We are in the third week of the new initiative to share perceptions and ideas on current events of critical importance to the security of our country. I reflected on the reason I started the Thought for the Week. My intent was to challenge each of you to think “critically” about these events. I mean for you to not think as a “critic’, but think as an analyst. I do not hold with critics who only find fault and offer nothing positive. Teddy Roosevelt eloquently provided me with a perspective of ‘the critic’:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt
The strategic analyst must think in terms of “realpolitik”, that is, the environment of events.
Realpolitik – a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
The idea of subjugating moral considerations may be repugnant to some readers. However, we live in a harsh world where the moral principles vary from person to person and country to country. The analyst has to think with his or her mind, not the heart. An arduous task as each of us has internal biases and core beliefs. The analyst has to be objective, systematic, and keep emotions out of the analytic process. The analyst deals with incomplete information, information that may be inaccurate, or even designed to be deceptive. The analyst mission is to give the most accurate understanding of the issue, not one which fits a ‘narrative’ or politically convenient answer. Good analysts are seldom popular. So, my challenge to you, put on your analyst hat each week and delve deeply into the issue for that week. Think within a framework that requires intellectual discipline. This may give you conclusions which surprise you, or maybe not.
The theme for this week is about war and policy and decisions.
“Lesson learned” is a process for the military to prepare for the ‘next war’ by studying the past.
But – learning the “correct lessons” has not been easy based on the history of warfare.
Moreover, the focus on war often omits how a war actually happens. Politicians make the decisions to engage in war. The military fights the war that the politicians begin. Of course, the military and the intelligence community have significant inputs to the politicians making the decision to go to war. In the evolving events in and around the Ukraine today, Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden will make decisions which will direct the evolution of the fighting and history. Of paramount importance, Putin has a finger on the trigger to launch Russian nuclear weapons. As a ‘good analyst’ you must also note, Joe Biden has a finger on the trigger to launch American nuclear weapons. The ongoing war in the Ukraine presents the possibility that a miscalculation by one of the many involved parties could lead to a catastrophic nuclear war.
Have the politicians on both sides learned the “correct lessons”?
History suggests they have not.
We nearly stumbled into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union on three occasions during the Cold War.
The politicians failed our country miserably in the Vietnam War and again in Afghanistan.
US missile deployments in Europe during the early 1960s led the Soviets to take a risky gamble to deploy nuclear weapon-capable missiles in Cuba. The result was, two nations looked into the nuclear abyss of mutual annihilation. A US military exercise in the 1980s, Able Archer, was misinterpreted by Soviet intelligence as US preparations to launch a nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union. Miscalculations that bought the opposing nuclear forces to launch readiness, waiting for the coded message to fire their missiles.
We gradually morphed into the Vietnam War starting with our support of the French in the 1950s and then fearing the ‘domino effect’ of a communist takeover of Southeast Asia. The politicians made two monumental errors, underestimating our foe and no “end game’ for the conflict. Foremost, we failed to head the admonition of the strategic thinker, Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote this maxim:
“War is a trial of moral and physical forces by means of the latter. . . In the last analysis it is at moral, not physical strength that all military action is directed … Moral factors, then, are the ultimate determinants in war.”
We failed to understand that North Vietnamese were fighting for their core belief of Vietnamese nationalism, though the historic evidence was there going back to the 1920s. We did not perceive the North Vietnamese would be totally resolute and committed to their cause. Beyond that, we had no ‘end game’ for the conflict except to escalate the fighting with more troops and weapons.
In Afghanistan, we repeated the Vietnam debacle with minor variations. We had no ‘end game’, and it took us 20 years to figure that out. Our opponents were fighting for their religious and nationalistic beliefs.
In both examples our military fought valiantly and served with honor. If it appears that I have been harsh with politicians, you broke the code. My military bias is showing. Politicians talk, the military die.
The Ukraine conflict has brought us to another strategic crossroads – how do we avoid the miscalculation which leads the conflict to the point where we and the Russians will use nuclear weapons. A conflict where both sides become inevitable losers.
The White House appears to have no ‘end game’.
Please tune-in next week as the ‘lessons learned’ theme goes on looking back (1973 Yom Kippur War), examining where we are now in the geostrategic sphere, and for the future, what seems to be the strategic trajectory – toward an unpredictable war or to an unstable peace.
Originally Published 18.03.2022. Re-published with Permission from www.GaryBowser.net.
No comments:
Post a Comment