3 ms·

That is definitely novel, yes. Political success often depends on military success, but I've never heard anyone claim the opposite. The implication of your pos

That is definitely novel, yes. Political success often depends on military success, but I've never heard anyone claim the opposite. The implication of your position is that the only way the U.S. military could have "succeeded" would have been to mutiny. That seems... odd.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Well, no. The only way for the U.S. military would have been for it to produce better advice for its commander in chief, and for the commander in chief to follow that advice. It failed at both levels. This is definitely not novel. I am basically quoting Clausewitz, which is basically as far as you can go from being novel in the military tradition nowadays. For instance: > We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. ___That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand___, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for ___the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.___ The U.S. military failed to act in a way that, to borrow Clausewitz's words, always includes the object in their conception. They therefore failed in their goals. Just as a foolish attack doomed to failure is a military failure, so is a foolish operation that could not achieve it's goals. Also, it's far from true that the military knew that what they were doing would fail. They really did believe just as much as anyone else, in the beginning, that they would be able to make Afghanistan into a perfect American puppet and model in the region, and in being wrong, they failed too.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  No. You're saying the opposite of Clausewitz. Clausewitz says that the goals of war are political; that political success in war relies on military success. I agree with that and think it's nearly self-evident. You're saying the opposite. You're saying military success relies on political success. That's an entirely different proposition and one I disagree with. > The only way for the U.S. military [to succeed] would have been for ... the commander in chief to follow that advice The only way the U.S. military could guarantee such a thing would be a coup. I don't think we should be blaming the military for not carrying out a coup. Not carrying out a coup does not constitute military failure.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    That is not what I'm saying, nor what Clausewitz is saying. What is being said is that war is a means to an end, the end being political sucess. The goal of war is political, and war is successful if it achieves its goal. There is no separation in sucess. If you achieve political sucess, your war has been successful. If you achieve military sucess, that means your political goals are achieved, which means you have political sucess. The commander in chief is a part of the US military. Commander in chief is a military rank. If the commander in chief failed to lead the war correctly, then the military failed. You are trying to see a hard dichotomy between both. There isn't. War is part of politics, and politics include war.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      > What is being said is that war is a means to an end, the end being political sucess. The goal of war is political, and war is successful if it achieves its goal. That is not what you said. You said "the US military is incompetent." Please do a better job of engaging honestly.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Well, no. The only way for the U.S. military would have been for it to produce better advice for its commander in chief, and for the commander in chief to follow that advice. It failed at both levels. This is definitely not novel. I am basically quoting Clausewitz, which is basically as far as you can go from being novel in the military tradition nowadays. For instance: > We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. ___That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand___, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for ___the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.___ The U.S. military failed to act in a way that, to borrow Clausewitz's words, always includes the object in their conception. They therefore failed in their goals. Just as a foolish attack doomed to failure is a military failure, so is a foolish operation that could not achieve it's goals. Also, it's far from true that the military knew that what they were doing would fail. They really did believe just as much as anyone else, in the beginning, that they would be able to make Afghanistan into a perfect American puppet and model in the region, and in being wrong, they failed too.

torstenvl 5y ago
No. You're saying the opposite of Clausewitz. Clausewitz says that the goals of war are political; that political success in war relies on military success. I agree with that and think it's nearly self-evident. You're saying the opposite. You're saying military success relies on political success. That's an entirely different proposition and one I disagree with. > The only way for the U.S. military [to succeed] would have been for ... the commander in chief to follow that advice The only way the U.S. military could guarantee such a thing would be a coup. I don't think we should be blaming the military for not carrying out a coup. Not carrying out a coup does not constitute military failure.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  That is not what I'm saying, nor what Clausewitz is saying. What is being said is that war is a means to an end, the end being political sucess. The goal of war is political, and war is successful if it achieves its goal. There is no separation in sucess. If you achieve political sucess, your war has been successful. If you achieve military sucess, that means your political goals are achieved, which means you have political sucess. The commander in chief is a part of the US military. Commander in chief is a military rank. If the commander in chief failed to lead the war correctly, then the military failed. You are trying to see a hard dichotomy between both. There isn't. War is part of politics, and politics include war.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    > What is being said is that war is a means to an end, the end being political sucess. The goal of war is political, and war is successful if it achieves its goal. That is not what you said. You said "the US military is incompetent." Please do a better job of engaging honestly.