"Putting the “War” Back in War Colleges" Topic

"We must reckon with the hard truth that the United States has lost another war. Though errors made by policymakers certainly played a part, our military lost in Afghanistan because it no longer knows how to fight and win wars. This wasn't because our military professionals lack will or effort but because they have forgotten the real purpose for which militaries exist. Nowhere is this truer than in America's war colleges—the schools our nation established to teach officers how to fight and win wars. The plain fact is that these schools no longer teach warfighting. This may sound incredible—even unbelievable—but it is true.

In May 2020, the Joint Chiefs of Staff published guidance for the education of future senior military leaders that repeatedly emphasized the need for all senior officers to learn how to fight wars and campaigns as a joint force. The various services are specialized to fight and win battles on land, at sea, and in the air, but campaigns and wars require building, supporting, and commanding formations that fight in all three environments simultaneously, often far from the United States. The Joint Chiefs issued their guidance because our senior-officer education system does not prepare its students for joint warfighting, which is enormously complicated…"
Main page
link

Armand

I'm not sure they have time to study that, given other "more important" issues they have to be aware of and to study now……….

The Chinese, Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, Talis, and others are just laughing at us, and our "leadership".

I'm intrigued by this new term 'warfighting'.

What was wrong with the word 'warfare', or just fighting, or combat?

It's like this other fad for calling politicians 'lawmakers'. Are the public too stupid to understand the grown-up words and new kindergarten-level words have to be invented instead!?

Melts…

This kind of thing is why I left the Army two decades ago, and never looked back. "War fighting" isn't a new term- the rot was evident a long time ago.

"War fighting" isn't a new term- the rot was evident a long time ago.

Bingo … we were all about warfighting, combat, etc., skills, '79-'90. We trained to fight in many environs, many different types of missions, many types of warfare. But that is what I saw at the Rifle Plt Ldr & Mech Co. Cdr. We were prepping to go to war. Whether in CONUS, Panama, the ROK and [West] Germany. That was my experience in 4 Inf Bns, 1 CBT SPT Bn and Mech Hvy Bde HQ. Oh … and 1 QM Grp in the USAR.

No CRT, wokeness, 1619 project, diversity training, etc. We were already had a lot of diversity. But we were too busy to care, we were prepping for combat, maintaining equipment, etc., etc. …

We were soldiers, warriors … not social workers …

Are the public too stupid to understand the grown-up words and new kindergarten-level words have to be invented instead!?

No, but bureaucrats and journalists are.

👍👍

Yep Legion 4 and what we used to get up to would horrify the new diverse orientated forces of our nations, while potential enemy concentrate on war fighting!

Tally Ho!

Glup!….

Armand

Yep Legion 4 and what we used to get up to would horrify the new diverse orientated forces of our nations, while potential enemy concentrate on war fighting!

You know it Nick ! Diversity meant all the camo helmet covers in your Plt didn't match !

I usually dislike these types of articles written by academics sitting in cozy offices. He starts by saying the policy makers are in part to blame. No, I disagree, the policy makers are entirely to blame. Our military is the best trained and equipped in the world and is perfectly capable of winning any war thrown at it if allowed to fight. It's the policy makers which are making bad policy and failing our military.

@USAFpilot,

I agree with you. Much of the problem was unclear and constantly changing objectives combined with micro-management from the top. The experience of Col O'Donohue, USMC, who was a battalion commander during Op Iraqi Freedom, is an example of (1) how the troops knew what they were doing in terms of both applying force and winning 'hearts and minds'. Political interference to shift resources to fight in Fallujah resulted in loss of control of the province (i.e., the insurgents moved into the vacated towns) and political interference stopped the attack on Fallujah just short of total control (unilateral ceasefire = they can shoot buy you can't). You can read his article here – I had the privilege of hearing the Col speak on this.

PDF link

There are a few good points in the article – e.g., doctrine is not a substitute for a campaign strategy. I can't speak to current army war academy curricula but how is the current state relevant to 20 years ago? But, they fail to show the linkage between the 'lost' Afghanistan operation and how studying the war campaigns of Grant, Sherman, etc. would have helped.

One has to realize that both Afghanistan and Iraq were each two wars – an initial 'war' to topple the governing regime which was successful in both cases, followed by failed transitions to civil governance followed by a 2nd 'war' which were insurgencies formed by the former ruling parties. The military to civil transitions failed because in both cases there was no plan or an inadequate plan / resources for what would follow after the toppling of the regimes. The authors of the article suggest studying past war campaigns, but in their example of WWII they say how things like lend lease, etc. weren't enough to win the war. True, but they stop with the surrender of the German and Japanese armed forces. What they neglect is that both Eisenhower and MacArthur were well prepared for the Military to Civil transition – and, yes, the military had a lead role in that transition. Note that, at the time, there was a fear of insurgencies, which fortunately didn't happen – no doubt, in part, because Eisenhower and MacArthur were good at the non-war fighting stuff too.

The late Gene Visco, was an analyst for the OSD. Gene fought in WWII with the USN. Back in 1990 he was asked to become the office expert on 'operations other than war'. His article is instructive – the US military has, throughout its history, been involved in operations other than war, peacekeeping, nation building, etc. As Gene says there's two widely held, but erroneous beliefs that (1) the US military is there to fight the nation's war and (2) that the missions emerging at that time were 'new'.

PDF link

From the authors' article one might assume that someone like Petraeus was not one of the better commanders. I would have thought he was one of the few that understood the problem. I can't say Petraeus was great, I can only say he was better. There's a recent interview here where he talks about Afghanistan. Note the part in discussing the surge in Afghanistan and how it was crippled by the announcement of a draw down in a year. How would it have been if Roosevelt had announced on D-Day that the US would pullout in so many months.

link

FYI – from my defence planning days in NATO, the 'surge' was the only time that mission had close to adequate resources – the shame is this wasn't immediately after the Taliban were overthrown. It's a much harder task once the Taliban was organized into a counter-insurgency. But, alas, the US was focussed on hunting Bin Laden while the military-to-civil transition was handed off to NATO allies who contributed but way too little. I can't say it would have ended differently. It would still have been a difficult task but in my view, if the 'surge' had happened immediately after the overthrow of the Taliban it would have been the best chance of success.

@USAFpilot

One of the problems back in 2000 was that the Sec of Def, Rumsfeld, held the same view as the authors – that the US should focus on 'war fighting'. Terms like 'peackeeping', etc. were to be removed from doctrine. I recall quite a few dismayed army officers (LCol, Col who had fought in desert shield and been in other ops since then), who knew that there should be a balance. The subsequent operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated how well worked out.

One example, was a desperate call, er, contract for US police to volunteer for Iraq – and that they'd geet just 1 week of orientation before deploying. I can still recall the look on the US officer's face when he got off the phone.

This isn't finger pointing at Rumsfeld in particular, but an illustration of how political ideology and micro-management can have disastrous results.

It's not as if an accurate study of history doesn't show the dangers – e.g., Napoleon in Spain. The French could beat the Spanish armies easily enough. Holding Spain was a wee bit more difficult. So, yeah, study Napoleon's military 'war fighting' campaigns but also study his Spanish adventure too.

Political interference

We saw this Vietnam, Somalia, A'stan in our punitive attacks in Oct, 2001, Iraq in GW II, and now again in A'stan. Resulting in the disaster we just saw in Kabul. One of the worse the US and NATO have ever suffered. The military takes orders from the the elected and appointed official in the gov't.

But they should listen to their military and intel advisors more often. And not try to go for the "political optics" looking to the next election, their pole numbers, etc. At the cost of proper military tactics, etc. Again, we saw when optics overrode sound military plans & ops …

It has cost us 13 so far … how many more ?

@Legion 4,

Yes, how many more and for what reason?

One of the glaring gaps since 1990 has been the lack of a post-Cold War, grand strategy for the US.

None of the rest of us (as in US allies) have one either, but it matters less as we can't do anything without the US. I suppose Europe could have one but that's not exactly on the horizon – and they could have the capability too, but, again, not exactly on the horizon. Look at their progress towards the capability to deploy 60,000 troops out of area.

No grand strategy = no clear objective for military missions / campaign, which means ill-advised mission creep or mission shrink.

None in 1990 and still none today.

It's also baffling to think that politics and political leadership will ever *not* be a factor- it has always been that way since the earliest empires! Men in power direct the military actions and are generally of an entirely different caste/socio-economic group than the actual troops.

All the rose tinted glasses about past US military operations are also misplaced. The US military has a long and distinguished history of poor performance and getting it's soldiery killed for no real gain (the good leaders, as usual, are the exception). But throw enough resources at a problem and you can push something through.

Heck, the gold standard of US military performance ended in 1945, almost 80 years ago, and even that had numerous US failures. They just don't get talked about due to the massive amount of propaganda surrounding the war effort. Since then successful US military campaigns have been few and far between. Well, except for military contractors, of course.

1979-1990 is an interesting period to select as a high point when it includes Operation Eagle Claw, Beirut, Grenada, Panama, and the whole Iran Contra deal. Hardly shining examples.

Blaming US military adventurism failures on modern attempts at inclusion sounds a whole lot like criticism of military racial integration. The US MIC has alot of problems, but having more diverse drone operators or a gunner's choice of partners ain't it.

When you have ex-military brass working for news outlets to condemn withdrawing from a (deeply unpopular) failed 2 decade engagement that they were pushing, you can see the echo chamber has gotten out of control. 9/11 broke alot of brains and seems to have caused general amnesia of lessons we should have learned post WW2, especially post Vietnam and a huge gloss over all the crap that had happened between Viet Nam and 2001. Nevermind from the declassified 9/11 documents we knew that the hijackers had a US based support network and Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. – Prince Bandar – financially supported Omar al-Bayoumi, who helped set up housing and bank accounts for two of the hijackers living in America. Nope, had to roll up into Iraq and Afghanistan….

Yes, how many more and for what reason?

Hopefully the number will be 0. But we have Vets going back to save those people the Gov't left behind. WDF !!!!

It's also baffling to think that politics and political leadership will ever *not* be a factor- it has always been that way since the earliest empires!

Including the USA from Day1. And I don't think we can be considered an empire. Regardless, many of us took an oath[for me a long time ago] to take the orders of the POTUS, etc.

military has a long and distinguished history of poor performance and getting it's soldiery killed

No matter what, the troops on the ground, air and sea did their duty to the best of their abilities, generally. In many cases put in a very bad situation, e.g. Kabul airport, performed above and beyond. And some very sadly died as well.

However again always a lot of Monday Morning Armchair Generals, with no training or experience, never were in the military, etc. Are more than willing to in 20/20 hindsight say how they would have, could have, etc.

However in the USA[and TMP], everybody is entitled to an opinion. Whether they have served or not, etc. So go for it. But some comments carry more weight than others, IMO of course …

No matter what, the troops on the ground, air and sea did their duty to the best of their abilities, generally. In many cases put in a very bad situation, e.g. Kabul airport, performed above and beyond. And some very sadly died as well.

What are you arguing here? Of course they did everything they could- generally theses fiascos are failures of leadership at the top, not failure of resolve at the bottom. Soldiers are useful to politicians as props, whether live or dead. Generals are very much political animals for the most part and the higher in the chain of command, the more important political savvy becomes.

However again always a lot of Monday Morning Armchair Generals, with no training or experience, never were in the military, etc. Are more than willing to in 20/20 hindsight say how they would have, could have, etc.

Accountability feels like an attack when you won't acknowledge the consequences of your actions. We learn from the past by analyzing mistakes and success, not just swallowing leaders who say it was all that could be done. And what does it tell you when our leadership keeps committing the same errors? Why do you believe we owe more to those who caused these errors than those who suffered the effects? I notice you did not address the litany of military failures our leadership has never really dealt with. Do you think it is just coincidence our leadership keeps sending our soldiers to die all over the world for little or no measurable gain in anything other than contractor payments?

Tell me how the last 20 years in Afghanistan demonstrate anything else and why anyone who served or lost someone who served shouldn't be furious with the last 3 administrations? What about the families of the dead Afghani citizens? Why in the world would anyone try to defend any of this when everyone involved, soldiers especially, deserved so much better?

What are you arguing here? Of course they did everything they could-

I'm not arguing, just making a point as a former LT & then CPT. Knowing very much about how things work at that level, etc. Those troopers at Kabul did everything they could. And again we lost 13 because of incompetent, etc., leadership at the very top.

We learn from the past by analyzing mistakes and success,

Yes we call that an After Action Report, Patrol debriefing, etc., etc. Even on a daily basis your superiors are evaluating you as I did my own troops. And my troops were evaluating me on everything I did as well.

We had External Evaluations[EXVALs] from our own and other units. We had a mission essential task list, etc., etc.

We would war game some ops on a map to terrain board. Discuss some historical battles, etc. at Officers Professional Development classes, etc. ,etc. Or in a classroom environ at Inf Ofc Adv Crs and Combined Arms School.

Officers were expected to study FMs and history on our own as well.

So I know all about learning from the past by analyzing mistakes and success.

. And what does it tell you when our leadership keeps committing the same errors? Why do you believe we owe more to those who caused these errors than those who suffered the effects? I notice you did not address the litany of military failures our leadership has never really dealt with. Do you think it is just coincidence our leadership keeps sending our soldiers to die all over the world for little or no measurable gain in anything other than contractor payments?

You are Not telling me anything I don't know, thought about, etc. Again we took an oath to follow all [legal] orders from the POTUS on down. If orders say we are deploying to Panama we do as ordered. We are not mindless machines. We are expected to use our initiative, critical thinking, lessons learned etc.

No matter what, the troops on the ground, air and sea did their duty to the best of their abilities, generally. In many cases put in a very bad situation, e.g. Kabul airport, performed above and beyond. And some very sadly died as well.

Accountability feels like an attack when you won't acknowledge the consequences of your actions. We learn from the past by analyzing mistakes and success, not just swallowing leaders who say it was all that could be done. And what does it tell you when our leadership keeps committing the same errors? Why do you believe we owe more to those who caused these errors than those who suffered the effects? I notice you did not address the litany of military failures our leadership has never really dealt with. Do you think it is just coincidence our leadership keeps sending our soldiers to die all over the world for little or no measurable gain in anything other than contractor payments?

Again you are not telling me anything I don't know. And there was and is as an LT or CPT I could do about anything like that. Again I served '79-'90 Active Duty and USAR '91.

Tell me how the last 20 years in Afghanistan demonstrate anything else and why anyone who served or lost someone who served shouldn't be furious with the last 3 administrations?

I'm am mad about some of the things that the last few Admins did when it came to our military going to the Mid East and A'stan, etc. Of course after 9/11 we had no choice but to go to war against AQ and their Taliban supporters. We had to hunt down and kill those terrorists and supporters. That is the way it works … We were attacked.

What about the families of the dead Afghani citizens? Why in the world would anyone try to defend any of this when everyone involved, soldiers especially, deserved so much better?

Dead Afghans … I already opinioned on CD. No need to go over that again.

I'm not defending this. I'm telling anyone who will read this what I know from may 10 + years as an Infantry Officer in 4 line Infantry units worldwide. And whatit is like at the CPT and below officer level in all that mess was going on. And is going on. We don't tell the POTUS what to do … And yes soldiers do deserve better especially after Vietnam. But again as an LT/CPT you vote and follow all the legal orders we get, etc.

With an all volunteer Army[I am totally against a draft], you volunteer, you do your duty, and you get paid. And if a superior makes a bad decision, and at my level we can't get out of it. We would try to do the things we were trained to survive. I don't think anyone who volunteered to go combat arms, Infantry and Tanks especially. Know already what your job is going to be. You spend a lot of time learn how to survive and kill your enemy.

I don't see what the problem is ? We volunteered. We can't tell the Gens or politicians what to do …

However again always a lot of Monday Morning Armchair Generals, with no training or experience, never were in the military, etc. Are more than willing to in 20/20 hindsight say how they would have, could have, etc.

However in the USA[and TMP], everybody is entitled to an opinion. Whether they have served or not, etc. So go for it. But some comments carry more weight than others, IMO of course …

Too true, Legion 4. I'm truly amazed at the number of experts on Afghanistan, etc. – and who seem to me to be informed primarily by the media, or worse, internet opinion blogs without primary sources of data (or at least authoritative sources). The other telltale sign is broad brush judgments – i.e., no nuance.

Being informed by the media – whatever the source – is in my view worse than being uninformed since it often leaves one misinformed. I don't attribute this to any malicious intent by journalists – it's just the way it is in the business where journalists have tight deadlines and have to become instant experts. There's the rule which is "never attribute to maliciousness what can be attributed to incompetence" that I'm sure you've heard. You might not have heard the corollary – "never attribute to incompetence what can be attributed to being overworked".

Some interesting facts I'm digging out that provide some perspective on the 20 years in Afghanistan:

Soviet Invasion – fatalities between 50,000 and 200,000 per year with the vast majority being civilian. Source is the Wikipedia article but it does include references.

Civil War from 1989-1992 – fatalities fall from 6-7,000 per year.

No data from 1992-2001

US and NATO intervention – fatalities between 9-10,000 per year – the majority being Afghan military and Taliban. About a quarter to one-third are civilian. Sources below:

link
link

Of course, those numbers could be in error but readers are welcome – and encouraged – to seek out better data sources.

One should also consider that there have been success stories – e.g., education of girls and women. This link is a media source, but at least it's one that referenced its data and the author is an Afghan professor.

link

As for whether or not it was worth it…

As the Zen master said, "We'll see."

Time will tell whether this is a different Taliban or the same old Taliban, but whichever this Afghanistan is not the Afghanistan of 1992 or 2001. It is changed and I expect that if the Taliban wishes to rule it will have to change too. But, we'll see.

…and, of course, when considering the cost to the US keep in mind that with a large military there will be accidental deaths. The US Congressional report is interesting:

PDF link

As for the financial costs – keep in mind that much it returns to the 'donating' country through salaries, contracts, equipment purchases, etc.

I'm afraid that there'll be (again) a surge in terror attacks against India, Western countries and their allies, if the "new" talibans' government composition and their actions are an anticipation of the future. Now they are emboldened by our failure, how is possible that any politician don't remember Munich 1938?

Back to the OP topic…

The US used to be good using the instrument of national power to achieve national objectives. This used to be called the DIME concept (diplomatic, informational, military and economic). Apparently the latest is MIDFIELD (military, informational, diplomatic, financial, economic, law and development). JDN 1-18, Strategy.

PDF link

I'm not sure the US is as good at doing this as they once were (based on the heavy use of the military). In contrast, Russia and China seem quite good at it (based on their, relatively, lesser use of military deployments). Not sure if military deployments is the best indicator of the adroit use of the instruments of national power…but, suggest away.

I thought this youtube production on the Russian Primakov doctrine was well done and shows how the authors linked in the OP 'missed the boat'. The military should be configured to to implement national grand strategy – i.e., military application follows national strategy.

YouTube link

It's worth watching.

Other links to discussions on the Primakov doctrine:

link

link

link

Good posts Shadoe … This is not a simple topic with not a lot of Black & White …But a many shades of grey …

Thanks, Legion 4,

Here's a couple of more links….the, as always, excellent Mark Felton productions on the immediate post-WWII activities of Allied militaries. Because these were successful operations we underestimate the challenges – and, also, how prepared the Allies were to do post-war reconstruction and how good the Allied commanders were at the non-war stuff.

YouTube link

YouTube link

It's only black-and-white if you start with a political or ideological conclusion and work backwards to the supporting facts – ignoring the ones that don't fit.

FYI – I asked a friend and (retired) colleague (ex-US army engineer and ex-analyst) to read the articles. Some of the discussion with my friend's comments in quotes:

1. Neither of the authors of the first article seem to have any experience in military operations or planning;

"What surprises me is that two ‘historians' could get their history so wrong. Pershing in WWI was a disaster, Washington won using politics and foreigners, …"

2. In no recent war that I can remember was the US defeated in battle – the ability of the US military to kill people and break things has been well demonstrated and a lot of people have been killed and things broken in recent operations. Would killing more and breaking more do the trick? Seems to be implicit in the 2nd article's view that Malaya was a success for that reason and not for ‘hearts and minds'.

"This, of course, is the heart of the matter. At base, killing and breaking are necessary, but only in context. The two ‘historians' don't seem to understand this part. We could have killed many more in Afghanistan, but we didn't have the precision to kill only those who ‘deserved it'. As Chris H says, it doesn't help if all you do is create more insurgents." (Chris H is a retired US Army colonel.)

Can't disagree with any of that …

And I will add again, if the US was not concerned about CD … there'd be places on the planet that would look like the dark side of the Moon … without the use of WMDs.

And yes when the US Military is allowed it can do a lot of damage with our Infantry, Tanks, FA, CEs, Gunships, CAS, etc.

Russia Unveils Combat Robots In Latest military Exercies

link

Armand

WOW !!! Looks like CGI ! Regardless no surprise there. They can use them in their conquest of Ukraine, etc. The USA has other priorities than making high tech systems for defense, etc.

America needs a permanent military presence in the Baltics, and here's why

link

Armand

There was a better reason keeping our 2500 troops + 7000 NATO troops in A'stan.