In a letter dated June 5, 1944, Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, wrote a touching letter to his wife. He advises her not to take it personally if he doesn’t write for a few days. He says starting on June 6, 1944, he will be going on a “series of trips” that will last 6-10 days.

Let me translate this into modern parlance for the younger readers. Here goes, “Hey babe! Sorry for the late text, didn’t mean to ghost you. Got super busy. Hope we can hang out again soon ; )”

For the older audiences, “ghosting” is essentially when communication drops off without explanation. It typically happens through text messages. Letter writing? That’s a whole different level of bold! Being “ghosted” can suck, and if its a close relationship then it can get a bit personal. In most cases, ghosting your wife would be pretty uncool. However, launching the greatest amphibious raid in modern history to free the world from Nazi oppression… I think the General has a valid excuse. Ike, you’re off the hook!

So what’s the occasion? It’s the 75th anniversary of the Allies invasion and liberation of Normandy. Furthermore, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Museum recently obtained General Eisenhower’s letter. The Wall Street Journal published it yesterday. It is short, and worth reading. Letters present a trove of valuable information that helps add color to history. In particular, they humanize the people involved. We glorify previous generations and historical figures, and for good reason. Their accomplishments are enormous. But, its also great to remember they are ordinary dudes too. They thought about sports, beer, women, and getting back home. Today, I suppose you could throw Call of Duty and Red Dead Redemption in there.

My definition of heroism is ordinary people stepping up to do extraordinary things. General Eisenhower’s letter reveals that he was “ordinary” in a basic human sense. He loved his wife and cared about his family. On the day before he would lead 155,000 troops ashore at Normandy, he was still worried about ending up in the dog house.

In today’s military, many resources exist for families through “family readiness” programs. More than ever, the military recognizes the importance of taking care of families. Families serve and sacrifice in a different, yet important way. General Eisenhower’s wife would have been very much nervous, fearful, and on edge waiting for word from her husband. Her experience is no different than that of many families and spouses who have had to say goodbye to loved ones throughout the years. In today’s era of constant communication, the pressure can be even harder. Younger generations text and talk instantly. But when they deploy aboard a ship or to a remote part of the world, it becomes more difficult to maintain this type of communication. This can present another layer of stress for younger couples. They should take a cue from the General and be honest and up front about the drop off in communication. It does make a difference.

When studying history, we ask ourselves what would we have done? Could we have measured up? It is hard not to look back 75 years later at the sacrifice and service of the “greatest generation” and wonder these things.

Nevertheless, today’s generation has followed their lead. Stories are coming out from recent conflicts and the current operational theater that show they are up to the challenge. This is good. Every year, the population of World War II veterans shrinks. It is incumbent on today’s generation to carry the torch and maintain their legacy. How can we do this? Reading and studying is great. Especially when the reading in question (i.e. Ike’s letter) takes less than a minute. Constantly preparing physically and mentally is a must. Training and preparation cannot be a cake walk. The human factors of combat are too arduous to take things lightly. The possible enemy threat is too great to stay happy with the status quo.

Today, June 6, 2019, we continue to revere and honor the legacy of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers’ generation by keeping the memory of what they did alive. Seventy-five years after the fact, we can maintain connection with previous generations through service, hard work, and preparation to answer our nation’s call.

To all our veterans, we say thank you! For those continuing to serve, we appreciate your sacrifice and commitment.

Memorial Day. People know it as the unofficial start of summer. The weather is warmer and it seems everyone flocks to beaches, lakes, and other destinations to enjoy family, friends, and, of course, a good BBQ. The majority of workers get Monday off, and the long weekend is a nice break reprieve from long hours at the office.

But, it should go without saying that the weekend and the day represent something greater. The meaning that should be attached to this weekend cannot be overstated. In fact, it needs to be amplified, but not through discounts and store sales. On the other hand, it should be a time for people to ask, “Who do I know that put on the uniform and swore an oath to defend this country and its constitution.” If the answer is no one, then the next question is “How can I meet such a person?”

Remember that this day is about honoring those that made the ultimate sacrifice for this great country. Their sacrifice should never be forgotten. We also thank and celebrate those who continue to serve and have served. 

My suggestion for people looking to embrace the spirit of Memorial Day is to take the time to talk with a veteran or someone currently service. I am not suggesting you need to simply thank them for their service. While saying “thank you” is a fine and respectful gesture, I can say personally that it means more to talk to someone and genuinely listen to them. 

Ask a veteran about their experience. Perhaps they are willing to share. Most are willing. If they are, then listen. What does listening mean? It means taking an interest in what the veteran is saying and relating to you. Why am I saying what seems to be obvious? Because the fact is that most people can’t listen to veterans without trying to interject their own personal history into the conversation. For example, if a veteran says, “I was in the Marine Corps.” Chances are that the person they are talking to will start to rack their brain to think of someone that they know in the Marine Corps. Most veterans know exactly what I am talking about. 

In my personal experience, conversations that I have with non-veterans usually start with “What did you do? Thank you for your service.” However, most of the time, the other person takes the conversation and starts to talk about the people they know or how they wished they served. I believe that it is well meaning. Most people are trying to find some solidarity and common ground. They are trying to relate. But, if you’re not a veteran and you’ve been doing that then I suggest that you tone it down a notch.  

Again, veterans are generally very respectful and humble people. They served and they understand that service has sacrifices. For my part, I knew that serving was not going to be easy. When I got out of active service, it wasn’t any easier. Making a transition to civilian life is tough and a lot of veterans struggle for many reasons. My suggestion to non-veterans who want to establish solidarity and common ground with a veteran is to do them the service of just listening. By listening and trying to understand, you will be greatly serving those that served. In some cases, you will learn something. Ask questions too. Again, most veterans would love to talk and share their experiences.

I find that bridging the civilian-military divide is an important duty that needs to be done in our great country. But, both sides need to work on it. When attempting to bridge the divide, veterans need to be given the platform to speak. After all, they represent a small portion of the population. 

America is the greatest country in the world. Is it perfect? Not always. But, we have an amazing constitution, a powerful economy, and even more powerful military comprised of awesome people. It is thanks to the service and sacrifice of so many people that we are able to live in this great nation and enjoy the liberties that we have. Everyone can do their part to say thanks by having a conversation and listening to those who served. 

President Trump announced his intention to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un in May. This decision defies diplomatic precedent. It’s not unexpected from a presidency that consistently defies expectations. President Trump promised to do politics differently, and this decision is consistent with that promise.

While diplomacy is the preferred method of resolving international conflict, it is a complicated process. If mishandled, the most well meaning diplomatic engagements can fall apart quickly and more problems can emerge. The upcoming meeting between the two leaders arouses many questions, concerns, and hope too. Will something good emerge from direct talks? We will watch closely and see. In the meantime, we have history to guide us in anticipation.

Strategy

The Professional Military Education podcast has covered a range of issues related to strategy and diplomacy. In an interview on the book Strategy, the author Sir Lawrence Freedman discussed strategy as “the art of creating power.” Two sides mutually agreeing to direct talks indicates that each feels that they have some leverage to use in negotiating with the other. The United States has its vast economic and military resources. Tight sanctions have been in place for months and the U.S. does not show any signs of giving them up. North Korea may feel emboldened by their missile tests which now clearly demonstrate their capability to strike the United States directly. Furthermore, North Korea has always maintained a bargaining chip by virtue of the thousands of artillery cannons that stand poised and ready to strike Seoul, South Korea at a moment’s notice. Each side has escalated to the point where they might be in a position to negotiate. For example, the U.S. loosens sanctions if North Korea halts missile tests.

Iran

In an interview with Jay Solomon about his book The Iran Wars, Mr. Solomon chronicled the process in which U.S. sanctions ultimately pressured and brought Iran to the negotiating table. However, sanctions took a long time to bring about the necessary pressure. In the meantime, U.S. diplomats engaged with their Iranian counterparts to lay the groundwork for a final agreement. During this time, President Obama never met directly with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini. But, he did send him several personal letters. Perhaps President Trump and President Obama have more in common than people realize. President Obama believed that he could use his personal influence to affect foreign policy. Does President Trump believe that he can have a similar affect with respect to Kim Jong Un?

North Korea’s Objectives

In separate interviews with Dr. Kori Schake and Bruce Bechtol, a North Korea expert, there seemed to be a consistent narrative related to Kim Jong Un’s intentions. Both theorized Kim’s objective to be regime preservation. North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is a way to project power at home and abroad. In domestic politics, these weapons can engender immense national pride and solidify Kim’s support. From the perspective of international relations, nuclear weapons gives North Korea legitimacy. The world can’t ignore a nuclear weapons capable North Korea. Furthermore, nuclear deterrence becomes a means of self-preservation. Kim Jong Un knows that he is less likely to go the way of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Qaddafi in Libya. However, one can argue that with artillery pointed at Seoul, deterrence doesn’t require nukes.

A meeting with President Trump gives Kim the legitimacy he seeks. The question is whether it is enough legitimacy to cause him to abandon his nuclear weapons program. For the moment, the U.S. President’s actions show that the U.S. takes North Korea seriously. Whether that gives the North Korean leader the credibility he seeks both at home and abroad is still to be determined. In the meantime, suspension of missile tests and less aggression on the part of the U.S. and South Korea are short term steps towards peace. For the sake of many innocent lives, we should hope that they lay the groundwork for long term peaceful solutions.

Russia

The final interview that is worth listening to is with Steven Lee Myers on Vladimir Putin. Mr. Myers discusses in his book how both Presidents Bush and Obama sought to engage with Vladimir Putin and re-establish better relations with Russia. However, as Mr. Myers explained Mr. Putin felt consistently snubbed by the inconsistency of U.S. talk with action. The most prominent example relates to the handling of Libya in which Mr. Putin saw the U.S. spearhead regime change after pledging only “humanitarian intervention.” Additionally, under the Bush administration, tensions persisted over the Iraq War as well as American withdrawal from the ABM treaty. All of these examples demonstrate how talk without consistency of action can give way to mistrust which fuels further animosity. This is something to consider as world leaders meet especially if preconditions aren’t firmly handled before the meeting.

 

Earlier this week, Iraq claimed victory over ISIS in Mosul. Iraqi forces launched the assault in October 2016. Nearly eight months later, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declared Mosul liberated from ISIS. His speech came three years after ISIS seized Mosul and nearly one third of Iraq’s territory. On Twitter, Prime Minister Abadi announced the challenges of reconstruction while praising his troops for their bravery and hard work. Iraq should be proud of their victory on the battlefield. But, now the hard work begins.

How Wars End

It is a mistake to think that wars end on the battlefield. They don’t. If Iraq and its coalition partners fail to translate tactical success into strategic victory, more people will die at the hands of ISIS. Indeed, ISIS will return in force.

The difficulty for Iraq is that there are numerous players involved in the coalition against ISIS. When the fighting ends, these groups will have a divergence of political and strategic interests.

Kurdish forces have done significant amounts of work in the coalition. They have been amongst the strongest and most capable fighters. However, Turkey regards the Kurds as a threat. Turkey is a NATO member. But, in their opposition to the Kurds, they have been complicit in facilitating ISIS operations. This presents many complications for the U.S. and Iraq.

Furthermore, Iraq is a mostly Shiite country. Shia militias backed by Iranian Quds forces were able to play a major role in the fight against ISIS. However, the U.S. is wary of Iran’s influence. Furthermore, there will have to be reconciliation with Sunni Arabs. In this area, religious divisions create another set of difficulties. Sunni tribes welcomed ISIS in 2014 as they feared the repression from the Iraqi Shiite government, which was then run by Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki.

All of these ethnic divergences complicate political reconstruction. Additionally, ISIS will remain in Iraqi cities and shift to counterinsurgent tactics. As the Iraqi government seeks to rebuild cities, ISIS will try to launch terrorist attacks in Baghdad and other Shiite cities. The goal will be to draw Iraqi security forces out of Sunni cities. This was a tactic developed during the Iraq war when Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) existed under Zarqawi. It is known as the “belts strategy.”

What’s Next for Mosul?

The city of Mosul is in ruins. There are thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs) otherwise known as refugees. Rebuilding Mosul will be a major challenge as the destruction of Mosul’s homes and infrastructure has been significant. The first priority has to be stability of the city and region. With improved security and restoration of basic services, the goal is then improvement of economic conditions. Next, long-term political institutions will need to reflect the concerns of Sunni tribes. The U.S. will have to play a role in this process if it wishes to see Iraq stabilized.

The rise of ISIS in Iraq occurred due to a confluence of circumstances such as the Syrian Civil War and the Sunni tribes that welcomed ISIS as Sunni protectors. As Joby Warrick explained in his book Black Flags, these tribes turned on AQI when the U.S. launched its surge strategy in 2007. But, when the U.S. withdrew forces from Iraq in 2011, conditions changed. Political winds shifted, and ISIS was able to capitalize on popular support from Sunni people. Thus, despite the U.S. success in counterinsurgency nearly ten years ago, strategic decisions negatively affected its ability to maintain long-term security. That will have to change. In my interview with Mr. Warrick, we discussed the rise of ISIS in detail.

Is ISIS Done?

As mentioned, ISIS tactics will change. Although their loss of physical territory is a blow, their ideology continues to persist and influence many people. They will look for different ways to exploit areas of instability where Sunni Muslims live. In an al-Qaeda playbook called The Management of Savagery published in 2004, al-Qaeda defined this strategy. The goal is to expand their influence, build cells, and provide security in destabilized areas from the Maghreb to southeast Asia.

Additionally, ISIS inspired supporters, who operate on the fringes of the organization, are still a threat. The potential for individual acts of violence is strong. Moreover, ISIS fighters from Iraq and Syria will likely regroup and use their training and experience to carry out attacks potentially in Europe and the United States.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda has consolidated their own base of support in Syria. They continue to maintain a long-term vision of striking the “far” enemy i.e. the United States.

Victory in Mosul is positive. It is an outstanding development. But, it is a tactical victory. There is a lot of work that remains to turn tactical success into strategic victory. For a more in depth discussion on “How Wars End”, check out the interview I did with Gideon Rose. Mr. Rose discusses the topic of how wars end based on his book of the same name.