Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR)
Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR)
Posted on Apr 27, 2016
U.S. Campaign in Iraq and Syria: Another Vietnam?
26.3K
32
27
12
12
0
He inferred it. U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) compared our floundering in the Middle East to the conflict that took years off of his life as a U.S. Navy pilot and prisoner of war.
He said, in a letter to Department of Defense Secretary Ash Carter, “My conversations with military commanders both on the ground and in the Pentagon have led me to the disturbing, yet unavoidable conclusion that they have been reduced from considering what it will take to win to what they will be allowed to do by this administration.” He said that the U.S. fight against Islamic State militants risks becoming “another slow, grinding failure” like the Vietnam War.
Strategically speaking, Sen. McCain is right. Just like politics prevented the mining of Haiphong Harbor, the main gateway of international (read: Chinese) supply to the North Vietnamese, politics prevents our military from doing its job in Iraq and Syria.
Further examination of our current fight reveals disturbing patterns of incompetence, or recalcitrance.
"If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail." That quote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but was used for effect by Gen. George S. Patton, who is most likely rolling over in his grave regarding our failing Middle East campaign. Patton was famous for saying, “A good plan, executed violently today, is better than the perfect plan next week.”
Part of that rationale is that the longer you wait, the longer your enemy has to prepare, or move, or do something else unpredicted. It seems our plans for success in the Middle East and in combating global terror are nonexistent, myopic or just plain bad.
Recently officials at the Pentagon were talking about augmenting Special Forces troops already in Syria. How many? No one is saying. But this much is certain, more Special Forces doesn’t mean destroying the enemy and then holding ground. At best it means harassment, and at worst it means more high value targets for the enemy.
The "no boots on the ground" White House philosophy along with drones, bombs and Special Forces does not a winning wartime strategy make.
As chefs from India may lament when faced with the French culinary couture of, "a pinch here, and a pinch there," say, "If you're going to spice the food, PUT IT IN!"
If you're going to win the war, PUT IT IN.
And the "IT" here is our effort. Effort beats talent when talent doesn't work hard, and the Islamists are working hard while we keep our starting team on the bench.
PUT IT IN means if you want to win then let loose the dogs of war and send in the starting team, the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and the United States Marine Corps.
I have heard pundits claim, "You can’t beat ISIS by sending in tens of thousands of troops." The hell you can’t!
If you hold all the ground and keep it, your enemy cannot exist in any meaningful way. Those who are left will find something else to do.
Back to the planning part. Backwards planning is the hallmark of good military thinking. The first question is always about the last thing. What is the objective? What is the end state? And then, how do we get there from here?
If the end game is peace in the Middle East, then we must be willing to stay in the Middle East. In WWII, we defeated our enemies, liberated oppressed citizens and then stayed. We had the Marshall Plan to help rebuild the infrastructure and subsidize the defense of these former enemies.
Germany, Japan and Italy, now among the most peaceful and prosperous countries on earth, are that way not in spite of the United States, but because of the United States. We are still there, over 70 years after the end of WWII. Not as conquerors, but as liberators, friends and allies.
What these countries didn’t spend on self-defense after WWII because of our presence they spent on infrastructure and industry. Now, looking at the Middle East we may have no choice but to re-engage the enemy on a large scale, but to what end?
Why isn't the administration and why aren't the mainstream media talking about our goals? What do we hope to achieve and how?
It's not about how many troops - always a favorite liberal wrongheaded distraction - it's about winning the war and then securing the peace. It is also not about abandoning the battle like President Obama did in Iraq in late 2011, when he withdrew all U.S. forces without making any effort to obtain or negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement.
We need to annihilate the Islamic State and make global Islamist terrorism unprofitable to those who wish to perpetrate it. And the sooner the West accepts that Islam is a political movement, a theocracy, masquerading as a religion, the sooner we can get on with the dirty job of eliminating it once and for all. In the meantime, let us stop pussyfooting around in Iraq and Syria and kill the damn bastards.
After all, the U.S. military operation in Iraq and Syria is called “Inherent Resolve.” Literally, this means “permanent solution”; permanent solution to what exactly, and how?
The symbolism on the new Operation Inherent Resolve service medal evokes the Crusades, with its armored hand holding an erect dagger (skewering a scorpion by the way) could be construed as representing religious zealotry.
It is said that the Islamic State often uses the Crusades to inform its followers of the motivations of its enemies, non-Muslims. I say, let them!
The Crusades were actually the Christian answer to centuries of Islamist expansion, and now enough is enough.
There should be no more Mr. Nice Guy. No more appeasement. No more indecision or politically correct thinking. No more innocent lives lost.
Inherent Resolve? Are they just words, or is somebody actually going to DO something about it in our lifetimes?
Unless we make a full and honest effort to defeat the forces of terror we risk repeating history in the worst way.
When politics and military goals are different (Vietnam), we fail. When they are the same (WWII), we win.
When will we demand victory of our representatives in Congress and of the President?
--
I am the author of "Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior," and three times mobilized U.S. Army Reserve Major (Retired). See more of my work on the SBPRA website under: montgomeryjgranger
He said, in a letter to Department of Defense Secretary Ash Carter, “My conversations with military commanders both on the ground and in the Pentagon have led me to the disturbing, yet unavoidable conclusion that they have been reduced from considering what it will take to win to what they will be allowed to do by this administration.” He said that the U.S. fight against Islamic State militants risks becoming “another slow, grinding failure” like the Vietnam War.
Strategically speaking, Sen. McCain is right. Just like politics prevented the mining of Haiphong Harbor, the main gateway of international (read: Chinese) supply to the North Vietnamese, politics prevents our military from doing its job in Iraq and Syria.
Further examination of our current fight reveals disturbing patterns of incompetence, or recalcitrance.
"If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail." That quote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but was used for effect by Gen. George S. Patton, who is most likely rolling over in his grave regarding our failing Middle East campaign. Patton was famous for saying, “A good plan, executed violently today, is better than the perfect plan next week.”
Part of that rationale is that the longer you wait, the longer your enemy has to prepare, or move, or do something else unpredicted. It seems our plans for success in the Middle East and in combating global terror are nonexistent, myopic or just plain bad.
Recently officials at the Pentagon were talking about augmenting Special Forces troops already in Syria. How many? No one is saying. But this much is certain, more Special Forces doesn’t mean destroying the enemy and then holding ground. At best it means harassment, and at worst it means more high value targets for the enemy.
The "no boots on the ground" White House philosophy along with drones, bombs and Special Forces does not a winning wartime strategy make.
As chefs from India may lament when faced with the French culinary couture of, "a pinch here, and a pinch there," say, "If you're going to spice the food, PUT IT IN!"
If you're going to win the war, PUT IT IN.
And the "IT" here is our effort. Effort beats talent when talent doesn't work hard, and the Islamists are working hard while we keep our starting team on the bench.
PUT IT IN means if you want to win then let loose the dogs of war and send in the starting team, the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and the United States Marine Corps.
I have heard pundits claim, "You can’t beat ISIS by sending in tens of thousands of troops." The hell you can’t!
If you hold all the ground and keep it, your enemy cannot exist in any meaningful way. Those who are left will find something else to do.
Back to the planning part. Backwards planning is the hallmark of good military thinking. The first question is always about the last thing. What is the objective? What is the end state? And then, how do we get there from here?
If the end game is peace in the Middle East, then we must be willing to stay in the Middle East. In WWII, we defeated our enemies, liberated oppressed citizens and then stayed. We had the Marshall Plan to help rebuild the infrastructure and subsidize the defense of these former enemies.
Germany, Japan and Italy, now among the most peaceful and prosperous countries on earth, are that way not in spite of the United States, but because of the United States. We are still there, over 70 years after the end of WWII. Not as conquerors, but as liberators, friends and allies.
What these countries didn’t spend on self-defense after WWII because of our presence they spent on infrastructure and industry. Now, looking at the Middle East we may have no choice but to re-engage the enemy on a large scale, but to what end?
Why isn't the administration and why aren't the mainstream media talking about our goals? What do we hope to achieve and how?
It's not about how many troops - always a favorite liberal wrongheaded distraction - it's about winning the war and then securing the peace. It is also not about abandoning the battle like President Obama did in Iraq in late 2011, when he withdrew all U.S. forces without making any effort to obtain or negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement.
We need to annihilate the Islamic State and make global Islamist terrorism unprofitable to those who wish to perpetrate it. And the sooner the West accepts that Islam is a political movement, a theocracy, masquerading as a religion, the sooner we can get on with the dirty job of eliminating it once and for all. In the meantime, let us stop pussyfooting around in Iraq and Syria and kill the damn bastards.
After all, the U.S. military operation in Iraq and Syria is called “Inherent Resolve.” Literally, this means “permanent solution”; permanent solution to what exactly, and how?
The symbolism on the new Operation Inherent Resolve service medal evokes the Crusades, with its armored hand holding an erect dagger (skewering a scorpion by the way) could be construed as representing religious zealotry.
It is said that the Islamic State often uses the Crusades to inform its followers of the motivations of its enemies, non-Muslims. I say, let them!
The Crusades were actually the Christian answer to centuries of Islamist expansion, and now enough is enough.
There should be no more Mr. Nice Guy. No more appeasement. No more indecision or politically correct thinking. No more innocent lives lost.
Inherent Resolve? Are they just words, or is somebody actually going to DO something about it in our lifetimes?
Unless we make a full and honest effort to defeat the forces of terror we risk repeating history in the worst way.
When politics and military goals are different (Vietnam), we fail. When they are the same (WWII), we win.
When will we demand victory of our representatives in Congress and of the President?
--
I am the author of "Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior," and three times mobilized U.S. Army Reserve Major (Retired). See more of my work on the SBPRA website under: montgomeryjgranger
Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR)
Iraq
Vietnam War
Command Post
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
5
5
0
If politicians kept their noses out of what needs to be done, it would get done right.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
its time that the millitary and govt acknowoledge that iraq was a big mistake if saddam was still in power then isis wont be a problem
(3)
(0)
SSG Dennis Grossmann
I have to disagree with you on this MSG, there were Al Quaeda in Iraq, Saddam and his psychotic sons needed to be stopped. He was thumbing his nose at UN inspectors during Clintons Presidency. The fact that the POTUS pulled troops out too early and against the advice of Military Leaders. Knowing the Iraqi Army was incapable of doing things by themselves left the country open to ISIS. Not to mention the support of the Arab Spring which is another action from an inept and unqualified egomaniac.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I feel this conflict is like no other in recent history,this is religious war not a war fought against communism,fascism,or a war over resources,land or national identity.a purely military solution is I am afraid a pie in the sky wish.I truly am afraid our grandchildren will be facing this mess God help us all
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google