A New Yardstick (GWOT)

American Thinker ^ | April 06, 2007 | Nathan Hale

[neverdem]

At a very young age I had the good fortune to learn a life lesson that appears not to have taken hold among the Democrats' elite, nor much of the legacy media and only scarcely among academics.

As a very young child I was fascinated by all things military.  In my free time, I read of the great campaigns, famous generals and the development of military technology.  In reading the histories of wars, I noticed a consistent pattern: there always seemed to be many more wounded than killed in combat.

In WWI, for example, some 204,000 Americans were wounded and around 53,000 were killed.  WWII saw 292,000 killed Vs. 670,000 wounded.  Korea and Viet Nam saw similar statistics in that roughly three times as many men were wounded as killed.

Being a future commanding officer of, oh, the 82^nd Airborne (or so I planned) I had an unusual resource in my uncle who had been a West Point classmate of Pete Dawkins and Rocky Versace.  In addition to serving in the Korean DMZ and Viet Nam, my uncle was a graduate of the U.S Army War College, the elite school for officers who were slated for eventual promotion to General.

The War College teaches the philosophy of war and is a challenging intellectual proving ground for the men (and now women) who must provide leadership that extends far beyond the basics of supply, ordnance and training.  To lead great armies, generals must be great thinkers, so the War College prepares rising officers for the responsibility and duty of leadership not of squads, platoons or even companies, but of armies.

As my uncle was something of a scholar and intellectual, he took to the War College challenge as a natural.  He was a combat-hardened artillery officer who had then been moved into the sensitive job of providing nuclear artillery support to our German allies during the Cold War.  It seemed only natural to pose my insight to him in the form of an obvious question.

If the objective of war is to slaughter the opponent, wouldn't it make sense to destroy their ambulances, their medical support and their hospitals?  That way, those who were merely wounded would die and the casualty counts would be higher and victory for our side assured.

My uncle's response was simple but significant.  We do not target medical resources, because the objective of an army is not to slaughter the opponent but to break his will to fight.

That bears repeating: 

The objective of military action is not to kill the enemy, but rather to break his will to fight.

Years later, in an academic study of "conflicts other than war", terrorism and "low intensity conflict", I learned that this principle is actually taught at all levels of our military.  From the lowest level squad tactics to the curriculum of the War College, military people are repeatedly taught and seem to simply understand that their job is to break their opponent's will to fight.

If this thought is so obvious to our military leadership and extends to the lowest level Marines and Soldiers "stuck in Iraq" as John Kerry would say, why is this concept so foreign to the leadership of the Democrat Party?   How can our media "experts" fail to understand this simple thought mastered by privates and corporals who didn't attend Ivy-League J-Schools?

And any rugby fan who has seen the Maori dance performed by the New Zealand All Blacks, or any sports fan who has witnessed the trash-talking before a big game or boxing match understands intuitively that the concept of beating your opponent mentally is often as important as beating him physically.

Setting aside several obvious answers for why so many seem so clueless, let us simply establish a conscious yardstick by which to measure our leaders' actions in the war on terror:
Does this action weaken or strengthen our opponents' will to fight?

And the corollary is similarly straight-forward:

Does this action strengthen or weaken OUR will to fight?

How does announcing a pre-determined withdrawal date affect our opponent's will to fight?  It seems obvious that it gives them a goal to aim for.  They merely have to hang on until this date and victory is theirs.  Ask any athlete which is easier - to run a known distance or to simply start running until the coach tells you to stop?  And further, ask anyone who has experienced it how psychologically debilitating it can be to be told you must run a certain distance, only to have the coach (or drill instructor) decide to make you keep running after you reach the "finish line".

The simple answer that any high school athlete, every soldier of any rank and most everyone else understands is that giving al queda a timeline for our withdrawal from Iraq strengthens their resolve.

In the months ahead and the all-important run up to the '08 elections, I would argue that this yardstick will help us differentiate between those with legitimate differences of political opinion from those who seem intent on surrendering to the murderous thugs of al queda and their various government sponsors.

Al Qaeda and the other terrorists and their sympathizers will to fight can and must be broken if we are ever to be safe and free.  A fixed pull out date as envisioned by Congressional Democrats strengthens our opponent's will to fight.  It encourages the car and roadside bombers to persevere until America quits and goes home.  How many more Americans will die (or be wounded) because of this renewed will to fight?

Surely the least we can expect of our elected representatives is that they do our country and the men and women who fight for us no harm.

Nathan Hale is the pseudonym of a professional whose firm serves many liberal clents.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/a_new_yardstick.html at April 09, 2007 - 01:28:20 PM EDT

[veronica]

Great stuff! Rush read this on his show today. The author is a buddy of mine. :)

[areafiftyone]

Great Read. Thank you for posting it!

[Sam Cree]

Nice!

[neverdem]

Where’s the Tolerance? .....(you neo con, non-secular, bible thumper)

Almost Half of Americans Fear Corruption if Clintons Return to White House, Poll Finds

The End of Inevitability (Hillary's Fundraising Woes!)

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[FreedomPoster]

A Kudos to him! bump.

And a few pings.

[archy]

And any rugby fan who has seen the Maori dance performed by the New Zealand All Blacks....

The Maori haka dances were not at ALL about sport....

And at the football matches, the players don't carry spears...

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[Mack the knife]

This was illustrated in the movie “Battle of the Bulge”, when the German commander discovered in the US Mail that he captured a cake that was sent to a soldier by his mother. He was incensed that the US soldiers had so much gasoline and transport available that they could spare resources to transport a cake to a soldier. He concluded that he had to destroy a city to break the will to fight of the US soldiers rather than just bypass the city.

[Fiddlstix]

Great Post!

[Lion Den Dan]

Thanks for forwarding this to me. Great read. Now if we could only cause the left to read and comprehend this.

I have not seen you for some time. Trust you and family are well. Dan

[roaddog727]

Bumperoo.

[FreedomPoster]

We’re all well. Wife is swamped, she’s a CPA, doing great work keeping money out of the hands of Uncle Sam. Life returns to normal 4/17.

Likewise on you and yours. I see you’re flying a new state flag. I knew that was in the works, didn’t realize it was a done deal. Hope that has all gone well.

[kalee]

Libs don’t seem to recognize that Al-Queda and terrorist organizations are the enemy. They hate George Bush and have decided he’s the one they want to defeat, no matter what the cost.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks ND.

[Valin]

BUMP!

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Very good piece here. Lot's of people like to be Pattonesque and talk about making the other guy die for his country, but really it is much better to make the other guy quit.

The mind is the primary weapon. We have the best trained, best equipped, most lethal conventional military force the world has ever seen. Why haven't we won yet? Because WE have become convinced not to use our overwhelming kinetic force. We would feel bad about killing "innocents." Many of us have become convinced that our Commander-in-Chief is a buffoon and that our previous SECDEF was a complete jerk who was wrong about everything he touched. Over half the country has lost faith in our cause.

How did this happen?

We've been mind-f@cked, that's how. Decades of Cultural Marxism prepared the American domestic target audience to be extremely receptive to enemy psychological operations. And by Act of Congress (Smith-Mundt Act of 1948) our professional Information Operators are not allowed to do a damn thing about it.

Bad things happen when enemy propaganda is not countered. Some of us can see the results of this failure. Perhaps some of us would care to attempt to counter some of it ourselves.

[Lurker]

I'll have to look into the Smith-Mundt Act. I've never heard of it.

Thanks,

L

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[Berosus]

Now those are some scary cheerleaders!

To get back on topic, didn’t we learn at Abu Ghraib that we’re facing enemies who would rather die than wear women’s panties on their heads?

[R. Scott]

In the months ahead and the all-important run up to the '08 elections, I would argue that this yardstick will help us differentiate between those with legitimate differences of political opinion from those who seem intent on surrendering to the murderous thugs of al queda and their various government sponsors.

The way I see it, politics at the National level is seldom based on what is best for the country, but on what is best for The Party. Whatever Republican are for, Democrats are against. Whatever Democrats are for, Republicans are against.
Republicans are generally for the USA and against the Jihadists. Because politics is everything, Democrats have to be for the Jihadists and against the USA.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[StarCMC]

WOW~ What a great article! Thanks for posting neverdem, and thanks for the ping, Cannoneer! Adding a few pings of my own...

[Bahbah]

Great read.

Stating the obvious with clarity is not always as easy as the author makes it seem.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[beachn4fun]

How does announcing a pre-determined withdrawal date affect our opponent's will to fight? It seems obvious that it gives them a goal to aim for. They merely have to hang on until this date and victory is theirs.

YUP!

[SunkenCiv]

:’D The possible comments are all good ways to get banned...

[El Gran Salseron]

"The objective of military action is not to kill the enemy, but rather to break his will to fight."

That is unfortunate. Where is Genghis when we really need him?

[El Gran Salseron]

Thanks for the ping. :-)

[PhilDragoo]

We are not simply fighting jihadists in Iraq.

We are fighting their allies the Democrats, and their propaganda ministry, the media.

Under the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", Democrats and media gleefully adopt the cause and interests of our enemy.

Due to mentally crippling multiculturalism (and to avoid the suits of CAIR and ACLU and the dreaded epithet "islamophobe") our president refers to a "religion of peace hijacked by terrorists" and claims we are in a "war on terror".

Not his fault--in the ocean of sloppy thinking, how does one not get wet.

Democrats wanted timetables and constraints in Vietnam and Nicaragua. That they want them now is not novel.

What is novel is that we're so one-hundred-eighty-degrees out of phase that our Marines are on trial and Moqtada al-Sadr is alive to exhort our enemy.

Let's get back to first principles: the Republic shall be preserved and her enemies imprisoned or killed.

[blackie]

Excellent, thanks for the ping, Star*!

[archy]

"The objective of military action is not to kill the enemy, but rather to break his will to fight."

That is unfortunate. Where is Genghis when we really need him?

He's not the one we need. Following the successful Mongol siege of Baghdad in 1258 by Hulagu Khan [grandson of Genghis Chingiz Khan and father of the later Kublai Khan] at that time the seat of the Abbasid caliphate that had been in existence for over 500 years. It has been estimated that one in ten fighting men of the entire Mongol empire were gathered for Hulagu's army. The siege started on January 29; on February 10 Baghdad surrendered. The Mongols swept into the city on February 13 and began a week of massacre, looting, rape, and destruction.

Citizens attempted to flee, but were intercepted by Mongol soldiers who killed with abandon. Martin Sicker writes that close to 90,000 people may have died (Sicker 2000, p. 111). Other estimates go much higher. Wassaf claims the loss of life was several hundred thousand. Ian Frazier of The New Yorker says estimates of the death toll have ranged from 200,000 to a million.

The caliph was captured and forced to watch as his citizens were murdered and his treasury plundered. The caliph was killed by trampling. The Mongols rolled the caliph up in a rug, and rode their horses over him, as they believed that the earth was offended if touched by royal blood. All but one of his sons were killed. Hulagu had to move his camp upwind of the city, due to the stench of decay from the ruined city.

Some historians believe that the Mongol invasion intentionally destroyed much of the irrigation infrastructure that had sustained Mesopotamia/Iraq) for so many millennia. Canals were cut as a military tactic and never repaired. So many people had died or fled that there was neither the labor or the organization necessary to maintain the canal system. It broke down or silted up.

"Iraq in 1258 was very different from present day Iraq. Its agriculture was supported by a canal network thousands of years old. Baghdad was one of the most brilliant intellectual centers in the world. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was a psychological blow from which Islam never recovered. Already Islam was turning inward, becoming more suspicious of conflicts between faith and reason and more conservative. With the sack of Baghdad, the intellectual flowering of Islam was snuffed out. Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow. The Mongols filled in the irrigation canals and left Iraq too depopulated to restore them." (Steven Dutch)

[El Gran Salseron]

I repeat: Where is Genghis when we really need him?

[PsyOp]

We've been mind-f@cked, that's how. Decades of Cultural Marxism prepared the American domestic target audience to be extremely receptive to enemy psychological operations. And by Act of Congress (Smith-Mundt Act of 1948) our professional Information Operators are not allowed to do a damn thing about it.

Absolutely correct. The process is the same whether it is on the macro level or the micro. As outlined here:

How do you destroy the enemy’s morale and will to fight? It’s simple, really.

First, you call into question their mission. Make them question why they are fighting. Make them question whether they are doing the right thing. Soldiers unsure of their mission question their orders and hesitate to act when quick action is most necessary. In combat, you’re either quick or you’re dead.

Second, call into question their leadership. Make them question their commander’s skill and honesty. Make them question the motives of the political figures that made the decision to go to war. Soldiers unsure of their leadership may refuse to follow their orders or take direct action against their leadership. In combat, failure to immediately follow orders usually gets soldiers killed.

Third, make them homesick. Point out how miserable they are; remind them how long they have been away from home; how much their loved ones miss them; accentuate the bad and ignore the good; tell them there is no foreseeable end in site (no, you won’t be home by Christmas). Homesick and depressed soldiers are not effective soldiers. Ineffective soldiers often become dead soldiers.

Fourth, make it all about them. Point out that the war is not in their personal best interest. “Hey, you can lose an eye (or worse), doing that.” This last step, converting the soldier back into the psychological equivalent of a civilian, is the most deadly. Soldiers who start thinking only of themselves stop acting as members of a team. A soldier concerned only with his own safety stops watching his buddy’s back. Unit cohesiveness breaks down. Desertions and insubordination becomes rampant. Casualties mount higher.

Conversely, the same propaganda that can destroy enemy morale can boost the morale of friendly forces, and vice-versa.

For propaganda to work, it must be based on truth, or at least the perception of truth in the mind of the recipient. Propaganda that does not adhere to this rule generally falls on deaf ears. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqi radio announcer known as, Baghdad Betty, failed in her attempt to demoralize U.S. Troops when she said: “While you are away, movie stars are taking your women. Robert Redford is dating your girlfriend, Tom Selleck is kissing your lady, Bart Simpson is making love to your wife.” If only she had consulted with Sean Penn or Ms. Garafalo before the broadcast.

But carefully crafted lies can, if repeated often enough, still have some effect. If continued long enough, they can alter perception, and perception can become reality. In Mein Kampf (1926), Hitler described what would become known as The Big Lie: “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as a paradise.”

Giving Aid & Comfort.

[Chena]

Excellent article! BTTT!

[Cannoneer No. 4]

You need to write more. My blog is at your disposal, sir. I had forgotten that thread, but now it comes back to me and it turns out to have been the genesis for the Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group.

Not much has changed for the better in the last three years. The enemy achieved partial regime change in America. Enemy propaganda directed at the American domestic target audience is still not being countered. FR is still not living up to its potential as an IO force-multiplier.

[PsyOp]

You need to write more.

Thanks. I got kind of burned out on posting last summer. My kid is back in Iraq, and I have been spending a lot of time doing more family related things.

These days I am so disgusted with the political leadership of this country (or lack thereof), writing about it just gets me so worked up I'm afraid I might burst something internally. Doctors orders are to spend more time walking and less time blogging, so I have.

I'm afraid that just too many people have made up their minds and are not interested in facts anymore, especially if it means facing some ugly or uncomfortable truths.

9/11 woke a lot of people up, but since then most have hit the snooze alarm and gone back to sleep. It's going to take an Iranian or NK nuke going off in New York or LA to get peoples attention again.

While my daughter was home on leave last month I asked her how things were going over there and her comment to me was, "I am really starting to hate these people."

That is a big change in her attitude from her first tour. I'm not sure what it bodes, but the troops are tired of the BS from the Iraqis and from the politicians back here. If this current surge does not do the trick, we may start to see some serious cracks develop in troop morale.

Sorry to sound so pessemistic. Our political leadership does not have the will to do what is really required, and the troops sense and resent that. I see this getting worse and not better.

[Chgogal]

“The mind is the primary weapon. We have the best trained, best equipped, most lethal conventional military force the world has ever seen. Why haven’t we won yet? Because WE have become convinced not to use our overwhelming kinetic force. We would feel bad about killing “innocents.” Many of us have become convinced that our Commander-in-Chief is a buffoon and that our previous SECDEF was a complete jerk who was wrong about everything he touched. Over half the country has lost faith in our cause.”

I have no problem killing “innocents” if winning the war, any war is the goal. If the goal is “nation building” the enemy citizens have to first realize their side lost, beg for mercy, appreciate mercy and then want to move forward as an ally. Until then kinetic force until the cows come home.

Many chide the notion of “nation building”, well darn it, the US single handedly rebuilt Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and a world commodity market to prevent future world wars. The Allies (Britain, Canada, Australia and Russia) were helpful in the defeat of the Axis Powers, but it was the United States of America that built the world as we know it now.

Never forget and always remind those that have forgotten. And remind them with conviction of heart and soul.

[noname07718]

You have the gift of eloquence that puts 99% of the posters (myself included) to shame.

You have spoken volumes in your brief post.

Congratulations and thank you.

Tom

[CBart95]

I liked you a lot more when you did’nt endorse wholesale slaughter of innocent citizens and you understood that there is no equivalent military fighting force in the rest of the world who even remotely compares to us in size and strength and who actually opposes us.

I also liked you when you had the sanity to respect the office of the President of the United States even though, in your collossal ignorance, you had no idea whatsoever in how to run a government or be a Commander-in-Chief.

Your current tirade suggest that you do not apparently realize that you are committing treason by supporting our enemies by advocating violent overthrow of our government in time of war.

Under these circumstances, our friendship is undergoing unusual hardship.

[CBart95]

Please Phil! Let the simple thinkers think they can think.

The idea that there is a wider field of play will make them cranky and ruin the main silly thrust of “breaking an opponents will” as a way to choose Presidents and toilet paper.

That they are actually dupes and agents for our enemy is totally beyond their ken. This is the hysterical phase of guerilla warfare where the defeated support the invaders and devour their own neighbors.

Forget about your toes getting damp. Save your wristwatch. The tide is rising. Try not to swallow.

[Chgogal]

I strongly believe you miss read my post.

[Chgogal]

Thank your son and daughter for me. Their service is invaluable. When you have time AND if you are so inclined, would you be so kind to expand on “ugly or uncomfortable truths” and what you believe is required to win? I am just very curious.

[CBart95]

“Strongly believe” is another reason to admire you.
My comments were more like “street theatre”.

Please don’t take them too seriously.The “frustration level is such that exasperation is causing cognitive dissonance.”

I’m reading for the newly open “Imus” assignment at NBC.

[PsyOp]

Thank your son and daughter for me. Their service is invaluable. When you have time AND if you are so inclined, would you be so kind to expand on “ugly or uncomfortable truths” and what you believe is required to win? I am just very curious.

Actually, it is just my daughter, but here husband is in the Marines and has been there 3 times, so I guess that counts. I will let them know.

As for the "truths" I was talking about, they are nothing more than what I am sure you have seen expressed on Free Republic ad-nauseum. I will try to summarize.

1. Get tough in Iraq. Start by eliminating Sadr and his thugs but do it without all the niceties. Let the Iraqi Parliament know that if they don't get they're act together we'll disband them and show them a real "occupation".

2. Take the fight to the Iranians. Mine the border. Fund and support the PKK in Iran and any other group that supports the overthrow of that theocratic government. Saying that has already put me up for criticism, but we have to start playing hardball with these nuts, even if it means supporting marxists. I'd rather have them running Iran than Islmic fanatics.

3. Put the hurt on Syria. Both Syria need to start losing military bases and other targets of military targets until they agree to stop supporting terrorism.

4. Countrys that do not support us in this effort need to be cut off from support and aid of any kind. We are the economic powerhouse on this planet and we need to start flexing that muscle instead of letting our so-called allies stick it to us at every turn.

I could go on but that's enough. Throw in the border issues, too, if you like.

For a long term win, we need to do these things. But we won't. We are more worried about being liked by our enemies instead of feared by them. And we don't want to get our hands dirty.

What is happening in europe will happen here before long. The democrats will see to it. The Republicans will let them do it. They proved that after the last election.