62
20 May , 2016 WHY USA IS PHD IN STRATEGIC FAILURE

USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

  • Upload
    agha-a

  • View
    235

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

 20 May , 2016

WHY USA IS PHD IN STRATEGIC FAILURE

Page 2: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure
Page 5: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure
Page 8: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

http://www.amazon.com/Callous-Indifference-Crisis-

Command-US-Afghanistan-White/dp/1517657571/

ref=sr_1_1?

s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463729129&sr=1-

1&keywords=CALLOUS+INDIFFERENCE+%2CAMIN

Page 9: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

CALLOUS INDIFFERENCE-CRISIS IN COMMAND-

US ARMY AFGHANISTAN AND WHITE HOUSE

This is a summary of an ocean of sufferings caused

in Afghanistan and border areas of Pakistan as well as in

the United States where thousands of families mourned

Page 10: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

for their loves ones killed in battle . This is not an anti war

narrative .It is an anti stupidity narrative . A narrative

dealing only with PHENOMENAL INCOMPETENCE on

part of United States Political and military leadership. A

narrative dealing with strategic and operational and many

tactical mistakes which were entirely avoidable on part of

US political and military leadership. We hold the view that

Page 11: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

the casualties that the United States suffered in

Afghanistan although far less than Vietnam were entirely

avoidable as well as unnecessary . Crux of the issue is

that greatest US failure in Afghanistan was a

PERCEPTUAL FAILURE both Republicans and

Democrats . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA failed to

understand that they were not battling non state actors in

Page 12: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

Afghanistan but State actors who were using non state

actors as cheap proxies. All along United States of

America kept deceiving itself in Afghanistan that it was

battling (1) Taliban or (2) Al Qaeda . My research led me

to the conclusion that State actors in Afghanistan

accounted for Ninenty Percent of the so called Terrorism

while non state actors accounted for only Ten Percent .

Page 13: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

http://www.amazon.com/QAEDA-TALIBAN-

Anatomy-Strategic-Failure/dp/1481007645/

ref=la_B008Y9XE8E_1_4?

s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463728565&sr=1-4

Page 14: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

The US strategy lacked that burning fire to beat the

enemy. While US strategists rightly saw China as

consolidating Pakistan as its western corridor to Gulf oil

and mineral resources of West Asia their support to

secessionists in Pakistani Balochistan was weak and

instead of strengthening Baloch nationalism has actually

weakened Baloch secessionism. Similarly US attempts to

Page 15: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

destabilize Pakistans Northern Area also lack serious

strategic resolve. The US 2008 plan to establish civilian

supremacy in Pakistan was also a strategic failure and has

destabilized Pakistan rather than stabilizing Pakistans civil

military equilibrium. The US strategists lacked the long

term vision to create new states which could have

stabilized the region which they had destabilized i.e Iraq

Page 16: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

and Afghanistan.Thus Iraq was shamelessly abandoned to

become a haven of terrorism , whereas Iraqs division into

Kurd , Sunni and Shia regions would have stabilized it and

restrained and checked Iranian ambitions. Similarly US

failure to divide Afghanistan will again go a long way to

destabilize the whole region with a new Afghan Civil war.

US failure to utilize its unique central position in

Page 17: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

Afghanistan to deal with Iran was also a failure and the US

leaves the region greatly destabilized than it was on eve of

October 2001. The report card for the US strategists is

FAIL and FAIL in both Afghanistan and Iraq while in case

of Pakistan again it was a grand failure. The US as it

leaves the region in 2014 , leaves it with a feather in its

cap of having created greater instability than was the case

Page 49: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure
Page 58: USA is Phd in Strategic Failure

12:23 AM  Labels: WHY USA IS PHD IN STRATEGIC

FAILURE1 comment:

1.

Lambert Speelman May 20, 2016 at 8:24 AMWhat I noticed last night is a new Commander. When I look at him, he wants only one thing: To destroy the enemy! This will be devestating for the troops - and this will never succeed. And if it succeeds, than with a loss which America is almost unable to recover from. 

The Leader is blind!