Seen from the perspective of that doctrine, Predators firing missiles are entirely a plus. Other than those pesky wedding parties, they have no negatives. Remember, high cost is another benefit.

• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Boyd went on to explore and explain what that “more” is. He posited that war is fought on three levels: physical, mental, and moral. The physical level, where Second Generation focuses, is the weakest. The moral level, on which guerrilla war centers, is the most powerful. And the mental level, the basis of maneuver warfare, lies somewhere in between.

• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Seen from John Boyd’s physical/ mental/moral vantage point, the Predator is a stunning success physically. It may terrify our enemies mentally. But on the moral level, it is a boomerang. Those on the receiving end say, “I’m going to get back at the murdering cowards no matter what it costs.” Their families, friends, fellow tribesmen, and co-religionists around the world have the same reaction. The Predator calls forth its low-tech, Fourth Generation counterpart and nemesis, the suicide bomber.

• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In contrast, John Boyd argued that for winning wars, people are most important, ideas come second, and hardware comes third. The Pentagon stints our people to feed its hardware programs, while the pursuit of technological solutions to every problem stifles creative thinking about tactics and doctrine. The American military promotion system washes out the combat leaders, who tend to have rough edges, in favor of bureaucrats and managers who can run big weapons programs and testify smoothly before Congress. In pursuit of the foxfire of victory through technology, America has forgotten the basics of war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes. Obviously Obama should be taking his cues from the Rand corporation and its surrogates.
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Obviously you didn't read the article. Have a blissful day. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. It's conservative think-tank bullshit.
Why are you posting this rubbish here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. What specific statement offends you most? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. No.
I'm not going to argue details with you about Pat fucking Buchanan's magazine. The man is a fucking racist piece of trash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Obama is fighting a war in Afghanistan and one key issue is the effectiveness of drones. Don't you
care whether Obama succeeds or fails?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I don't care what racist asshole Pat Buchanan's magazine has to say about Obama, no.
The man is a fucking racist piece of trash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'll assume you want Obama to lose in Afghanistan. Thanks for your opinion. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. This is actually a very interesting article, notwithstanding its origin
It is flawed insofar as it skips over the fact of Rumsfeld's 'revolution in Military Affairs' (although that actually started under Clinton) and the consequent fact that much military procurement, bureaucracy and even strategy is a legacy of the previous administration(s). It's also the case that the USMC, at least, has rewritten its counter-insurgency manual and the military as a whole trying to implement the ideas found therein - this is one reason for the increased troop commitment in Afghanistan.

Still, the article makes many good points even if it is a bit behind the curve and even though it comes from a conservative viewpoint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Thanks for taking the time to read the article. The focus is on drones and questions whether
a strategy and tactics dependent on such arms can win a war in Afghanistan.

A related DU thread is Government map shows dire Afghan security picture
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC