Exum Swerves Off Course

There used to be this neat guy who had a casual blog discussing Middle East politics and various military issues - it was called Abu Muqawama. Then this guy joined CNAS and decided he had the strategic high ground on military and national security issues. He was wrong - he still doesn't know the difference between sound tactics and military strategy, but  that was okay. He's still a good guy at heart. And then he did the Thing that Must Not Be Excused.

Andrew decided that Ross Douthat, NY Times columnist, Bush apologist, and author of "Grand New Party: How the Republicans Can Win the Working Class & Save the American Dream," made senseas to his point of view about military strategy in Afghanistan. Oh, and Andrew also thinks that Sen. Joe Lieberman actually talks sensibly about Iraq and Afghanistan. After Exum's bitchslap to Ralph Peters about his military analysis (who in fairness, had a horrible NY Post editorial), it's odd to see him glowing about Douthat's words. But then again, both Douthat and Lieberman support increases in troop strength and continued "nation-building," as does Andrew Exum. 

Sometimes there appears to be very little difference between left-leaning hawks and right-leaning hawks when it comes to contemporary military issues, for all the guff that you hear about differences between the Repubs and the Dems on national security. But here's the weird thing - conservative hawks who talk about military issues also have a strong awareness of those espousing conservative issues, and they support each other. Liberal hawks who talk about military issues (and aspire to government offices) pretend to be "non-partisan" and make no attempt to understand or work with those discussing liberal issues. Not saying that progressive military analysts should agree with all liberal positions or spokespersons (because some of them are pretty crazy), but it's as if they'd rather be with the conservatives, talking about military issues as if they were nonpartisan.

What I mean to say is that it is unclear whether the liberal hawks/progressive military crowd recognizes that the basis for all military actions is a defined political platform (war as an extension of politics and all that), and so you need to have a clear understanding of what your party's political/social issues are to understand why one is proposing a particular direction. Otherwise you're just changing "must" to "shall" in the directives when one has a change in administration from one side of the political spectrum to the other. But I suppose asking the Dems to be organized and to work together is still a pretty impossible thing to request.

And so you get situations like this, where Exum should know better than to believe anything that a Bush apologist like Douthat or a Bush-lover like Lieberman on any military issue regarding the Middle East. But he doesn't and that's just sad. Andrew, come back from the Dark Side!

Comments

[Bernard Finel]

It is interesting, eh? Exum has really been captured by the "conventional wisdom" crowd. Of course, he's one of the few people still willing to engage others, so I feel bad sniping at him. The rest of them, Nagl, Biddle, Cordesman, the Kagans, etc, stay inside their carefully constructed cocoon and never deign to interact with the unwashed masses.

[J.]

I do like Andrew, enjoyed his book that described his military experience in Afghanistan, regularly read the AM blog before CNAS. But just something I noticed, when CNAS had that Afghanistan strategy conference that starred Prof Bacevich, he really had an attitude going on. I thought, wow, he's really sucked in the hype, he's riding the wave.

Some of that was envy, and yes, he still at least engages the unwashed masses, but I am astounded at his insistence that he "gets" strategic concepts when he's clearly still mired in the tactical/operations mode. But let young Andrew mature, he'll be a fine consultant some day.

[Publius]

You haven't lost Exum because you never had him. He was never what you thought he was. He's always been a work in progress and very much on the make; he now seems to have found the path he thinks will yield the greatest benefit to him personally. In fairness to him, I believe he means well, but as evidenced by a post he made today, he's all over the map and a member of the shifting sands club.

Good insight on Exum's misunderstanding of strategy, J. He doesn't seem to be able to shake loose of that tactical/operational mindset; nor can many of those whom he admires the most. Unfortunately for all of us, these were the people who provided input to McChrystal's recent analysis of the situation in Afghanistan. Even more unfortunately, one wonders if some 4-stars and the president are any better at it.

Well meaning as they may be, I think these people are trying to take the nation into a trainwreck. Perhaps Finel can explain just why it is that so many civilians who've never been to war and don't even have expertise in the area at issue are able to make policy prescriptions with such certitude. Exum and Nagl have at least been to war, but they don't seem to have learned too much from it.

Read Bacevich.

[Bernard Finel]

Hmmm.... we do have a system of civilian control of the military and since we have a relatively small military in terms of personnel as a percentage of the population, these decisions will inevitably be made by civilians who have never been to war. Serving does not increase one's strategic understanding necessarily. The issue isn't about people's service, but rather that some folks are entering this debate with extremely closed minds, and because of poor choices in terms of staffing, being a closed-minded zealot is currently a smart career move.

In the end, if Obama had let Gates go, and had canned Petraeus, we'd be having an honest debate over Afghanistan -- or at least have the possibility of one.

[Publius]

Bernard Finel:

I know where you're coming from and, despite the fact that I am retired Army, I see no reason whatsoever why civilians can't participate as equals. Perhaps I should have fleshed it out a bit by adding that civilians and former military personnel who are ideological zealots can only hurt the decision process if placed in positions of influence. And I think your example of the NCA and Congress, etc., is kind of a red herring: sure, we military folk know who's in charge, but last I looked, folks such as you and the think tankers who participated in the review ain't constitutional officers. In short, you all have no standing or authority whatsoever. Nor do I in a retired status.

I think where I'm coming from in what looks like bias towards the military vantage point is that military officers are traditionally supposed to be somewhat free of ideological bias. Plus military officers sometimes tend to know a bit more about the more boring issues such as logistics, communications, intelligence, troop strengths and capabilities, etc. For example, the feverish incitements to this wonderful COIN strategy in Afghanistan make no mention of the fact that the proposed troop strengths fall woefully short of what the doctrine say is needed. McChrystal knows this, which is why he hedged his bets by noting that even if he gets what he asks for he could still lose. I'll bet people like the Kagans have no appreciation of this cruel reality.

Incidentally, great observation on the "if" of letting Gates go. Yeah, it should have happened that way, but, interestingly enough, it's starting to look as if Gates is having reservations. Couldn't fire Petraeus. Too new in the job and there is no tradition for doing so. Generals aren't political. Right?