Title: The US Pentagon, the Future War with Iran, and a Short History of Grand Strategy Tricks that have Changed the World.
Author: Andrew M Molchan
Date: Sat June 16th, 2012
6/16/2012 ANDY'S UNPOPULAR INSIGHS. Thoughts About Grand Strategy, and the USA Pentagon's Desperate Need to Learn.
Yesterday, in my Facebook posting (under Andrew M Molchan), I wrote, "The Ultimate Art of the Grand Strategists is to trick another Country into fighting your wars."
Tricking other countries into fighting, or helping to fight, YOUR war has been going on for over 6,000 years.
The US Military has had a half century of shooting war DEFEATS in large part because it's been tricked into fighting other people's wars. Example, Vietnam WAS a French colonial war. Why was America in a French colonial war AFTER it was Crystal Clear that colonialism in Asia had become the Wrong Side of History? In 1964 I said Vietnam was ALREADY a defeat. But to this day most Pentagon Generals still don't get it.
A big example in the 19th Century was the Turks, in 1854, tricking the British and French into fighting their war with Russia. British and French troops dying in the Crimean was as stupid and useless to the British and French as American troops dying in a future Iran War.
In the 20th Century the Biggest Trick, and a WORLD CHANGER, was the French getting England into the 1914 war. American military text books just ASSume that England getting into WWI was a GIVEN. Modern American understand of Grand Strategy is very Lacking.
The German Army under Gen. Schlieffen, in 1905, had finalized their plans for a two-front war against both France and Russia. The "English Issue" was solved in the BAD grand strategy way - by NOT thinking about it. The German General Staff ASSumed it would be 1870 all over again, but with Russia. German would crush France fast, then Russian would have to make peace.
All of the military planners in Europe knew about the outline of the Schlieffen plan before 1914. Military writer, German General Friedrich von Bernhardi (Pour Le Merite winner), had written about the details of the Schlieffen Plan in his best selling 1911 Book, Deutschland und der Nachste Krig.
French commander-in-chief General Joffre knew that a German-French War, even with Russia in the war, would be 1870 all over again - a defeat for France.
The British knew about the Schlieffen plan to attack Paris by going thought Belgium. The British got the Germans and French (with England as the guarantor) to sign a treaty to respect Belgium's neutrality.
For 98 years naive military writers have been asking. "Why did General Joffre have NO French troops on the Belgium border to stop the Germans?"
The "Why" is General Joffre wanted the Germans to come thought Belgium. He wanted the Belgium-French border undefended and open so the Schlieffen Plan would NOT be changed.
The Germans did go thought Belgium. The British told the Germans they had broken their treaty, and to leave Belgium. Gen Joffre knew that the German ego could only have one answer, "NO." The English declared war on Germany. NOT because of the invasion of France, but because of the invasion of Belgium.
The massive military weight of the British Navy. Plus the "tipping power" of the British Army, and the manufacturing power of the British Empire thrown onto the side of France. That was a scenario the German General Staff NEVER considered. After the German Army failed to take Paris, and break the French Army's will to fight, it had already lost the war.
General Joffre had tricked the British into World War One, and saved France from certain defeat. However.
However. Looking at the possible historical scenarios, there is a good argument for saying that if England NEVER came into the 1914 war, and German HAD won in 1914. Then it might have been a better world. There would have been no Hitler. That means no WWII. The British and French colonial empires would have lasted a LOT longer. With France out of the war in 1914, Russia would have sued for peace. Maybe the Russian Revolution would have never happened, and that means no Stalin. The 20th Century would have been VERY DIFFERENT.
My point FOR AMERICA is that Colonialism in Asia is DEAD. The idiots in Washington DC are being tricked into fighting colonial wars for somebody else. The 2003-2011 Iraq War was a Con Game and Trick. The future "Iran War" is a Con Game and a Trick. American is a young country and its military hasn't been tricked until recently. HOWEVER, it's time for the Hayseeds at the Pentagon to find some intellectual courage and admit that they have been DUPED. It's time for the Pentagon's Generals to wake up and smell the coffee, and SEE that an Iran War is another pro-Colonialism Con Game war in Iran that would be a Guaranteed Grand Strategy DEFEAT for America before the first shot was fired.
Washington DC needs to have a Litmus Test. When a war is proposed, Washington DC needs to ask, "Exactly and specifically what are the advantages to the American people from this war? What are the PROVABLE BENEFITS to the American People? What is the Cost/Benefits Ratio? What are the LONG TERM disadvantages to the American people? Have we created a complete list of Black Swans - all the things that CAN go wrong? What assumptions are we making that are NOT justified, or even examined? Is this the Vietnam stupidity all over again? Is it worth the money considering that a big percentage of the returning American troops will go on "total disability" (because of bad dreams) for the next 60 years? Is it worth the money considering that the war will have to be paid for with BORROWED Money that interest will be paid on FOREVER? FACT: interest is STILL being paid on the money that was borrowed to fight the Vietnam War - does America need MORE of the same?