Doctrines?

Andrew Bacevich writes about Carter Doctrine. Good for Bacevich. 

Writing in Foreign Policy, three distinguished members of the foreign policy establishment—Hal Brands of Johns Hopkins, Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Ken Pollack of the American Enterprise Institute—have issued a warning: Don’t look now, but President Trump appears intent on repudiating the Carter Doctrine. If he does, all the great successes achieved by U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf over the past several decades will be lost. This, they want you to believe, would be a terrible thing.

There is only one problem, designating US produced "doctrines" by the names of US Presidents with which one or another "doctrine" originated--it is the same as designating rigid and inflexible US military "doctrines" of expeditionary warfare following throwing an ungodly number of stand-off weapons at a victim with different titles ranging from "From The Sea" to "Air Sea Battle" to whatever else. In other words it is "Same Shit-Different Angle". The only noticeable correction of the course in the US doctrinal thinking happened in early 1970s with Nixon's (forced, mind you) Detente with the Soviet Union and with eventual "opening" of China, which, as we all know today, ended up with the greatest transfer of industries from the United States to other country in history. So, discussing US foreign policy "doctrines", especially by ignoring huge political inputs (in favors, dollars, blackmail or exploitation of Christian Zionism of many in US power circles) by such actors as Israel and Saudi Arabia is a fool's errand.

I do not believe that Bacevich doesn't know that. I am positive he does. Yet, as in that process of running in circles, everything ends up with discussing a minutiae of American neocons' flaming insanity and utter military incompetence and trying to pigeonhole it into one or another US geopolitical delusion, which, for some reason, pass for "doctrines" . I looked up biographies of people whose "ideas" Bacevich discusses and concludes that:

Brands, Cook, and Pollack correctly note that various initiatives undertaken under the aegis of the Carter Doctrine have ultimately redounded to the benefit of the Islamic Republic of Iran. But if Iran is a problem, they have a solution. Kick some ass.

I don't know, last time I checked if any ass kicking was happening it was definitely not by the United States. Among those three stooges who abuse their sinecures in all those rabidly neocon "think-tanks: such as American Enterprise Institute, or CFR, only Pollack has some "intelligence" background as former CIA "analysts" with degree.... and you guessed it--political "science". Pollack is known for his active calls to invade Iraq and even wrote grossly untimely book on Arabs' military effectiveness, or, rather lack thereof. Untimely, because this issue was debated so much in the last 50 years, from Soviet military advisors to all kinds of "Strategic Studies"  courses in the Wests, to famous  Atkine's primer Why Arabs Lose Wars that, after brief acquaintance with Pollack's 2018 book about Arab military history from 1948 to 1991 one is forced to ask a question--Why? What's the purpose of re-narrating same ol', same ol'? But, my friends, this is the current level of the American or, rather, neocon "Strategic Studies". 1991 is also a cut out date for the last noticeable victory of the US Armed Forces against what was, as usual falsely, touted as the "fourth largest army in the word", implying that it was powerful, while in reality it was a backward, badly led, typical third world military.

Numbers provide a good foundation, albeit by far not all of it, of viewing modern war. In this case, Bacevich fails to disclose the real meaning of the "kicking some ass", Iranian ass that is, since this is the heart of the matter. The issue is not that impossibility of kicking some ass without receiving a lot of it back was discussed, by me included, on a number of occasions. I would love to see ass-kicking plan developed by those three--no secrets--just general idea of this plan, required forces, logistics, general strategy, operational tempos etc. Why not, I am sure these three stooges can provide a fascination expose of utter military strategic and operational ignorance and will cause many laughs along the way. Reason being that these people do not grasp modern warfare beyond experiences of massive salvos of stand-off weapons in Desert Storm at whatever targets Pentagon may identify and then... Yes, about this "then", I am always in a full attention mode waiting for some magical plan to appear explaining how the United States Armed Forces will fight war in Iran. I am all eyes and ears. But even this is beyond the point--don't expect anything which makes sense geopolitically, militarily or economically. Here is an example of this type of people's "expertise", this is from 2016. 

So, Bacevich gets it very wrong, especially when he begins with "distinguished members"--distinguished by who or what, against what background or under what circumstances? If American geopolitical collapse and US being exposed as nothing more than a dangerous declining power--a process which is ongoing since 2000s--are reasons to tout human stupidity and lack of any serious background in achieving any kind of tangible "success" in anything are the reasons to be "distinguished", then--sure. Modern American political and pseudo-intellectual elite, as I stated many times, is staggering in its incompetence matched only by its arrogance--a first sign of lacking serious intellect. The aggressiveness of types like Pollack is dictated by anything but serving true American national interests and by suppressing a horrendous complex of inferiority because they know deep inside that they are losers who have nothing to show for their pseudo "academic" backgrounds and activity which is based around thinking up all kinds of military strategic nonsense. But, sadly, Bacevich doesn't write about this. Even Le Monde--a globalist French rag begins to suspect that: 

les Etats-Unis n’exercent plus le rôle qu’ils s’étaient attribué au XXe siècle, celui du leadership mondial. Ils y étaient de plus en plus réticents depuis quelques années ; ils s’en sont, dans cette crise qui les affaiblit, totalement extraits. Il a fallu prier le président Donald Trump pour qu’il accepte de participer, par visioconférence, à des réunions internationales qu’il aurait dû présider. Lorsqu’elles ont pu se tenir, ces réunions n’ont donné aucun résultat. A l’ONU, le Conseil de sécurité est, de fait, paralysé.

Western in general, and American in particular, current "elites" are totally inadequate intellectually, academically, humanly and professionally to challenges which their societies face and it is them who, being products of a dysfunctional system, exacerbate already a violent process of a departure of the Western liberalism from the world stage. Having some "distinguished" swamp creatures suggesting to "kick some ass" at this time should be viewed as a distinguished idiocy, not as a valid matter to discuss--unless, of course, we are talking about orderlies in psychiatric ward, where modern American neocons belong wholesale, I mean those who will avoid standing War Crimes Tribunal.  

I Am Not Sure Yet How To View This.

I mean new think-tank headed by Andrew Bacevich--The Quincy Institute. From the get go one is startled by the names of couple of contributors to what is defined as responsible statecraft institute--George Soros' name definitely makes one to pause. Yet, one has to keep in mind that ideas behind this new think-tank set it in a complete opposition to a majority of the present US think-tanks whose main purpose is justification of disastrous US foreign policy and military adventurism. So, Quincy Institute's intro does make sense:

The foreign policy of the United States has become detached from any defensible conception of U.S. interests and from a decent respect for the rights and dignity of humankind. Political leaders have increasingly deployed the military in a costly, counterproductive, and indiscriminate manner, normalizing war and treating armed dominance as an end in itself. Moreover, much of the foreign policy community in Washington has succumbed to intellectual lethargy and dysfunction. It suppresses or avoids serious debate and fails to hold policymakers and commentators accountable for disastrous policies. It has forfeited the confidence of the American public. The result is a foreign policy that undermines American interests and tramples on American values while sacrificing the stores of influence that the United States had earned.

Attacks by the most vile Neo-cons, such as low-life Bill Kristol, against this new think-tank also make total sense--the whole idea that somebody other than them (Neo-cons) will have a platform when discussing issues of war and peace terrifies them, especially when such a platform is headed by a cadre US Army senior officer with operational experience, especially knowing what a personal tragedy this officer went through when losing his son, US Army young officer in a criminal military adventure in Iraq. Bacevich's voice does matter in this case. 

Larison's comment on this new endeavor is good:

The name of the Quincy Institute for this new effort to promote a foreign policy of peace and restraint is well-chosen. As we are coming up on the bicentennial of John Quincy Adams’ famous July 4th speech in a couple years, we do well to remember what he said to his fellow countrymen. This passage in particular should be repeated as often as possible:

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

It took a long time, but Adams’ warning came to pass. We did enlist under other banners than our own, and we did involve ourselves in the wars of interest and intrigue, and the maxims of our policy have changed to force. There are many that want to make sure that our foreign policy remains this way, and the Quincy Institute offers Americans the hope that it does not have to be that way forever.

Remarkably, the only sensible discussion on America's real and legitimate national interests is possible only within the framework which Quincy Institute wants to establish. At this stage one is only hopeful that establishment of this institute is not one step too few, too late.

Is There Anybody (Else) Out There? (c)

By now we have to learn one simple fact, which, evidently neither Daniel Larison (for all his valiant effort) nor Andrew Bacevich understand, when they call out warmongers in present American media-political establishment. Most of them are warmongers, including in Congress, and this can not be changed. Sure, I get it and I respect Bacevich, but what is the point when he singles out yet another political "scientist" turned journo calling for war on Iran? 

The teaser for a recent Bret Stephens column in The New York Times accurately summarizes its contents: “If Iran won’t change its behavior we should sink its navy.” We’ve done it before and, by golly, we can do it again. Stephens offers his readers this sanitized version of history to make his case: “On April 14, 1988, the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts, a frigate, hit an Iranian naval mine while sailing in the Persian Gulf. The explosion injured 10 of her crew and nearly sank the ship. Four days later, the U.S. Navy destroyed half the Iranian fleet in a matter of hours. Iran did not molest the Navy or international shipping for many years thereafter.” Stripped bare of context, that paragraph is factually correct. But stripping it of context, as Stephens does, transforms it into a form of untruth, not a blatant lie perhaps, but an exercise in sleight of hand. Indeed, the very purpose of his column is not to enlighten, but to deceive and manipulate.

I have news for Bacevich (I am sure he knows it)--there is NO context in US history of 20th and, especially, 21st century. There never was--did Andrew Bacevich look at the American historiography, bar some few superb exceptions of note such as Glantz and House, of World War Two lately? A DEFINING feature of an American political class and punditry, apart from utter lack of professionalism, is an astounding ability to exist in causality-free world. The fact that cause precedes the effect is a concept many American pundits may find intolerable.

Enter this comparative politics educated political philosopher Stephens--what can possibly this neocon boy write about other than some delusional BS on US "foreign policy", which long ago became the foreign policy by and for Israel. Apart from having zero tools required for any competent opinion of foreign policy, the way it is formed and conducted by competent people, including this tricky teeny-weeny military part, what can possibly neocon shill from New York write? I long ago stated, that you cannot argue with these people--they exist in their fake universe and are not configured to argue as in using knowledge and reason--they have neither. Most of them are humanities "educated" journos with zero military-academic and operational experiences who live off NYC media-Parnassus and Israeli interest groups in US. No, arguing, debating them is useless. The only way to deal with them is to do what they only can do, in the breaks between writing their sophomoric crap on US "foreign policy", personal (sophisticated) attacks. Most of them are cowards who wouldn't enlist to fight, nor will their children. None of them have any clue nor credentials (this is important) to competently speak on any tactical, operational or strategic issue. In the end, they have no clue about weapons. 

Pointing this out, as did Phil Giraldi in 2011:

“Neoconservatives are characteristically better versed in reading and writing about battles than actually fighting them, though that deficiency has not inhibited their initiation of vast schemes to remake half the world through force of arms.”

Statecraft, especially military craft today, is the realm for truly gifted and exquisitely educated, cultured and experienced--what could possibly some second-rate journo from totally discredited and corrupt US establishment media offer of value on the issue of war remains a puzzle. Until these warmongers and ignoramuses begin to be called for what they are--people who must have their mouths shut on any American war due to them being utterly unqualified, until all their "educational" credentials be exposed for what they are--useless concoction of a humanities' abstracts and glorified English degrees, until they are called out as Israeli shills and until they are forced into debate, which they will lose, on actual military art--until then these SOBs will continue to act as people whose useless opinions matter. But we also have to understand that this type of arrogance and ignorance is what dominates today corridors of US media-political power because it is a demand by the system. In the end, there is simply nobody else out there who could have seriously challenged this state of the affairs--the experience of the last 27 years provides an overwhelming empirical evidence of that. But that is the whole other story.