Is a year enough time to have resolved the problems which were revealed in the Israeli decision-making process during the bombing/incursion against Hezbollah?

Nope.

Rev - Yup! They have solved them. The company I work for has an office in Kiryat Gat. The CEO and others have apartments in Ashquelon. We have IDF members that work for us. The IDF knows EXACTLY what went wrong and have moved to fix those issues.

Do not look for Israel to be hesitant to resolve any conflicts quickly and decisively this time around. Israel KNOWS that this time the stakes are going to be much higher. The rhetoric has been high stakes from the nutters in Iran and Syria. Israel knows that survival are the stakes. They will not hesitate to solve the issues in thier favor. Heck, modern Arab soldiers have never, NEVER won a modern conflict. They cannot, the societal structures are all wrong.

It is long past time for the Carters, Clintoons and others to be silenced about the ME. It is time to stand and be counted as good friends and worse enemies with those in the ME who wish Western Civ ill. Time to count coup on these idiots.

I wish the IDF all the good luck I can. Hope they don't stop till they reach Damascus!!

Robo -- I wish the Israelis the best of luck but I think their problems remain as always, political. I don't think that will change, Olmert is still around, still promising Peace in Our Time ™ and talking up Abbas and the PA as if it were anything but a corpse from Weekend at Bernies.

And ... while your comment about Arab regimes is true, it is not because of lack of bravery on the part of Arabs but that their militaries are good at what they do, preventing coups. Wars are another thing.

BUT ... Israel faces Hezbollah and Hamas which have:

*Pushed down decision making to the squad level, the equal of Western armies.
*High levels of training, equal probably to Israel's infantry.
*Higher levels of unit cohesion and esprit de corps.
*A belief they can win.
*Better weapons at the squad level.
*Professional Iranian Soldiers who fought against the best of the best: the US, in Iraq and Afghanistan, training them.

The WSJ ran an article today about how modern Israel lost it's cohesiveness and edge, along with will to fight. There seems no unity according the the reporter or willingness to take on the enemies.

Israel can't use it's Air Forces because the International and Domestic Press will moan and Israel's weak and feminized political leadership will respond. You don't seriously think that Olmert won't order a retreat from Hamas once TV shows pictures of Palestinians crying in front of rubble now do you? Of course he will. Same with Lebanon or Syria.

Israel's tanks, planes, and artillery will sit useless and unused while Hamas and Hezbollah pound Israel with rockets (of which NO TV news around the globe will show any damage/death/destruction). The only question this time around is how big will Israel's defeat be? Will it even survive? My guess is it will, maybe. But the idea that Israel could even muster the political will under Olmert (who is a union leader not a soldier) to win against even Hamas does not pass the laugh test. No matter how much Barak may posture. My guess is Israel will end up releasing prisoners to Hamas for some temporary truce which will broken in minutes not hours.

The only way Israel will stop the rockets from Gaza and Lebanon is to go in and kill about 40%-60% of the men in each area, shove the remaining people into Egypt and Syria respectively, and claim the land as a people-free permanent buffer zone where anyone showing up will be killed at the first opportunity. This means a terrible amount of bloodshed and many dead Israeli soldiers as well. It might deter for a short while Iranian ambitions, and perhaps Hamas, Hezbollah, and Damascus will be less aggressive in their attacks and less able to kill Israelis in large numbers, but won't of course address the real problem.

Technically, Israel has the means but hardly the will. Like all Western nations it is deeply feminized and wealthy, unwilling to fight for itself in the main. I seriously doubt Israel will do anything but launch some strikes which it will then apologize for, dither, and provoke by weakness more attacks which will kill more of it's people while their leaders dither and beg for mercy.

Israel's leadership seems to be waiting for America to strike Iran, which won't happen. The decision has been made in DC to sacrifice Israel to Iran hoping it will be satisfied. Israel's most important enemy is in Tehran not Damascus or Gaza or Lebanon. Israel ought to strike first there, against Iran's nuclear facilities and population centers, in a war of survival. Israel won't of course and so it will be wiped out eventually by the Mullahs. They've said so many times.

But Israel's political leadership, and elites, would rather be morally pure, "liked" and "nice" than alive. In the end Iran will do exactly what they said they would: wipe Israel out. Unless Israel wipes them out first.

Like all Western nations it is deeply feminized and wealthy, unwilling to fight for itself in the main.

Israeli culture feminized.

Mmmmmm...

I think you'll really want to explore that premise a bit, and consider the notoriously macho chest-thumping Israeli culture of masculinity before going much further with that thesis.

I'm not quite sure that Israel is "unwilling to defend itself" given recent events. More accurately, they aren't using the tactics you think you would if you were in their shoes. Since you're advocating genocide and mass destruction of entire nations and cultures, I think I can forgive them for being a bit circumspect.

Asymmetrical warfare's no fun. Israel has had to deal with it far, far longer than we have in the US. Still, we like to think of ourselves as the experts and Israel as the neophytes who should follow our lead. Odd, that.

rohobo - I meant "nope" politically rather than militarily. I think that Rabbi Jackson addressed the military side of it in his post on my site, but Olmert, et, al. are still, well, Olmert et. al.

See Jim Rockford's comment #5 for more.

Jeff: While I have plenty of problems with Jim's post (and Jim's theories in general), it is completely unfair to suggest that Jim is singling out Israel in particular for criticism. Jim believes his criticism applies to the entire Western world. Likewise, he's not at all suggesting that anyone in the Western world does assymetrical warfare better than the Israeli's and certainly not 'us' (if by us you mean the USA). Rather, I believe that he's suggesting that assymetrical warfare (and limited warfare in general) is insane. And, while I don't advocate nominating Jim for SecDef, I would like to point out that "genocide and mass destruction of entire nations and cultures" is a fairly common feature of warfare throughout the ages and is the explicit goal of one side of this conflict. So, Jim's suggestion to respond in kind is, while not one I advocate, not nearly the straw man you are trying to make it out to be.

I'm very curious how all Western nations are deeply feminized? what does that mean exactly? If it is true, I have to say that I much prefer living in a deeply feminized nation inasmuchas I much prefer living in the West than in any non-Western nation. Deeply feminized nations seem to be an awful lot more successful than other ones. But I still don't quite see the relationship between the West and feminity. Do we have a womb that the rest of the world doesn't have? An inordinate fondess for shoes & shopping? An aversion to football & hockey? A more nurturing nature? Less chest hair?

mark: To a certain extent I concur. It's a self-obfuscating phrase, and an unnecessarily devisive one. Moreover, I'm not even sure that its an accurate phrase even in the apparant context, since the tacit assumption that it makes (that there are uniquely male and female ways of resolving conflicts) is not one that is borne out by my experience. But, as I understand it and in a nutshell, Jim is arguing that the Western countries security is being imperiled by the creeping belief that 'violence never solves anything' is some absolute; and hense, are neglecting to protect themselves in what to Jim increasingly looks like self-victimhood and cowardice.

Stripping out the mysogyny that you both seem comfortable engaging in from the claim, and just looking at the naked claim that the West is increasingly structurally incapable of defending itself even though it has the means to do so without the unnecessary gender anologies, Jim has a point. Granted, I don't think his point is quite as absolute as he seems to think it is, but it does appear true to me that the West increasingly wallows in disproportionate self-deprication, denial, moral equivalence, and increasely disparages martial virtues. The claim that 'violence never solves anything' is a claim which has gone from having a kernal of truth, to one which is held with something that approaches insanity in its dysfunctionality. We have taken the old joke, 'We have met the enemy and he is us' as gospel, and have become relatively incapable of believing that we have any enemies except those which are justly angry with us and can be placated merely by offering them sufficient restitution for crimes percieved or actual.

I don't think that is 'feminized' and I think 'feminized' is a very poor choice of words. But I do think that it is a real problem. I think it best fits the old story that runs something like this. Some barbarian tribe - whether it being the Incas, Greeks, Romans, or the Saxons - obtains preeminence over its neighbors via simply being better more ruthless more determined warriors and barbarians than they are. Through conquest, it establishes an empire and a civilization and achieves new heights of technology, security, prosperity, and learning. Somewhere along the way, it discovers that the old barbarian virtues that allowed for the civilization in the first place are themselves detrimental to its security and prosperity, so it tames them, channels them, and redirects them. The warrior culture becomes professionalized, democratized, and eventually marginalized. Gradually, it becomes so secure it its power that it comes to believe that it has transcended any need of the old martial virtues, and it disparages them. At some point though, it becomes 'soft' and unable to defend itself, and then along comes the next tribe of hyper-barbarians (Conquistidors, Romans, Goths, whatever) that clings to the old ways or maybe just does them better and more ruthlessly and it wipes out the civilization and the cycle repeats itself. I don't know that we have a standard word for this, so for now let me suggest 'post-civilized' for what the West is becoming - that state of being so civilized you risk the triumph of barbarism.

I certainly don't think you can read Jim as saying that he'd rather live anywhere but the West. Rather, I read him as saying that because he'd most certainly not live anywhere but the West, that that is precisely why he's driven to the frenzy and angst he seems to be in.

So, Jim's suggestion to respond in kind is, while not one I advocate, not nearly the straw man you are trying to make it out to be.

Fair enough. If I misinterpereted his statements, I apologize. I jumped into the thread late and will withdraw my baffled response. :-)

celebrim,

that's an interesting theory, but I don't believe it stands up well to scrutiny. I think it fails on two major points. One is historical. The other is its analysis of the present situation.

Taking the second first, I don't see that the West is currently in any danger of being either conquered or replaced by any present enemy. Certainly China and India may someday, within the next several generations, by adopting western economic practices and technologies, overtake the G8 nations as military or economic leaders. But that would more accurately be seen as the center of gravity of western civilzation shifting geographically, as it has in the past. The move from one part of Europe to another, eg, or the move from Europe to N. America and Japan.

The Jihadists, on the other hand, while certainly an enemey that is capable of great destruction and the murder of thousands, if not millions, are not capable of conquering very much territory even in the ME unless that territory is so isolated and unwanted by others, parts of Afghanastan or Somalia, eg., and even then, they seem congenitally unable to maintain any kind of "civilization" or "society" that works sufficientlyt enough to cross an international border, much less threaten any political, social, governmental, military, economic institution in the west. Yes, they can blow up trains, subways, planes, buildings and so forth, and for that reason they need to be stopped....but they certainly don't represent a threat to dominate, compete with, or put an end to western civilization.

On the historical side of your theory, I think your examples are misleading. It's hard to think of 16th century spain as anything other than a portrait of the "soft" civilization that you described. They were able to conquer the american civilizations so effectively, not because of any martial ardour or virtue, but because they had guns and were greedy for gold and had the means to travel to america and back.

The romans were never conquered by barbarians. Half of them evolved over time into western civilization; the other half slowly lost control over its territory due to the rise of a competing civilizations over the course of 1,000 years. The competition wasn't one of arms, but economics, philosophy, religion, technology and so forth. In short, civiliztions don't decline because they become soft, they decline because they don't adapt to a myriad of technological and social chages over time. That said, yes, it is true that occasionally, societies or civilizations, like the Incas, are simply wiped out by another civilization that is technologically superior to it. But this scenario is relatively rare compared to the more common slow change. Are Russian, Chinese, Indian, Danish, British, Malian civilizations that exist today anything other than the result of slow changes over long periods of time, rather than the result of sudden conquest by outsiders?

I just don't see the West as being able or willing to defending itself. I think the Bush Admin. makes really sophamoric choices about HOW to defend the US, but that will change in about 18 months. I think the West is on the rise. I think that's why so many people in the muslim world are freaking out. The global rise of the west is seen as a threat to their traditional values as well as to their dominance within a specific geographic region of the globe. Theirs is a defensive war, not an offensive one. They are attacking progress. They are attacking history. They will lose.

mark: On both points, you presume that the biggest danger to an empire past or present is force of arms. That isn't what I'm suggesting. At the zenith of thier power, no barbarian force threatens an empire. So what I'm suggesting is that the big existential threat to empires past and present is something else, and that the military defeat follows afterwards only after the real collapse has occured.

I challenge your claim that the Islamists are not capable of conquering much territory. Right now we are seeing fairly significant territorial inroads by militant Islamists in Nigeria, Thailand, Indonesia and the Sudan. We have been seeing Iran and Pakistan becoming more Islamist over the past few decades, and we are even seeing signs that secularist Turkey is leaning that way. If you chart militant Islam and explicitly Islamist states (as opposed to merely states which are predominately Islamic in culture) over the course of the 20th century, you see a quite rapid expansion. And if you chart ideological spread, things get even worse. There are several areas that appeared to be either falling or where staunchly Islamist until 9/11 that are now wavering on the edge - Phillipines, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Much of Europe is in danger of being in the same position as Thailand, Iran, or Indonesia within the next 30 to 40 years given current birth and immigration rates. At which point, its not at all clear to me that the ideological and demographic triumph combined with the complete lack of assimilation that 'multi-culturalism' encourages won't lead to an accompanying militant uprising. I don't see any special reason why Europe should be immune from the same pattern of ideological and demographic spread that leads to Kashmir or Thailand or any of the dozen or so places where there are Islamist insurgencies. And this is to say nothing of the places like Saudia Arabia where one Islamist government is fighting a more militant and agressive form of Islamicism.

While I agree with you that the center of Western Civilization is geographically shifting, this doesn't preclude the claim that Islamists are capable of capturing large amounts of territory.

I agree that my examples have problems. Some are good examples of 'out barbarianing the neighbors'. Some, particularly Rome, are I think good examples of 'getting soft'. None are probably perfect examples of my admittedly overly simply Robert Howard sort of narrative. But I do think that there is a kernal of truth in them nonetheless, even in cases where the slouching towards barbarism doesn't take the form of 'getting soft' but in simply forgetting how you got where you were and spending the capital (material or social) that allowed for the civilization in the first place.

As for Spain conquering the Americas, it was primarily able to do it because the major empires in the Americas at the time were both new and corrupt, and so easily fell apart under political pressure. It is a mistake to think that Spain conquered Central and South America under force of arms, or even that it was simply the population loss from disease. The big problem that both the Incas and the Aztecs had is that they had both just recently conquered the terroritory they controlled and the empires had not developed a real national identity. When the Spainards showed up, the empires went into rebellion against their brutal masters, and it was the Spainards (as the strongest single surviving unit) that were the beneficaries. There is simply no way that even with guns, germs, and steel that the Spainards could have conquered the Americas otherwise. What did in the Incas and the Aztecs was the natives, not the Spainards. Witness the very different sort of struggles prolonged struggles in North America against less technologically sophisticated but more politically unified peoples.

As for your claim that Rome was never conquered by 'barbarians', I find that just bizarre. Is it your claim that the 'civilizations' that conquered Rome did so because they were more technologically sophisticated? I realize 'barbarian' is a very loose and potentially misleading term, but I think it applies here. None of the Germanic tribes was remotely as sophisticated as the Roman Empire, and I think it is certainly instructive to note that by the time of the fall of Rome virtually no Romans actually served in the army, and the legions were themselves almost entirely Germanic (and in most cases simply refused to fight on behalf of Rome).

Finally, as to your question: "Are Russian, Chinese, Indian, Danish, British, Malian civilizations that exist today anything other than the result of slow changes over long periods of time...?"

I would suggest that the Russian, Chinese, Indian, Danish, and Malian civilizations as they exist today are products of expansion and conquest by the Russian, Chinese, Danish, and Malian civilizations (although its been a long while since Denmark was in an aggressive expansionist mode). India is a rather interesting case in that it was formerly part of the empire of one of the other civilizations in question, but by Jim's standards that empire 'got soft'.

celebrim,

I understood you to say that there are a set of twin cycles operating in history. One was internal: a cilvilization rises through strength of arms, accrues benefits that lead it to stray from its initial connection to use of arms, and then goes soft. The external cycle is that a softened civilization is replaced by an outside civilization that is in its early military stage.

If, however, Russian, Chinese, Indian, Danish and Malian civilizations are, as you say, the products of expansion and conquest by the Russian, Chinese, Danish, and Malian civlizations, then this cycle, in some cases, lasts at least as long as history itself, since in each instance there has been no going soft...or at least not soft enough to lead to replacement by a "stronger" civilization. None of these examples were built atop previous civilizations.

I'm not sure what you mean about Indian civilization, which has existed uniterrupted for some 4,000 years. Yes,the Moghuls were an elite that controlled one part of India for 3 centuries, but they adopted to Indian civilization, not the other way around. And the British, too, controlled India for a very brief period...but then, the Nazis controlled France for a few years and we don't think of French civilization as starting in 1945. Britain conquered India, but did not replace Indian civlization.

I disagree with your account of the reasons for the spanish conquest of most of South, Central and North America. All of North and South America was conquered by Europeans in a relatively brief span of time. It seems unlikely, given this, that conquest of small parts of that area, Inca and Aztec, was due to a set of special internal political circumstances. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best for such broad historical trend. The Europeans conquered N & S. America, Australia and REPLACED (that's what we're talking about here...replacement, not just conquest) them because of an enormous difference in technological capabilities.

As for the Romans. When the germanic tribes overran western europe, the seat of economic and political power in the Roman empire was in Constantinople, where it remained for another millenium. The gothic kingdoms that arose in the provinces of western rome were largely continuations of roman civilization, though without the central unity the empire once had. you'll notice that where the roman empire had been, romanance languages developed (with the exception of britain) and where it had not been, germanic languages developed. this suggests much more continuity than is commonly thought.

mark: We are going to end up arguing historical detail here, which is interesting, but likely to lead us further and further from the point. In any event, I think you are trying to suggest that my simple story is too simple to account for real history, to which I perfectly agree. There are lots of other things going on here.

"If, however, Russian, Chinese, Indian, Danish and Malian civilizations are, as you say, the products of expansion and conquest by the Russian, Chinese, Danish, and Malian civlizations, then this cycle, in some cases, lasts at least as long as history itself, since in each instance there has been no going soft...or at least not soft enough to lead to replacement by a "stronger" civilization. None of these examples were built atop previous civilizations."

I don't think that is true. I think both Russia and China are good examples of long lasting empires built atop previous civilizations. In China's case, for all the rhetoric about 'One China' the empire is so relatively new that hasn't even managed to achieve cultural homogenity yet. China is as linguisticly diverse as Europe, and I think it is a highly Western view (or highly political one) to look at China and imagine a single enduring civilization stretching unbroken into the distant past. One might as well look at the EU and see a single unbroken European civilization stretching back into the distant past. There are plenty of dead civilizations in China's past, and even the current dominance of the Madarin culture is a fairly recent phenomena.

Now, I grant you, one of the most interesting aspects of history is the resilancy of some cultures to conquest. There are a few cultures out there that seem to survive and even assimilate thier conquerers, allowing the culture to continue when the government does not and even ride out subjegation by another culture. But, while the most enduring cultures manage to do this, the vast majority of the world's cultures, nations, and civilizations are dead and forgotten. Then others are 'replaced' as you put it, either through genocide or complete cultural assimilation or a combination of the two.

"I disagree with your account of the reasons for the spanish conquest of most of South, Central and North America."

Ok, that's fine.

"All of North and South America was conquered by Europeans in a relatively brief span of time."

I think that your vagueness here does me disservice. Qualifiers like 'all' and 'relatively' brief require a good deal more explanation. What's notable about the conquest of the Aztecs and Incas is that it is the two largest and most technologically sophisticated empires in the New World, and they were conquered in the briefest of periods. For example, the Incan Empire fell in just 3 months and was essentially totally subjegated within 5 years. Meanwhile, the 'Indian Wars' would go on for another 400 years, and it would be centuries before the Indian nations were really wiped off the map. How was it that the mightest empires resisted the least, and fell the quickest, where as some less sophisticated tribes would fight the invaders to a stand still for centuries? The answer I think lies in the political situation that the Spainards found in South and Central America. There own glorious tales of the conquest not with standing, the Spainish adventurers didn't do most of the fighting. Most of the fighting was done by formerly subjegated tribes who had good cause to hate their masters.

And that, whatever else you think of my argument, is an historical fact.

Would the technological sophistication of the Europeans eventually won out in the long haul anyway? Quite possibly, but had the Incan empire actually resisted as a unit (15 million strong, with a mobilizable army of at least 120,000) there is no way 200 Spainards with swords would have overcome it. The assistance of thier allies among the Indian tribes was absolutely crucial to thier rapid success.

celebrim,
If "all" is a qualifier it's not a very vague one. The entirety of the North & South American civilizations were replaced in a relatively brief span of time. Okay, there were--and perhaps still are--some societies in the frozen north and in the jungles of the rain forest that didn't succumb...so let's let "all" stand for 95%. By "relatively brief span" I mean that relative to the demise of most civilizations (which according to my argument is slow and takes centuries), these vanished quickly. I think it is misleading to say that some held out for 400 years or so because many American civilizations didn't encounter Europeans for over 300 years AFTER the Spanish destroyed the Incas. Most american civilizations disappaered within 100 years of substantial contact with Europeans. Of course, one necessary factor is the wish of Europeans to destroy those civilizations in order to occupy the same territory or to end resistance to plunder. But in any event, whatever the various circumstances, the result was always the same. European societies replaced american societies in 95% of the area that was inhabitated in n & s america...and did so, in most cases, quickly...within a few generations of substantial contact.

About China: yes, I agree that "China" is a vast, diverse place... but I think it is fair to speak of Chinese civilization (for our purposes) in the same way we are speaking of Western civilization, which may be even more diverse and spread out is some ways than Chinese civilization. Yet both, for all their diversity, can be said to contain a coherent whole and that they are distinct from one another (at least up to the present). When we speak of the history of Western civilization, do we not include ancient Greece?

You are right, too, both in saying this is interesting to think about but is straying further from the initial point. I don't see the West as in danger of collapse or conquest due to its softening, relaxing of martial virtues, feminization, flight from violence, or wallowing in moral equivalency. I find no sound historical basis for such a stance....analogies and such; nor do I find the danger from radical islam to be existential. A replacement of the west by radical islam would require mass conversion and I don't see that happening. I also don't see them as capable of conquest. This is why they resort to terrorist tactics. Terrorism is a defensive posture. It is used by the weak against the strong. It can push us out of an occupied territory but it will never work against a settled territory. So far the movement has even been able to hold territory for long among large muslim populations, much less non-muslim populations.

celebrim, listen, i've enjoyed this and just wanted to let you know i'm leaving computer access for about 18 hours which accounts for my future silence till then. maybe i can pick up tomorrow, if you respond to my last comment.

Jim Rockford: Like all Western nations it is deeply feminized and wealthy, unwilling to fight for itself in the main.

General Jack D. Ripper: I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Shorter AJL: I think Jim Rockford is as crazy as a cartoon woodpecker.

Mr Lazarus: please try to do better, no matter how much more fun it is to snipe.

Cordially,

Nort

celebrim (#13)

The big problem that both the Incas and the Aztecs had is that they had both just recently conquered the terroritory they controlled and the empires had not developed a real national identity.

In order to develop a national identity, you need a Nation, which is a Western European invention.

When the Spainards showed up, the empires went into rebellion against their brutal masters, and it was the Spainards (as the strongest single surviving unit) that were the beneficaries.

You know, the Spaniards were lucky, not superior, technologically, politically and religiously.

There is simply no way that even with guns, germs, and steel that the Spainards could have conquered the Americas otherwise. What did in the Incas and the Aztecs was the natives, not the Spainards.

Pizarro and Cortes sat down and watched, indeed.

Witness the very different sort of struggles prolonged struggles in North America against less technologically sophisticated but more politically unified peoples.

More politically unified peoples?? More than the Inca or Aztec empires?

Look, I know that the Anglosaxon popular historiography usually tries to hide the following facts:

a) we Spaniards arrived to America to build something in 1492, and the English in 1605.

b) When Spain reached America had the best army in Europe (in fact, the first modern army) that soon kicked the French out of Italy in 1497.

c) Spain had a wide experience in colonization of territories due to the 800 years war against the Muslim kingdoms and the conquer of the Canary Islands.

d) Spain had also a great experience in naval combats in the Mediterranean, and management of territories with foreign population such as Sicily. The figure of the viceroy was imported from there.

In summary, when the discovery of America happened, the country was ready at all levels to go ahead with the colonization of vast territories. There was a doctrine, there were the means and the people needed.

Other factors contributed to differenciate the story of the North and the South, among others, the discovery of precious metals deposits, that financed further expansion and made possible a close State control by civil servants; and the existence of a political structure (the Inca and Aztec Empires) on which was wisely based the new Spanish empire, sometimes even marrying Inca and Aztec noblewomen to reach a blood alliance.

The Roman empire (as the Spanish, or Inca or Aztec) was sunk from inside. Internal weaknesses are exploited by foreign actors.

I don't like the "feminized" way of describing the problem either.

Xavier Fitch: We decided to make it female so it would be more docile and controllable.
Preston Lennox: More docile and controllable, eh? You guys don't get out much.
- Species (1995)

But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

#3 from Robohobo: "It is time to stand and be counted as good friends and worse enemies with those in the ME who wish Western Civ ill. Time to count coup on these idiots."

I wish Western Civilization and specifically Israel only good.

But I think that [i]counting coup[/i] is our second biggest problem, after demography.

Counting coup, showing the enemy your bravery and skill without really harming him, is a great idea within a social game where all share the same ideas of status, and where bloodless victories may facilitate a return to peace.

In the wrong context, it's insane, the negation of all sensible war-making.

Dealing with the system of Islam is a totally inappropriate context for counting coup.

"I could have shot you, but I won't" would sway people who were fighting out of a genuine misunderstanding. ("Wait - I see you are decent. Let's talk.") But jihad is based on a system, not on a misunderstanding.

In the system of Islam, the status of unbelievers, of non-Muslims, is inferior to that of Muslims.

Nothing is more contemptible to our unappeasable Islamic enemies than the weakness of will shown by infidels who have material power but who have shown that they don't have the will and ruthlessness to use it to real, consequential effect. Our way of fighting does not make them say (and mean) "We're lucky you let us off lightly. We see you are impressive and merciful. Let's make peace." Rather what they say to each other comes down to "They've got the guns but thanks be to Allah we've got the guts, so let's keep going till Islam dominates." And to us, they make accusations of brutality, because our restraint shows them that we are mentally weak and can be manipulated this way.

And when our weakness is revealed to the enemy, and they are heartened by it, but we keep kidding ourselves that what we are doing is displaying our strength and our mercy because we shrink from accepting the true and terrible nature of the enemy - that is weakness.

I don't advocate cruelty. I advocate seriousness.

We should aim for real victories that permanently alter the playing field in favor of more land and more babies for us, and less of everything for jihad forces and all the supporting structures behind jihad forces. We have to take away from the enemy turf, water, resources for industry and population growth - real things, permanently. Only in this way can we diminish the combat activeness of the enemy.

If Israel demonstrates that it has back its material, technical, tactical edge, good, in that this is better than losing.

But till our planning, including Israel's planning, is based on a determination to make real gains and not give them up, to reduce enemy resources and not give them back, we'll still just be counting coup in an inappropriate context.

Giving that we're still subsidizing Palestinian terror organizations, I think our time of awakening is not yet.

Oh great. I've offended someone's national identity.

"In order to develop a national identity, you need a Nation, which is a Western European invention."

I agree. But whether I agreed or not would not effect my argument. The point is, they didn't have a national identity. What they had was dozens of small tribal identities, and those tribal identities where made subject through tribute to a feared but much hated super-tribe.

"You know, the Spaniards were lucky, not superior, technologically, politically and religiously."

No, again, this isn't an either/or game. The Spaniards were both lucky (if luck you want to call it) and superior technologically, politically, and morally. In fact, Pizarro and Cortes were both basically brutal thugs, but they were still on the moral high ground compared to the Incans and Aztecs.

"Pizarro and Cortes sat down and watched, indeed."

And again, this isn't an either/or game. The tribes that allied themselves with the Conquistodors did supply the mass (and logistics), but the shock value of a body of men with guns, steel, and horses against a stone age culture is undoubted. Nor do I doubt the courage of the Conquistodors. They may have lacked alot of other virtues, but courage they had in abudance.

"More politically unified peoples?? More than the Inca or Aztec empires?"

Yes. The five nations of the Haudenosaunne Confederacy (Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Oneida) where more politically unified because they didn't hate each other. It was a voluntary alliance with something very like a Republican form of government. Likewise the 'Five Civilized Nations' of the Southern confederacy had a similar thing going, with strong political unity and alliances with thier neighbors that weren't based on conquest. Had even this much political unity existed in Central or South America, the Conquistidors would have gotten slaughtered. Those tribes did quite well against latter European militaries, much less bands of adventurers.

Now of course, they still eventually would have lost. Had the Conquistidors failed, because of the gold, the Spainish would have eventually been back with 2000 or 6000 or however many actual soldiers, and something of that sort that would have done it.

"Look, I know that the Anglosaxon popular historiography usually tries to hide the following facts:"

Oh good grief. I really have no interest in this. That the Conquistidors under Pizarro and Cortes had extensive help from allied Indian tribes is a historical fact. Likewise, I'm not insulting the Spainish army in any fashion. It's just that the band of adventures lead by Cortes and Pizarro wasn't the Spainish army. The rest of your rant about the glories of Spain is likewise misplaced. I'm not denying it, but it has no bearing on what is under discussion.

"The Roman empire (as the Spanish, or Inca or Aztec) was sunk from inside. Internal weaknesses are exploited by foreign actors."

Isn't that basically my thesis in a nutshell?

Oh great. I've offended someone's national identity.

I can assure you I am not easy to offend. I simply like to argue.

The Aztec and Inca empires were very underdeveloped political entities, at the level of the Assyrian or Babilonian empires in Mesopotamia 500 years BC. Europe was ahead of them by 2000 years. They were catched by surprise by Pizarro and Cortes and conquered before they could evolve and create defences against the "white man".

The way Cortes manipulated the Aztecs, was simply copied from what king Ferdinand did in the Muslim kingdom of Granada: internal weaknesses, even in a such strong empire, were rapidly identified by the shrewd Cortes and fully exploited, politically, them militarily and after that politically again, when the Aztec proto-administration was simply replaced by a Spanish one. Today Mexico city is still the capital, as it was then. The truth is that Spain, with barely six million souls, conquered for the Western civilization a big portion of the world in a few decades. That could not and did not happened by chance but because the country was ready at all levels and an enormous effort was made, and that is something that should be recognized.

The Conquest of the Aztec kingdom had a deep impact in fostering British aspirations in America. But things happened in different way in the North, because, among other things, they began much later, the British government had no such supply of precious metals to impose its rule and the territories were mostly empty. That is, the British could not rapidly conquer a couple of empires and replace their top administration. The expansion wasn't so rapid, and the indians had plenty of time to study the white man's weaknesses. In fact their lack of a political structure made them immune to the kind of manipulation Cortes or Pizarro used in the Aztec and Inca courts. Lack of resources made impossible for the English crown to sent armies not even to fight the Indians, but to control the colonies. In the end free people prevailed, whilst in the South a rigid administration ruled by Oligarchs is still today on.

Isn't that basically my thesis in a nutshell?

But there has to be shrewd oponents that exploit such weaknesses. The Aztec empire was overwhelming superior in troops and power to Cortés expedition, but he, isolated in the middle of a vast enemy kingdom, knew how to play his cards, both politically and militarily.

celebrim et al,

I very much enjoy discussing history, the details and interpretations, etc. However, I think that any attempt to shore up the opinion that the West is facing potential decline due to its softening attitude--a reluctance to use violence to protect itself, complacency, degeneration, what have you--with historical analogies & parallels is fraught with all kinds of difficulties. The four principal difficulties are 1) the need to force a complex array of factors into a single-statement theory, e.g., Rome fell because it got soft. Sometimes simple explanations are the best explantions for broad trends, but not in this particular instance. 2) the need to ignore a great mass of important fact, e.g., Rome didn't actually fall but morphed into two distinct entities, one of which did slowly disintegrate into nothingness over the course of 1,000 years, the other of which slowly evolved into modern Europe. 3) the need to ignore all the many instances of history that don't support the original opinion. 4) the need to ignore the nearly infinite host of circumstances and conditions that make one term of the analogy apples and the other oranges.

All civilizations either change or disappear over time. There is no one overarching reason why civilizations rise, change or decline. The answer is essential circumstantial.

" "In order to develop a national identity, you need a Nation, which is a Western European invention."

I agree."

Really? I don't. First of all, I don't see how you can have a Nation without first having a national identity. Without a national identity you might have an empire or a federation or something of the sort, but certainly not a Nation. I think post-colonial history is the story of the failure of the theory that you can call a place a Nation and then try to build a national identity within that geographic area.

Nor do I think a Nation is a Western European invention. Ancient Egypt was a Nation, to use one example. There were many nation-states within India over the centuries that fit all criteria of a Nation. Same is true of certain parts of the Americas and much of North Central Africa.

mark: To your principal complaint, that attempting to shore up a theory by citing history is fraught with difficulty, I can only agree. History is basically useless, which is why it is a liberal art and not a pratical one. Now, if perhaps a Hari Seldon were to come along we could prove something, but I'm skeptical of even that because most problems which we'd deem 'political problems' are also 'wicked problems'.

As for the historical details, I could argue over that but I've got real work to do, so I'll have to come back to this later.

#26 from celebrim: "History is basically useless, which is why it is a liberal art and not a pratical one."

My opinion is the opposite. History should be made by people who've studied some, in as far as they've had the opportunity, just as chairs should be made by people who have studied chairs and have a good idea what will hold together and what will collapse, what will be comfortable and what will be decorative but useless. If you don't know what you're making, you may do a bad job.

America's founders studied history to see what kinds of republics prove sturdy and what kind collapse. They did well. The record of people who create revolutionary perfect states, societies and communes out of theory and their imaginations isn't as good.

I am not a fan of any idea that military leaders don't need military historians, they only need hardware, flow charts and computer models. To do without history, you need to be a genius, a prodigy, and there aren't many of those. (And even they might be better off with the opportunity to study what has often happened, as opposed to what abstract and rootless theories of conflict might suggest.)

In thinking about the coming wars, we should continue to think about history, not just technology and theories on the future.

David,

I agree that the study of history is useful and important. However, I would make this distinction. One should study history in order to help come to conclusions. Too often, people attempt to use history to justify conclusions they have already reached.

David: The study of history is useful for honing critical reasoning and ones skills at rhetoric. But aside from that, its mainly useful for making interesting conversation at a cocktail party.

History is made by the people that write it. It is nothing more than the first person accounts of what happened. What historians write about those first person accounts is what they are saying about history, not what history is. I agree that it requires a good deal of learning to be able to say something useful about the many peices of history collectively, but historians never create history the way chairmakers create chairs.

And if they attempt to do so, they've become something other than a historian.

I disagree that America's founders studied historical Republics in order to discover what worked and what did not. For one thing, as much as they may have wanted to do so, prior to America there aren't many models of representative democracy that worked, and certainly none that worked for a large and diverse nation. If they had been studing working Democracies and Republics, then American law would look alot more like Swiss law. America wasn't quite created out of whole cloth - it owed much to the development of English practice and thought - but it had more in common with the theory and imagination of John Locke and other Enlightment thinkers than it had in common with the legal code of any prior Republic. If later systems of government based on philosophies failed, it doesn't discredit the notion of basing a system of government on a philosophy - it discredits those philosophies - the whole damnable young Hegelian school.

As for studing military history, battles constitute wicked problems. No two battles are the same. I wouldn't trust a military leader who didn't read history either, but not for nearly the same reasons as you. And as for mathimatical simulations of conflict, they have the same failures as any simulation, but the technology of simulation has come along way since the 18th century and I wouldn't trust a modern military leader that didn't study them either.

mark (#25)

First of all, I don't see how you can have a Nation without first having a national identity.

The United States, the UK, Spain, they progressed as Nations before having a National identity. For instance, the War of 1812-14 forged American identity, but that was made possible because the States agreed earlier to progress together toward some common objectives.

In my opinion, Ancient Egypt wasn't a Nation, but a country. They were simply people living in a place with similar characteristics. Of course, after 2,000 years they had developed a unique culture. The Nation was a western European development, that differentiated the descendants of the Romans, which had a similar culture and language, in four groups: British, French, Portuguese and Spaniards, each one pursuing different goals and having a strong State and the subsequent administration.

In the ancient Egypt the people was united by religion. The ruler was a Godness. In the Nations the people simply praise their State. As long as you fulfil its rules, it doesn't mind your religion. It was a big political development. A big step forward in the minds of the people. A leap forward compared to the empires united by force, terror, religion or ethnicity.

Feudal kingdoms are not Nations either. Their structure was fully piramidal with a mosaic of groups linked by ad hoc rules. In a Nation, the State reduced as far as it was possible such groups, building a compact mass of servants, at different levels but in the end, all servants of the State. It was a great political achievement and a step toward democracy.

I think post-colonial history is the story of the failure of the theory that you can call a place a Nation and then try to build a national identity within that geographic area.

Those were not Nations, but countries. Check Rwanda, where hutus and tutsis have been killing themselves ever since. They are united by ethnicity, not by common goals. They are simply a big tribe (or two big tribes in a single country). Others, such as Muslims, are united by religion. Algeria developed some National sentiment in its struggle agianst France. Lybia and Tunisia are too small to include different groups, and such countries often have no problems in identifing country with an ethnic group. Egypt was developing some kind of National identity, based in its past and the English colonization, but it has been fought by Islamic extremists, which see it as a danger (and they are probably right). Morocco is simply a theocracy, a country united by religion, very far away from a Nation.

J Aguilar, with all due respect I think your definitions and requirements for "nation' and "country" are somewhat idiosyncratic and seemed to be tailored to fit a pre-existing--and itself idiosyncratic--point of view.

I would say that, generally speaking, a nation (small n) is a group of self-identified people who share (usually) a common language, (culture) and history that is distinct from others. A Nation (big N), and its near synonym country, is a nation or nations that has clearly recogonized geographic boundaries and some form of gov't that operates only within those boundaries.

I would say that, generally speaking, a nation (small n) is a group of self-identified people who share (usually) a common language, (culture) and history that is distinct from others.

I disagree. That is an ethnic group, a "big tribe".

Portugal and Spain share a common history, a common fight against the Muslims and a common expansion beyond the seas (and very similar languages), but they are clearly different nations. Southern Italy shares a common history with Spain and, again, a similar language, but they are a different nation.

A Nation (big N), and its near synonym country, is a nation or nations that has clearly recogonized geographic boundaries and some form of gov't that operates only within those boundaries.

In my opinion, that is a country, which is something very different from a Nation. Iraq is a country with at least three ethnic groups, not a Nation. In the North, the Kurds have accepted the Assyrians. OK, that is an ethnic group accepting as allied another ethnic group, but not a Nation. In a Nation the society is a block (or nearly it) fulfiling the rules of a State and an administration. For instance, Jews in Western Europe lived segregated during the Middle Ages, but when Nations were created (in a process that expelled them, by the way), they finally found its place as, at least initially, different ethnic group, sharing the common goals with all their neighbours.

J. Aguilar, I think your taxonomy needs a little fine tuning. Also, you seemed to have skipped over my first--and principal--requirement, i.e., self-identified. Portuguese, Spanish & Italians don't think of themselves as the same group....that is the key factor that separates them. The Kurds are a nation. The have a common heritage,language, region and, most importantly THINK of themselves as a nation.

Re: #30 from celebrim: we are headed away from the topic of the thread, so I'll give a thumbnail of my positions rather than arguing my case(s).

#30 from celebrim: "I agree that it requires a good deal of learning to be able to say something useful about the many peices of history collectively, but historians never create history the way chairmakers create chairs.

And if they attempt to do so, they've become something other than a historian."

Here we differ on definitions. And we might have different opinions on what Vo Nguyen Giap was, other than "a winner".

#30 from celebrim: "I disagree that America's founders studied historical Republics in order to discover what worked and what did not."

I've been looking for a couple of quotes from the Federalist Papers that I think back me up, but I have not found them. And I'm not going to keep looking, because we are off topic anyway.

#30 from celebrim: "As for studing military history, battles constitute wicked problems."

So true.

#30 from celebrim: And as for mathimatical simulations of conflict, they have the same failures as any simulation, but the technology of simulation has come along way since the 18th century and I wouldn't trust a modern military leader that didn't study them either."

I object to computer modeling as an alternative to the study of military history, not as a supplement to it.

that is the key factor that separates them.

They have common objectives. I haven't skipped your comment. Portuguese, Spaniards and Southern Italians are not separated by history, culture, ethnicity or language, but by the individuals of each group sharing common objectives. It is a political difference.

The Kurds are a nation. The have a common heritage,language, region and, most importantly THINK of themselves as a nation.

No, they are not. The Cherokee nation is not a Nation, no matter what they call themselves. They are an ethnic group. In a Nation the main relation is a political link between each individual and the State, therefore no ethnic or religious or even language and culture differences are key. The case about the Jews living in Western Europe clearly shows the difference. The development of a political relation between individuals and the rulers, now converted into a State, has been one of the greatest achievements of Western Europe, and pave the way to Democracy, because only a Nation can assure Freedom, since in them the key questions are not ethniticity, culture, common history or language, but a political relation with the State.

In countries such as Rwanda or Morocco, this hasn't been achieved. The key questions there are ethnicity and/or religion. It is what prevails in the working of the administration. The State hasn't been able to overcome that, and therefore they are not Nations: the relation among its citizens is not political, there is simply an ethnic group that prevails over the others. There is no Freedom as we know it and, what is worse, it cannot be.

"Matters in the region were not helped when Mohammad al Habash, member of the Syrian parliament, recently appeared on Al Jazeera.

Al Habash said Syria was "actively preparing for war with Israel, which he said he expected to break out this summer."

I notice that you didn't quote al jazeera but an israeli publication. Nobody quotes the al jazeera report. I haven't found it anywhere.

I did however find a couple of sources that quote more of the original interview.

http://saroujah.blogspot.com/2007/06/question.html
For its part, Syria has indicated its belief that Israel will initiate military hostilities. Muhammad Habash, a member of parliament, told Al-Jazeera on May 5 that it was no secret that Syria was “actively” preparing for a military encounter with Israel, which wanted war in order to survive politically.

http://www.lebaneselobby.org/JSite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=295&Itemid=2
"The Syrian street wants to restore the Golan," Habash said. But he noted recent peace overtures by Assad's regime and said that if there is a new conflict, it would be Israel's doing. "The Israeli government feels threatened and is liable to create new tensions, even war, just to survive," Habash said.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1049
Put this in the context that apparently the russians are telling syria that israel intends to attack this summer.

Under the circumstances, how could syrians not prepare for a defensive war?

And yet all of the american quotes I've seen have included no more than this post did, and have tended to interpret this as evidence taht syria intends to attack this summer.

About half of the israeli sources I looked at quoted at least part of the last sentence of the second source. "The israeli government is liable to start a war for its political survival." But american reports that quoted the israeli reports consistently left that out.

"I'm not quite sure that Israel is "unwilling to defend itself" given recent events. More accurately, they aren't using the tactics you think you would if you were in their shoes."

I think more accurately, given last summers fiasco, would be that the current Israeli leadership is simply clueless as to what strategy and tactics could be effective (although i deeply suspect they havent the will to see through the ones that would regardless). That is far scarier than simple cold feet. Cold feet can be gotten over if the threat is grave enough- ignorance tends to be a much longer term problem.

And Olmert may be the biggest problem, but this is something rooted in much of the IDF as well. The generation that learned hard lessons in the 20th century wars is dying out to be replaced by air power and SF junkies. There remains little appetite for divisions of ground forces slugging it out with entrenched enemies, and even less appetite for 'risky' manuever warfare that the IDF built its reputation on.

If Israel is provoked this summer, they will likely respond with measured air and artillery (see if there is any less consternation from the UN with Israel responding as they required last year, the goal posts will move yet again).

Israel can only win a strategic victory by combining a political campaign to tie Syrian and Iranian arms to Hezbollah, and then inflicting a catastrophic blow against at least Syria so fast that Iran cant respond before Syria is forced to sue for peace. Syria needs to be removed from the board as a terrorist enabling state for a variety of reasons (the entire West can approve of), but most importantly to isolate Iran and remove their influence from the Eastern Med. Syria is weak and corrupt and is punching way to far above their weight in both Iraq and Israel. They need to pay for this at some point, its not really an option if we ever intend to put the ME house in order, regardless of the Iraq outcome (note i dont advise invasion or occupation. simply flipping the Syrian table via Israeli force will keep the Sryian Baathists busy enough to keep them out of the regions hair for a good while).

"Put this in the context that apparently the russians are telling syria that israel intends to attack this summer."

Are they? That's actually interesting. It wouldn't be the first time that the Russians had goaded thier customers in the ME into attacking Israel.

"Under the circumstances, how could syrians not prepare for a defensive war?"

Well, if the Syrians prepare for a defensive war, it won't happen. Israel is only going to attack Syria if it feels it has something that will play as provocation in the world press. That means missiles from Lebanon or something of that sort.

My understanding is that the Israeli's are preparing for war with Hizb-Allah because they expect Hizb-Allah to start a war this summer and that there are plans in the works to attack Iran should thier clients start something. I've seen nothing about starting a war with Syria - but it is concievable that such a war would spill out into Syria. Nonetheless, considering how little international support Israel got when Hizb-Allah started the war, such a war is only going to happen if Hizb-Allah attacks first.

"And yet all of the american quotes I've seen have included no more than this post did, and have tended to interpret this as evidence taht syria intends to attack this summer."

Well, mainly because its inconcievable that Israel would start a war with Syria just out of the blue, regardless of what is reported in the Arab press. Someone would have to do something provocative, like for example, massing thier troops on the border and openly threatening to drive Israel into the sea.

Of course, I consider it similarly inconcievalbe that Syria would act directly against Israel as well.

"About half of the israeli sources I looked at quoted at least part of the last sentence of the second source. "The israeli government is liable to start a war for its political survival." But american reports that quoted the israeli reports consistently left that out."

Because it is pretty much nonsense. But, I agree that nonsense or not it should have been left in because it paints an interesting picture of what the Arab world is thinking.

its inconcievable that Israel would start a war with Syria just out of the blue, regardless of what is reported in the Arab press.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Israel is only going to attack Syria if it feels it has something that will play as provocation in the world press. That means missiles from Lebanon or something of that sort.

Ah. So, say, israel does a bunch of airstrikes in lebanon, and Hisbollah responds with missiles, so israel invades syria. OK, we're on the same page after all.

Of course, I consider it similarly inconcievalbe that Syria would act directly against Israel as well.

It wouldn't make sense for them to. We've given israel the munitions to knock syria back about 20 years economicly, and syria is under sanctions and trying desperately to improve their economy. People do real stupid things sometimes, but that would be real real stupid for syria.

On the other hand, say israel finds some minor pretext to attack lebanon and syria and iran. The USA would give our full support and block the UN. Israelis could feel proud and strong provided they won easily. It would be good for the israeli government, which needs to recover from the fiasco they got the last time they invaded lebanon.

They couldn't stop the missiles from coming in from lebanon and syria. But those missiles didn't do any significant damage last year, and it probably took Hizbollah 10+ years to accumulate them. This time it probably won't be as bad.

Then there's the issue of israeli ground troops taking losses. Last time they spread out through the area hisbollah was in, trying to eliminate them, and the hisbollah guys got to hit them. But if they concentrate their forces they can drive a corridor through and then surround the hisbollah areas. Then they can slowly move through the area, destroying everything from a distance anywhere they find resistance. Keep their losses low. We gave them lots of bunker-busting munitions and they've had a year to figure out where the bunkers are.

They can do something to humiliate the syrian army but the main thing is destroy syria's economy, which takes only airstrikes. They can reasonably hope to do it with minimal casualties.

And it would be only airstrikes on iran. Take out the known nuclear facilities and spread radioactivity around some. They could perhaps drop one or two nukes and claim it was iranian nukes they set off by accident. They could say that proves they were right to attack.

Something like that would save Olmert's government, provided it worked. Alternatively peace with syria might work too, but they'd want syria to promise to suppress Hizbollah which syria wouldn't want to promise, and promise to snub iran which syria wouldn't promise without a better deal from somebody else than iran gives them. And with Bush saying israel can't make a deal with syria, that option doesn't look so good.

J Thomas: Please do not ever accuse me of being on the same page as you.

"Ah. So, say, israel does a bunch of airstrikes in lebanon, and Hisbollah responds with missiles, so israel invades syria."

Huh? Why would Israel do a bunch of airstrikes in Lebanon? How is that any different than doing a bunch of airstrikes in Syria?

The politics of this is pretty simple. If Hizb-allah doesn't shoot any more missiles or doesn't do any more border incursions, then the Olmert government wins. It can then go to the Israeli people and say, "Look, I know you were uncomfortable about the outcome of the last war, but see, I really have secured the peace. There are no more missiles coming over the border. We taught Hizb-allah a lesson, and despite thier claims that they won in the aftermath of the war, its pretty clear to everyone now that we did."

But, if Hizb-allah does shoot some more missiles or does another border incursion like the one that started the last shooting war, then the Olmert government collapses regardless of how it responds because then the opposition can say, "See, I told you that Olmert war in Lebanon was a boon-doggle, and this proves it." It's ridiculous to imagine that another war of any sort would save the Olmert government. The only thing that can save the Olmert government is peace.

Likewise, Israel can't go into Lebanon or Syria with even airstrikes if there isn't first Israeli casualties, because as the last war proves - Israel just doesn't have enough international support for even actions protecting itself against agressors to prosecute a war even half-heartedly under any other circumstances. So, if Israel does airstrikes in Lebanon without something it can put forward as reasonable provaction, then its a lose-lose situation all around. The Israeli government collapses, and there already limited international support goes to heck in a hand-basket because even the US won't support Israel going into Lebanon without some sort of provacation (see the Reagan government/diaries for instance).

On the other hand, if Israel is attacked by Hizb-allah, then the Hawks will have thier day. They will very likely argue that Hizb-allah cannot be stopped so long as thier patrons in Syria and Iran don't feel any reprecussions from arming and aiding Hizb-allah, and they will very likely see Iran and Syria acting through Hizb-allah as sufficient provocation to attack those two countries and under those circumstances even say a Hillary Clinton government is likely to protect Israel in the UN.

I find it interesting that you suggest that I don't know what the word inconcievable means in the context of Israel, but apparantly I do unstand it in the context of Syria. It means that while its not impossible, there is no logic which suggests that it would happen. That isn't to say something might not do something totally irrational - the world is full of irrational actors - but I don't see signs that either the Syrians or the Israeli's are about to do anything totally non-sensical like starting a war with each other just for the heck of it.

The really interesting question therefore is do the Iranians see a profit in goading Hizb-allah into attacking Israel again. To that question, I have no real answer. It's conceivable, but I don't know if it is likely.

Celebrim, we have a few minor misunderstandings here.

First, why would israel care about any international opinion except the USA? The USA is all the support they need, and all the support they get.

Second, why would the USA not support war? The USA supported israel's attack on lebanon last year; the USA appears to have strongly encouraged it. There's every reason to think Bush would strongly support, encourage, and perhaps demand an israeli attack on syria and/or iran.

You figure if israel attacked lebanon again without taking casualties first the government would fall? Do you have some kind of reason for that? Many israelis felt humliated by the failure of last year's war, wouldn't they strongly approve a new war that was more successful? Especially if it was also successful against syria and maybe iran. Would the israeli government collapse before the war was over? That seems utterly implausible to me. Israel doesn't have no-confidence votes while there's a war on, do they?

So if israel had a successful war the voters would be satisfied and Bush would be satisfied, and there would be no problem. And if the war was unsuccessful then the voters would want blood and Bush would be disdainful, big problem. And possibly the result might be somewhere inbetween, requiring a longer war and some sacrifices.

Olmert doesn't win just from Hizbollah not attacking for awhile, he doesn't even break even. Where are the prisoners that israel lost over 100 soldiers fighting to retrieve? Hizbollah is rebuilding, re-arming, and Olmert isn't doing one thing about it. Who in israel would call that peace? Similarly syria is getting weapons that would make israeli incursions more expensive. The longer israel waits to attack the harder it will be. Olmert doesn't win by doing nothing. Olmert wins by winning. Or he might win by a peace treaty with syria, but I read that 86% of israelis oppose giving back the entire golan, which he would presumably have to do. And Bush won't let him make peace with syria.

Anyway, even if israel doesn't want to do airstrikes first, there are lots of other ways to provoke Hizbollah. The hizbollah attack last year was retaliation for an israeli car bomb attack May 26 that killed two senior lebanese. Israel could shell the lebanese coast, they could do a commando raid from the sea, Mossad could assassinate whoever they thought would be a good target to get some retaliation, etc.

The main concern is whether israel could get the easy decisive victory they need. It would be stupid to start the war if they wouldn't be better off at the end than they were at the beginning.

But somehow you talk as if it's "inconceivable" that they'd do it under any circumstance except an unprovoked attack by Hezbullah that caused israeli casualties.

J Thomas: I don't have time to go over your anti-historical crap. If Israel has a summer war, Olmert's government will go the way of the Eshkol government - only I doubt that he'll be allowed to retain the office even symbolicly for long. Not all no-confidence votes are held publicly, especially in parlimentarian government.

The US wouldn't support the war, because historically the US doesn't in those cases. Reagan nearly suspended aid to Israel over the invasion of Lebanon. Johnson was nearly as angry with Israel over the June 5 strikes in the '67 war, and politically the US simply would not be interested or even welcome Israeli strikes on Syria or Iran.

Hizb-Allah's rearming cannot be stopped with our without a war, and the sort of conflageration that Israel would have to unleash to do it simply won't be allowed to happen by anyone - US included. Witness the recent Lebanon war. Likewise, Israel can't get its prisoners back, with or without a war. So, for Olmert and all but the most Hawkish Israeli public, victory is no more attacks. I'm a Hawk, and even I would call no more Hizb-Allah attacks peace.

I'm not sure that Israel's role in the attack on Islamic Jihad is certain, nor am I certain I see a link between it at the Hizb-allah attack. They are after all rivals, and a good many in Lebanon believe Hizb-allah orchestrated the May 26 attack. In any event, Israeli shelling or anything other than a covert attack that can't be certainly traced to them is the same as airstrikes, and would be condemned by all parties including the US.

Celebrim, you might easily be right about getting rid of Olmert. I can't reasonably argue that he has a chance. I don't know whether he thinks he has a chance or what he'd do to grab at that perceived chance.

And I don't know what israel's military leaders think. If they feel a need to restore their dominance after the perceived failure last year, they might try to arrange that. If they think there's no way to win then they'll try to stay out of war.

it's definitely a mistake to trust historical precedent to say what Bush/Cheney would do.

I agree that if israel wanted to incite a Hisbollah counterattack, it would be better if it was something deniable like the May 26 attack. For that matter, any enemy of israel or enemy of Hisballah or enemy of syria etc who didn't mind the side effects might want to fake a covert israeli attack. This is a problem with getting a reputation for ruthless covert attacks -- people are ready to believe you did them even when you didn't.

"it's definitely a mistake to trust historical precedent to say what Bush/Cheney would do."

Ok, what has Bush done that is unpredictable?

Bush is very predictable. He is very easy to understand. You always no which way he's going to jump. He's as steady as a rock.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Bush is a liberal who happens to be a born again Christian. If you understand that, you won't be confused about Bush's political positions ever again.

Celebrim, Bush campaigned as a conservative. Lots of conservatives supported him, believing he was a conservative. Lots of conservatives supported him in a lot of his photo-op imitatations of policies, imagining that there were actual conservative policies hiding behind them.

Bush hasn't actually done a whole lot. There was the prescription drug thing. Conservatives didn't like it because it was giving away money. Liberals didn't like it because it only gave away money to pharmaceutical companies. They thought it was intended to bloat costs to the point the government would give up on Medicaid etc.

There was No Child Left Behind. Conservatives didn't like it because it gave some money to public schools. Liberals didn't like it because it added a lot more bureaucracy to schools and made them jump through hoops for the money. They thought it was intended to put the hoops so high that the schools couldn't jump through them and the money would be cut off. And the effect of jumping through all those hoops in the short run wasn't good.

There was Social Security. Bush said SS was going to run out of money someday. So he wanted to steal the money now, and he promised to come up with something better to replace it which he hadn't quite thought out yet, and his idea for funding the new system involved counting the stolen SS money twice. In the end, nobody liked his proposal to make a plan.

All liberals and many conservatives were appalled at his cutting back on civil liberties for americans, which he said was necessary to catch terrorists.

Many liberals disapproved of the iraq war from the beginning, most disapproved within a year or two. A few conservatives also disapproved from the beginning and now more and more are joining them.

Bush didn't nominate liberals for the Supreme Court, he appointed crazy people who were far more like crazy conservatives than crazy liberals. But it's hard to be sure they're conservatives when they're so crazy.

The main thing Bush has done that seems "liberal" to me is spend spend spend. But liberals haven't been doing all that much of that for a long time now. See, at the end of the 1950's through the middle 60's the US economy was growing real real fast. People argue about why that was. Part of it was probably new technology getting applied. Part of it was that yankees were finally putting some real investment money into the South. But as a the result there was a lot more stuff and there wasn't yet more money to buy the stuff with. The government could handle that in various ways. One way was to just keep the money supply stable and watch prices drop. They didn't want that. Another way was to cut taxes in some sort of pattern that would give some particular people the extra money. They liked that OK. Another way was to cut interest rates so people could get loans easier and pay them off easier. They kind of liked that too. Or the government could take out the loans themself and spend the money. Liberals tended to like the last one. The government could do things that might be good for the public and nobody would notice the pain -- no new taxes, no slowed economy, no inflation. Everybody feels good while the economy keeps improving and the government does stuff that people wouldn't know how to pay for themselves.

But then we got Vietnam. Johnson kept spending more on vietnam without actually getting it approved by Congress. He didn't tell the bureacracy what he was doing and they got their signals mixed. The government mismanaged interest rates etc, and Johnson decided he needed a surtax, and it all spiralled out of control.

Nixon eventually got things running smoother, but he kept up the vietnam spending. And pretty soon we weren't nearly as rich as we had been. We were still making a lot of new stuff each year but the new stuff was bombs that we dropped on vietnam and cambodia and there was no payoff. Now we didn't need to expand the money supply so much because there wasn't a lot of new stuff to buy with the extra money. It wasn't the government spending part of the surplus, it was the government raising taxes or taking out loans that weren't getting easier to repay. And the number of liberals who wanted to keep up the spending dwindled away, to the point they lost elections.

But Bush has gotten us past that problem. Bush says we have to beat the terrorists so it doesn't matter how much we spend. Liberals don't like it. Conservatives don't like it. But conservatives supported him for 6 years while he spent and spent and spent. A lot of bombs for iraq. A lot of "contractors" for iraq. A lot of stuff like FEMA where the money got spent but it isn't clear what we got for it.

You can try to blame Bush on the liberals, but I just don't see it. I don't see that he's any more a liberal than he's a conservative. If anything, less.

Bush isn't liberal or conservative. He's a loose cannon. And for 6 years he's gotten so much conservative support that whoever follows him is going to have a heck of a cleanup job to do.

Back on topic, what does it tell you about a person's attitude to israel if you know he's a liberal? Very little. Some liberals think that we need to give unconditional support to israel, the plucky little democracy surrounded by hordes of barbarians. Other liberals think that israel is an apartheid state that does not deserve any US support. Similarly, some conservatives think that we need to give unconditional support to israel, the macho warriors who always win. Other conservatives think that it isn't in the interest of the USA to meddle that way with foreign nations (or with our oil supply).

Bush's policy appears to have been that he didn't want to bother trying to get a peace plan, so he'd let israel stomp on arabs until arabs got tired of getting stomped on and agreed to a peaceful surrender. Then last year he seemed unimpressed with israel's stomping performance and now he's more ready to impose on israel to further his own plans about iran etc. Every US president since Carter has made a point of having some kind of peace plan, but not Bush. Bush doesn't care about precedent. He doesn't care what other presidents did, and he doesn't care what you or I or the israelis or anybody thinks he ought to do.

That was instructive in a wierd way. I wish I'd provoked you into that sort of rant sooner. From here on out, when I feel the need to disagree with you, I'll just link to it and say, "See?"

Cerebrim, your #46 was unclear.

Are you implying that by appearing to take your nonsensical idea seriously that I lost your respect?

J Thomas: No, I'm implying that I had thought you were a little bit cooky but still basically a rational actor, a person who believed things that were reasonable to believe from the evidence, albiet things that were wrong.

After that rant neither I nor anyone else should have those illusions.

I particularly liked this bit in the middle:

"Bush didn't nominate liberals for the Supreme Court, he appointed crazy people who were far more like crazy conservatives than crazy liberals. But it's hard to be sure they're conservatives when they're so crazy."

That John Roberts, he's a wild and crazy guy. Why he's so cRRRRAaaaaaaazzzzzzzy, he got 78 votes of approval in the Senate including half the Democrats. He's so crazy, he sided with Rumsfeld against the Forum for Academic and Instutional rights - along with the entire bench.

Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all night.

Cerebrim, we appear to be competing for a dubious honor.

When you say that Bush is a liberal and all you need to know about what he'll do is that he's a born-again christian liberal, nobody should have any illusion that you're a rational actor.

Oh well. I'm likely to respond to you again sometime if you say something that looks like it might inspire an interesting response, regardless of the merits of your original comment in its own right.

I'm not competing with you for anything. My rationality is well known to numerous sites around the internet. Alot of people think I'm a jerk, and maybe rightly so, but I don't know anyone that seriously questions my ability to write lucid and persuasive rhetoric.

Let me let you in on a little secret about ad hominem attacks. The reason that an 'attack on the man' is considered bad form in rhetoric is not that it is rude or that there is some rule that says propositions of the form 'Bob is stupid' are inherently unprovable. No, the reason that an ad hominem attack is considered bad form, is that in most cases its considered a distraction from the thesis which has no bearing on whether or not the thesis is true. For example, it may well be that I am a jerk, but that has no bearing on whether I'm right. That just makes the fact that I am right, that much more of a bitter pill to swallow.

My point is that if you present as a thesis, 'Bob is stupid', and follow that up with some evidence that Bob isn't the brightest bulb on the planet, you aren't engaged in a falacious line of argument. So, if you are going to claim that I'm an irrational actor, you are going to have to like bring some evidence to the table that Bush is actually a very unpredictable sorta of fellow. I'm really interested in that, because typically what you here people complaining about Bush is that he's too steady, too predictable, that he never changes his mind about something, and so forth. Perhaps thats what you intended to do with the anti-historical fantasyland rant in #45, but it doesn't look like it because it definately doesn't for all its talk of 'crazy' focus on the idea of unpredictability.

The thing about Bush is that I got pretty much what I expected out of him when I voted for him. Which, was why I was holding my nose at the time. Granted, I didn't see 9-11 in particular, but I did know that whoever I voted for was in for interesting times, because when Bush took office, this country was in a God-awful mess and anyone that paid attention knew it. I wouldn't have picked Osama Bin Ladin as the worst of the problem, but there was a whole russian r0ul3tt3 full of chambered bullets at that point so it didn't shock me. If anything Bush has done a better job and this country has fallen apart less than I expected. I may have to revise my estimate made in 1999 that the American Republic couldn't survive to 2020, and Bush is a good part of why I may have to post-pone that estimate a year or three. Now, I didn't think Bush was the man for the job of saving the country then, and I still don't (you have no real idea how much it annoys me to have voted for a former coke head). But, likewise, I have a rock-solid conviction based on what has transpired hense that no one he was running against would have done a better job. Certainly not Al 'The Attack on Reason' Gore, or Hanoi John 'my future SecDef has classfied papers in his socks' Kerry.3

Having noted the remarkable #45 from J Thomas, I also note in #50 from celebrim: "I may have to revise my estimate made in 1999 that the American Republic couldn't survive to 2020, and Bush is a good part of why I may have to post-pone that estimate a year or three."

2020?

Have a little faith in the red, white and blue.

-

The predictability of George W. Bush is slightly on-topic because it does bear in the looming war.

I think George W. Bush is reasonably predictable, and that's a Good Thing. An American President who is likely to do anything, with no clues or only ambiguous ones before he jumps, is not what one would wish for in an ally.

I think George W. Bush's reputation for extreme predictability is exaggerated though. He benefits from coming in after William Jefferson Clinton, who seemed to have no consistent plan in foreign policy, certainly in Asia, and was likely to treat any foreign crisis as an opportunity to wing it, based on gut instinct, domestic policy or presidential image issues, or possibly stains on a dress. On one occasion he would act magnificently, on another not, and there were no experts who could accurately guess which it would be. Fortunately George W. Bush is not like that.

Still, George W. Bush has described himself accurately as a "gut" player not a "book" player, and he does things that seriously startle his supporters, or his soon to be former supporters. Peggy Noonan didn't see his second inauguration speech coming. Like a lot of people, I was boggled by Harriet Miers. Nothing in either his being a born-again dry-drunk Christian or in come respects liberal warned me to expect years of fights over "enhanced interrogation techniques". And who knew that he was going to let his first term national security team, full of big names and big egos, just fight each other to their heart's content?

The predictability of George W. Bush is not so much that you know what he's going to do as that you know once he commits to something - usually quickly and based on gut instinct and face to face reactions - you know he's going to make a stubborn effort to follow through on it. And this in itself is a Good Thing.

I do not think George W. Bush is terribly predictable in terms of the coming war. We know once he settles on a plan, probably quickly, he'll make an effort to stick to it till it works, but that's almost all we know. There are at least three mysteries affecting his reactions. How useless does he think Israel is? (He does change his ideas, eventually, when they fail and keep failing for a long time, and Israel failed for a long time in the last war.) What advice will he Secretary of State give him and how much weight will he put on it? And And what domestic pressure will he be under? He is now in a weaker position than he was to stand off Senatorial and Congressional pressure, and we've seen the intense political pressure that a full court media jihad can produce.

Israel would have been much better off if it had had competent leadership and been in position to seize the first and best opportunity George W. Bush gave it to diminish Hezbollah.

"Have a little faith in the red, white and blue."

Manners are more important than laws, and We the People have entirely lost them and no one knows where to find them. We shall end up paying in blood for new ones.

the reason that an ad hominem attack is considered bad form, is that in most cases its considered a distraction from the thesis which has no bearing on whether or not the thesis is true.

Yes, exactly. You were unable to respond to my point so you switched to ad hominem. I don't particularly mind.

Again, I contend that if you assume Bush is a liberal born-again christian, it doesn't predict his actions.

Example -- his attack on Social Security. What exactly is it that would prompt a liberal christian to do that? He said SS was in long-term trouble so it needed to be fixed, but anybody could see that Medicaid was in much more trouble quicker. Wny not fix that? I say the obvious reason to reform SS and not Medicaid is that SS has a whole lot of money, and Medicaid does not. Just like when somebody asked Henry Sutton why he robbed banks, and he said "Because that's where the money is."

Example -- his invasion of iraq. There's nothing about being a liberal christian that would get him to do that. There's been a lot of speculation why he did it but there aren't any clear answers.

Example -- his supreme court nominations. Nothing liberal there. Maybe something christian.

Example -- his stubborn refusal to try more than cosmetic changes to the iraq occupation strategy. Why would a liberal christian do that? Well, maybe it can be explained by him being a sitting president with an occupation. Johnson tried new approaches and they were unpopular. Nixon tried new approaches and they were unpopular. McKinley stuck to a "successful" strategy and it mostly worked though it also got a lot of US opposition. There's nothing about being a liberal christian that would explain this. But it's easy to explain in terms of business management. What does an executive do when he has an unprofitable division? If he admits defeat and sells it cheap, the stockholders don't like it. If he pours a lot of money into it hoping for a turnaround the stockholders won't like it, and they'll get real upset if it doesn't work. If the losses aren't too large it's easier to ignore it. Maybe it will get better. Pay attention to the successful divisions and they might do well enough to satisfy everybody.

I also note in #50 from celebrim: "I may have to revise my estimate made in 1999 that the American Republic couldn't survive to 2020, and Bush is a good part of why I may have to post-pone that estimate a year or three."

2020?

Have a little faith in the red, white and blue.

The Union is in a lot of trouble, and I don't know whether we can recover or how long it will take. I'm surprised at Celebrim's certainty about the timing.

There's a saying that you can choose your opinions but you can't choose your reality. This saying is wrong. People choose their history, and they choose their political reality.

So for example, we have people who say we were just about to win in vietnam when the liberal congress stabbed us in the back. There's a lot of evidence that we were nowhere near winning. And our military leaders had been saying we were about to win from the very beginning, there was nothing new or different about the last claims for that. But people choose their vietnam reality.

We have no agreement about why the USSR collapsed. Some people claim that Reagan did it by spending the biggest deficit in US history on our military, and when they tried to match that they fell apart. There are some numbers that support that -- the russians published fake reports about their own military buildup trying to bluff us out. After they collapsed we found out they didn't even try to match our buildup. I personally believe that Chernobyl was what finished them off. It happened, and they lied about it. Everybody in the USSR realised that they couldn't trust those bozos with nuclear power plants. The cleanup was going to cost more than the USSR could afford. So they let the ukraine loose to take care of themselves. Was Chernobyl a CIA plot? I'd prefer to believe it wasn't, but i doubt I'll ever find out.

We don't have much agreement about why we're in iraq, what our strategy is, who's fighting us, whether we can win, what it means to win, or how long it will take. Maybe we could win easily if we had sufficient national will, but how can we get that will when we're living in utterly different realities?

PK Dick said that reality is what doesn't go away if you stop believing in it. By that definition, vietnam is not reality. It went away. The USSR is not reality, it went away too. We can make up whatever stories we want as long as our friends agree with us. What's the truth about iraq? To the extent that our military is actually collecting the data, it's secret. We can make up anything we want if our friends agree. The military information guys can make up anything they want. Some other sort of reality might sneak up behind us and bite us on our collective rumps, and when it happens we won't understand. We'll make up more stories.

It used to be the MSM had a kind of monopoly on those stories. No matter what you thought privately, what the MSM said was what most people believed and if you disagreed with them everybody knew you were a crackpot. But now anybody can put their own spin on it all and if they find enough people who agree with them, then it's one more shared reality. The USA might not have enough shared illusions to continue to function. When a significant minority of the public believes that the US government made 9/11 happen for its own purposes, that's a faction that isn't going to believe the US government about anything. When a significant minority believes the MSM is telling false stories for their own purposes, that's a faction that's going to make up new realities, and at least half of them won't believe the government either. Particularly when the MSM seems to support the government.

it's like we have a giant flywheel that's supposed to regulate things, and now it's spinning faster and faster out of control, about to break up. Spinning too fast. Spin.

Twenty years ago the CIA had an approach for latin american news. They'd spread so many conflicting stories that everybody knew there was no way to tell what was going on. People would just throw up their hands and accept it was all lies, it didn't make sense. And now somebody is doing that here.

I don't know whether Cerebrim is right that some amount of bloodshed would restore the single narrative. It didn't work last time. The southerners knew they were defeated -- that was a reality that wouldn't go away if they stopped believing it -- but they didn't have to accept that the yankees were right about anything. Dixiecrats have their own special reality today and they don't go away if you stop believing in them.

Maybe we could get some single issue that united the american people despite everything else. WWII did that. When somebody started up with any of the old stories everybody said "Hey, there's a war on" and ignored them or made them shut up. Islamofascism won't do it. That's just another story that the majority rejects. Global warming won't do it, a large minority rejects that story. I dunno.

The best ally for Israel in the coming war? America of course.
My bet for the best ally for Australia in 2025? America.
My bet for the best ally for Australia in 2050? America.
My bet for the best ally for Australia in 2075? America.
My bet for the best ally for Australia in 2100? America.

These people are strong, they're smart, they breed enough to replenish their numbers (sort of, give or take the demographic submergence of the whites), and they're not done telling their stories yet.

I am so not on the same page with serious pessimism about America.

"Example -- his stubborn refusal to try more than cosmetic changes to the iraq occupation strategy."

I think this was true in 2003-2005, but since then there have been radical changes in philosophy (not necessarilly the ones some people envision of course- Harry Reids supposed contention that pulling all our troops out would alleviate Iraqis from killing each other for instance).

I dont forgive Bush for badly squandering our best opportunities in the early hours of the occupation, I'll stand my record of constructive (if loud and increasintly disgusted) criticism against anyone- starting within days of the shooting wars end.

That being said, all we can do is look at where we are today and who is offering the more tenable strategy going forward.... or for that matter any strategy. The democrats strident position of offering no concrete alternative certainly isnt helpful, and the few times we get glimpses of their supposed policy brainstorming (Murtha's famous quick reaction force in Okinawa, and he's supposedly their defense point man) simply send chills up my spine. Bush has been a fool at times, but its usually being foolish in putting too much faith in his key people rather following bad instincts. Lincoln had a similar problem, although i certainly agree its rather late in the day for Bush to be compared in any way favorably with Lincoln. But you never know.

Mark, let's take a step back and look at the iraq occupation from a more distant focus.

We can't expect Bush to understand military tactics or strategy. Even if he had that competence it would not be a good use of his time -- in theory he ought to have too much else on his plate to micromanage a slow war. (Incidentally, Johnson made that mistake, he spent far too much of his time thinking about vietnam strategy and not enough on his domestic problems.)

Bush has to trust his military advisors, and it's his job to pick good ones. We went over 2 years of war with Bush saying "The guys in the field say they don't need more troops. I'd give them whatever they need but they say they're doing fine.". He was lying. If he wasn't lying himself, Rumsfeld etc were lying to him.

At Bush's level the question is whether to accept his military's best strategies and give them what they say they need, or else reject it and fall back to one of their contingency plans for what to do when he rejects that one. His job is to decide whether the goal is worth what they think it will cost, and either back out or give them what they need.

But Bush did not give them what they needed and he didn't back out. Whenever the best military advice said the job would cost more than he wanted to pay, he got rid of them and looked for a low bid. We've had 4 years of warfare services provided by the lowest bidder, and so now we're getting reconstruction jobs finished up in places where it takes a platoon to guard the inspector who confirms that the job wasn't done right.

Democrats can't possibly offer a good strategy because they don't know what's going on. The details are secret. Also, to the extent that a new strategy would have to be carried out by the military (who are after all the only americans who can travel freely in iraq), it would have to be something the military is ready to do. Perhaps our military guys might leak to democrats a plan that Bush opposed, and the dems can then propose it, and possibly Bush will go along out of a feeling of bipartisan good feeling? Hardly.

The choices are to provide more resources that the military asks for, or to provide less and scale back the goals -- perhaps to the point of ending the occupation. At the leve of abstraction that's available to us or to Bush, those are the available choices. So for example Petraeus outlined a plan he was confident in using 200,000 extra troops, perhaps for some years. Bush gave him 20,000 extra troops for a few months. With that support Petraeus hopes he can stabilise the capital city -- which was mostly stable for the first year.

It looks to me like our military has come up with a new plan every 6-7 months, as quickly as their OODA loop can respond to the failure of the last plan. That's them doing their job. Bush's job is to listen to them tell him honestly what they need, and either give it to them or let them pull out. But he hasn't listened, and he hsan't given them extra resources, and he lets them keep coming up with new plans with about the same level of resources to draw on. At Bush's level the changes are cosmetic.

"Bush has to trust his military advisors, and it's his job to pick good ones. We went over 2 years of war with Bush saying "The guys in the field say they don't need more troops. I'd give them whatever they need but they say they're doing fine.". He was lying. If he wasn't lying himself, Rumsfeld etc were lying to him."

Bush listened to Rumsfeld to a fault. I'll never argue that. You also have to realize there was a whole line of generals happy to parrot what the secdef wanted to hear, and those that wouldnt got thrust aside or worse. Im not defending that at all. You are correct, the president is responsible for picking the right people and checking to make sure what their saying ends up being true. Bush took WAY too long to do this. I dont think it was deception on his part, i think it is in his character and management style to pick the people he trusts and believe them. That is admirable- if you are good at picking people. Bush hasnt shown himself to be.

"Democrats can't possibly offer a good strategy because they don't know what's going on. The details are secret"

Congressional leadership of both parties have access to every bit of data and analysis the president has. They can call any of the relevant generals to a closed door meeting and demand any of the answers they need. Whether they would comprehend their answers is another matter, but of course they could employ their own advisors as they see fit. The idea that democrats cant put together a coherant thought because they dont get briefed is simply untrue.

"The choices are to provide more resources that the military asks for, or to provide less and scale back the goals -- perhaps to the point of ending the occupation."

I tend to agree with that, but we dont have even another 100,000 troops to send. No-one has been honest about how the size of our military (manpower) is ludicrisously small for what our global obligations have become. We've had 5 years plus and nobody has serisously pushed expanding the number of boots available to us. But again, nobody is talking seriously about addressing this.

Basically I agree that Bush hasnt led and certainly never created any sense of desperation to get Iraq rebuilt. We never secured the borders properly, even though we could have land mined the entire Syrian border a month after the war ended if we were really serious, just as an example.

The problem I have is that the opposition isnt better than Bush on the 'seriousness' front- they are even worse. Would President Kerry have mined the border? Or would he have flown to Demascus and played nice with the guy sending suicide bombers over?

I can appreciate the mentality that since all of our leadership options are pathetic we should just quit the field completely- but unfortunately the results would put us in an even weaker position, which i am loath to see with the current crop of politicians in charge. In other words I think the de facto program is ultimately less damaging than the retreat would be. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Bush I know. Plus i happen to have great faith in Patreus, and a man like that deserves a chance to do his thing and maybe pull victory from the jaws of defeat.

You are correct, the president is responsible for picking the right people and checking to make sure what their saying ends up being true. Bush took WAY too long to do this.

I'm not clear that he's done it yet.

No-one has been honest about how the size of our military (manpower) is ludicrisously small for what our global obligations have become. We've had 5 years plus and nobody has serisously pushed expanding the number of boots available to us.

I vaguely remember Kerry wanting to add another 6 brigades or so. Not enough. We could make a bigger deal about the enlistment bonuses and full citizenship for illegal aliens who volunteer. We could reduce our force levels everywhere else -- of course we might have to send a lot of troops to one other place, but most places we have bases they aren't needed at the moment. We could reduce our deskbound forces and arrange to do more with less (or more efficient) paperwork. We could arrange a longer basic training for older or out-of-shape recruits and maybe manage to pass more of them.

Congressional leadership of both parties have access to every bit of data and analysis the president has. They can call any of the relevant generals to a closed door meeting and demand any of the answers they need. Whether they would comprehend their answers is another matter,

I don't think Bush has the time or the competence to do things at that level either. But imagine it happening. 2004. The generals meet congressmen in closed meeting and tell them they need more troops and just don't have them. The congressmen take it to the press. Bush has been saying the generals say they don't need any more. It wouldn't be hard to find out which generals ratted, and they immediately become retired generals. Why would they tell congress what Rumsfeld has told them not to tell?

Now, suppose that some large group of congressmen come up with a plan that isn't a withdrawal. Bush can say "Thank you, that's just what I needed! I will follow your plan and you will vote for it. Problem solved." And then he does whatever he wants in iraq, and if it seems like it isn't working out he says "Hey, don't look at me, this is Congress's plan that we all agreed on. If anybody has any complaints complain to your congressman. Oh by the way, it's a little more expensive than we expected so I need congress to give me another $200 billion to tide me over until the regular emergency funding. No, don't bother to ask where the money's going, it's for your plan."

Would President Kerry have mined the border? Or would he have flown to Demascus and played nice with the guy sending suicide bombers over?

I see no sign that Assad is sending them. Assad gains nothing by sending <100 terrorists/month. More likely he doesn't know how to keep them from sending themselves. Like the king of france didn't exactly send the Children's Crusade. At any rate, why do you suppose Bush hasn't mined the border? Is it that he didn't think of it? Or the army didn't suggest it to him? If they didn't want to, why not?

I tend to think Kerry would have looked over the situation and then announced that occupying iraq is an overreach for the troops we have, and pulled back. Whether that would lead to a better result is open to argument -- to test it we'd have to try it both ways and see. ;)

I think a case could be made that the iraqi government would be better off without our troops. Like, we could be a lot friendlier with Sadr if we didn't have this issue between us. We could help him reduce the iranian influence, and possibly his offer for reconciliation with the sunnis might work out. I could sketch out a possible good outcome but there's the looming question -- what is our goal? Without getting it clear what we want any outcome could get spun as bad (or possibly good), it's easy to move the goalposts.

You are correct, the president is responsible for picking the right people and checking to make sure what their saying ends up being true. Bush took WAY too long to do this.

I'm not clear that he's done it yet.

No-one has been honest about how the size of our military (manpower) is ludicrisously small for what our global obligations have become. We've had 5 years plus and nobody has serisously pushed expanding the number of boots available to us.

I vaguely remember Kerry wanting to add another 6 brigades or so. Not enough. We could make a bigger deal about the enlistment bonuses and full citizenship for illegal aliens who volunteer. We could reduce our force levels everywhere else -- of course we might have to send a lot of troops to one other place, but most places we have bases they aren't needed at the moment. We could reduce our deskbound forces and arrange to do more with less (or more efficient) paperwork. We could arrange a longer basic training for older or out-of-shape recruits and maybe manage to pass more of them.

Congressional leadership of both parties have access to every bit of data and analysis the president has. They can call any of the relevant generals to a closed door meeting and demand any of the answers they need. Whether they would comprehend their answers is another matter,

I don't think Bush has the time or the competence to do things at that level either. But imagine it happening. 2004. The generals meet congressmen in closed meeting and tell them they need more troops and just don't have them. The congressmen take it to the press. Bush has been saying the generals say they don't need any more. It wouldn't be hard to find out which generals ratted, and they immediately become retired generals. Why would they tell congress what Rumsfeld has told them not to tell?

Now, suppose that some large group of congressmen come up with a plan that isn't a withdrawal. Bush can say "Thank you, that's just what I needed! I will follow your plan and you will vote for it. Problem solved." And then he does whatever he wants in iraq, and if it seems like it isn't working out he says "Hey, don't look at me, this is Congress's plan that we all agreed on. If anybody has any complaints complain to your congressman. Oh by the way, it's a little more expensive than we expected so I need congress to give me another $200 billion to tide me over until the regular emergency funding. No, don't bother to ask where the money's going, it's for your plan."

Would President Kerry have mined the border? Or would he have flown to Demascus and played nice with the guy sending suicide bombers over?

I see no sign that Assad is sending them. Assad gains nothing by sending <100 terrorists/month. More likely he doesn't know how to keep them from sending themselves. Like the king of france didn't exactly send the Children's Crusade. At any rate, why do you suppose Bush hasn't mined the border? Is it that he didn't think of it? Or the army didn't suggest it to him? If they didn't want to, why not?

I tend to think Kerry would have looked over the situation and then announced that occupying iraq is an overreach for the troops we have, and pulled back. Whether that would lead to a better result is open to argument -- to test it we'd have to try it both ways and see. ;)

I think a case could be made that the iraqi government would be better off without our troops. Like, we could be a lot friendlier with Sadr if we didn't have this issue between us. We could help him reduce the iranian influence, and possibly his offer for reconciliation with the sunnis might work out. I could sketch out a possible good outcome but there's the looming question -- what is our goal? Without getting it clear what we want any outcome could get spun as bad (or possibly good), it's easy to move the goalposts.

How strange.

Would President Kerry have mined the border? Or would he have flown to Demascus and played nice with the guy sending suicide bombers over?

I see no sign that Assad is sending them. Assad gains nothing by sending <100 terrorists/month. More likely he doesn't know how to keep them from sending themselves. Like the king of france didn't exactly send the Children's Crusade. At any rate, why do you suppose Bush hasn't mined the border? Is it that he didn't think of it? Or the army didn't suggest it to him? If they didn't want to, why not?

I tend to think Kerry would have looked over the situation and then announced that occupying iraq is an overreach for the troops we have, and pulled back. Whether that would lead to a better result is open to argument -- to test it we'd have to try it both ways and see. ;)

I think a case could be made that the iraqi government would be better off without our troops. Like, we could be a lot friendlier with Sadr if we didn't have this issue between us. We could help him reduce the iranian influence, and possibly his offer for reconciliation with the sunnis might work out. I could sketch out a possible good outcome but there's the looming question -- what is our goal? Without getting it clear what we want any outcome could get spun as bad (or possibly good), it's easy to move the goalposts.

I bet I know why it failed.

less than 100 terrorists/month. More likely he doesn't know how to keep them from sending themselves. Like the king of france didn't exactly send the Children's Crusade. At any rate, why do you suppose Bush hasn't mined the border? Is it that he didn't think of it? Or the army didn't suggest it to him? If they didn't want to, why not?

I tend to think Kerry would have looked over the situation and then announced that occupying iraq is an overreach for the troops we have, and pulled back. Whether that would lead to a better result is open to argument -- to test it we'd have to try it both ways and see. ;)

I think a case could be made that the iraqi government would be better off without our troops. Like, we could be a lot friendlier with Sadr if we didn't have this issue between us. We could help him reduce the iranian influence, and possibly his offer for reconciliation with the sunnis might work out. I could sketch out a possible good outcome but there's the looming question -- what is our goal? Without getting it clear what we want any outcome could get spun as bad (or possibly good), it's easy to move the goalposts.

" But imagine it happening. 2004. The generals meet congressmen in closed meeting and tell them they need more troops and just don't have them. The congressmen take it to the press. Bush has been saying the generals say they don't need any more. It wouldn't be hard to find out which generals ratted, and they immediately become retired generals."

I don't think you have quite the grasp on how these things work. Several congressional committees are regularly briefed by the military and the intelligence services- its part of their job (line of succession, oversite, to name 2 good reasons).

Moreover, multistar generals are hardly babes in the woods when it comes to politics. They know full well how to leak a story or how to get their position on record making it politically impossible for the WH to take their vengence. And i also happen to feel the vast majority are courageous patriots that arent going to hide under their desk when the security of the nation hangs in the balance.

"Why would they tell congress what Rumsfeld has told them not to tell?"

Honor? Duty? The law?

"Now, suppose that some large group of congressmen come up with a plan that isn't a withdrawal. Bush can say "Thank you, that's just what I needed! I will follow your plan and you will vote for it. Problem solved."

And god forbid Bush might gain some political advantage. This is the problem- worrying too much about how to gain political points out of the war instead of the good of the nation. Thats why Democrats have come perilously to being on the side of defeat for their own benefit.
I honestly wish the dems did have a plan in their back pocket at this point. But Occams Razor and a whole lot of time listening to the wind rattle through Democratic Leaders heads when they talk about national defense suggests its not so.

"I think a case could be made that the iraqi government would be better off without our troops"

People try to make the case that cancer patients are better off without chemo and relying on infusions of tree bark. I'll give the homeopath better odds than the Iraqi government. All the reasons sited for why we cant possibly save Iraq are the same reasons the Iraqis cant save themselves. Its important to remember that just because Bush believes something doesnt make the opposite the truth. Without US forces Iraq will be a combination of Beirut and Rwanda in the bad ol days. I think there is a high burden of proof on you to explain how rapidly withdrawing the only force keeping any semblance of peace would lead to less violence. The Iraqis dont think so.

That being said we should have (and still should) announced a series of metrics by which we can draw down troops. This would give the Iraqis confidence that we arent staying forever and help us reel in some of the fence sitting tribes we are just making progress with in Anbar especially.

"Why would they tell congress what Rumsfeld has told them not to tell?"

Honor? Duty? The law?

I have the strong impression that the ones who feel that way have taken early retirement.

"Now, suppose that some large group of congressmen come up with a plan that isn't a withdrawal. Bush can say "Thank you, that's just what I needed! I will follow your plan and you will vote for it. Problem solved."

And god forbid Bush might gain some political advantage.

Well, if the result is that their plan is not followed but they get responsibility for failure if whatever Bush does instead fails, then god forbid Bush gets that advantage. When every single thing Bush does is for political advantage you shouldn't blame the opposition for at least playing defense. If they can't actually get input, why should they accept the blame for what goes wrong?

All the reasons sited for why we cant possibly save Iraq are the same reasons the Iraqis cant save themselves.

They do have the advantage of not being foreign occupiers. Currently they have the disadvantage of being puppets for foreign occupiers. The iraqi government might be a good way for the various powers to get brokered. But they need a new election that we don't run. A lot of them think we took around 10% of the seats and subtracted them from Sadr and gave them to Allawi. Plus the sunnis didn't get represented well, for whatever reason. Let everybody in. Salafists, Baaths, you name it, if they get the votes let them in the parliament and talk and vote. If they see where the power is and get their fair chance to negotiate they're likely to accept the result. Cut them out of the deal and they'll probably fight.

It could possibly work. Maybe not likely. Far more likely than our chance to impose a solution ourselves.

Without US forces Iraq will be a combination of Beirut and Rwanda in the bad ol days. I think there is a high burden of proof on you to explain how rapidly withdrawing the only force keeping any semblance of peace would lead to less violence. The Iraqis dont think so.

Do you have some reason to think our attacks are somehow keeping peace? Look, our tactics involve

1. We wander around waiting for somebody to attack us and then we kill them.

2. We set up checkpoints to catch suicide bombers etc. If they can't evade the checkpoint they blow up there.

3. We get tips about who to attack and we attack them.

In theory, with sufficient troops we can divide beirut (sorry, baghdad) into sections that we can keep people in, and then we can disarm them section by section, and keep them disarmed with strenuous checkpointing that will keep any arms from getting in. Then in a few months our spare troops will go home and will be replaced by iraqi troops who will keep the sections of the city isolated and keep the checkpoints functioning well enough to prevent any arms from getting in.

Does any of this sound to you like we actually reduce the violence?

iraq report
Over the past two months, the nationalists in Parliament have won two landmark votes: the first in support of a bill calling for the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal and the second in a vote demanding that the Iraqi government submit any plan to extend the US occupation past 2007 to Parliament.

You say they want us there. This doesn't look like it. Presumably when the iraqi parliament votes for us to leave we'll dissolve them.

J, are you working off talking points from 2005 by any chance? You are completely ignoring the new strategy Petraeus has initiated.

Moreover, im not gonna tapdance around it- the idea that the Iraqis by some miracle will suddenly start working together (and AQ will mysteriously disapear) the moment US troops depart is just stupid. Are Shiia mosques faithful to Sadr being blown up because of his love for the US? Are Sunni blocks of Baghdad turning up decapitated bodies because Sunnis love the US? Come on. The big body counts, the vast majority of civilian casualties, have come from civil discourd, often fermented by Al Qaeda.

Is AQ going to pack up and go home is we leave? A gentleman's agreement? Give me a damned break. The Sunnis know they are outnumbered and outgunned and will be happy to see AQ and Saudi money blowing up Shiia with the promise of a return to the halcyon Baathist rule. I dont have the pacience to bandy nonsense like this. I gotta be honest- its like overhearing Wormtongue trying to convince Theoden, its maddening, its seductive, its what a lot of people would like to believe, and its total untenable bullshit.

"You say they want us there. This doesn't look like it. Presumably when the iraqi parliament votes for us to leave we'll dissolve them."

Yes, and our political robot, america hating generals will send our troops walking through the streets machine gunning babies. Please.

Note- Every poll indicates Iraqis dont want precipitous withdrawal. They want us to establish a plan, execute it, and leave. Which is what responsible people have been saying, while others seem content to demagogue and spin information like a top.

the idea that the Iraqis by some miracle will suddenly start working together (and AQ will mysteriously disapear) the moment US troops depart is just stupid.

Agreed. We are not the only problem there and when we leave that won't magicly solve all the other problems.

However, consider what it takes for something that can be called peace. One possibility is that sunnis get defeated to the point they do an unconditional surrender, like the US confederacy. I consider this unlikely. On a strictly military view IEDs provide a defensive advantage and not much of an offensive one. The US military probably won't be ruthless enough to get an uncondtional surrender, and the shia army doesn't have (and can't afford to lose) enough armor. Though they might possibly manage by other methods like blockading food supplies.

A second way to get "peace" comes if the sunnis can join a government that will adequately represent their interests and protect them. AQ isn't helping them that much and by many accounts AQ is hard to get along with. Given a decent alternative they'd push them out. At first sight this utopian view looks as hard as an unconditional surrender. But we lack data.

We don't have an adequate census. Saddam said the population was 30% sunni and 50% shia. The CIA estimated it at 20% arab sunni, 60% arab shia, and 20% kurd (ignoring a few percent other). Those estimates may have come from public data that's quite inferential. Recent pollsters get 30% sunni, 55% shia, and 12% kurd. Their results depend on estimates of the relative population in each province, which might also be wrong. If the shia:sunni ration is 3:1 then sunnis are at the mercy of shias in a democracy. If it's less than 2:1 they have considerable leverage. I don't know the truth, I don't have an adequate census.

Sunnis would require an amnesty. They might want to build a political party that would get the name "Ba'ath". They might want to have party leaders who were in the old Ba'ath party. Bremer said that would not be allowed. If the USA wasn't involved, today these demands wouldn't be an issue at all. There's been a lot of blood flowed over the bridge since Saddam and amnesty for things done in 2002 and before might not be such a big issue now.

There's a lot of bad blood from sunnis and shias killing each other. However, a lot of people on both sides believe that this is sparked by US or israeli raids disguised as sunni or shia raids. There are also stories about "military contractors" who start violence between US forces and iraqis. The contractors randomly shoot at iraqis while disguised as soldiers, and shoot at US troops while disguised as arabs (and duck away fast) and so try to get atrocities started in places that would be peaceful otherwise. They claim these contractors are actually zionists. Regardless of the degree of truth of such stories, iraqis might successfully use them to aid a reconciliation. They can forgive each other for being duped by americans and zionists easier than they can forgive each other for simply choosing to do ethnic cleansing.

Sadr claims to want reconciliation. If he means it, and if he winds up powerful enough, he might make an offer that sunnis can accept. If they believe there are enough sunnis. If they believe the elections will be fair.

It all looks very iffy. But there might be a chance. While the USA is in control the only chance is for unconditional surrender.

Every poll indicates Iraqis dont want precipitous withdrawal. They want us to establish a plan, execute it, and leave.

And that's what Sadr says too. They want a timetable for us to follow, where we promise we leave by a particular date. That's what their recent vote requires.

Why don't they demand a precipitous withdrawal? Perhaps one reason is that in the past when iraqis demanded a precipitous withdrawal we classified them as our enemies and tried to kill them. But we seem to tolerate talk of a timetable.

You are completely ignoring the new strategy Petraeus has initiated.

What's new about his strategy? First, we don't just cordon off baghdad. We also raid the surrounding areas to disrupt insurgent operations there, so they will send less stuff into baghdad. And we invite the iraqi army and police along on the initial strikes so they'll get that experience. And we don't just turn the conquered areas over to them, we help them cordon those areas off and help them fight insurgents, sort of OTJ training for them. Hopefully they will be good at it by the time the surge has to end. And if we can make that work -- if we can extend the sort of security we have in the Green Zone to the rest of baghdad, that might encourage the iraqi politicians to do something important.

What's new about this? Spoiling raids into insurgent rear areas is not new. Bringing iraqi units on offensive missions isn't new -- just it used to be they were too unreliable to write home about. Helping iraqi units do the occupation work isn't new, though it's on a larger scale. Saying that there's no military solution but we're providing room for an iraqi political solution isn't new. Setting up two parallel chains of command is new. Concentrating a lot of force in baghdad while we let the rest of the country go hang is new. But mostly it's the same-old same-old, tweaked to sound better and maybe to work better.

[Deleted. Feel free to try again with some substance (apart from bare scriptural quotes). --NM]