Putting “Defense” Back in “Defense Department”
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
An article in the August 28 New York Times described a recent epiphany on the part of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. It seems that Admiral Mullen now “gets” a point Fourth Generation war theorists have made for years, namely that Information Operations are less what you say that what you do. The Times reported that
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written a searing critique of government efforts at “strategic communications” with the Muslim world, saying that no amount of public relations will establish credibility if American behavior overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting…
“To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate,” Admiral Mullen wrote in the critique…
“I would argue that most strategic communication problems are not communication problems at all,” he wrote. “They are policy and execution problems…”
Right on. Given Admiral Mullen’s position, this could represent important progress – or not. Its significance depends on whether the JCS Chairman can think big, as should be the case at his level of command. Will the Admiral restrict his thinking to execution problems, or will he have the wisdom and the moral courage to tackle policy problems?
Execution problems are what the current American commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, is focused on. He recognizes that American troops in Afghanistan must protect the population, not “kill bad guys.” We need to be in the village instead of attacking the village. Fourth Generation doctrine suggests that the key to success (where it is possible at all) is de-escalation. I have not seen General McChrystal use that term, but it seems to be his intent.
However, if execution at the battalion and company level becomes the focus for Admiral Mullen, he will have missed his chance to make a difference. As JCS Chairman, his focus should be grand strategy. For future American success in a Fourth Generation world, it is at that level that his new understanding of “strategic communications” needs to be applied.
What it means is that America should adopt a defensive rather than an offensive grand strategy. At present, American grand strategy is offensive, or even aggressive. In effect, America says to the rest of the world, “You are going to abandon your traditional culture and embrace our new, “liberated” culture – Feminism, consumerism, hedonism, all labeled “democracy” – whether you want to or not. If we cannot make you do so with ‘soft power,’ then you will face our ‘hard power,’ our bombs, cruise missiles and Predators.” From the jungles of the Amazon to the Hindu Kush, everyone is to become a subject of Brave New World.
As the conservative political philosopher Russell Kirk wrote, the surest way to make someone your enemy is to tell him you are going to remake him in your image for his own good. So long as that is America’s grand strategy, as it now seems to be, we are doomed to defeat at the grand strategic level. That is true no matter how our troops execute a fatally flawed policy.
The policy we need instead, one that communicates a very different message, is a defensive grand strategy. The message a defensive grand strategy sends is simple: If you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. We will not seek to “remake” you in any image. How you live is your business, and yours only.
In the November 22, 2004 issue of The American Conservative, I laid out in some detail what a defensive grand strategy for America might look like in a Fourth Generation world. It is impossible to summarize that lengthy piece in a column.
My point here is simply that this is the central question – offensive or defensive grand strategy? – a JCS Chairman who “gets it” should focus on. His concern should be policy, not execution. If Admiral Mullen thinks he should now duplicate what General McChrystal is doing, he will effectively leave the office of JCS Chairman vacant.
The Times quoted Admiral Mullen as saying, “That’s the essence of good communication: having the right intent up front and letting our actions speak for themselves.” The question you have raised for yourself, Admiral, is what intent is right at the level of grand strategy? The world awaits an answer.
Filed under: War
William Lind wrote:
A.) “We need to be in the village instead of attacking the village.”
B.) “What it means is that America should adopt a defensive rather than an offensive grand strategy. At present, American grand strategy is offensive, or even aggressive. In effect, America says to the rest of the world, ‘You are going to abandon your traditional culture and embrace our [] culture….’”
C.) “The policy we need instead, one that communicates a very different message, is a defensive grand strategy. The message a defensive grand strategy sends is simple: If you leave us alone, we will leave you alone.”
And how exactly do you persuade people that you are “leaving them alone” while simultaneously occupying their country and living in their villages?
Not saying it’s impossible, but….
Besides that it seems to me that matters of “grand strategy” concern what we want, not how we get what we want. Whether we are living in the villages or not, or even living in/occupying the country at all is just tactics. *Why* we are even considering such “how” questions is what implicates grand strategy; such as trying to reduce or eliminate terrorism against us, trying to blunt moslem extremism generally, or even just trying to “nation build.”
Yes, the world indeed awaits an answer. But don’t hold your breath thinking something meaningful will transpire. You can bet the farm that we’ll get more of the same.
In the eyes of those with power to invade, bomb, occupy and kill, the next step always involves doing the same thing, only harder.
Our “leaders” are idiots. Given enough slack, they’ll either kill us, bankrupt us, or both.
I don’t know if it has escaped the notice of all you people but the military is not supposed to make policy. It is supposed to carry it out.
Mr Lind said,
“In effect, America says to the rest of the world, “You are going to abandon your traditional culture and embrace our new, “liberated” culture – Feminism, consumerism, hedonism, all labeled “democracy” – whether you want to or not. If we cannot make you do so with ‘soft power,’ then you will face our ‘hard power,’ our bombs, cruise missiles and Predators.” From the jungles of the Amazon to the Hindu Kush, everyone is to become a subject of Brave New World.”
No. NOT “America says to the rest of the world”. This is what our ENEMIES (and the radical LEFT when a republican is in charge), say about America, when our lapses and execeptions and individual criminal actions, give them fodder to attack us with.
This will be a constant drumbeat of the american dis-satisfied, and the propaganda arms of our enemies.
But as you rightly point out, our job is to reduce the “fodder” we provide the enemies (within and without), while engaged in foreign military operations, and, to get out of such (foreign military adventures) whenever and wherever possible.
Interesting. We good “Green Berets” in the 60’s sat and took classes on how to build insurgency (terrorists), by teaching them better IEDs and better propaganda methods, in places like Afghanistan and SouthEast Asia, and now nobody can figure out what we should be cleaning up, and why. Something important has been lost (for the sake of political partisanship advantage).
I have an idea. Let’s rename it 4GW, and discuss stategy for warfare, instead of discussing what messes we made, and what it will take to clean them up (and when reaching goals, declaring our responsibility at end and withdrawing).
But somebody’s probably already thought of that.
A lot is wrong in America right now, including, in our churches.
Check out the revealing new book, “Worship of Mass Dysfunction”.
http://www.wmdthebook.com
Purpose driven isn’t always better.