A friend of mine said yesterday that he believes Israel and the United States have reached the limits of their power. He believes the battle is joined, is highly asymmetric, and has ground American and Israeli forces to a halt. He wasn't gloating, but was hypothesizing.
He might be wrong. Having power assumes a monopoly of violence. As we restrain our power to appeal to our allies and win friends on the ground, Islamicists do everything they can to monopolize violence through random acts of terror. They're quite unrestrained in that pursuit, and on that level, we are neck-and-neck with them for control on the ground. The battle for the monopoly of violence is symmetrical in this war because we restrain ourselves from unleashing our full fury. My friend assumes that we will restrain ourselves indefinitely, and so we have reached the limit of our power.
My friend will be right -- that the Israelis and Americans have hit their wall -- only if we continue self-restraint. We've made war with our seat belts on. There's no guarantee that things can't get to a point where further self-restraint makes no sense.
I am chastened when I consider the unlatching of our seat belts. Real war is total, not self-restrained. Real war is horrible for both sides, when everything is at stake; when everything can be lost. Real war is a desperate struggle for survival. Since 2001, we have not been fighting that kind of war, though the battles have been many, the losses tragic.
If July, 2006 marks the beginning of real war, I will have to take my friend's observation with a healthy dose of skepticism. Our force must be fully unleashed before his hypothesis can be proven. Once we get to a point to where we really believe we are fighting for our lives, the limits of our power will truly be tested.
In the years to come, we may wonder how this thing started. We may look back through a haze and wonder why 9/11 happened, and why we went into Iraq. Our moral and political calculus will have evolved after the fury is unleashed. It isn't for us to say today how our current motives will be interpreted by the survivors of this great war.
Part of me wants to see our self-restraint maintained; we have the keys to Hell's door, a Pandora's Box that is best kept shut. Another part of me wants to see our civilization's enemies mercilessly vanquished. We can't have it both ways forever.
I agree, and would commend this Belmont Club post to your friend's attention: Hoping for Plan B
He is only correct so long as America and Israel continue playing by the RoE we have used thus far...something we can only do while we have the confidence we can win. If that confidence starts to fail, the nightmares of civilized men will be made real.
Can't happen? Maybe. But I give you the fall of Weimar as an example of the fickleness of a people's heart, and that was only in response to poverty (mostly). What will happen when a non-metaphorical wolf is at the door?
your point is very well taken and deeply disturbing to all of those of us raised in a civil society dedicated to talking our way to positive-sum solutions.
the real problem with our enemies is that, by counting on our restraint they can do things that would, under "ordinary" (ie pre-civil society) conditions, have brought on the extermination of their people (and them). because we don't respond with more than a fraction of our strength, they can do more and more outrageous things (like suicide terrorism) and escape any serious consequences (e.g., the stunningly restrained israeli response of knocking out a small area of the refugee camp attached to Jenin).
and then comes the worst of it: a morally discombobulated left that turns examples of restraint into their opposite (the jenin massacre) and feed the sense of injustice among a people capable of celebrating the slaughter of (other people's) civilians (sbarro pizza bombing) while shrieking blood vengeance for the alleged death of their own (al durah).
This isn't the first time I've seen this sentiment expressed. It seems to be getting more prevalent as the war drags on. Here's my own take on it, at http://cracksinthesanitarium.bl*gspot.com/2006/06/crying-wolf.html
It worries me a little that the 'drop our restraint' meme is starting to spread more. I'm feeling it too; part of me just wants to say, hell with it, nuke the beeyatches. That's my limbic system speaking though; the good ol' frontal lobes tell me such an outcome would be amongst the worst possible.
There are 2 different kinds of restraint in play, political and humanitarian. I dont see us giving up the latter wholesale (I hope), although there will certainly be a loosening. As for the political, thats the one that gets up in trouble.
Vietnam is case and poing. There wasnt a great deal of resolve to minimize civilian casualties, but there was a political impetus to avoid certain targets for geo-political reasons (mining haiphong harbor for instance). The target list bobbed and weaved as the war dragged on.
We are in a similar position now. Iraq has become what it has become largely because political decisions were made early on not to secure the borders or make rebuilding the Iraqi infastructure a vital US goal. It was (and is) absurd to think the US didnt have the resources to do these things if the political will existed.
Israel has the material strength to take the fight to its enemies, but not the political will to defy international opinion or risk war with Iran and Syria. Israel doesnt refrain from bombing the Hamas leadership in Damascus because it doesnt have the military power, it does so as a political consideration.
In that context, both Israel and the US have a vast 'reserve of resolve' that has not yet been truly tapped. If circumstances changes somehow, huge levels of resources could quickly be devoted to these problems.
Is it restraint or incompetence?
Why do we ally with the nations who were just as culpable as the Taliban were in the 9/11 attacks (Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the UAE). Why do we let them continue to spread the message of hate that inspires terrorism around the world?
Terrorists and their public relations branches like Hizb ut Tahrir are active in most of the major cities in Europe. A few cheap,well placed bullets could take care of that problem, but we don't do it. Why?
Instead of directly attacking terrorism and the hate that has already killed millions, we play whack a mole with every little dictator who jumps up and shouts 'I've got nukes'. We pretend that bringing democracy to the middle east will somehow solve the problem of terrorism while ignoring the fact that terrorism has always thrived within the freedom and prosperity offered by democracies. Terrorism rises from the middle class, and it comes from the hope of gaining political power. Bringing democracy to other nations can reduce oppresssion, but, until democracies figure out how to effectively fight terrorism, they'll always be more vulnerable, not less.
There are a lot of options between 'restraint' and nuke-em all that we haven't begun to explore. We really should start to explore them, soon, to avoid the nuke-em response.
I think there's a scale of restraint here, and we're a ways away from being completely unrestrained and desparate. The end of the scale is nuclear, and we have a lot of options between here and there that we haven't explored yet.
One thing that has to die is the concept of limited war. Somewhere in the blogomaze (sorry, I don't have time to dig up the links) there has been a discussion of the difference between a short war and a long war. Short wars harden attitudes on both sides. Long wars bring about a change in attitude, an awareness on both sides (probably most important on the losing side) that the attitudes and behaviors that brought on the war can't be continued. Only long wars have the potential to bring about real change.
It's those changes in attitude that need to happen. It won't happen if we go to a cease-fire (we might as well adopt the Arabic term "hudna") that allows everyone to regroup and re-arm. It does no good for anyone if Hezbollah and Hamas regroup and re-arm. It does no good for anyone if Iran gets to keep its proxies to use them again and again. Now that we've moved on to "diplomacy by other means," we have new options to achieve those goals.
Israel really seems to understand this. One exit strategy for Israel would require a complete and lasting peace with Lebanon, with Hezbollah permanently ejected, its weapons caches destroyed, and joint border security arrangements between the IDF and the Lebanese army. That doesn't solve the Palestinian issue, nor does it solve Iran, but it would certainly put Syria in a very difficult position, probably an untenable one, which would be a further step towards needed long-term change.
I agree with your friend. With the caveat that this is appliable for the current level of violence which is comparatively low.
Neverthless Israel suffered medium levels of violence and still didnt moved much probably mainly because outside pressure and the other parts can snipe judgements and condemnations.
So he may be right.
I think we can still win the asymmetrical war if we retain and back warriors like Gary Berntsem who has a book out, "Jawbreaker." He was our CIA Operations officer in Afghanistan who ran much of the early war there. He and his people were tough and moved fast to beat AQ and Taliban forces much larger than his & the Northern Alliance Afghans.
He almost got bin Laden in Tora Bora, but his request for Army special forces to block the route to Pakistan was overruled by the Geo. Tenent weenies at the CIA and the regular Army guys who got in the fight late, but wanted to punch their tickets at his expense.
When we talk about abandoning limited war- i dont think anybody really means it. Again, it comes back to politics. The WW2 generation knew what total war was- essentially every citizen is expected to give up their private lives and go to work for the nation. That just isnt on the plate of the US or Israel, not even close. Can anyone imagine initiating a universal draft and congress mandating the turnover of the US industrial base to government fiat? Its just not anywhere near happening.
So of course both we and Israel are stuck in a limited war. That is the nature of asymmetric warfare. However particularly for the US there is such a huge gap between total war and the limited war we have today that it is absurd to ever insist we are using our full resources for any given task.
Israeli restraint has become a major liability as we clearly saw these last few weeks. The EU and Russia are already moaning about 'disproportional response'. Duh. Only idiots fight wars proportionally. If you hit your enemy exactly as hard as he hit you, you wont likely end the fight. If anything, Israel has been too proportional, and that has extended and enhanced the violence.
I agree with your belief the your friend is incorrect as to the US and Israel having reached their limits of power. I do think, however, that in accordance with your friend's view, both have been operating near that limit commensurate with the provocation.
If discussion of this is approached in this way, not analogous to an on/off switch but, say, a rheostat switch, the position that we are not at our limit, or even near our limit -- and the same goes for Israel -- becomes much more clear and accurate. So, too, does it show your suggestion inaccurate that our power must be fully unleashed to prove we are not at our limit.
I kind of like your seltbelt analogy, its a new one to me. But I like the phrase "the gloves are off now" more if only because it has less of an on/off quality to it. But even the gloves analogy has taken on too much of an on/off quality to it and leaves a false impression. So, when Israel or pundits with the same perspective as Israel state the gloves are off, I don't take that to mean they will wage war to the full power -- that power being maximizing tech, manpower, strategy, tactics, and minimizing moral underpinnings -- that they are truly or finally capable of. I take it to mean they are upping it a notch in that taking the gloves off is only half-way on the power ladder. If you think about it, gloves off can always be upped some more notches by starting to put things back on, like brass knuckles, or holding things, like baseball bats.
I do worry that this flareup, July 2006 as you call it, will escalate. I feel much the same as you describe your feelings in the final paragraph. But as you indicate yourself, we are talking only about the issues of our own self-control. We have great control over that. We have very little control over the decisions of our enemies. Some influence depending on who we are talking about, but nothing approaching control, particularly when discussing individuals and small groups. Here again, I think discussion should be centered more in rheostat terms than on/off terms.
Unfortunately, we shy away from the rheostat way of thinking at the first mention of hypocrisy and the like, whether discussing war, freedoms, rights, diplomacy, who we choose as allies or how we treat our enemies and on and on. Life just does not work that way. It never has and never will. In thinking back on your seat belt analogy, I think the reason I like it is that it draws me closer to seeing some of problems we have in tackling our enemies as a problems inflexibility, rigidity and a one size fits all way of doing things. Besides, I hate seat belts.
Cicero,
I'd love to play p*o*k*e*r with your friend. He doesn't know how to count.
Of course we are going into total war. It was inevitable. Muslim societies see modernity as a weakness, and overestimate tribal raiding patterns as decisive.
Since Israel has found it can have no peace, it might as well choose war. Since Israel finds itself condemned for Jenin it might as well eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas for real, and not quibble about the civilians killed. Since if Israel kills tens or tens of thousands the number will be inflated into millions.
Hezbollah is already firing hundreds of rockets into Israel, hitting Haifa, a major population center. Iran is only days away from hitting Israel with either a nuke or VX/Sarin gas with an ICBM, and likely using terror against the US in a mass casualty attack here at home.
At that point the change will be like the British Government from 1939, when Parliament was aghast at the idea of bombing private property in the Black Forest; to September 1940 when the first night bombings of Hamburg were done.
Something like the planned PATH bombings, Sears Tower bombings, or other various terror plots will cause a total War; we've already reached our limit and I don't think there is much appetite for patience.
Don't forget the US has many nuclear missiles; and may wish to make an unmistakable drawing of red lines after they've been crossed. Domestically it would force Dems to choose their Nutroots and side with Iran after a major terrorist attack on us sponsored by them; or tepid me-toos that no one believes (the attraction of this strategy is obvious ... Dems have lost National Security for several generations).
That Pakistan's ISI has essentially provoked a war with India should also escape no one; nuclear conflict there is also inevitable.
"Of course we are going into total war. It was inevitable."
It wasn't inevitable, and I'd like to think that it still isn't inevitable, but its becoming increasingly likely.
There is a strong undercurrent to the popular opposition to the war, the sort that doesn't make headlines and doesn't have much of a voice at say DU or DailyKos, that is frustrated by the fact that we aren't just 'killing them all' and being done with it. That's increasingly becoming a populist position and not merely a radical hawk/right wing position. If you talked to ordinary folks, blue collar types on 9/12, 'nuke 'em all' was their political position then too. Bush basically talked them out of it, but as the Bush model fails to achieve tangible results we are rapidly approaching the point where 'kill 'em all' will become a mainstream political stand you can take on the issue.
I can think of some arguments for it which might resonate. We aren't far away now. For those of us who've been supporting the 'War on Terror' model, because we percieved the real alternative to be 'War on Islam' its a scary eerie sort of feeling, like we are watching the Wehrmacht marching into Czechoslavicia. Events are in motion.
(#12) And in happier news, the earth ends today at seven o'clock
I see this a little differently. I don't think Israel wants much of anything at all in a traditional sense. They're just rattling the trees over there, hoping to force a new political reality. Hamas and Hezbollah will eventually give up the prisoners, but not until they have lost so much esteem in the world that perhaps they get themselves kicked out of Lebanon. If Syria has any interests of moving in again -- well, I'm sure that some people have made sure that it would be a unfortunate choice for them to make.
I do agree that several major players are doing their best to ignite an all-out war. I think they believe the muslim peoples, no matter where they are, will rise up and who knows, start a new caliphate or something. But the other side knows this game, and isn't playing along. Whether we can all be forced into total war or not is an interesting question. We may find out very soon the answer. Right now, I'm betting the answer is "no"
False dichotomies aren't helpful. For one thing, it could be both restraint and incompetence depending on what you're talking about. And failure to give up on restraint when it's no longer productive, or where it actually creates more havoc, could be incompetent. Think George B. McClellan. In that case restraint was incompetent and foolish.
And the invasion of Iraq, itself, was an act of restraint. The objective was to start a counter-movement within the Ummah that would eliminate the eventual demand that we fight an all out war for civilization. It may not work. Indeed, the odds now look slim. Well, except for the fact that Saudi Arabia appears to be siding with Israel (h/t: TigerHawk, whom I can't link because he's on b l o g s p o t).
So, there's that. We may not be as close to the abyss as it seems.
No, it's not a false dichotomy, the question is just too pithy. There are a lot of reasons why we're doing what we're doing:
1.We're still stuck in a cold war rut, using tactics that we're appropriate against a strong enemy but inappropriate against a weak one
2. we're still following the Carter/Brzezinski concept of winning Islamist hearts and minds despite the fact that the 'hearts and minds' strategy was meant to increase the power of the Islamists, not decrease it...
3. We fear nukes more than we fear the ultimate WMD, hate
4. politicians and universities are being bribed by our UAE and Saudi 'allies' to look the other way as they fund Palestian terrorism and terrorist attacks like the recent bombings in India.
There are a number of reasons for our so-called restraint, Most of them are due to the ignorance and egos of politicians in general, and most of this incompetence could lead to a total war.
the invasion of Iraq, itself, was an act of restraint. The objective was to start a counter-movement within the Ummah that would eliminate the eventual demand that we fight an all out war for civilization
According to Dick Cheney, our invasion of Iraq was based on the Carter doctrine; the goal was to maintain stability in the Middle East, reduce the threat posed by Saddam and keep the oil flowing. While Afghanistan is not as miserable as it was under the Taliban, Afghanistan is an Islamist state. Iraq could be too, especially if we continue to support Sistani. There is no way we could claim to be fighting Islamism.
We're not being 'restrained', we're just trying to maintain stability in the Middle East and our oil supply. That's not such a terrible goal, but it's no way to fight an intransigent enemy that wants to destroy us.
O/T but if you want to link a blogspot blog, just use tinyurl.com like I did to link to Wretchard.
Demosophist responds to a point made while I was in the process of typing. Here again is the on/off switch.
I have seen sporadic comments coming from the usual suspects on the world stage urging that we can solve this current dilemma with the "if we just think creatively" proposal. I am certain that all they mean is "let's all climb into the time machine and set the clock for X days ago" and not "we need to loosen the seat belt." One can see that in their eyes.
If you want creative, I suggest that you consider what Israel is doing creative. They have proposed to kick Syria out of Lebanon, dismantle an dangerous Iranian proxy, return their northern neighbor's full sovereignty. What have others proposed? Right. Same ol' same ol', right up to staying out of Lebanon and including seeking a two state solution, Palestinian Independence, full sovereignty and a stocking full of funding -- time indeterminate.
That's not creativity, obviously. Here's creativity. Postponing a Palestinian state for say 100, maybe 200 years, or until their hatred has leached from their collective system. In the meantime create an International administrative government (UN need not apply) of a multitude of small municipalities, that can be fenced and overseen so that security can be assured via an almost know thy neighbor familiarity. Freedom of movement strongly restricted and controlled. Free enterprise fostered to its fullest. A free (costwise) but carefully managed educational system established. Independence on a municipal basis could be instituted along the way and a competitive atmosphere towards this end encouraged. Everything managed financially with zero tolerance for corruption in mind.
I know this is, dare I say, utopian. There are many ways in which I have sacrificed some of our common beliefs, if only for a time. Call it loosening our seat belt rather than removing it in regard to this issue. But let's say this was broached and bantered about seriously on the world stage for a while. Do you think it might cause the Palestinians to tighten their seat belts enough for a less drastic measure to be tried and possibly be made to work? I am not sure myself, but the essential part of creativity is lost if you can't contemplate new ways of doing things.
And no, I wouldn't necessarily offer this as a model to be applied elsewhere inspite of possible charges of hypocrisy for various and sundry reasons. In fact, I think Darfur should be given it's Independence and Somalia be broken into as many nations as there are warlords before it is too late, which it may already be.
This is an interesting post in that it is provocative. By similar manipulation of the wonkish technobabble, I could argue we should have lost the American Indian wars after the Civil War. I won't bother. The notable thesis of the post is that America is imposing restraint on prosecution of the WOT. That's true, but most importantly, these hobbles are purely political and ideological.
#12 Jim Rockford is too positive in his assertions, basing them mostly on opinion and a better than average crystal ball.
#13 Celebrim posts more in line with my own views.
#16 Mary, I think gets to the heart of the matter.
Grim at Grim's Hall (sorry Blogspot URL) posted "Hamdan" 6/30/06 regarding the Supreme Court decision. The post is representative of the current malaise over the WOT and our inconsistent attempts to fight terrorism. It is a VERY interesting insight into the sort of cold war/proxy war-think that is causing most of our problems. My own contention is that the radical left and its fifth columnists are more dangerous to the US war effort than any terrorists at present. Islamic terrorism is moving inexorably toward nuclear capability as a terror weapon. We frankly need a Genghis Khan rather than the ghost of Jimmy carter leading us to national suicide.
[ tinyurl.com link to "Hamdan" and bq. formatting added by Marshal Festus, 7/15/06 8:30pm ]
Grim's 'Hamdan' post
"The end of the scale is nuclear, and we have a lot of options between here and there that we haven't explored yet"...yet liberals, in general, do their best to keep these options from being available. For example, it has been proposed to fit Trident II missiles with conventional warheads so that they can be used to attack targets (such as terrorist hideouts and nuclear development facilities) very rapidly, without use of nuclear weapons, and probably with deep penetration due to their high speeds. Yet liberals object to this refit, preferring to keep the ballistic missile arsenal entirely nuclear.
#20,
There is always the problem that the Ruskies or the Chicoms might misinterpret such action.
Not necessisarily to the benefit of the USA.
M Simon...clearly, we alert them as to what we are doing when we do it, just as we now do when launching satellites or test missiles. And surely both of these powers have systems capable of tracking trajectories and projecting their endpoints.
In the 1940s, an America just out of the Great Depression was able to mount a war on two fronts, and to fight on sea, air, and ground. Moreover, America was able to develop and manufacture a system which was capable of wiping countries off the map (i.e. destroying every major city, destroying infrastructure, killing most of the civilians). This system was not the nuclear bomb, though that was capable of similar feats. It was a combination of technology, planning, logistics, and industrial horse-power (among much else) which created a combined forces army of unfathomable destructive capability. These forces included massive fleets of aerial bombers capable of utterly demoloshing major cities at a high and sustained rate. Near the end of the war it was estimated that allied bombing was capable of razing every major city in Japan within about 1 year. This awesome power was not used extensively because of a hesitancy on the part of the allies to wreak such destruction on civilian targets and because the end of the war came fairly shortly after the system really began to achieve it's capabilities (which is unlikely to be a coincidence, nukes notwithstanding). Additionally, the allies had a very capable submariner fleet which was able to do to Japan what Germany could not do to Britain with its U-Boats. Namely, cut off supplies and starve its industry of raw materials, its armed forces of gasoline, and its people of food. If Japan had continued to refuse surrender, if nuclear weapons had not been invented, and if the US had been savage anough, Japan would have ceased to exist as a country in any meaningful sense by 1947-48 at the latest.
Again, this is what the US was capable of doing 60 years ago, without nuclear weapons. Today, our economy and industrial base is incomparably larger and we have a stock-pile of many thousands of high-yield thermonuclear weapons. Even in WWII the US fought with a hand tied behind its back (until just about the end). Today the US fights with two hands and a leg tied up. If we were as savage as our opponents the destruction we could wreak (with conventional weapons) would put WWII to shame. If we were inclined to use nuclear weapons, the Arab/Islamic world would be reduced in size by well over an order of magnitude over night.
The reason why the US fights so carefully and with such restraint is precisely to avoid these other scenarios.
"Wars and rumors of wars," ad nauseam. The continual, unceasing drumbeat of war has recently encountered a soldier, an army officer yet, who is refusing to dance to Rummy the warmonger’s tune.
Lieutenant Ehren Watada is saying yes, if so ordered, he will go to Afghanistan. But the order to take part in the bloody occupation of Iraq is illegal, says he. Watada will go to prison rather than be a party to war crimes. For more on a true military hero, see,
www.tell-usa.org/iraq
Your friend's belief, encouraging the enemy in same, may be what causes the really ugly demonstration of his wrongness.
I think that this is an opportune time to unlock our cooler conventional arsenal against the TRUE perpetrators, Syria, Iran (and NKorea).
Destroy their military, kill their generals.
They play chicken$hit games killing their own civilians then hide behind women and children. Then OUR (?) media blames us. Why would they change that tactic?
Let's change our response to their tactics.
I hope to wake up and find that there are a bunch of new holes in the ground in Syria, Iran and NKorea.
Please cancel your subscription to the LA/NY Treason. Contact the advertisers on abc/cbs/nbc and tell them that you identify their products with treason. (Let's change our response on the home front, also.)
or we can surrender...
It's always a pleasure to see anything I've written quoted at Winds of Change. Since blogspot is banned here, I posted a reply at BlackFive.
[ Link to Grim's reply 'On Limits' at Grim's Hall added courtesy of www.tinyurl.com and a link to the essay's mirror at BlackFive added as well. Marshal Festus, 7/15/06 8:40pm ]
Well, one limit has acknowledged, at least according to the Arab League today: Arab League Chief: Peace Process 'Dead'
Granted it's not, specifically, the limits discussed here, but it was one that went far in limiting resolution of the Palestinian issue vis-avis the poltical war and, secondarily, military actions.
If it holds up, this declaration should turn out to be good news, I think. It certainly removes a barrier to the same ol' creativity.
We keep using World War II as an example of total war, but if there's an analogy for Iraq to be found in that era, it's in the (sorry) Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia. (NOTE: THIS REFERS ONLY TO THE ASYMMETRY!!)
In any conventional war sense, America (as Germany had) has already won. It's taken all the land and eliminated the evil government. However, it keeps losing soldiers to an unfriendly populace.
America can certainly unleash its power in order to protect itself from partisan attack, but we're talking widespread liquidation of civilian poplaces, obliterating towns where attacks take place, and essentially the sort of stuff that traditionally occurs in these sort of wars.
Think you'll find many American soldiers volunteering to be concentration camp guards? I don't. At least not until you persuade the vast, vast majority of Americans that they are personally in grave danger if the US doesn't eliminate all resistance in Iraq.
Right now, how many people reading this blog honestly believe that the USA will cease to be a country in say 50 years if the USA immediately leaves in Iraq? (About as close to defeat as you can get.)
Not too many.
So much for imminent danger justifying the gloves coming off, at least in the eyes of the people who have to do the dirty work.
America is not fighting with "its gloves off" because to do doesn't mean destroying enemy governments by any means at our disposal. It means widespread liquidation of civilian populaces.
Given that, America exercises restraint because anything else would be self-destructive on a whole different level.
In my opinion, America's choices are to make the best of the current situation and hope things turn out for the best, or run for it. And I'd only advocate running for it if I thought that the war was in danger of turning Americans into the mass murderers they'd need to become to truly obliterate the enemy they now face.
"an army officer yet, who is refusing to dance to Rummy the warmonger’s tune".
May God Damn your kind to HELL, Bob Struble. That Army officer is a Benedict Arnold.
I am just back from my most recent tour of Iraq, so I say again, To HELL with scum like you.
Charles: Don't let the haters rile you. Concern yourself not with them are anything that they say. They are beneath you.
It may be true that we 'fighting keyboarders' of the '101st chairborne' (as we have been named) have less andriea than full warriors (as we are continutally reminded), but we have enough to deal with the quislings, cowards, nutjobs, fools, and traitors that pop in and out of these boards. If it is the most we can do, then so be it; it is also the least we can do. Save your rage for the murdering muj' that deserve it, a truth you probably know more fully than I do.
God bless you. God bless the US military. God bless America.
I haven’t read through all the posts but there is plenty of good stuff here. My impressions (not that they matter); The WoT is pretty much going according to the doctrine that geopolitical forces currently in dictate. Doctrine can and will change as geopolitical conditions dictate.
Oversimplifying it - Since 911, it was clear that the enemy is Islamic extremist terrorists. We took the logical step to go after the “state sponsors”, because the easiest was to marginalize them is to cut the umbilicus, so to speak. Without sponsorship, they really have limited means to do substantial harm to our way of life.
Barely 5 months after 9/11, GWB told us as much with the whole “axis of evil” stuff. Since then, using financial means, political influence and limited military might we’ve engaged in what very much appears as a modified form of one of the oldest forms of warfare. Siege warfare. We’ve used it very effectively in the past.
In a subtle way, many moves we’ve made seem to have been a calculated measure meant to put pressure and squeeze our “axis” enemies, By drawing them out and/or exposing their real motivations and that of their puppet entities (Hamas , Hezbollah). Seems this effort is only beginning to bear fruit. Our military effort in Iraq is agonizingly subdued (overall), but it’s causing “just enough” pressure on the region to draw in into the light our true enemies (Iran & Syria) in the region, while still maintaining some decorum of “world tolerance at what we are doing. This part of the siege seems to be pulling the Axis into the open and into the coming conflict (and it is coming).
I think we can see clear evidence that NK is beginning to implode (not that KJI had far to go off the deep end). They are increasingly isolated and even their friends are will have to step back soon. They are on the verge of collapse. Iran is not far behind, and they are acting more and more irrational as time goes on, which could be the pressure. They are still in the “thumping their chest” stage, but the world is clearly beginning to see the evil that is Iran. Many people really had no clue until the WoT. More and more, we are even seeing the moderate Muslims begin to distance themselves and extreme elements among them, watch for that to only increase in time. Iraq will eventually be won. It’ll cost more lives and money, but in the end, they (and us) will prevail with our help. Real open warfare (as opposed to our current police effort) is not part of our doctrine at this time. As stated by other, that would not serve our purpose.
Obviously this oversimplifies a very complex effort, but that’s how I see it. As for “reaching the limits of our power”, you must be kidding. This type of war is very slow and frustrating at times but it can be very effective. Make no mistake, let NK lob a nuke towards Japan or let Hezbollah (or aQ, or iran, ect) activate a US sleeper cell to loose a chem/bio weapon on a US city (that can be traced). We’ve only seen open, unbridled US warfare on very few occasions in our history, like 1863-64 and 1943-44 (particularly in the Pacific theatre) for example. Do we really think that the fury of individual conflict displayed during Grant’s 1864 Overland Campaign (an 8 week bloodletting that produced 100,000 US casualties) or at places like Iwo and Peleliu is gone forever from the collective American fighting spirit? Do you really think we’re beyond the mind-numbing brutality of the Tokyo firebombing, if our very existence depends on it? I doubt it. No, peacenik’s and internal America haters aside, It still lies dormant within us and there is should stay, not only for our sake, but also for the sake of the rest of the world too. Make no mistake, the object is to win, not lay waste.
I think that we have decided to do the Reagan thing. Did you notice that Rice and Bush have not called for an immediate ceasefire? They see the Hez as an Iranian chess piece, to be removed. Syria is to be neutered.
KJI in Korea will be studiously ignored, his treasury strangled by our own DOT's suffocation of his bogus bills program.
Islamic fascists look at the West through their own rather ignorant prism. They have no memory of the Strategic Bombing Campaigns of WWII. They have no understanding of the way the West really fights wars when we have our backs to the wall. Ahmadhi-Nejad says what he says about Israel and the West because he really believes these things. Thought precedes action. Leftists in the West continue to deny this in the Western media as they continue to demonize Bush. The fanaticism and hate of our enemies puts the lie to the anti-American and anti-Israeli cant of the Left, however.
When the time comes, today's antiwar movement will come to be seen as discredited as the America Firsters were in, say, 1943. This will happen because the evil of our enemies cannot be explained away by an inordinate, partisan disdain for George Bush.
There is a reason that Alexander's campaigns against the Persians were so decisive and one-sided. We have yet to draw out our other fist.
Yes, this is restrained war, clouded by double talk. One thing that crosses cultural boundaries, world views, time & place is crushing defeat. But we didn't defeat Arabs or Iraqis when we occupied Iraq. They didn't attack us or fight us, so they didn't lose a war. The more accurate WW2 comparison is not Germany or Japan, but Italy. We could have seen hysterically jubilant Iraqi's hugging our soldiers, throwing flowers not bombs, but that would have only occurred as American troops voluntarily and in vicitory had departed: quickly. That would have been liberation. What our government calls Liberation is more an attempt at benevolent occupation.
The Arabs haven't been defeated, just humiliated. And Israel, both helped and hindered by the U.S., has not been able to turn remarkable battlefield victories into security. Israel has been gambling hugely these last 39 years that half measures would do; that the Arabs would come around. Arabs would would defy human nature if they did. America in a reckless gamble, and in defiance of our own civil war history, thought an invading army, that is furthermore ethnically and religiously different, would be welcomed if its intentions were noble. Our leaders should really read some history and psychology.
The victory in the Six Day War, meant that Israel could have kept its pre-war boundaries in peace. The victory would have sealed the deal. Annexation of all or some of the West Bank will necessitate further victories. Israel will have to crush Syria, and be willing to return that territory, plus part of Lebanon to a successor government, and expel undesirables then there can be peace.
In Iraq we never had the power to remake that society. We had the power to do one of two things. We could have replaced Saddam's repressive regime with another oppressive regime more favorable, or we could have partitioned the country. A broader Mideast settlement requires, the destruction of the Syrian, Kuwaiti, Lebanese and Saudi regimes in cooperation with Israel, and Jordan, and the creation of an Arab state run by the Hashemites and large enough to accommodate territorial concessions and permanently relocate refugees. Non interference by Turkey, Egypt and Iran would be worth consideration.
If we can remember that “they” are human beings like us, then we have a chance to conclude agreements. To see “them” as other, different, evil, is a waste of time, and deleterious to rational goals.
http://broadsunlituplands.word press.com/