Monday, May 17, 2010

Pent-up-agon: The Future is FID

I’m not sure what to make of this McClatchy article touting the Pentagon’s “new” (yes, once again we have the newest new which is one better than the last new) strategy for “future” (that’s right, they don’t waste time, new wars are brewing already) wars.

Link

WASHINGTON — Nearly a decade after the United States began to focus its military training and equipment purchases almost exclusively on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. military strategists are quietly shifting gears, saying that large-scale counterinsurgency efforts cost too much and last too long.


So after ten long years of nothing but abject miserable and total failure to accomplish anything other than death and destruction the Pentagon has figured it cost too much and lasts too long? Gods! We are so lucky to be in the hands of this caliber of genius, I mean otherwise we might be screwed. I shudder to think of it.

But hold on to your, er, hat because more revelations follow! You are so lucky.

Counterinsurgency "is a good way to get out of a situation gone bad," but it's not the best way to use combat forces, said Andrew Exum, a fellow with the Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "I think everyone realizes counterinsurgency is a losing proposition for U.S. combat troops. I can't imagine anyone would opt for this option


Yet even more evidence of the genius behind the genius of the genius who leads us. Oh still my beating heart. What have we been doing for the last ten years? No, I can’t imagine anyone opting for this option either. Thank god for think tanks because without them where would we be? Somewhere else, that’s for sure.

Foreign Internal Defense

Self explanatory, isn’t it? “Foreign Internal Defense”, also known as “FID”, otherwise known as “Fairy Tales In Demand", suggest that in future wars we merely have whichever nation declare war on itself whereupon one half of the nation will kill the other half thus making Americans safer, …somehow.

Many Pentagon strategists think that future counterinsurgencies should involve fewer American ground troops and more military trainers, special forces and airstrikes. Instead of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here," as former President George W. Bush once defined the Afghan and Iraq wars, the Pentagon thinks it must train local populations to fight local insurgents.

The military calls it "foreign internal defense," although some have a pithier name: counterinsurgency lite.

The new kind of counterinsurgency is "for the indigenous people and a handful of Americans," said Joseph Collins, a professor at the National Defense University, a Pentagon-funded institution that trains officers and civilians.


Thank god Collins is a professor, we are in such good hands. I can’t wait to see FID in action, can you?

Robert Gates, secretary of the fence, another capable, grounded in reality, cat boiling genius, blesses us with the following enlightenment.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recognized the changed thinking in an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

"The United States is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Afghanistan and Iraq anytime soon — that is, forced regime change followed by nation building under fire," he wrote. More likely, he said, are "scenarios requiring a familiar tool kit of capabilities, albeit on a smaller scale."


Translation: when we attack Iran we are just going to nuke them forgoing the regime change.

Honestly, I’m not quite sure what to make of all this Pentagonal soul searching for it seems like a rather oddball article to me. There doesn’t seem to be any reporting other than repeating what these astonishingly stupid jack-asses who somehow aspire to high positions in the government are telling us. I mean why now? Of course the Pentagon is famous for its gourmet propaganda but is this going to convince anyone that we aren’t being led by morons? It sounds like a lot of PR to me.

When it comes down to it this is just more of the same BS we have been hearing for years. It’s always “We’ll be smarter about it this time.” Obama was going to be smarter by making Afghanistan the right war. The Democratic Party was going to be smarter about Iraq than the Bush administration. This time, next time, it’s always the same.

What never gets mentioned in this “dialogue” this paltry “debate” is the monstrous acts that we commit leaving behind an ever widening swath of death and destruction in our terrible wake, this, the most important factor, the moral side of the issue which is never, ever, mentioned in our national narrative. It’s a given that the wars shall march on into eternity, no one questions this, it merely is.

6 Comments:

At May 17, 2010 4:01 AM, Blogger Jack Crow said...

Is it the Pentagon's way of announcing, through its usual gobbledegook spouting organs, that its masters of reality realize that oil is going away, and that therefore it is returning the new-old British model of paying natives to kill natives who live on top of stuff rich people want?

 
At May 17, 2010 5:11 AM, Blogger Mimi said...

Good post, Rob. I often miss gems like this from the Pentagon and the rest of the gibbering idiots in D.C. because I don't watch TV news and may skip it in the newspaper, too. I figure it's the same old crap, just run through the sausage machine to come out packaged in a slightly different form: "Shall we kill, burn, and plunder? Yes! Why? 'Cause we're Amurricans and that's what God tells us to do."

 
At May 17, 2010 1:41 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Jack,
Could be. Essentially of course they’ve been doing that for a while now, not that it has done them any good. And therein lays the rub I think, the wars are not going well, so it was time for some PR to mollify the errant serfs.

Mimi,
Thanks again. I stopped watching TV news as well. I mean it really is awful. And I read somewhere that’s where most people get their news which explains a lot.

 
At May 18, 2010 3:32 PM, Blogger Jack Crow said...

Rob,

I don't think the wars have "to go well." I think the point of occupation is occupation, since it justifies the militarization of the territory within national borders, as well as those places where the US has troops.

Emergency warfare gives a whole lot of street cred to Emergency government.

 
At May 18, 2010 7:31 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Jack,
That’s all true of course, the wars are a means and an end. Still, I think they have to play the game where they need to show or make it appear that they are making progress whatever that means. It’s why we see the generals replaced from time to time since they are attempting to do what cannot be done so they haul out another general from where ever they get these guys, under rocks I guess, while the news regales us with how many pushups the new clown can do and away we go again on another whirlwind military adventure.

 
At May 18, 2010 8:04 PM, Blogger Jack Crow said...

War as theater? Or theater to cover the mortality of warmakers?

Interesting. Me likey.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home