Waging war: “total” and otherwise
Right now, at the top of the list of recommended reading at Real Clear Politics, are two articles that can be seen as companion pieces of a sort. The first is “Why Iraq’s So Hard” by Ralph Peters of the New York Post; and the second, by Christopher Shea of the Boston Globe, is entitled “War Without Limits.”
The message of Peters’ article can be summarized as, “In the fight in Iraq, we weren’t””and still aren’t””prepared to be ruthless enough to win.” Shea, on the other hand, offers a review of two books that describe the concept of “total war,” and are mainly critical of the concept and the practice.
Are we at fault, as Peters writes, for trying to wage a PC war on the cheap in Iraq? How “ruthless” should we be, and what is the definition of ruthlessness, anyway? And how ruthless are we required to be in order to win a war against an enemy prepared to be utterly unforgiving itself, an enemy that practices as “total” a war as its tools allow it to wage, and that is bent on acquiring ever fiercer tools?
The books Shea reviews seem to be asserting that total war is a product of the advanced technology of the last century or two, and part of the practice is the extension of war to the civilian population. But this ignores the fact that the ancients were no slouches at killing large numbers of the enemy, and ordinary citizens at that, as well as destroying their cities—purposely. Witness the Mongols, the sack of Carthage in the Third Punic War, and countless other incidents in which to be conquered meant to be destroyed.
“Total war” is a term that’s not all that well-agreed upon and ultimately not all that useful. To be total, does a war have to be worldwide in scope? If so, the war again Islamist totalitarianism fits the bill. Does it have to include the killing of civilians? Again, our role in the present war fits the definition, but not if what is required is the purposeful targeting of civilians, which we (unlike the other side) do not practice.
What Peters really may mean in saying we are not ruthless enough in this war isn’t that it should be a total war in the classic sense (if there is a classic sense), but that it should be waged without so many PC considerations, and with less concern for the economic bottom line. He indicates that, had we done both of those things from the start, things would be going much better than they are now.
We’ll never know, because that didn’t happen, although I tend to agree with Peters. But I don’t see this as ruthlessness, simply as common sense. There’s no point in starting a fight with one hand tied behind your back, unless it’s a benefit sporting event that doesn’t matter.
Peters is expressing the Jacksonian point of view that wars should be waged at a high level of intensity. Do Jacksonians advocate this because they are inherently bloodthirsty? No. In fact, as I wrote when discussing that most famous of American’s Jacksonian decisions—the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan—one goal of the intensity of warfare that Jacksonians advocate is to end a conflict as quickly and as decisively as possible, and thus avoid protracted wars that end up causing even more destruction and loss of life.
One of the books Shea reviews in his Globe article is by David A. Bell, on the topic of Napolean’s Europe and birth of modern total war. Shea writes:
In his book, Bell stresses how ferocious nationalism and revolutionary fervor led the French to view their enemies as people who needed to be exterminated, not just defeated — a decisive shift from an earlier Great Power style of warfare…Anti-revolutionary opponents, whether French peasants or Austrians, were now “sanguinary hordes,” “barbarous,” and “vipers”: all deserved disembowelment.
It’s that kind of invective Bell has in mind when he hears phrases like “the evil ones” today.
It seems that the word “evil” itself is now suspect; one can’t use it without being accused of drumming up an imaginary villain. But if the Islamic terrorists and jihadists today don’t fit the defintion of actual evil, then I don’t know what does. My guess is that, if Bell were writing today, calling Hitler “evil” would, likewise, be evidence of a bad mindset on the part of the Allies.
And “evil” is, after all, a mere word. If it’s not acceptable to even use the word “evil” today, how much less acceptable it is to fight evil with vigor. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me, but one wonders sometimes if war critics would prefer that we go back to using sticks and stones.
As Peters says:
We face merciless, implacable enemies who joyously slaughter the innocent with the zeal of religious fanaticism. Yet we want to make sure we don’t hurt anyone’s feelings.
We’ve tried many things in Iraq. They’ve all failed. It’s a shame we never really tried to fight.
Neo-Neo,
You make salient points in your post, although the gentleman in the Globe article you link is entirely off-base, and crashes head-long through a specific term of art. I haven’t the slightest idea whether the writer was being deliberately obtuse or just is uninformed.
In any case, the concepts of Total War and Absolute Warfare date, essentially, to Clauswitz (although the idea appears earlier – even if not in as many words).
A reasonable approximation of a definition of Total War is warfare waged to the maximum ability of the state to wage war. True Total War is, of course, a theoretical construct, but if you harken back to the ‘guns and butter’ arguments of economists, a Total War is the one in which you have cows wandering around with howitzers (apologies to P.J. O’Rourke).
There is certainly a degree to which a nation state can effectively mobilize for Total War, and this is something that one can argue is only possible in an industrialized society, but to conflate the industrialization of warfare and its attendant vast increase in lethality is to obscure the phenomenon itself.
Some of the authors cited also tend to suggest that this is somehow tied into the rise of the modern nation-state (I can think of the guy in particular, but he was the one who figured out how Napoleon could mobilize his entire populace). I think that this is a much more interesting comparison, especially when contrasted against the nature of conflict in WWII, and the conduct of warfare in the post-modern era.
But, the columnist seems intent on ascribing some sort of moral freighting or judgment about the violence with which war is waged to the term Total War.
Now, to be fair to the Globe author, Clauswitz also did introduce another theoretical construct “Absolute War”, which is war waged for absolutely no political end. War which is in no way distinguishable from organized mutual murder and has no objective, save violence for its own sake.
Nonetheless, confusing Absolute and Total Warfare is an absolutely egregious error and, whether by intent or not, conflates two entirely different and very complex concepts with very significant implications.
With Apologies for Rambling,
BRD
Not to be to cynical, but I guess I will …but we have people in this country suffering and dying of things like cancer and we have other people worried about whether murderers suffered some pain during a lethal injection!
A good percentage of people would probably balk at butchering a cow even though Mcdonalds has billions and billions of hamburgers sold.
That’s not a plug for vegetarianism, so much as to illustrate how far people have become removed from acts and consequences, and maybe reason.
You have to factor that sort of mentality into your conduct of war scenarios.
BRD wrote:
“A reasonable approximation of a definition of Total War is warfare waged to the maximum ability of the state to wage war.”
So, how does this apply Iraq?
“Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, “wildly off the mark.”
General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.
“The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark,” Mr. Rumsfeld said.
In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq.
He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo.
He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that “stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible,” but would oppose a long-term occupation force.
And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it.
“I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction,” Mr. Wolfowitz said.
He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.
“It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army – hard to imagine.”
The plan (as it was then conceived) contemplated troop levels of up to 500,000, which Rumsfeld opined was far too many. As Gordon and Trainor write:
As [General] Newbold outlined the plan . . . it was clear that Rumsfeld was growing increasingly irritated. For Rumsfeld, the plan required too many troops and supplies and took far too long to execute. It was, Rumsfeld declared “The product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military.”
Can we all agree that the reason we did not go into Iraq with our “maximum ability to wage war” was not that the Bush Administration and its Republican majority House and Senate felt some urge to “fight some PC war on the cheap,” or “not hurt anyone’s feelings,” but rather that the Defense Secretary and his Deputy ignored the advice of the military and vastly, tragically underestimated the seriousness of what they were getting us into?
UB, for the most part, I would agree with that assesment. However, most criticism from the left was not based on the notion that we “were not going in with enough”, it was that we “were attempting it at all”. In war, people make mistakes, and obviously, mistakes were made in the planning of this operation. Another mistake was in the continued confidence of Rumsfeld for so long. But, to say that because mistakes were made, it proves it couldn’t have been won or cannot be won from this point on is simply more leftist “wishful thinking”, not because they think it is an “unwinnable” war, but because if won, Republicans will get credit among voters.
If you recall, the left said we couldn’t win Gulf War I, citing our lack of military experience since Vietnam, while Saddam’s army were hardened veterans after 8 years of Iran-Iraq. They said it would be a “quagmire”(sound familiar?), that there would be “thousands of casualties”, etc. Then, when it was clear Kuwait would be liberated, they said “Don’t you dare go to Bagdhad, GHWB, you only have a mandate to expell Saddam from Kuwait, and we are watching you”. But 12 years later, the left was bitching that Bush I didn’t “finish the job when he had the chance”.
Today’s complaints from the left is more speaking out of both sides of their mouths. As you have pointed out, the arguement from the left and others like John McCain was “we didn’t send in enough troops to keep the peace”, but when the “surge” was announced, the left then said “that will only increase the violence, and force outside influences to respond to our dangerous escalation”, after claiming the insurgency was “home-grown”, with “very little outside influence”, etc. And suddenly, John McCain was “persona non grata” with the left because his opposition to the surge was we were still being piecemeal about it and should send more, as opposed to “cut and run”.
So, quite frankly, UB, you can’t have it both ways. Which one is it? Do you support “victory”, or “defeat”?
However, most criticism from the left was not based on the notion that we “were not going in with enough”, it was that we “were attempting it at all”.
Were we trying to win a war in Iraq or an argument with “the Left”?
Admit that this criticism you cite had nothing whatsoever to do with how the war was prosecuted, and stop blaming the left (and, as Peters does, the media) for the situation we find ourselves in. Let’s have some honest accountability here.
“So, quite frankly, UB, you can’t have it both ways. Which one is it? Do you support “victory”, or “defeat”?
Why not ask this question of George Bush? This whole thing was his idea, and he’s now trying to have it both ways: We can’t “settle for anything less than complete victory” because “the terrorists will follow us home,” yet “success in Iraq is not ‘no violence.'”
Unfortunately, I tend to agree more with the latter statement than with the former.
I think UB’s comment shows that the administration only listens to its military commanders when it’s convenient for them to do so.
Lee, who is “the left” you’re talking about?
Maybe 5% of the American population, if that?
Total War might make sense if we knew who we were shooting at. Lack of firepower isn’t our problem in Iraq.
alphie:
Oh, we know who we’re shooting at. The problem is, people like you don’t.
csmonitor.com***
By the way, seems Bush’s reliance on the word “victory” was inspired by a pollster:
The sudden prominence of victory as a central part of the administration’s discourse regarding Iraq probably isn’t the result of a speech writer’s whim. Duke University political scientist Peter Feaver has long insisted that the support of the American public for any war depends crucially on whether they think it will succeed – and Dr. Feaver recently joined the White House staff as a special adviser.
In fact, an electronic signature shows that Feaver created the computer file for “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” posted Nov. 30 on the White House website, according to The New York Times.
The core of the argument made by Feaver and his colleagues at Duke is that polling shows US voters aren’t affected by rising war casualties if they expect the war in question to result in a US victory.
“When the public thinks victory is not likely, even small [casualty] costs will be highly corrosive,” says a June 2005 paper by Feaver and fellow Duke political scientists Christopher Gelpi and Jason Reifler.”
blackfive.netNeo, there’s a question of discipline. Which is discussed at this thread.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/05/mike_yon_with_a.html
To sort of sum it up, in order to maintain military discipline so you can wage war, you must limit the ability of the individual soldier to cause mayhem and kill civilians.
HOWEVER, what that really means in the Total War ruthlessness style of fighting is that executions of prisoners is to be conducted at the highest level, the Presidency. Now in dark corners, bring abortion, like executions, out into the open where everyone can see it and learn from it.
You limit atrocities because too much of that and you get a useless military. But you cannot limit mass killing from the President’s repertoire. Bush has done both, and that’s bad, Neo. Bad.
It’s one thing to see soldiers killing civilians aiding iour enemies because of combat stress or whatever. It is another thing to see the US President execute known guilty terrorists publically.
And that’s the difference between Total War American style and just pitter pattering around. One’s a vendetta clan warfare thing, the other one is a civilized systemic attempt to create a lasting peace.
Total War American style is where the entire chain of command has produced a policy that will decimate the enemy psychologically, from the top to the bottom. There is no rebel movement there. No loose gun events. This is why it works to convince people to back us, if they know we will always hound them if they resist. That doesn’t happen if some rogue American unit blows up. Because it is not enough. Anyone wishing to use intimidation, psychological warfare, or civilian terror/killing must take it past the limits.
If you are unwilling to craft a policy for your entire nation to do so, then you shouldn’t ask your soldiers to do your dirty work under the black shroud.
The US, being a republic, is not built for a Reign of Terror. Either domestically or foreign wise. It just won’t work. We would break our government before it would work.
So we have to do something else. If you combine Total War philosophy with Sun Tzu deception and psychological warfare, you can then break an enemy’s will to fight without killing too many of their civilians. Because if you pinpoint what can convince them and do it… it is far faster than just random and total destruction.
In conclusion, Ruthlessness just means state sponsored killing and executions, Neo. Without the approval, public approval of the President, the US military cannot and should not use brutal or any other action leading to serious bodily harm or death on prisoners or the enemy.
It is not okay for the military to suspend habeaus corpus and arrest dissdents and subversives. But it is okay if President Lincoln authorizes it. That’s how it works, that is how it can be successful. It isn’t successful now a days because Bush won’t do that, because he believes it would be wrong, wrong to use the Constitution in such a manner. Bush unlike the Left, has a lot of principles weighing him down.
“Why not ask this of George Bush?”
OK, I will, but first, I would like you to answer it, since I posed it to you first, UB. Like a typical leftie, like Alphie as well, your answer to a question is to ask a question.
I’ve already conceded that in general, I agree with your assertion that “mistakes were made”, and I will agree with another, that “victory in Iraq is not ‘no violence'”, but no one is making that assertion, any more than victory at Guadalcanal would be ‘no violence’, or victory at Kwajaleen would be ‘no violence’, or victory at Iwo Jima would be ‘no violence’, or victory in Sicily would be ‘no violence’, or victory in Normandy would be ‘no violence’. Once we(unless we quit) achieve victory in Iraq, we will proceed to other battles in this ongoing Global War on Terror.
Considering the parliaments of Iraq and Afghanistan have now both asked America to halt military operations in their countries, I doubt the problem is that American soldiers are being too nice, Lee.
I think the opposite is ture.
Unless you consider Iraq and Afghanistan American colonies, of course.
Alphie, can you cite sources? While not familiar with Afghanistan, I have heard there is a petition in the Iraqi Parliament to support a non-binding resolution for an American timetable for withdrawal, while Maliki and other officials continue to ask us to stay.
Lee,
The Upper House of the Afghan Parliament has recommended that the government start peace talks with the Taliban, and that foreign forces cease all offensive operations. The proposal is a clear indicator of the rising popular anger.
http://tinyurl.com/3bxxpl
Alphie, I noticed your linked article states the New York Times is reporting this, yet you post this article, as opposed to the actual NYT article.
They say they quote U.S. and NATO officials, but the only one mentioned by name is Gen. Marks, whose only quotes are generalities about respecting the Afghanis. And while the villagers claim that no Taliban were around when bombed, the village goes unnamed.
And it really doesn’t matter what I “consider” Iraq and Afghanistan to be. They are soverign nations who, I’m sure, would make any official request or demand our forces withdraw well known, either through the media or the U.N.
WHOOPS..my bad. I said Gen. Marks, when it is actually Gen. McNeil.
The argument over how we should fight this war is an interesting one. I however can’t help but feel there is an erronious assumption at play, which is the idea that somehow if we fought harder the fighting would be over faster. This doesn’t reflect what I’ve learned about wars. The worse violence, the stiffest resistence is always later. And this conflicts take their own life and pace.
I contend that we have fought hard in Iraq, and whether we win it may depend on us to stop trying to leave it (Which is Al Queda’s stated goal). We ought to learn to accept the fact that this fight is an insurgency and we ought to remember that these fights take a long time to win. The Philipines took around a decade for the US to pacify after the Spanish-American War. We ought to remember that big, important things take time, especially in this digitial, high speed world we live in.
The most desisive factor in quelling insurgency is cutting off its logistic support. And we know without doubt that 95% IED explosed in Iraq were fabricated in Iran. So the notion of total war here more associated with its scope, not severity. If air-tight closing the boundary is not an option, than bombing of training camps and ammunition cache run by Iranian Revolutionary Guards across the borde is quite possible. To win in Iraq US need to destroy Iran and intimidate Syria. The level of destruction needed to achieve this is another question.
UB: Were we trying to win a war in Iraq or an argument with “the Left”?
Since the left has been doing all that it can to bring about an American defeat, we were and are trying to do both. And the issue isn’t whether, in hindsight, “mistakes were made” — mistakes are always made — it’s what we do now and in the future to correct them. The idea that the way to correct them is to fold up our tent and go home, leaving the country to become another Al Qaeda base camp, is just a way of turning mistakes into disaster. Which, of course, for some is exactly the object.
***
Lee, your question about whether I favor “victory” or “defeat” was disingenuous. Of course I would have preferred a “victory,” but that word, along with “defeat,” has become meaningless in the current context.
As for conceding to my assertion that “mistakes were made” – my complete assertion was that “we are in the current situation in Iraq because mistakes were made by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, not by critical members of the left or the media.” Not sure you are wiling to go that far.
Your comments about “victory is not no violence” are very hard to follow (I think you may have been up too late again 🙂 ), but I think the Marines definitely considered “no violence” to be a precondition for declaring victory in Iwo Jima.
Here’s how Bush is trying to have it both ways:
He says violence in Iraq is caused by terrorists.
We can’t leave terrorists in Iraq otherwise they will follow us here.
Yet victory in Iraq will not mean “no violence,” will “never” mean “zero car bombings.”
I think the public (correctly) sees this as a recipe for perpetual war in Iraq.
Sally wrote:
UB: Were we trying to win a war in Iraq or an argument with “the Left”?
Since the left has been doing all that it can to bring about an American defeat, we were and are trying to do both.
Sally, here is the truth: For six years Bush has prosectuted this war his way and his way only. No article in any newspaper, no “Bush=Hitler” sign held aloft at any anti-war rally made the slightest difference in war policy or to currrent conditions in Iraq *in any way.*
And the issue isn’t whether, in hindsight, “mistakes were made” – mistakes are always made – it’s what we do now and in the future to correct them.
Yet what about holding someone accountable? Look at what Wolfowitz testified:
“It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army – hard to imagine.”
Was this man turned out on his ear as soon as it became evident that he had no idea what he was talking about? No, he was appointed to a plum job at the World Bank, and he seems to have now even managed to screw that up.
You guys will make the case that Clinton is to blame for 9/11 yet won’t just come out and say Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld took a chance with our Armed Forces and blew it.
Sally goes on to say:
The idea that the way to correct them is to fold up our tent and go home, leaving the country to become another Al Qaeda base camp, is just a way of turning mistakes into disaster. Which, of course, for some is exactly the object.
I know you don’t like to do details, but Reid’s proposal was not at all for folding up our tents. In fact, after he vetoed the bill, and Reid was excoriated as a traitor, he called essentially the same plan “an interesting idea:”
“And their idea was, is that at some point in time, it makes sense to have a U.S. presence configured this way, embedded with Iraqi forces, training Iraqi forces, over-the-horizon presence to provide enough security to know that people will have help if they need it, but put the – more onus on a sovereign government of Iraq, a presence to keep the territorial integrity of Iraq intact, a special ops presence to go after these killers who have got their intentions on America. It’s an interesting idea.
Interestingly enough, we keep on talking about “the war in Iraq” as if the conflict were simply a “war” against a sovereign nation, instead of a conflict of competing ideologies–like the Cold War. Unless and until most of the populace realizes that the conflict in Iraq is simply a continuation of the proxy war between radical Islam and Western civilization, we will continue to “wage war” by reacting to provocations in a limited fashion (attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan), attempting to create a buffer (democracy in Iraq), or treating the whole thing as “business as usual” (bombing aspirin factories in the Sudan).
Unless and until we begin to attack those who are actually waging war against us (Iran and the Wahhabist Saudis) through their proxies (al Qaeda, the “Palestinians”, the “insurgency” in Iraq), we will continue to pile up casualties and suffer “terrorist” attacks. I’m afraid that those who continue to believe that it is a “tiny minority” of Islam that is perpetrating this plague of terrorism around the globe will have to suffer a cataclysmic attack to realize the truth.
Iraq is simply a front in this larger war; if we leave, we lose a significant battle, and set the stage for an even more devastating next battle.
The problem you keep having, UB, is your continued attempts at “interpreting” what is being said to suit your own perceptions. Claiming Marines would need ‘no violence’ on Iwo Jima to claim victory there is classic deflection, when you know(because you can’t concede the point for fear of being seen as ‘losing’ the arguement) the point being made was that the war against the Axis continued after victory on the individual battlefields.
So, by your definition, FDR should have been held accountable after the Savo Sound disaster, after the excessive casualties at Tarawa. Churchill should have resigned after Mark Clark’s inability to penetrate the Gustav Line, then giving us the Anzio operation as a solution to that line, or the botched Narvik expedition. More naval ships and personnel were lost at Okinawa than in the entire war up to that point, including Pearl Harbor. Did that make Roosevelt and Marshall and CNO King “idiots”? Clearly, mistakes were made.
Rumsfeld has resigned. If we give you Woolfowitz’s head on a platter, will you then support continued operations, or will you still scream “unjust and illegal war”, as opposed to “mistakes were made” as you keep harping on, as if that’s your only opposition to the continued operations in Iraq, or the continued Global War on Terror?
In WWII in the Pacific, the original strategy was “island hopping”. When it became clear the Japanese fought for each island then withdrew to the next island to set up and reinforce, we eventually switched to a strategy of “leapfrogging”, isolating strongpoints of resistance by attacking relatively less fortified islands to the rear. When “mistakes are made”, you adapt, rather than “concede”, if victory is to be achieved. By your standard of today, you would have advocated withdrawl from Hawaii in the hopes the Japanese would not have “followed us home”.
And as far as I’m concerned, the question posed to you is quite valid. The fact you say you would have “preferred” victory(in the past tense) shows you are resigned to “defeat”, when the outcome is far from certain at this point. The fact that Bush now is implementing “some” of what Harry Reid proposed(imbedding troops among Iraqi forces) is a far cry from “endorsing the entirety of his plan” of “phased withdrawal over the horizon”.
Unfortunately we in the West are at a point in time when several trends, very unfavorable for us, have all come together. The wildly successful post WWII Gramscian attack, this “culture war” against all the main pillars of our culture–religion, family life, education, politics, language, the arts–has left many of us stumbling around in a landscape filled with the rubble of traditional society–a wasteland without signposts or trails–and unsure about almost everything and, in particular, not sure that there is anything left uncontaminated by doubt that we might be willing to fight for. The Gramscian weapons of political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity and moral equivalence have left nothing standing and the resultant corruption of language has made even talking about or describing our enemy almost impossible; all of our traditional institutions and ways of thought have become suspect, tainted.
As if this were not bad enough, our very success in WWII–fought by the Depression-forged “greatest generation”–in which we won without any attacks on our mainland, has led to decades of unprecedented prosperity, health, and longevity with more in prospect; this “success” has compounded our problems because it has distanced us from the real evil and violence that rules most of the world and has weakened us as a nation. We are now a “risk averse” nation and that is how we want our wars fought, too because, really, who wants to go to a comprehensive war footing, rearrange priorities and stop the party?
We are not yet a post-Christian nation like those in Europe but, I’d be willing to be that the kind of religious roots and belief that animated that “greatest generation” has been considerably weakened since WWII; we really could have used this force in our fight against Islam.
Back before WWII Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci thought that the propaganda media–radio, newspapers, books, plays, movies (with TV and the Internet to come)–were the key vehicles needed to successfully spread Leftist ideas that would subvert bourgeois societies and that academia, cultural leaders and opinion makers were the ideal people to spread these subverting ideas and, he was right.
So successful has this blitz against our civilization and culture been that we sit here today, under constant and increasing attack, examining a seemingly unsolvable puzzle we can’t even adequately describe–are we racists and Islamophobes if we point to Islam and Muslims as the source of these attacks?– and wondering if there really is an enemy, who that enemy might be, what motivates him–was it something we said or did, are these attacks our justified punishment?–and agonizing over whether, if we put up a good defense, kill those who are killing us, will we will lose our souls?
The key to winning any war is the morale of the enemy; break this and you win. How do we break Islam’s will to fight? Sometimes overwhelming military force, sometimes very precise force applied to things that Muslim’s value above all else and the use of those forces and techniques we are best at against their weaknesses. Brute force, killing as many enemies as possible is only one technique, we have a large professional military, lots of smart people; we should use them to our best advantage. However, almost more important than military force, propaganda–the war of ideas–is, it seems to me, the key to defeating Islam this time.
The roar of propaganda coming from the Muslim world via every media possible is matched by a complimentary and reinforcing roar of most of the media here in the West; that is why many of us are having so much trouble finding the signal in all that noise, seeing our enemy in all that confusing background and for the reasons above many people don’t even want to try.
In Pakistani General S. K. Malik’s seminal book, “The Quranic Way of War,” he pointed out that the center of gravity in war as the “human heart, [man’s] soul, spirit, and Faith.” and “the Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, known or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy.” If jihadis should “sow fear not feel fear” obviously, then, it is we who should sow fear and dissention among the jihadis.
In addition to military attacks we should also press psychological attacks against all aspects of the belief system of Islam and the social fabric of the umma, destroy Muslim confidence and sow confusion and division among the already quarrelsome body of Islam. As of today, as far as I can see, we are not doing this at all; why not? Take just one example; for over forty years the Saudis have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the U.S. higher education system to buy influence and to see to it that it is the Wahabi-influenced concept of Muhammad, the Qur’an, Islam, terrorism, the situation in the Middle East, Israel and Palestine that we hear from many of our leading academics and read in their books, hear at their lectures and it is this view that is taught in the curriculums of many universities; these are the academics who advise our government, testify before Congress and appear on influential talk shows yet, our government has done nothing that I can see in response. Unless we engage in “total war” in the sense of war on all levels, mobilizing all of our resources–and this includes educating the public at large–using all methods, in all venues, at all places, we are not going to beat back Islam this time.
However, I must also point out that the Al Shifa facility in the Sudan was, in fact, a chemical weapons facility, as opposed to an “aspirin factory”, Stumbley. Read Richard Cohen’s public testimony before the 9-11 Commission when asked about “actionable intelligence”.
A point which I don’t believe has been made here yet, and which I believe is relevant to discussion of “total war”, is the question of deterrence.
Deterrence, by my lights, is getting your enemy to avoid doing what you don’t want him to do, by promising consequences he won’t like. Deterrence becomes controversial when you promise consequences that you don’t like either, in an attempt to keep your people safe.
For example, the U.S. Government has imposed numerous limitations on our fighting forces — and has done so publicly. (I refer, for example, to the torture of prisoners, which many people think should be off-limits, now and forever.)
And here we walk a fine line. Do we promise the world we will never do things that are repugnant to us, such as torture — and thereby encourage enemy prisoners, who know they will never have to worry about being tortured? Or do we say that, in extreme circumstances, all options are on the table — thereby frightening our enemies (a good thing), and running the risk of eventually losing our moral compass and having to find it again (a bad thing)?
It’s a continuum, naturally, with room for movement between the two extremes. My personal opinion is that we’ve been too worried about Civil Rights for enemy combatants, and not worried enough about scaring the enemy. Your mileage may differ.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
The terror war as we are engaged in it is a humanitarian effort to not go to the next level and give to the Islamist what they virtually proclaim to be their creed. They love and embrace death. If we fail in our endeavors, that is the next step, because it is the only step.
Many foolishly think that this cannot be done. But democracies, cut loose from restraints, are singularly viscious, and I do not mean that as a criticism. It is what it is. Many enimies before these have been lulled by our weak and silly ways.
Rumsfeld has resigned. If we give you Woolfowitz’s head on a platter, will you then support continued operations, or will you still scream “unjust and illegal war”, as opposed to “mistakes were made” as you keep harping on, as if that’s your only opposition to the continued operations in Iraq, or the continued Global War on Terror?
Lee, I am not screaming, and the point I am trying to make is simple: “The Left” and “the media” are in no way responsible for the mistakes in Iraq, and those who are responsible should be held accountable. I provided supporting evidence for that point. No one has yet provided any evidence to the contrary.
The only reason I keep “harping” on it is because you keep dancing around the point.
I thought Reid’s plan was a good one, and it allowed for “continued operations.” What I won’t support are “continuous operations” with no concrete objectives.
I guess for some, those for whom Iraq is but a “conflict of competing ideologies,” just being there to “represent” our ideology is enough. But not for me.
Everything Bush said was consistent with Reid’s plan, with the exception of Bush’s “at some point in time…” Reid was just more specific. And can anyone deny that being more specific will put (apprently much needed) pressure on the Iraqis to “stand up” so that we can “stand down”? (Been a while since we heard that one, eh?)
Actually, UB, as I’ve said over and over and over again, I concede your point. Don’t you get it? Are you so opposed to anything said here that agreement with you on a certain point is still “arguing” with you? How many times have I said Rumsfeld has RESIGNED? Is jail the only way to hold these people “accountable”? I’ve already conceded that you can have Woolfowitz; is Bush’s impeachment the only thing you will settle for?
What the left and the media is resposible for is not the “mistakes” made, but the notion that this war is “unjustified”, that people “lied” to get us into it, that we have “lost”, and that it was “all Bush’s idea”. BULLSHIT!
iraqslogger.com***
Sergey wrote:
“And we know without doubt that 95% IED explosed in Iraq were fabricated in Iran.”
I hadn’t heard about this uncontrovertable evidence, and I still can’t seem to find anything, could you post your source please?
All I have found is this: US Military: Iranian-Made Bombs Responsible for 5% of Coalition Deaths
Actually, UB, your source doesn’t even concede the 5%. “EFP(from Iran?)”
OK, Lee, fair enough. Seemed to me like you were dodging the “left, media” bit, my apologies.
You go on a bit though, and say:
What the left and the media is resposible for is not the “mistakes” made, but the notion that this war is “unjustified”, that people “lied” to get us into it, that we have “lost”, and that it was “all Bush’s idea”.
Mistakes are one thing, but I suppose everyone has a right to their own opinions, don’t they?
Besides, in the abscence of supporting evidence, it seems your idea that the notion of the war as unjustified or now unwinnable originated with the left and the media is just that as well: an opinion.
I think it’s clear that there were more than a few people on the right opposed to the invasion ( I think they called them “paleocons”) and many more who now say it is unwinnable.
I suppose we could argue about whether they arrived at those conclusions independently or were body-snatched by the liberal press, but I don’t see the point really.
What, as opposed to those on the “left” who supported it, now demonized by their own, such as Joe Lieberman, Ed Koch, Ron Silver, Dennis Miller, Neo-Neocon, et.al.?
And you forgot the concluding opinion: BULLSHIT!
Gotta go. But like the Terrminator: “I’ll be back.”.
Yet every day, we hear from moveon.org, George Soros, Keith Olberman, Rosie O’Donnell, Daily Kos, Harry Reid, Dick Durban, Alex Jones, Alan Colmes, Susan Estridge, John Kerry, Gary Hart, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. etc. etc.
who either tell us or report some official saying Bush lied, the war is unjust and illegal, that it’s all about oil, that it’s all about Haliburton, that intelligence was cherry-picked. But because I haven’t listed all these sources before, you can actually type with a straight face that my “claims” that these assertions originated with the left are just “opinions”? What la-la land do you live in? You DO watch TV, don’t you? You DO have internet access, don’t you?
sftt.usI must ask the question “On whom would we unleash “total war”?” The Iraqi citizens? Should we level Bagdad as we did Dresden? To what end?
The conflicts where total war was a partial solution were wars of the past where state armies, navies etc. fought each other. Uniforms, chain of command and all that. But they are in the past.
Read about 4th generation war here: http://www.sftt.us/HTML/article07072005a.html
It’s a bit long but it’s worth the read.
UB: I know you don’t like to do details, but Reid’s proposal was not at all for folding up our tents.
Well, let’s go into some details. Here’s what “he” (i.e, Bush) said after the bit UB took out of context:
By the way, in the [Baker/Hamilton] report it said, it is – the government may have to put in more troops to be able to get to that position [i.e., the position UB thinks is essentially the same as Reid’s]. And that’s what we do. We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be in some other place. The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.
So is that position essentially the same as Harry ‘the war is lost’ Reid’s? Here’s Reid’s plan, by comparison:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said … he wants to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, making clear for the first time that Democrats are willing to pull out all the stops to end U.S. involvement.
Sounds a lot like “folding our tent and going home” to me. Sounds even more like pandering to polls and leftist nutroots — in so disgusting and opportunistic a manner, with the nation’s troops at risk, that I don’t wonder the issue of “treason” is raised.
Well, despite my attempt to forestall this problem, folks have sailed completely past the point of my comment. Even had the US put in the entirety of its standing t
Lee if your still around I owe you an appology,I guess I should have read your posts .Please forgive me. There was a particul arly vile moon bat that .Oh never mind but accept my appology.
jainphx, no problem. I figured it was “some” kind of misunderstanding. No apology necessary.
The US has the bulk of the world’s military spending, and is even more disproportionate in its spending on military r&d.
The result is that nobody can stand against us. If we can see it, we can kill it, and we can see everything.
The one thing which gives us trouble is assymetrical warfare in which the enemy hides among civilians
Our lethality, even there, is becoming more discriminate–technical discussion omitted–and will become more so rapidly.
In fact, this results in one of the puzzles of the current fighting.
In the old days, the enemies of the US tried to fake the US into fighting over civilians in order to provide enough dead civilians for the democrats to use as an argument against the vicious US military. The enemies of the US knew that nothing they did to civilians would bother the democrats–or to US soldiers, either. (See abu Ghraib vs. all the noise about Menchaca and Tucker.)
But, since our lethality is now so discriminating, the terrs have cut out the middle man. They kill the civilians themselves. Seems to work just as well with the dem/left/antiwar folks.
I expect the Viet Cong and FMLN are kicking themselves for not having thought of it first.
But for the nonce, when the terrs and the dems have agreed that war is a failure if the locals can still kill other locals wholesale–a new definition of victory or defeat–killing locals pays off. It also means that the winner of such a war against us is the one who is preternaturally good at hiding among and killing civilians.
I submit that the last people on earth anybody should want to lose to are those whose primary, and decisive, military skills are hiding among and killing civilians.
So, in the future, we may only be able to win a war by getting political permission to kill civilians in the hunt for those hiding among them.
One could, I suppose, make the case that fewer would die in a brisk though violent war than in a simmering slough resembling the current problems in Iraq.
I expect the Viet Cong and FMLN are kicking themselves for not having thought of it first.
The Viet Cong did kill their own civilians, when they went on punitive expeditions against villages being helped by the Americans. After an American vaccination went through a village winning “hearts and minds”, the Viet Cong would come in after we left and chop off the arms of those who were vaccinated. They won bodies and limbs, we won hearts, and it was a toss up who won the mind.
It was just that the Viet Cong never realized that they could fake a massacre and get the US Army to do the investigation and media self-destruction for the VietCong. Our current enemies have learned from Vietnam, far more than we have.
Al Qaeda combines the two. Making it a propaganda coup for them while at the same time intimidating those being helped by Americans.
It is guaranteed that more time in a prolonged war with America than a short and decisive one. For other countries, it is on and off again.
Ymar. I understand that part of the VC strategy.
But they never just blew up civilians for nothing. It was always for something, which they could presume the western left would buy (“collaborators”). It never occurred to them that no reason at all was just as good.
Problem is, it did cost something to fake the US into a fight. Somebody’s going to get killed. Worse now, and fewer civilian casualties. So, as I say, al Q and the other terrs have cut out the middle man.
And it works, just as doing it the hard way worked.
feingold.senate.govusip.org***
Sally wrote:
“Here’s Reid’s plan, by comparison…”
Sally, as a vociferous advocate of “thinking for oneself,” you must know that what you linked to was not Reid’s plan at all, but rather an AP news article about Reid’s plan.
Here is the link to the Reid-Feingold bill. (These things aren’t as easy to find as they should be.) For your convenience, the full text is here:
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission – The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq – The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds – No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes – The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
Here is the link to the ISG report. You will see that it does not recommend, but says it “could support” a “short term surge” in combat troops to stabilize Baghdad, but that all *combat* troops (not *all troops*) should be out by end of 1st Quarter 2008.
Reid-Feingold would have funded that surge and allowed for the continued funding of the special ops, training and support forces as outlined in the ISG report.
But Bush in November said from the start of the surge, it would take at least 6 months to see if it was beginning to succeed, wheras Reid-Feingold says “you’ve got four months to succeed” period.
Baker-Hamilton at least gave him 15 months.
And the “could” caveat was “if the commanders on the ground asked for it”, which Petraeus has.
And you(UB) accuse Bush of “cherry-picking”.
salon.com***
Lee wrote:
…Reid-Feingold says “you’ve got four months to succeed” period.
Lee, the bill states:
“Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
As Russ Feingold said:
“Our bill would require the president to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq in 120 days, with redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008.“
ISG supported a “temporary surge,” which could mean many things, but I doubt means for the duration of the time they recommended continued deployment of combat troops.
washingtonpost.com***
Lee wrote:
And the “could” caveat was “if the commanders on the ground asked for it”, which Petraeus has.
Wrong again, Lee. Petraeus did not ask for it, he took command *after* the surge strategy was developed.
Bush’s surge actually went *against* the advice of his Joint Chiefs.
Well, gee, UB, do you think, maybe, knowing he would “ask” once in command? And knowing he would “ask” once in command, Congress unanimousy approved his promotion?
And the Joint Chiefs aren’t “on the ground”. They are “at the Pentagon”.
And it says, in effect: “In four months, the troop levels necessary for the surge to be successful must begin drawing down before any chance that said surge can be gauged successful, thereby lessening said chances of success”.
But, UB, you get the last word. As I pointed out to Deshawn earlier, I am “poor”, and find it necessary to pawn my computer for a while.
Neo, thanks for the forum, it has been fun, and someday, like the phoenix, I’ll rise again.
To everyone else(even the lefties) I say good luck, and may Yahweh bless you all.
But for my fellow righties, I will quote Harry Dean Stanton in “Red Dawn”: AVENGE ME!
“Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner” Ps. 81:4
Is this not also an American ideal? What does it mean to say “we never really tried to fight”? Are we to match the terrorists and if so, what does that make us? By the definition of our stated goals if we begin to fight blindly, that is, to go into a war like it’s a turkey shoot, a free-for-all like Israel did in Lebanon and they lost their goal anyway and increased a hundred fold devout enemies with a just cause…then our war was more of a lie than just the WMDs. Total war=total American lie. And our enemies from all over the globe will certianly unite with the nessecity to destroy a common menace called the USA.
UB: Here is the link to the Reid-Feingold bill. (These things aren’t as easy to find as they should be.)
Oh, they’re easy enough to find, UB, thanks — the point, though, is to understand what they mean. You still need to think for yourself, I’m afraid. In this case, for example, it’s important to understand that the tacked on section relating to “limited purposes” is just a little ass-covering codicil with no practical meaning — the “plan” of Reid et al is actually better laid out in the one-sentence AP summary than in the language of this self-contradictory bill. Realizing that no-one but the dangerously naive would be fooled by it is why it was defeated with bi-partisan support.
UB’s initial assertion was that we’re losing the war because we went in with far too few troops and sustained that policy far too long. And he wants us to admit that this was Rumsfeld’s fault, rather than the media or the left.
This is an utterly specious argument, and here is why:
If the problem is that there are too few troops, then the solution, as any idiot could see, is to send more troops. But UB, and the rest of the left, is actually using this argument as a reason to REDUCE troop levels.
Long ago, Senator Biden made essentially the same assertions UB is making, that Rumsfeld vastly underestimated what would be required to stabilize Iraq, that he should have listened to the generals, etc. etc. I remember listening to Biden and thinking, “Finally, a Democrat who is serious about this war and wants to win it, who’s even willing to think seriously about the sacrifices it might take to win it.”
Obviously, I couldn’t have been more wrong about Biden, because when Rumsfeld was finally ousted and a troop increase came about, Biden did not support it!
So it is clear to me now, as I’m sure it was clear to many on this board before now, that listening to Democrats talk about troop levels, timetables, “hearts and minds”, total war, etc, is like listening to used car salesmen. They’re just trying to advance their own agenda and hiding it under a pile of bullshit.
And the agenda seems to be a re-creation of Vietnam in its entirety. If our troop pull-out leaves us at the end evacuating people from the embassy roof by helicopter, I’m sure Democrats will feel nothing but grim satisfaction.
To get back to the point of the article, BRD made an excellent post at the beginning of the comments section stating that (if I have this right) total war is less about the lethality of the weapons or the discrimination with which they are used, than it is about the nation’s commitment to that war. A nation that is in a total war, then, would be one in which virtually the entire economy was involved in the war effort. Where every man, woman and child the in country was actively involved in efforts to win the war, not just by fighting but by supporting and supplying the troops, keeping a wary eye out for the enemy, taking care not to give information to the enemy, etc.
There may be very sound strategic reasons, even in a total war (by this definition,) to limit the amount of lethal force used against the enemy. But, obviously, no reason whatsoever to cut funding to the troops.
By this definition it’s easy to see that we are fighting an excruciatingly limited war, indeed, with at least one hand tied behind our backs. The one hand extended is that of the troops fighting on the ground (even though we might be short a few fingers), but the other hand — the hand of our economic, political, and indeed intellectual/informational might — is tightly tied. This is the hand I would like to see released. This is the hand that can only be released when this nation agrees a) that we are actually in a war, not againts Iraqis but against Islamofascists, and b) that we actually want to win this war.
Jen, that was a very nice summary analysis. Thanks.
You’re welcome ymar. 😉