A new look at the use of American troops outside the United States
Not so long ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, Admiral Mike Mullen, shared with a wide audience very serious thoughts, which for some reason did not pay special attention to Russian experts. Meanwhile, it was about the nature of the two wars unleashed by Washington in the first decade of this century and which have not ended in unconditional and final victory to this day. Speaking at the University of Kansas and at the Fort Leavenworth military base, one of the leaders of the United States defense department announced to fellow citizens and subordinates that generals in the Pentagon should be more careful and prudent in developing doctrinal provisions related to the organization of military operations, to propose softer forms of using American military power.
The admiral, however, did not stop there, but went even further. In his opinion, the White House also needs to reconsider its position in solving the political and economic problems facing the United States in the international arena. Currently, Mullen believes, Washington relies too much on the superiority of the United States military over the armies and navies of every other nation on the planet. The chairman of the JCC noted that the categorical and reckless use of exclusively military measures does not so much help as hinder the powers that be in America to cope with the strategic tasks in the field of national security facing them.
Apparently, the words of the admiral were listened to in the Obama administration, and the American commanders of all ranks, of course, should be perceived as a guide to action, and therefore, readers of the "military-industrial complex" will be interested in reading some of Mullen's conclusions below.
In his opinion, "in those conditions when the goal of the war is not the defeat of the enemy, but the well-being of the people, really less is better, but better." “Any time a misplaced or mistakenly targeted bomb kills and injures civilians, we may be pushed back months, if not years, in our strategy,” Mullen said.
The chief of the OKNSh also believes that America's victories in current and future wars will not be as quick as the White House would like. "To be honest," announced the admiral, "it will not be so much like a knockout as like recovering from a long illness."
In his speeches, Mullen also noted that today the United States "protects the innocent" and this is the "essence of the actions" of the American armed forces. According to the US Chief of Staff, defense and diplomacy should not stand apart from each other. "If one of them is defeated, then the other must take all measures to clean up the very dirty process of international relations," - said Mullen.
By the way, the theses voiced by the current head of the OKNS are largely similar to the basic principles of the Pentagon's conduct of hostilities, which, after the Iraqi war, almost two decades ago, in 1991, were proposed to the leaders of the United States by Mullen's predecessor, General Colin Powell. He argued that the use of military force can only be justified in cases where it has the overwhelming support of the population of the countries invaded by US troops.
Meanwhile, Mullen's speeches drew widespread criticism. Opponents of the chief of the OKNSh, in particular, argue that increased caution in the use of military force will lead to an increase in casualties among American soldiers and will in no way contribute to the successful end of hostilities.
However, the head of the OKNSh also found many supporters. On the contrary, they propagandize his statements in every possible way and believe that the new vision of the US military strategy proposed by the admiral is the most optimal option for countering Islamic radicalism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan. Since only extraordinary approaches to the implementation of its foreign policy goals and objectives will allow America to successfully complete all its actions in these problem countries.
The aides to the chief of the OKNSh argue that their chief is not pushing for a radical change in America's military doctrine, but is simply trying to establish a clearer line between Washington's diplomatic activities and the use of military actions that accompany them.
US Air Force Colonel Jim Baker, one of Mullen's advisers on the Pentagon's military strategy, noted that “the American people are used to thinking that war and peace are two completely opposite activities. In fact, this is not at all the case. The officer stressed that his boss only wants to ensure that diplomats and the military, as much as possible, continuously adjust their efforts in the international arena and jointly defend the national interests of America.
The adviser also recalled Mullen's words that “before the soldiers start shooting to stop their enemies or support their friends,” all diplomatic tools must be used to resolve the problems that have arisen. Baker also noted that the statements of the head of the OKNSh do not indicate an intention to create any new military doctrine for the United States. “He was just thinking,” the colonel explained.
One of the senior officers of the Russian Defense Ministry, who wished to remain anonymous, told the "VPK" correspondent that Admiral Mullen, despite his very high post in the Pentagon, is not at all the figure who determines the military strategy of America in all its details. “He can only state his proposals,” the interlocutor noted.
“The United States is used to living at the expense of others,” he continued. - And this is a determining factor in all and every strategic construction of the White House. For every dollar invested in a country, Washington wants to receive, and does receive, multiple returns. Today, of course, America is extremely confused in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was the case in the late 70s with the leaders of the CPSU Central Committee, when they set out to build socialism in Afghanistan, but had little idea of the real state of affairs outside the Kremlin wall. Time has passed, but the situation remains the same. It is simply impossible to defeat the population of Islamic countries, whose world outlook is still practically at the level of the norms and ideas of the 15th century. England fought in Afghanistan, if I am not mistaken, for about forty years. But she was forced to give up her attempts to convert nomads and opium poppy growers to a civilized state."
