I would argue that the notion underlying these rules is the idea that “winning the war can be accomplished by winning them over” aka “winning hearts and minds”. “Winning over” someone usually requires placing their welfare and desires above your own (e.g. tolerating behavior you otherwise would not tolerate, giving favors and resources that you would otherwise prefer to keep for yourself). This approach is entirely consistent with risking the safety and welfare of US troops for the sake of public opinion, and with spending billions of dollars of US taxpayer money on proving infrustructure for Afghanistan with no hope for return on investment. The obvious problem with this approach is that although it seems to work (on occasion) on a personal level, there is no evidence that it works on a large scale/national level.

The tragedy of the current perverse policies and rules of engagement was painfully illustrated in this recent “60 Minutes” segment “Afghanistan: Golf Company”:
– http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5377315n

Jim

1. You mentioned “our troops.” Sir: the soldiers and military assets in question in no way belong to you or to your readers. They belong to the erstwhile entity known as the United States government (EKATUSG) or United States. That entity owns you and your readers as well. Ownership is ultimate control. The (EKATUSG) can seize me or you or anybody and all your assets at any time for any reason or no reason and dispose of them according to the whim of some petty functionary. (EKATUSG) by virtue of the body of law it uses to justify its activities allows this. That they don’t do this sort of thing out in the open means the (EKATUSG) is a totalitarian police state, albeit a not a particularly draconian police state. Additionally, using the pronoun “our” meaning “the possessive case of we used as an attributive adjective” indicates collective thinking. Objectivism rejects collectivism.

2. You speak of “security.” So did Benjamen Franklin “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” But more importantly, there can be no collective security, for there can be no collectives. Rand knew this. You should too.

3. You wrote of “lives of our troops.” Sir, the fate and or welfare of soldiers belonging to your master, (EKATUSG), is none of your concern or mine. They sold their services and lives long ago to (EKATUSG). Mind your own business.

4. You spoke of “morally obliged” as if you thought morality Objective, but for you that is a stolen concept fallacy. You deny the genetic root of morality, objective existence, by asserting you are part of the collective. Hence you have no epistemic right to speak against social contract morality or subjective rights stemming from the arbitrary dictates of your master’s servants. Besides “To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence”, wrote Sun Tzu in Art of War; “supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” elucidated he his pupils. S&D sweeps don’t work, and it will not do to replace one tyranny with another. General McChrystal is a competent warrior who understands that he is not Ghensis Khan.

5. You complain about the distribution of humanitarian aid. Counter insurgency campaigns are the most difficult form of warfare. If General McChrystal were to order the entire of Afghanistan carpet bombed and all its people murdered, would your precious master then not be seen as a great evil by the rest of the world? “Now the reason the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievements surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge.” wisely counselled Sun Tzu; “Of all those in the army close to the commander none is more intimate than the secret agent; of all rewards none more liberal than those given to secret agents; of all matters none is more confidential than those relating to secret operations. ” continued the sage. To get foreknowledge secret agents are needed. One cannot win agents over by killing their friends and families.

6. You cited “they fight with one arm tied behind their backs.” By citing this you indicate a predilection to total war against all living in theater. Afghanistan is not ww2 Germany or Japan. This conflict has a strategic purpose for your master other than destroying the Taliban. You fail to understand that because you are not committed to your own self first and foremost. The objectivist should prioritize themselves first, family second, lassize faire capitalism third, minding her own business forth, objective philosophy fifth. The objectivist should have no loyalty to any country or state because political entities are means to ends and not ends in and of their own instantiations. The United states of America is a screwdriver, and its broken. If your smart you’ll find a country where freedom and lassize faire capitalism are more important than war.

Sincerely, RB

Usually the thought process goes something like this, ill quote from several articles by William Lind and Martin Van Creveld, who are very influential thinker and writer on military theory. For example, Lind says in an article called ‘A Memo to the President’:

“The military theory that allows us to see this is the work of Colonel John Boyd, USAF. Boyd argued that war is fought on three levels: the moral, the mental and the physical. Of the three, the moral level is the most powerful, the physical level is the least powerful and the mental level lies between the other two.”

He explains this idea in another article as follows:
“The physical level — killing people and blowing things up — is the least powerful level. The mental level, where maneuver warfare is largely waged — getting inside the other guy’s head — is more powerful than the physical. But the moral level is the most powerful level of all. It is here that guerrilla war is waged, and it is here that sparing enemy lives can pay great dividends. An enemy whose homes are bombed, families killed and soldiers slaughtered gets angry. He wants revenge. The conflict becomes a blood feud, and it cannot be settled until our blood is spilled along with his.”

So, for example in the recent debate between Obama and Cheney of whether we should torture or not, Lind says:

“Cheney won the debate by drawing the usual Republican distinction, that between doing what is necessary for national security and being nice. If Republicans are allowed to frame the issue that way, they will always win. But in fact, theirs is a false position. We do not have to choose between doing what works in the “war on terrorism” and doing what is morally right. The two are the same.”

“Cheney argued that we should sacrifice the moral level to the physical. We should engage in torture because it may gain us information that could prevent another attack like 9/11. That could be the case.”

“But Boyd’s theory would respond that the defeat we suffer on the moral level by adopting a policy of torture will outweigh any benefits torture might bring us on the physical level of war. How so? By pumping up the “terrorists” will, cohesion and ability to cooperate while diminishing our own.

In effect, both our enemies and our allies will come to see us as evil. That enables enemies to recruit, raise money, and generate new operations while we must focus internally on papering over cracks in our coalitions. They gain greater harmony, while we face increased friction, Boyd’s dread “many non-cooperative centers of gravity.” They pull together, we are pulled apart.”

“For President Obama and other opponents of torture, the important fact here is that, if we understand what Boyd is saying, we no longer face the choice Cheney offered. We need not choose between doing what military necessity commands and acting morally. Military necessity itself demands that we act morally. The real choice is between doing what wins wars and loses wars, with Cheney arguing for the latter. Suddenly, it is the Republicans who are on the wrong side of the “national security” issue.”

In another article, he describes this idea again, but this time pertaining to how we should act on the battlefield:

“What “wins” at the tactical and physical levels may lose at the operational, strategic, mental and moral levels, where 4GW is decided. Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that the British Army has taken more casualties than it has inflicted”.”

So what does he take as being moral in war? Well, of course, altruism.

Another example is in one of the central ideas which he calls, “The Power of Weakness”:

“that what wins at the physical level tends to lead to defeat at the moral level. Goliath may mop the floor with his smaller, weaker opponents, but in doing so he makes himself universally hated”

“It is power on the moral level that brings recruits, money, good press, and, perhaps, victory.”

Or as Van Creveld points out:

“In private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five-year old – even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife – will be perceived as committing a crime; therefore, he will lose the support of bystanders and end up being arrested, tried and convicted. In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up losing the support of its allies, its own people and its troops. Depending on the quality of the forces…things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.

In other words, he who fights against the weak – and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed – and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force, however rich, however powerful, however advanced, however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat…That is why the present adventure will almost certainly end as the previous one (Vietnam) did. Namely, with the last U.S. troops fleeing the country while hanging on to their helicopters’ skids.”

Many people take altruism as intrinsic in human nature. It is intrisic to root for David over any Goliath, ignoring the context of who’s fighting and what they are fighting for. Or as John Sayen writes,

” weakness increases their power by turning their struggle into a David and Goliath contest, and who roots for Goliath?”

“What would fighting the strong do for them? Being David rather than Goliath, they would see themselves as noble. Every victory would be a cause for genuine pride. Defeats would not mean disgrace, but instead would demand greater effort and higher performance. Even after a failure, they could still look at themselves in the mirror with pride. Knowing they faced a stronger enemy, their own cohesion would grow and their demand for self-discipline would increase.”

A few years ago during the whole should we attack and level Fajullah or not incident, Lind wrote:

“Unfortunately, our leaders do not understand the Fourth Generation, so it appears we are about to throw this opportunity away. We continue to bomb and shell Fallujah, which pushes our enemies toward each other. We seem to be readying an all-out assault on the city, which will have the usual result when Goliath defeats David: a moral defeat for Goliath. Many Iraqis will die, the city will be wrecked (as always, we will promise to rebuild it but not do so), and any losses the insurgents suffer will be made up many times over by a flood of new recruits. Never was it more truly said that, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.””

Implicit in all of this is the belief that if the world thinks we are evil then we are evil, irrespective of the facts and the context of the situation. War is turned into a giant popularity context to see who can be more saintly than the other, and of course we can’t win because we are powerful wealthy and successful.