War Termination

War is the continuation politics (or policy) by other means
Major General Carl von Clausewitz

The mission of the Army is to close with and destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver.
US Army

Should Deterrence Fail: War Termination in Campaign Planning
Lieutenant Colonel James W Reed
Parameters 1993


Wars end. Preferably they end on favorable terms and accomplish the ends for which they were fought. But how do we get there? This 1993 article from Parameters, the Journal of the U. S. Army War Collage, by James W Reed addresses the question of war termination especially from the point of view of the operational commander. While the operational commander is primarily fighting the battle his actions should be pointed not just to the battlefield defeat of the enemy forces, but also seeing that the enemy’s defeat helps accomplish the political goals of the war.

First Reed asks if there is a military role in conflict termination. His general comments are that since war is a continuation of policy by other means the military should plan their operations not simply to defeat the enemy but to end the war with the policy accomplished. Military action can support diplomatic action by creating an incentive for the enemy to accept or negotiate terms before a defeat. The way in which the enemy was defeated can have bearing on post war dealings with the former enemy or his successors. He also sees the transition from war to peace as not simply an end to the shooting but a requirement to support reestablishment of civil government, take care of refugees, repair war damage etc which would require coordination with outside agencies, national and international, that are experts in these items.


Next he looks at the state of the war termination in the Defense Departments doctrinal literature. He finds the issue is addressed as a general statement as something that should be done. But there is virtually no discussion of how it should be done. (I found that these subjects were addressed supplemental Student Texts in service schools with reproduced articles by distinguished scholars and discussion seminars, but never anything giving an “Official US Army” position on a political subject.)

He sees the major cause for this is the separation in western thought between the military and civilian (political) spheres. War termination is tied with the political goals, and the military is reluctant to intrude on political questions. Political leaders often see their role as beginning at the peace conference table and thus are not overly interested in the military operational practice. He addresses briefly in the footnotes the fact that left and right leaning politicians are likely to have very different ideas on war goals, making any discussion by the military a virtual minefield.

Most of the discussion is directed toward situations where the enemy power would continue to exist after the war, not régime change policies. But the importance he places on the transition from war to peace implies that if there is a régime change policy, coordination between the operational military commander and civilian agencies is even more important than usual. The military must assume roles no longer performed by the enemy government. Writing from a US perspective he does not address how the commander in a losing situation might use his forces to mitigate or frustrate the enemies accomplishment of his goals despite military victory.

He has a long example form the Korean War where US objectives changed several times and how the military interacted with political leadership, and several other lesser examples.

Analysis:

He recommends several guidelines for campaign planners.

1. Identify a distinct war termination phase in the campaign planning process

2. Emphasize a regressive (i.e. backward-planning) approach to campaign development

3. Define the operational conditions to be produced during the terminal phase of the campaign in explicit, unambiguous terms.

These first three recommendations are really the “backward planning process” taught in any management class or workshop. In a more traditional military terms the first principle of war is the Objective know what you are supposed to and focus on it. In war termination planning the political leadership needs to know and state clearly what it wants to accomplish, the operational commander must plan his operations so that the battlefield defeat of the enemy accomplishes these objectives.

4. Consider how efforts to eliminate or degrade your opponent's command and control may affect, positively or negatively, your efforts to achieve particular objectives

This comment is unusual. Normally destroying the enemies’ ability to command and control is a very desirable goal. But the point is well taken, in some situations leaving the enemy the ability to issue a cease fire or surrender order could be desirable. A cease fire/surrender order would carry more weight when issued by ones own superiors especially to units that are not yet in tactical difficulty. In my reading, at the end of a campaign it is common for units not to get cease fire/surrender orders in time, sometimes with very tragic consequences..

5. Consider the manner in which the tempo of the terminal phase of an operational campaign affects the ability to achieve established policy objectives

Early in a war the operational commander is likely to be concerned with the survival of his force and getting into a decisive position and does not have to worry about war termination except to prevent it from happening on the enemies terms. But at the end of the war he has to be concerned with obtaining the terrain needed for political reasons, capture of war criminals, restoration of government and many other things besides simply defeating the enemy. While the overall enemy may be defeated, individual enemy units may retain considerable capability; he needs to be sure that these cannot frustrate political goals. This is often a very fast moving situation; there may not be time to consult as to what needs to be done.

6. View war termination not as the end of hostilities but as the transition to a new post-conflict phase characterized by both civil and military problems.

Even if there is a clean end of the fighting, there is much that needs to be done to restore effective public services and a normal society. The nature of military operations breaks down normal civil life especially law enforcement. Often, at first the military is the only thing present that can start the recovery process. At the very least the military is the only force present that can provide law enforcement services. While the military role should diminish it is most usually impossible to a have an on/off change.


The quotes that begin this post bring up a dilemma; the proper role of the military "Closing with and destroying" does not address the whole problem "a continuation of politics (or policy) ." Quite properly the military should be subordinate to civilian leadership.

The military services are properly unwilling to intrude on the role of the civilian leadership. The elected/appointed civilian leadership comes to office, often for reasons that have nothing to do with military knowledge, and sometimes, without using too much hyperbole, with no more a background than watching “The Sands of Iwo Jima” and/or “Apocalypse Now” on the late show. Usually they bring in some academic experts for advice and they have the advice of the career diplomats for assistance, but there will always be an opportunity for misunderstanding and miscommunication.

Because the military should not intrude on what are properly civilian functions, it is incumbent on the civilian leadership to initiate process of translating the national goals in to military requirements. Keeping within the proper bounds of a proper civilian/military relationship, the operational commander has to determine what his superiors want to accomplish and how and discuss with them the implications and opportunities. If he gets a clear understanding of what is desired he will often have the flexibility to shape his operations to be of greater assistance to the national goals than simply destroying the enemy.

This article is especially interesting in view of recent actions by the US. The Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, the insurgency in Iraq, and possible action against Iran would make interesting case studies. In the first two at least it seems that the political leadership in the Defense Department had definite ideas on the role of field commanders relative to post war operations – this is not the business of the field commander and the only instructions were that others would take it over after the fighting. - Case studies in how not to do it.

The all time second best blonde joke.

Why are blonde jokes one liners?

So the Brunettes can understand them.


TM Lutas has the best blonde joke ever.

A Game of Chicken

.

It appears that Iran has or is going to have nuclear weapons shortly. Which is one thing, to take the President of Iran seriously, he intends to use them. That is something else. As Wretchard of the Belmont Club noted in the his comments section, the evidence is much stronger than for Iraq, but every one now has a much healthier respect for the limitations of any intelligence estimate.

John Keegan (HR:Belmont club) has an article reviewing the difficulties of military action to close down Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

America and the EU3 must therefore consider other, harsher methods to restrain Iran. The fact that the United States at present deploys a large army in Iraq is a factor that must give the ayatollahs pause. To stage a second war in the Middle East would not be a desirable initiative at present for America and would certainly be highly unpopular at home and among its allies. Moreover, Iran, as the possessor of the second largest oil reserves in the world and occupier of a strategic position athwart the sea routes delivering oil to most of the consuming world, has its own means of retaliation ready to hand.

Nevertheless, the West cannot simply let things drift. Military action by whatever agency cannot be written out, but will be a last resort. ... For if the West is considering military action, so are the ayatollahs. ... Moreover, while Iran has its own armoury of medium-range missiles suitable for nuclear delivery, the ayatollahs are also known to favour the placing of nuclear warheads in target cities by terrorists travelling by car or public transport. This is a bad and worrying time in world affairs.


Niall Ferguson has a look at the world war of 2007.

So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the UN produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions, like the exclusion of Iran from the 2006 World Cup finals.


Victor David Hanson (HT: Dignified Rant) also discusses the possibilies.

Experts warn that we are not talking about a Clintonian one-day cruise-missile hit, or even something akin to General Zinni’s 1998 extended Operation Desert Fox campaign. Rather, the challenges call for something far more sustained and comprehensive — perhaps a week or two of bombing at every imaginable facility, many of them hidden in suburbs or populated areas. Commando raids might need to augment air sorties, especially for mountain redoubts deep in solid rock



We have a nice little game of chicken.

Allowing a regime like Iran’s to have Nukes is dangerous.

-More so to Iran’s neighbors than to the US. If Iran’s leaders are willing to use nukes against the Israel they are probably willing to use them to solve disputes with other neighbors.

-They probably do not yet have the ability to insure that a nuke is an airburst rather than a ground burst, and even it they do they would be very likely to choose a ground burst against Israel to make the destruction more complete. Ground bursts pick up large amounts of surface material as dust, make it radio active, this is what “falls out.” A ground burst could create radioactive fallout that would impact a large area outside Israel, depending on many variables Chernobyl could be a minor comparison.)

Most every country in the area has a strong desire to see that Iran never uses nukes. The theoretical possibility of fallout patterns covering Western Europe probably explains why the EU3 started their negotiation process and why it is a major issue to them. Except for Europe collectively, probably Israel, maybe Russia depending on what still works, and the US, no country has the ability to take out the nukes unilaterally. But many countries from India to the EU member’s individually have the ability to make a notable contribution.

Neither the US nor Israel wants to go it alone. The other countries do not want to contribute if they can avoid it. So it is a game of chicken, will the US or Israel will jump and go it alone. Or will other counties turn aside from their previous course and sign on to a cooperative effort.



Which makes this snippet of an interview of from the German magazine Spiegel interesting. (HT: David’s Medienkritik

SPIEGEL: How concerned are you about Iran?

Rumsfeld: All of us have to be concerned when a country that important, large and wealthy is disconnected from the normal interactions with the rest of the world. They obviously have certain ambitions, powers and military capabilities ...

SPIEGEL: ...and nuclear ambitions...

Rumsfeld: That's apparently what France, Germany, the UK and the International Atomic Energy Agency have concluded. Everyone wants to have the Iranians as part of the world community, but they aren't yet. Therefore there's less predictability and more danger.

SPIEGEL: The US is trying to make the case in the United Nations Security Council.

Rumsfeld: I would not say that. I thought France, Germany and the UK were working on that problem.

SPIEGEL: What kind of sanctions are we talking about?

Rumsfeld: I'm not talking about sanctions. I thought you, and the U.K. and France were.

SPIEGEL: You aren't?

Rumsfeld: I'm not talking about sanctions. You've got the lead. Well, lead!

SPIEGEL: You mean the Europeans.

Rumsfeld: Sure. My Goodness, Iran is your neighbour. We don't have to do everything!

-----------

For the tyrants must come down an' dictators frown
When our Uncle named Sam says "Stop"!
(Poor beggars! -- we're sent to say "Stop"!)


I know responsibilities, wanted or not, come with being the worlds only super power, but IMHO it is someone else’s turn to say “STOP”!.

The End of the World is Nigh!

David Duff of Duff and Nonsense has evidence that The end of the world is nigh!

To wit

To paraphrase, 'look on my news, ye mighty, and despair'!. Today, gentlemen are no longer wearing ties with suits! Perhaps I should be more precise, today, those pretending to be gentlemen, are no longer wearing ties with suits. Take, if you've the stomach for it, the leaders of our two national political parties. We already know that Mr. Blair is a parvenu with only the most casual connection to truth and honour, traditionally, the emblems of a gentleman irrespective of his status in life. Now the leader of her Majesty's loyal opposition, an old Etonian and thus automatically suspect, shows every sign of following his natural leader, Mr. Blair, by morphing into whatever the bien pensants from both the political and fashion worlds tell him to be. Thus, he stands as a Conservative and talks Left-wing rubbish, and, worst of all, he fails to wear a tie with a suit.

Uh, David, I should point out that the leader of the Free World comes from Texas where if you wear a tie, except maybe as a concession to those Northern Yankees, you can be hung with your own necktie. He will undoubtedly be imatated by those who do not realize the limitations of Texan culture. And I was hoping the mother country would set a counter example for us poor colonials.

Sola Scriptura and the Authority of the Church.

.



One of the important questions in Christianity is the relationship between Scripture and the Church. A particularly contentious issue is question of the authority of the Church in relation to the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. An interesting idea would be to look at just what scripture has say about the authority of the Church? Let us look!


First of all it is Christ’s Church.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20)

There are many things that can be pulled out of the that passage, the important ones for out purpose are:

1 Jesus founded the Church.
2 It is His Church.
3. He promised that the gates of death (Hell or Hades in other translations) will not prevail against it.
4. One might disagree on the full extent of the “binding and loosing” but no one cannot deny that in some sense the Church is connected with authority to “bind and loose.”
5. Christ founded a Church and promised it some sort of protection, and some sort of authority.



Christ described a role for the exercise of the Church's authority

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18 15:20)

There are some key points we can pull out of this passage for our purpose, again there is much more in it.

1. The paragraph after this is where Jesus talks about forgiving 7 times 70 times. I think this context is to make sure that 18:15-20 is not understood to apply where forgiveness is enough but when the sin is something that is very harmful and needs to be corrected.
2. Notice when you cannot resolve the issue privately you take it to the Church. If the Church decides the issue and the other person (or yourself if the decision goes the other way) refuses to listen “even to the Church” treat the person as a gentile and a tax collector.
3. Notice the word even as though it is hard to imagine some one refusing to listen to the Church Christ established.
4. The famous quote of where “two or three are gathered in my name” is clearly associated with the Church.
5. In the context of dealing with serious sin he instructs the Apostles that what they “bind and loose” as the leaders of the Church is “bound or loosed.”




In Acts we see the Church acting according to Christ’s instructions.

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses."

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider
this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, 'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old. 'Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues."

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:1-29)

Some points we can pull from this passage.

1. The “party of the Pharisees” created a crisis in Antioch that could not be forgiven and dismissed. There was a sin of heresy that challenged the integrity of the Gospel
2. The Church at Antioch tried to resolve the issue locally.
3. They brought in or witnesses to help mediate the situation, who better than Paul and Barnabas.
4. Unable to reach a decision locally the matter was referred to the Church as a whole represented in the persons of the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
5. The church made a decision.
6. The decision bound the whole church not just Jerusalem.
7. Certainly, as far more than two were gathered in His Name, Christ was with them.
8. If this had not been the decision, would not “the gates of Hell” have prevailed against the Church?




Elsewhere the New Testament

shows the Church as being essential to spreading the truth of the Gospel.

”that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.”(Eph 3:10)

”I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:14-15

It is in the Church that the manifold wisdom of God becomes known. “The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” Of course, this makes sense since the Church is the Body of Christ and He is the way, truth and the life.


Conclusion

While there are different opinions on the extent of it’s authority, it is apparent that the Bible teaches that the Church has a clear authority of its own to "bind and loose" on questions of the content of Christian teaching that goes far beyond what is possible if the sola scriptura is the sole rule of faith.


See the related post Scripture and Tradition