Tuesday, November 22, 2005
All Steyn, all the Time
Mark Steyn in the Telegraph today is astonishingly good, again, here. Read it all, right now. Here's a teaser:
In war, there are usually only two exit strategies: victory or defeat. The latter's easier. Just say, whoa, we're the world's pre-eminent power but we can't handle an unprecedently low level of casualties, so if you don't mind we'd just as soon get off at the next stop.
Typical that I would like the sarcasm.
OK, one more:
So, just as things are looking up on the distant, eastern front, they're wobbling badly on the home front. Anti-Bush Continentals who would welcome a perceived American defeat in Iraq ought to remember the third front in this war: Europe is both a home front and a foreign battleground - as the Dutch have learnt, watching the land of the bicycling Queen transformed into 24-hour armed security for even minor municipal officials. In this war, for Europeans the faraway country of which they know little turns out to be their own. Much as the Guardian and Le Monde would enjoy it, an America that turns its back on the world is the last thing you need.
In war, there are usually only two exit strategies: victory or defeat. The latter's easier. Just say, whoa, we're the world's pre-eminent power but we can't handle an unprecedently low level of casualties, so if you don't mind we'd just as soon get off at the next stop.
Typical that I would like the sarcasm.
OK, one more:
So, just as things are looking up on the distant, eastern front, they're wobbling badly on the home front. Anti-Bush Continentals who would welcome a perceived American defeat in Iraq ought to remember the third front in this war: Europe is both a home front and a foreign battleground - as the Dutch have learnt, watching the land of the bicycling Queen transformed into 24-hour armed security for even minor municipal officials. In this war, for Europeans the faraway country of which they know little turns out to be their own. Much as the Guardian and Le Monde would enjoy it, an America that turns its back on the world is the last thing you need.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 6:41 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
"If you exit, they'll follow." I've been wondering (and may be this is common knowledge and my ignorance), did al-Quaeda follow us into Iraq after we invaded it? Assuming yes, the history would be something like:
We go to war with Iraq because it's got a loony dictator with WMDs and so is dangerous, and may be a hangout for terrorists. We beat Iraq in a few days, only to discover we're wrong on the first point. But by then the terrorists that were there are bolstered by an insurgence of al-Quaeda responding to the presence of american troops in the newly conquered country - a presence commonly refered to as an "occupation". So instead of merely having to try to rebuild Iraq a la McArthur post VJ day, the allies have to do that whilst fending off the insurgency of al_Quaeda operatives, which now make it seem like another war, rather than a friendly operation. So Iraq turns out to be the battleground for a US/UK vs alQuaeda war - not one that was perhaps envisioned when it went to war with Iraq in the first place.
this is not meant to be a criticism or commentary, just a request for clarification!
You're right about Steyn, he is an excellent writer, always vital and interesting (he also writes obits in the Atlantic monthly, fyi). Sarcasm has been dubbed the lowest form of wit, and so it can be, but clever analogies are much higher up the scale - I loved the Lodon bus one!
We go to war with Iraq because it's got a loony dictator with WMDs and so is dangerous, and may be a hangout for terrorists. We beat Iraq in a few days, only to discover we're wrong on the first point. But by then the terrorists that were there are bolstered by an insurgence of al-Quaeda responding to the presence of american troops in the newly conquered country - a presence commonly refered to as an "occupation". So instead of merely having to try to rebuild Iraq a la McArthur post VJ day, the allies have to do that whilst fending off the insurgency of al_Quaeda operatives, which now make it seem like another war, rather than a friendly operation. So Iraq turns out to be the battleground for a US/UK vs alQuaeda war - not one that was perhaps envisioned when it went to war with Iraq in the first place.
this is not meant to be a criticism or commentary, just a request for clarification!
You're right about Steyn, he is an excellent writer, always vital and interesting (he also writes obits in the Atlantic monthly, fyi). Sarcasm has been dubbed the lowest form of wit, and so it can be, but clever analogies are much higher up the scale - I loved the Lodon bus one!
make that "friendly occupation".
and PS thank you so much for the evening of pool and Delbert. I have to confess I wasn't sure i wanted to go at first, but I am really glad i did - i had a good time, both at the pool table and on the show floor. that guy was a chick magnet, apparently - you might think about taking up GRRR singing! (grass roots rock'n'roll)!
and PS thank you so much for the evening of pool and Delbert. I have to confess I wasn't sure i wanted to go at first, but I am really glad i did - i had a good time, both at the pool table and on the show floor. that guy was a chick magnet, apparently - you might think about taking up GRRR singing! (grass roots rock'n'roll)!
I'll go see Delbert any time, even as he does get long in the tooth. We need to find a snooker table somewhere in Denver. OK now to your questions. Both Steven Hayes and your fellow ex-pat Christopher Hitchens have a lot of detail about al Qaeda connection in Iraq BEFORE the invasion. I'm sure you can google them. Hayes has a whole book. Even with a pre-existing understanding between Iraq and al Qaeda (short of active co-ordination) your scenario is pretty fair (even if you call it a hostile occupation). I think it's much more conventional war evolving to guerilla war as we proved (again) that you can't stand up and fight us and live, than a conventional war won and then something else happening (an insurgency). But there may well be a magnet effect for terrorists who will fight and die to free a Muslim country from the Great Satan. If these same guys fighting as terrorist in Iraq would otherwise be plotting to come here and do little things, like setting forest fires orsniping in teams, or big things like 9/11 or 7/7, its a good idea to fight them in Iraq where it's them against our best fighting forces and where collateral damage is to Iraqis rather than to us (pretty cynical I know, but I'm an American not a Worlder). If it were not for Iraq occupation, these guys would be peaceful Muslims in their own countries, then I guess you could say we're creating terrorist. Because of the history of Islamicist terrorism before we finished the Gulf War by ousting Saddam through direct invasiion, I think the 'creation' factor is very small. Tough to quantify though. I don't fault anyone for not knowing the future so I only see triumph and noble sacrifice and 25 million free of a guy just like Hitler (except for the psycopathic sons) who is in the dock. Less people dead than the Spanish American War and for a much better purpose. I can't even begin to understand the critics. Have a good Thanksiving.
I guess the criticism would be that they are only fighting us because we're there - if we were to pull out, they'd have no one to fight. Hard to believe they would simply go home and be peaceful Muslims - your worry is that the "theater of war" would simply move to US as 9/11 style terrorism. So defeat al-Quaeda in Iraq, where at least we can "get at" them. Is it a war we can win? Do you you've won when the "next bus" never comes?!
It seems that a lot of the bombing in Iraq is interMoslem. Regarding what will constitute winning in this matter, it is a difficult question. Sec. Rumsfeld got a raft of sh-- for trying hard to create valid mile posts for victory. I think it will be victory when the reports of Islamicist violence becomes mere background and not front page news. Go to Vodkapundit and he has a long post maybe two weeks ago analyzing world wars and what we need to do to win the current one. For him, media coverage is very important and I agree a little.
Post a Comment
<< Home
