[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I think you are mixing apples and oranges in part of your analysis. There are three levels normally considered when planning military operations: Strategic, Operational and Tactical. While you can lose the battle (Tactical) you may or may not fail in the particular campaign (operational) and the overall reason for the commitment of troops in support of critical national interests (strategic) may in fact be supported by the loss of the particular action.

I know that this sounds like convoluted logic but you need to look at this subject in it proper context. It all starts with the proper and correct identification of what exactly our national interests are and which of those interests are vital to our survival as a nation. The elements of national power that are applied to achieve, maintain, or defend those interests can normally be catagorized at economic, psychological/informational, diplomatic, and military. The military aspect of this is normally not the element of choice and is most likely the element in support of the others.

The problem then, is not necessarily Wineberger, Powells or anyone else doctrine in how and when to employ the military. The problem is the correct identification of what those national interests are and the education of the public and congress critters as to why those constitute our national interest. When you cannot get agreement on what is important to the survival of a nation than how can you expect anyone to develop a viable doctrine for the use of the military.

Let me put this complicated issue another way. When you cannot leverage the attainment of your national interests thru economic, diplomatic or psycholocial means and are left only with the military to correct your mistakes or shore up your interests even the military aspect of national power becomes mismanaged and overstretched. Our goverment runs like business cycles and is sort of predictable in four year increments. If you have a military strategy that depends on the political election cycle for implementation rather than the sound application of strategic and operational imperatives you have a problem. Additionally, when you use the military as a political tool to support your partys position for the purpose of getting elected or maintaining party power the military will never be able to effectively use the tools it has at its disposal. The American folks are an impatient lot and want results today not tomorrow. For that reason, and others, you will find,for instance, that some problems that could be addressed with the application of unconventional warfare over the long term and outside the view of public scrutiny might never see the light of day. We live in a society where our politicians feel that they must be able to take credit for whatever is going on even at the expense of our troops who always pay the price of their folly in blood. I think you can take anyone's "doctrine" in the "proper use" of the military and shoot the crap out of it in terms of what your understanding is of the country's national interest. Unfortunately in defining national interests petty agendas, incomplete intelligence, uniformed decision makers, and just plain ignorance about what makes this country tick come into play and while we can always "vote the bastards out" there is a troop out there in harms way fighting for his buddy on his left and right in support of a decision made not necessarily for anyone's interest other than the politicians who forget for whom they serve.

Jack Moroney