tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post6184742593076377533..comments2023-11-17T03:55:40.736-05:00Comments on Ink Spots: Strategy is intelligent design and willful, intended actionLilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18373158801523577733noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-70670450830882335822012-02-17T09:57:18.588-05:002012-02-17T09:57:18.588-05:00Nice post, Gulliver. On that word I've come to...Nice post, Gulliver. On that word I've come to, well, hate a tiny bit, STRATEGY:<br /><br />Some more of my patented nuttiness and flights-of-fancy here:<br /><br />http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/irans-response-to-a-us-attack<br /><br /><br />Dunno.<br /><br />Hope you all are well. Happy Friday. I am so glad it's Friday....Madhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17198241208223203425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-33781246444496697562012-02-13T11:12:53.102-05:002012-02-13T11:12:53.102-05:00Carl — Not sure I understand which specific bit yo...Carl — Not sure I understand which specific bit you're addressing. I don't doubt that you've got a better idea of what COL Gentile means when he uses the phrase than I do. The point I'm trying to make is that his commentary on COIN and U.S. military culture is not terribly consistent with what Gray has written on the subject. This shouldn't come as much of a surprise, though, as Gentile's various arguments are sometimes inconsistent with one another.Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-41888302993106397362012-02-13T10:44:17.562-05:002012-02-13T10:44:17.562-05:00Gulliver-
I like it, especially "the theory ...Gulliver-<br /><br />I like it, especially "the theory of victory" concept.<br /><br />As to Krepinevich, Gentile and "strategy of tactics", I think Gentile closer to the mark the way I understand the label. Westmoreland's approach was to use military force to inflict enough punishment on the NVA to convince the North Vietnamese government to stop in their attempts to subvert the RVN. Our policy was limited, that is the war was limited from our perspective, not the total overthrow of North Vietnam, but coercing them into changing their political goals. Thomas Schelling laid out the strategy quite well in his "Arms and Influence" of 1966. The problem was that the North Vietnamese were willing to take whatever punishment we were able to dish out and the RVN was unable to use the time we provided them to establish enough support among the Vietnamese people to assure their survival. Going "whole hog" on North Vietnam was simply not a political consideration for the US government at the time. So is Krepinevich focusing on the tactics while ignoring the political context?<br /><br />Afghanistan and Iraq were/are quite different. From the beginning the US policy goals were radical, the overthrow of the existing government and their replacement with a US-friendly entity. This required essentially the remaking of the political identity of both countries and imposing on these quite different political communities a system of government seen by their respective peoples as having been imposed by the US. How exactly was the US military, as it was structured in let's say 2001-4, expected to be an effective instrument in achieving these radical goals? It seems to me that Gentile's argument was that simply the military instrument did not fit the strategic requirements and that the focus changed with COIN to simply remaining militarily "operational", since as long as military operations continued the political/military leadership could simply "kick the can down the road" and avoid having to face the strategic reality of essentially two lost wars.<br /><br />I posted something on Gentile's article using this label some time back. You may find it of interest: <br /><br />http://milpubblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/gian-gentiles-strategy-of-tactics-and.htmlseydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-38891419857812956062012-02-10T20:19:21.796-05:002012-02-10T20:19:21.796-05:00You think but have you asked him? I mean, the phr...You think but have you asked him? I mean, the phrase has been bandied about for a long time and sometimes it's even used ironically.<br /><br />Perhaps one might assume that I have.<br /><br />But I digress.<br /><br />CarlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com