The following is a transcript of a report from "Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson." Watch the video by clicking the link at the end of the page.
From Afghanistan to Iraq, a lot of military observers say America can't seem to win wars even though we have the most powerful military on the planet. A new book examines why. It's called The 11th Hour in 2020 America: How America's Foreign Policy Got Jacked Up And How The Next Administration Can Fix It. I recently spoke with the author, Former Army Lt. Col. Daniel Davis. I began by asking about a controversy in 2012 when he went public with a report that claimed the surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan wasn't a success.
Sharyl: What was the upshot of what you said?
Davis: The upshot is that the senior leaders of our military and Defense Department knowingly were telling America that the war was getting better when they knew that it was not, and it was going bad and if something doesn't change, we were going to continue to eventually suffer a strategic defeat, which I think has happened in the last eight years
Those revelations brought Davis national notoriety, as an active duty military officer blowing the whistle on how the U.S. war in Afghanistan was heading toward failure. Some likened Davis to anti-Vietnam war activist Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers— documents detailing how 4 administrations had misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Because the documents were highly classified, Ellsberg was charged with espionage and conspiracy. During trial, it was learned the FBI illegally wiretapped Ellsberg and the case against him was dismissed.
Sharyl: Why would you say, in a nutshell, it is that America can't seem to win wars?
Davis: I believe that the most concise answer is because we don't understand what it means to even win wars. And I don't know if it's the fact that the civilian leaders just don't really understand what the military can do. It's wishful thinking. They hope that it works out this way. I'm not sure. But what I am absolutely sure about is that the missions that we have given the military, over two decades at least, are militarily unattainable, and they're not even connected to a strategic outcome. And that is the biggest problem.
Sharyl: It seems like as part of these wars, like in Afghanistan, after seeing what our troops are tasked to do, I would describe it as a lot of social work. Because they go into Afghanistan and they're supposed to rebuild the schools and tell the women that they can be anything they want to and get them involved in government and law enforcement, and things that seem far removed from fighting a war.
Davis: Oh yeah, absolutely. And I saw that, I mean, as I was going through Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011, I talked to all these brigade commanders, battalion commanders, company commanders, troops on the ground, the guys who actually went on the patrols, and that was all they were always talking about was, "We have built this many schools, we built this many kilometers of roads. We help these people here. We brought food into this place." And those are all nice things. But what does that have to do with winning a war? And how is that ever going to result in a military unit ending a war?
That brings another comparison to Vietnam. The U.S. military strategy intended to win the “hearts and minds” of Vietnamese civilians against the communist Viet Cong was largely considered a failure.
Davis: And then when you get into the more complicated situations like, well, let's have the government be less corrupt, let's have them be more effective and more efficient. Well, those aren't military tasks at all. And we're neither equipped to do that and it's just not something that the military is ever designed to do. But that's what we're trying to make them do.
Sharyl: Is there any financial motivation to fight wars in the inefficient way that you described, do you think?
Davis: Well, I mean, there is, it's beyond question that there is. And a lot of it's not so much that people are running around in the shadows and rubbing their hands and saying, "Yay, we can make a lot of money." It's usually cloaked in patriotism and, “We need this to defend our country and we have to have this bulwark out there and so we need all of these extra troops here. We need to keep them there to keep from being attacked. And yeah, that ends up making us money. So that's good.”
Sharyl: But who's making the money? Are we talking about defense contractors, people who support the troops and build the equipment and so on?
Davis: Yeah. I mean, look, we got to be honest. And the fact is that many of these members of Congress that either support these wars or fund them or refuse to end them are also the ones, it's just a fact, are the ones that get the biggest financial contributions from defense contractors and companies that make money off of these things. And then they have all these lobbyists that they spend millions of dollars every year convincing all these people, all these members of Congress, it's in your interest to do this. So, you see those things and it's people, it's a symbiotic relationship. And the net result is these wars keep being fought.
Sharyl (on-camera): Davis says the big takeaway from his book is: Keep a strong military and use it to defend from any attack — but use diplomacy to deal with other problems.
Carol Rosin revealed many years ago that wars were fabricated by the military-industrial complex in order to have old weapons used, new weapons tested, and those same new weapons bought by the government.
She was invited to a meeting in the “War Room” at Fairchild Industries, where she worked at the time. The purpose of the meeting was to come up with a way to demonize Saddam Hussein, who was an ally of ours, at the time. The very clear purpose of the meeting was to figure out how to push the U.S. into war with Iraq.
Of course, we’re not in them to win wars! The military-industrial complex is a great voracious beast that needs to be kept well fed. When you consider the destruction from hurricanes, floods, and all manner of natural disasters, one wonders why we need to have an industry devoted to the same kind of destruction. Often I think that we deserve whatever we get, disaster-wise, within the borders of this country, as karma for the death and destruction we have delivered incessantly to so many places since WWII.
Sharyl and Full Measure Team,
Regarding profit-centered MERCHANTS and the U.S. Military Industrial Complex (( find Thomas Jefferson’s disdainful opinion of merchants )) spilling/wasting of America’s blood and treasure—For Profit ! :
Study this Murray Rothbard report - and keep in mind Marxian Lincoln’s Economic-Premised WAR for CENTRALIZED/Totalitarian BUREAUCRAMENT ( my term ) beginning in 1862 - about MERCHANTS’ profit-purposed “Trading with the Enemy” :
“During the French and Indian War (1754-1763), Americans continued the great tradition of trading with the enemy, and even more readily than before. As in King George’s War, Newport took the lead; other vital centers were New York and Philadelphia. The individualistic Rhode Islanders angrily turned Governor Stephen Hopkins out of office for embroiling Rhode Island in a ‘foreign’ war between England and France.
Rhode Island blithely disregarded the embargo against trade with the enemy, and redoubled its commerce with France. Rhode Island’s ships also functioned as one of the major sources of supply for French Canada during the war. In the fall of 1757, William Pitt was told that the Rhode Islanders ‘are a lawless set of smugglers, who continually supply the enemy with what provisions they want…’” . . . However, in the words of Professor Bridenbaugh, ‘Privateering and trade with the enemy might have their ups and downs . . . but then as now, government contracts seemed to entail little risk and to pay off handsomely.’ ”:
—much like how U.S. businessmen, today, have treasonously sold out - seriously UNDERMINED ! - their own nation’s/country’s/family's/neighbor’s economic power, for building up Red China’s military power; for increasing PROFIT.
Find and study, “Target Patton—The Plot
To Assassinate General George S. Patton,”
by Robert Wilcox.
Re the above book, study this report about
a closeted communist deception via
President Eisenhower :
Learn about the Communist Insurgency Agency and MSM :
Learn of an Ike and William F. Buckley, Jr, and Robert Welch Connection (( keep in mind Agency funding of Steinem’s Ms. Magazine, as continuing Marxian infiltration to destroy WCA—White Christian America)) :
Thomas Hussman says
I get stuck on the little details, I admit. War in a jungle or war in the streets of Minneapolis have some stubborn truths attached. The Military laison to the WhiteHouse was sent on a peculiar mission thousands of miles away from Dallas days prior to JFK being shot to death by multiple assassins. This meant that all the normal advance protocols for a presidential visit were not in place on that day in Dallas. The same military advance man said he was surprised to learn that military hardware used in WW2 was shipped to Viet Nam instead of bringing it home to the USA after that great victory. He seemed to be saying that the war in VietNam was planned long before Kennedy was elected. This is peculiar because no one in my circle knew anything about a war being planned in Asia in the 1940s. Another sort of war has been raging in Minneapolis for decades. In the 1980s a group of communists took over Minneapolis Minnesota that resulted in black gangs being given freedom to operate. (Vice Lords) (Crips) (Bloods) etc, The flagrant murders of Patrolman Richard Miller and Jerry Haaf are proof sets that the communists were busy at work, disguising their work as being on behalf of peace. War, whether it is waged by soldiers or police officers is always for the convenience of some political goal or another, which is where the great disconnect arises. Much of the public would agree with a war task based upon the facts, if genocide were happening or violent oppression was occurring, but, where things go deadly wrong is when that same public is shown by video how the game works, or a document arises about the fake pretext for a war. A person of average intelligence would agree that sometimes deadly force is in order, as long as they don't have to look at the procedure of killing a man, or restraining a violent man who dies in the process. Police operations, like military affairs are ugly necessary truths in this earth. If the USA desires freedom for its people, its people must be told the truth, whether such truth includes a reason for going to war or a reason to restrain a violent man. If truth continues to be avoided by the media, police, military and the deep state swamp, we can assuredly plan for a future of violent protest whose pretext for violence is the lack of truth by those who believe they had a moral compass to begin with, that somehow justified the original lies which aroused the pretext for violence that the alleged political leaders wanted to fight to avoid. This message is a plea for truth by those in power and those who write the news. Don't expect the truth from a violent dope dealer, or a communist dictator, or an opportunistic racist police chief, or a cowardly mayor, or a racist Democrat president like LBJ. Expect the truth from those who are employed to manage the problems in the streets and jungles and sand dunes, and if they lie, punish them, but don't expect that fighting crime and oppression will ever be a pretty thing. It is and always has been an ugly process, conducted by those rough men someone else wrote about. The battle is between good and evil, and the belief that truth will set you free.
Is that why the Chicago Chief of Police said they will not be attempting to seize the firearms owned by the Chicago gangs.
The "common sense' gun law that the Left wants are aimed at the law-abiding, hard-working, tax paying American citizens.
I am beginning to understand the excesses of the French Revolution.
Thomas Hussman says
Kevin: Much black gang activity that has ruined the former beautiful city of Minneapolis has direct ties to Illinois and California, and beyond. The arrival of ms13 has only complicated a complicated situation. The pretext by the leftists is that gun confiscation will save us all. This ploy is very convenient and has had a remarkable affect on public perception about crime. They continue to zero in on the "gun" instead of the behavior by criminals. Cars and trucks kill vastly more people than criminals with guns, yet the focus by the Democrats is the law abiding gun owners.
Here is something I put together. If possible, I would like your opinion on this.
I maintain that 7 Governmental actions in the 1960s put us exactly where we are today.
1). In 1963, President Kennedy said that unless we stopped sending jobs out of the US we would hurt our economy in the future.
2). 1965 Immigration Reform Act. This pretty-much shut down immigration from nations whose people made us the greatest nation in the history of the world and encouraged peoples to immigrate who do not assimilate.
3). 1965, Creation of Anchor Babies. aka Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order Form 1868 to 1965, the 14th Amendment only applied to freed slaves and their children. In 1965 Johnson included anyone born in the US, Illegal Aliens & Tourists as in Chinese Birth Tourism.
4). 1965, The Great Society Programs. Walter Williams stated that $23 Trillion Dollars on these programs.
6). In 1967, the US Supreme Court declared requiring immigrants to give up their citizenship from the nations they had left was unconstitutional. "Afroyim v. Rusk". We have about 50 million dual citizens in the US today and many from nations hostile to us.
7). The 1968 Government Finance Reform Act. This placed all incoming revenue into one account and paid all expenditures out of that account While it makes sense on the surface, it has bankrupted us. It placed the Social Security & Medicare Trust Funds into that account and used it for general fund expenditures.
Here is something else.
The process began in the 1920s when the Left took control of the colleges of social studies and education at the prestigious universities where the future leaders would go. By the 1960s, they had control of most universities and made inroads into public high schools. I am not sure when the Left gained control of pre-K to 12 education, but that they did. I am guessing a generation or two ago.
The whole process proceeded by the Law of Gradualism, also known as "baby steps". The process was very slow and gradual and by the time people woke up to what was happening, it would be too late to stop it.
Thomas Hussman says
Kevin: I don't know the time in history when Representatives and Senators stopped reading the legislation they voted on. Nancy Pelosi's famous comments about the need to pass Oba-Care in order to find out what was in the Bill was a shocking realization about how the USA Gov. spends money, and the unintended consequences that result. - - - The Discovery Institute is engaged in a great battle for equality as they continue to prove Darwin was half correct. - - - The Marxist fingerprints are all over the cases you cite above. Our great traditions and institutions exist only because the US Constitution provides. - - - When teacher's unions are brought under control, there could be a light in the tunnel.
Reagan had the best ideas, but the mere size of the Federal Gov. prevents much needed change and progress. - - - The deceptions of yesterday have come home to haunt the education system in Amereica. The larger battle is not against the flesh and blood of politicians and unions. No. It is a battle against the evil rulers and the wicked who occupy secret positions of power, both here on earth and in the realms of the unseen.
James McNulty says
We will never win another war, unless Grenada gets a little too uppity again.
Let's get out of Europe, WE WON! Well, my grandpa won.
Let's get out of Korea, they have enough money and men to defend themselves.
Let's sell weapons and let the world do what it will.
Let's get rid of an aircraft carrier group or three. We cannot afford it.
Sorry for the lettuce salad.
Sorry that I will soon be living in a post apocalyptic world.
Michael J Venturini says
The darkest truth about war is, the benefit to suppliers not directly engaged in any conflict. Lots of federal money to be had, risk free, just making stuff 'for the effort'.
To name a few, there's Northrup, Boeing, GM, Ford, GE, P&G, BP, Goodyear, Monsanto, Motorola, Bates, Colt, Winchester, Pharmaceuticals, ... the list of supporters is frightening long, without adding employees per company. It's a huge part of global economy and livelihood, ironically.
It might take a little more than 50 acres and a mule, to fix that much 're-purposing' of human activity.
Regarding “50 acres and a mule” :
C O S T of REPARATIONS
I would say the goal of our is still to win wars.
Our most recent wars have been lost in the Capitol Building or the White House War Room. The goals of our politicians is to lose wars.
I believe the was first shown with Truman's firing of MacArthur during the Koran War. MacArthur was old school and thought he was supposed to win.
It just occurred to me that maybe that is why General Patton was killed.
In Vietnam, the US Armed Forces won all the major battles and 85% of the fire fights. The politicians prevented victory and managed to lose the accomplishments of our Military at the Peace Conference in Paris.
D. Roth says
$12.99 for a 163 page book in kindle format is a bit steep.
We have spend $23 trillion dollars on Great Society programs since their inception. The amount comes from a Walter Williams column.
It is very steep considering no one who is alive today was either a slave nor owned slaves.
Barack 0bama's ancestors on both sides of his family owned and traded in slaves. That is why his dad's line became Moslems. His mother's ancestors were some of the largest colonial slave owners in the Virginia and Maryland area. Their name was DuVall, same as the actor, which makes them cousins. DuVall is also the name of the ancestor that makes 0bama & Dick Cheney cousins. The 0bama's pay, right?
My ancestors never owned slaves. So I should not be expected to pay right. We weren't even here until the 1920s.