Reply With Quote
In other words, the nation-building that was pooh-poohed by conservatives in 2000, is now viewed as essential to US security in 2008.
The current generation of future military leaders, i.e. officers of Lt. Col and below, have been cutting their teeth in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A former Soviet analyst has re-thought the shape and mission of the US military, and has a rather broad base of support among these younger officers.
This new way of envisioning the US military marks a once-a-century paradigm shift that promises to leave the military 10-20 years in the future looking nothing like the military that most vets who have left the service would recognize.
The future US military will rely more on 30+ year olds with advanced degrees in things like civil engineering, and less on 19 year olds fresh out of high school.
Here is a link to an article below that outlines some of the most current military thinking about the future:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/publi...gonsnewmap.htm
---------------------------------------------------
Below is an article that outlines the new doctrine, as written in "Field Manual 3-07, led, “Stability Operations
----------------------------------------------------
New Army Operations Manual Leverages ‘Soft Power’ Assets
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9, 2008 – The U.S. Army’s new “how-to” manual on stability operations is a unique do ent that embraces joint effort as a reflection of the realities of a 21st-century world, a senior U.S. military officer said yesterday.
Field Manual 3-07, led, “Stability Operations,” was developed from 10 months of collaboration among Army planners, the Defense Department, the State Department and military allies, Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, commander of the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth, Kan., told reporters at the Foreign Press Center here.
The CAC at Leavenworth is the Army’s “brain trust,” where it educates and develops future military leaders and develops much of its operational doctrine.
“As we crafted this doctrine, we did so with great respect for the roles and missions of our respective organizations,” Caldwell explained. “It’s critical that we each preserve our proven core competencies, not only those of us in the military, but [also] those outside the military.”
Lessons learned from current overseas U.S. military operations played an important role in the development of the new field manual, the three-star general said.
“We set out to revise the Army’s stability operations doctrine, drawing on the experience of the prac ioners that are out there in the field, doing it day-to-day today, in both Iraq and Afghanistan,” Caldwell said.
Today’s 21st-century, globalized world presents very different challenges than existed in the past, Caldwell said. The emergence of trans-national terrorism as a global threat, he said, highlighted the necessity for a different approach in conducting stability operations.
Fragile states susceptible to takeover or influence by global terrorists “pose the greatest threat to our national security,” Caldwell pointed out. Under this scenario, he said, regional conflicts could quickly flare into international crises.
x“So, the more that we as a world, an international body, can collectively come together to find solutions for challenges that are out there, the better it will be,” Caldwell said.
In fact, foreign military officers from Turkey, Belgium, Germany, India, Pakistan, South Africa and other countries provided input and comments for the new manual, Caldwell said.
“If we’re going to win the peace, it requires stability operations to be understood, embraced and worked in a comprehensive manner that involves not just the United States military, but all of our friends, our allies,” he said.
Stability operations doctrine promulgated in the new field manual, Caldwell said, is based on five principles: building partner capacity; governance, or strengthening ins utions of legitimate governments; establishing and maintaining the rule of law; fostering economic growth, and forging a strong sense of national unity.
“It is essentially chartering a path from violent conflict to stable, lasting peace by providing a road map to the future while studying critical waypoints for the conflicts of today,” Caldwell explained.
Military power alone cannot achieve successful stability operations in the 21st century, Caldwell said. It’s also necessary, he said, to incorporate “the soft power capabilities our military has in support of other instruments of national and international power – something very vital to an effective strategy at this very crucial time in our history.”
The human element, or how to provide societal, political and economic stability for populations affected by conflict, should be a primary focus factor during stability operations, Caldwell said. Elements of soft power, he said, include the diplomatic capabilities of the U.S. State Department, as well as the civil-economic expertise possessed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Ins ute for Peace, and other U.S. and international agencies.
The new field manual “is a powerful force for change,” Caldwell said, that says military and non-military agencies must blend capabilities and share responsibility to effect successful stability operations.
“This manual calls together those experiences into a doctrine built on unity of effort, a comprehensive, collaborative and cooperative approach that forges a shared vision of a common goal,” Caldwell said.
---------------------------------------------------------
In other words, the nation-building that was pooh-poohed by conservatives in 2000, is now viewed as essential to US security in 2008.
It's viewed as essential by conservatives? Really?
Listen. Let me call up Bush right now and I'll put an end to this.
BRB.
I didn't say it was currently viewed by conservatives as necessary.
Perhaps I should state more accurately:
In other words, the nation-building that was pooh-poohed by conservatives in 2000, is now viewed by the US military as essential to US security in 2008.
What conservatives think these days about "nation building", I really dont know.
Certainly it seems the Bush administration seems to think it is important, although I have seen a lot of conservatives claim that Bush is not a "true" conservative.
Personally I have read up on Mr. Barnett's book and agree with his conclusions.
We let Afghanistan limp along as a failed state and it bit us in the ass.
He's not a true conservative. Look at his spending, look at his government building.
This guy has ruined republicans for years and years.
"Deficits don't matter" -- Cheney
I cringe that the supply-siders who have taken over the GOP, when they say things like this.
Hopefully their little castle will be stormed by pitchfork wielding real fiscal conservatives...
So after the US gets out-waited, as so many predicted, and fails, as so many predicted, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military will be better prepared to invade and occupy other countries?
GMAFB. The US ups in Iraq and Afghanistan have DONE nothing to advance the US's interests. Those 2 countries are decades, if not 100s of years, behind Western civilization.
So what next for this Afghanistan?
The US surge failed there, too.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/10234...ntire#comments
If we would have sunk 1/10th the amount of money into Afghanistan as we have into Iraq, we could have built up that country into something relatively decent by now, and they wouldn't be the largest producer of opium/herion in the world.
We should get out of Iraq ASAP, and allocate a good 1/2 of that force to Afghanistan.
We should also almost fully withdraw from South Korea.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
