Destroy; I do not think it means what you think it means
The Christian Science Monitor reports that the Obama Administration is in a war of words about what their intentions are in regard to the war against the Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State. The President says that his intent is to “destroy” the organization, that we should make no mistake about that. But his staff says otherwise;
[Retired General John Allen, the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL] offered his own thoughts as to why he believes that the goal of “destroying” IS might not be the best choice.
“Annihilation requires a great deal of investment, resources, and time,” he told Der Spiegel. He then took another tack.
“The defeating, dismantling, and degrading” of IS will result in “ultimately destroying the idea.”
Destroying the idea of IS “is the long-term objective,” he said.
So what is the difference between this and destroying the organization itself?
“We can only destroy [IS] when we destroy the attractiveness of the brand itself,” Allen said. “When you can defeat the idea, then you have destroyed the organization.”
To me, “destroy” means that the battlefield is littered with parts of bloody corpses, that the idea of an Islamic State died with the last gasp of the last jihadist. When we destroyed Hussein’s Army in Iraq, there were no more living Iraqis in Kuwait – their “ideas” went with them, we crushed their jeeps under our tank treads, we blew up their Type 56 antiaircraft guns with C-4, we used thermyte grenades on the AK47s that they threw down on their run to Basra. We knew how to destroy an enemy, but then there were no American politicians in Iraq or Kuwait in those days.
Category: Terror War
Words have meaning. From ADRP 1-02, which is approved Army doctrinal terminology:
Destroy – A tactical mission task that physically renders an enemy force combat-ineffective until it is reconstituted. Alternatively, to destroy a combat system is to damage it so badly that it cannot perform any function or be restored to a usable condition without being entirely rebuilt.
The two approaches are hardly mutually exclusive. In fact, they are both essential. Destroy the idea through reason and, more importantly, propaganda, and destroy those who harbor and give voice to the idea to be destroyed. All of that aside, however, I am not at all certain what the idea to be destroyed is, in actuality. Terrorism is a tool, a method, not an idea. So, that isn’t it. Besides, it’s too effective in practice to be destroyed by mere words. How about Islam itself? No one would dare say it, even if it were true. So, what is the idea that is to be destroyed? And assuming that there is one, what replaces it if it is destroyed?
Who is the poor military member who has to advise the Obama administration on how the military runs?? Oh yeah, General Dempsey. Never mind…..
Master Gunns. You know as well as I do there was a team of senior officers who sat down and came up with this bullshit. I think Jonn’s interpretation of what “destroy” means is the same as what you and many others were taught.
The Pres. ment “destroyish”.
Teleprompter typo.
There’s a spooky cognitive dissonance going on with this that’s hard to define. For example, how can you describe a strategy as the destruction of a “brand” when you don’t even know if it should be called Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State or whatever?
Anyone following the current discussion in advertising circles has probably noticed that the concept of brand building is a rich environment for marketing types to use as an excuse for not providing tangible results. A lack of ability to move the sales needle only works for so long no matter how much your product is “artisanal” or “gluten free.”
Gen. Allen does not work for General Mills. Conflicts are not cornflakes.
I also somewhat disagree with the notion that “destroy” simply means leaving random body parts scattered around. That’s part of it, but in a broader Sun Tzu Art of War sense, it can also mean a denial of the enemy’s ability and will to engage. Somehow, things need to stay on point to the extent that an enemy knows if he messes with you, he will suffer the consequences of a very large clue stick. Consequences that extend not only to the direct combatant but also to whatever group supports him.
Kill, waste, terminate with extreme prejudice… not “bother until we feel better” or so.
“Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.”
Sorry, had to.
😉
IS wants to destroy us through physical annihilation. So we want to talk about the “Brand” and how to change its appeal to these turbine heads who dwell in mud huts and caves, and only listen to the imams. Lots of luck on that. This a religious war. We have to destroy… Almost to a level of genocide… Everyone one who believes that we should die.
Think Nukes… Look at the loss of life ,had we sent troops to Japan instead.
And the best part… With contamination from fallout no one could live there for 20 years plus. Or maybe we can make some nice Internet ads instead, telling them what great friends we are. Personally I think this Middle East situation is a continuation of WWII, unfinished business.