|
Post by quincannon on Mar 29, 2016 14:24:29 GMT
Well Dave, the Army War College disagrees with Foote and So do I.
Review that video I mentioned, paying special attention to DIME, the basic elements of Strategy, and if one of the DIME efforts were missing or lacking in vigor, they just might have won. Victory does not always go to the bean counters.
What I would agree with is that the South could never win a war against Lincoln. Lincoln was the essential man.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 29, 2016 15:00:19 GMT
For those not familiar with DIME
Diplomacy - Information (Operations) - Military - Economics
Apply DIME today, and you will readily see where we are doing some things correctly, and others not so well, but you may bet your last farthing that the other guys understand DIME and use it every day. DIME must be applied to the war you have, not the one you prepared for, or wished you had. That - wish we had - is where we are presently going astray in my view, and have been going astray since the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon, if not before. We have and we still are failing to recognize the threat, and the proper application of DIME must be a threat specific focus.
I am going to give you an example, using information operations (the I in DIME). First you must set aside your political views, dismiss you fears, and put on the thinking caps, that you all here have in abundance, then evaluate what I am about to say.
Two of our political candidates advocate barring Muslims from entering the country, or heavily patrolling their neighborhoods with police presence. That is the information operation from two people who just may become President.
1) Is our war against Islam itself? That information seems to suggest that it is.
2) Chairman Mao said that the G must be among the people, as the fish are in the sea. In other words to survive the G (or terrorist) must either have the support of the population, or at the very least have the population be neutral to their presence. A G cannot operate where the populace is fully in support of the established government (not party here, but government and the principles that government is based on). Therefore based upon the theories of Chairman Mao the populace is key terrain, and you all remember how to define key terrain, as being that which if in your possession gives you decisive advantage over your opponent.
3) So based upon 1 and 2 above, why in the Name of Christ Down From The Cross, would any two bit hillbilly of a political wantabee ever suggest the very thing they are putting out in their information operations. Do they want the other side to win? Are they just ignorant of the strategic imperatives?
4) You need to engage the possible refuges that the G may hide in, and turn them. You sure as hell cannot do it the way these two clowns are suggesting. I am sure they are fine fellows personally, but completely out of touch with DIME. It takes a long time to accomplish, and we are an impatient people, but if you damned well want to win you had better learn patience, and be willing to take your lumps in the process,
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 29, 2016 15:56:15 GMT
You find in large European cities (Paris and Brussels for instance), that there are large Muslim areas in which these terrorist can operate, Belgium was a hub for not only terrorist but organized crime because they were too soft.
The main problem Europe face (and this does not include the UK as we have the English channel), is that members of IS located in Turkey, can place a load of HE and a couple of AK-47s in boot of their car and drive without being challenged by any authorities right through around a dozen countries and end up in Paris (or any countries capitol), this is down to the Schengen law and this should be banned.
Did any of you see what happened to all those kids playing in Lahore yesterday? because that is the mind set we are dealing with, places like Pakistan still have blasphemy laws and this allows a court to execute anyone who speaks out against any form of Islam, even a casual slip of the tongue and you get the chop.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 29, 2016 16:37:30 GMT
And part of your information operations is the realization that your adversary operates quite well within a Seventh Century oriented culture. The same could be said if we, meaning the US and UK were operating against the Christianity of not to long ago (as history goes), where blasphemy would get you an extra sharp chop.
To soft yields the same results as to hard. All truth, and the solution for the problem of seeing the population as key terrain, is in the middle.
I mentioned our friends on the right above, but when the information operations of those on the left suggests anti-war at any cost, then you might as well pin a sign on the nation and say kick me. Neither approach is correct IF you want to win.
Continental Europe today is just the same as Beth's mention of a structured society of the Old South. They say one thing with their open borders and unrestricted movement, but they fail miserably in meeting the needs and desires of those who come there to presumably obtain a better life for themselves and their families. Changing abject poverty and a backward society for little opportunity, and a society which does not want you to be part of them is no bargain.
Remember years ago when MacDonalds wanted to build their first store in Paris. The outrage defending French culture was rampant. There would have been similar outrage in the Old South, if someone had suggested juleps and shaded verandas for the masses.
We had better learn to live with those that inhabit this shrinking planet with us, or the other guy is going to win by default.
Diplomacy - Information Operations - Military (including those with police power) - Economics. commit that to your strategic notebooks, and refer to it each time you want to evaluate current events.
Good example in that AWC presentation I have referred to. The Emancipation Proclamation was a marvel in strategic information operations. The Southern Confederacy had a three million strong potential fifth column in their very midst, with the stoke of a pen, and as a bonus he tied it in with a recent Military success, Antietam, which put some meaning and teeth into the ink. Then just for good measure he found a way of inserting the D and the E. Diplomacy in that the world was largely against or turning against the institution of slavery at the time, and Economic in that emancipation offered the promise and hope for a better life for those so emancipated. Got to love Abe.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 29, 2016 18:13:29 GMT
Remember years ago when MacDonalds wanted to build their first store in Paris. The outrage defending French culture was rampant. There would have been similar outrage in the Old South, if someone had suggested juleps and shaded verandas for the masses. I remember that well, and I also remember when the USA changed the name of French fries to freedom fries because of the French objection of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 29, 2016 20:01:55 GMT
We really did not change the name, any more then we ate less of those heart attacks in a paper bag.
That was really stupid as far as information operations go wasn't it Ian? It was a feel good knee jerk whacko response perpetrated by the Bill's and Sean's of this world to stoke up their TV ratings. Same can be said of the other side on different issues.
What the world saw in that deep fried temper tantrum was my country being cast in the role of thumb sucking cry baby. If the D does not work, sending the wrong message with the I, makes you look like a nation of idiots.
There are two recent examples of strategic information operations that can be easily examined, because they are so recent and fresh.
The Paris memorial service episode was a failure of SIO in that the President sent the SECSTATE to represent the US. There are times when only the BIG GUY will do and that was one of them. From the SIO perspective the President being there would have conclusively shown the world that the United States stands beside our French allies, REGARDLESS of any political difference or difference in strategic vision we may have with them.
The lack of popular response to latest attack in Brussels was a success. You may recall the President was on an historic visit to Cuba then Argentina. Is anyone so naïve as to think POTUS can not wield the same power of response from a baseball game in Havana or the dance floor in Argentina? Do you really? What was he supposed to do drop everything and rush back to 1600 Penn Ave. ? Those that say he was sending the wrong signal don't know what they are talking about. SIO demands calm steady unflappable leadership, not some knee jerk bullshit of the acknowledged leader of the western world running around like a chicken with his head cut off. Did anyone think that he was working on the D, that can save us a lot of pain down the line, and sent out the right I in the process, and was willing to take the domestic heat back home, ultimately for the sake of DIME.
Cuba in particular can be and adversary that turning them into a partner, can pay big dividends for us in the long haul war against international terrorism. You don't have to like your partner, all you have to do is work with them on areas of mutual concern. If you want to turn them into a friend, I would remind you that Coca Cola, Big Mac's, and the Boys of Summer are mightier than the sharpest sword ever wielded. DIME dammit. Think DIME .
Beth: The posts of these last days on strategy probably should be moved, and I think we already have a strategy category, do we not.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 29, 2016 21:21:27 GMT
For those not familiar with DIME
Diplomacy - Information (Operations) - Military - Economics
Apply DIME today, and you will readily see where we are doing some things correctly, and others not so well, but you may bet your last farthing that the other guys understand DIME and use it every day. DIME must be applied to the war you have, not the one you prepared for, or wished you had. That - wish we had - is where we are presently going astray in my view, and have been going astray since the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon, if not before. We have and we still are failing to recognize the threat, and the proper application of DIME must be a threat specific focus.
I am going to give you an example, using information operations (the I in DIME). First you must set aside your political views, dismiss you fears, and put on the thinking caps, that you all here have in abundance, then evaluate what I am about to say.
Two of our political candidates advocate barring Muslims from entering the country, or heavily patrolling their neighborhoods with police presence. That is the information operation from two people who just may become President.
1) Is our war against Islam itself? That information seems to suggest that it is.
2) Chairman Mao said that the G must be among the people, as the fish are in the sea. In other words to survive the G (or terrorist) must either have the support of the population, or at the very least have the population be neutral to their presence. A G cannot operate where the populace is fully in support of the established government (not party here, but government and the principles that government is based on). Therefore based upon the theories of Chairman Mao the populace is key terrain, and you all remember how to define key terrain, as being that which if in your possession gives you decisive advantage over your opponent.
3) So based upon 1 and 2 above, why in the Name of Christ Down From The Cross, would any two bit hillbilly of a political wantabee ever suggest the very thing they are putting out in their information operations. Do they want the other side to win? Are they just ignorant of the strategic imperatives?
4) You need to engage the possible refuges that the G may hide in, and turn them. You sure as hell cannot do it the way these two clowns are suggesting. I am sure they are fine fellows personally, but completely out of touch with DIME. It takes a long time to accomplish, and we are an impatient people, but if you damned well want to win you had better learn patience, and be willing to take your lumps in the process, Chuck, You guys gamed the barracks, as did USAF, and certainly the USMC. Training Camps were going to be targets as well as funding. These cowards understand one thing overwhelming power and will, we have displayed neither. Not just USA, all western powers. You may recall that around this time hostage taking was the F.U. du jour. While we and others sat around and wrung our hands and had it happened multiple times, the Soviets only had it happen once, and they got their man back unharmed. Why you may ask, because the Soviets grabbed a family member of one of the perps and her bodyguard.. That family member was knocked up, the Soviets sent back the bodyguard in pieces along with a note stating that if the perps did not want more of their family members set back in a similar fashion, the Soviets would get their man back. They did. The Soviets had better intel on the ground and bigger balls.
Now for my nickel's worth of your DIME. We should not let one Syrian refugee in to in this country without proper vetting, not just Syrians but others, the FBI says it can not be done properly with the time frame the administration wants. We need to stop playing loose with our rules, standards, and laws. We are a nation of laws, not of men. If we had stuck to our word with regard to a red line and taken the JV seriously we may not be in as big as a jam as we are now. Then again there seems to be a "What difference does it make?" attitude in Washington, that voters, real Americans need to clean up.
Well there you go you get change back from your DIME.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 29, 2016 21:33:26 GMT
With regard to what happened to the Christians killed in Pakistan the other day, killed by the Taliban, an equal number of Taliban Mullah's should be castrated. They then should be left for buzzard food, stuffed wit ground pork.
Now I guess you would like to ask how I really feel!
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 29, 2016 22:19:23 GMT
Grant's willingness to exchange casualties with Lee sealed the fate of the southern cause as it became a war of attrition. Shelby Foote famously said: "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War. " Regards Dave Dave from the beginning the only way the South would have won the war was by taking away the North's willingness to fight. The South had a couple ways open to them-either make the expense (in lives and resources) too costly or to tap into the political aspect of the North that was just fine with the status quo before the war--people like the Copperheads. Ironically even if the South had been able to establish itself as a separate country, it most likely would not have been able to survive as the world moved away from agrarian based economy to industrial.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 29, 2016 22:30:44 GMT
Well Tom, I suspect then that strategic thinking is still a work in progress.
You are thinking tactics. Every tactical victory you may achieve does not mean a thing if you do not win the strategic war.
What kind of nation do you wish us to be? What face do you wish to put on Christianity itself? Answering barbarism with barbarism make you, indeed us, just as barbaric as those we seek to defeat. This is not how I was taught. This does not represent the values I have, nor does it reflect the values and the principles cast both in law and stone of a great nation. It is feel good, get that off my chest, rhetoric, which in the world of a war waged in shadows is as useful as an atomic bomb or M-1 tank.
You want results NOW. You're not going to get them, and chances are your grandchildren's grandchildren aren't going to get them either, for this is a hundred years, or more, struggle for the survival of western civilization. We will win, if we have the will, but we must also reinforce that will with the power of right.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 29, 2016 23:04:36 GMT
Beth Lee was a courtly man in a courtly age in a courtly south. Southern society held men and women to high social standards some of which continue to this day, Debutante Cotillions, and a man's word was his bond. Gentlemen in the south settled social affairs on the field of honor right up to and during the War. In September of 1863 Generals John Marmaduke and Lucien Marsh Walker fought a duel and Walker perished.
The landed gentry held sway over society and cotton was king. Rich plantation owners were the Wall Street bankers of the age and held political power as well. The loss of the War ended the Old South as it was known.
Wellington would probably have associated with Lee since his family would be considered nearly Royalty as his father, Harry Light Horse was a close friend and associate of George Washington.
QC I understand your point with the DIME material but I met Shelby Foote and shooke his hand so I have to stay with his belief. No matter the strategy employed by Lincoln or Grant the south never stood a chance to win independence. The math was always against the Confederacy and the whole uprising was a political mistake by the Plantation Class and other wealthy individuals. You know better than me that the majority of soldiers in butternut were motivated by "I'm fighting because y'all are down here." belief. The average Rebel had no slaves and few acres if any at all that were his and many did not vote nor did they care about what happened outside their little community. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 29, 2016 23:09:21 GMT
Chuck,
THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING HISTORY LESSON AND ONE THAT PROVES THAT HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF. THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS TRULY A VERY SMART PRESIDENT AND FAR AHEAD OF HIS TIME. PARDON ME FOR PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH DATES.THE BELOW WOULD IN FACT BE THE SRATEGY. I WILL BE YOUR FOIL IN THIS ONE.
When Thomas Jefferson saw there was no negotiating with Muslims, he formed what is now the Marines (sea going soldiers). These Marines were attached to U. S. Merchant vessels. When the Muslims attacked U.S. merchant vessels they were repulsed by armed soldiers, but there is more.
The Marines followed the Muslims back to their villages and killed every man, woman,and child in the village.
It didn't take long for the Muslims to leave U.S. Merchant vessels alone.
English and French merchant vessels started running up our flag when entering theMediterranean to secure safe travel.
Why the Marine Hymn contains the verse, "To the Shores of Tripoli".
This is very interesting and a must read piece of our history. It points out where we may be heading.
Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago the United States had declared war on Islam, and Thomas Jefferson led the charge!
At the height of the 18th century, Muslim pirates (the "Barbary Pirates") were the terror of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and wrote heart-breaking letters home, begging their governments and families to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded.
These extortionists of the high seas represented the North African Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers - collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast - and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American Republic. Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France.
However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets.
Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy. Beginning in 1784, 17 years before he would become president, Thomas Jefferson became America's Minister to France. That same year, the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States rather than engaging them in war. In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further payments.
Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states into peace.
A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would not acknowledge their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise." Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages.
The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to over 20 percent of the United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming.
That changed everything.
Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States.
Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit.
Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense,but, having watched his nation be cowed by Islamic thuggery for long enough, decided that it was finally time to meet force with force.
He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to "cause to be done all other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify". When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and the right to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to Tripoli.
The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged up again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn, and they would forever be known as "leathernecks" for the leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy ships.
Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply.
America had a tradition of religious tolerance. In fact Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen.
A religion based on supremacy, whose holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers, was unacceptable to him.
His greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States. This should concern every American. That Muslims have brought about women-only classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians, Jews, and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim defendants are being judged; Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from workplaces because they offend Islamist sensibilities; ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the Arabic script for Allah; public schools are pulling pork from their menus; on and on and on and on..
It's death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it, and most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day across America. By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate what is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamists adapt to our culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a politically correct knife, and helping to further the Islamists' agenda.
Sadly, it appears that today America's leaders would rather be politically correct than put an end to the nonsense! There was roughly a 150 year hiatus in the antics I discuss above, maybe the terrorists can be educated in the next 150 years. That would be my strategy. Good thing I'm not running, by the way I am not a fan of the 2 you allude to, one of mine is out and the other has been a fine governor and a gentleman.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 29, 2016 23:34:43 GMT
QC, the DIME discussion is extremely interesting however perhaps we can steer away from current events and back into historical events? The problem with using current events as an illustration is that though they are valid and great points, they carry too much emotional baggage.
I remember once being told that you can't truly start to assess historic events until at least 50 years after they happened in order to let the emotions involved to recede. An example might be looking at WWII, we know the events that happened but we are still to this day dealing with the aftereffects of the war. And WWII really is just the aftereffect of of WWI and perhaps several hundred years from now historians will look at WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East wars as one conflict with various lengths of truces in between. Then again a case can be made that all wars are caused by unresolved or new issues from previous conflicts...
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 29, 2016 23:40:27 GMT
Gentlemen consider this a warning. Move off current events. ESPECIALLY religious wars.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 29, 2016 23:47:38 GMT
Thomas Jefferson waged war on pirates who happened to be Muslim. I suspect he would have waged the same war with the same vigor, if the pirates were Jew, or Hindu, or Baptists, or Red Headed Snake Worshipers
Don't know where you got the above, but I do think you should read Ian Toll's Six Frigates before you leap off that tall building you are presently climbing.
I am going to put this to you, and everyone else that wishes to read. I does a man no good or indeed a nation no good to gain a small victory, and in the process lose their immortal soul. That is what I believe with all my heart and soul.
Do not think for a moment though, that each time I see one of these events my initial reaction is not to impale these people on a dull stake, strip them of every shed of skin on their body, slather them in pig fat, pour on a little gasoline for good measure, attach all to a slow burning fuse (about a mile long will do nicely) and let them watch the final moments of their life slip away with a one way ticket to the infernal regions.
That is my emotional side which I suspect is not that much different than yours. My strategic side plays a much dirtier game though, take away their base by enlightened actions, and let them see their dreams circle the toilet bowl. My strategic side is much more hurtful to their cause then my emotional side could ever be.
How many do you need to kill to win Tom, a thousand, a million, a billion? You better damned well kill them all with one shot. They breed you know, and there will soon be three for every one you send to their eternal damnation. So where are you then?
The third is the only one of all five who is fully qualified by both credentials and temperament to ascend to the highest office in the land, in my view. Be advised, as of yesterday, I am officially an Independent.
|
|