Donald Trump intends to win against our enemies using unrestricted warfare
Donald Trump brings something to the table that career politicians and senior military officers seem to fall short on… The ability to maximize the use of non-hard kill methods to accomplish American objectives. Over two decades after the U.S. government woke up to the need for information sharing and interoperability among the different agencies as part of a total war effort, a lot of work still needs to be done. Trump’s intentions, so far, hint at something more than efficiency at the government level. They hint at increased information sharing and interoperability among the agencies to better serve the public and American interests.
From Fox News:
The answer lies in the failure of the U.S. government to develop an integrated national security strategy. Integrated strategy uses a “whole-of-government” approach that leverages all the instruments of power, including material instruments such as military strength, trade and finance, and non-material instruments such as public diplomacy, humanitarian aid and counter-influence.
Each of these is like an instrument in an orchestra. And the players of individual instruments must realize this and not play their trumpet when the symphony prescribes the harp. This requires each player to be an integrated strategic thinker who coordinates with the other instruments. And the composers and conductors should know what all the instruments are.
Unfortunately, the federal government rarely has a coherent strategy, and leaders are often ignorant of which instruments of power to use and when, especially those not commonly used like cultural intelligence and offensive deception operations. There are, thankfully, exceptions. The National Security Council has only occasionally developed such a strategy. The Pentagon has done so, but is restricted to mobilizing weapons, materiel and manpower. Virtually every other cabinet-level department neglects and underemphasizes integrated strategy.
In the 1980s, the U.S. military faced a crisis of bureaucratic Balkanization that made America weaker. In 1986, the Goldwater-Nichols Act ended this by compelling the armed forces branches to become strategically integrated, overcoming interservice rivalry and lack of effective coordination. Similar legislation is needed today to ensure civilian agencies coordinate with one another and with the Pentagon. Only then will all federal agencies work in a synchronized fashion that makes them greater than the sum of their parts, enabling the U.S. to defend the nation and project power more effectively across the globe.
Additional Reading:
Lenczowski, J. (2024, November 18). Trump wants America to win a war without fighting. It’s possible and here’s how we do it. Fox News Opinion. Link.
Category: Editorial, Government Incompetence, Military issues, Op-Ed
Also called “soft power” we literally failed through 16 years of Bush/ Obama. They tried the same thing that works at home to get votes, write them a check. That doesn’t really work on the world stage because whoever is in power at whatever shithole country just keeps the money for themselves.
A good example would be the $600 million spent to build a sewer system in Fallujah. 22 years later still not built. Had we actually built a working sewer system, easy to do with $600M, the people there might actually be a teensy bit appreciative. But they simply gave the money to the wealthy sheiks to suppress the violence, who wisely spent on trips to Ferrari World, Sharma Sheik and that palace for wife #4. So really all we did was piss poor people off and strengthen the tribal system, kind of like in the US.
I’ve felt that way about US foreign aid for a long time.
We need to start treating foreign aid “gibs’me” like a drug addict begging for food at the street corner.
“Give us (money/food/infrastructure)”
“Oookay. But no more money freebies. We’ll BUY the food ourselves to give to you. And we’ll hand it out directly to the people that need it. If you want infrastructure, you’ll allow us in to build it for you. You pitch a fit about “sovereignty”, you’ll get nothing. Kapeesh?”
You’ll know how serious the receiving entity is by the amount of screeching when conditions to foreign aid are announced.
Actually, with all the waste, fraud, and abuse built into the foreign aid system, just cut it all (ALL!) off until we (USA) gets our shit together and debt under control and down to a reasonable level. Which could take decades. Sooooo, bye.
This is what China is doing and why they kicked our ass in Africa and South America.
“The answer lies in the failure of the U.S. government.” Period/dot. Coulda ended the article right there with that concise statement. Our foreign enemies have bought and paid for our domestic enemies to do the destruction of These States United for them. Still searching for the list of countries that tax their citizens to send us some “foreign aid”. The French did help us out back in the 1770s/80s, but they had their own reasons for that. We also paid them back on several occasions. The Russians sent their fleet to Old Abe during the 1860s, freeing up USN Ships for the Southern Blockade, but I believe we paid them back for that during the 1940s. Not to mention the millions we paid for “Seward’s Folly”.
Will Trump be able to take office in January of ’25? Will there even be an office there come January? And without the full support of the Kongress Klown Kritters will he be able to implement a “policy”? Why does the cynical side of my brain say…Nah?
Prepare
Give them nothing.
Take from them everything.
We could always try the old fashioned ways of winning wars…by creating warriors and brutally crushing enemies. This, however, doesn’t work in an age of poles-to-holes, diversity, chicks in combat units and hating your own culture.
The problem is; you win the war and then what? Remember the Mouse that Roared? Satire to be sure but all good satire is based on truth.
We won the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was the “and then what” part that caused so much grief. “Nation building” doesn’t work well where tribal loyalties or disputes between Islamic sects are centuries old.
“We won the war in Afghanistan”
That sure is a funny way to “win” a war. Perhaps you can tell all those Afghan “refugees” it’s safe to go home now.
Perhaps we need to define “win”.
Preferably before we go to war.
No nation has ever “won” for long in Afghanistan. Ghengis Khan and Alexander the Great held it for a very long time, but…
Who would WANT to hold that shithole.
Also, more to be done here.
Dating back to 1878, the US military has almost NO control or involvement in anything domestic.
States rights and the authority of Governors, you know.
Clearing out the illegals, and border enforcement,
may well soon involve active duty military, but not as long as
the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act remains in force as written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
This isn’t a job for the military. They are not trained, equipped, resourced or prepared for such a mission. Also Biden is doing his best to get us involved fully with a war before he leaves.
The military (Army, Navy, Chair Farce (oops, did I say that?),National Guard, Reserves, et al) could be the guards at the internment camps (FEMA, defunct military bases, etc) before the illegals are shipped out.
Maaaaybe, put the illegals in the firing range barren open plains outback of Ft Hood, where there’s a week’s worth of nuttin’ in every direction.
I assume use of the military would involve transportation shipping their ass home on cargo planes as an example.
It depends a great deal on how the military is used. Example: In the early 90’s, before CBP had cameras on the border, active duty Soldiers could legally act as observers on the border. We had NVG and radio capabilities that CBP did not. As long as Soldiers did not approach, pursue, or detain any border crossers, Posse Comitatus was not an issue. Observation and reporting was allowed under the authority of JTF-6.
I recall that. I believe they shot a teenager who was firing a .22 rifle near an observation team. That was the first time a military member had killed a civilian in the line of duty in about 30 years.
Military is best used for military missions and when not at war, best spent training for war. There is some merit to training scout snipers and others with tracking people at the border. It’s a good chance to work skills in RW situations. But guarding a camp of refugees/ prisoners is something that will probably happen anyway.
Also, If we have some kind of version of Abu Grahib or a similar event it will make things difficult.
Yup, I remember that. Observation teams I worked on were unarmed, laid up quietly on a hilltop. I’m not sure of the circumstances of that team, but shit definitely went south. Arizona National guard has a few AGR positions as camera operators, they don’t leave the station. My point was that Posse Comitatus doesn’t completely preclude the use of the military in situations like this, but it greatly restricts it. I have mixed feelings about it. I don’t think it’s the best first option. As good as it might sound at first, a free-fire zone on the border is a really bad idea.
How about we let them drown in the tears…
https://dailytimewaster.blogspot.com/2024/11/fun-with-ai.html
As I recall, the kid was herding goats or something, and relieving the boredom by plinking with his .22. A camouflaged team of Marines nearby decided that instead of breaking cover and telling the kid to stop shooting, it was better to kill the shepherd boy.
Remember when DHS was created to lead interagency cooperation?
Re. 5JC’s comment…in a good world, the military excels at killing people and breaking stuff. All this ‘hearts and minds’ ‘ nation building’ etc. should be left to the civilians whose jobs they should be.
I read the title as UN restricted warfare as in “United Nations”.
Took a while reading into it before I realized my mistake.
Or was it.
Let us break out the big stick, lest it become seized up in its sheath.