Define the war and enemy - U.S. Must Understand 21st-Century Combat states Allen West

First major victory in different ways, then another way of thinking.

Islamists are not just based on religion. That's the kind of information that comes from newspaper clippings or fully unaware websites.

Some of the tribes and nations are led by warlords who desire to be the new Salah al Din... better know as Saladin. The Caliph who conquered Jerusalem and other areas. Some are religious others have religious clerics on their side and vice versa, usually for money and/or power. But it is always about power, but without money how can one have an army or weapons of mass destruction.

I am not saddened by who will take over the miniscule, powerless nations, such as Libya. Should the brotherhoods try to rule their way EU is close by since they require oil. And so do the educated Libyans, money for rebuilding.

The big mistake was Iran. One can fault Jimmy Carter for not backing the Shah. He wasn't an ideal ally, but he was far better than all who are in power now. Including the Saudis, supposed allies, who have manipulated.

I stated years ago to the notable Middle East authority, Professor Bernard Lewis, there will be civil wars. That would keep the jihadis somewhat occupied. And we might covertly assist the right side such as the students and secular Persians in Iran.

Democracy would not be easy and quick in the Middle East nations; hence strong military bases or access must remain, such as the navy with firepower — while intelligence is improved. In essence, the bad guys should be defeated then instill another way of thinking. That worked in Germany and Japan.

However, we must define who we are fighting and we must fight differently, which includes educating the public what Islam stands for. Without reform and modernity there will never be peace. Without acceptance of Israel as a state there will always be a scapegoat.

Following is some information about winning the battles.

U.S. MUST UNDERSTAND 21st-CENTURY COMBAT - Republican Allen West

Today’s paradigm of battle and combat operations is completely different from what I experienced in 1982 when I was commissioned as a young lieutenant in the U.S. Army. At that time, the battlefield was much simpler.

In broad strokes, there was the Soviet Union on one side and the United States on the other. We were familiar with their tactics and equipment, and they with ours. Both sides wore uniforms, and every now and then we would stage war games on border control missions.

That paradigm has completely disappeared, leaving in its place an asymmetrical battlefield with non-uniformed, non-state belligerents using unconventional weapons and tactics. If the United States is going to be successful in protecting its citizens and interests, it must quickly understand and adapt to this new battlefield and be prepared for success and victory.

While America may lack an appropriate strategic level perspective, we will never lose at the tactical level on the ground because the United States has the best soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen the world has ever known. But without the correct strategic and operational goals and objectives, we will find ourselves on the proverbial hamster wheel. No matter how much effort we exert on the wheel, we will not make forward progress.

To begin with, we must correctly identify our enemy. It is frankly naive to say we are at war with “terror” because a nation cannot be at war with a tactic. Imagine, if during World War II, the United States went to war against the “blitzkrieg” or the “kamikaze.”

Further, we cannot narrowly define the enemy as simply al-Qaida or the Taliban. It is just as ridiculous to say we declared war against the 12th German Panzer Division or the 55th Japanese Infantry Regiment in World War II or the 7th Guards Tank Division during the Cold War.

Before the rise of al-Qaida, the terrorist group which had inflicted the most damage on the United States was Hezbollah. Now Hezbollah has become a very capable military force, albeit one without state or uniform — so capable in fact, it has armed missiles within striking distance of every city in Israel.

The Obama administration has failed to identify Hezbollah as an enemy. On this 21st century battlefield we are not fighting against a single organization, leader or nation. We are fighting against the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism, manifested at a tactical level as terrorism, which knows no country and recognizes no borders.

Until we, as a nation, are able to correctly and openly identify our enemy, we will continue to put our men and women on the ground in harm’s way without a clear mission for success. Once we have identified the enemy, we must ensure we have clearly identified the specific strategic level objectives to effectively fight. I believe there are four:

1. Deny the enemy sanctuary. The number one asset our military has is strategic mobility. When that is curtailed by a focus on nation-building or occupation-style warfare, we eliminate our primary advantage, and worse, our military forces become targets. Because this enemy has no respect for borders or boundaries, we must be willing to take the fight directly to him.

2. Cut off the enemy’s flow of men, material and resources. We have to interdict the enemy’s flow of resources in order to prevent the ability to fund, supply and replenish his ranks.

3. Win the information war. Unfortunately, the enemy is far more adept at exploiting the power of the Internet, broadcast media and dissemination of powerful imagery. In addition, I fear our media now sees itself as an ideological political wing. If we cannot fully use our own national informational power as an asset, we will lose the strategic battle, if not our country.

4. Cordon off the enemy and reduce his sphere of influence. We must shrink the enemy’s territory, but we are not being effective. We are allowing, if not welcoming, the enemy into the United States. What happened with Maj. Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, should not have happened in this country. We must not turn a blind eye to a very bold enemy who is telling us exactly what he wants to do and is willing to bring the battle to our doorstep.

We must recognize that Afghanistan and Iraq are not distinct wars, but combat theaters of operation. It is up to our elected leaders and our senior military officials to identify and agree on the correct strategic goals and objectives in order to be successful on these battlefields and others. When we have a proper national security strategy, we will have a focused national military strategy, preparing the defense-industrial base to develop the right weapons systems for victory.

We must be mindful of the wise words compiled by Sun Tzu in “The Art of War” more than 25 centuries ago, “to know your enemy and to know yourself and to know the environment and countless amounts of battles, you will always be victorious.” If we do not understand this simple maxim, we face dark days ahead.

For the sake of our nation, and of all nations who seek freedom for their citizens, we must clearly identify the 21st century battlefield and ensure we are victorious on it.

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a retired Army lieutenant colonel, serves on the Armed Services Committee.

 

I've been saying for a while we can't fight an unconventional enemy via conventional warfare. The battlefield is the planet and the ammo is intelligence. We can't just go busting into third world nations shooting because that doesn't solve anything; terrorism is in more places than we could ever be via conventional military power. It's going to take the CIA and FBI doing their jobs and communicating to really fight terror. We don't need to invade, we don't need to take away rights, everything didn't suddenly change on 9/11, we need to keep the course, know there's an enemy, and continue to do what we've been doing. As bad as it sounds it's not like you can stop every attack as is. We've still had multiple failed bombings that were discovered/stopped by civilians rather than government assets.

 

Your right that we can't be at war with "terror" because it is a tactic not an enemy. The four items you list as strategies, I would consider to be tactics. I can't say anything against them as they would appear to be good tactics (although sometimes very hard to achieve) I'm sure the author knows more about military tactics than I do. However, I don't believe anyone could reasonably say that any other nation or group of people have more influence over the internet than us Americans.

I think that the historical and stratgic analysis here is very poor. A lot of leaders in the Mid-East might aspire to be a modern Saladin (he was an Iraqi Kurd). Saladin wasn't a Caliph, but he was an extraordinary leader of great ability. Very few people have the ability to lead a people/nation at that level. I don't think there has been that good a leader in the 21st century so far (Lula might come close).

I'm quite sure a modern Saladin wouldn't be leading a group of terrorists. If any nation has as good a leader as Saladin was, we should try not to have them as an enemy.

Master Sun also observed that long continued wars is distant places almost never benefit the nation which does that, he was actually quite antiwar.