Tuesday, March 21, 2006
A Minor Synthesis
It's difficult for the faux military bloggers (like me), the middle aged lawyers, who never served a day in the military, to speak with authority about the war against militant islamicims and its central front in Iraq. We've never even been to Iraq. So we cannot say the guys there are wrong, at least not with a lot of credibility. But I continue to say we have already won in Iraq and the conjunction of these observations below just make me believe it all the more.
At today's Wall Street Journal's blog, Christopher Hitchens, who has been often to Iraq, writes:
In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger." (Emphasis added).
From Wretched (Richard Hernandez) at the Belmont Club, a real military blog:
Politically what's interesting is how the narrative has changed. Nobody is talking about the Sunni insurgency succeeding any more. Even the press hardly makes the claim of an insurgency on the brink of success. As late as November 2005, the Daily Kos was boasting: "The occupation is exacerbating terrorism in the country. America is losing, the insurgency is winning. Maybe we should say, 'has won.'" But by the December 2005 elections this view could no longer be held by anyone with the slightest regard for the facts...
Instead of insurgency the talking points have changed to how Sunnis might soon become victims of an ethnically hostile Iraqi army in a Civil War. Going from a boast of conquest to a portrayal of victim is usually an indicator of something. In my view, the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco. It was Zarqawi and his cohorts themselves who changed the terms of reference from fighting US forces to sparking a 'civil war'. With any luck, they'll lose that campaign too. (Emphasis added).
And Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail has these observations:
We argue the definition of civil war is far too broad, as armed conflict within a state is not the sole indicator of civil war. Key indicators of a civil war would include the breakdown of the political process and an unwillingness of the opposing parties to negotiate, the factionalization of the military and security institutions, and open warfare between the various parties. It is for these reasons we provided the indicators of a civil war in Iraq after the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.
So far, we have seen little indications of these signs coming to pass. Yes, the political process is slow and painful, and counterproductive to quelling the violence, but there is progress. Yes, there is an insurgency in Iraq, but it is being fought by the Iraqi government alongside with the Coalition forces. Yes, there is sectarian violence, but this violence is not sanctioned by the government of Iraq, or the political or religious leaders. Yes, there are armed militias and rogue elements within the security services, but the majority of the Iraqi politicians recognize the threat they pose and are working to diminish the power of militias.
At today's Wall Street Journal's blog, Christopher Hitchens, who has been often to Iraq, writes:
In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger." (Emphasis added).
From Wretched (Richard Hernandez) at the Belmont Club, a real military blog:
Politically what's interesting is how the narrative has changed. Nobody is talking about the Sunni insurgency succeeding any more. Even the press hardly makes the claim of an insurgency on the brink of success. As late as November 2005, the Daily Kos was boasting: "The occupation is exacerbating terrorism in the country. America is losing, the insurgency is winning. Maybe we should say, 'has won.'" But by the December 2005 elections this view could no longer be held by anyone with the slightest regard for the facts...
Instead of insurgency the talking points have changed to how Sunnis might soon become victims of an ethnically hostile Iraqi army in a Civil War. Going from a boast of conquest to a portrayal of victim is usually an indicator of something. In my view, the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco. It was Zarqawi and his cohorts themselves who changed the terms of reference from fighting US forces to sparking a 'civil war'. With any luck, they'll lose that campaign too. (Emphasis added).
And Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail has these observations:
We argue the definition of civil war is far too broad, as armed conflict within a state is not the sole indicator of civil war. Key indicators of a civil war would include the breakdown of the political process and an unwillingness of the opposing parties to negotiate, the factionalization of the military and security institutions, and open warfare between the various parties. It is for these reasons we provided the indicators of a civil war in Iraq after the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.
So far, we have seen little indications of these signs coming to pass. Yes, the political process is slow and painful, and counterproductive to quelling the violence, but there is progress. Yes, there is an insurgency in Iraq, but it is being fought by the Iraqi government alongside with the Coalition forces. Yes, there is sectarian violence, but this violence is not sanctioned by the government of Iraq, or the political or religious leaders. Yes, there are armed militias and rogue elements within the security services, but the majority of the Iraqi politicians recognize the threat they pose and are working to diminish the power of militias.
The only sobering thought I have is that Iraq might well be the easy campaign in this long struggle.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:24 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
"But I continue to say we have already won in Iraq "
I keep saying my Packers won the super bowl but unfortunatly my words have nothing to do with reality.
I keep saying my Packers won the super bowl but unfortunatly my words have nothing to do with reality.
# posted by 
: 1:10 PM
: 1:10 PM
R,
That is a sobering thought. Want another? In this long conflict that confronts us, what if Iraq were a campaign that need not have been faught?
T
That is a sobering thought. Want another? In this long conflict that confronts us, what if Iraq were a campaign that need not have been faught?
T
# posted by : 3:53 PM
: 3:53 PM
"In this long conflict that confronts us, what if Iraq were a campaign that need not have been faught?"
Then it will be yet annother similarity with Vietnam.
Then it will be yet annother similarity with Vietnam.
# posted by : 4:16 PM
: 4:16 PM
Anon, thanks for the confession about your statements but we already knew. Tony. Under your criteria, we were stupid to attack Germans. Japan attacked us, not Germany. and Anon, again, good to see you are consistent about more distant historical events. Do you agree there was a cold war and that we won? Do you know how we won? I tend to think that you don't.
On the daily show tonight Georges Sada, number 2 man in the Iraqi Air force under Saddam, was on. He said he knew for a fact that Saddam had WMD's shipped out of Iraq to Syria before the US invasion. Jon Stewart was trying his best to subtly discredit him. A very interesting idea though, confirmation by a high ranking officer in Saddam's army that there were in fact WMD's, America's initial (and most widely accepted as legitimate) reason for invading Iraq.
# posted by : 10:08 PM
: 10:08 PM
Roger,
In response to how we won the cold war.
We didn't invade anyone.
There is a sobering thought.
In response to how we won the cold war.
We didn't invade anyone.
There is a sobering thought.
R,
The good news is today is Wednesday and it's Good Eats night.
I don't understand finance all that well either, but I think I understand history a little better. As Mike states, the Cold War was in fact won w/o any invasions. The Cold War was not won in Vietnam. Viewed most kindly, that was a battle we lost in the Cold War and as w/ all lost battles it raises the questions: "Did this battle need to be faught, and, if so, could we have done better strategically and tactically?"
Roger, your argument that it would be consistant w/ my philosophy that that the United States would not have declared war on Germany defies logic and try as I might, I cannot make sense of it. Saddam invaded Kuwait, our ally, and we and others responded by ejecting him from that country and effectively isolating him thereafter. Should we have finished him then? You and I disagree on this issue. I give Mr. Bush the elder credit when he states he had no exit strategy and therefore turned back from Baghdad.
Germany under Hitler overran Europe. Our involvement in ejecting him was a matter of when not if.
One difference between our positions w/ respect to Iraq is that I ask the question whether our invasion of that country was necessary step to protect ourselves from the threat posed by terrorism, whether it be from Al Qaeda or other sources.
You, on the other hand, like the present administration, seem to take the position that this preemptive strike was necessary a priori and if the facts don't fit, just change the argument.
I start w/ the proposition that are a variety of threats to our national security and that of our closest allies including Israel, South Korean, Japan, and others.
I identify some of these threats as Kim Jung Il, Iran, the seeming lack of any hope of resolution in Palestine, and the acid burn I get whenever I think of th the titular head of Al Qaeda breathing free air, even if that air is, as Diomedes would say, in a remote, isolated, and backward Stan, although I know he would express it a bit more colorfully.
Osama bin Laden continues to serve as a beacon for jihadists and b/c of one inherent nature of that philosophy, he will serve as a beacon so long as he appears on video, audio, or even if his head were on a pike @ ground zero. Given my druthers, I would prefer the latter.
I think there is a very good argument that Saddam Hussein presented no credible threat to our national security or that of our allies. He only presented a threat to the Iraqi peoples. If you diagree, as I suspect you do, I request an arguemnt in suppoort of your position
Frankly, I would prefer more stories of how our muilitary is rebuilding schools; providing potable water; and making reliable the supply of electricity. Why doen't Fox News report on that? I attribute it to that fact stories on IEDs and assaults on police stations sell more toilet paper and pick up trucks. This raises the question of how much rebuilding/building we are actually performing in a country whose infrastructure had been degraded for the past quarter century and what is the proper role of our military forces in that endeavor?
But here's another thought: Iraq was not a staging ground for Al Qaeda until the United States invasion destabilized the country.
Here is yet another thought. Let us suppose that there will be no Iraqi civil war and the country will manage to govern itself and overcome the bumps in the road ahead. How good will we feel that our enormous sacrifice as a nation, monetarily and in the lives of the memebers of our armed forces upon which we agree there is no price, has resulted in, at least for the nonce, a country that is better than the one it replaced? So far as our national security is concerned, we may be no better off as this invasion did nothing to protect us from an actual threat.
Or if you believe there was a threat. perform a cost benefit analysis, or ask the question, "was this the mpost immediate threat that required our resources, chief among which were the lives of our people?"
I beleive that the doctrine of preemption that the United Staes practiced in Iraq may well have unintended consequences that render us less safe rather than the opposite. It certainly seems to have galvanized a heretofore ungalvanized segment of the Muslim world to a position that is antithetical to our real interests.
Sorry for the length of the response, but I will end w/ 3 quotes. Socrates said: "An unexamined life is not worth living." So too, an unexamined political philosophy is not worth following. I don't believe in the use of preemtive strike in this instance. I think anyone who so believes does themselves and our nation a diservice if they believe this doctrine to be a yellow brick road. As Alanus de Insulis wrote, although he was not the first to express the sentiment; "Non teneas aurum totum quod splendet ut aurum," which brings me to Oliver Cromwell's letter to the Church of Scotland, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
Regards,
T
The good news is today is Wednesday and it's Good Eats night.
I don't understand finance all that well either, but I think I understand history a little better. As Mike states, the Cold War was in fact won w/o any invasions. The Cold War was not won in Vietnam. Viewed most kindly, that was a battle we lost in the Cold War and as w/ all lost battles it raises the questions: "Did this battle need to be faught, and, if so, could we have done better strategically and tactically?"
Roger, your argument that it would be consistant w/ my philosophy that that the United States would not have declared war on Germany defies logic and try as I might, I cannot make sense of it. Saddam invaded Kuwait, our ally, and we and others responded by ejecting him from that country and effectively isolating him thereafter. Should we have finished him then? You and I disagree on this issue. I give Mr. Bush the elder credit when he states he had no exit strategy and therefore turned back from Baghdad.
Germany under Hitler overran Europe. Our involvement in ejecting him was a matter of when not if.
One difference between our positions w/ respect to Iraq is that I ask the question whether our invasion of that country was necessary step to protect ourselves from the threat posed by terrorism, whether it be from Al Qaeda or other sources.
You, on the other hand, like the present administration, seem to take the position that this preemptive strike was necessary a priori and if the facts don't fit, just change the argument.
I start w/ the proposition that are a variety of threats to our national security and that of our closest allies including Israel, South Korean, Japan, and others.
I identify some of these threats as Kim Jung Il, Iran, the seeming lack of any hope of resolution in Palestine, and the acid burn I get whenever I think of th the titular head of Al Qaeda breathing free air, even if that air is, as Diomedes would say, in a remote, isolated, and backward Stan, although I know he would express it a bit more colorfully.
Osama bin Laden continues to serve as a beacon for jihadists and b/c of one inherent nature of that philosophy, he will serve as a beacon so long as he appears on video, audio, or even if his head were on a pike @ ground zero. Given my druthers, I would prefer the latter.
I think there is a very good argument that Saddam Hussein presented no credible threat to our national security or that of our allies. He only presented a threat to the Iraqi peoples. If you diagree, as I suspect you do, I request an arguemnt in suppoort of your position
Frankly, I would prefer more stories of how our muilitary is rebuilding schools; providing potable water; and making reliable the supply of electricity. Why doen't Fox News report on that? I attribute it to that fact stories on IEDs and assaults on police stations sell more toilet paper and pick up trucks. This raises the question of how much rebuilding/building we are actually performing in a country whose infrastructure had been degraded for the past quarter century and what is the proper role of our military forces in that endeavor?
But here's another thought: Iraq was not a staging ground for Al Qaeda until the United States invasion destabilized the country.
Here is yet another thought. Let us suppose that there will be no Iraqi civil war and the country will manage to govern itself and overcome the bumps in the road ahead. How good will we feel that our enormous sacrifice as a nation, monetarily and in the lives of the memebers of our armed forces upon which we agree there is no price, has resulted in, at least for the nonce, a country that is better than the one it replaced? So far as our national security is concerned, we may be no better off as this invasion did nothing to protect us from an actual threat.
Or if you believe there was a threat. perform a cost benefit analysis, or ask the question, "was this the mpost immediate threat that required our resources, chief among which were the lives of our people?"
I beleive that the doctrine of preemption that the United Staes practiced in Iraq may well have unintended consequences that render us less safe rather than the opposite. It certainly seems to have galvanized a heretofore ungalvanized segment of the Muslim world to a position that is antithetical to our real interests.
Sorry for the length of the response, but I will end w/ 3 quotes. Socrates said: "An unexamined life is not worth living." So too, an unexamined political philosophy is not worth following. I don't believe in the use of preemtive strike in this instance. I think anyone who so believes does themselves and our nation a diservice if they believe this doctrine to be a yellow brick road. As Alanus de Insulis wrote, although he was not the first to express the sentiment; "Non teneas aurum totum quod splendet ut aurum," which brings me to Oliver Cromwell's letter to the Church of Scotland, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
Regards,
T
# posted by : 10:09 AM
: 10:09 AM
Mike! Tony? Do the words Bay of Pigs, Pusan and Inchon mean anything to you all? How about Da Nang, or even tiny Grenada? The cold war got hot now and again and it is because it did, and we showed our willingness to let it get hot (but not nuclear weapon hot, Thank God) that we won. No, we didn't invade Russia, though. Never invade Russia.
Andrew, there is a not so subtle effort out there to discredit Sada and WMD was not the first but when we went to the UN it became the only one anyone talked about. Tony, Good eats! 8:00 Ok some responses. Germany overran Poland in September 1939 and no body came to the rescue. German overran France May 1940 and we didn't do squat. Beginning in September 1940 Germany bombed English airfields and then cities and we did nothing. What got us off our collective duffs? Japanese attack at the end of 1941. So who are the first troops we take on. French and then German in North Africa. Go figure. But Germany did not attack us, so was our invasion of N. Africa, Sicily, Italy, France Holland and finally into Germany, an unnecessary front, unnecessary invasions of someone who had not attacked us (and given the pickle they were in in Russia, were unlikey to)? I don't think so but you seemed to set that criteria re Iraq.
As to your criticism with finding Osama. Think how long we had to look for unibomber and the guy in North Carolina who bombed the clinic. And that's in our own country.
You need to read Stephen Hayes Connection and the translations of the new documents and tapes that are finally released. I think we invaded in the nick of time to prevent worldwide attacks from Iraq (probably not with WMD but even a few tons of anthrax is easy to hide).This is a developing story. I'm aware that pre-emptive strikes are indistinguishable from sneak attacks, but history is written by the winners. I disagree that the invasion of Iraq has significantly motivated terrorists. It is weakness that invites further attack. We bombed the hell out of Germany and they've been good. We nuked the Japs and we like them now. They are a good ally. You appease the school year bully and the bullying continues; you bloody his nose and usually that's all you have to do. Sorry for the schoolyard wisdom.
Thanks for the comments.
Andrew, there is a not so subtle effort out there to discredit Sada and WMD was not the first but when we went to the UN it became the only one anyone talked about. Tony, Good eats! 8:00 Ok some responses. Germany overran Poland in September 1939 and no body came to the rescue. German overran France May 1940 and we didn't do squat. Beginning in September 1940 Germany bombed English airfields and then cities and we did nothing. What got us off our collective duffs? Japanese attack at the end of 1941. So who are the first troops we take on. French and then German in North Africa. Go figure. But Germany did not attack us, so was our invasion of N. Africa, Sicily, Italy, France Holland and finally into Germany, an unnecessary front, unnecessary invasions of someone who had not attacked us (and given the pickle they were in in Russia, were unlikey to)? I don't think so but you seemed to set that criteria re Iraq.
As to your criticism with finding Osama. Think how long we had to look for unibomber and the guy in North Carolina who bombed the clinic. And that's in our own country.
You need to read Stephen Hayes Connection and the translations of the new documents and tapes that are finally released. I think we invaded in the nick of time to prevent worldwide attacks from Iraq (probably not with WMD but even a few tons of anthrax is easy to hide).This is a developing story. I'm aware that pre-emptive strikes are indistinguishable from sneak attacks, but history is written by the winners. I disagree that the invasion of Iraq has significantly motivated terrorists. It is weakness that invites further attack. We bombed the hell out of Germany and they've been good. We nuked the Japs and we like them now. They are a good ally. You appease the school year bully and the bullying continues; you bloody his nose and usually that's all you have to do. Sorry for the schoolyard wisdom.
Thanks for the comments.
Sorry Roger,
We won the cold war as a result of the precipitous collapse of the Soviet Union which was caused by the arms race and resultant economic fallout which bred discontent across the entire Soviet Bloc.
Like I said before, economics is the most important factor in modern politics.
Grenada had nothing to do with it.
We won the cold war as a result of the precipitous collapse of the Soviet Union which was caused by the arms race and resultant economic fallout which bred discontent across the entire Soviet Bloc.
Like I said before, economics is the most important factor in modern politics.
Grenada had nothing to do with it.
Mike, you've seen the last act clearly but not the first 40 years of the struggle. Containment first, collapse much, much later. Willingness to fight to stop the spread was key. Even on tiny Granada. (think of it as a baby step after a horrible fall in Viet Nam).
The Russians got their hands dirty too. Part of the struggle, yes. The definative factor that led to victory? Certainly not.
This is just a simple juxtaposition of our two very different vantages.
I believe that the importance of military containment of Soviet expansionism was overstated for economic reasons. Despite a few small examples, the lines were drawn and generally accepted right out of WWII.
Economic and political considerations are, in my view, paramount to military strategic ones.
This is the modern world.
With the advent of the nuclear bomb, the efficacy of pure power politics was severely diminished.
In a hundred years, I think we will laugh at the idea of being able to simply conquer a country without facing a devestating reprisal (i.e. suitcase nukes).
We should start preparing for this kind of world, because it is coming. We can talk about non-proliferation all we want, but someday, that too will be a moot point.
We should revisit the lessons of deterrence and economic warfare that we learned during the cold war. These will be the most important in years to come.
Post a Comment
This is just a simple juxtaposition of our two very different vantages.
I believe that the importance of military containment of Soviet expansionism was overstated for economic reasons. Despite a few small examples, the lines were drawn and generally accepted right out of WWII.
Economic and political considerations are, in my view, paramount to military strategic ones.
This is the modern world.
With the advent of the nuclear bomb, the efficacy of pure power politics was severely diminished.
In a hundred years, I think we will laugh at the idea of being able to simply conquer a country without facing a devestating reprisal (i.e. suitcase nukes).
We should start preparing for this kind of world, because it is coming. We can talk about non-proliferation all we want, but someday, that too will be a moot point.
We should revisit the lessons of deterrence and economic warfare that we learned during the cold war. These will be the most important in years to come.
<< Home
