We’re losing: why, and why it’s gonna get worse
catwhite raises some disturbing questions about the upshot of failed US and Israeli military activity over on . I’m pulling my comment out and posting it here for those who don’t read 5e.
____________________
I object to the use of “if.” I see no evidence at all that Islamic fundamentalists are terribly afraid of us or Israel.
1: We have turned Iraq into one of the greatest recruting tools militant Islam has. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terror but since our invasion it has hosted an unending flow of fighters, drawn to the chance to fight American might like flies to a cow pasture.
2: When you’re dealing with people who not only aren’t afraid to die, they actively seek out the chance, fear is no longer part of the equation.
3: While we’re still fighting the last war, our enemies have embraced (and even defined) a whole new model for conflict based on the logic of the distributed network. We’re the Redcoats and they’re the peasants shooting at us from behind rocks and trees. Times a million.
4: Our ethics prevent us from winning. In short, Islamic militants are using our civilization and our “morality” against us. For a quick illustration of how this works, ask yourself a couple questions. How would Hezbollah be faring in Lebanon right now if Israel were approaching the fight with the same ethical rules of engagement? That is, instead of trying to limit the loss of innocent civilian life, they were aiming for it. What would Lebanon look like right now if Israel were intent on killing civilians?
Another question. What would things look like for all the states that support, harbor, or tolerate al Qaeda activities within their spheres of influence if the US had approached September 12 with the same moral guidelines that bin Laden was using on September 11? Or, put another way, what would the world look like if bin Laden had access to the full heft of the American arsenal?
Yes, I’m raising some unpleasant questions here, and there are all kinds of intelligent, good-faith answers. But the bottom line is that if the US and/or Israel set aside all ethical restraints and set themselves on a course to winning the war and winning it by god for good, they could likely create a world where radical Islam posed no meaningful threat.
Just saying…
:xpost:
lullaby pit 
All too true.
Some famous general once said, “A set of rules for war makes about as much sense as a set of rules for rape.”
All too true.
Some famous general once said, “A set of rules for war makes about as much sense as a set of rules for rape.”
There’s a real nasty Darwinian complexity in all this. In evolving to the point where your social rules endanger the very existence of the society that developed the noble rules…. Ouch, my brain hurts.
There’s a real nasty Darwinian complexity in all this. In evolving to the point where your social rules endanger the very existence of the society that developed the noble rules…. Ouch, my brain hurts.
I’m not so sure specifically targeting civilians will work, either. I still think you need to hit, as much as possible, primary military targets. You just can’t base the decision to go after it based on the number of civilians that might be around it. Basically, you have to give them a reason to tell their leaders to go screw themselves. Or, at least, give them a way out. Go after military targets long enough and, in theory, civilians will start avoiding them.
Also, you have to think beyond the war. I think the “winner” has to have maintained some sort of moral high ground, however tenuous, throughout the conflict.
Bring cameras. And reporters. And satellite pictures. Whatever it takes. Flood the airwaves with verifiable reasons for calling these military targets. As much as I believe the press is getting played by both sides, I also believe communication and distribution of information is the only way we’re gonna get through this. We’re pretty much getting our asses handed to us in the mis/information war. Some of the stuff I’ve seen coming out of the arab press over there (albeit, filtered by the American media) is pretty scary.
I’m not so sure specifically targeting civilians will work, either. I still think you need to hit, as much as possible, primary military targets. You just can’t base the decision to go after it based on the number of civilians that might be around it. Basically, you have to give them a reason to tell their leaders to go screw themselves. Or, at least, give them a way out. Go after military targets long enough and, in theory, civilians will start avoiding them.
Also, you have to think beyond the war. I think the “winner” has to have maintained some sort of moral high ground, however tenuous, throughout the conflict.
Bring cameras. And reporters. And satellite pictures. Whatever it takes. Flood the airwaves with verifiable reasons for calling these military targets. As much as I believe the press is getting played by both sides, I also believe communication and distribution of information is the only way we’re gonna get through this. We’re pretty much getting our asses handed to us in the mis/information war. Some of the stuff I’ve seen coming out of the arab press over there (albeit, filtered by the American media) is pretty scary.
You’re still trapped in lost thinking. There’s a military installation in city X. The most effective way of dealing with it is to turn the installation into a large hole in the ground. Err on the side of making sure you get bogeys, not making sure you miss innocents. If the result is that you take out the city, that’s a shame.
THIS is the kind of thinking I’m talking about. WWOD. WHat would Osama do? Well, if he could he’d take out the military base and every civilian within a 100-mile radius.
Not necessarily advocating that we nuke babies here, just pointing out the gap between the strategies of the sides.
If you’re the leader of country A and you think that way and I’m the leader of country B and I don’t think that way, your only prayer of beating me is MASSIVE military advantage, and even then you’re probably going to do no better than a stand-off. You’re more or less defending the very way of thinking that keeps the “good guys” from winning.
No. You’re still missing the point. The cameras are only there to show what happens when you fuck around with the good guys.
Cameras as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did a nice job of conveying a message. That message led to pretty quick surrender.
Again, this isn’t me saying nuke Mecca. But it’s important to understand how the war is being conducted. And when the barbarian, with no thought for life or morality, goes nose-to-nose with the civilized warrior, who cares about the principles and values of the society he’s fighting to preserve, the barbarian has a significant advantage. It may or may not be enough to overcome the advantages that the civilized warrior has, but it’s an advantage.
You’re still trapped in lost thinking. There’s a military installation in city X. The most effective way of dealing with it is to turn the installation into a large hole in the ground. Err on the side of making sure you get bogeys, not making sure you miss innocents. If the result is that you take out the city, that’s a shame.
THIS is the kind of thinking I’m talking about. WWOD. WHat would Osama do? Well, if he could he’d take out the military base and every civilian within a 100-mile radius.
Not necessarily advocating that we nuke babies here, just pointing out the gap between the strategies of the sides.
If you’re the leader of country A and you think that way and I’m the leader of country B and I don’t think that way, your only prayer of beating me is MASSIVE military advantage, and even then you’re probably going to do no better than a stand-off. You’re more or less defending the very way of thinking that keeps the “good guys” from winning.
No. You’re still missing the point. The cameras are only there to show what happens when you fuck around with the good guys.
Cameras as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did a nice job of conveying a message. That message led to pretty quick surrender.
Again, this isn’t me saying nuke Mecca. But it’s important to understand how the war is being conducted. And when the barbarian, with no thought for life or morality, goes nose-to-nose with the civilized warrior, who cares about the principles and values of the society he’s fighting to preserve, the barbarian has a significant advantage. It may or may not be enough to overcome the advantages that the civilized warrior has, but it’s an advantage.
A simple thought I’d been looking for a place to share is relevent here: The Isrealis didnt suddenly start targeting houses full of small children… Hezbollah just got better at feeding disinformation into the Isreali targeting process. Hence the end of airstrikes and an escalation of the ground war where eyes on the ground can make realtime judgement calls that a smartbomb cant. I suspect the Isrealis responsible for triaging the intelligence for target selection have taken an almighty beating from above for being duped and are reevaluating the process.
two things you want to remember even if GWB isnt smart enough to know it
1) You cant actually USE the nuclear arsenal without killing ALL OF US. MAYBE the fallout pattern prediction could be found that would put the fireball on the target without having a major plume that poisens friends and allies… but I doubt it. Especiallyin the mideast.
2) A military of men ruthless enough to kill every man woman and child that live in whole regions of the world in service of American interests is not likley to come home and meekly bow to constitutional authority and respect for individual rights. the next step after doing unto others will be doing unto ourselves…. a cadre of men and women debased enough to torture on command in the national interests now exists. bet me that no use will be found for them domestically in the next ten years. or even that they arent already returning to law encforcement and prison guard duties in the civilian and private sectors.
Your premise seems to be that we have in some way returned to a time when war must be made nation against nation..and like WW2 air raids, civilian casualties be damned. In that you may be right.. but against a pan islamic Jihad our REAL objective was or should have been to PREVENT one by eliminating the possiblilities of a unified and moblilized arabic world. We’ve practially been bending over backward to actually bring about our worst nightmare (as you pointed out) and now the only question left is whether we can still find some way to keep that from happening.
Either that or figure out where we’ll get the oil we need once we are at war with Neo-Persian pan Arab empire.
A simple thought I’d been looking for a place to share is relevent here: The Isrealis didnt suddenly start targeting houses full of small children… Hezbollah just got better at feeding disinformation into the Isreali targeting process. Hence the end of airstrikes and an escalation of the ground war where eyes on the ground can make realtime judgement calls that a smartbomb cant. I suspect the Isrealis responsible for triaging the intelligence for target selection have taken an almighty beating from above for being duped and are reevaluating the process.
two things you want to remember even if GWB isnt smart enough to know it
1) You cant actually USE the nuclear arsenal without killing ALL OF US. MAYBE the fallout pattern prediction could be found that would put the fireball on the target without having a major plume that poisens friends and allies… but I doubt it. Especiallyin the mideast.
2) A military of men ruthless enough to kill every man woman and child that live in whole regions of the world in service of American interests is not likley to come home and meekly bow to constitutional authority and respect for individual rights. the next step after doing unto others will be doing unto ourselves…. a cadre of men and women debased enough to torture on command in the national interests now exists. bet me that no use will be found for them domestically in the next ten years. or even that they arent already returning to law encforcement and prison guard duties in the civilian and private sectors.
Your premise seems to be that we have in some way returned to a time when war must be made nation against nation..and like WW2 air raids, civilian casualties be damned. In that you may be right.. but against a pan islamic Jihad our REAL objective was or should have been to PREVENT one by eliminating the possiblilities of a unified and moblilized arabic world. We’ve practially been bending over backward to actually bring about our worst nightmare (as you pointed out) and now the only question left is whether we can still find some way to keep that from happening.
Either that or figure out where we’ll get the oil we need once we are at war with Neo-Persian pan Arab empire.
Hey, I didn’t say I thought any of this was necessarily to be hoped for. Your analysis is on the money, and you’re absolutely right that we find ourselves in this pickle as a result of our own stupidity.
Hey, I didn’t say I thought any of this was necessarily to be hoped for. Your analysis is on the money, and you’re absolutely right that we find ourselves in this pickle as a result of our own stupidity.
yah.. I was actually agreeing with you .. mostly.
except for the bit about our nuclear muscle.
Its ok for me and you and joe sixpack grumbling about the state of the world and wanting to vent our feelings to recall (though perhaps a bit disturbing to call it ‘taking comfort from’) the existance of that apocolypse in a box capacity built up during the cold war.
But I’m afraid the guys with the RESPONSIBILITY for our arsenel right now actually THINK like this.. not just grumble , but BELEIVE that they CAN use nuclear weapons and its just wimps and liberals… (and scientists and nuclear physicists and professional military specialists ) who are ‘too weak’ to recognize the Realpolitic of modern reality etc etc.
and then I think of the Millenarian religious angle and I cant think of any words other than ‘homicidal/suicidal insanity’ of a level that OUGHT to require forced commitment to mental institutions for large numbers of voters , rich folk, and the guys they managed to muscle into control.
yah.. I was actually agreeing with you .. mostly.
except for the bit about our nuclear muscle.
Its ok for me and you and joe sixpack grumbling about the state of the world and wanting to vent our feelings to recall (though perhaps a bit disturbing to call it ‘taking comfort from’) the existance of that apocolypse in a box capacity built up during the cold war.
But I’m afraid the guys with the RESPONSIBILITY for our arsenel right now actually THINK like this.. not just grumble , but BELEIVE that they CAN use nuclear weapons and its just wimps and liberals… (and scientists and nuclear physicists and professional military specialists ) who are ‘too weak’ to recognize the Realpolitic of modern reality etc etc.
and then I think of the Millenarian religious angle and I cant think of any words other than ‘homicidal/suicidal insanity’ of a level that OUGHT to require forced commitment to mental institutions for large numbers of voters , rich folk, and the guys they managed to muscle into control.
Yeah, boy howdy do I HOPE you’re wrong about this. But jeez, Bush is so feckin’ dumb on many accounts….
Yeah, boy howdy do I HOPE you’re wrong about this. But jeez, Bush is so feckin’ dumb on many accounts….
I see two problems with how the U.S. has been waging war in the past decade or two:
First: We fight Politicians’ Wars. We don’t let our
military do their job. Too much armchair-quarterbacking by Lords, the
Emperor, and the Grand Visiers.
Part of that is the whole, “We don’t/can’t hurt civilians,” stuff.
People, it’s a war. Civilians die in war.
Period.
Part of it is politicos living in Candyland, then getting all shocked
when the Real World doesn’t behave like their fantasy.
Second: We learned, the hard way, that after a war ends, the victor needs to go in and help the loser rebuild, not go in and humiliate the loser. Not, that is, unless said victor wants to be at the business end of the erstwhile-loser’s gun a few decades later.
We seem to have forgotten that lesson. The U.S. bombed Afghanistan, then did nothing for the place. Now the Taliban is gaining strength again. The U.S. levelled Iraq, then went in and tried to establish a Supply-Side-Economy Neocon Wonderland. The population of Iraq responded by believing Saddam’s parting propaganda: The Americans are coming to take our oil and build an empire.
So far, the U.S. has been displaying every tactic for losing a war.
As for Israel:
I think, after the first missile went astray and missed its target, that the Israelis should’ve done more than bleat, “But… But… but we don’t target civilians.” They should’ve followed up with: “That’s what happens when we try not to target civilians, and fail. Now, for the next 12 hours, we’re going to show you what happens when we stop trying to avoid civilians and take the gloves off.We suggest you get out of the way.”
Which, in the end, may be the only way to deal with armed fundamentalists of any religion.
I see two problems with how the U.S. has been waging war in the past decade or two:
First: We fight Politicians’ Wars. We don’t let our
military do their job. Too much armchair-quarterbacking by Lords, the
Emperor, and the Grand Visiers.
Part of that is the whole, “We don’t/can’t hurt civilians,” stuff.
People, it’s a war. Civilians die in war.
Period.
Part of it is politicos living in Candyland, then getting all shocked
when the Real World doesn’t behave like their fantasy.
Second: We learned, the hard way, that after a war ends, the victor needs to go in and help the loser rebuild, not go in and humiliate the loser. Not, that is, unless said victor wants to be at the business end of the erstwhile-loser’s gun a few decades later.
We seem to have forgotten that lesson. The U.S. bombed Afghanistan, then did nothing for the place. Now the Taliban is gaining strength again. The U.S. levelled Iraq, then went in and tried to establish a Supply-Side-Economy Neocon Wonderland. The population of Iraq responded by believing Saddam’s parting propaganda: The Americans are coming to take our oil and build an empire.
So far, the U.S. has been displaying every tactic for losing a war.
As for Israel:
I think, after the first missile went astray and missed its target, that the Israelis should’ve done more than bleat, “But… But… but we don’t target civilians.” They should’ve followed up with: “That’s what happens when we try not to target civilians, and fail. Now, for the next 12 hours, we’re going to show you what happens when we stop trying to avoid civilians and take the gloves off.We suggest you get out of the way.”
Which, in the end, may be the only way to deal with armed fundamentalists of any religion.
Let’s hit the Wayback Machine and see if I had any theories on this over three years ago: http://www.lullabypit.com/blog/03.mar.html#lead
I’ve never seen much evidence that radical fundies can be reasoned with. There are only two ways to defeat it: education (which is complex and requires that you begin early and prepare to win a culture war that will last at least a generation) or killing them. I’m a big fan of education, but I don’t look toward this government with much hope….
Let’s hit the Wayback Machine and see if I had any theories on this over three years ago: http://www.lullabypit.com/blog/03.mar.html#lead
I’ve never seen much evidence that radical fundies can be reasoned with. There are only two ways to defeat it: education (which is complex and requires that you begin early and prepare to win a culture war that will last at least a generation) or killing them. I’m a big fan of education, but I don’t look toward this government with much hope….
Sorry to join so late in the game, but I’ve been a little busy.
Number 4 raised some thoughts. The “no morality” scenerio might be effective in a less complicated situation. Let’s compare this too Sherman’s march to sea in the Civil War. Didn’t he go after highly populated areas to break the spirit of his enemies? That campaign effectively destroyed the South’s chances of fighting back.
However, I think wars have evolved past that point. A fully developed nation in a civil war isn’t alone. It’s partners and allies’ health depend on the outcome. So does the health of any nation that opposes the war-torn country.
If we really wanted to, I believe the US could make a small country uninhabitable. However, such an action would draw too many other groups into the fight. We’d have WWIII on our hands, and the US would be the prime target of our enemies. We’re in a metaphorical quicksand; the harder we’d struggle, the faster we’d go under.
Sorry to join so late in the game, but I’ve been a little busy.
Number 4 raised some thoughts. The “no morality” scenerio might be effective in a less complicated situation. Let’s compare this too Sherman’s march to sea in the Civil War. Didn’t he go after highly populated areas to break the spirit of his enemies? That campaign effectively destroyed the South’s chances of fighting back.
However, I think wars have evolved past that point. A fully developed nation in a civil war isn’t alone. It’s partners and allies’ health depend on the outcome. So does the health of any nation that opposes the war-torn country.
If we really wanted to, I believe the US could make a small country uninhabitable. However, such an action would draw too many other groups into the fight. We’d have WWIII on our hands, and the US would be the prime target of our enemies. We’re in a metaphorical quicksand; the harder we’d struggle, the faster we’d go under.
I understand the complexities here – that’s really my point. We don’t fight to win because we don’t feel we can, or at least we don’t feel it’s prudent. Attila the Hun would have that ugly Hezbollah problem solved by now. Further, there would never again be an uprising issue in Lebanon because all the Lebanese would be dead.
So the playing field is not level, and in war it never is. But the little guy is evolving and innovating and finding new sources of advantage. We clearly are not. And if we don’t, we’re going to lose.
I understand the complexities here – that’s really my point. We don’t fight to win because we don’t feel we can, or at least we don’t feel it’s prudent. Attila the Hun would have that ugly Hezbollah problem solved by now. Further, there would never again be an uprising issue in Lebanon because all the Lebanese would be dead.
So the playing field is not level, and in war it never is. But the little guy is evolving and innovating and finding new sources of advantage. We clearly are not. And if we don’t, we’re going to lose.
The little guy is evolving and has learned how to virtually elminate the technological advantages of the modern military – hide in urban areas, dress like the locals, force your enemy to attack you where you’re strongest. All good Sun-Tzu type stuff, and the guts of guerilla warfare. There are technological methods I can imagine that would counter some of these advantages (unmanned and armed drones, ranged chemical sniffers, and others), but each has its own weaknesses and strengths. Military technologies are some of the most fleeting of all tech, since they are so quickly circumvented, but that doesn’t mean we should’t be inventing them. And we are, albeit slowly.
Ultimately, the biggest advantage a “civilized” combatant has over a barbarian one is his very civilization. People don’t like to be at perpetual risk of death, and so if you offer them a sufficiently compelling choice, they will start to turn on those who wish to keep fighting. How strongly and quickly this happens will vary from culture to culture, but I believe it to be a fundamental reality of human nature. But you have to address the fundamental causes, and in Iraq that means unemployment, education, electricity, and most of all personal security. If the U.S. had flooded Iraq with 300k+ troops to secure the country, we probably wouldn’t have had the magnitude of problems we’re having now. But the political calculation was that the US citizenry wouldn’t sit for having that many troops overseas all at once, and so now we’re facing an interminable occupation and unending deficits to pay for it.
Similarly, we have to address the root causes of why Hezbollah hates Israel and the U.S., and why the rest of the Middle East hates us too. There are a lot of good, logical reasons for people to hate Israel, given the history of the region over the last 60 years. Some of the root causes are our own fault, some aren’t, but only through the forces of civilization can the root causes of these conflicts be truly addressed.
Which means that, if we don’t want to turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot, a containment action on most of the Middle East is probably what’s required. Wall the dictators and radicals off from the rest of the world as best we can while we show the people of the region that we a) don’t hate them and b) have something they desperately want – our education, standard of living, etc.
Walling them off will be hard, since it will require military force, alliances forged with expert diplomacy, a moral certainty not seen since the Cold War, and a redesign of the global economy. But it lets us play to OUR strengths instead of playing into the strengths of our enemies.
In a straight up fight, the thug who doesn’t care if he clocks you over the head with a chair when your back is turned will win most of the fights with civilized people. But eventually the civilized folk band together, track the thug down down, and lock him (plus anyone who goaded him on or handed him the chair) away for his trouble. And eventually, the thugs and accomplices either realize they screwed up and really want to be contributing members of society, or they never get paroled.
The same thing will have to happen here.
The little guy is evolving and has learned how to virtually elminate the technological advantages of the modern military – hide in urban areas, dress like the locals, force your enemy to attack you where you’re strongest. All good Sun-Tzu type stuff, and the guts of guerilla warfare. There are technological methods I can imagine that would counter some of these advantages (unmanned and armed drones, ranged chemical sniffers, and others), but each has its own weaknesses and strengths. Military technologies are some of the most fleeting of all tech, since they are so quickly circumvented, but that doesn’t mean we should’t be inventing them. And we are, albeit slowly.
Ultimately, the biggest advantage a “civilized” combatant has over a barbarian one is his very civilization. People don’t like to be at perpetual risk of death, and so if you offer them a sufficiently compelling choice, they will start to turn on those who wish to keep fighting. How strongly and quickly this happens will vary from culture to culture, but I believe it to be a fundamental reality of human nature. But you have to address the fundamental causes, and in Iraq that means unemployment, education, electricity, and most of all personal security. If the U.S. had flooded Iraq with 300k+ troops to secure the country, we probably wouldn’t have had the magnitude of problems we’re having now. But the political calculation was that the US citizenry wouldn’t sit for having that many troops overseas all at once, and so now we’re facing an interminable occupation and unending deficits to pay for it.
Similarly, we have to address the root causes of why Hezbollah hates Israel and the U.S., and why the rest of the Middle East hates us too. There are a lot of good, logical reasons for people to hate Israel, given the history of the region over the last 60 years. Some of the root causes are our own fault, some aren’t, but only through the forces of civilization can the root causes of these conflicts be truly addressed.
Which means that, if we don’t want to turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot, a containment action on most of the Middle East is probably what’s required. Wall the dictators and radicals off from the rest of the world as best we can while we show the people of the region that we a) don’t hate them and b) have something they desperately want – our education, standard of living, etc.
Walling them off will be hard, since it will require military force, alliances forged with expert diplomacy, a moral certainty not seen since the Cold War, and a redesign of the global economy. But it lets us play to OUR strengths instead of playing into the strengths of our enemies.
In a straight up fight, the thug who doesn’t care if he clocks you over the head with a chair when your back is turned will win most of the fights with civilized people. But eventually the civilized folk band together, track the thug down down, and lock him (plus anyone who goaded him on or handed him the chair) away for his trouble. And eventually, the thugs and accomplices either realize they screwed up and really want to be contributing members of society, or they never get paroled.
The same thing will have to happen here.
Holy crap! I could do that all day. I sent messages to my mom (a flight attendant who hates snakes appropriately) and my boyfriend. Sweet.