Us military effectiveness in future wars some Liddell Hart to understand also

1. US Military Effectiveness and future wars
 Published on Published onNovember 21, 2015
 Edit article
 View stats
Agha A
Investment Advisor at Maku Investments
496 articles
 72
 Like1

2.  Comment0

US Military Effectiveness

10. Man’s ideas can be crucial in course of history

11. On 25 January 1904 a British geography teacher presented a paper at Royal
Geographical Society titled
"The Geographical Pivot of History"
The papers basic idea was that if Russia and Germany allied they could constitute
worlds greatest power .The mass of land Russia,Central Asia and Middle East
was defined by Mackinder as Heartland.In this scenario Great Britain ,USA and
Japan, worlds leading sea power would be at a major strategic disadvantage.
Interestingly in 1905 Japan defeated Russia in a war .
Contrary to Mackinders assessment Russia and Germany fought war in 1914-18
as enemies.Russia was technically a winner but it had left the war in 1917 and
was gripped by revolution and civil war from 1917 to 1922.
First World War did not demolish Mackinders theory.Britain and USA won only
with Russian support that already bled Germany white in first three years of the
war and divided German effort into two fronts.
Further despite naval successes British naval power had its own limitations and
failed to penetrate North Sea or Baltic or even Black Sea and its major ally
Russia was thrown out of the war as a result for logistic failure and lack of
supplies.

12. First World War did not settle the German question and Germany emerged as a
major threat for Britain and USA. If USSR and Germany had stayed as allies
after 1941 , Britain and USA may not have won the war.
The land failure at Gallipoli showed that naval power had limitations.
In 1943 Mackinder prophesied that USSR would emerge as worlds greatest
power.
Mackinder gained prominence when alongwith George Kennan he proposed
policy of CONTAINMENT of USSR IN 1946 which resulted in creation of
NATO.
Containment won in 1991 but again the outcome is in question as another greater
land mass Russia and China now re-assert.
Afghanistan and Iraq also demonstrate limitations of sea power where low
intensity slow land conflict degrades advanced armies and creates anti war
internal sentiment.
Mackinder was a genius far ahead of his times in 1904 and in late 1940s his
genius was finally accepted.
Third rate British academic intriguers still denied him a professorship at Oxford.

13. This book under review is a must read book for those who want to understand
background of what we know as geopolitics.
CENTRAL IDEA
The central idea of this brief book is that Afghanistan contrary to common
perception is not a US failure.
On the contrary Afghanistan is a very crucial US strategic move towards
what Mackinder defined in 1904 , and most significantly a US potential
move that can threaten the soft under belly of both China and Russia.
The hard part of this discussion is that US decision makers must understand
this fact.
Ukraine can never be won by USA because it is too close to the Russian
heartland and Russia knows Ukraine too well.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are two places where Russia and China can be
brought to certain grief.
Pakistan and Afghanistan are both multi ethnic states and can be
manipulated by the US .Not Ukraine by any definition !
Present situation is that China seeks to step in the so called that it sees in Af
Pak . Chinese decision makers assess that China can manipulate and control
both Afghanistan and Pakistan using soft power.
Various indicators show that Chinese are capable of transforming Pakistan
into a Chinese autonomous republic by 2030 or 2040.This would mean a
much needed successful bypass surgery for a China that cannot face US
might if it continues to rely on its existing maritime infra-structure.
Chinas Burma link to the sea is a far serious bet than Chinas Pakistan link to the
sea.While the Burma link allows China access to the sea it is far longer naval
route to the Persian Gulf than Pakistan.

14. In any future war Chinas Burma bet can be countered but it would be far more
difficult to contest Chinas Pakistan corridor to the sea. IF US withdraws from
Afghanistan.
This is the crux of the issue.
In maintaining US presence in Afghanistan US holds the strategic key to
ensuring that China’s bypass to the Arabian sea fails.
Key ingredients of the strategic situation are as following :--
 A significant portion of Afghanistans population views US as a savior and
wants continued US presence in the region.The reason is simple.Pakistani
proxies , the Afghan Taliban are so strong that without US support they can
overrun Afghanistan in no time. The issue in Afghanistan is not ballot but
bullet.Whoever can deliver maximum violence can control.If Taliban can win
Afghanistan with violence the US is also respected because of its superior
airpower and military.
 For decades US has wasted billions of dollars in places like South Korea and
Taiwan. Afghanistan and Pakistans locations are far more crucial. Vis a vis
what US can do against Russia and China from Afghanistan.
 Afghanistan is one place which can be used by the US as a base to destabilize
Central Asian Republics as well as the Siberian Corridor of Russia to the
Pacific. Central Asian Republics are easy game if the US decides to support
any extremist proxies. In Ukraine this game cannot be played. Similarly
Afghanistan is ideal base for destabilizing Chinas Pakistan Corridor.
 My 2007 visualisation of how Afghanistan would served as USAs best bet was
as sketched in map below:--
 How Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan can play a central role in disrupting
Chinese corridor to the sea is as illustrated n maps below:--

15.  Similarly Central Asia can be converted into the inferno that Ghazi Anwar
Pasha wanted in 1920s with a continued US presence in Afghanistan.
 As the adage states time and space are always on the side of the ablest
navigators.
 USAs issue are not Taliban, nor Al Qaeda nor Pakistan who are all very small
cockroaches.USAs issue is BAD NAVIGATION and BAD NAVIGATORS.
 Pakistan is a highly unbalanced and ethnically lop sided and unjust state. How
do I see it . I gave best part of my life to the Pakistan Army. I wrote original
tactical papers, I led an independent tank squadron to win a corps level
trophy , an unprecedented and unrivalled feat to date.But I cannot find even
a sweapers job in Pakistan simply because I am not a Punjabi or I am not from
Nawaz Sharifs clan or Raheel Sharifs district.
 Pakistani narrow mindedness can be gauged from the fact that a deserving
Bengali officer Osmani was not even allowed to be a brigadier simply because
he was a Bengali and this man finally became the pioneer of Bangladesh’s
secessionist war against Pakistan.
 Pakistan as I see it is parochialism par excellence. A place where some ten
thousand families control all power and cartels. You can call it army , PML
Nawaz Party or PPP. It’s a highly unfair exercise.So why cannot the USA play a
role. It can play a vast role in capacity building of smaller nationalities in both
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 Pessimists in Pakistan would like the USA to believe that Afghanistan is
graveyard of empires and all this nonsense.The real position is that US
presence in Afghanistan is seen as most serious existential threat by
China,Russia and Pakistan. Afghanistan is not a US liability but a US asset if a
true disciple of Mackinder can be in lead in the USA.

16.  Much of what happened in history was based on perceptions.Where
perceptions were closest to reality leaders led their nations and smaller
partner nations to victory.
 Afghanistan and Pakistan are two crucial places where the US can win the
war against China and Russia as well as liberate smaller nationalities of
Afghanistan and Pakistan.