My opinion:
The military wants a clearly-defined end-state so we aren't fighting endless wars in shitty countries. These quagmire wars in the Middle East simply don't have one. Saying lofty things like "restoring peace and security" sounds great, but in practicality is just so much bullshit when the whole region is dominated by tribalism. Afghanistan is a country in name only- they have a PM and a government, but huge portions of the country are really governed by tribal leaders. Iraq is a little closer to being a country, but we deposed the only one to keep it in line for a very long time.
Having a government in the Western sense is fundamentally and culturally impractical over there- the cultural values of Arab Muslims are simply at odds with it (the Koran, Sharia law, "me against my brother", etc.) Democracy works in part due to a social contract of delivering what you promise (I know, it's far from true in practice). Ever do business with an Arab? If he is screwing you over, it's your fault for not being savvy enough. All of this and more is why nation building hasn't worked (and won't, at least in the forseeable future).
It's screwed up, but (again, my opinion) military/theocratic dictatorships are really the best forms of actual government going over there. We went in back in '03 and deposed one of the strongest dictators in the region, and are now supporting a rebellion against another. Foreign policy FAIL. Proof that Obama didn't learn from Bush's mistakes. Where does he think all those weapons he shipped to the Syrian rebels are going to end up?
I think it's safe to say the military doesn't love the Obama doctrine- but that the best path forward is to see current efforts through to some kind of logical conclusion. I'm having a hard time seeing what that is though- and unclear goals don't win wars.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." -Benjamin Franklin
Bookmarks