On withdrawal from Iraq: heed the Law of Thirds
Here’s another demonstration of the Law of Thirds (via Pajamas Media)
It’s a post by Bill Roggio that analyzes what the midterm election might mean in terms of future policy on the Iraq War. He cites STRATFOR analyst Fred Burton, who mentions polls suggesting that, whereas two-thirds of US citizens “disapprove” of the war in Iraq, only one-third seems to favor a full withdrawal of troops.
Polls are polls, of course, and subject to all sorts of criticism. In my training and experience as a social science researcher, I learned just how easy it is to find flaws in all such studies. However, I’ve also noticed–over and over–the Law of Thirds operating. And here it is again; only a third seem to advocate the most radical solution, while two-thirds are more moderate. Which group will be heeded by our new Congress?
For myself, I can’t quite imagine answering “approve” to a question about the war. One can agree with the decision to go to war given the facts we had at our disposal and the alternatives. One can think things are going better there than the MSM regularly reports. I fall into both these categories, and yet even I would not have answered “approve” if polled–war is too terrible, and there are too many ways in which the war could have been executed better (or at least we think so, with the benefits of 50/50 hindsight and the knowledge that, since we have no authority to implement our suggestions, our thoughts on the matter will never be subjected to the harsh light of reality. )
Like most of the two-thirds who answered “disapprove” to that poll, I’ve had quarrels with the conduct of the aftermath. It started with a terrible disquiet I felt at the outset, when widespread looting occurred and was allowed to continue. It set a tone of anarchy and lawlessness when a crackdown would have sent a different message. Yes, I understand the troops were busy fighting a war and wanted to ingratiate themselves with a population that they thought was only giving vent to anger at Saddam. Yes, they wanted to avoid the appearance of an occupation. But it seemed to give the wrong message, which was that anything goes.
As I’ve said many times before, I never expected this war to be easy or short. Actually, I fully expected it to be much worse than it has been; both in terms of initial casualties, and the subsequent battle. Whether you want to call that subsequent battle an insurgency, guerilla war, civil war, or terrorist war, I expected it to go on for a long time and to cause a great deal of suffering, as all such conflicts do.
As for mistakes in planning, failure to anticipate future events, and whether the administration expected the war and its aftermath to be easy or difficult, I’ve written at some length, here and here, about these questions, including the “cakewalk” issue. Please read both pieces; I have no wish to reiterate what I said then. Suffice to say that it’s impossible to anticipate these things fully, and of course the administration did not.
What I never expected, however (and should have expected) was the way the media–and some Democrats and Republicans, just to be bipartisan–demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the nature of war and wars. We’ve been spoiled, both by our ideals (who doesn’t want a cleaner war, one in which hardly anyone gets hurt? Count me in on that one) and our recent history (the Gulf War as the template, rather than World War II).
There is no question that if we expect perfection and give up if the going gets hard, we will become unable to fight any war. Some would say that’s wonderful. If we give up on war, all will be peace and light. I say: tell it to the jihadis.
In a piece found at The Corner, a reader sounds a warning:
It seems to me that Americans believe wars end when we say they end. Whether we win (WWII), lose (Vietnam), or draw (Korea), our wars have ended when we said they ended. The defeated Germans, victorious North Vietnamese, or stalemated North Koreans never came after America when hostilities ended. But the jihadists are coming, no matter what happens in Iraq. Make no mistake..
Have we lost the will for any fight that’s difficult or at all uncertain, that takes longer than a few weeks, that involves ambiguities and unknowns? I think we have. I hope we have not.
I hope the words of David Warren aren’t true:
…in trying to build a secular democracy over the ruin of Saddam’s regime, the Americans tried something they had not the stomach for. From the outset, they imposed upon themselves restrictions that would make that fight unwinnable. As in Vietnam, they adopted a purely defensive posture.
So far as President Bush can be blamed, it should be for showing insufficient ruthlessness in a task that could not be accomplished by half-measures. Alternatively, for failing to grasp that America was psychologically unprepared for real war, not only by the memory of Vietnam, but by the grim advance of “liberal” decadence in domestic life over the generation since.
Read the whole thing. Read the whole thing. And then read it again. And then hope and pray that Warren is a lousy prognosticator:
If Iraq is abandoned, the credibility of America and the West is lost. Iran’s hopes of regional hegemony are assured. The Americans will have cut and run after enduring less than one-twentieth of the casualties they suffered in Vietnam; and from a battle more consequential, for it is against an Islamist enemy that is rising, instead of a Communist enemy in decline…
…the consequences of abandoning Iraq will come home to the United States and the West, in a way Vietnam never touched us.
[ADDENDUM: I don’t mean to imply that decisions in war ought to be made by reading polls. However, since the majority of Americans don’t appear to want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, if the Democratic leadership thinks they do and acts on that supposition, they may find themselves out of office next time round.
Many people (even among those who don’t want an immediate pullout) seem to have lost touch with the difficulties and uncertainties, as well as the inevitable mistakes, that are part and parcel of any war, and demand that wars be easier and faster than they ever are. This means that many wars–and the Iraq war is among them–are fought with half measures, and with the knowledge that public opinion is fickle and that people don’t have the stamina for the long haul. This can lead to decisions that are not strategically sound, because of knowledge of the impatience of the public. And our enemies know that, and count on it, and act accordingly.]
more brutal and more stupid, not less.
Well, the States has already lost, unfortunately.
And so the method of employing the military —
Do not rely on their not coming.
Rely on what we await them with.
Do not rely on their not attacking.
Rely on how we are unable to be attacked.
I really wonder – and am amazed – that anyone whould pay any attention to a poll of the people regarding a war. I really believe that the vast majority of the people – or at least, those who have never been in the service, those who howl against all war in any form, those who reviled VietNam veterans – have no idea what’s involved in running a military operation.
Anyone who’s been there, either as soldier or civilian (even the CNN embedded) is entitled to have his opinion listened to (everyone else has a right to express one).
But I would value one Michael Yon over 1000 unruly street demonstrators.
It’s certainly true that even the best battle plans have to be thrown out after the first engagement. But I’d say that our military has been held back from doing an effective job. The military has to engage the enemy and do everything in their power to neturalize him. We’ve been hamstrung by proponents of a Geneva Convention, one that we alone of all other fighting nations are expected to observe.
Clearly, the war on terrorists may be never-ending, but if we had been allowed to take the gloves off in Iraq, and had run an effective and punishing campaign, the remaining terrorists would think twice before trying any more funny business.
As it is, after we leave – no matter what the situation is – they’ll claim victory, and like that Nutty Nasrullah, claim that the US always abandons its friends.
The article seems to repeat two points I have seen often on right wing blogs in the past year or so.
#1 We are losing in Iraq because we are not destroying enough, and are not killing enough. If the Iraqi people are made to suffer enough, they will do what we want them to do.
#2 The American people have lost their will to fight and die, have lost their will to destroy, devastate, and kill, and collectively have lost our ability to endorse leaders and soldiers who will do such things.
I would be interested in seeing how point #1 is going to be implemented, and I would be interested in how the supposed lack of American will is going to be turned in point #2.
I believe only 1/3 of Americans were even for the American Revolution, 1/3 against it, and 1/3 inbetween. Is this the origin of the Law of Thirds? I didn’t bother to read the link, but I imagine it would be.
I imagine people like Steve still fall into the 3rd that were against the American Revolution- Democracy is not worth killing or fighting for. The problem, Steve, is that though you think our civilization is not worth fighting for, the Islamists think theirs is. And not only in their current boundaries, but all over the world. You dismiss this as alarmism, but then so did those looking at evidence of a farflung conspiracy to blow up a couple of buildings circa 9/10/01.
But, since Iraq is at least a partially functioning Democracy now and we serve in their country at their pleasure, let them decide. If we are not needed, we’ll gladly walk away. I doubt that will be the verdict they hand down.
We took Warren’s comments seriously also.
In retrospect (everything is easy in retrospect), Iraq was not truly central to the anti-Islamofascism war, but a decent govt there would help, and set an example for sanity.
How does one really wage war on this sort of thing? No-one knows, because it has never been done … and can never be completed without nuking a good fraction of the planet – including England.
It’s more like treating cancer.
Well, Mark, since it is our occupation that is causing the current bloodshed, how to proceed given the reality of our current state? If our occupation is causing the insurgency, our leaving will end it, I suppose? And no more people will die. At least none that you will hear about on CNN. I’ll buy the premise that we caused Iraq to be an unstable bloodbath (just for fun), now what? Or does your reasoning not extend beyond your oft-repeated criticisms?
Well, the troll’s comments were deleted, but my stands. I’d like to see Mark’s or any liberal’s response. “What now?” And also ask yourself, “Do you care what happens to Iraq?”
Notice that Neo took my comment down. You are a coward.
At the risk of looking trollish myself, here is our imaginary threat:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2447690,00.html
I wonder, why nobody seems to conduct polls on quantum gravity or on climate change? Is military strategy or geopolitics something much more easy understandable by laymen? May be, it is still better to leave these questions for experts to decide?
Mark,
I honestly don’t know what you mean. And you really haven’t given a direct response other than more criticism.
Since my post on the law of thirds is buried far below, I dare to repeat it there:
The “Law of Thirds” is not a law of nature, it is not law of statistic either. This is only empirical generalization, reflecting some tendencies in American political tradition. It applies when distribution of attitudes is unimodal, as a back of one-humped camel. But it does not, when distribution becomes bimodal, as a back of two-humped camel. This occur when the middle sinks; exactly this is called polarization. And there are lots of signs of this process nowadays. The 9/11 was a such polarizing event, and more of this kind can occur in foreseeable future: new Israel-Arab war, nuclearization of Iran and so on. Whether it can overcome inertia of political tradition and when this can happen – this is an open question. Some psychoses tend to be progradient, that is their symptoms became progressively more severe. I would not bet that in 2008 election The law of Thirds would still be applicable.
You should all ask yourselves why neo took down my post. Coward.
I’ll tell you why, mark. You are a troll and have been banned due to previous commentary. Likewise, spotter, justaguy, and several others. It has nothing to do with the particular content of any one comment of yours on this thread, or with arguing with me or disagreeing with me. I have no problem with rational and respectful posters who disagree with me. I treat people with respect and politeness here, and I ban people who don’t treat me that way in return.
The only reason you are able to comment here at present is because your IP number changes. I don’t have time to delete all your posts, because I have other things to do in my life besides policing the comments section of this blog. I am planning a redo that will eliminate the problem of shifting IPs, but I need a good chunk of free time in which to do it, and I don’t have that yet.
Edited By Siteowner
I didn’t realize the world was listening to my answers. Is that why you post as you do? You think the world is listening to you?
Not sure where Mark got #1 in his first comment. The idea is not to kill more Iraqis – it’s to kill more insurgent Iraqis (and Saudis and Pakistanis and Syrians, etc., etc.). Which doesn’t appear to be happening.
Ultimately, of course, the idea is to let the Iraqis kill more insurgent Iraqis, etc. Which also doesn’t appear to be happening.
I think the Army and Marines have learned a lot about things like “urban combat” and “counter-insurgent operations” since Vietnam. When they actually take the offensive, they’re hard to beat.
Unfortunately, there still seems to be something missing from the military’s guerilla warfare arsenal – not a weapon or a doctrine, but some fundamental understanding about the enemy and the situation that the generals haven’t learned yet. They may have gotten a hint of it in Afghanistan, but they seemed to have lost track of the clue when they stepped off into Iraq.
How can a foreign army defeat a native insurgency? Old question. Has it ever been answered successfully?
Neo, you know that I disagree with you about America losing our will. We haven’t lost our will, because that power has never been tapped by Bush except for a few moments after 9/11 and Afghanistan Enduring Freedom.
The person you quote, specifically said that it was the political leadership that put restraints, that is not America, Neo. It is demonstrably clear that the political leadership always takes a lackaidaisical stance towards war, whether this was during the Civil War with the Democrat generals or during WWII with Republican isolationism. The political parties hate war, it is only the American people that love winning it and demand victory.
Bush not having the will to do a crackdown and ruthless public executions of terroists and Baath members, is his problem, not the American people’s and certainly not the Jacksonian war lobby’s problem.
It certainly affects us and the war effort, it certainly prevents America’s will from being fullfilled and that is just the thing. If you don’t use America’s power, you will lose America’s power, because not even the most loyal of loyalists will back you after you’ve played endless games with their support. The Shia and Vietnam saw this first hand, and America is seeing it with decreased war support. America supported the war, and honestly believed that the political leadership would have and should have decimated the enemies of America. But Bush didn’t do that, except with a few invasions, with little to no destruction of enemy infrastructure or inflicting of psychological death and despair upon the enemy in a way that America could understand and feel.
Even with that and the media, America still supported the war, up to 2004 and 2005. With Bush’s elections. He got a second chance to use America’s will as his power base and mandate, and CRUSH our enemies. He went in Fallujah, but then he left Al Sadr and Syria and Iran alone, hrm……
If it is in any sense true that America is losing our will, it is because we are disillusioned and sick of getting our hopes up for an administration that seems too stubborn and principled to take off the gloves and wage the bloodbath necessary to cleanse iraq of violence.
For people like me, who can understand some of the reasons why Iraq is still violent, it is bad enough. But imagine all the others, who just watch the news, how frustrated must they be when they don’t even know of any possible way to win in Iraq? They must surely feel disillusioned and in despair.
And you cannot say, Neo, that this was different historically. It was no different for Lincoln before Antietam and he had an election coming up, you know.
How can a foreign army defeat a native insurgency? Old question. Has it ever been answered successfully?
bugs | 11.10.06 – 5:58 pm | #
America already did it in the Philliphines.
Neo is a cheerleader for the genocidal nutters, Mark. The only answer they have for their perceived problems is to kill all the muslims.
Removing posts from the sane is par for the course here.
They don’t understand just how insulting the term “chickenhawk” is, but neo is clearly the archetype.
justaguy: You are a troll and have been banned due to previous commentary. Likewise, spotter, mark, and several others. It has nothing to do with the particular content of any one comment of yours on this thread, or with arguing with me or disagreeing with me. I have no problem with rational and respectful posters who disagree with me. I treat people with respect and politeness here, and I ban people who don’t treat me that way in return.
The only reason you are able to comment here at present is because your IP number changes. I don’t have time to delete all your posts, because I have other things to do in my life besides policing the comments section of this blog. I am planning a redo that will eliminate the problem of shifting IPs, but I need a good chunk of free time in which to do it, and I don’t have that yet.
Edited By Siteowner
Y – You’re right, but that was a hundred or so years ago. It wasn’t too hard to portray the Philippine army and insurgents as “savages” so as to make killing them until they gave up a bit easier on the conscience. The rules have changed since then.
(The funny thing is, though, if you read the Wikipedia entry about that war, the arguments pro and con sound almost exactly like the ones we hear today about Iraq.)
I should have been more specific: How can a foreign army defeat a native insurgency given today’s political/moral climate and global orientation?
Steve, I’ll try to answer your questions. First, you need not make many people suffer to establish discipline: if you kill only one percent of those who deserve it, but do it demonstratively enough, you’ll feel the difference. Public executions make wonders with population moral, believe me. It is much better to kill 10 in public, than thousand without proper advertisment and spin. See how they do it Saudi Arabia: body count negligible, propaganda and fear-instilling effect is great. Hardly Iraqi are less susceptible to this type of learning than their neigbours.
How Americans will retain their lost moral strength? By demography and generation change. Liberals are not good not only in national security, they also are poor in procreation. If average birth rate in US is at the level of replacement, in liberal segment it is far below, and in traditionalist families – far above. The Law of Malthus (exponential growth or decline) shows, who is “fit”, and who “unfit”. The breeders will always outbreed non-breeders, pro-lifers – those who chose to abort their future. And exponent, I tell it you as a mathematician, is a very fast growing function.
“It’s clear that in Phase 2 of this, it has not been going well enough or fast enough.”
Donald Rumsfeld, 9 Nov 2006
This has happened so many times before here: Even your idols don’t believe the “things aren’t as bad as all that in Iraq” myth you guys have bought into. It’s just a shame it took a dimming of political prospects to get Rumsfeld to admit such a thing.
But as you said “Bush was willing to shoot himself in the foot” to prove his loyalty to the man. A chilling choice of words considering many troops you supposedly support are in their graves now as a result of Rumsfeld’s “leadership.”
Another opinion on Rumsfeld’s “leadership,” from Victor Davis Hanson:
Here is the record of Donald Rumsfeld. (1) Tried to take a top-heavy Pentagon and prepare it for the wars of the postmodern world, in which on a minute’s notice thousands of American soldiers, with air and sea support, would have to be sent to some god-awful place to fight some savagery—and then be trashed live on CNN for doing it; (2) less than a month after 9/11 he organized the retaliation against al Qaeda in the heart of primordial Afghanistan that removed the Taliban in 7 weeks, when we were all warned that the U.S., like the British and Russians of old, would fail; (3) oversaw the removal of Saddam in 3 weeks—after the 1991 Gulf War and the 12-years of 350,000 sorties in the no-fly-zones, and various bombing strikes, had failed. (4) Ah, you say, then there is the disastrous 3-year insurgency—too few troops, Iraqi army let go, underestimated “dead-enders” etc.?
But Rumsfeld knew that in a counterinsurgency (cf. Vietnam 1965-71) massive deployments only ensure complacency, breed dependency, and create resentment, and that, in contrast, training indigenous forces, ensuring political autonomy, and providing air and commando support (e.g., Vietnam circa 1972-4) is the only answer—although that is a long process that can work only if political support at home allows the military to finish the job (cf. the turn-of-the-century Philippines, and the British in Malaysia). He was a good man, and we were lucky to have him in our hour of need.
The problem, Steve, is that though you think our civilization is not worth fighting for, the Islamists think theirs is.
I enlisted in the Marines at the age of 18 and was honorably discharged as an E-5 four years later. This was 35 years ago. It’s not a question of whether I am willing to fight for my civilization — clearly, I am — rather it’s a question of how effectively I am fighting for my civilization tooling around in a Stryker in Iraq waiting to get blown up.
I basically do not think the US has enough people in combat arms (infantry, tanks) to effectively win any wars. Frankly, I think Iraq is just proof of that. The armed forces of the United States (I was taught that referring to it as “the military” was demeaning, and it makes my skin crawl the way people say that on TV) are just too small. I am in favor of a much bigger army (and Marines), and a more militarized American society, including national service aka The Draft. I am not sure how to sell those things, however.
By the way, today is the Marine Corps birthday, so happy birthday to me. Tomorrow is Veteran’s Day. Thank You.
First, you need not make many people suffer to establish discipline: if you kill only one percent of those who deserve it, but do it demonstratively enough, you’ll feel the difference. Public executions make wonders with population moral, believe me. It is much better to kill 10 in public, than thousand without proper advertisment and spin.
Sergey, this is the same mindset that led to the tortures and exotic killings of the middle ages. And it didn’t control the people indefinitely either. What you are saying is that if you scare people badly enough, they will obey. Well, they might obey for awhile. But not for long. Your name implies you are Russian: as you know, the Germans in WW2 killed lots and lots of Russians in public executions, and routinely carried out reprisals at 10:1, or even 100:1 and 1000:1 ratio. It didn’t help them, just created a whole lot of hatred for Germans when it was all over.
As a practical matter, I can’t see the United States (let alone anyone else in the world) endorsing public executions. But it’s a nice fantasy.
How Americans will retain their lost moral strength? By demography and generation change. Liberals are not good not only in national security, they also are poor in procreation. If average birth rate in US is at the level of replacement, in liberal segment it is far below, and in traditionalist families – far above.
Well, I am a conservative Republican with five grown kids so I assume this comment is not directed at me. If the hallmark of a traditionalist family in the US is large families, there are very, very few of these. The only reason why the US population has grown for the past 30 years is because of immigration, much of that illegal.
I have no idea what measures mere writers could take to inspire Americans to enlist in the armed fo
Now I see my comment was truncated, I didn’t realize there was a length limit. Whatever. I will summarize the rest of my points.
#1 Orwell pointed out that the loss of the idea of an afterlife has profound repercussions. True.
#2 The Philippine insurrection is not a good model. If you are an American, read about how we treated the Filipinos and be disgusted.
#3 The Malaysian model is better, it has been talked about for almost 3 years now, but the “oil spot” doesn’t work because we don’t have enough people to make it work.
Best to all.
I should have been more specific: How can a foreign army defeat a native insurgency given today’s political/moral climate and global orientation?
Use a nuclear weapon and paralyze the UN. No, I’m serious. As with Sergey’s philosophy, there is a smart way to use force and a dumb way to use force.
We have nukes, they don’t. Use them or lose them. You want to win, use what you got. Because they don’t got nukes, you can use a nuclear device in any where and any place, as well as any when. You choose the site of battle, how can you lose if you choose the site of battle?
The problem is the same with Imperial Japan. How do you convince a bunch of freaking fanatics, that dieing for their belief system is not the way to go. You simply demonstrate, to all concerned or whoever is most tractable, that you are not only willing but able to destroy them at a whim, with no regrets and no hesitation.
Iran, Syria, Al Sadr, Sunni Baathists, Al Qaeda. These people feel the same fear and anger that the rest of humanity fears. When they decide what to do or whom to kill, they calculate their own chances of survival into it, if not personal survival, then the survival of their ideology. So even though individual Japanese really didn’t care to surrender, the Japanese nation WOULD surrender. Because they weren’t fighting so they could die, they were fighting so that Japan could survive, and while their suicide tactics were kind of stupid, they were certainly desperate and honest.
Now, you can’t do much with the Islamic crazies. But for the rest of Iraq? A nuclear device detonated on the Syrian border, without any serious casualties, would be very effective compared to what, invading Syria?
Evacuating Fallujah, sending the Marines in to clean house, re-evacuate Fallujah, and then nuking it, would also send a good message.
These are the psychological triggers that win guerrila wars. You can have a thousand skirmishes and battles, Bugs, but it is not going to win you the guerrila war decisively. We have seen that in Iraq and in Vietnam. You have to hit the enemy so hard and furious, that they are willing and eager to give up, because they see it as their own chance of survival. There are many various ways of accomplishing this.
We didn’t have nukes a hundred years ago, bugs. While you see mostly the negatives of being in the 21st century fighting a guerrila war, I see a lot of the positives. America is the lone superpower, why don’t we actually, you know, use that power since we already are responsible for the world’s earthquakes and tsunamis anyway? Sure we got media problems that Pershing didn’t have. But so what, no battle is ever the same twice over. Not even Hannibal’s battles.
(4) Ah, you say, then there is the disastrous 3-year insurgency—too few troops, Iraqi army let go, underestimated “dead-enders” etc.?
It’s funny, but I would criticize Rumsfield for going into Iraq with too many troops. And the fact that he didn’t kill the army, disregard letting them go.
Rummy got it right on Afghanistan, but for some reason, he started compromising on Iraq and Bush listened. Or maybe it was the fact that Bush went to the Un for Iraq and didn’t for Afghanistan. Never go to the UN if you want an American victory, I say.
By the way, today is the Marine Corps birthday, so happy birthday to me. Tomorrow is Veteran’s Day. Thank You.
There’s two ways of looking at it, Steve. One way, is to think that the Marine Corps is about you, so that celebrating the birthday of the Corps is a happy birthday to you. Another way of looking at it is to see the Marine Corps as greater than any one Marine, that all contribute and sacrifice for the mission and therefore honor accrues to all instead of the One. You seem to prefer the former over the latter, for some reason.
Public executions make wonders with population moral, believe me.
Neo, you think you getting too many Jacksonians or what? Can’t say that I disagree with public executions, I’ve always believed that when children are getting blown up, a couple of examples must be made soon.
Your name implies you are Russian: as you know, the Germans in WW2 killed lots and lots of Russians in public executions, and routinely carried out reprisals at 10:1, or even 100:1 and 1000:1 ratio. It didn’t help them, just created a whole lot of hatred for Germans when it was all over.
Actually what the Germans did was start punitive punishments on the families of anyone they could catch, they weren’t really picking about who. Add this fact into how the Germans would just start picking off villages randomly, and what you have is injustice. Sergey has the position of justice, justice alone will not convince people, justice with the executioner’s axe, however, will.
There’s a smart way to kill people and then there’s the brute force dumb way. Terroists blowing up Iraqi school children = dumb. Americans hanging terroists in the streets of Baghdad, and letting them rot in the 120 degree heat = smart.
As a practical matter, I can’t see the United States (let alone anyone else in the world) endorsing public executions. But it’s a nice fantasy.
Steve, haven’t you realized yet that it isn’t other people’s fantasy, but yours? You act and believe that it is everyone else who won’t do this or that, but it is really you that won’t do it. Acting like everyone else mirrors your beliefs, gives you an easy self-rationalization for not even trying. It is also psychological projection, and since you’ve consistently done this ever since you were last here a year or so ago, it must certainly be part of your personality.
#2 The Philippine
x#2 The Philippine insurrection is not a good model. If you are an American, read about how we treated the Filipinos and be disgusted.
You would be disgusted, although most Marines right now would love to bring back some of those techniques that Pershing used. They got the same problems, the fanatic Muslims won’t go down with one round cause they are high on drugs. And besides, the Philipinos fought with America against Japanese occupation and were kind of sad to see us go. If you follow your position, this seems inconsistent, why would they want the horrible and disgusting Americans not to go?
#3 The Malaysian model is better, it has been talked about for almost 3 years now, but the “oil spot” doesn’t work because we don’t have enough people to make it work.
Give up and surrender, steve, like the Wake Island commander did. If things are better because they don’t work, I am not going to take up your “better” recommendations.
“Is it better for the prince to be feared or loved?”
My Man Machiavelli says if possible, be both. But if you have to make a choice, be feared. No one will take you for granted that way.
It’s a famous chapter in The Prince. Do read it all. And it concludes with the line “Fear, accompanied by a certainty of punishment, is always effective.”
Old Nicki knew his politics.
“The Philippine insurrection is not a good model. If you are an American, read about how we treated the Filipinos and be disgusted.”
It’s a model for success, not for perfection. No strategy that would meet your standards of morality will ever succeed, so you might as well get used to losing.
Actually, terrorists blowing up Iraqi school kids is smart.
It impresses the media and the anti-war folks with the potency and revolutionary virility of the enemy.
Read a report several months ago. The Brits did a poll which has apparently not been done here.
One of the questions was whether the war in Iraq was being pursued with sufficient vigor. There was a substantial number who said no.
IMO, a poll which asks those who disappprove of the conduct of the war whether they think it should be more vigorous would be interesting here.
The pollsters generally imply that all disapproves are anti-war of some sort.
Watching conservative blogs will cure you of that.
Were somebody to ask me that question on a poll, I would refuse to answer on the grounds it would be misrepresented.
Victory and Defeat will ultimately decide who was smarter or dumber. Nazis lost, ex post facto, they were dumb. Truman got Japan to surrender unconditionally, therefore he was smart with the use of nukes.
Of course, the causality chain doesn’t go one way all the time. It is true that if you have smart tactics, you will win more battles and wars. But the ultimate decider for what are smart and dumb tactics, will in fact be decidied on a historical basis.
So yes, there are benefits to the terroist manipulation of the MSM as a 20 dollar whore. But such strategy relies upon weakness, upon the MSM, and this weakness can be collapsed pretty easily if you really really apply enough force to the media and the terroists.
There are two things that decide wars, the end game, which is all that matter. Logistics and the will to fight. Most military senior officers focus on logistics, because an army travels on its stomach. But the whole point of having logistics, in the first place, is to sustain the will to fight by supplying the capabilty to fight. Regardless of how gun ho someone is, he can’t do anything without fuel in his tank. Same was for the Russian campaign, the Germans had a good position and good discipline, but they suddenly stopped wanting to fight when their supplies got cut off.
So out of the two, the will to fight is far more important than the ability to fight or the logistics train. On par with how much more important logistics is to strategy, and strategy is to tactics. After all, if you keep hanging on like the Vietcong did, then you can defeat an opponent that has a weaker will to fight, even though you are eating grass and they are eating spam and butter.
The point, all in all, is what exactly are you aiming for in Iraq. Defeat the tactic of terrorism, used by terroists? Defeat the strategy of terroists to cause American withdrawal and Iraqi civil strife? Or defeat the terroist logistics trains coming out of Syria and Iran?
I say, sure, go ahead, do all of those things. But if you really really want to win, you will go after the coup de grace, that which will cause all the above not to matter. Strike down the will to fight of your enemy, and it does not matter what tactics, strategy, or logistics he has or does not have.
You don’t see it historically, meaning you don’t see some guy with a 2 bit army going up to a 200,000 strong professional force, and getting the professional force to stop wanting to fight. Historically, that never happened. The best that happened was Sun Tzu grabbing up some victories without having to fight, through demoralizing the enemy, which was accomplished by cutting off their logistics for the most part. No money, no army. SO most of the time, a general had to have good tactics, strategy, and logistics in order to break the enemy morale. Because he probably had a lot of force disadvantages and logistics problems of his own, he didn’t have Land Supremacy so to speak. He didn’t have any
He didn’t have any other option to demoralize the enemy, other than conventional military victories.
But this is the 21st century we are, let me remind people of that. America’s logistics are secure. Not even 9/11 could affect the American power house economy, which drives and funds the US military without any effort at all. So what prevents us from obliterating the enemy, when we have the absolute force advantage on par with NONE? What makes our enemies keep wanting to fight such a superior force?
If we win every battle against terroists, both in Iraq and at home, will this cause the terroists to stop wanting to fight? If we defeat the terroists’ plan to cause American withdrawal, by staying in the fight, and if we defeat their efforts to terrorize the Iraqi population (January votes purple fingers), will this cause the enemy to stop wanting to fight? And if you cut off the logistics they receive from Syria and Iran, as well as the support from the UN, Europe, and the MSM, will this also cause them to wish for the fighting to stop?
As you progress from basic tactics to strategy to logistics, the answer gets closer and closer to yes, but it is still a No. No, it will not cause them to wish for the fighting to stop. Their psychology doesn’t work like that, where military defeats makes them think of surrendering.
The whole point of winning battles on a tactical level, defeating the enemy’s strategy, and cutting off the enemy’s logistics is to break the enemy’s morale, his Will to Fight. This is true on a macroscale as well as a microscale, if you study Hannibal’s battles.
So something is very very wrong when America is winning on 2 out of 3 prerequisites for victory, and yet it is our will being sapped, not the terroists’. I don’t think it is that hard to figure out, people already know why this is happening. They know about Vietnam, they know how the terroists use the media against us. The terroists understand how to break our will to fight, and so they craft their tactics,strategy, and logistic bases in such a way as to support their attacks. But Bush does not understand how to break the will of a terroist to fight, and he doesn’t even know how to find out. Which is why regardless of our concrete battlefield victories, Iraq is still in a violent situation. War is a contest of wills, of human wills. That is all war is, when you distill out the extra parts.
I doubt Bush’s politicians will be able to see the need for the iron fist, which is why I am not holding my breath for the Gates boys to come up with victory.
For whatever reason, logistics has become in the 21st century, to mean media propaganda support and international “law”. That’s not war, that’s cloak and daggers stuff. Therefore a conventional military approach cannot win in Iraq, and it never had any such chance of victory compared to the Special Forces method in Afghanistan. More troops? If more troops mean more of the same, then you will just get mo
If more troops mean more of the same, then you will just get more of the same body bags with nothing to show for it in the end game.
Deleted. Banned.
My apologies to Steve above, I misinterpreted his statements.
How can a foreign army defeat a native insurgency? Old question. Has it ever been answered successfully?
Yes, it was. In Lithuania and Poland Soviet Army and NKVD after WWII has successfully suppressed popular insurgency. It took nearly 10 years to complete, and included lots of harsh measures, but it worked.
As a practical matter, I can’t see the United States (let alone anyone else in the world) endorsing public executions. But it’s a nice fantasy.
As I already wrote, Saudi do it on daily basis. And you need not Americans be involved in it directly: you can always outsource such things to locals. Suddam was insane and went ballistic with aggression and anti-americanism; he needed to be replaced. But if your goal is aquire political and military control of region, you need only change leadership, not entire societal structure. Democracy in Muslim countries is a pipe dream; but establishing reliable allies there is quite possible and needs much less effort. Brits did not overthrew Indian rajas, nor robed them their treasures; they simply curtailed their autocracy and made them their vassals. Medieval societies need to be ruled by medieval means. This is necessity, do you like it or not. Mussharaf of Pakistan and Qaddaffy of Libia are not exactly big democrats; but they can be neutralized without much blood shedding.
As for German in Russia, they were doomed, and no feats of brutality could possibly save them. Russia is simply too large for anybody to occupy it; even Russians themselves can not do it. But insurgency at territories that Germans actually occupied was more or less defeated. If they have 10 more years in power, they would be able to complete it. Stalin has the same problems with Russian peasants; he solved them. What was the price – this is another question; to my mind, the price was depopulation and eventual collapse of Russian civilization.
There’s two inconsistencies in what you said Sergey. Either America engages in Empire building all out, which means American lead policies and solutions rather than self-autonomous political situations tainted by sectarian interests, or America should let our proxies do all the fighting. This means then you cannot outsource it. The inability to do it yourself is itself, going to negate any kind of positive reaction towards America. Because the popular belief that America is spineless and gets others to do their dirty work (Jews and Arab dictators) would only be solidified. If you won’t do the work yourself, then don’t try depending upon some Arab client states to do it for you. The Empire strat only works when the Empire, meaning he that controls the vassal states, has the societal will and determination to not only intimidate weaker people but to earn their respect through strength of character. Outsourcing is a weakness, for those who operate from a position of weakness. If you prefer a defensive strategy, then you can go with a position of weakness and retreat. But I don’t prefer a defensive stance, however.
Without democracy, all the public executions in the world won’t give you the moral and societal mandate of justice, Sergey. And without justice, no amount of harsh tactics will ever produce any lasting peace.
Y, it seems you misunderstand what I meant. Egypt, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey are not US proxies (if only in Al-Jazira imagination); they are allies, more or less loyal. They all take huge sums of US money and can, probably, fail without them, but they still are sovereign nations. Any nation if it is not a Great Power itself, have to rely on military alliances and often on economical help too. The idea of empire apply only to failed or rogue states, this is filling of political vacuum. “Outsourcing” mean colonial politics using existing political structures in country at charge, as Brits in India< and superimposing on it some colonial administration. You need man only high levels of police and army by your officers; the lower level, the more native people involved in it. And at the lowest level, imediately in contact with local population, everything is done by locals. Idea of empire is minimal interference in local affairs, customs and traditions with sufficient control to avoid chavos and wars, by minimal metropolitain personnel involved.
What I took exception to, Sergey, is what you said about democracy being a pipe dream in the Middle East.
There is no reason why you cannot get more allies with democracy, than with nations like Egypt. I cannot honestly say that any of the nations you have listed are allies, they are not. They are not enemies either, but they are not true allies. Not even Israel, for various reasons.
So when I say proxy, it is just that. Because alliances with Middle Eastern countries are impossible with the status quo, only democracy has a chance of creating a better alternative.
I have nothing against democracy when it can work, but in medieval society democracy boils to what Plato called “ochlocratia” – rule of the mob; and mob in such society is more reactionary force than autocratic elite rule. Iranian mullocratia is much worse than Shakh, and Hamas is worse then Arafat’s PLO. By democratization you open way to the most benighted, bigoted savages, in comparisin to which even brutal, barbaric dictators seem lesser evil.
Democracy is possible in the Middle east, but the form it will take is unacceptable to our media overlords. Thus, we are inundated with reports declaring that democracy is evil and stability, especially under totalitarian dictators like Saddam, is good.
“By democratization you open way to the most benighted, bigoted savages, in comparisin to which even brutal, barbaric dictators seem lesser evil.”
Correct, but we also open a potential to create a government that submits itself to popular rule. The may take root, or it may not; the plant may grow and bear fruit, or it may remain forever barren, sucking up resources and returning nothing. The only certainty is that, if we had never sown the seeds of democracy, then there would be no chance at all of it growing.
You are right, but sometimes the only way to sow seeds of democracy in medieval society is to govern it, like Brits have done in India. And educated Hindus understand this – first of all, without Brits there never would be such entity as India; the country itself was British creation.
“By democratization you open way to the most benighted, bigoted savages, in comparisin to which even brutal, barbaric dictators seem lesser evil.”
That is why we have war and discipline. It is there for us to use in order to mold the puddy of human base emotions and desires into something higher and better. I am a great believer in war as the great equalizer, death too as well. Kings and dictators, murderers and saints, death cares not who or what you are. All things shall end by his hand.
Only a warrior culture, like the Gurkhas or the Kurds, can produce good societies, prosperous societies, and safe societies in such a hell zone as the Middle East. In order to instill the martial virtues into the Iraqis and Afghanistanis, you have to have war, you have to train them in war by having them fight a war. And you cannot have them fight a war if all you are doing is supporting the dictators and the status quo.
I have nothing against democracy when it can work, but in medieval society democracy boils to what Plato called “ochlocratia” – rule of the mob; and mob in such society is more reactionary force than autocratic elite rule. Iranian mullocratia is much worse than Shakh, and Hamas is worse then Arafat’s PLO.
I recognize that mob rule in places where democracy is an idea instead of an institution, but to everything there is a positive as well as negatives. You say people will become radicalized. Doesn’t that just tell you which political parties we must disappear in order to return sanity to Iraq? If democracy votes in the Mullahs and the Al Sadr fundamentalist anti-American extremists, then what is stopping us from grabbing these people in the dead of night and killing all of them in 24 hours?
The mob will follow he who controls the capital and he who has force advantage. They aren’t the problem. The problem are the leaders and inciters. And you cannot get rid of the leaders and the inciters by supporting dictators. This would just cause the demagogues like Al Sadr to get more power. And dictators themselves are pretty stupid when it comes to executions, so they will always arrest and execute people in such a way that it does not threaten their power base. But that isn’t what we should concentrate on.
We should concentrate on getting rid of the dictators as well as the enemies of dictators. Clean off the table, so that our enemies are exposed from the darkness. Elections are a very good way to do so.
The fact that Bush won’t get rid of Al Sadr isn’t an indictment against democracy because the mobs rule, but instead an indictment against America’s lack of will and goody two shoes outlook.
I am not refering to democracy without US troop intervention. Without the United States iron fist on the ground, with boots on the ground, then yes the demagogues will turn the people of the Middle East into a ravening anti-American jihad mob. There is nothing I can do with Iran or the Palis without US troops being
cxThere is nothing I can do with Iran or the Palis without US troops being there. But for Iraq, it is different. In order to affect and purge the Middle East, we must have a secure logistics base somewhere in the Middle East. Not just in material terms, but in spiritual terms. In order expose the lies that the mullahs and Hamas guys preach. Because we can easily kill all of them off, easily. But the path we are on is to convince them to stop fighting, in this, democracy with US troop support, is the best starting method.
If you are going to govern Iraq, Sergey, then you cannot outsource punishment to Iraq’s undemocratic enemies. Which is the problem and inconsistency with your argument. You cannot at the same time have the US govern Iraq while at the same time having the US giving all the dirty work punishments for our proxies to undertake. Out of all the countries in the Middle East, only Israel would benefit from a successful Iraq. Why would anyone in the Middle East help us save Iraq? Kuwaitt is probably the other real supporter of Iraqi democracy.
Deleted. Banned.
Loki | 11.11.06 – 12:14 am | #
Loki got banned? Dang it, I wanted him to translate something to Finnish for me 😛
Got banned trying to attack someone with his rabid maddog act, I suspect. They always forget about the logistics when on the attack.
I have no idea of any of Bush’s secret thoughts. But a possibility occurs to me.
We are, or are not, in a clash of civilizations. Bush & Co. are forever saying Islam is a religion of peace, it’s been highjacked by whackjobs, et tedious cetera. The multicults say the same thing, if they aren’t excusing the whackjobs. Many of the rest of us think Muslims are sort of normal people who would do things rationally–at least not keep trying to kill people who will kill them a thousand times over back–and leave us alone.
If Iraq fails, the point can be made: We paid in precious American blood, and in wealth uncounted. We gave them time, and money, and security–but we couldn’t keep them from killing each other–and ideas and workers and aid in any number of ways.
And they pissed on it.
You just can’t deal with these people. They are not like us, not remotely so. It is a clash of civilizations and cultures and we’d better be prepared to do some things which are not the same as looking for a few highjackers of a peaceful religion.
Consider that this country has bred one Tim McVeigh and one Eric Rudolph, in the last twenty years. (The school shooters are not trying to make points, they’re just nuts.) So we have two mass murderers in two decades and the Muslims have scores of mass murderers each week.
If we fail in Iraq, there will be a number of lessons learned, and one of them could be most unfortunate for ordinary Muslims.
Y: The problem is the same with Imperial Japan. How do you convince a bunch of freaking fanatics, that dieing for their belief system is not the way to go.
First point, the Japanese weren’t killing and dying for a belief system. They saw themselves as dying for their nation, and for their emporer. The willingness to die for ideology and the willingness to die for one’s nation are two different things, and they provide two different means of defeat.
Iran, Syria, Al Sadr, Sunni Baathists, Al Qaeda. … When they decide what to do or whom to kill, they calculate their own chances of survival into it, if not personal survival, then the survival of their ideology. So even though individual Japanese really didn’t care to surrender, the Japanese nation WOULD surrender. Because they weren’t fighting so they could die, they were fighting so that Japan could survive …
Actually, AFTER the atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about half the decision makers in Japan tried to force the nation to fight to extinction. That was very much within their ideology. They lost the argument, Japan surrendered, and most of that half committed suicide.
The key difference between the insurgents in Iraq and the WWII Japanese is that the Japanese fought for the state, and the emporer as the embodiment of the state. When the state itself, in the form of the emporer, surrendered, the Japanese accepted defeat and (upon orders from the emporer) wholeheartedly assisted the Allied occupiers. On the other hand, the insurgents are invested in a transnational ideology. There is no one who can surrender for them, no one who holds that kind of sway over the insurgents. Therefore, defeating them will take a different strategy than defeating the WWII Japanese and will more likely resemble the British fight with the IRA.
Ymar, I can see another ME beneficiary of US success in Iraq: Independent Kurdistan. They have exactly the type of culture you adore, that is warrior culture. And they have struggled for survival for centures with very formidable enemies, as Osman Empire, Persian Empire, modern Turkey and Suddam’s Iraq. There are 30 mln of them, and in key strategic region, with terrain ideally fit for guerilla warfare; that is why they escaped annihilation. I also agree that Iraq is different from Palestine or Iran, as election shown: death cultists is a minority here. I do not advocate using proxies, only “Iraqization” of battle, and I object to imposing EU-style “humanitarian” norms on Iraqi authorities. If they see appropriate to hang terrorists in public, let them do it.
I’m for the Kurds as well, I didn’t mention them because my position already favors them heavily.
I object to the EU as well, but I wouldn’t try to come up with a compromise with people who don’t like torture by saying other people can do it for us. I am not convinced it would work to convince people, that would otherwise be pro EU style, and I am also not convinced it would be done well by others. America does everything well, that is why depending upon UN peacekeepers are such a disaster.
First point, the Japanese weren’t killing and dying for a belief system. They saw themselves as dying for their nation, and for their emporer.
One and the same. Their Emperor was their belief system, it was the fundamental premise of their Bushido code, loyalty to the feudal lord.
The willingness to die for ideology and the willingness to die for one’s nation are two different things,
One’s nation can be one’s ideology, talk to most US Marines and hear them talk about how much they believe in America and their fellow brothers in arms. Are they not willing to die in defense of America? Are they not willing to kill for America?
There are some differences, but it doesn’t affect the strategy for defeating the enemy that much. People willing to risk death and people willing to kill, are dealt with in the same fashion, regardless of who they are or what they are fighting for.
You seem to be saying Islamic Radicalism is so extreme and so vital that it is different from any other apathetic belief system held by the West. I disagree.
and they provide two different means of defeat.
Since that is the heart of your disagreement, I’ll concentrate on that.
The key difference between the insurgents in Iraq and the WWII Japanese is that the Japanese fought for the state, and the emporer as the embodiment of the state.
That is a true difference, however it is not relevant to the strategy. You are still crafting and designing your attacks to demoralize and cripple the center of gravity, of the enemy. To defeat their will to fight.
When you say that you cannot use the same strategy with Japan, towards terroists. Why not? Why should I not try and demoralize the terroists as the Emperor was demoralized? Why should I not try and break the will to fight of the enemy as Japan’s will to fight was broken? Why should I not use nuclear weapons to inflict psychological damage upon the enemy out of all proportion to that which can be accomplished via conventional methods?
The basic strategy is the same. If you are refering to the tactical differences. Meaning, we avoided bombing the Palace in Tokyo, should we avoid bombing mosques as well? No, in that frame of reference, the tactics should be different. But the strategy should remain the same. The goals, the things you are trying to accomplish, and the way you are going to do it, is strategy. Tactics is what happens when the plan actually starts meeting the frict
friction of war.
You could adapt the tactics all you want, like Bush has done (although not so much concerning mosques), but without the correct strategy, you aren’t even going to get anywhere. The same applies for logistics. If you have the right tactics and the right strategy, but without the right logistics, you are going to lose.
There is no one who can surrender for them, no one who holds that kind of sway over the insurgents.
Was the strategy to get Emperor Hirohito to surrender? Perhaps. Is the strategy in Iraq to get Sunni Baathists and insurgents to surrender? Most likely.
So what exactly are you talking about there being two strategies?
How would your tactics be changed if you know that an enemy does not have a controlling force that once demoralized, will surrender the force? Simply adjust the tactics in order to target the center of gravity of the terroists. If the center of gravity isn’t in their leaders, then where is it? Everything has a center of gravity, just find it. That doesn’t really mean there are two different strategies.
As I see it, the Islamic Jihad believes in a heavenly power, called Allah, that is on their side. The leaders of the Islamic JIhad, both Iranian and Saudi Arabian branches, believe in this mythology, this core premise.
The Japanese people, also, believed in a Divine Power that was on their side, called the Emperor. All victory is accrued and credited to the Emperor, because the Emperor protects Japan from all enemies. Who protects the Middle East Muslims from the Great Satan? Allah does.
So. the objective is the same. Make them stop believing in their divine figure. How you actually go about it in war time, is a tactical concern, but all tactics are dictated by the overall strategy. There can be no other way to run a war.
We got Japan to stop believing in the infallibility of the Emperor, by getting the Emperor. And we will get Muslims to stop believing in the divinity of Allah and the great power of Allah, by demonstrating that Allah has no power, no mercy, and no compassion towards Americans nor Muslims. You do so via tactics. Find some way to get people to stop believing in Allah the great protector.
What’s the thing that really demoralizes Christians? It is when they see their God, do nothing while all kinds of evil (like abortion to them) gets done and God does nothing.
Ah. So, if we can demonstrate that the Middle East is powerless to stop the Great Satan (evil) from doing whatever we want, we convert the Muslims to our cause. Disillusioned Muslims, Muslims who are still practicers of Islam, but they will not believe, and without that belief, they are harmless. Belief is what powers jihad and fanaticism, without that belief, without that will to fight in the absolute surety that God is on their side, well, let’s just say that it is going to put a huge nail in their plans of world domination.
Most Muslims do not believe in Allah enough to blow themselves up for heaven in the jihad or whatever. However, when Muslims see how pathetically weak America the Great Satan acts, while America gets Israel to do the dirty work of whatever, what do you think Muslims would believe of America? That Allah is on America’s side, the pathetic weak America, or Allah is on the side of the Palestinians and Arabs?
God is on the side with the most firepower, as I believe it has been said.
It is not necessary to convert Muslims to Christians, when I say make them stop believing in Allah. It is only necessary to make our enemies believe that Allah is on America’s side, and favors America, not the cause of the jihadists. Once you accomplish that, all else becomes moot.
You see, the same strategy for Japan. Get the Emperor, that divine source of power and strength, on our side, and all else will come to fruition. It is a bit trickier with Islam because their God is not materially on this earth, but that never stopped American ingenuity. While Allah is not on this earth, his followers are, and therefore his followers can be influenced, ma
While Allah is not on this earth, his followers are, and therefore his followers can be influenced, manipulated, and convinced to stop fighting.x
Sergey, one clarification. I have no problem with the Iraqis punishing people, but you were talking about giving punishment for the Egyptians to do, that I cannot support.
“While Allah is not on this earth, his followers are, and therefore his followers can be influenced, manipulated, and convinced to stop fighting.”
Can they? They don’t even know what they’re fighting for, nor do they care, really. Satisfy all their rational demands and they will just make increasingly irrational ones, until they just declare war for the hell of it.
Their problem is the same as that of the fascist and communist governments… they want to eliminate a sin from the human race, and the more successful they are at doing so, the more their sociopolitical system falls apart, until they have no choice but to lash out at the non-existant saboteurs that keep ruining their perfect world.
Because the truth, that it is the elimination of sin that leads inevitably to the destruction of their systems, is not a fact they can face.
Fascism struggled to eliminate sloth, Communism sought to eliminate greed, and now Islamism seeks to eliminate vanity. I wonder what will be next… probably a political system that tries to eliminate wrath, if the current stirrings are any indication.
Satisfy all their rational demands and they will just make increasingly irrational ones, until they just declare war for the hell of it.
Why would I satisfy their demands, rational or not? The whole point to unconditional surrender, is that I get to choose the terms, not the other guy. Bush is having problems with the war because his goal is not unconditional surrender, it is more like “co-existence” or something. Regardless of how brilliant the Marine Corps are tactically, bad strategies from the top, will wreck the war effort.
Can they?
They just announced that the Democrat winning is a win for the JIhadists. Of course they can be manipulated, they aren’t divinely inspired super humans. They are not infallible, they make mistakes, they feel joyous and sad at times, as well as demoralized and uplifted.
If you look at the trends in history, Tatter. First came communism, then fascism, then islamic jihad (connected to fascism and communism). So ask yourself, what is connected to the Islamic Jihad, so that when they disappear, who will take their place? I say, the Greens will take their place, environmentalism, the urge to disappear the human race for a more purer planet.
Environmental terroists are a minor problem, sort of like random crime. They have not had the chance, or the power vacuum, in order to get seriously dangerous. Just like Islamic Jihad took second place to the Soviet threat and how the Soviet threat took second place to the fascist threat. One after another, they fall, but are replaced, because you cannot get rid of evil in humans. It will express itself in one way or another.
“How can a foreign army defeat a native insurgency? Old question. Has it ever been answered successfully?”
The Soviets made a career of it. Where did all the resistance fighters in the eastern European countries go after the Nazis went down? They fled or they died. Hungary, 1956 (just passed the 50th memorial). Czechesolvakia, 1968. Afghanistan didn’t go so well, despite Sergeys suggestions that demonstrations of brutality always work. They don’t on those willing to be more brutal than you.
Of course the problem is we don’t want to follow their example, nor should we. Except perhaps, in this- they always had natives defect to them for power rewards. Perhaps we should pay more attention to that.
” Of course they can be manipulated, they aren’t divinely inspired super humans.”
I guess I need to work on my language skills. I didn’t mean they couldn’t be manipulated, I meant that they can’t be convinced to stop fighting.
“They always had natives defect to them for power rewards. Perhaps we should pay more attention to that.”
That’s a good strategy for empire-building. Not so good for building democracies, though. The fundamental feature of a democratic government is leaders who submit themselves to the will of the people. Power at the price of such restraints is nothing compared to the lure of unrestrained power, so we would have to either abandon “spreading democracy,” or make promises we know (and, thanks to our media, that all our negotiating partners know) can’t be kept.
Well, if they can be manipulated, if you admit, then they can be manipulated into stop fighting, correct? Wouldn’t that logically follow? It is not like they want to stop fighting, but if you can manipulate them and force them to do things they don’t want, then could you not make them stop fighting? Make them stop wanting to fight? As they attempt to make America stop wanting to fight, we can do the same to them, fire with fire.
douglass, the Soviets themselves, as well as the jihadists, try to make moral equivalency arguments about how we are as bad as them. But it isn’t as true. Even if America did do some of the things they did, it would be for different reasons and it would be done a lot cleaner. America cannot be compared to any other nation or people because there is no nation or people with the success track of America in wars or societal improvement.
You say that Russia fights insurgencies effectively. But they don’t, they are too crude for that, their methods too crude and their ideology too crude.
The people in Poland and Ukraine, rebel the instant they sense weakness in Russia. Does American want to emulate Russia’s failures with indigenous populations and rebellions? No, our objective is not to crush insurgencies, it is to make them disappear, permanently for all time, or at least as far in time as possible.
We want an Iraq where if we leave, they aren’t going to start rebelling against America. There should be no reason to, as with Japan. It has to be a partnership. But first, you have to eliminate the enemy, via crushing their armies and logistics first, before negotiating.
Russia never negotiates in good faith in the first place. So however brutal they become, they will always get more brutality out of the mix. The world is an example of chaos unleashed, chaos ontop of chaos, producing more chaos. Only America is an example where order has been imposed. And perhaps the Roman Empire, but they are ancient history, they no longer matter.
Whether you refer to the British Empire or Europe in WWI, everyone except America, acts like their sole objective is to create more wars and more death and more suffering of the downtrodden. Only America has successfully imposed order through chaos, and destroyed chaos with successful wars. No other nation may boast of the same. Not Britain, not Australia, not Japan in WWII, not China with Taiwan, and not Vietnam or North Korea. And certainly not Russia with their fallen empire.
I give more leeway when America is exercising power over death and life, than I would give to any other person or nationality. America has a success track of doing things well, of doing things via correct ethics, and still winning. I do not have to worry that Truman will drop 50 nuclear bombs if it wasn’t necessary to win the peace and future prosperity of the world.
I would worry if Russia was nuking people. And Pelosi being in charge of America, means American power will become more brutal and
“Well, if they can be manipulated, if you admit, then they can be manipulated into stop fighting, correct? Wouldn’t that logically follow?”
Not necessarily. I can manipulate a fork, but that doesn’t mean I can manipulate it into turning into a bar of gold. And forks are far less prone to fighting the manipulation itself than people are.
The anti-vanity systems woven into the Islamist faith itself will have to be undone, before their children will stop seeking fame the only way they can: by becoming a jihadi martyr.
Forks aren’t people. So you have to stop the mixed metaphors.
People are actually easier to manipulate than forks. Because inanimate objects obey the laws of physics, where as you can get humans to act a certain way simply by convincing them to believe in an illusion.
I think ‘the problem’ of ‘the war’ is we don’t know what to do at this point. Seems we won the war, have for the most part beaten the insurgency (which is quite an achievement BTW), and now they have a sectarian violence problem.
Its true the sectarian violence is encouraged by outside forces (Iran and Syria) so it should be considered to be in our strategic interest to get it under control… but we have no plan or tactics to fight sectarian violence. How do step in between feuding civilian militias? We can’t do it in Yugoslavia without permanent partitions. Can’t do it in Crete without the same (the longest / never-ending peacekeeping mission I’m aware of).
This is probably why the dems won. They said they’d have a new direction and or implied they had a new idea (vs. the administration sending troops around Anbar on patrol to get blown up… i.e., a non plan). So, what to do. And dems, what exactly is that plan (aside from giving up… re: another non plan)?
Bush never won the war, it only looked like he won the war. But the other side didn’t give up. When the othe side doesn’t give up, they are going to fight again. Look up Germany after WWI. Did they win the war? If France won the war in WWI against Germany, why the hell did they have another one a couple of decades later?
A war that is won, will never be fought again.
Ymarsakar, Russia would never nuke people. It has no guts for it. To do such things one need ideology. Now Russia have none, and will not have in foreseeable future.
“People are actually easier to manipulate than forks. Because inanimate objects obey the laws of physics, where as you can get humans to act a certain way simply by convincing them to believe in an illusion.”
Good luck convincing people to believe in something they not only don’t want to believe in, but that their day-to-day experiences seem to prove false. The very core principles of Islamism are designed to only dole out fame to those who have given teir lives for their cause, simultaneously granting twentysomethings willing to trade their lives for a moment in the spotlight a means to do so, and ensuring that those who do not get themselves killed can never amass enough popularity to pose an organized threat to their masters.
Their day to day experiences consist of poison. They are already easy to manipulate because the Islamic Jihad is simply full of manipulators and the manipulated. You think they are somehow divinely inspired and on a plane of reality here?
Poison
You seem to be arguing that because the Islamic Jihad believes in the stuff you re-iterated, that means they won’t believe in what I want them to believe. That might be true, if you ignored how the Islamic Jihad got those beliefs in the first place.
It’s been done before, you have not provided any reasons why it can’t be done now.
“You seem to be arguing that because the Islamic Jihad believes in the stuff you re-iterated, that means they won’t believe in what I want them to believe. That might be true, if you ignored how the Islamic Jihad got those beliefs in the first place.”
It seems the problem is that you think the field human psycology is just a “belief” instead of a science, and so can be changed by believing in something else. Don’t like Freud’s conclusions? Just believe them wrong, and the whole human race will change to match whatever you believe!
If only it were that easy.