The power is ... how to apply it wisely?

A new look at the use of US troops outside the US

Not so long ago, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces, shared very serious thoughts with a wide audience that Russian experts for some reason did not pay particular attention to. Meanwhile, it was about the nature of the two wars unleashed by Washington in the first decade of this century and to this day have not ended with an unconditional and final victory. 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 Pentagon generals should be more careful and cautious in developing doctrinal provisions related to the organization of military operations and should offer softer forms of use of 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 resolving the political and economic problems facing the United States in the international arena. Currently, Mullen believes, Washington is relying too much on the superiority of the United States forces over the armies and fleets all other states of the planet. The Chairperson of the JSSC noted that the categorical and reckless use of exclusively military measures does not so much help as prevents the powers that be in America from coping with its strategic tasks in the field of national security.

Apparently, the words of the admiral in the administration of President Obama have been listened to, and indeed by the American commanders of all ranks, they should certainly be taken as a guide to action, and therefore readers of the "MIC" will be interested in some of the following conclusions of Mullen.

According to him, "in those circumstances, when the goal of the war is not to defeat the enemy, but the well-being of the people is truly less and more is better." “Every time a strayed or misguided bomb kills and injures civilians, we can be thrown out of our strategy for months, if not years ago,” Mullen said.

The head of the military school also believes that America’s victories in current and future wars will not be as fast as the White House would like. "Speaking frankly," the admiral announced, "it will be more like a knockout than a recovery after a long illness."

In his speeches, Mullen also noted that today the United States "defends the innocent," and this is the "essence of the actions" of the American armed forces. According to the conviction of the head of the US SCS, defense and diplomacy should not be apart from each other. “If one of them is defeated, the other needs to take all measures to clean up the very dirty process of international relations,” Mullen said.

By the way, the theses voiced by the current head of the JSSN are largely similar to the basic principles for the Pentagon’s fighting, which after the Iraq war almost two decades ago, in 1991, Mullen’s predecessor General Mullen offered to the leaders of the United States. He argued that the use of military force can be justified only in cases where it has the overwhelming support of the population of countries that invade the US troops.

In the meantime, Mullen’s speeches elicited widespread criticism. Opponents of the OKNSH chief, in particular, argue that heightened 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 OKNSH found and many supporters. On the contrary, they strongly propagandize his statements and believe that the new vision of the US military strategy proposed by the admiral is the most optimal way to counter Islamic radicalism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan. Since only extraordinary approaches to the implementation of their foreign policy goals and objectives will allow America to successfully complete all its actions in these problem countries.

Assistants to the Chief of the NKSH argue that their chief does not insist on a radical change in the American military doctrine, but is simply trying to establish a clearer line between Washington’s diplomatic activities and the use of military actions accompanying them.

US Air Force Colonel Jim Baker, one of Mullen’s advisors on the development of 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 the case. ” The officer stressed that his boss just wants to ensure that diplomats and the military, as much as possible, continuously adjust their efforts in the international arena and jointly defend America’s national interests.

The counselor also recalled the words of Mullen, who said that “before the soldiers start firing, in order to stop their enemies or support their friends,” it is necessary to use all diplomatic tools to solve the problems that have arisen. Baker also noted that the statements of the head of the JCS do not indicate an intention to create some kind of new military doctrine of the United States. “He was just thinking,” the colonel explained.

One of the senior officers of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, who wished to remain anonymous, told the "Military Industrial Complex" correspondent that Admiral Mullen, despite his very high post at the Pentagon, is not at all the figure that defines America's military strategy in all its details. “He can only state his proposals,” the source said.

“The US is used to living at someone else’s expense,” he continued. - And this is the determining factor in all and all sorts of strategic constructions 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. So it was at the end of the 70s with the leaders of the Central Committee of the CPSU, when they set out to build socialism in Afghanistan, but poorly represented the real state of affairs outside the Kremlin wall. Time passed, but the situation remained the same. It is simply impossible to defeat the population of Islamic countries, whose worldview still remains almost at the level of the norms and ideas of the fifteenth century. England fought in Afghanistan, if I'm not mistaken, for about forty years. But she was forced to stop her attempts to turn the nomads and opium poppy producers into a civilized state. ”