Clarity in Warfare: A Luxury We Rarely Get

I watched this video the other day from General Mattis USMC before he became Secretary of Defense. In it he waxes poetic on the nature of war and conflict. The phrase that sticks out for me is about “clearly defined and achievable” goals. He is right that many of the conflicts since World War II lost sight of the goal and muddled through without a clear plan losing the support of the American public. What generals never say though is that war, by its nature, is organic and plans change direction like a vine running up a fence post. The public either accepts it or loses patience.

Secretary Mattis believes the first gulf war met the ‘clear and achievable’ standard, protect Kuwait from an encroaching dictator and support the United Nations’ sanction of Saddam’s regime. Despite the coalition effort (a NATO led effort) the bombing campaign took on a more offensive role once ground troops invaded from Saudi Arabia and finished the war in about a month.Who doesn’t love a quick decisive war? Rarely are the lines that straight or the timelines so short. By limiting the goals however, Saddam was left in power to wreak havoc on his northern neighbors the Kurds. 

  

I should be clear here. Wars/conflicts/overseas operations should be limited and approached with extreme caution and clarity. Beyond that, be prepared for objectives to change, people to die and mistakes (often in bunches) to be a regular part of ongoing efforts. Most wars are this way. The assault on Omaha beach in 1944 was technically ‘successful’ because it gave the Allied forces a much needed foothold into occupied Europe. But the Allies lost over 4000 men in that one invasion and the event changed forever the appetite for attacks on the beach. The Market Garden campaign was mostly disastrous as Allied troops racked up huge losses to minor advances.

The war in Europe was constantly messy as Allies gained and lost territory; the Pacific theater was even bloodier, victory meant attacking tiny islands and losing incredible numbers.

I know I know Germany and Japan presented the world with an existential crisis. Victory meant survival. Resisting an invader is hardly a choice.

World War II had clear objectives from the start but imagine how many times Eisenhower and Marshall adjusted tactics, changed plans? One looming problem throughout the war for the US and Britain was how to keep the development of the A bomb a secret from Russia. Although technically an ally, Stalin was a potential threat to move west across a destroyed Eastern Europe. "How much should we tell them?" was a hotly debated point among F.D.R and Churchill. Decisions about the Russians changed as their success against the Germans changed in the Eastern Theater.

Insisting on adherence to ‘clearly defined and achievable’ goals isn’t practical and looks like excuse making when anything changes. Americans had to force down huge spoonfulls of ‘clear and achievable’ medicine during the Iraq war every day that Saddam’s chemical weapons went undiscovered. If there was ever a limited war with specific goals Iraq was it. Find the weapons. Arrest Saddam. Let Iraqis choose their government. In less than a year all 3 objectives changed. What looked like a ‘clear objective’ for war got turned upside down quicker than a salt shaker. It happens because war is rarely clear. It is a genuine luxury to tune in and out of foreign wars like we’re changing the channel on a military show that has suddenly become boring. “Oh not this again…see what else is on.”

Lest you think Iraq (second gulf war) was an outlier remember how Vietnam went. This is partly what Mattis is talking about. A stalled war without an endgame is disastrous for troops and potentially drags on. It isn’t that people lose focus on war because objectives are not clear. But that a lack of clear objectives becomes an excuse for a public to lose interest. “Stay the course” becomes “What is the point?” The Bush administration’s hard sell of Weapons of Mass Destruction created some additional hand wringing when none were discovered. That was their fault but other reasons existed for capturing Saddam. Both Iraq and Afghanistan had some flawed planning and unrealistic notions on insurgency and trustworthy partners but the wholesale rejection of the effort is dishonest.

I am not against limiting goals for conflicts. It should be the standard for every foreign affair whether military action or diplomatic mission. Clearly defined objectives though have taken a sound idea and fetishized it. It serves for many as an excuse for why something didn’t work out, an easy line for detractors to spout.

 “Well they didn’t have clear objectives and lost their focus you know. The American public lost interest when the war started going bad.” It’s a generic statement heard too often in recent history. Public support is a real thing and wars shouldn’t drag on but we don’t fight wars the way we used to. We could bomb Kabul and Kandahar like Dresden and build a new city on the rubble but somehow I don’t think the public would like it either.

Having a modern fighting force requires taking the good with the bad and understanding our importance in a global setting. I don’t think General Mattis is wrong about the need for clarity, few understand how planning changes in the course of a conflict better than him.

We don’t apply the same standards in life however because situations are by nature complicated many of them are due to decisions by previous leaders. Imagine a son taking over a business due to the sudden death of his father. After going over the details of the company he begins to realize the high levels of debt taken on by his father. The company is barely solvent and requires major restructuring. Now imagine the son saying “I’m sorry I need a clear set of objectives that doesn’t muddle the picture. This thing needs to be over in a few months or the family is going to lose interest.”

 It isn’t a perfect example of conflict, but does show the thread of commonality from one event to another.

.