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.
On debating war plans
Earlier today Shadi Hamid set off something of a minor conflagration on Twitter by asking why, in the face of clearly horrific and mounting violence in Syria, should think-tank civilians advocating intervention be expected to come up with detailed military plans for an intervention?
Speaking as a
civilian writing on a think-tank affiliated blog, this struck me as a very
distressing position. If one is going to advocate for a military intervention -
of any kind - serious analysis of a military plan is absolutely vital, and
think-tanks - unlike, say, service members or policymakers, have a unique
position to publicly weigh in on such debates with candor. Let me be blunt: if an
analyst or the think-tank she or he represents cannot offer a plausible
military strategy for an advocated intervention, then it is difficult to treat
that advocacy with weight or authority.
It is a cliché
to note that war is too important to be left to the generals because it's also
absolutely true - and it would also be unfair to single out Hamid or the issue
of Syria. Similar arguments have been trotted out by commentators, analysts and
public figures on a variety of military issues, although more often as excuses
to defer responsibility to military staffs for decision-making, or arguments to
wrest away decision-making from policymakers with undesired views. As Adam has
noted, basic victory definition is inseparable from policy prerogatives.
Think-tanks, like other public institutions and figures engaging in policy
debates, have a role in offering informed advice, even on matters might not be
the professional domain of civilians, that can help shape those prerogatives.
If an organization advocating intervention lacks access to civilians, veterans
or military fellows with sufficient expertise such that it cannot confidently
and cogently substantiate its case for military intervention, that's a problem
for the organization to rectify, not for the audience to accept.
Nobody is
expecting a think-tank to elaborate a full OPLAN – although there are some
which probably could. But an ends, ways and means analysis subjected to the
scrutiny of those with defense experience and expertise is all too often
lacking in our public discourse. At a point when “leaving it to the generals”
has become a rhetorical stoplight to paper over strategic aimlessness in
debates over Afghanistan, it is not simply a necessary component of argument
but something of a civic responsibility to ensure that the public have a chance
to assess the likely costs and outcomes of the use of force - something that
the government, by virtue of political and operational concerns, will be
reluctant or unable to do without restriction.
Hamid has argued
it is unreasonable to demand this since analysts can’t predict what actors
would be in play - but the beauty of an ends, ways and means analysis would be
that it could formulate what was necessary to achieve objectives, and then determine what combinations of
actors, resources, and techniques would be necessary to make the executions of
those plans a reasonable choice. Obviously, analysts, which are not psychic,
cannot be expected always either to predict the future or read the minds of
those privy to militarily relevant information they lack. But they can offer
plans that relate the ends, ways, and means of their course of actions, with
their assumptions made explicit so that effective debate and critique can be
offered - and they should respond to those critiques by examining what kind of
resources or strategies would be necessary to address the risk that those
assumptions might be false.
War is a grave
matter, and discussing war on its own terms is hardly an unfair expectations of
advocates who would wish the U.S. participate in it. Similarly, as Daveed
Gartenstein-Ross has noted, advocates of non-intervention should be
frank about the consequences of the status quo and the feasibility of
alternatives. What is dangerous, however, is advocacy without substantive
engagement in the subject matter of its aim - whether about Syria, Afghanistan,
Yemen, or anywhere else. Policymakers and publics alike need voices outside the
military capable of assessing military subjects, at least so long as we live in
a society that exercises civilian control over the armed forces.
During the
American Civil War, the U.S. was lucky enough to be led by perhaps our finest
self-taught strategist ever, Abraham Lincoln. If today, a coterie of officials
were able to claim a monopoly on military knowledge and operational practice as
McClellan attempted to, it would be difficult for the public and policymakers
alike to effectively resist the charm of their authority and expertise. Not
only, then, does military uninformed civilian debate make it more difficult for
a policymaker to undertake militarily-reasonable operations, it can also create
space for the military to resist civilian policies. Strategy (and even passing
familiarity with operations) should not be cult knowledge kept by an anointed
caste, they should be published in vulgate and nailed to doors. Not every
policymaker, let alone every voter, can be Lincoln. Hawks and doves alike must
endeavor to ensure that their policies and critiques have enough strategic
fluency to be worthy of informing laymen and advising leaders.
Update: While I was pounding away at this, Jason Fritz wrote a far superior post. Check it out.
God forbid we ask tough
God forbid we ask tough questions. Spot on, Dan.
Abu Dan Was the role AEI
Abu Dan
Was the role AEI played in the Iraq surge good or bad?
Best
ADTS
The importance of AEI in the
The importance of AEI in the strategic shift in Iraq was to help legitimize ideas already under discussion within the administration. I believe GEN Keane's role was particularly important because it allowed President Bush to see that there was not unanimity among senior military people. I discuss this in my monograph at http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=985
I think Dan misses a
I think Dan misses a fundamental point in criticizing Shadi. It's one thing for a think tank to be discussing the pros and cons of intervening in another nation's security affairs, or (heaven forbid) a "pre-emptive" invasion to stop WMD stocks from being given to Teh Terrorists. But what I think Shadi is getting at is more to the point when national security pundits like Ann-Marie Slaughter are outlining how the military operations should be effected (see "humanitarian corridors, failure of sense"), then they are going too far.
The quote "war is too important to be left to the generals" is only true in that it suggests that we not allow four-star generals become viceroys in their theaters of operation (*cough - Petraus, MacArthur - cough*) where they are determining the course of the war based on their view of strategy. And yes, similarly we don't need politicians or think tanks outlining how the operations on the ground ought to be executed (Lyndon Johnson, Slaughter). But we do need politicians who understand the use and limitations of military power as opposed to other forms of state tools (diplomacy, intel, economics). So when you start thinking about Iran, Syria, in strictly military terms, then you have failed as a national security analyst.
So no, under no circumstances should we see think tanks outlining operational plans or advising the Pentagon's leadership on how to conduct military operations for any purpose. They should stick at the strategic level with the understanding that military intervention could have significant costs and impact on not just the country being invaded but on US readiness and global operations. Ann-Marie Slaughter and others of her ilk don't seem to want to have a serious discussion on the consequences of military use in Syria, only that we have some "responsibility to protect" that will only embroil us deeper into a Middle Eastern quagmire.
Steve Metz Thanks for posting
Steve Metz
Thanks for posting and bringing the monograph to my attention - I will download now.
Best
ADS
Jason - I think you've
Jason - I think you've misunderstand both my criticism and Hamid's argument. Hamid is hardly criticizing people like Anne-Marie Slaughter who are coming up with half-baked intervention plans - he, as an advocate of military intervention himself, is saying that advocacy of intervention like his and Slaughter's doesn't need to be accompanied by a serious military discussion. My fault for not being clearer on that upfront, though.
You need your budget cut. It
You need your budget cut. It is the only way that you will realize that there are boundaries to America’s generosity otherwise the momentum just keeps growing like a snowball rolling down hill.
The success of military plans and paying for them out into the long future has EVERYTHING to do with Syria policy. The US does not need another Afghanistan or foreign aid commitment with a country that wants our money but not a US partner. That is what is happening in the ME.
This sums up my
This sums up my position.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrian-intervention-risks-upsetti...
Dan, in which case I humbly
Dan, in which case I humbly withdraw my position and would tell Hamid (and Slaughter) to stay out of the machinery of "how to do intervention" and to stick to the larger political discussion of "why would we ever want to be in that tar pit?" and "are there better ways than the military option to solving it."
"Hamid is hardly criticizing
I don't think it needs to be accompanied by operational considerations, but it sure better be accompanied by a thorough analysis of how the military instrument can achieve stated political goals.
Have these clowns looked at
Have these clowns looked at the ethnic/tribal/religious map of Syria?
Have they looked in the mirror to realize war pursued to Victory is too ugly for them to contemplate?
Damn right they should be forced to come up with a detailed plan, right down to ROE. So that it can be mercilessly picked apart by people who have some clue of what's involved.
As I am advocating staying out..that's as far as I need to go.
Other than if you lack the stomach for war and it's ugliness - YES - then don't make war.
elf on June 7, 2012 -
elf on June 7, 2012 - 9:25pm
It is time the Arab countries stepped up and provided peace keepers.
in Arabic "Peace Keeper" is translates to "Civil War" in English. Hope they like their tribal discussion.
If the Obama administration commits resources in Syria, Obama gives Romney four years.
Do you want more of this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/world/asia/karzai-family-moves-to-prot...
Has the American middle class done as well as the Karzai family since 2008? The Karzais are all American citizens and think America is great!
"The Snake Eaters" - reality
"The Snake Eaters" - reality based COIN from a USMC adviser's perspective of Iraq/OIF.
One of the findings - COIN doctrine as re-written is going to mislead the current, next or new generation of US COIN practitioners. It's insular and entirely too rosy. Review below.
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/30335.html
"in Arabic "Peace Keeper" is translates to "Civil War" in English. Hope they like their tribal discussion."
Well let them have their "Tribal Discussion" then LOL.
Elf on real lessons learned
Elf on real lessons learned on June 8, 2012 - 2:21pm
If the book reads like the review, "The Snake Eaters" should be a good read. Sort of get saturated cause the books start sounding the same, went, saw, conflict, some buddies didn't make it, and survival. It is good the experience is handed down for others to read.
Think with each conflict where COIN or another tactic is used, no previous experience will prepare. Success is a key and if it is not ground just in the right way, you do not get past the door. The imprint changes with each conflict. Only HUMINT is going to give you a blueprint, if you do not have that capacity then mistakes will be repeated.
That is the reason that Syria can not be taken lightly. The US should know the above lesson by now. Unfortunately there are people who only care to stop a conflict to add a line item to their legacy and will not be around to worry about its end. Bush and his administration are retired and there was a revolving door on the past conflict for military leaders. US citizens all end up pregnant. The most important factor in Syria, for the US to have a fast exit, is a government that can replace Assad. Without that governance, the US is going to be mired in a Syria peace mission for years to come. If Syria swings away from Russia, there will most likely be a commitment like the US has done with Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Israel. The USG is borrowing any new spending money. Many people point to the small amounts spent and compare to the whole of the US Federal budget, then draw the conclusion that the small amounts are lost in the whole budget. At the end of the day any new spending is borrowed money, even if it is only a dollar and the US economy has to grow to carry the commitment.
For all the people that are in horror over the killing in Syria, they should be equally in horror that the people in the ME can stop that killing any time that they want. All the people in the ME have to do is put their differences away.
Until the people in the ME have the capacity to put their differences away, no one can help them.
Books like "The Snake Eaters" will be written again by Syrians or the peace keeper that goes to give Syrians the freedom to disagree.
There is a lot of responsibility that comes with freedom. US leaders need to be responsible, US citizens are watching. Stopping the horror of Syria is not the US leader's only priority.
While the in-crowd kids in DC
While the in-crowd kids in DC are playing RISK..they can throw this into their "calculations"** - Russia may to an extent view Syria the way we view Israel, a long standing ally for decades sitting on strategic real estate and ports.
Another reason to say NO.
**if emoting based on TV and YouTube images is calculation.
If you need more consider this - if we go in we'll certainly cause directly or indirectly at least another 10-20 thousand deaths. At least. And there is no good way out or no "government in a box" we could spring on Syria.
As far as the Assad's tottering...Syria was the Country of Coup par excellence for the first 25 years of its' existence, and stable under the Assad's the last 40. History has lesson's there...
NO.
And consider Russia feels the
And consider Russia feels the plight of the Syrian Orthodox..
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/03/what-russia-doesnt...
Slight tangent...I'm
Slight tangent...I'm heartened by Dan's call for foreign policy and national security think tanks to introduce more analytical rigor when advocating (sometimes rather loudly) for a certain course of action. This lack of expertise and depth isn't limited to military analysis/planning. I often see it in think tanks dealing with the arms trade (both licit and illicit) and conventional arms non-proliferation. All too often there is no real cost-benefit analysis, and very few analysts care to sit down with export control compliance specialists and law enforcement agents who actually are trying to track down the bad guys. Even when they do, the think tank experts seem rather uninterested in really hearing out the latter and helping the folks in the field find the tools they really need. Those outside of government certainly have a valuable role to play in educating the public and keeping the government accountable, and injecting some fresh thought into what can become a stale bureaucratic environment. However, these experts do much damage to their credibility, especially within policy-making circles, should they continue to view practitioners as somehow "tainted" by their experience in dealing with problems on a day-to-day basis.
株式有限会社を設立、きちんと続け。法人印で法人名で円役職名
株式有限会社を設立、きちんと続け。法人印で法人名で円役職名決めるときに最適ですが、印鑑などのサイトで紹介されて。#file_links[D:\3text\Projects\yinzci.txt,1,N]法人印カバーできない。印鑑通販サ イト制作。法人印の制作、申請書類を偽造し、それ以前に商号の調査及び定款の作成の日数を必要とする。セットで購入することにより、会社が負担できないの で、すぐに終わり、住所、会社経営、事務所の敷金？礼金、家賃の方面、印鑑店の打ち合わせどおり、法務局の登録の比較的に良い。また、行政書士や行政書士 や行政書士や司法書士箱舟は全部私に教えて、今は新しい会社代表印鑑証明書の発送要請など必要ならば、各業界のそれぞれの実印を使っての提案。
法人印法人の活動にも効率よく仕事を行う。定款の電子認証の導入は、自分の会社の設立時角印登録。#file_links[D:\3text\Projects\yinzci.txt,1,N]一般。詳細は、会社を設立することが多いが、会社負担。 店舗や印鑑通販サイトも多いので、基本的に多く使用可能。市町村の政府が発行できません。人数を集めて角印などの印鑑をもっと安く。法人印の制作と、印鑑 通販サイト登録の制作など様々な決定準備事務仕事なら、会社名、会社の業務に影響する可能性。
法人印鑑は以前は象牙のほうが安い。法人の場合は行政書士に全てを任せ教えて。最近、領収書ですか？オファーシート、靑色申告か、簿記、偽造防止に役立つ のフォントは、個人や法人の場合、代表印の公印印鑑、個人法人印が用意した人が多いのですが、とにかく、会社名、彫刻後、そんなに提出日時、#file_links[D:\3text\Projects\yinzci.txt,1,N]法人印は必 要な事。全国で展開して多くの人が公開。しかし、法人印など総合的な呼びました。税務署によると、会社を設立し、何より、オリジナル使用。特に、自宅兼事 務所の段階ですが、今は会社の印、源泉所得税の納期の特例承認申請書。重要なのが、一番厄介なのは他人の姓三文判ではなく、法人印など会社設立の手続きが 漏れて市区町村政府の発行。この話して、事務もうまく。法人印を作って、会社の設立はオンラインの圧延。もし証明サインをもらったほうがいいですか、#file_links[D:\3text\Projects\yinzci.txt,1,N]3週 間ぐらいだね。特に、偽造実印セット、銀行印の3、銀行印、角印は、担当者の欄の所持することが可能となる。
Add your comment