Discussion on e1-3-post-here-by-clicking-discuss-this-page-or-reply-to-this-discussion-below-by-monday-june-29

[oc]

Audrey S.
View profile
More options Jun 29, 1:44 pm
Note: Hey classmates, it would be a good idea if we all post our
essays under one discussion. It makes it easier to read each other's
work and it's probably easier for Prof O'C to see them all in one
place for grading. :)
E1.3
In Andrew Bacevich’s October 2008 article The Petraeus
Doctrine and
as well as in his book The Limits of Power (2009), he grossly
underestimates the efficacy of America’s military. From his point of
view, the military is putting more focus on counterinsurgency rather
than conventional combat, resulting in a weak foundation for military
training. While Bacevich has no faith in current military tactics, I
believe that the American military can benefit from the study and
practice of both conventional combat and counterinsurgency.
In the article, Bacevich writes, “… the Army… is entering an
era in
which armed conflict will be…continuous—with the application of force
becoming a lesser part of the soldier’s repertoire.” There is no way
that the American military would take the focus off of the use of
force. Soldiers must be trained in conventional combat for the cases
where success via counterinsurgency is little to none. In the book,
he asserts that the military experience after 9/11 have conveyed the
wrong lessons. Under the guise of being one of these ill-drawn
lessons
he mockingly points out, “Wherever possible, the warrior will […]
function as a diplomat, mediator and relief worker.” (134) Diplomacy
is an excellent skill for a soldier to have and should not be
discounted. Peaceful negotiations should try and be made before a
soldier decides to use force. He goes on and says, “Local conditions
will dictate technique, dooming the Pentagon’s effort to devise a […]
single template applicable across the entire spectrum of
conflict.” (135) It would only makes sense that strategy be relative
to the culture of the region the military is dealing with. This
method
would effectively assist in ensuring diplomacy and a possibly
peaceful
resolution.
But because diplomacy isn’t always effective, Bacevich has the
right
idea to maintain that conventional warfare is still relevant.
However,
he should also not dismiss counterinsurgency so easily. Having
fundamental training in both aspects of tactics would be favorable
for
the American military. Other nations could very well be capable of
employing both tactics therefore; American soldiers must also know
this strategy. In times of war, one should strive to be at least one
step ahead of the enemy to ensure the safety of their comrades,
themselves and their nation. According to an article published in The
American Forces Press Service on February 13 2009, journalist John J.
Kruzel reported that Marine Corps. General James N. Mattis who is the
commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command has urgently expressed the
necessity for the military to form a hybrid army. General Mattis
predicted that the “United States will fight 21st century war among
hybrid conditions and emphasized the need to maintain focus on the
mixed-type of warfare and to make irregular war a core competency.”
Bacevich should keep in mind that with the ever changing
technological
advances in today’s world, the military must keep up with the pace to
ensure the safety of the American people.
Bibliography
Bacevich, A. 2009. Introduction, War without limits. The limits of
power: the end of American exceptionalism. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
Bacevich, A. 2008, Oct. The Patraeus Doctrine, The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/petraeus-doctrine
Valkovic, M. and B. M. Burton. 2008, Oct. 1. Crusader mentality: a
response to Andrew Bacevich. Small Wars Journal.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/docs-temp/101-valkovic.pdf
Kruzel, J.J. 2009, February 13. U.S. Must Prepare for ‘Hybrid’
Warfare, General Says. American Forces Press Service Department of
Defense News
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=53089

Reply Reply to author Forward Rate this post:

oc
View profile
More options Jun 29, 2:23 pm
Audrey S:
thanks
o'c

[Shirley H]

If Time Can Heal, Why Pay the “COIN” Now
In their October 1, 2008 Small Wars Journal Op-Ed, Crusader
Mentality; A response to Andrew Bacevich, Matthew E. Valkovic and
Brian M Burton, misidentify the benefits of counterinsurgency training
that Bacevich opposes. Valkovic, M. and Burton, B. argue that contrary
to Bacevich's belief, the Army is still a force to be reckoned with in
conventional combat fighting even though force-on-force maneuver
training is no longer the sole focus of basic training, as a
considerable portion of the time is now devoted to counterinsurgency
(COIN) training. It is difficult to comprehend the possibility that
the Army will be equally prepared for it's conventional force-on-force
role when the time spent on such training is significantly reduced.
Valkovic, M. and Burton, B. further assert that counterinsurgency is
necessary to more effectively prosecute the wars of today, yet fail to
recognize the truth that an Army equipped with the skills to perform
counterinsurgency and stability operations will be called upon to
utilize those skills, furthering the longevity of “small wars” that
are highly questionable for America to be involved in at all. Rather
than overextend and overwhelm our soldiers in the expectation for them
to learn and perform duties that are not part of their job
description, it is far wiser to reconsider America's foreign policy,
and remove ourselves from our self-proclaimed role of “savior of
world.”

Valkovic, M. and Burton, B. (2008) insist that while military
training has now expanded to what is termed as “full spectrum
operations” with the inclusion of COIN training in addition to the
conventional warfare maneuver training, that “...[the] Army... is
still very much a force concerned with its conventional combat role.”
Yet as Bacevich, A. points out in his 2009 book, Limits of Power, the
military is expecting “Wherever possible, the warrior will [be]...
functioning as diplomat, mediator, and relief worker.” (p. 134) It
stands to reason that soldiers who are required to perform such a
broad range of different skills will become essentially, “jacks-of-all-
trades,” and masters of none. It is an outlandish assumption that it
is possible for each soldier to become proficient at all of these
skills and transition easily from an irregular warfare role to a
conventional combat role, without something to be left lacking. And
indeed, what is left lacking is “conventional-warfare capabilities
that are already eroding,” which even officer corps have lamented, as
Bacevich provides in his October 2008 essay, The Petraeus Doctrine.
Valkovic, M. and Burton, B. (2008) then continue to admonish Bacevich
for undermining the supposed importance of counterinsurgency which
they believe is necessary to preserve U. S. national security, to
which they ask “ When did striving to fight America's current wars
better become the wrong thing to do?” It can be empathetically agreed
that striving to fight and win our wars more effectively is a desired
objective, yet asking our troops to engage in COIN operations does not
achieve this purpose. Contrary to overly optimistic belief that
practicing irregular warfare techniques will establish self-
sufficiency and effective governance in the countries we have invaded,
it is far more likely that in the pursuit of these ends, by these
means, there will be a resulting dependance of these countries on our
military as these states continue to fail in rebuilding their
societies by themselves while the U.S. continues to meddle, thereby
extending the persistent presence of the U.S. troops. Valkovic, M.
and Burton, B. also criticize Bacevich for offering no alternative
solutions to America's predicament, and demand “Is America suppose
to... act like the past seven years never happened? ...[and] go back
to preparing for conventional wars... rather than the irregular ones
it actually is fighting?” The answer here is undeniably a no, yet the
lessons we should take from the war to date in order to determine the
future course of the Long War should not result in charging our
soldiers with the enormous responsibility of nation-building. Such a
course will only further drive America down it's path of enduring
frequent, perpetual small wars as a normal part of our nation's
culture as “war in this context implies not only coercion but also
social engineering.” (Bacevich, A. 2008, October)

According to Bacevich, (2009) “America doesn't need a bigger army.
It needs a smaller—foreign policy, one that assigns soldiers missions
that are consistent with their capabilities.” (p. 169) Therein lies
Bacevich's proposed solution to America's current predicament.
American government must reassess it's self-appointed stature of “sole
superpower” bearing on the impossible responsibility of enlightening
the rest of the world in our theories related to freedom, politics and
religion. To continue trekking across the globe with military troops
destroying pathways before us, creating so-called preventative small
wars in the name of peace, upon nations that have little desire for
our presence, will “invite inevitable overextension, bankruptcy, and
ruin.” (Bacevich, A. 2009, p. 169) The needed change should not be
occurring within the military troops who are seeking to evolve in
their roles as pawns in this political agenda, having resigned
themselves to the fate of fighting many more Iraqs and Afghanistans.
“The antidote... is not to try harder but to think
differently.” (Bacevich, A. 2009, p. 188) Bacevich's proposed,
alternative solution is a strategy of containment. Rather than waging
in the Long war with no end in sight, with no apparent achievable
goal, and developing strategies to accommodate the fight of a
senseless war, it would seem glaringly apparent that the obvious
answer is not to wage in this war. Implementing the use of containment
rather than transformation will reserve our resources of military
power, substantially curtail the necessity of fiscal spending in this
defense, and ultimately buy America the time to set itself right.
“Time is our ally. With time, our adversary will wither and die—unless
through our own folly we choose to destroy ourselves
first.” (Bacevich, A. 2009, March 02)

References:

Bacevich, A. (2009) The Limits of Power: The End of American
Exceptionalism

Bacevich, A. (2009, March 02) Raising Jihad. National Interest online.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20932

Bacevich, A. (2008, October) The Petraeus Doctrine. The Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/petraeus-doctrine

Valkovic, M. and Burton, B. (2008, October 01) Crusader Mentality: A
Response to Andrew Bacevich. Small Wars Journal Op-Ed.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/crusader-mentality/

[enne40374]

Enerel Nergui
English 1
Ed oconnell
Essay 1.3


The Limits of Power



Andrew J. Bacevich’s “The Limits of Power. The End of American
Exceptionalism” along with his article “the Petraeus’s Doctrine”
posted October 2008, has been widely criticized by many, among them
Matthew E. Valkovic - a first lieutenant in the US Army currently
deploying to Iraq, and Brian M. Burton is a research assistant at the
Center for a New American Security, in their article posted in 2008
“The Crusader Mentality – a response to Andrew Bacevich”. It is not
hard to accept the fact that a graduate student at Georgetown
University, Brian M. Burton, is unable to see the tragic military
situation we are facing today, but Valkovic – a lieutenant deploying
to Iraq, must be able to see Bacevich’s points clearly; inquisitively,
he doesn’t. What first seemed as an easy win for Americans – the long
war, has been a wakeup call for everyone not only in the country, but
for people around the world. Bacevich’s point is to convince us to
avoid the unnecessary things, hence to solve the war. We have already
lost thousands of lives and tons of money. The conventional ways of
warfare doesn’t exist in this war; leading our soldiers to yield. The
officer corps itself recognizes that conventional-warfare capabilities
are already eroding (the Petraeus’s doctrine 2, the Atlantic). In
addition, after the Vietnam War our leaders were determined to not put
ourselves in the same position, and yet here we are with the long war.
And as we know already, history is doomed to repeat itself. Trying to
bring freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan? We can barely save our own ways
of life, why are we still at war borrowing and spending the money on a
war that is already proven to not be won? Our power is limited,
resources and utilities at our disposal are not endless, which is why
the united states is better off stopping before it will be too late to
recover safely.

Army’s field artillery branch will soon be unable to provide the
original services it was meant to. While on one hand Valkovic says
that the training ways of the army didn’t change:” Newly recruited
soldiers, when they go through basic training and receive their
advanced individual training are still taught their traditional
military occupational specialty”, on the other he says that certain
branches of training have suffered. Which gets me thinking, if even
one of the branches of military training is not as it is used to be,
how is it “still the same”? Although artillery branch is seldom used
in stability operations, it is essential for conventional wars.
“Rather than practicing how to attack the hill, its trainees now learn
about “spending money instead of blood, and negotiating the cultural
labyrinth through rapport and rapprochement” – says Bacevich in his
article – “the Petraeus’s doctrine”, about the military position on
the Iraqi war. Our backbone of safety – the army, is now learning
everything but an actual fighting. Strangely, the protagonist
crusaders now insist that the Vietnam War would have been won if
Americans had more patience and politicians more gut (the Petraeus’s
doctrine 1). It is as though 20 years wasn’t enough. Well, now we are
at our seventh year of what maybe even a worse case than the Vietnam
War, if we don’t find a solution to it soon. “Is America supposed to
simply turn its back on those countries and act like the past seven
years never happened?” – asks Valkovic in his article. The answer to
this question may very well be :”is it not better to think that seven
years never happened as opposed to twenty and with much more problems
on our hands?” our economy, our lives and even our freedom is at
stake. When are we going to comprehend that and start worrying about
ourselves, our homes and our economy, rather than trying to free
another country by force and at our own expense? “General David
Petraeus’s successes in Iraq had more to do with buying off the enemy
than a change in approach, as if cooptation of foes were not a well-
established component of any counterinsurgency” – says Valkovic.
However in the article posted by Andrew Bacevich, it says that the
crusaders view is that the Vietnam War was being won by “concentrating
on winning the Vietnamese hearts and minds”. If cooptation was the way
of winning, and if not winning hearts and minds of our foes was the
reason for loss, why are we at war in the first place? The very
definition of the word “war” is – the waging of armed conflict against
an enemy. Consequently, we should not be trying to win their hearts
and depend on them to see if they would give us our victory, we should
be trying to settle the matter as soon as possible avoid future
economic further downfalls, keep our men alive and at home.

By the beginning of the Iraqi war, the powers of the United States
were praised to the sky. It was compared to Rome, Britain and even the
German wehrmacht… but even in a supposedly unipolar era, American
military power turns out to be quite limited (limits of power 126).
What Matthew E. Valkovic doesn’t understand is that there has to be
certain extent or limit as how far can we go and how much can we
afford to sacrifice in order to continue leading this war. Instead of
spending trillions of dollars for a war that is pointlessly going on
for almost a decade, for something that is needed but not essential
for our living, we need to spend that money towards something useful
for us now and in the future – alternative energy sources. We are
losing our army, as a unit for conventional war, we are repeating our
gravest mistakes, and on top of all this, we are not only using up the
little amount of resources left, we are also leaving grave amounts of
debt to bear for our children.

Enerel Nergui
English 1
Ed oconnell
Essay 1.3


The Limits of Power



Andrew J. Bacevich’s “The Limits of Power. The End of American
Exceptionalism” along with his article “the Petraeus’s Doctrine”
posted October 2008, has been widely criticized by many, among them
Matthew E. Valkovic - a first lieutenant in the US Army currently
deploying to Iraq, and Brian M. Burton is a research assistant at the
Center for a New American Security, in their article posted in 2008
“The Crusader Mentality – a response to Andrew Bacevich”. It is not
hard to accept the fact that a graduate student at Georgetown
University, Brian M. Burton, is unable to see the tragic military
situation we are facing today, but Valkovic – a lieutenant deploying
to Iraq, must be able to see Bacevich’s points clearly; inquisitively,
he doesn’t. What first seemed as an easy win for Americans – the long
war, has been a wakeup call for everyone not only in the country, but
for people around the world. Bacevich’s point is to convince us to
avoid the unnecessary things, hence to solve the war. We have already
lost thousands of lives and tons of money. The conventional ways of
warfare doesn’t exist in this war; leading our soldiers to yield. The
officer corps itself recognizes that conventional-warfare capabilities
are already eroding (the Petraeus’s doctrine 2, the Atlantic). In
addition, after the Vietnam War our leaders were determined to not put
ourselves in the same position, and yet here we are with the long war.
And as we know already, history is doomed to repeat itself. Trying to
bring freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan? We can barely save our own ways
of life, why are we still at war borrowing and spending the money on a
war that is already proven to not be won? Our power is limited,
resources and utilities at our disposal are not endless, which is why
the united states is better off stopping before it will be too late to
recover safely.

Army’s field artillery branch will soon be unable to provide the
original services it was meant to. While on one hand Valkovic says
that the training ways of the army didn’t change:” Newly recruited
soldiers, when they go through basic training and receive their
advanced individual training are still taught their traditional
military occupational specialty”, on the other he says that certain
branches of training have suffered. Which gets me thinking, if even
one of the branches of military training is not as it is used to be,
how is it “still the same”? Although artillery branch is seldom used
in stability operations, it is essential for conventional wars.
“Rather than practicing how to attack the hill, its trainees now learn
about “spending money instead of blood, and negotiating the cultural
labyrinth through rapport and rapprochement” – says Bacevich in his
article – “the Petraeus’s doctrine”, about the military position on
the Iraqi war. Our backbone of safety – the army, is now learning
everything but an actual fighting. Strangely, the protagonist
crusaders now insist that the Vietnam War would have been won if
Americans had more patience and politicians more gut (the Petraeus’s
doctrine 1). It is as though 20 years wasn’t enough. Well, now we are
at our seventh year of what maybe even a worse case than the Vietnam
War, if we don’t find a solution to it soon. “Is America supposed to
simply turn its back on those countries and act like the past seven
years never happened?” – asks Valkovic in his article. The answer to
this question may very well be :”is it not better to think that seven
years never happened as opposed to twenty and with much more problems
on our hands?” our economy, our lives and even our freedom is at
stake. When are we going to comprehend that and start worrying about
ourselves, our homes and our economy, rather than trying to free
another country by force and at our own expense? “General David
Petraeus’s successes in Iraq had more to do with buying off the enemy
than a change in approach, as if cooptation of foes were not a well-
established component of any counterinsurgency” – says Valkovic.
However in the article posted by Andrew Bacevich, it says that the
crusaders view is that the Vietnam War was being won by “concentrating
on winning the Vietnamese hearts and minds”. If cooptation was the way
of winning, and if not winning hearts and minds of our foes was the
reason for loss, why are we at war in the first place? The very
definition of the word “war” is – the waging of armed conflict against
an enemy. Consequently, we should not be trying to win their hearts
and depend on them to see if they would give us our victory, we should
be trying to settle the matter as soon as possible avoid future
economic further downfalls, keep our men alive and at home.

By the beginning of the Iraqi war, the powers of the United States
were praised to the sky. It was compared to Rome, Britain and even the
German wehrmacht… but even in a supposedly unipolar era, American
military power turns out to be quite limited (limits of power 126).
What Matthew E. Valkovic doesn’t understand is that there has to be
certain extent or limit as how far can we go and how much can we
afford to sacrifice in order to continue leading this war. Instead of
spending trillions of dollars for a war that is pointlessly going on
for almost a decade, for something that is needed but not essential
for our living, we need to spend that money towards something useful
for us now and in the future – alternative energy sources. We are
losing our army, as a unit for conventional war, we are repeating our
gravest mistakes, and on top of all this, we are not only using up the
little amount of resources left, we are also leaving grave amounts of
debt to bear for our children.

[Farah]

Farah Laj

English 101

6-29-09

essay 1.3

Professor O’Connell





Bacevich vs. Valkovic & Burton



In Matthew Valkovic and Brian Burton’s October 1, 2008
Crusader

Mentality: A response to Andrew Bacevich in Small Wars Journal, they

confound the benefits of counterinsurgency training in battle combats
that

Bacevich strongly disputes and opposes. Valkovic and Burton
inaccurately

reiterate the importance and existence of counterinsurgency as being
consistent

with the development of the United States Army and vital to all
advancements in

affiliation with it.

Bacevich accurately identifies “the United States is ill-
prepared to wage a

global war of no exits and no deadlines… American power has limits and
is

inadequate to the ambitions to which hubris and sanctimony have given
rise…”,

but he is diabolically scrutinized and defamed for his appropriate and
fitting

outlook by Valkovic and Burton who controvert that those “who are
wedded to

counterinsurgency as the solution to all foreign problems [are] simply
part of a

community of innovators who have helped devise more effective ways to

prosecute the wars of today”. Burton and Valkovic awkwardly anticipate
that a

beneficial result will arise from the aftermath of the United States
army practicing

counterinsurgency training.

Valkovic and Burton also chastise Bacevich for not presenting an

alternative solution to America 's predicament and dilemma, and
imprudently

inquire “Is America suppose to simply turn it’s back… and act like the
past seven

years never happened? Is the Army supposed to go back to preparing
for

conventional wars it wants to fight rather than the irregular ones it
actually is

fighting?”, but they seem to intentionally overlook the proposed
solution as

Bacevich insists “ America doesn’t need a bigger army. It needs a
smaller_ that

is, more modest_ foreign policy, one that assigns soldiers missions
that are more

consistent with their capabilities. Modesty means giving up on the
illusions of

grandeur that the Cold War and then 9/11 gave rise”. Our American
soldiers

don’t need to invade foreign soil trying to implant a mirage that the
United States

is fighting a war in the name of peace and justice, in order to
obviate and avert

the so called terrorism that is out there.

What about the terrors that are caused by America ? America is
supposed

be such a prominent and powerful country, but we have allowed the rest
of the

world to condescend and ridicule our poor insensible choices and label
us as

being excessively egotistic and arrogant.

[Janny R]

Janny Rivera
June 29, 2008
English 101, Section 1229
O’Connell

Matthew E. Valkovic and Brian M. Burton Political Views Analyzes

In their 2008 essay Crusader Mentality: A Response to Andrew
Bacevich, Matthew E. Valkovic and Brian M. Burton claim that the
current war in Iraq is a war that will change history and will better
the United States in the future. They state that soldiers overseas
have lost their motivation and drive for fighting for this country.
Their also claim that even thought the economy has had a major
downfall in the recent years the war in Iraq should not be forgotten
because went into the war with a mission and before we can leave we
need to complete that mission that is so important for the U.S.
Valkovic and Burton both disagree with Bacevich’s and Gentile’s views
on the war and at times attack them, but the main point in their
argument revolves on the idea that we as a country no more what the
economical status is, should keep on supporting the war in every way
possible until it comes to an end.
It comes to no surprise that the military deployment doubled
after 9/11 , but what should be surprising is that in the past years
the number of man and woman enrolling themselves for service has
decreased due to the never ending current war situation. The members
of the U.S military are human beings who are leaving their loves one
behind to protect our country. They are true heroes and should be
honored for their work because not everyone is willing to do all that
these man and woman do. One cannot fully imagine what being in battle
feels like because we are hundreds of millions from the battle grounds
but we can image what these young man and woman serving in the
military have to go through for months and sometimes years. Valkovic
and Burton both say that the soldiers in battle have lost their
motivation for fighting. They make this point clear in the following
‘’Its soldiers have become “constabulary” forces charged with the
protecting the local populations of failed states and re-building
their communities, and in doing so have lost sight of their core
mission of fighting and winning the nation’s wars.’’ Saying that
soldiers have lost their drive for fighting in the war is something
that does not shock me because without a duet we as a whole nation for
the most part have no desire to keep on fighting in a war that has no
meaning and end to it. What is wrong is to blame soldiers for not
having the same amount of energy as they did when the war first began.
Again these are fathers, mothers, brother and the list goes on of
human beings who are putting their lives on the line of battle and to
say that they are not doing as good as a job as they should does not
make sense. The top powerful leaders of our nation who claim to love
this country and would do anyhing to protect it would never put
themselves in the shoes of those soldiers fighting in a war. Now that
should make us rethink how much those leaders really love this country
and how much of what they say is true. No matter what our political
views on the war are the main focus in this situation should be bring
or troops back home where they belong and honoring them for their hard
but not discouraging them.
The war we are currently in as affected us in one way or
another but the question that we all are asking is when is it going to
end. Valkovic and Burton both question Bacevich views on stopping the
war. In their essay they comment of this topic ‘‘Bacevich says the
United States must retain “strategic choice.” We agree: maintaining a
variety of capabilities, both military and civilian, to operate across
a range of strategic environments is essential to preserve US national
security. But what of Iraq and Afghanistan today?’’ Is America
supposed to simply turn its back on those countries and act like the

past seven years never happened? Is the Army supposed to go back to

preparing only for the conventional wars it wants to fight rather than
the irregular ones it actually is fighting?’’ This war started because
of the 9/11 attacks. At that time we as Americans felt angry and
wanted whoever was responsible for the attacks to pay. Bush felt the
need to declare war and that was the starting time of this endless war
we are currently in. Saying that we should keep on fighting in Iraq
and Afghanistan as pay back of 9/11 is wrong and not smart. The war
till day has not done anything to have this country feel better after
the attacks. All it has done is gotten our economical status into a
savior crisis one that we as a nation are feeling. To keep on
supporting the war is to dig our own graves because if after being in
war for seven years and not having accomplished what we in the first
place went in for, then what is going to make Americans believe that
we should keep on fighting for something that we have not been able to
accomplish yet.
‘’Like Gentile, Bacevich offers much criticism but no
alternative solution for America’s current predicament.’’ Valkovic and
Burton analyzed Bacevich and Gentile political views on the war but
criticize they for not having a problem pointing out what is going
wrong with the country but never giving clear situation to them. In
Valkovic and Burton essay in which they criticize Bacevich and Gentile
they too don’t give clear solutions to the current war issues, so they
are wrong for singling out both men for not giving solutions to
current problems because they themselves are not either. It’s easy to
see the bad things in situations but is hard to find solutions to them
and maybe that’s why many political members are having a hard time
coming up with ideas to solve the current problems going on in the
country and that is what is happening with Valkovic and Burton views
verse Becavich and Gentile.
By estimates according to a recent article in Foreign
Affairs said "the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of the
[U.S.] invasion has reached six figures — vastly more than have been
killed by all international terrorists in all of history. Sanctions on
Iraq probably were a necessary cause of death for an even greater
number of Iraqis, most of them children." Again we are faced with the
guilt of see American soldiers and innocent citizens in Iraq being
killed day by day as a result of a war that we supporting for no good
reason but to just say that we are fighting for something that is
going to better our lives ,which has not been the case so far. Giving
the current outlook on the war it looks like the government has no
urgent need to put a stop to the work so all we can do is keep on
supporting then troops overseas and encouraging them as must as we
can. We also need to keep on expressing our dislikes regarding the way
the war is being handled and hope for change to occur for the
better.

References
Herbert, Joe.2006, Mar 16. Stop Bush’s War. New York Times. ://
www.commondreams.org/views06/0316-21.htm

Valkovic, M. and B. M. Burton. 2008, Oct. 1. Crusader mentality: a

response to Andrew Bacevich. Small Wars Journal.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/docs-temp/101-valkovic.pdf

[tejasvi]

Bacevich vs Burton and Valkovic

Iraq war certainly has become a celebrity in recent times. Theories
and counter theories on Iraq war are continuously pouring in daily
basis. One such article, ‘Crusader Mentality; A Response to Andrew
Bacevich’ has been written by Matthew E. Valkovic and Brian M. Burton
in Small Wars Journal Op-Ed. The article is in response to an essay
written by Bacevich in October 2008 issue of The Atlantic. Bacevich’s
essay essentially talks about counter insurgency, techniques of war
fare, role of army etc. in Iraq and Afghanistan and for ‘wars that may
or may not happen in future.’ The article written by Valkovic and
Burton is purely from the point of view of army and defense whereas
Bacevich by quoting many others writes about military role not only
for national security but from a social point of view also. Bacevich
rightly points out that the situation now ‘threatens to encroach upon
matters that civilian policy makers, not soldiers, should decide.’
Rightly it is money of the civilians being drained in these wars.
Approximately 10 billion dollars a month is being spent on Iraq war
with no immediate benefit to American society. The same could be spent
on education, health care etc. for which drastic cuts are being made
by various states affecting American society and economy adversely.

Valkovic and Burton write “ the organizational culture of the army has
not really changed.” The organizational culture is being changed as
the decision makers are sitting in Pentagon in air- conditioned rooms
far from the hard ground realities in the harsh terrain of Iraq and
Afghanistan. There is now a reverse flow of information from bottom
to top, as rightly pointed out by Bacevich “ In today’s army, the most
creative thinkers are not generals but mid-career officers –
lieutenant colonels and colonels.” That is why it took so long for
U.S. army to partially win war in Iraq as the thick tank of the policy
was not based in the war zone but far of in the U.S. Likewise “ The
point is that army, in the midst of waging to counter insurgency
campaigns is still very much a force concerned with its conventional
combat role.” In the modern war fare there is hardly any role for
conventional combating. Even if we exclude Iraq, the U.S. drones are
fighting an unconventional war fare in the rugged terrain of
Afghanistan and Pakistan. No military in the world will fight with
U.S. in a conventional manner due to U.S.’s geographical location. The
future wars are only based on technology where the soldiers will come
into conventional role only to occupy the enemy’s land. Furthermore
the writers by countering Bacevich ‘the strategic choice’ opine “Is
America supposed to turns its back on these countries and act like the
past seven years never happened?” Even the Bush administration had a
certain agenda of withdrawing from Iraq in a couple of years and the
same has been vigorously advocated by President Obama that America
will leave Iraq in eighteen months. Same as America had to do in late
1960’s in Vietnam and same is predicted to happen in Afghanistan as in
the modern world no country can occupy any other country permanently
without the wishes of general public.

In his article ‘Conventional vs Unconventional Warfare’ dated 15th
January 2008 published in Chron Watch, Anthony Stahelski writes
“Struggle between proponents of conventional warfare versus
unconventional warfare has unfortunately delayed successful strategy
implementation in both Iraq and Afghanistan.” The successful overthrow
of Taliban in 2001-02 was due to the adoption of unconventional
warfare tactics by the U.S. army. In turn, Taliban reemerged when U.S.
army reverted back to conventional warfare. Army is always more
effective when it makes contact with locals against insurgency as in
Iraq and Afghanistan in order to win the war U.S. army is trying to
win over local population militia and chieftains. Finally, U.S. should
withdraw its troops from Afghanistan as well as from Iraq in a timely
phased manner which will not only relieve the exchequer but will save
the lives of young American soldiers dying in a hostile environment in
the war thrust upon them.

References

Bacevich, A.2008 October. The Petraeus Doctrine, The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/petraeus-doctrine

Valkovic, M. and Burton, B. (2008, October 01) Crusader Mentality: A
Response to Andrew Bacevich. Small Wars Journal Op-Ed.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/crusader-mentality/

Stahelski, A. 2008, January 1. Conventional vs Unconventional Warfare,
Chron Watch
http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/892/Conventional-vs-Unconventional-Warfare.html

[Jefferey Mananguite]

Mananguite, Jefferey
06/29/09
E1.3
Prof. O’Connell


Ground View


In the Small Wars Journal, Valkovic and Burton write an article
“Crusader Mentality: A Response to Andrew Bacevich,” the article is
just as its titled, it is a response to the book “Limits of Power” by
Andrew Bacevich. The article is about rebuttal against the way
Bacevich wants to handle the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, he states
that our Army is being used ill mannered way, and not of a traditional
way the military is suppose to be used for. Valkovic and Burton sees
things from a different point of view saying the army is being used in
the right context and that the military is also being taught
fundamentals of training a soldier. Coming from a military background
from the Navy, my views on the war is very different from a person
from the Army such as Valkovic. Volkovic’s views on the Army being
used as a conventional force today as it was used pre-Bush regime, and
his views on the war as striving for America, are very different on
how I view my opinions on Iraq and Afghanistan and refute against
Valkovic and Burton.
Volkovic claims “This is not to say that the Army has not learned
counterinsurgency and, in addition, it is not to say certain functions
of the Army (like the field artillery branch) have not suffered as a
result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the Army
today remains very much organized as a conventional force.” This is
wrong because the daily activities of the Army are mostly security and
not of strategic movements for advancements for insurgents. The
argument I wanted to refute against was Volkovic claiming “rather than
simply as part of a community of innovators who have helped devise
more effective ways to prosecute the wars of today. When did striving

to fight America’s current wars better become the wrong thing to do?”

This is also wrong because America is tired and concerned on how our
economic situation and wars of no exits is un-American. Americans
feel they may have made a mistake entering a war and having no exit
plan, however our government couldn’t leave the country to house
terrorizism, also realizing having our presence in Iraq and
Afghanistan is helpful so we as Americans, don’t want to just pull out
and leave the country without a stable foundation and have history
repeat itself.
Volkovic view on the military being used as a conventional force and
still learning traditional art of war, is not wrong but would be
better put, in my opinion agree with Col. Gentile when he claims the
Army is “deteriorating.” We hear in the news all the time about IEDs
(Improvised Explosive Device) setting off a car bomb, destroying
anything in its path, but we don’t hear about Army platoons moving in
and taking a certain mountain area full of insurgents, I think this is
what Col. Gentile is arguing because we are using the Army as just
patrolling the area and never having a full sense of battle mentality,
not fully knowing what kind of progress we have achieved that day,
week, month, or year. The Army is not being utilized as conventional
power but more as like political presence in the occupying countries.
Finally Volkovic feels that supporting the war of Iraq and Afghanistan
is striving for America. In my opinion it is not American to support
the war, Americans realized our presence and money could be used
somewhere else and now that we are too deep into the war its not
American to just leave the country and have the people govern
themselves without limits. Bacevich states “U.S. troops in battle
dress and body armor, whom Americans profess to admire and support,
pay the price for the nation’s collective refusal to confront our
domestic dysfunction.” Coming back from the military and telling
people I severed as a sailor, I get a lot of thank yous' which I have
no idea for what, but I feel that the military has made it as a “D”
list celebrity, meaning everyone knows of someone in the military but
how often are they giving faces on what they have been enduring. The
first thing I learned in basic training is “when you’re wrong, stay
wrong,” but in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, Becavich’s plan for a
new state of mind, which is preparing the nation on living
conservatively and rehabilitate its addictions to consumerism is the
appropriate approach to a war with no exits.

[IsaiasxD]

Isaias Miguel
Eng 101
6/29/09
Essay 1.3


Andrew Bacevich, a patriot who served 23 years in the
military and who is a professor at Boston University has been
criticized once again. Two of the legions of critics are M. valkovic
and B. Burton, who criticized him about false accusations towards the
government, U.S. military, Bush, and about his proposal to fix the
wounds of America.

He criticizes the government for this war which the military
went unprepared to combat in Iraq. He believes that the military
lacks power and cannot close it because they aren't powerful enough.
Valkovic and Burton in the other hand, think all he says is a bunch
of gibberish. Saying that the Unites States should have went to war
with no exception. That there was a meaning to this afterall.

What really seems Bacevich wants is support for the troops.
Meaning, not putting stickers behind your cars but shouting it out
there and demanding for them to return. Once everyone returns home
there is an end. Being that his son was killed in Iraq, he seems as
his son should have never went to war. The reason, is because of all
the idiocracy bush has said and professing that the military was
stronger than ever. Bush had also said that this war would be a quick
one. "We've applied the new powers of technology... to strike an
enemy jnbforce with speed and incredible precision. By a combination
of creative strategies and advanced tehcnologies, we are reifining
war on our terms. In this new era of warfare, we can target a regime,
not a nation." (Bacevich,p.127) It was bush's words not Bacevich's
who were very deceiving.

Valkovic and Burton can't put the pieces together to identify
what the war in Iraq has brought to the table. "No one knows what
they are doing, not even the president. That is what the crisis is."
The war in Iraq has been falsely advertised as this powerful new
american way of war had been developed. If they were unsure on
whether to go or not, they should have planned it out. Knowing that
by some curse, Bush was our president during the time, we could have
went with our alternate ideas As very deceiving as "The Pentagon
people came up with a phrase "Full Spectrum dominance" meaning the
U.S. was going to exercise dominance" to claim that the U.S. military
was unstoppable, if you can believe that.

References
B. Moyers interview with A. Bacevich
Sep. 2008 http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09262008/watch2.html

B. Moyers interview with A. Bacevich
Sep. 2008 http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09262008/watch2.html

[sun yi]

Sun Yi

English 101

Essay1.3

Andrew Becevich’s 2009 Limits of Power criticizes that The actual exercise of American freedom is no longer conducive to generating the power…centered on consumption and individual autonomy, the exercise of freedom is contributing to the gradual erosion of our national power. However, if we tighten our belt, squeeze our dollar and even pinch pennies in this time of recession, the domestic business will go under without demand, and consequently the mass layoff is the first its kind, so that it is connected for people too hard up to afford spending – it’s a vicious circle. Therefore, the Obama administration may take steps to stimulate the economy to offset effects of the global economic slowdown, so we expect the economy to turn around even if we’re not out the woods yet.

Bacevich claims, “Our desire to buy bigger things, better things and ever-more things, is bringing the country to ruin,” but that’s wrong because it’s reported on the wall street journal that consumer sentiment dropped to the worst level these days in this country. Bacevich also claims that the sole superpower lacks the resources-economic, political, and military-to support a large-scale,…inflicting severe economic and political damage on itself. But it’s because of the critic’s point of view. In other words, the United States as well as the all around countries is undergoing in this terrible recession, so called, “Global Crisis”. So it’s wrong to write the United States off as just a figurehead. Also, Bacevich claims that a world that once indulged American profligacy is no longer willing to do so. Nor does the United States possess…to oblige the world to accommodate itself to our desires. However, we look on the bright side to the Obama administration which is working to build a new foundation for sustained and lasting economic growth assuring and consistent on the both clean energy and alternative energy policy.

Someone says that Becevich’s argument has huge intuitive, however, his opinions and suggestions are making a sweeping generalization. In this point of view, the astute and persuasive solutions are required. The first thing is how to prop up domestic demand. That means the government should prompt to encourage for potential buyer. Especially, on the real estate market, the pointers imply how our economy has difficulty, so the real estate policy is first step to stimulate domestic economy. For example, the “New Home Tax Credit” which is already practiced and verified the effectiveness is applies to homes that have never been occupied and purchased as their primary residence for a least 2 years from close of escrow. So the government is to keep and enhance the tax credit to arouse economic activity. In addition, “One of the fastest, easiest, and cheapest ways to make our economy stronger and cleaner is to make our economy more energy efficient,” Obama Said. The way is by adopting solar panels on the roof or geothermal power from underground in our homes and businesses, and also changing to Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs to reduce electricity. We have to realize that this simple action enhance energy efficiency. If we want to be over the hump, we’d better get our act together rather than dwelling on our past mistakes. Then we will eventually lead the world once again by heading a new clean energy.

---

From: IsaiasxD <isaiasi...@gmail.com>
To: English 101 summer 09 <english-10...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 11:02:38 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion on e1-3-post-here-by-clicking-discuss-this-page-or-reply-to-this-discussion-below-by-monday-june-29

Sep.. 2008 http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09262008/watch2.html

[Hyung K]

Hyung Jin Kim

06/29/09
E1.3
Prof. O’Connell

In the Small Wars Journal Op-Ed, October 1, 2008 article “Crusader
Mentality: A Response to Andrew Bacevich” by Matthew E.Valkovic and
Brian M.Burton, they mistakenly responded to Bacevich that advantages
of counterinsurgency doctrine in warfare as not much as important and
they satisfied with currently all troops in the U.S. go through basic
training and receive their advanced individual training by their
traditional military occupational specialty. At the end of Valkovic,
M. and Burton, B.s’ article, they mentioned Bacevich only offers much
criticism without any alternative solution for America’s current
predicament, but reversely Bacevich gives us several great
propositions that recover our current economy predicament than any
others.
Valkovic, M. and Burton, B. claim, “the Army today remains very much
organized as a conventional force. Newly recruited soldiers, when they

go through basic training and receive their advanced individual
training are still taught their traditional military occupational

specialty.” But I think it seems to be more abnormality because if
newly recruited soldiers, they receive basic and advanced individual
training should be same with former soldiers in troop? I know it is

still very much a force concerned with its conventional combat role

and balancing act is hard, but counterinsurgency is unavoidable. And
also Valkovic and Burton controvert that “who are wedded to
counterinsurgency as the solution to all foreign policy problems,

rather than simply as part of a community of innovators who have

helped devise more effective ways to prosecute the wars of today.” I
do not comply with because they predicted further beneficial result
will arise from the aftermath of the U.S.’s counterinsurgency
training.
According to Bacevich’s article, “The Petraeus Doctrine”, he argues
that the Army (like it or not) is entering an era in which armed
conflict will be protracted, ambiguous, and continuous—with the

application of force becoming a lesser part of the soldier’s

repertoire. Army’s perceived current focus on preparing for
counterinsurgency has supplanted the Army’s traditional conventional
war-fighting doctrine. “Lies at the very hear of strategy” (Bacevich
168) confuse operations with strategy, ignoring the fact that the
subordination of war to politics. Bacevich also proposed “America
doesn’t need a bigger army. It needs a smaller that is, more modest-
foreign policy” I think this proportion should be a solution for
current America’s predicament, the government ought to restate in our
theories related to freedom, and “requires modifying that way of life,
discriminating between things that are essential and those that are
not” (Bcevich 189) yes, we have to modify our degenerated ethic of
self-gratification and all of us suppose to be condescend and
preparing the nation on living conservatively.

References:
Bacevich, A. 2008, Oct. The Patraeus Doctrine, The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/petraeus-doctrine

Valkovic, M. and Burton, B. (2008, October 01) Crusader Mentality: A
Response to Andrew Bacevich. Small Wars Journal Op-Ed.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/crusader-mentality/

Bacevich, A. (2009) The Limits of Power: The End of American
Exceptionalism

[Rosie]

Rosa Moran
English 101
Essay 1.3




In their essay, Crusader Mentality: A Response to Andrew Bacevich,
Mathew Valkovic and Brian Burton express that Bacevich has mistakenly
analyzed the counterinsurgency method used today by the military in
his essay in the October 2008 issue of The Atlantic. As far as
Valkovic and Burton are concern the “Army today remains very much
organized as a conventional force.” Soldiers go through the same
basic training as years before and as for their individual training
soldiers are “taught their traditional military occupational
specialty.” Basically the “Army school housed fundamentally teach the
same things.” But according to Bacevich in his essay “The Petraeus
Doctrine” The army has two protagonists in their war strategies; “The
crusaders and the Conservatives.” In the crusaders we find Colonel
John Nagl, a very influential member that thinks that the twenty first
century will require the U.S. military “not just to dominate land
operations, but to change entire societies.” In the Conservative side
we find Colonel Gian Gentile a leading voice, is concern that an
obsession the “stability operations will led the Army to reinvent
itself as a constabulary.” He also questions Nagl’s certainty that
situations resembling Iraq should become an all-but-exclusive
preoccupation. Colonel Gentile resists the notion that the Army’s
fate is unalterably predetermined. His strategic choice is to include
the choice of abandoning the Long war I favor of a different course as
a possibility.


Valkovic and Burton make a point that overall the structure of the
Army has not been changed, but do admit that it might had adapted to
new or needed strategies, like learned counterinsurgency and that
certain functions like, the artillery branch may have suffered as a
result to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Fort Irwin force-on-
force training has been complimented with counterinsurgency given
termed to “full spectrum operations.” But according to Bacevich in
Army magazine the training in Fort Irwin has now “switched gears,” it
mainly focuses on counterinsurgency warfare. “Rather than practicing
how to attack the hill, its trainees how learn about spending money
instead of blood, and negotiating cultural labyrinth through rapport
and rapprochement.”

Valkovic and Burton also see that the Army has to balance the
conventional combat role and being effective in an irregular operating
environment. According to them Balcevich and as Gentile do not give
enough importance to the counterinsurgency method needed and very so
much helpful to the Army. To them Balcevich does not give an
alternate solution for America’s current predicaments. They agree
that it is necessary to maintain a variety of capabilities, both
military and civilian to operate across a range of strategic
environment is essential to preserve US national security. They feel
that America should prepare to fight the war that is actually fighting
now, not conventional wars that it wants to fight or that it “might”
fight some day. But in contrast with that Colonel Gentile expects
that last war will resemble the last one and that has “served the
military well.” There are some interesting questions presented by
Colonel Gentile: How should we organize our Army? What should be our
Army’s purpose? And who gets to decide this? Should it be President
Obama or the soldiers? Colonel Gentile thinks that the Army should not
make those decisions. Bacevich writes that the most creative thinkers
are not Generals but mid-career officers- lieutenant colonels and
colonels. So it may well devolved by default upon soldiers.



Reference:

The Atlantic: “The Petraeus Doctrine” by Andrew Bacevich

Small Wars Journal Op-Ed: “Crusader Mentality: A Response to Andrew
Bacevich” by Matthew Valkovic and Brian Burton.

Counterinsurgency:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/29/humanterrain

usacac.army.mil/cac/repository/materials/coin-fm3-24.pdf

[Bakar]

English 101
Summer 2009
Bakar Diallo
ID # 881279760

Essay 1.3: Analysis and Refutation

Matthew E. Valkovic and Brian M. Burton in their 2008 response to
Andrew Bacevich posted at www.smallwarsjournal.com, wrongly
underestimate the danger and implications of the new transformation of
the United States Armed Forces. Valkovic and Burton assert that the
United States armed forces must train for the counterinsurgency wars
of today. In addition, Valkovic and Burton choose not to acknowledge
the obvious ambitions of the American leadership in spending monstrous
amounts of wealth to train our military for invasions and “liberation
wars.” Many in Washington have clearly expressed their intentions of
waging preemptive wars to supposedly protect our national security. I
believe that we would be better off to renounce on the idea of forcing
other nations to adhere to our values; if the Iraq war have taught us
anything it is that we cannot afford these invasion campaigns. We
should honestly question our real motivations for “spreading freedom”
around world. Isn’t it to fulfill our greed for more and more oil and
cheap goods? We would be better off to invest in creating our own
sources of energy and simply reducing our consumption.

Valkovic and Burton claim, “…Bacevich seeks to tear down the
importance of counterinsurgency…” this statement is wrong because the
United-States should never have been in the business of fighting
unprovoked wars of invasions. We do not have the money or the military
to win these wars in the middle-East and certainly not globally. These
same people who advocate these wars are against the Military Draft and
they themselves or their children fighting these wars. Valkovic and
Burton add “…What of Iraq and Afghanistan today? Is America supposed

to simply turn its back on those countries and act like the past seven

years never happened?… We humbly submit that the answer is no,” this
statement wrongly frames the issue because we should never have been
there and we should get out immediately. We should not and we cannot
afford these wars indefinitely as Donald Rumsfeld suggested.

In profoundly believe that it is more practical for us to work at
reducing our need for foreign oil and foreign goods not for
protectionism but as a matter of saving the lives of our men and women
in the armed forces and countless civilians of foreign countries. A.
Bacevich in his book, The Limits of Power, published in 2008, agrees
with me “…Iraq has revealed the futility of counting on military power
to sustain our habits of profligacy.” Furthermore, reducing our needs
to wage these wars will save us trillions of dollars that we
desperately need to spend on our broken education system,
infrastructure and specially health care. I think that it would be
more practical for us to renounce on waging these imperialistic wars,
because the American people have shown they’re unwillingness to fight;
most Americans are indeed against the controversial, but certainly
fair, Military Draft.

[Ashinee]

Ashinee Reynolds
English 101 (online)
E1.3 Bacevich/Valkovic, and Burton.

In their journal entry Crusader Mentality: A Response to Andrew
Bacevich, Matthew E. Valkovic and Brian M. Burton mistakenly claim
that “Bacevich offers much criticism but no alternative solution for
America’s current predicament.” Both Valkovic and Burton agree with
Bacevichs’ ideal that in order to “preserve the United States National
Security,” a miscellany amount of capabilities are essential to
civilians and the military. On the other hand, Valkovic and Burton
oppose Bacevichs’ ideas toward counterinsurgency and the American way
of life. Burton and Valkovic believe that America should not exit the
war because it would be a form of abandonment to Iraq and
Afghanistan. I disagree with the ideals of Valkovic and Burton.
Through research supported by Bacevich, United States formal Admiral
Joe Sestak, and Deborah White I think America should take heed to the
fact that our power is “limited,” and it is in the best interest of
our country and others if we revaluate what is essential to our lives,
and retort home from war.

Valkovic and Burton ask the rhetorical question, “Is America

supposed to simply turn its back on those countries and act like the

past seven years never happened?” The suggestion is not that America
simply and abruptly turns its back on Iraq and Afghanistan acting as
if the past seven years never happened, but the plan is for America to
realize that we have failed. It is time to accept the fact that
America has failed in the plan of this war and return home. The fact
that there was no issued time frame for the duration of how long the
war should and would last negatively affects the American people and
economy. Even the former United States formal Admiral Joe Setak stated
that “spending on the war has diverted investment from what he calls
three “pillars of national security” : health, education, and economic
development at home.”Valkovic and Burton also ask “but what of Iraq
and Afghanistan today?” I will tell you about Iraq and Afghanistan
today. The fact is there have been several casualties, invasions, and
unjustly murders caused by acts of war. According to Iraq War Facts,
Results and Statistics of June 24, 2009 by Deborah White it is roughly
estimated that 55,000 Iraqi Insurgents have been killed, 9,094 Iraqi
Police and Soldiers have been killed, 12,000 Iraqi physicians have
left since the 2005 invasion, 2000 Iraqi physicians have been murdered
since the invasion,” and worst of all a UN issued report that was
dated September 20, 2006 stated that the number of Iraqi civilian
fatalities were not truthfully reported. It was reported that there
were 50,000 to over 100,000 Iraqi civilian causalities but resent
estimates place Iraqi civilian causalities at over 600,000.” I
understand that the concept of war includes death, but how much blood
will have to be sheeded before we realize the precious value of human
life. Every life has value, no matter what country the individual is
from. So my rhetorical question is this: do you think this war will
still be in progress if there were over 600,000 American civilian
causalities? I “humbly submit that the answer is no.” The stability of
the American economy has been, and continues to descend. Education and
jobs have been cut, and on top of that people are dyeing, peoples
wife’s, children, husbands, siblings and parents all because of this
war.


In order for America to move forward we must learn to live with
reality. The reality is we are in a war, a war that several Americans
know nothing about because America is divertingly affected by it. One
way we must move forward is by “discriminating between things that are
essential and those that are not.” If we learn how to be wise
conscience consumers we have the ability to help change the current
and future economic state of America. A change is required to take
place if we want a change in results. We must no longer spoil in our
lavish ways of living by “or way of life is sacrosanct and our power
without limits.”This is why it proves to be best if America return
from war. Information reported by Deborah White’s Iraq War Facts,
Results and Statistics at June 24, 2009 prove that billions and
billions are being spent on this war. There has been about “$800
billion of us taxpayers’ funds spent or approved for spending through
mid-2009, including $76 billion requested by President Obama and
approved by the house.” If we return from war we could save the
reported U.S. monthly spending of $12 billion in Iraq. Let’s do the
math. There is 12 months in a year and it is reported by White that
the U.S. monthly spending in Iraq is $12 billion that totals to $144
billion spent in a single year! That’s $144 billion dollars that could
be invested in global warming projects, the abolishment of nuclear
weapons, education, jobs, and our economy as a whole.

Resourses:


-White Deborah. 2009 June 24. Iraq War Facts and Statistics at June
24,2009:4,318 US Soldies Killed, 31,368 Seriously Wounded.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

-Schoof Renee. 2007 Feb 21. Former Admriral Say All American Forces
Should Pull out by Year’s End. McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0221-04.htm

-Valkovic, M. and B. M. Burton. 2008, Oct. 1. Crusader mentality: a
response to Andrew Bacevich. Small Wars Journal.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/crusader-mentality/

-Bacevich, A.2008 October. The Petraeus Doctrine, The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/petraeus-doctrine

-Bacevich, A. (2009) The Limits of Power: The End of American
Exceptionalism

[Amer Lafi]

The article in the Small Wars Journal titled: Crusader Mentality: A
Response to Andrew Bacevich written by Matthew E. Walker and Brian M.
Burton respond to the brash rants published in The Limits of Power
rightly refute Bacevich’s claim that the American army’s counter-
insurgency war-fare strategies are inefficient and its soldiers of
today are ill-equipped for a conventional war, should one present
itself. He goes on to state the application of force is becoming a
lesser part of the soldier’s repertoire and that soldiers of today’s
U.S. army are trained more in “negotiating the cultural labyrinth
through rapport and rapprochement” rather than “practicing how to
attack the hill”. Chasing his own tail, Bacevich debases ideas of
modern warfare and the army’s intelligently counseled strategy of
adapting to the current battle ground(s) then proclaims,
“Historically, expectations that the next war will resemble the last
one have seldom served the military well.” In reading Burton and
Walker’s response I have been rescued from the suffocation of an
overly-opinionated ex-service man turned best-selling novelists that
loves to see his words in print. In reading The Limits of Power I
have come full circle at was once a profound adoration for the
admiralty I thought Bacevich to display through his attacks at
government for exerting global force and empiricism. I now come to
understand that he offers no clear solution to the many problems that
our government clearly faces in it’s foreign affairs policies and I’m
starting to wonder why Bacevich calls himself an American. It seems
to this student that he would rather continue to attack the United
States for its success as a young country and preeminence over the
rest of the world, causing dissent among the citizens of this country
and providing nothing but reasons to dislike our entire system of
government.
Bacevich discusses that we should practice attacking the hill,
clearly an analogy to “rushing in and conquering with brute force”,
however changes the subject before mentioning that such a tactic would
not be possible without massive civilian casualties and destruction of
an entire culture of people that we are allegedly liberating.
Guerrilla war-fare tactics by the enemy can be handled in two ways,
wiping them out completely, i.e. nuclear strikes, or the alternative
is to adapt to their strategies and bring a gun to a gun fight. Our
enemies in the Middle East are not an entire people but small factions
of rebels with radical ideals that will become diluted over time.
However, this enemy does not care about the innocent bystanders and
natives to the land they proclaim to defend. As the United States we
have a duty to uphold that we will care for those not considered, we
will not present this long-war will brute quick force that Bacevich
suggests and destroy an entire people just to end the war quick. His
ideas are not only unintelligent but immoral at best.

References:

Valkovic, M. and B. M. Burton. 2008, Oct. 1. Crusader mentality: a
response to Andrew Bacevich. Small Wars Journal.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/docs-temp/101-valkovic.pdf

[angelito]

Angelito De Guzman
English 101
Essay 1.3

importance of a military

In October 1, 2008 Valkovic, M. and B.M. Burton wrote an response to
Andrew Bacevich Book about military tactics name "Crusader Mentality:
A Response to Andrew Bacevich" mistakenly interpret what Bacevich
point about counterinsurgency. I quote "Bacevich seeks to tear down
the importance of counterinsurgency". They thinks that Bacevich is
trying to change the military force by not fighting back. by not using
military forces on terrorist. Matthew E. Valkovic a first liutenant in
the US army and Brian M. Burton a research assistant at the Center for
a New American Security claims that if we follow Bacevich opinion this
is like we forgot the last 7 years in Iraq and pretend that it never
happened. I think that we need to use more democratic way on solving
our problems. No I also Don't agree in completely not using
counterinsurgency, this is not possible we need to have it. But
instead of deploying thousand of soldiers in the country that were
having a war against it better to have a a conventional ways of
dealing with things.

By agreeing to use counterinsurgency is like saying it's ok if we
lose thousand of soldiers and innocent people in war. This is what
Burton and Valkovic wants to have they are set on the fact that
counterinsurgency is the way to go. That is way I agree with Bacevich
"America doesn't need a bigger army. it needs a smaller-foreign
policy." I beleive that if we have this around the world it's likely
that we will have to go to war with other countries. Bacevich propose
soution is Strategy of containment. He believe that we don't need to
have long wars and don't have goals to go with it.

Using counterinsurgency have brought us pain, suffering, and a lot of
love ones lost. this is way i agree with bacevich that we need to stop
counterinsurgency. And to figure out a better way on how to solve the
problem. this plan is to have america get better again. "if Obama
grasps this essential point and act on it, he just might fulfill the
expectations of those to whom he is a symbol of hope."

[KunHye S]

Titled as Crusader Mentality: A Response to Andrew Bacevich, the op-
ed article from October 1, 2008 issued Small Wars Journal Magazine
written by Matthew E. Valkovic and Brian M. Burton, in objection of
Andrew Bacevich, obliviously sides with the current military practice
in Iraq that focuses on counterinsurgency. The two authors attempt to
disprove Bacevich claiming the Army is capable of performing not only
counterinsurgency which it is already in action but also conventional
combat skills. Moving further, they implicitly condemn him by
approving counterinsurgency as a rightful policy to win the war.
Bacevich, at the end, gets denounced for providing them with no
solution. Regardless of the constant debate over the warfare
strategies, the Long War has resulted in priceless, costly lessons.
The article raises up three dull, rhetorical retorts. First, it asks,
“Would he [Tsarevich] prefer that the Army ignore the wars it is
currently involved in to prepare for conventional wars that may or may
not happen in the future?” To people who have read Bacevich's opinion
throughly, this question might evoke scoffing. Bacevich is not
irrational enough to make such statement that could easily dispense
foreseeable dispute. What Bacevich worries about is the role of the
military men who need to master both conventional and counterinsurgent
war skills. He believes that the latter is not a required duty of a
soldier but politicians. Integrating military use for political
objectives, training the troops counterinsurgency in order to
transform the Islamic world in favor of Washington, is a shortcut
toward even more extended Long War. The second query is to accuse
Bacevich of treason, that he suggests the loss of the nation to be
right. To quote the article, it questions, “When did striving to fight
America’s current wars better become the wrong thing to do?” Lasting
for more than eight years, the “protracted, ambiguous, and continuous”
war proves it is far beyond the possibility of winning. Knowing this,
Bacevich wisely turns another way, quickly abandoning what is not
worth fighting for. He points out the problem within the foreign
policy of the nation that acts as if it is the mighty savior which,
eventually, has led to this reckless battle. In fact, Valkovic and
Burton deserve the condemnation for supporting the “effective ways
[one of them counterinsurgency] to prosecute the wars today,” when
those ways have been proved to be the opposite. The last nonsense
question is this; “Is America supposed to simply turn its back on
those countries [Iraq and Afghanistan] and act like the past seven
years never happened?” Unfortunately, the answer is no at this point.
Bacevich's suggestions might not satisfy people who demand immediate
resolution. However, his guidance digs into the core of the present
crisis: a need for “smaller... modest foreign policy that assigns
soldiers missions that are consistent with their capabilities.”
In his Tomgram writing, the Lessons of Endless War, posted on August
14, 2008, Andrew Bacevich presents the importance in examining the
prospect learning outcomes from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for
the future of the United States and its military crises. Among many
lessons, the first is the revelation of limited American power. The
supremacy the country believed in finally showed its bottom. Absorbing
this lesson, America needs to look for a change in the perspective
towards world affairs. It needs to stop shedding its own blood in the
name of spreading democracy or freedom. Another lesson comes from many
wars the United States got involved in. America should have assessed
the ineffectiveness of wars long ago. After all those battles, Iraq
should be the last in its history. Bacevich writes in the essay that
“coercive methods will not enable the United States to achieve its
objectives,” and adds, “Whether the actual aim is to democratize the
Islamic world or subdue it, the military “option” is not the answer.”

[Janny R]

Janny Rivera
July 3, 2009
English 101, Section 1229

Obama and Bacevich Political
Analyzes

Have you ever stopped to think about what will become of
this country giving the current economical crisis? We are in a war
that seems to have no end. Some of our political leaders see the war
overseas as a mile stone for the United States. In his April 4, 2009
address on new strategies for the current Afghanistan and Pakistan
President Obama states his plans for the future of the war. In this
address Obama’s and Bacevich political views on the war are similar
but also different. I believe that Obama is wrong in giving this
address on the war because what most Americans want right now is get
out of the war not plan new strategies like he is doing . Obama says
that we are in Pakistan and Afghanistan to better those countries but
the question of how are we going to help them better themselves if in
the means of it our own country is suffering the wars outcome. The
only answer to solve our current problem is to get our troops out of
Afghanistan and Pakistan and bring them home where they belong. Like
Bacevich I believe that we need to stop supporting the war and being
to focus on fixing our economy and environment.

After 9/11 Bush decided that we had to go to war with Iraq to
find and make pay the person responsible for 9/11. It has being more
than seven years and the person responsible as not been caught. So
again we ask ourselves why the U.S military has not been able to catch
the master mind of 9/11. We are a nation that prides it’s self for its
top of the end military intelligences and we still have not been
complete the mission that got us into war. Now that Bush is out of
office Obama comes into the White House stating that he was going to
try his best to get us out of the war but by the looks of it he really
is not doing that much to make that happen . The U.S military as being
looking for the master mind of 9/11 but has not caught them even after
being in the war for seven years. It’s hard to believe that the
military has not been able to capture the person responsible for 9/11
given all the training and talk about the military. Obama says that
the military has been actively looking for the master mind of 9/11 but
if that was the case with all the technology the U.S military has they
would have caught them by now if they were really looking for them.
Obama states‘’They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven
to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot
attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in
Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become
the most dangerous place in the world.’’ Reality is that these leaders
of these countries don’t have the high tech technology we have here in
the U.S, so to say that they are hiding in the mountains should not be
seen as a good reason to say that because of that they have not been
caught. We have hundreds of soldiers in the war and its unbelievable
the outcomes of the war. The war in Iraq is a lost case because we had
not done anything that will benefit our country in anyway by being in
Iraq fighting. By far these war as being the deathliest and it’s no
surprise that it has become very dangerous, so why don’t we just get
out?


Obama sates that the current war is a fight against Terrorist an
element that we Americans should not take lightly. Obama says ‘’But
this is not simply an American problem -- far from it. It is, instead,
an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist
attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in
Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in
Islamabad and in Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian,
European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al
Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world
is at stake.’’ What happened on 9/11 was one of the countries saddest
day and by far will always stay with us Americans who lived it, but
the after mass of 9/11 as being even harder because we are losing love
ones day by day in the war on terror. With war come many factors that
sometimes do more damage than what started it. In this current war
that is what has happen. Our nation has being more affected by the war
we are currently in than the affect of 9/11. Both events were hard and
dealt with loss of Americans but with the war the loss of soldiers has
overshadowed the death number of 9/11. Obama says ‘’As President, my
greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not
in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We
are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the
United States, our friends and our allies, and the people of
Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of
violent extremists.’’ Terrorist is something that has always being
around but after 9/11 the need to fight it became the U.S main focus.
Yes , terrorist are to blame for 9/11 but saying that we are in war
not only to make terrorist pay for the attacks on our country but to
also make them pay for the attacks they have done on other countries
is not a smart move due to the economical crisis we are currently in.
Here in the U.S the war as affected us a lot and to know that we are
still there because we are taking on the problems of other countries
is shocking. Life in the US has changed a lot since we went to war. We
as working Americans are feeling the effects of the war and are having
to live with them. Our governments main focus should be getting the
terrorist responsible for 9/11 and getting our troops back home. When
the war first started that was our goal and now as seven years have
gone by that goal as being added to more goals that the U.S military
as added on throughout the years. We are now not only fighting terror
but are also fighting for other countries who have also being affected
but terror and Oil.
In his 2009 Limits of Power , Andrew Bacevich says ‘’ I
think one of the ways we avoid confronting our refusal to balance the
books is to rely increasingly on the projection of American military
power around the world to try to maintain this dysfunctional system,
or set of arrangements that have evolved over the last 30 or 40 years.
But, it's not the American people who are deploying around the world.
It is a very specific subset of our people, this professional army. We
like to call it an all-volunteer force-.’’ Soldiers are being deployed
to the war and are being killed in massive numbers and the fact is
that the war is not doing any good for our country. Obama has a lot of
knowledge that could help the U.S become the powerful nation it once
was, but to address to the American people that we are still planning
to stay in Iraq is and have new strategies to fight it is not ok.
Bacevich believes that the U.S should focus on getting our troops out
of Iraq and focus on global warming. I agree with Bacevich’s views
because clearly staying in war is not doing anything to help us so why
not start working of the well being of our environment. I agree with
Obama’s view on fighting terror but after being in war for seven years
that seems almost impossible. I think that we need to try our best to
fight terrorist and once that is done we need to stop the war and just
protect our country while still being in our land.

Work Citied Page
.2009, March 27. Remarks by the President on a new strategy for
Afghanistan and Pakistan. The White House.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-a-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/

[Janny R]

Sorry this is essay 1b. wrong posting place

> Afghanistan and Pakistan. The White House.http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-o...