Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Dalton Fury ... On Killing
Hey, what's this! Abu Muqawama is proud to host some guest commentary from none other than Dalton Fury on a subject we tend to avoid in the happy-happy, play-well-with-others land of population-centric counterinsurgency. I briefly served with both "Dalton" and his brother and appreciate the guest commentary. This ought to provoke some discussion...
On the battlefield, hard corps Islamist extremists and American soldiers and intelligence operatives perform with clear objectives in mind. The American fights hard for a cause with the ultimate goal to survive the fight and return home to live life to the fullest. The terrorist fights hard for a cause also. However, his ultimate goal is not only 180 out from the American but it is counterintuitive as well. The terrorist needs to die in battle to reach martyrdom. Martyrdom is victory. He is at the end of the tunnel. The American needs to live. He hopes his time in battle is just a small footnote in a long and prosperous life. The terrorist is hard wired for death - the American hard wired for life. Face to face in a gunslinger’s duel in the streets, if the terrorist dies and the American survives then both are winners. If the American dies and the terrorist survives then the latter is a still a loser - a pursuer of martyrdom - in the eyes of Allah.
This is the crux of the problem with the CIA hit teams. Much has been written about the “logistical” issues that were too difficult to overcome. But the single most difficult problem faced by these teams was locating the right guy. A guy who could kill another man in cold blood. A guy expected to act counter to everything he was ever taught as a peaceful, tolerant, honorable, and law abiding citizen. It’s easy to talk tough about killing another man, particularly after 9/11 when the desire was at its peak. Actually pulling the trigger on an unarmed individual, or even using more unconventional methods like exploding cell phones or lacing a cup of tea with poison, is something very few Americans have ever undertaken. Most that have are on death row or have no chance of parole.
I argue that most of the critics as well as the supporters of the aborted CIA program have never killed a man. Taking a seasonal deer or turkey is a laughable comparison. How many “officials” have fired a weapon in anger? How many Americans can claim a confirmed kill in battle? How many have been in command of men killing other men? Or as Staff Sergeant Barnes from the hit movie Platoon sarcastically asked, “Killin’? Whatchya all know about killin?”
Those that can answer SSG Barnes are forever shackled with the action. It sears the soul for life. It is something that can only be ignored for small periods of time. The demons lie dormant but vivid, always returning to the forefront of your mind. You can’t outrun it. Seeing death is one thing. Being responsible for it is a whole different story.
American soldiers follow a strict set of Combat Rules of Engagement (CROE). Basically, in ground combat – not to be confused with a Predator drone’s weapons free CROE - if the bad guy isn’t armed or engaging in a hostile act, then he lives. I think Saddam could have vouched for this. And even though a President can authorize assassination for the CIA with the stroke of the pen, the line is extremely short for men who actually have the stomach and mental capacity to execute the task and survive the lifelong psychological torment thereafter. Undoubtedly, the CIA was prepared to cycle their shooters through structured debriefs and endless counseling once the assassin returned home. To borrow George Tenet’s favorite and oft overused phrase, at the end of the day, the simple requirement for psyches standing by at Langley doomed the program before it ever got out of the blocks. That’s my opinion, not Mr. Tenet’s.
On any given military raid or assault, the exfil is a critical phase. If things go right, getting off the target and back to the tents is fairly routine. But these operations are typically handled by platoon or company sized units who usually have a great advantage in numbers. For the potential CIA assassin on target, he knew he would be well short of teammates on his right and left. How many readers here are willing to trade places with that guy?
Ultimately, the only chance the secret CIA program had was if that exfil was never called for. For the deed – the lethal hit –to have been successfully executed the best option would have been to do as our adversaries do. Target neutralized. No exfil logistics needed. No further American lives put at risk during a daring black helicopter extraction. No psyches needed. But engaging in suicide operations is obviously out of the question. Or is it? Doesn’t our great nation, the sole super power in the world, have the capacity to field killers equal to the 9/11 hijackers? What about those prisons?
What if we offered men on death row the opportunity of a lifetime? What if we spent a year or so training them to execute a covert assassination suicide mission? A mission with no exfil phase. What about recruiting convicted killers in the Middle East who see little value in life, and whose life is short as is, and offer them the Rocky Balboa opportunity of the global war on terror?
Recruiting ex-patriot or disenfranchised, poor, and destitute Saudi's, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Somalis, etc. to do the deed with an iron clad contract that their surviving families would get a guaranteed passage to the US, US citizenship, a seat in the Federal Witness Protection program and a fat bank account would likely net some great candidates.
Are there any inmates that feel such remorse for their actions, or who are so hard wired for killing, that may relish the opportunity to be a hero or famous? Assassinating a known enemy of the United States with the full backing of the President while sacrificing yourself would be enormously honorable, heroic, and show a level of commitment to protecting our great nation unparalleled by virtually every reader of this article, author included. It certainly would repay a debt to society and an act arguably worthy of a star on the wall in Langley.
Dalton Fury retired from the military with over 20 years of service. He is the author of the New York Times Bestseller Kill Bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander’s Account of the Hunt for the Most Wanted Man (St. Martin’s Press, 2008) He can be reached at daltonfury@yahoo.com.
Wow - Stereotypes abounding!
Wow - Stereotypes abounding! "The terrorist" is fanatical, simple-minded, with only one aim in life. Whereas "American soldiers and intelligence operatives" are complex, responsible people, who struggle with emotions. Never shall there be a fanatical American? No religious fundamentalists in the US? No simple-minded, thrill-seeking youths? We are great!
So do we have Bin Laden penned up in Guantanamo, disturbing the President's nightly rest?
We need to know the worst, so we can get over it, and get on with the rest of our lives.
Is it just me or is this a
Is it just me or is this a little off the deep end? You can pay token service to "kinetic stuff" without making it sound crazy, Abu.
What do other CAG types make
What do other CAG types make of Dalton Fury?
And will Lee Marvin command
And will Lee Marvin command the program?
I have to say that while I
I have to say that while I might normally agree with some elements of the argument, the tone, mistakes, and ludicrous assertions make it far less than worthwhile reading. It might not exactly be easy to get someone to kill, but you hardly have to look into our prisons for able assassins, Further, the majority of insurgents and terrorists surprisingly enough don't seem interested in immediate martyrdom. Finally we're not very likely to find a terrorist working on a suicide bomb or plans for the next train bombing on the immediate battlefield. We're much more likely to find them by police work in some safe house well away from any annoying bombs or soldiers. Insurgents are even less likely to want to die than terrorists, a terrorist is generally well educated and devoted to a cause while an insurgent is just as likely as not to have been a peasant conscripted by a group of armed men.
At first reading, it sounds
At first reading, it sounds batshit crazy. But, think about the years prior to 9/11, when the CIA had Bin Laden located at Tarnak Farm or when he was falcon hunting with his Emirati friends. In Scheuer's book, he stated that the CIA had a group of old mujahids on the payroll staking out Tarnak. These old timers were plotting a roadside ambush or a snatch and grab. Obviously it did not work. But Scheuer described these guys as being over the hill and not totally dedicated.
But.... if the CIA had men available like Fury described (more like the foreigners, not American convicts) whose families would be guaranteed big bucks, it' could work. What's the alternative? We've fucked up everything else (while spending billions).
19 motivated cut throats with box cutters incapacitated our country. Why not return the favor with some equally motivated cut throats?
Art of the Martyr, Part I:
Art of the Martyr, Part I: Martyrdom in Transnational Jihadi Media
If by 'provoke discussion'
If by 'provoke discussion' you meant provide fodder for Hollywood hacks looking to write their next B movie then I would say Mr. Dalton's guest commentary will be successful.
Otherwise - way too simplistic. Man - I wish all terrorists were hardwired the way Mr. Dalton describes - killing those guys is easy. Unfortunately most of the insurgents want to live to see the fruition of their efforts, are a lot trickier, and are operating under way more motivating factors than simply martyrdom and 72 virgins.
Wtf. "The terrorist needs to
Wtf.
"The terrorist needs to die in battle to reach martyrdom. Martyrdom is victory. He is at the end of the tunnel. The American needs to live. He hopes his time in battle is just a small footnote in a long and prosperous life. The terrorist is hard wired for death - the American hard wired for life. Face to face in a gunslinger’s duel in the streets, if the terrorist dies and the American survives then both are winners. If the American dies and the terrorist survives then the latter is a still a loser - a pursuer of martyrdom - in the eyes of Allah."
There is just so much wrong with that understanding of the oppos perspective. It generalises and trivializes and plain invents an easy paradigm of understanding. Who is this "terrorist"? AQ hardcore, Taleban militia, Korengal lumberjacks?
Is this still the view of the enemy?
If I see any more of this
If I see any more of this sophistic bullshit on this blog I will stop reading cold turkey. Don't insult my intelligence.
Wasn't this already a Don
Wasn't this already a Don Cheadle movie?
Hmmmm....lots of complaints,
Hmmmm....lots of complaints, but very few counterpoints. There are some very good points made by Dalton Fury that get forgotten in the crys of "Oh, my a stereotype!".
Americans, by their very nature are not killers, do not want killers working with and for them, and are not suicidal. Part of being in a law abiding society. We might like to watch action films, but we don't want to live them.
That said, there are some fringes of our society who are ok living that lifestyle and don't worry too much about tomorrow...but would you trust that person on a black op? There's the rub.
The suicidal killer with a heart of gold, or the trustworthy sociopath is all too often a work of fiction...but that doesn't mean they don't exist in the real world, too.
Tintin, There are many who
Tintin,
There are many who do not like DF--mostly because they feel that he "violated" national security. The website Professional Soldiers has a discussion about him as well.
Informed by my limited
Informed by my limited experience with SF types, I am guessing much of this post was written with tongue at least partly in cheek. But some advice -- irony doesn't work well in print.
Content-wise this is a bust. Are there fanatical type mooj out there ready to die at a moment's notice? Sure. Do they constitute even 1% of the people who worry us in Iraq, AfPak, Somalia and other hot zones? No way.
Senor Fury's characterization of CIA management's TLC for it's cadre of trained assassins made me smile. Those dudes care about the following, likely in this order: 1) If failure: will there be blowback? 2) If success: can we take credit? 3) Can we maintain C&C over these guys 24/7? 4) Where's my bourbon?
Number 3 is why this program never went forward, it's also why the Dirty Dozen scenario will not be considered either -- show me the Member of Congress who will be willing to give military training to Willie Horton on the taxpayer dime and I will show you a Dead Incumbent Walkin'.
I think the problem with MAJ
I think the problem with MAJ Greer's commentary here amongst this crowd is the over generalization of the common islamic fundamentalist that engages in acts of terrorism. Of course, it is intellectually dishonest to assume or state as fact that MAJ Greer's description of the enemy is all encompassing. However, having interacted with the enemy up close in Afghanistan, I would say he is spot on as to how the majority of the enemy foot soldiers we face act and think on the battlefield.
Let's be honest with ourselves, put all of our warm fuzzy feelings aside, and admit that most of the enemy we face are True Believers. A true believer motivated by an idealogy is a powerful weapon that can not be reformed or compromised with. We can lock them up and throw away the key to the jail cell or we can kill them. There is no grey area or middle ground.
MAJ Greer brings up a valid point that sometimes the quickest path to victory with the least resistance is to match our enemy's resolve with our own corps of True Believers. I don't understand the disdain for this tactic. At the end of the day War has been and always will be a grueling duel of wills between various factions with non-compatible goals that could not be reconciled through political/diplomatic means. Once we cross the line and the first bullet is fired, it is indeed our duty to bring the conflict to a victorious conclusion as swiftly as possible. If taking out key enemy leaders, financers and other facilitators is our stragety for expediting victory, then we should be willing to do everything in our power to achieve that endstate. Outside the box thinking should be encouraged and if it means recruiting and then letting loose our own True Believers against our enemy, then of course that should be explored.
Ultimately, with the CIA program, the government decided that we would compromise too many of our core beliefs/ideals that make us American. Unleashing our own motivated corps of True Believers willing to do everything that is necessary to achieve victory in this instance would conflict with our long standing support of laws and precedents governing the "civilized" conduct of war. Sending a man or team on a suicide mission is a valid tactic, but it is in direct conflict with our beliefs and the value we have for human life that our enemy does not.
There is nothing Hollywood about this. To borrow a phrase from another former Unit leader..sometimes you need to humor your imagination. An operation as described here could work, sometimes you just need to have the audacity to try.
Could it be that Mr. Fury is
Could it be that Mr. Fury is making a larger point and that many here in the comments are missing it entirely?
I don't read his piece as a call to suicide missions as much as it is an overall question of dedication and belief. There's a fairly good point to be made about mindset here.
RWL -- I don't read his
RWL -- I don't read his piece as a call to suicide missions as much as it is an overall question of dedication and belief. There's a fairly good point to be made about mindset here.
Yeah, Giap, kill ten of my men for every one of yours and I'll still win, the true believer wins a war of attrition, the chicken is involved but the pig is committed, etc etc. We get it.
Nemesis -- Let's be honest with ourselves, put all of our warm fuzzy feelings aside, and admit that most of the enemy we face are True Believers.
Let's be honest with ourselves, put all of our warm fuzzy feelings aside, and recognize that you and Dalton Fury's blind faith in this patently absurd assertion is one of the very reasons that this entire modest proposal is so completely worthless.
" if the bad guy isn’t
" if the bad guy isn’t armed or engaging in a hostile act, then he lives"
Oh, that depends...
Without violating OPSEC, there are different ROE considerations for different sorts of engagements. The ROE used at Fallujah wasn't the same sort of ROE expected for guys living on a COP in Ameriyah last week.
"What if we offered men on
"What if we offered men on death row the opportunity of a lifetime? What if we spent a year or so training them to execute a covert assassination suicide mission?"
What if we sprang a dozen men out of prison, with the agreement that if they fouled up once -- just once -- they would be sent back to jail to continue their sentence. But if they agreed to go on what likely was a suicidal mission and survived, Ernest Borgnine would commute their sentences and...
Yeah, it was on again the other night.
Are we now seriously discussing policy by covert references to "The Dirty Dozen?"
So, Dalton Fury writes a
So, Dalton Fury writes a quasi-absurd post which is triangulated somewhere between trite, ironic, and simplistic. The readership, in response, either dismisses it and its author as naive or scratch their head and ask, "Why not? 9 years later and the tallest man in Afghanistan still hasn't been found. Let's try something 'out-of-the-box.'"
Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a litmus test. It speaks to the internal confusion the USG is wallowing in. Many adhere to policies of capacity-building and denial of sanctuary, whereas many others disdain that approach, the timeline for progress it carries with it, and are just waiting for the voice in their earpiece to whisper "Permission to fire at will."
Seems we're still looking for that rare-hybrid: the expeditionary diplomat. Someone with the patience to mentor the ANA, audit the Ministry of Interior, and still react quickly and effectively to a roadside bomb or mountain ambush.
Since that "civilian surge" seems to have whimpered and died, I suspect we're going to continue asking 11b's to hand out candy to the kids and have tea with the elders. They might do it, but they're not likely to win friends with the scowls they wear when they're told they have to be nice.
Perhaps if Beitullah Mehsud
Perhaps if Beitullah Mehsud is still alive he can provide some guest commentary instead of American soldiers like "Mr Fury". I think the readership of this blog would be far more receptive to Mehsud's viewpoints than Fury's.
Interesting commentary.
Interesting commentary. Having done a search on Fallujah, it appears to be an area where modern US warfare has been conducted without regard for the humanity of people living in a nation identified by the US as an enemy. The savagery of war is not made noble by US aspirations to spread democracy, nor is it made acceptable by the perceived need to keep America's cars running.
Visitor 654pm: Criticism is necessary for improvement. To equate criticism of policies and actions one considers injurious to the people both of the US and of other nations as support for the person recently declared by Foreign Policy.com as the new Bin Laden is simple-minded indeed. Perhaps you would like to volunteer to assassinate whomever is offered up as the next "new Bin Laden"?
Gulliver-Let's be honest
Gulliver-Let's be honest with ourselves, put all of our warm fuzzy feelings aside, and recognize that you and Dalton Fury's blind faith in this patently absurd assertion is one of the very reasons that this entire modest proposal is so completely worthless.
There is nothing worthless about killing the primay leadership and other key leaders in a movement that educates others to become True Believers in their cause. Dismantling leadership and other mouthpieces is crucial to disrupting the organization. Obviously we can't kill them all and that isn't the intent. As long as the ideology exists there will be those willing to die for it. Obviously top AQ and Taliban leadership are not die hard believers in the idealogy and message that they teach to their followers otherwise they would be out in the front of the fight instead of hiding. The leadership is motivated by the typical human want of power, ego, a legacy, etc not by a higher calling.
If we were willing to do everything that is necessary to win then we would have let loose a suicide type mission or fought this war without regards to political boundaries. We would fight it with a tenacity That only true believers can bring to the battlefield. Gulliver I don't know if you have been to Afghanistan or not, but when I was there I didn't encounter too many Taliban that I felt could be rehabed. It's too late to engage in the type of out of the box action we could have used back in 2001. Now that we are well into nation building. It would be counterproductive to focus on killing a handful of enemy leaders. The enemy idealogy and it's true believers has taken root an there are enough young men taking up arms against for revenge or personal gain that the enemy cause now has many facets and is only loosly associated with the original AQ and Taliban leadership.
First things first, I have
First things first, I have to admit that I have a little trouble taking anyone going by the name 'Dalton Fury'. Fortunately, it looks like I don't have to.
Starting with the first paragraph: While sure, the hardcore terrorists look forward to death and admittance to paradise, that doesn't mean they don't have terrestrial goals as well (the creation of a new caliphate, bringing the Islamic world back to the 'true' practice of Islam, etc.).
Okay, maybe I'm nitpicking. Maybe I should consider DF's main point without getting bogged down by the . . . weird stuff. When finding people willing to serve as assassins in missions with low chances of success, I can definitely get behind the suggestion that we go after guys willing to die if we will take care of their families in exchange. As I understand it, this isn't really that different from what we've done in the past - we're just paying them for their services in a different way.
But the idea of fielding convicts is bad on so many levels. I mean, haven't we learned enough about information warfare to see propaganda nightmare when we see one?
@7:37pm: "Having done a
@7:37pm:
"Having done a search on Fallujah"....I'm sorry (no, I'm not really) but people who first learn about Fallujah through Google IN THE YEAR 2009 are what's wrong with this country. Unless you're 9 years old, which would be a valid excuse for this kind of obliviousness, you should be ashamed.
For all you naysayers out
For all you naysayers out there who think that the article is B.S, that using convicts, murders, and death row inmates sounds obscured, ludicrous, or make believe. Never heard of “The Blue House Raid”, that took place 21 Jan 1968 and the events that took place after it. The Blue House Raid was conducted by 31 North Korean Commandos from Special Unit 124 on a mission to assassinate the President of South Korea Park Chung Hee. Talking about an audacious raid, this went down as one of the hairyest missions ever conceived and they almost pulled it off. Being compromised 300m some say 800m short of the OBJ. You would have thought this was thought up in Hollywood.
After the unsuccessful hit on his life, President Park Chung Hee was so pissed that he had the ROK Special Forces and the KCIA go through the prison system and recruit the misfits, gangsters, murders, and hard core criminals who were on death row; They were formed them into a 31 man retaliation hit team. They were called Unit 684 these men were molded into the best of the best bad ass commando’s equivalent to our SFOD. There orders were to infiltrate North Korea and do a raid on Kim IL Sung and assassinate him they were told if they volunteered to go on this mission that their death sentences would be commuted, granted amnesty, and made in to patriotic national heroes for the country. They trained for three years and were ready to deploy when the mission was called off at the last minute because negations were starting with North Korea.
The whole mission was cloaked in secrecy. In 2003 a movie was made of the unit titled “Silmido” based off the mission and named after the island they trained on in isolation. it went on to be one of the best selling movies that broke box office records in Asia and Korea. A interesting story that the Korean government tried to cover up its existence sound kind of familiar? Here is a link to some information on it. So I agree with Mr. Fury all options should be on the table. Our leaders are so neutered that it makes me want to vomit with all the CROE we have to follow. Now I know a lot of you are going to talk smack that it is only movie with all the drama. But keep in mind that even when “Blackhawk down” was being filmed you had to change things and add drama to keep the story line going. The producer said it best…”We are not trying to make a documentary but a movie. So I have been told it was 90% accurate (Blackhawk Down). So instead of trying to slice and dice Mr. Fury, think out of the box. So I Just wanted to add my two cents. awesome article Mr. Fury keep em coming!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_684
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silmido_(film)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJy2zsYKOSo&feature=PlayList&p=3371DDCCC9...
"If I see any more of this
"If I see any more of this sophistic bullshit on this blog I will stop reading cold turkey. Don't insult my intelligence."
I am not agreeing with the comment, but let's keep this blog serious when talking about serious issues. Paying convicts to go on suicide missions? Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. I expected a serious post from Mr. Fury, and read about a nebulous “enemy” (The Bugs! Would you like to know more?) full of suicidal maniacs. While there definitely are components of our enemies that are set upon fighting Americans and becoming martyrs if necessary, I would dare to say they are a minority.
Dalton Fury, sir, your service to our nation was most noteworthy and honorable, but please tell me why you chose a name that sounds like it came either from an 80's action movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, or more likely, an 80’s porno.
Ugh, above comment by me. I
Ugh, above comment by me. I forgot to fill out the name section.
If someone is stupid enough
If someone is stupid enough to get arrested by american police I doubt they'll be getting past the taliban any time soon.
If you doubt, for a moment
If you doubt, for a moment your enemies resolve, he will find and kill you and your family:
See above Comment by Jacob on August 7, 2009 - 2:25am
Art of the Martyr, Part I: Martyrdom in Transnational Jihadi Media
Deus ex... You honestly
Deus ex... You honestly think that the number of willing martyrs amongst our enemy is a minority? Have you spent anytime on the Afghan Pakistan border?
Look I think MAJ Greers article was meant to create some waves with what at first glance seems like an outlandish idea. I think the article did a great job in showing how uncreative and static some of you are when it comes to tactical planning and operations. I'm more disappointed in the comments here than anything Greer said. This lack of imagination and unwillingness to even consider the fact that all things are possible if you fight without rules and plan as if you have no restrictions from higher. It's disappointing to see the narrow mindedness here. I'm assuming that the commenters dismissing Greer outright have never served in the combat arms arena. I can only imagine stiff academics who think they have it all figured out through their research, reading and interviews as the people here dismissing Greer outright.
I'll say it once again. Anything is possible as long as you have the audacity to try in the first place. It is the lack of audacity and the risk averse nature of many of our senior military leaders that prevented us from making measurable gains early on in this war when we had the opportunity to act swiftly and decisively. Now, we are stuck nation building and have created a whole new generation of young men looking for revenge for their dead family members or fellow tribesmen. Now we are stuck with pop. COIN and hoping that we can come out on top in the next ten years before we lose the support of the American people.
Deus, if you are a leader in the military, do your Soldiers a favor and move to a desk job. It's closed minded leaders that dismiss ideas outright that prevent creative and dynamic thinkers from coming up with and executing truly effective operations at the tactical level.
"On the battlefield, hard
"On the battlefield, hard corps Islamist extremists and American soldiers and intelligence operatives perform with clear objectives in mind."
I think it's hard-core? Hard Corps is what the Marines think of themselves as...
"It's closed minded leaders
"It's closed minded leaders that dismiss ideas outright that prevent creative and dynamic thinkers from coming up with and executing truly effective operations at the tactical level."
Yeah. Because no Soldier or Marine ever has to listen to death-by-PowerPoint recitations of asshattery or watched real initiative crushed by any "leader in the military" we might have encountered, right?
If inventing a ludicrous AKA and then sealing the plotline of the "Dirty Dozen" and trying to pass it off as policy advice is an example of the "creative and dynamic" thinking that's going to save our adventure in Afghanistan, then consider me "close minded."
stealing, even...
stealing, even...
"If you doubt, for a moment
"If you doubt, for a moment your enemies resolve, he will find and kill you and your family."
There is more than one way to deal with an enemy. A good start is to refrain from acts that incite enmity, without having exceptionally good cause for one's actions. A second is not to define those who won't let you control them as enemies.
Nemesis, Yes, I do think
Nemesis,
Yes, I do think the number of willing martyrs (those who seek suicide missions) amongst our enemies is a minority due to the simple fact that if they were a majority, the wars would have been won long ago, albeit with higher casualties. These guys, for the most part, are in for the long haul. Have you noticed that our enemies do not fling themselves in droves against concertina wire like AK-packing lemmings? If our enemies were salivating so much for holy jihad, please elaborate on why the IED has become their weapon of choice in Iraq and much of Afghanistan. The IED, which you might or might not know, is a weapon that generally allows the person who planted it to stay alive while directly inflicting damage upon US personnel. If I sought to become a martyr, the IED would be my very last weapon of choice. Now that isn’t intended to make a false dichotomy, I’m sure many willing martyrs have employed IEDs.
We find ourselves fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan locals of wide variety. I am very well aware of the proclivities certain Muslims have towards being suicidal martyrs. I spout Sam Harris non stop, so I am more convinced than just about anyone. However, simply because I realize that a remarkable segment of the Muslim population is very willing to find death in a violent manner, does not mean I will lump all our enemies into such a handsome and simple description.
SNLII, respectfully, what
SNLII, respectfully, what Greer is saying has nothing to do with the present state of affairs. Obviously, we are well beyond sending true believers out to the frontier to kill the leaders of our various enemy factions. This is about what we could have done in the beginning. We all agree, I think, that this conflict is well beyond resolution by simply killing the enemy. Pop. COIN will either succeed or fail and that will determine whether or not we maintain the support of the American people long enough to achieve ultimate victory.
Greer's commentary isn't about what we should do now. It is what we could have done to achieve swift and decisive victory instead of worrying about "rules" that take into account political boundaries, proportionality, morals, etc. I'm not saying that I agree with throwing all of those "rules" aside is the right answer but we need to at least consider the tactical cause and effect and potential results instead of dismissing these ideas outright.
Deus, there is a vast difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. My comments have nothing to do with Iraq. The enemy there has different motivations and a different composition. In Afghanistan, from my personal experience, we have a majority of enemy fighters that are willing to die for the cause. However, the flaw in your logic and understanding of this is that you confuse being a True Believer with someone that is aimless. They are not aimless, they are as calculating and as intelligent tactically as anyone in our military. The difference is that they are willing to do what is necessary to achieve a tactical advantage even if it means they might die. Being a True Believer has nothing to do with committing outright suicide, it is about believing in a cause strongly enough that you are willing to risk it all in order to achieve a certain goal. Martydom is important, but it is unfilling for the majority of the enemy if it is not done in conjunction with hurting us and gaining something for the cause.. Get out of your head this simplistic viewpoint that believing in a cause blindly means that you are unable to calculate, plan and execute a complex operation to achieve tactical advantage. The problem with people like you deus is that you are unable to understand or accept that there are warriors and other men that will sacrifice it all for a cause greater than themselves. Many academics and other casual observers write off people like that as fanatics or label them crazy. That type of dismissiveness completly overlooks the fact that these warriors or True Believers are able to think, make decisions and execute just as well as anyone else, the difference is they are willing to die for what they believe in without reservation. Suicide it is not... glory, honor(martydom) and being faithful to the Cause is what it is ultimately about.
Deus, you have no frame of reference to understand this it seems and unfortunately neither does many of our senior leaders of the past eight years.
Hi everybody, Long time
Hi everybody,
Long time reader, first time commenter here. Just thought I'd chime in to say that this is the stupidest article I've read in a long time. I read it twice, and it sounded even dumber the second time.
If I were a life-serving convict selected for this task, I'd complete the training, allow the U.S. government to drop me off somewhere around the Durand Line, and then I'd go join the bad guys. Or I'd take my chances on trying to escape and disappear. But I wouldn't complete a suicide mission.
I used to take Mr. "Fury" seriously, but the doubts first crept in after I read his analysis of why LTG McChrystal was the proper man to lead in Afghanistan:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/05/the-pope/
"From my perspective, our rules of land warfare, our respect for human life, and our strategic constraints handcuff us to the point that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. But, with LTG McChrystal at the helm now all bets are off."
Talk about misreading the purpose of placing McChrystal in charge. Look if we don't know what to do in Afghanistan, that's fine. We should just say so. But we should stop searching for any stupid solution that comes along (like Fury's) just because we feel like we need to offer one up.
Nemesis, I am very sorry
Nemesis,
I am very sorry that you have this impression of me, for it truly couldn't be farther from the truth.
You said: "The problem with people like you deus is that you are unable to understand or accept that there are warriors and other men that will sacrifice it all for a cause greater than themselves."
You really couldn't be more wrong. I was well aware of that since 2000 and goddamned 1. Secondly, I have never given such a simplistic explanation like "crazy" regarding Muslim extremists. Im my opinion, they are in a sense more rational than their secular brothers, for they rigidly interpret the Quran and Hadith as the literal commands of God like their religion dictates. Because those "Holy" books are replete with violence and scathing hatred towards unbelievers, their attitudes towards people like me are quite understandable. Disgusting, but understandable given their frame of reference.
I must admit that I misinterpreted your argument regarding martyrdom. I did not see that you meant to imply that they were simply "willing" to die. I thought that you were trying to imply that they were actively seeking death, as Dalton Fury did when he said: "The terrorist needs to die in battle to reach martyrdom. Martyrdom is victory. He is at the end of the tunnel." Emphasis upon the "NEED" to die in battle.
And please stop assuming I hold certain viewpoints, you're attacking a person who agrees with you far more than you know.
Deus, I do apologize for
Deus, I do apologize for framing my comments as a personal attack towards you. Obviously, I must admit I don't know where you are coming from any more than you understand me.
I don't agree with most of Greer's assumptions, but I feel the main problem with him is he is just bad at fully conveying his thoughts and backing them up in written form. I think Greer was trying to explain our enemy the way I did, but to all of you it came off as a wild generalization.
I maintain though that most of the commenters are missing the point of this. Fury's commentary has nothing to do with offering up a new solution to winning the war through a Dirty Dozen mission. Its about what we could have done in the very beginning and its about the options and possibilities that reveal themselves to us if we do away with the "rules" and humor our imagination at the tactical level. The confusion and inability to grasp this is what kept us from decisive victory eight years ago.
Nemesis: You appear to
Nemesis: You appear to share the attributes of a True Believer, unwilling or incapable of recognizing the extent to which your own beliefs blind you to the obvious pitfalls of your ideology.
"Decisive victory" eight years ago would have required an end goal different from that which took us into Afghanistan. At that time we were under the leadership of a group who -from the end results of their actions- apparently had little interest in anything other than looting what they could for as long as they could. Perhaps you believe there were more noble or more urgent goals in mind. Given the record of what occurred subsequently, it is difficult to understand why you would continue to believe that.
To the last comment,
To the last comment, interesting twist...so now I'm the idealogue? I'm not supporting or criticizing any ideology, so I'm not sure whose ass your pulling that out of. If you would read my comments carefully in relation to Greer's article, I am simply stating that I believe we need to analyze all options, be more creative and be willing to accept risk when we engage in conflict...in other words, we need to start fighting war again with complete and decisive victory in mind.
I'm not defending the political or senior military leadership eight years ago, in fact, I think if you had any grasp of words or the ability to comprehend their meaning, you would clearly be able to pick out the number of times I've commented that our Senior leaders screwed the pooch eight years ago because they limited our tactical options. They limited our options because they didn't have a clear strategic victory in mind or if they did, they surely lacked the competence to execute it properly.
If you are going to waste your personal time responding to a post, at least be semi on target.
Have a Good One
Comment by Nemesis on August
Comment by Nemesis on August 8, 2009 - 1:08pm
"Let's be honest with ourselves, put all of our warm fuzzy feelings aside, and admit that most of the enemy we face are True Believers. A true believer motivated by an idealogy is a powerful weapon that can not be reformed or compromised with. We can lock them up and throw away the key to the jail cell or we can kill them. There is no grey area or middle ground."
Who, me, an ideologue?
So I'm an idealogue because
So I'm an idealogue because I made a statement about certain ideologies motivating our enemy in Afghanistan? I make an observation based on personal interaction with our enemies in Astan and that is proof that I myself am an idealogue? I'm going to keep scratching my head on that one. That is some pretty interesting logic...or failure at logic.
Perhaps I misunderstood you,
Perhaps I misunderstood you, Nemesis. Would you explain what you mean by "certain ideologies motivating our enemy in Afghanistan?"
You refer to "a majority of .... fighters that are willing to die for the cause." "The difference is that they are willing to do what is necessary to achieve a tactical advantage even if it means they might die." They are "...warriors and other men that will sacrifice it all for a cause greater than themselves."
Isn't all this true of US soldiers committed to combat?
You say: "...the difference is they are willing to die for what they believe in without reservation." What do you mean by that?
real groundbreaking stuff
real groundbreaking stuff here... except.. they already made a movie about that it was called the "dirty dozen" with Telly Savalas and Charles Bronson.... lmao...
Perhaps not groundbreaking,
Perhaps not groundbreaking, in terms of it being new and different. But despite discussion of the power of the Christian right, is there a general understanding in the US that the years after 9/11 were spent in what seems to be viewed by many of the participants as a battle between Christianity/Judaism and Islam in Afghanistan? Isn't this the basis of ideas such as "Mr. Fury's"?
Ideology is one's belief system. All those who are religious, as well as all those who aren't, are adherents of an ideology. If this is a dead horse to some, it seems to be a lethal source of confusion to others.
"Bush's presidency
"Bush's presidency represented an upheaval because it was both guided and blinded by a rigid ideological outlook and because of its uncommon proclivity to choose military over diplomatic means."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22731
June 11, 2009
Wow, what is this Fury guy
Wow, what is this Fury guy smoking?
Let's make this simple: a 20-year old Afghan Pashtun from Khost likely views his land as being occupied by American "infidels" who came from thousands of miles away. For him, it is a fight for his homeland.
Compare that to the average 20-year old American. Thanks to a lot of factors, our homeland is secure. There is no occupation of the American homeland. There hasn't been a major terror attack since 9/11. For him, his homeland is secure. The sense of urgency and proximity are far less.
The 20-year old Afghan brings more zeal to the battle because its purpose and location are greater in proximity to him than it is for any of us.
The COIN crowd seems to suffer from a case of the white man's burden -- "Oh, they'll love us as long as we give them crayons and build wells." And the Dalton Fury types seem to be thirsting for a full-fledged cannibalistic conflict.
There has to be an alternative to neo-liberal interventionism and neo-barbarism.
What in the world happened to foreign policy realists?
Tipu Sultan: "What in the
Tipu Sultan: "What in the world happened to foreign policy realists?"
They are either screaming in disgust over the development the last 8 years, or furiously trying to find a way to get the car back on the road before the neo-barbarians take over. Most of them work in finance, though, and are busy cashing in bonuses.
Good point on the enemy-motivation difference, though I think it seems fair to say that there is a difference between a ideologic fighter for the world caliphate and a Taleb hilbilly soldier who doesnt fear death. (He would have stormed at Gettysburg too. Or at Somne.) One is a ideological fanatic, another is a fighter, and a fighter wants to go home to his family, and though willing to die would prefer to live. Isnt this the lesson IDF learned in 2006?
A lot of old mujahedin are sitting on the fence, if pop-cent Coin can get some of those down on the western side or at least hold them from entering the fight, then the sit seems a bit brighter. We will see if there is the will and ability to do it properly.
Add your comment