Do we even need to win the war? This is a serious question. If the key strategic objectives can be met without a conventional end state, is winning the war itself necessary?
This may seem like a stupid question, but clearly there has to be some reason why every decision maker within the system is incentivised to continue with the current state of things. I wonder if they have come to the conclusion that the long-term cost-to-benefit ratio of winning wars is too low to merit the type of strategy and resources you're describing. Maybe they've just created a new way to have a perpetual strategic presence without the typical costs of one?
Potentially yes, but aren't there political and ideological costs to forever wars?
In my mind, a persistent American military conflict helps further the opposition argument that we are bullies, infidels, crusaders bent on domination and disinterested in truly helping. I guess it depends on the problem we are attempting to solve.
It does come back to the problem we're attempting to solve. What if you could side step all of the political and ideological hang ups most people have and still get what you want? All you have to do is refine your goals and what you're willing to do to get there.
One of Putin's most trusted advisors is Vladislav Surkov, who used to publish avant-garde poetry and loves deconstructionist art. He has now deconstructed war for Putin and advanced the Gerasimov doctrine [1] to create a very different work of art. He recently wrote a science fiction story called "Without the Sky" as a way to describe his thesis on non-linear warfare. Here is a quote from the translation by Peter Pomerantsev;
"""
It was the first non-linear war. In the primitive wars of the 19th and 20th centuries it was common for just two sides to fight. Two countries. Two groups of allies. Now four coalitions collided. Not two against two, or three against one. No. All against all.
And what coalitions! Not like the ones you had before… It was rare for whole countries to enter. A few provinces would join one side, a few others a different one. One town or generation or gender would join yet another. Then they could switch sides, sometimes mid-battle.
Their aims were quite different. To take over a disputed coastal shelf. To forcefully introduce a new religion. Raise ratings. Try out new lasers. To stop humans being divided into men and women as gender differences undermine the unity of a nation.
Most understood the war to be part of a process. Not necessarily its most important part.
Within this deconstruction, conflict is not a means to an end. Conflict is an end to itself. The fact that all sides are fighting all sides is desired and encouraged, as it ensures the strategic objective as a whole. For instance, the article mentions that in Syria the allies we arm are bombing each other. People armed by the Pentagon are bombing the group armed by the CIA. What if this was the desired state? Assad is weakened, there is continuous presence in Syria, allies use the US to ward off against other allies, creating voluntary strategic dependence without requiring any boots on the ground.
No one even needs to do regime change. The regime is weakened and if things fall apart too much, it can be strengthened with a deeper alliance to pay-off the expensive conflict. Strategically speaking, the end-state perspective over here is perhaps superior to that of a conventional war, as all of this can be theoretically accomplished without having any formal boots on the ground.
Simultaneously, can the Syrians really view us as the enemy in this new war? There are after all no American troops on the ground. Sure a lot of the parties have American backing, but they sought out that backing and letting it be known works to our advantage and with the right propaganda it can be cast as giving control of their homeland back to them with American help. Especially if troops never follow.
This new form of war is ideologically and politically safe, while being extremely effective.
This "safe" war is producing millions of refugees in neighbouring countries further destabilising that region. A good many of them headed and will continue to head for Europe with likely negative political and economical effects ranging from rise of far right, rising resentment between countries and growing wish to opt out of EU which however faulty its implementation doubtlessly is, almost certainly made continent more stable.
USA may not be affected at first degree, but since this is a fairly well off market of 500 million souls, crashing it would screw everyone.
(Also, I find expectations on how Syrians would read USA involvement just wishful thinking)
I agree. I'm just trying to understand the other position without condoning or condemning.
Step into their perspective. From what I have read, a lot of strategists seem to feel that these conflicts have an inevitability to them. The pieces were put on the board a long time ago. The question everyone seems to be asking is how they can play their turn. The algorithm at play is unlikely to be achieving peace - as that may well be unattainable within the near future.
Again without condemnation or condonance, can you see why a strategist might choose this option while being perfectly rational and valid within their frame of reference?
> (Also, I find expectations on how Syrians would read USA involvement just wishful thinking)
Russian involvement in Syria is certainly looked at as that way i.e. they're propping up Assad as opposed to driving aggression and making major strategic moves.
What "key strategic objectives" are you talking about?
The elimination of Al Quaida in particular?
The US presiding over a series of failed states throughout the world where they endless hunt for terrorists seems like an insane plan - but a plan which seems to be shaping up as the objective of US policy.
The appearance of ISIS etc within the areas devastated by US intervention is entirely logical. Both ISIS and Al Qaida were forces armed by the US with the aim of destroying earlier enemies. It's depressing to even have to outline the pattern here.
> The US presiding over a series of failed states throughout the world where they endless hunt for terrorists seems like an insane plan - but a plan which seems to be shaping up as the objective of US policy.
Interesting in context of the original comment: Russia is effectively doing the same in the Caucasus and attempting to do so in Syria and Ukraine, albeit as ineffectively as the US' attempts to do so in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US has long presided over successful, or at least stable (if not at all laudable) states in the Middle East for some time, but is losing its ability to do so, as those states lose their ability to maintain control over their internal affairs and neighbors. Both actors' failure to establish or support viable states in those regions have led to resentment, instability and radicalization, manifesting in violence aimed at them (international terrorism) and those states they've attempted to create or maintain (domestic terrorism and/or civil warfare).
Neither has had any obviously obtainable military objective for some time--while both are able to win conventional battles easily, winning conventional battles no longer has much useful effect, as they are not fighting or attempting control or defeat states, they are attempting to fight and defeat and/or control populaces/nations, which is impossible unless you wish to enact a genocide. Any goals of engendering stable, successful, independent nation-states cannot be accomplished by military means, nor can Russia or the US accomplish anything by waging a conventional war against states of equal power.
I honestly don't know. It's probably not what is said publicly. It's whatever some document somewhere that requires a high clearance to read lays out.
For what its worth, I agree with you. I'm just trying to think about the problem from the other side. What do the people who are actually making this policy thinking? Clearly they aren't idiots, so why are they making the "wrong" choices repeatedly?
This may seem like a stupid question, but clearly there has to be some reason why every decision maker within the system is incentivised to continue with the current state of things. I wonder if they have come to the conclusion that the long-term cost-to-benefit ratio of winning wars is too low to merit the type of strategy and resources you're describing. Maybe they've just created a new way to have a perpetual strategic presence without the typical costs of one?