Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 7/1/2015 2:49:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/4/2015 4:39:13 PM EDT by danpass]
I was reading this http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2009-02/marines-adapt-long-war-concept and got to thinking about it.

Excerpt in case it doesn't come up fully:

A core characteristic for the success of the SC MAGTFs and MCTAGs is regionalization. In the recent past, Marine regiments have focused on environmental conditions. The Long War Concept adopts this same theme, but the focus is now on the cultural landscape instead of environmental conditions. By assigning a regiment a specific geographical region of expertise (such as Second Marines being assigned Sub-Saharan Africa)—and thus SC focus—the service will be able to focus human talent and proficiency together while simultaneously expanding and further developing the skills and capabilities necessary for effective partner-capacity building. (For a comprehensive discussion of regionalization, see Lieutenant Colonel Edward W. Novack's accompanying article "Regionalization: Optimizing Security Cooperation").

Developing and maintaining cultural and regional expertise is an obvious requirement for successful engagement operations. Additionally, local cultural knowledge is now recognized as a decisive factor in counterinsurgency operations that succeed. Because we understand that future conflicts are likely to be dominated by opponents with indigenous knowledge, it is important that the Corps also develop a substantial base of this knowledge.

In addition to serving obvious benefits to MCTAG and SC MAGTF activities, this will lead to more informed planning and execution of future contingency operations while greatly facilitating our information operations efforts.
View Quote




I then went to a general internet search on the Long War Concept and, if this might be considered cherry-picking, saw this 2010 article:

http://prospect.org/article/end-long-war-0

The other document was the Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR. Every four years, the Department of Defense reports to Congress on its long-term strategic and procurement plans. The QDR gives the White House the opportunity to both lay the tracks of future equipment procurement and to make a statement about its strategic orientation.
View Quote


Some critics of the 2010 QDR have argued that the document fails to serve its purpose in that it does not sufficiently lay out a long-term force structure and strategy for the United States military. For example, the current QDR does not offer a sweeping vision for future U.S. competition with China, and critics suggest that the document is bogged down with practical solutions to immediate military problems. Gates essentially concedes this point, writing:

This is truly a wartime QDR. For the first time, it places the current conflicts at the top of our budgeting, policy, and program priorities, thus ensuring that those fighting America's wars and their families -- on the battlefield, in the hospital, or on the home front -- receive the support they need and deserve.


In other words, this QDR is about fighting, winning, and recovering from the conflicts in which the United States currently finds itself embroiled. The implication is that long-term strategic planning can be put off until at least 2014, when the United States will presumably be out of Iraq and nearly out of Afghanistan.
View Quote



Now ISIS actually controls territory and has no compunction whatsoever to continue on.





edit: Great thesis explaining ISIS. Worthwhile read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 3:29:24 PM EDT
There seems to be a general lack of strategy on the part of the Obama Administration. I've heard decent arguments to the contrary, but the "strategies" seem more oriented towards supporting his domestic political agenda, i.e. what things abroad will hurt or help in that regard. Besides the lack of national strategy, it would be impossible to have some sort of long-term strategy for a campaign when all you want to do is withdraw from it ASAP.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 6:25:50 PM EDT
Here's another excerpt from that second link:

Although the 2010 QDR doesn't say so directly, it implies that intervention in Haiti is worthwhile for humanitarian reasons and refugee concerns, rather than as part of the fight against al-Qaeda. The document rejects the Long War rhetoric of a dramatically coherent struggle against a shadowy enemy in favor of concrete analysis of specific conflicts. Among other things, this allows the Obama administration to frame the Iraq War as a mistake and as incidental to the battle against al-Qaeda and associated terrorist groups.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/4/2015 4:39:27 PM EDT
Thesis on ISIS added to op
Link Posted: 7/4/2015 4:46:49 PM EDT
Interesting that ISIS is referred to as millenarian. Its excessive vanity certainly does mirror other millenarian groups.
Link Posted: 7/4/2015 5:51:04 PM EDT
The term long war was essentially banned when Obama was elected, along with Global War on Terror (GWOT).

There is no long term strategy, only short term calculations on how defense policy will effect the next election cycle. Even ardent progressives like Vali Nassr quit the administration in disgust at how frivolous the administration was.
Link Posted: 7/4/2015 5:56:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/4/2015 6:00:51 PM EDT by mdk89]
US Financed and supplied various islamic extremist organizations to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya. And then attempt to force out Assad, in order to hurt the Russians Mediterranean base and open syria up for a gas pipeline. This in turn became "isis".

Do you think all those warehouses full of military equipment being captured was an accident?

There is no "strategy" because they really really want ISIS to topple Assad in Syria
Link Posted: 7/4/2015 8:23:18 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mdk89:
US Financed and supplied various islamic extremist organizations to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya. And then attempt to force out Assad, in order to hurt the Russians Mediterranean base and open syria up for a gas pipeline. This in turn became "isis".

Do you think all those warehouses full of military equipment being captured was an accident?

There is no "strategy" because they really really want ISIS to topple Assad in Syria
View Quote


Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence. If Obama wanted to topple Assad we would have bombed the regime shortly after the nerve gas attack. The Obama administration simply does not know what it wants to do, and therefore goes back and forth on every foreign policy issue.

Also the Russian bases in the Mediterranean are greatly overstated. They basically have a pier with a fence around it and an old orthodox church. It was abandoned in 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus


Link Posted: 7/4/2015 8:33:57 PM EDT
I don't know why America thinks everything is related to something we do. The problems in the Arab world are Arab in nature. Regimes like Hussain and Mubarak were "liberal" as far as the Arab world goes. They failed to deliver so the people are switching back to the "right," which in the Arab world means returning to 7th century barbarism rather than modern, totalitarian state style barbarism.
Link Posted: 7/4/2015 9:20:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By happycynic:
I don't know why America thinks everything is related to something we do. The problems in the Arab world are Arab in nature. Regimes like Hussain and Mubarak were "liberal" as far as the Arab world goes. They failed to deliver so the people are switching back to the "right," which in the Arab world means returning to 7th century barbarism rather than modern, totalitarian state style barbarism.
View Quote



Don't think it's related solely to America. But this is a clash of cultures. It's a clash between Western European, Christian (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant in sub-Saharan Africa as well as western and eastern Europe), Hindu, etc...cultures with Islam. This is a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism. Expansionist, militaristic Islam. The authentic Islam. It's well beyond simply American influences. They are wanting to return to what worked for them in the past. This is a cultural war. Between more than two cultures.
Top Top