Contraria

Edward C. "Coe" Heller is a Los Angeles-based film producer who believes that if everyone knows something to be true it is probably false. A friend, tired of listening to rants has suggested a blog as a harmless outlet. Coe believes it is vanity, and a chasing after the wind, but is unsure it is harmless.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Caspar's Ghost



We are not about to send American boys … to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.  Lyndon Johnson 1964



As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission –- we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.  Barack Obama 2014



In the early 1980’s with the Pentagon still reeling from Vietnam and the catastrophic intervention in Lebanon, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger articulated guidelines for when it is appropriate for the United States to use military force.  The general principles were that force is appropriate:

1. If a vital interest of the United States or a U.S. ally is threatened.

2. If there is total support, that is that sufficient resources and manpower to complete the mission.

3. If U.S. forces are given clearly defined political and military objectives and be must be large enough to be able to achieve these objectives.

4. If there is a continual assessment between the commitment and capability of U.S. forces and the objectives.

5.  If there are reasonable assurances that the American people and their elected representatives support such a commitment.

6. If the commitment of U.S. forces to combat is the last resort.

Prior to the Gulf War the doctrine was adopted and amended by Colin Powell who added the concepts that we should have a plausible exit strategy and that we have considered the consequences of our actions. 

No one has formally abandoned the Weinberger Doctrine, and perhaps doctrines should change.  In any event the actions of the President and the Congress in undertaking a “war” against the Islamic State effectively abandons the doctrine on all counts.

I will only list two objections to this war.   First, we are now intending to bomb some groups fighting for one side in Syria, when a year ago we were on the verge of bombing the other side.  People who can’t decide who to bomb shouldn’t bomb anyone.  These are nasty fights in which we have no friends, so attacking enemies is senseless, and the “moderate” rebels are a myth, mercenaries we will arm who will doubtless turn the arms over to our enemies.

This war cannot be won as there is no definition of success against a religious movement.  This group has done nothing to us, and we have no end game - bombs may retake some territory in Iraq and we may destroy our own armaments the Iraqis surrendered to ISIS, but radical Islam will transform into new threats for a long time, and for the time being we should let them fight each other.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home