Winning a War

 

            Recently, commentators of all stripes have consumed vast amounts of digits and toner describing the various failures of the Presidential war on Iran. And to be sure, when you are dropping bombs, shooting missiles, and sinking ships, you have engaged in a war. The President unilaterally decided to engage in this armed conflict, bypassing the Constitutional requirement for gaining congressional authorization. To be sure, legislators of both parties shirked their duty to enforce the checks and balances laid out in our constitution; but, that is a discussion for another day. The commentators have labeled this conflict a failure for various reasons.

            Depending upon their outlook and political orientation, they blame the President for a lack of goals, shifting goals, the wrong goals, the lack of planning, the failure to develop international support for the operation, underestimating the resilience of the enemy, and the list goes on. Perhaps they are correct. All those things and more doom an operation, military or otherwise, to failure. But I have yet to see anyone articulate the primary reason for failure…boots on the ground.

            Contrary to popular belief, airpower does not win wars. Wars are won when a grubby, goat-smelling, bone-weary soldier raises a flag and says, “This piece of dirt is mine and you cannot come here.”

            Airpower is a combat multiplier. It enhances or eases the job of ground forces. Airpower may bring the troops into combat and keep them supplied. Airpower may keep enemy aircraft off the ground forces. Airpower may interdict an enemy’s ability to supply their own forces; but, airpower does not win wars. Of course many will bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of airpower winning the war.

            While dropping the atomic bomb may have hastened the end of the WW II in the Pacific, it was the very real threat of invasion, soldiers stepping on Japanese soil, saying, “This is ours and you do not control it,” that ended the war. The Japanese emperor had seen us inexorably take island by island, marching ever closer to Japan. He knew that not only could we invade and conquer his land we also possessed the willpower to do so. Rather than submit his country to such complete devastation, he capitulated. While airpower certainly paved the way, the threat of ground troops marching over Tokyo ended the war.

            Going into this conflict, the President and his advisors failed to take this basic military truth into account. It doesn’t really matter how many bombs you drop or missiles your fire, until you have troops on the ground to enforce your will, a determined enemy remains undefeated. He underestimated the Iranian government’s ability to absorb destruction; military as well as civilian. Under the thrall of technological superiority, he and his advisors assumed that after the initial barrage of munitions the threat of continued incoming rockets would drive an enemy to their knees, forcing them to seek some sort of negotiated end to the war. They, like so many inexperienced in the realities of modern warfare, underestimated the resiliency of a government and its citizenry.

            While horribly destructive and intensely frightening, areal bombardment rarely drives a citizenry to abandon their government. In Germany and Japan, civilians remained largely behind their governments even under the terrifying strategic bombing campaigns. Londoners remained stalwart and steadfast during the blitz. In more modern times, the destruction of the Twin Towers did not result in an American retreat. Areal attacks while they impede industry, can be overcome by a determined and creative adversary. During WW II the German aircraft industry peaked in 1944 under some of the heaviest strategic bombing of the war years.1 Distributed production and other strategies enabled Germany to continue to increase their numbers of fighter aircraft up until the very end. Japanese manufacturers produced consistent gains up until through 1944 as well.2

            This does not mean that airpower is unimportant; however, planners and advisors must be honest about its capabilities and more importantly its limitations. Depending on airpower alone to bring an enemy to its knees is a strategy destined for failure. We may find video of missiles and bombs streaking toward a target enthralling. We may embrace the idea of winning on the cheap; but, war is never cheap, not in blood or treasure. Airpower, while absolutely paramount, does not ensure victory. To win, at some point grunts have to raise the flag and say, this is mine now, not yours.

1. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/history/aircraft-ww2-de-production.htm

2. https://historydashboard.org/world-war-2-aircraft-production/

Bullies Need Not Apply

 

¹⁷ Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Romans 12:17-18 English Standard Version

Marriam-Webster definition of Bully: to treat (someone) in a cruel, insulting, threatening, or aggressive fashion : to act like a bully toward or to cause (someone) to do something by means of force or coercion

            Everyone has faced the challenge of a bully. Most often it is in the school environment; but, sometimes one finds a bully in the work environment, and sadly there are bullies in marriages with often tragic results. No one likes a bully. We all find the swaggering and threatening offensive. Bullies thrive on intimidating the weak and vulnerable. Fortunately, many of us who are inclined to bully others get our comeuppance in the school environment, learning early that such behavior is anathema to any community. Those who fail to learn that lesson are destined to lurch through a life full of swagger, bluster, and occasional violence. Their arrogance and self-centeredness ensure that they miss out on many of the good things in life. It is the same with nations and their leaders.

            What our leaders say and do reflects our national spirit and moral values. This is why we should choose leaders based more on their character than on their policy pronouncements. Policy pronouncements are important; however, examining character reveals more about how they will lead and make decisions. Those who’ve embraced a life-long practice of bullying those around them to get their way do not pass muster. They’ve shown through their proclivities that they cannot be trusted to make decisions that are just and defensible.

            Some will say, however, that they get results or that the ends justify the means. Perhaps they do get results in the short term and over a weaker constituency or nation; but, sooner or later their behaviour will be truly challenged and their weakness and moral turpitude revealed…along with our own.

            Through our bringing them to power and silence about their actions, we join in their practice of bullying. In some ways the international community is much like a school playground, only with much more serious results. An elementary schoolyard confrontation normally ends with a bruised ego, perhaps a bloody nose, and maybe a black eye. An international confrontation brings much more grievous results; economic chaos or open war just to name two. One result that we’ve recently seen is other countries refusing to acquiesce to our desires. Our bluster and swagger, as displayed by our president, did not result in other nations rallying to our cause in Iran. Most simply shrugged and looked the other way. A few made public pronouncements condemning our actions. Unsurprisingly, it turns out the badgering and belittling your allies tends to generate non-support when you want it.

            Governments, made up by people and beholden to people, tend to react like people. We may be the largest economy on the globe and possess a powerful military; however, we still need friends and allies. You do not strengthen alliances by publicly threatening and demeaning your partners. Those are the actions of a bully and sooner or later will fail…probably sooner. Threats, intimidation, and humiliating people are the tactics of a tyrant and indicators of a small-minded soul that cannot think of any other alternative than the threat of violence.

            This modern world, with its vast web of interconnected countries, businesses, and institutions, requires and rewards creative solutions to seemingly intractable situations. Patient and careful application of “soft” power, while not exciting, produces sound long-term results with the best outcome for the most people. Threats and intimidation, in any form, generate short-term results with little staying power and normally provide a good outcome for a minority of people. This is why we need thoughtful, creative, and strong leaders. Leaders willing to take input from diverse sources show strength, not weakness. Bullies, however, do not show the character necessary to successfully lead others, especially in the context of positions of national and international significance.

Regime Change Anyone Part II

 

            Regime change. Coming from President Trump and his cabinet, it sounds nice and easy, kind of like changing my socks; or on a bad day like changing my cell service provider. Our recent forays into the muddy waters of regime change raise fundamental questions about our long-term goals and reliability as a member of the global community. Politicians and pundits toss around the phrase without explaining the specifics of what takes place during a regime change. During a regime change people die, sometimes very many innocent people. Often chaos comes in to rule after our “surgical strikes” that remove the leadership we find abhorrent. We may kill the immediate leadership which has crossed us one too many times; but, the societal forces and practices that led to the evil regime remain in place and usually propel a like individual or group into positions or power and authority. If we are lucky, the new regime will be more amenable to our geopolitical whims. But we rarely stay around long enough to effect any true cultural changes, and we may not be particularly good at inculcating good change. Why this change and why now?

            No one can reasonably say that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was a good leader. Under his rule Iranians suffered and thousands of innocents across the region died. He and his cohorts engaged in state sponsored terrorism, using violence or the threat of violence to achieve power, influence, and wealth. Where was our moral outrage then? Was it simply because he and his fellow rulers refused to give up their goal of achieving a nuclear weapon? That is a legitimate concern. Such a powerful weapon in the hands of such a reckless ruler should concern all of us. But what comes next should concern us as much.

            Who will take their place? How will Iran rebuild, or will they become the next cauldron of pain, frustration, and anger simmering until it boils over once again? I see that our President and his various mouthpieces are seeking to distance our nation from any responsibility to restore Iran to some sort of normalcy. Having participated in nation building, I understand the desire to avoid entanglement in such a difficult and long-term task. But it seems to me that we have an interest in helping Iran shed its past and take its place among the community of nations as a prosperous country with responsible leadership charting its path. By abandoning Iran now, we risk turning loose an angry bully in an already tense portion of the globe.

            Here is the worst part for us. We are at risk becoming a global bully ourselves. Many world leaders must be wondering who is next on our President’s list? Is this a new form of “gunboat diplomacy?” Are we returning to a world order in which we simply pummel weaker nations with airpower until they submit to our desires? If we embrace this style of diplomacy, we risk abandoning the higher principles to which we have historically aspired. Obviously, we have often missed the mark; however, we have at least tried to listen to our “better angels.” We castigated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his henchmen for years, deriding their actions as state sponsored terrorism. When we so easily resort to violence to achieve our national goals, we are dangerously close to engaging in the same type of behavior ourselves. I understand that the Iranian leadership has a long history of obfuscation to avoid compliance; yet, does killing off the leadership of the country move us toward the goal of responsible behavior? In any military operation innocents perish simply due to proximity. Even in the most carefully targeted attack, innocent bystanders are wounded, often succumbing to their wounds. Families and friends carry those scars which frequently metastasize into the next generation of terrorists bent on revenge. We cannot forget them, or the deep wound we are inflicting upon our own national psyche or spirit.

            Every bomb we drop, every missile we fire, every target we obliterate further corrodes our national psyche. As a nation we become more brutish akin to those we claim are the aggressors. There are situations in which a nation must resort to force; however, we must do so only after thoughtful deliberation and with a cogent plan for what we will do once the rounds stop going back and forth in earnest. To use our military might to force out a regime which we do not like, or causes us problems, degrades our national spirit. We already suffer from the ills attendant to modern Western culture. We must stop and think very carefully about the path we have chosen. I say that we must return to a foreign policy which embraces diplomacy and is willing to work overtime to engage our fellow global inhabitants in the practices which lead to more civilized behavior. 

Allies: Condemnation or Cooperation

 

            I watched the Twin Towers collapse on a TV in the Operations (G-3)section of First Armored Division, 1AD Old Ironsides, in Wiesbaden, Germany. Like everyone else, the sight of the towering office buildings collapsing in dust and rubble horrified me. I knew that my world would never be the same…and it wasn’t. A few days later, I was among those invited to the German Army headquarters for a briefing by their division commander (please note that the German Army has restructured greatly since 2001 and I’m not sure if the Panzer Division headquarters is still near Wiesbaden.).

            The German Commanding General gave the opening remarks. Here is a summary of what he said, “For years, you stood between us and aggression by the Soviet Union. Your presence secured our safety. We owe you a significant debt. Now, we can in some small way repay a portion of that debt. We consider the recent attack on New York an attack on us. We understand that you will need help orchestrating your response. You have all my resources available to help in the upcoming operations. Please know that I am the only one who can say “no.” No one on my staff has the authority to say “no.” If they do, all you have to do is pick up your phone and call me. My phone number is…”

            While my work did not require much from the German Army. Some of my peers reported great support and assistance when they asked. What I did see was German soldiers replacing our MPs at checkpoints, base entry gates, and on patrol in on our bases and housing areas. I also witnessed the Bundesbhan (German Railroad), rearranging schedules to allow us the ability to quickly move material to the ports. If you’ve ever lived or traveled in Germany, you know what a sacrifice it is to disrupt train schedules. At the ports our ships were given priority. Our allies, the Germans, sacrificed greatly in support of our operations. This is something we should never forget.

            When I deployed to Iraq in the Spring of 2003, I fought alongside our NATO partners and several other nations who joined in the fray, supporting us with their lives and treasure. Later after 1AD redeployed to Germany, I served in Combined Joint Task Force 7, CJTF-7. I well remember the day when our Italian contingent suffered a significant attack, losing a significant number of men. We all mourned the loss together. I went outside the wire with Australian and British armies. I never felt like I was serving with second-rate soldiers. In a later deployment to Iraq, I served in Multi-National Corps Iraq, MNC-I. Again, I served alongside Canadians, Australians, British, and Samoans. All allies dedicated to supporting us with their lives and their treasure. I learned to depend upon them for their support and professionalism. This is something we should never forget.

            In a later assignment, I served in United States Army South, USARSO. In this assignment I served alongside our partners in South America. I went on counter-drug operations with various allies including, Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, Colombians, Bolivians, Brazilians, and the French. Again, united to stem the flow of narcotics into our nation, all these allies sacrificed to help us. I remember standing in a forward base in Bolivia training their soldiers on anti-mine procedures. These men risked life and limb daily for almost no pay. Their uniforms were threadbare and their equipment ancient…but well maintained. They were our allies in the ongoing war on drugs. This is something we should never forget.

            Again in a later assignment, I served in United States Army North ARNORTH, a component of NORAD-NORTHCOM. I was privileged to serve alongside Canadians, protecting our nations against a possible aggression from across the North Pole. These professional men and women helped us guard our freedom. This is something we should never forget.

            Recently I’ve seen many postings denigrating our allies. They usually focus on two things: one a lack of commitment in the form of time, effort, and particularly money and two a lack of cultural commonality. I’d like to address both issues.

            While it is true that for years most NATO member nations did not reach the desired military spending level of 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in recent years their spending has increased. Currently all nations spend the desired 2% with six spending over 3%. The changing world situation and President Trump’s efforts have generated this increase. As a point of comparison, the U.S. spent about 3.2% of GDP in 2025. While our total expenditure dwarfs the rest in raw dollars, in percentage of GDP we’re not that far ahead of our fellow NATO allies. As the global situation increased in volatility, our allies have responded appropriately. We must remember that national interests, as perceived in the country, govern such decisions. Their culture may or may not be as willing to devote precious resources to military efforts.

            Many people seem suddenly concerned about cultural differences. Here, I’d like to share the Marrium-Webster definition of ally as a noun:

1.     a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league

2.     one that is associated with another as a helper : a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity, or struggle

You will note that neither definition includes discussion of shared cultural values. I can attest to the fact that when the bullets snapped past my ears, I never checked on the cultural mores of my allies. All I really cared about was did they have my flank and were they putting rounds downrange in earnest. Yes, it is easier to work with someone who shares my cultural ideas, but it is not required. One of the great lessons all soldiers learn is that mission focus is paramount and at the end of the day, you can successfully work with someone who views the world quite differently than you do. Once while working with the Canadians, I found that their field rations included a small bottle of wine! Serving with the Brits and Aussies, I had to make the difficult cultural adjustment to the daily beer ration. Some cultural sacrifices are greater than others. I have worked with people from all over the globe with quite divergent backgrounds and beliefs. Some even became my friends. I needed them and they needed me.

            Our world is vastly more complex and interconnected than most of us think. We cannot, and should not, seek to either go it alone or bully others into submitting to our desires. We need one another. Cooperation requires listening and sometimes sacrifice. We need to stop feeding our isolationist tendencies and instead broaden our view and roll up our sleeves and work with others toward our shared goals and missions.