Should governments & their defense establishments plan for future conflicts?

[nerdgirl 0]

(Another one of my American-centric posts ...)

If yes, why?
If no, why not?

In the thread on my trip to Ypres and Flanders Fields, two posters -- who one might infer, based on their posting histories, reflect very different political viewpoints -- have both made similar comments:

Quote

And yes, the ugly irony of planning future war at one of the sites of the most appalling obscenities known to mankind is not lost on me. We humans are a sad race, aren't we?

Quote

You cannot see the irony in planning for future war at a place that commemorates one of the most pointless wars from the start of last century?

Maybe its better to laugh than cry?

By anticipating and planning for something do we make something inevitable?

Or is the wiser side, the prepared one? A la the Girl Scout and Boy Scout mottos?

Or is this one more example that while history is not predictive, it shouldn't be ignored either? (My version of Santayana's aphorism.)

While one can consider the question ponderously, which is fun, imo … I think (?) everyone recognizes that there are real world consequences w/r/t policies to control spread of technology, w/r/t investment in defense industries (& all of the jobs associated with those industries), etc. Next week, DTRA is holding an open/unclassified workshop on the security implications of de novo (i.e,. ‘from scratch’ through syn bio or synthetic genomics) synthesis of smallpox or similar orthopox virus. This is something that currently doesn’t exist, and debates are ontgoing regarding if/when it will be technically viable. One can find lots of examples currently and historically.

If we all (?) can recognize that irony, what should we do with that recognition? Intentionally hyperbolic: do we just all nod in agreement and sing "Kumbaya" around the bonfire? Or too big a problem to think about on a Saturday afternoon?

I know people 'inside the Beltway' think about this a lot. Some of those folks are very smart ... some less so, im-ever-ho. Some are very well intentioned ... other less so. Do folks outside the Beltway, whether in 'flyover land,' on the Left Coast, or elsewhere think about it ... or not care?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[downwardspiral 0]

Hope for the best. Plan for the worst.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Si vis pacem, para bellum

So if one believes, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war," what does that imply w/r/t the asserted irony of thinking about future conflicts near the Ypres Salient?

[Devil's Advocate]
Or are the assertions of irony misplaced? Or?
[/Devil's Advocate]

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Hope for the best. Plan for the worst.

Might one argue that being close to such an area so viscerally retaining remnants of some of the worst makes that a more likely outcome?

Should all discussions on nuclear poliferation be conducted in Hiroshima or Nagaski?

Should all discussions of radical Islamist counterrorism planning be done in Lower Manhattan?

Or is it the inverse?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,120]

>Should all discussions on nuclear poliferation be conducted in Hiroshima or
>Nagaski?

Were the destruction we caused there still visible, then yes, it would be a good idea.

One of the most chilling signs that we were steadfastly determined to ignore the lessons of the past during the buildup to the Iraq War was Powell's speech at the UN, where Picasso's Guernica tapestry was covered up.

[quade 4]

It's wise to plan for as many different scenarios you can possibly think of. Location of where that planning is done may have a certain PR value, but I think it's actually detrimental to the process since it biases the minds of the individuals doing the planing itself.

Most disasters are failures of the imagination. Most attacks exploit this as well. The attacks of 9/11 certainly did. Until that point very few people considered using hijacked airliners as human guided missiles and because of this the common knowledge answer to hijacks was to simply follow the instructions of the hijackers. That was our lack of imagination being exploited.

In a similar vein, the DHS and TSA have equally shown a lack of imagination by focusing so heavily on a repeat of that event. Holding a planning meeting in New York City naturally would carry quite a bit of mental baggage to be overcome.

I personally think the things that should scare the crap out of us are things like home-built drug running submarines.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Hope for the best. Plan for the worst.

Might one argue that being close to such an area so viscerally retaining remnants of some of the worst makes that a more likely outcome?

Should all discussions on nuclear poliferation be conducted in Hiroshima or Nagaski?

Should all discussions of radical Islamist counterrorism planning be done in Lower Manhattan?

Or is it the inverse?

/Marg

I suppose the discussion will weigh more heavily in the minds of those involved in the discussion if they are surrounded by historical significance. Perhaps not ironic at all but calculated and fitting.

Coincidently I caught parts of a show last night on the Military Channel called Digging up the trenches where archaeologists excavate the vast trench networks of Flanders Field.

http://www.history.ca/ontv/titledetails.aspx?titleid=96246

Tried to find an internet video source for ya but it was apparently removed from youtube due to copyright infringment.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[rickjump1 0]

I think as a nation we have always planned for future conflicts to a certain degree, but no amount of planning and intelligence gathering prevented something as simple as 9/11. I do wish we would stop being policemen of the planet but yes, I feel we should plan/"be prepared" for future conflicts. Playing dead did not get us to where we are today; like it or not.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

One of the most chilling signs that we were steadfastly determined to ignore the lessons of the past during the buildup to the Iraq War was Powell's speech at the UN, where Picasso's Guernica tapestry was covered up.

I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[lawrocket 3]

Absolutely. We plan for future conflicts by maintaining an Armed Forces.

So, what do we do with armed forces? Just have them there? No. WE must train them for what is a likely scenario. And we must train units for any scenario. That requires a plan.

So, let's say North Korea starts making waves. Do we want to react or have a plan in place? I'd prefer a plan. Sure, no plan survives first contact, but we'd have some things set up for, "North Korea redeploys troops to the East of the DMZ." We'd have a plan for handling it.

I also think we must distinguish between the different types of plans. You start with a desired outcome (political). Let's say the desired political outcome is the maintenance of the DMZ in NoKo and prevention of attack from NoKo into SoKo. There's the political objective.

Then you move to strategic planning. "How do we accomplish this goal?" The example is a strategic defense (versus a strategic offense.) It could mean maintenance of forces along the DMZ.

It also includes such things as diplomacy. Anybody who things that diplomacy is not part of a strategic plan is kidding himself or herself. There is a plethora of other things used in strategic planning.

Strategic plans are the top level - what comes next is operational planning. How do we achieve these strategic directives? "General. Deploy and additional 20k troops to the DMZ. Miss Clinton? Arrange a meeting with Kim Jong-Il. Also, let's chat with China and Russia about NoKo. see what we can get from them. Also, let us increase surveillance by redirecting assets from China."

There is a lot of overlap between operational planning and strategic planning. "We can't move 20k into NoKo until December. The trained forces that can accomplish it are doing security in Iraq." Strategy much be adjuted.

Then we move to tactical planning. Exactly how do we do that? The diplomat has options. The diplomat may say "That earthquake in Iran two weeks ago? Yeah. Think of that satellite we launched 3 weeks ago. Yeah, the secret one you knew about. Here's a hint - Iran was an operational test and it was set on stun. Kim - look out your window. See that new shipment of cognac waiting in the lot? FIRE!. Yeah. Better order some more. Want to play games? Yes, the radio is right now announcing that Great Leader is angry at you."

Or, the diplomat may employ another tactic. Bluffing. Combinations. But - the tactician must know the backup plan.

The tactics are seen in maeuver as well.

What we see are primarily strategic and operational planning that people think of. The Battle Books for North Korea are likely plentiful and constantly being updated (nobody thinks those REMFs at the Pentagon are just doing nothing, do they?)

I think plans are necessary to provde cohesion. Having never moved up past company grade (tactician) I am as yet unaware of the strategic and operational plans. Nevertheless, I can figure it out.

Strategy - "First we cut them off, then we kill them.'

Operation - "Let's get ready to cut them off and kill them."

Tactics - "Here's how we cut them off and killed them."

The Tactics change every day. Operational changes occur seasonally. Strategy changes as the climate changes.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It's wise to plan for as many different scenarios you can possibly think of. Location of where that planning is done may have a certain PR value, but I think it's actually detrimental to the process since it biases the minds of the individuals doing the planing itself.

Assume for a moment that the planning meetings are all closed, i.e., no press or PR. Just the planners. Does that change the potential value of being intentional in geographic choice?

And do you really mean "as many different scenarios you can possibly think of" ? Or was that just short hand?

There are two different responses that occur to me at the moment (prolly other equally or more valid ones as well).

At least once every month or so, someone comes to me and earnestly asserts that "We (usually unspecified "we") need to control/regulate nanotechnology." Without exception I respond by asking "What do you mean by 'nanotechnology'?" Depending on how patient I'm feeling at the moment, I'll either feed them some proverbial "self-assembled nanobot/grey goo" rope on which to hang themselves or draw out what they mean more diplomatically. About half the time, the threat scenario is more science fantasy than science (or even true science fiction). Scenarios need to technically robust. Another example of threat over-hype/lack of technical robustness, imo, is terrorists with EMPs ... and there are some very smart & very credentialled folks who have put forth those as threats.

The second response is should there be some consideration of probability and consequence? Resources are finite. I can come up with a whole lot of proliferation and terrorism scenarios ... the probability and consequence varies highly (e.g., see attached attempt to graphically convey differences in WMD terrorism risk [deleted].)

Quote

I personally think the things that should scare the crap out of us are things like home-built drug running submarines.

Add a couple improvised or smuggled multi-kiloton nuclear weapons & I concur.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I suppose the discussion will weigh more heavily in the minds of those involved in the discussion if they are surrounded by historical significance. Perhaps not ironic at all but calculated and fitting.

One of the comments from a member of the US mission to NATO was that he thought that history is much more close to the surface informing political debates among European states because there are real reminders like Flanders Fields and Verdun. I thought that was a valid hypothesis. The temporal effect is something less clear to me, as one can observe the change in Japanese political posture toward expeditionary warfare capabilities (which they don't call as such yet) and nuclearization.

Quote

Coincidently I caught parts of a show last night on the Military Channel called Digging up the trenches where archaeologists excavate the vast trench networks of Flanders Field.

http://www.history.ca/ontv/titledetails.aspx?titleid=96246

Tried to find an internet video source for ya but it was apparently removed from youtube due to copyright infringment.

Thanks!
/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Absolutely. We plan for future conflicts by maintaining an Armed Forces.

So given Art Lykke's ends/ways/means rubric that the Army uses and your examples of potential planning w/r/t deploying to DPRK, what does that imply w/r/t the asserted irony of thinking about future conflicts near the Ypres Salient?

Should such planning occur in the DMZ between the two Koreas?

[Devil's Advocate]
Or are the assertions of irony misplaced? Or?
[/Devil's Advocate]

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Planning for victory at the site of a prior defeat? I think it would encourage BETTER planning, if anything.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rickjump1 0]

At one time battalion commanders had the davey crockett nuclear device/weapon. A lieutenant colonel could start his own nuclear war. Don't know much about the safeguards though. This weapon was phased out by the time I showed up.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[jgoose71 0]

I answered yes.

There have always been and always will be bad people out there that want to do us harm. The only way to protect yourself from them is:

A. Don't turn your back on them
B. Have a bigger stick.

Then we wind up in a stand off being circled by wolves we are able to keep at bay. Most of the time we can hold them off for years to afraid to swat them away because of the court of public opinion.

The scary part comes when they just want to hurt you at any cost and they don't care what happens to themselves-

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dirtybomb/chrono.html

But if the liberals think they can make all nicey-nicey with them, I'll buy the airplane ticket

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[warpedskydiver 0]

No plan equals losing.

I could go on and be long winded, but that is it, things change and every scenario needs to be assessed.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

No plan equals losing.

I could go on and be long winded, but that is it, things change and every scenario needs to be assessed.

Please do … because I think that answer is too easy, especially in context of who’s asking the question, i.e., me.



Two semi-regular, long-time, posters of arguably very different political opinions have expressed something similar:

Quote

And yes, the ugly irony of planning future war at one of the sites of the most appalling obscenities known to mankind is not lost on me.

If we can recognize that irony, what should we do with that recognition? Some don't care.

Intentionally hyperbolic: do we just all nod in agreement and sing “Kumbaya” around the bonfire?

[donning my asbestos underwear] Does just replying “yes, we should plan” or some equivalence, whether in Latin, Greek, or Prussian (Clausewitz reference), really push beyond the war studies equivalent of singing “Kumbaya”?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

At one time battalion commanders had the davey crockett nuclear device/weapon. A lieutenant colonel could start his own nuclear war. Don't know much about the safeguards though. This weapon was phased out by the time I showed up.

Of course. They could not continue to sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist reeducation, communist subversion, and the great international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Let me get back to you, marg.

I've have three beers tonight...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

To assume any country, group, cell or individual is not smart enough to exploit weaknesses, or circumvent security measure is absurd.

I think there are many in our government that lack the imagination of those who would truly understand how to cause great harm, or defeat a country in battle.

If anyone ever studied the history of warfare you would find that Asymmetrical attacks over a prolonged period of time will eventually weaken the resolve of even the toughest opponent.


One only has to realize that in order to prevail the will of a country's politicians and populace must be broken.

We as a country, our Military planners, our various Spec Ops entities, and many scholars understand this and study this aspect constantly.

To fail to plan, is to plan to fail.

This is not only true today but true going back before recorded history.

It always has been and always will be true.

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for your reply. Much of it goes down a tangent very different from my original post on the question of the effect or the asserted irony of planning for future conflicts near major WWI battle sites. But tangents can teach me much.

Quote

There have always been and always will be bad people out there that want to do us harm. The only way to protect yourself from them is:

A. Don't turn your back on them
B. Have a bigger stick.

In complete seriousness, are you familiar with counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy? Or at least the prominence it has assumed in defense strategy over the last 3yrs+? Or do you just not accept it? (And there are well-known folks, e.g., COL Gian Gentile, USA; COL Andrew Bacevich, USA (ret), who challenge COIN as the appropriate response, altho’ I’m less than certain that either of their arguments are the same as you outlined.) I’m curious as to your demographics: where stationed/rank/MOS?

Quote

But if the liberals think they can make all nicey-nicey with them, I'll buy the airplane ticket

I'm not quote sure where that came from?

Do you mean “liberals” like the guy who said:

“I do think you have to talk to enemies”?

Or do you mean “liberals” like the guy who said?

“Our willingness to operate in ways that minimise casualties or damage — even when doing so makes our task more difficult — is essential to our credibility.”

“This is a struggle for the support of the Afghan people”


“The measure of effectiveness will not be enemy killed. It will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence.”


“… for the many [Taliban] for whom ideology is not the motivation, we are going to offer them a serious motivation to stop, to make another choice.”


“Nowadays, we have to fight the cause of terrorism, because terror is a tactic. You win by taking away from the enemy the one thing the insurgent absolutely has to have, and that’s access to the population.”

“I very much lean toward the importance of the building side,” he said.

“If we are just hunting Taliban, we can be perceived as coming into areas and being someone who upsets the neighborhood. But we do need to be able to keep a pressure on the enemy as we push them away. So there's always a balance.”

I’m pretty sure that he has a seat on an airplane to Bagram if he needs it, as well as to other places and on other aircraft.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

At one time battalion commanders had the davey crockett nuclear device/weapon. A lieutenant colonel could start his own nuclear war. Don't know much about the safeguards though. This weapon was phased out by the time I showed up.

Of course. They could not continue to sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist reeducation, communist subversion, and the great international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

POE, EOP.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

...
To fail to plan, is to plan to fail.

This is not only true today but true going back before recorded history.

It always has been and always will be true.

There's not much there, if anything, with which I fundamentally disagree. I am still reading what you wrote -- owned as my reading -- as largely refecting military planning doctrine & dogma, sort of a military planning "Kumbaya" (albeit one in camos & with combat boots ) ... rather than addressing the issue of the irony the that Mark Harju and others observed.

Or maybe I'm just not communicating well.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying