A look ahead to our withdrawal from Iraq
[NOTE: I happened across this post from 2006 when I was looking for something today. It struck me so forcibly—and sadly—that I thought it would be a good idea to publish it again. Note especially the prescient quotes from the David Warren article. I’ve also added some new observations of mine in brackets.]
Here’s another demonstration of the Law of Thirds (via Pajamas Media)
It’s a post by Bill Roggio that analyzes what the midterm election might mean in terms of future policy on the Iraq War. He cites STRATFOR analyst Fred Burton, who mentions polls suggesting that, whereas two-thirds of US citizens “disapprove” of the war in Iraq, only one-third seems to favor a full withdrawal of troops.
Polls are polls, of course, and subject to all sorts of criticism. In my training and experience as a social science researcher, I learned just how easy it is to find flaws in all such studies. However, I’ve also noticed–over and over–the Law of Thirds operating. And here it is again; only a third seem to advocate the most radical solution, while two-thirds are more moderate. Which group will be heeded by our new Congress? [NOTE 4/20/15: It turned out that Congress was not the branch of government making the pullout decision; it was Obama, against the advice of all his military advisors. But of course, he knew better than they.]
For myself, I can’t quite imagine answering “approve” to a question about the war. One can agree with the decision to go to war given the facts we had at our disposal and the alternatives. One can think things are going better there than the MSM regularly reports. I fall into both these categories, and yet even I would not have answered “approve” if polled–war is too terrible, and there are too many ways in which the war could have been executed better (or at least we think so, with the benefits of 50/50 hindsight and the knowledge that, since we have no authority to implement our suggestions, our thoughts on the matter will never be subjected to the harsh light of reality. )
Like most of the two-thirds who answered “disapprove” to that poll, I’ve had quarrels with the conduct of the aftermath. It started with a terrible disquiet I felt at the outset, when widespread looting occurred and was allowed to continue. It set a tone of anarchy and lawlessness when a crackdown would have sent a different message. Yes, I understand the troops were busy fighting a war and wanted to ingratiate themselves with a population that they thought was only giving vent to anger at Saddam. Yes, they wanted to avoid the appearance of an occupation. But it seemed to give the wrong message, which was that anything goes.
As I’ve said many times before, I never expected this war to be easy or short. Actually, I fully expected it to be much worse than it has been; both in terms of initial casualties, and the subsequent battle. Whether you want to call that subsequent battle an insurgency, guerilla war, civil war, or terrorist war, I expected it to go on for a long time and to cause a great deal of suffering, as all such conflicts do.
As for mistakes in planning, failure to anticipate future events, and whether the administration expected the war and its aftermath to be easy or difficult, I’ve written at some length, here and here, about these questions, including the “cakewalk” issue. Please read both pieces; I have no wish to reiterate what I said then. Suffice to say that it’s impossible to anticipate these things fully, and of course the administration did not.
What I never expected, however (and should have expected) was the way the media—and some Democrats and Republicans, just to be bipartisan—demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the nature of war and wars. We’ve been spoiled, both by our ideals (who doesn’t want a cleaner war, one in which hardly anyone gets hurt? Count me in on that one) and our recent history (the Gulf War as the template, rather than World War II).
There is no question that if we expect perfection and give up if the going gets hard, we will become unable to fight any war. Some would say that’s wonderful. If we give up on war, all will be peace and light. I say: tell it to the jihadis.
In a piece found at The Corner, a reader sounds a warning:
It seems to me that Americans believe wars end when we say they end. Whether we win (WWII), lose (Vietnam), or draw (Korea), our wars have ended when we said they ended. The defeated Germans, victorious North Vietnamese, or stalemated North Koreans never came after America when hostilities ended. But the jihadists are coming, no matter what happens in Iraq. Make no mistake..
Have we lost the will for any fight that’s difficult or at all uncertain, that takes longer than a few weeks, that involves ambiguities and unknowns? I think we have. I hope we have not.
I hope the words of David Warren aren’t true:
…in trying to build a secular democracy over the ruin of Saddam’s regime, the Americans tried something they had not the stomach for. From the outset, they imposed upon themselves restrictions that would make that fight unwinnable. As in Vietnam, they adopted a purely defensive posture.
So far as President Bush can be blamed, it should be for showing insufficient ruthlessness in a task that could not be accomplished by half-measures. Alternatively, for failing to grasp that America was psychologically unprepared for real war, not only by the memory of Vietnam, but by the grim advance of “liberal” decadence in domestic life over the generation since.
Read the whole thing. Read the whole thing. And then read it again. And then hope and pray that Warren is a lousy prognosticator:
If Iraq is abandoned, the credibility of America and the West is lost. Iran’s hopes of regional hegemony are assured. The Americans will have cut and run after enduring less than one-twentieth of the casualties they suffered in Vietnam; and from a battle more consequential, for it is against an Islamist enemy that is rising, instead of a Communist enemy in decline…
…the consequences of abandoning Iraq will come home to the United States and the West, in a way Vietnam never touched us.
[ADDENDUM: I don’t mean to imply that decisions in war ought to be made by reading polls. However, since the majority of Americans don’t appear to want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, if the Democratic leadership thinks they do and acts on that supposition, they may find themselves out of office next time round.
Many people (even among those who don’t want an immediate pullout) seem to have lost touch with the difficulties and uncertainties, as well as the inevitable mistakes, that are part and parcel of any war, and demand that wars be easier and faster than they ever are. This means that many wars–and the Iraq war is among them–are fought with half measures, and with the knowledge that public opinion is fickle and that people don’t have the stamina for the long haul. This can lead to decisions that are not strategically sound, because of knowledge of the impatience of the public. And our enemies know that, and count on it, and act accordingly.]
[4/20/2015 new ADDENDUM added: Looking back at that David Warren article just now, I decided to add an excerpt from its conclusion:
It was a Democrat-controlled Congress that decided to sink free South Vietnam, by cutting off its supplies even of rifle ammunition after the peace treaty signed by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho in 1973. It was Congress that ordered all U.S. bombing halted — air strikes that could have made mincemeat of the regular North Vietnamese army, marching openly along the South’s main highways in 1974. The U.S. never lost the war militarily, and could easily have won it without self-imposed restraints. But the enemy was more ruthless, and the allied will to fight evaporated…
My 21st birthday happened to coincide with the final evacuation of Saigon. From my modest experience on the ground in that country, I knew what was coming next. The boat people were no surprise to me. I think that was the day I fully realized, in adult terms, that evil often prevails in this world. So this is nothing new.
The fate that will befall all those millions of courageous Iraqis, showing the dye on their fingers after they had voted — in defiance of all the terror threats — will not come as a surprise to me, either. They are being sold out, as the Vietnamese were before them. But the consequences of abandoning Iraq will come home to the United States and the West, in a way Vietnam never touched us.]
neo…
It’s a myth that ARVN ran out of rifle bullets — ever.
That’s NOT what the issue was when Congress cut Thieu off.
It was the POL lost in two, simultaneous rocket attacks (the usual and customaryGRAD 122mm rockets) with secondary fires that went on and on and on and on.
ALL of this being predicted by US Army Corps of Engineers advisors who were over ruled at the national command level — ie Thieu and his staffers — to the purpose of OVER STUFFING these two strategic depots ( both proximate to Saigon ) with POL during the price run-up consequent to the Yom Kipper war.
These two attacks — entailing no more than a few GRAD rockets — destroyed ARVN’s strategic stockpile of POL — that was supposed to carry it through the entire fiscal year!!!!
Thieu went hat in hand to Congress… expecting America to pay for his decisions… in the face of US Army advice… and entirely predictable consequences.
That sequence broke the back of the REPUBLICAN stalwarts in Thieu’s corner. THAT’S what did in ARVN.
It was the testimony of two Lt Col with the Corps of Engineers that totally destroyed the last remnants of American faith in Thieu’s administration.
The general conclusion was that you just can’t save that government from itself.
FURTHER, the very POL required would have to come out of America at the height of the AOPEC oil embargo — the one that targeted the USA and the Netherlands. (The only two nations embargoed, for those with long memories. )
[ At the time, Israel was getting its POL from Iran — and the Shah. ]
I have to keep bringing this up — for the same reason that Eric has to bring up the predicate for OIF.
Analysis needs to be grounded in fact.
( News flash for ayatollah Soetoro. )
blert,
Why we abandoned S. Vietnam isn’t nearly as important as that we did abandon S. Vietnam. And Warren is completely right when he states that, “The U.S. never lost the war militarily, and could easily have won it without self-imposed restraints. But the enemy was more ruthless, and the allied will to fight evaporated.”
Our self-imposed restraints were the result of America’s adoption of “just war doctrine’ and it’s tenet of ‘proportionality’. Our “will to fight evaporated” due to the influence of the MSM’s support for the Left’s narrative.
The chaos rent loose upon the Muslim Middle East is the inevitable consequence of Muslim doctrine and Muslim birthrates.
At some point, those lands would reach the edge of the ‘Petri dish.’
I predicted the upheaval before anyone else I’m aware of — over at Wretchard’s place — the Belmont Club. I detailed expected food riots and consequent revolutions for
Egypt
Tunisa
Yemen
Syria
With Libya being iffy.
At the time there was no news of any civil unrest from the MENA at all.
I just knew that their national budgets were blowing up – and that their biggest expense was food for the proles… in epic amounts.
BTW, Iran’s food crisis is as bad as Egypt’s. Both import approximately HALF of all their calories. In both cases, that’s astonishing — since antiquity both held reputations as food exporters.
That’ll give you an idea of how many Muslims must, and will, die in the years immediately ahead.
Pakistan
Yemen
Somalia
All have epic birth rates — and absolutely no provisions have been made to expand THE critical resource most needed: clean water.
&&&&&
Wretchard must have read your recent post on the European alien invasion crisis. His post indicates that the number of drowned souls figures to shock the world.
The Europeans have made their shores fatally attractive.
This situation has to stop. The best way would be to shoot up any floating craft before they even get past the breakers.
This would be best done in the wee hours of the night, so that every dang thing that floats doesn’t float.
Right now, the Muslim fanatics are gaming the infidels into accepting massive numbers of semi-sleepers.
Blert,
What is POL? And thanks for the info.
blert:
Have you read Sorley’s book? See this.
Geoffrey,
I think the just war doctrine is also imposed by the UN and our “allies,” who never want to get their own fingers dirty. The peaceniks here in Germany (and, I presume; elsewhere) made it almost impossible for the government to cooperate in any way with Bush. They were demonstrating at our military bases here, which we needed for transport and to provide care for the wounded soldiers. Michael Moore sold more copies of of Fahrenheit 9/11 here than in the US. I can only imagine what the propaganda was like in Pakistan.
What can be said of it all is that the US have become War Inc. and selling war requires ‘kinder’ and ‘gentler’ though war itself, since the time nature provided the apes ready-made clubs, has been a ruthless enterprise. This is in itself a remaking, a progressive makeover, of the world, top down. Progressives that would infringe upon the nature of things as well as nature itself have made it so that the West would never again win a war, moral, cultural, hot, or cold. It’s not the cynic who would urge isolationism and fortress America, it’s the realist who knows the dice are loaded for snake eyes.
POL = Petroleum – Oil – Lubricants.
I’m a great admirer of David Warren. But Obama’s abandonment of Iraq is but part and parcel of the geopolitical factors that are leading to grave consequences for the United States and the West.
Libya and Syria. ISIS and al-Qaeda. Iran’s pursuit of nukes and ICBMs with its positioning to control the Straits through which 1/3 of the world’s oil passes. Ukraine and the threatened Baltic States. China’s aggression in the South China Sea. Our open borders. The political infiltration and subversion of the US Military.
All these and more are directly attributable to Obama’s actions. On every conceivable front, Obama and the Left are acting to constrain and degrade America’s resources and her societal cohesion and consensus. Obama is purposely strengthening and emboldening our enemies.
The support of Congressional democrats ensures that Obama faces no legal restraint.The MSM’s support ensures that the LIVs will remain in the dark. A RINO Congress does nothing.
Thus, until the consequential reality to which Warren alludes to arrives, America will remain on its current course toward the cliff’s edge.
I used to worry about jihadis coming to America. Now I am able to look on the bright side and realize we will have destroyed our country from the inside before those barbaric bastards get the chance. They’ll just be picking over the remains.
“the US have become War Inc.
The Left strongly supports that arguable falsehood and uses it as ‘proof’ of America’s inherent evil.
“It’s not the cynic who would urge isolationism and fortress America, it’s the realist”
In formulating strategy, a realist looks at the long term consequence beyond the short term benefits. Adoption of an isolationist and ‘fortress America’ mind-set not only leads to America’s destruction, it ensures it.
An isolationist and ‘fortress America’ is by definition, static and risk-avoidant in nature. It deplores those actions it categorizes as ‘adventurist’.
Some practical examples of the danger of a ‘fortress’ mind-set was France’s Maginot Line. Constantinople is another. Homer’s Iliad with its story of the destruction of Troy exposed the danger of a fortress mind-set, 2900 years ago. But what has history to teach us ‘moderns’?
In strategic terms, an isolationist and ‘fortress America’ mind-set means little to no support for manned exploration of space (a ‘needless’ and dangerous expense), which will leave mastery of low and medium earth orbit to China. But the nation that dominates the field of orbital mechanics, when sufficiently ruthless, dominates the earth.
KLS,
Yes, we have, as Abe said, been destroyed from within. Even FDR was more than willing to wage war to the terms which all wars should be fought; namely unconditional surrender and the victor establishes the terms of your reconstruction. We failed big time in Iraq. We should have dictated that Iraqis set up a secular form of government, a government that was separate from any taint of the koran. And, we needed to be willing to maintain a force in Iraq to enforce this separation for at least 2 generations.
Be the great satan or don’t wage war with hands tied behind our backs in the lands of islam
As a coda to the GRAD attacks: the destruction was so vast, so complete, that the infrastructure that had been built up — at horrific expense — over the previous decade — was a total write off.
All the kerosene, gasoline, Diesel fuels were gone — and the tanks, too!
So, to bail out Thieu, the ONLY mechanism would’ve been to BRING BACK the US Army Corps of Engineers to get their hands onto the job.
The ugly details were (obviously) laid out in secret session and never reported in the NY Times. Everything else was.
In sum: it wasn’t just a financial outlay — the US Army would’ve had to re-enter a war zone that it’d just left 24 months before.
There was no way in Hell that the reconstruction could’ve been outsourced to a private contractor. ( As IF!)
While the depots were replaced — on a greenfield basis — the old locations were now impossible to fix and would have to be totally abandoned — the US military would’ve had to barge in POL in hefty amounts — taking all of it straight out of the gas tanks of queued up American motorists. (!)
Yeah, even Republican Congressmen and Senators were choking on that prospect. What a vote killer… On top of Watergate, to boot.
IIRC even Goldwater had had enough.
The (emergency) spending bill didn’t even get out of committee.
Again, you see a nation (South Vietnam) that just couldn’t imagine what a total screw up could do to their strategic position.
But to screw up that monumentally, — DIRECTLY in the face of INSISTENT ‘advice’ from the US Corps of Engineers was a game changer.
Sort of like ayatollah Soetoro and nukes for mullahs.
* And ICBMs, too.
Geoffrey:
Some practical examples of the danger of a ‘fortress’ mind-set was France’s Maginot Line. Constantinople is another. Homer’s Iliad with its story of the destruction of Troy exposed the danger of a fortress mind-set, 2900 years ago. But what has history to teach us ‘moderns’?
I’ll grant you the Maginot Line, but Constantinople saved the Byzantines’ bacon on multiple occasions, and the Trojans of the Iliad were quite happy to leave their walls and fight the Greeks on the open field.
GB,
The Left strongly supports that arguable falsehood [the US as War Inc]
Frankly, I don’t give a fig what the Left supports. I support the premise on the fact that this country has been on a war footing for well over a half century now. That nothing much has come of it other than a stalemate in Korea and a victory in Grenada — if you deign elevate it to a victory instead of a walkover. Nota bene Orwell’s Oceania was on a perpetual war footing. Rally ’round the flag and rally ’round the maypole of democracy are battle cries not of defense of the nation but of tyranny.
Adoption of an isolationist and ‘fortress America’ mind-set not only leads to America’s destruction, it ensures it… is by definition, static and risk-avoidant in nature.
A non-sequitur of logic on two points. First, America is already very nearly destroyed. Second, those who cannot make cost/benefit analyses of risk ought refrain from recommending them. What had our risky adventures bought us? Safe and secure borders? No. A safe and secure population? No. A nation free of surveillance state apparatus? No. An Islamic world nearer democracy than a caliphate? No. Christians and other minorities safe under despotic autocrats? No (very more near genocides). God help those whom we seek to save and the soldiers who’ve given their limbs to be left to the tender ministrations of a corrupt VA (just one piece of the detritus that had once been of the panoply of monuments of a great nation — education another)
…manned exploration of space (a ‘needless’ and dangerous expense), which will leave mastery of low and medium earth orbit to China.
And Tell me G B, had China come to its present power ascendancy by engaging in perpetual war around the world for the last thirty years or had it arrived at the moment by playing it smart, i.e., by looking first to their self-interests, and leaving the evangelical nimrods of freedom, democracy, and the American way to stew in the juices of their own making?
America Has Been At War 93% of the Time.
222 Out of 239 Years since 1776
The US and everybody else ….
parker Says:
April 20th, 2015 at 4:36 pm
KLS,
Yes, we have, as Abe said, been destroyed from within. Even FDR was more than willing to wage war to the terms which all wars should be fought; namely unconditional surrender and the victor establishes the terms of your reconstruction…
Here, a good exposé of what it’ll take to win internally:
This Culture War We’re In.
Prepare,work.
That means keep fit, network, practice, accumulate stores.
Be a 3%’er, not a sheeple.
“Constantinople saved the Byzantines’ bacon on multiple occasions, and the Trojans of the Iliad were quite happy to leave their walls and fight the Greeks on the open field.” Mr. X
The Trojans always had their citadel to retreat to, so their ‘willingness’ was tempered by the safety their walls offered, whereas the Greeks did not but I’ll agree that an argument can be made both ways. I still think that a purely defensive strategy is ultimately doomed to failure. Constantinople certainly did protect the Byzantines many times but the Byzantines defensive strategy in reaction to Islam’s aggression resulted in the same outcome, so IMO the example remains valid.
That this country has been on a war footing for well over a half century now is indisputable. But the assertion that nothing much has come of it is demonstrably untrue. Our willingness to fight in Korea and Vietnam demonstrated to the communists that they faced opposition from the West not just bluster. That our military was hamstrung in both conflicts cannot be overlooked in a fair assessment. Our willingness to confront the Soviets over Cuba stopped communist nuclear incursion into the Western Hemisphere.
The left has proved that “’round the maypole of democracy” certainly can be perverted into tyranny. But the qualifier is that to do so requires it be perverted. So it is not the promotion of democracy that is at fault but the use to which evil men employ it.
A non-sequitur in logic? I think not. That the left has brought this country close to its destruction is NOT the result of our being on a war footing for the past half century. We didn’t just ‘imagine’ the threat from communism. We aren’t just imagining the threat from Islam. It’s an unfortunate reality that a war footing is required to neutralize those threats and offering the intellectually bankrupt ‘alternative’ of isolationism is a formula for guaranteeing their ultimate triumph over us.
That you seek to define the loss of liberty in terms of “a cost/benefit analyses of risk” demonstrates exactly who is unfit to make recommendations.
“What had our risky adventures bought us?”
The Pax Americana for one. The (so far) prevention of the continued spread of communism. The prevention of Saddam from seizing the Saudi oil fields. The destruction of al-Qaeda’s most secure refuge. The elimination of a madman’s (Saddam Hussein) pursuit of WMD. Not a bad record and all critical accomplishments. As proof, imagine a world where there was no Pax America, where communism continued to spread, where Saddam seized the Saudi oil fields and held oil prices hostage to his whim and where he obtained nukes.
ISIS is a perfect example of what happens when America adopts an isolationist foreign policy and while Obama is not an isolationist, the effect of his policies is the same.
None of the things you mention; “Safe and secure borders, a safe and secure population, a nation free of surveillance state apparatus, an Islamic world nearer democracy, Christians and other minorities safe under despotic autocrats… none of them would have happened under an isolationist policy. Our open borders are the result of Obama’s machinations. Our population’s safety and security rests upon being the ‘baddest f**ker on the planet because evil men are ONLY intimidated by the ability and willingness to employ greater power. Isolationism sends exactly the opposite message to the kinds of people you want to pretend don’t exist. Christian persecution is a direct result of our unwillingness to confront Islam, which BTW is an isolationist posture.
Those Americans who have sacrificed their limbs in defense of liberty are disrespected by your criticism of our wars, none of which we sought and ALL of whom were just.
China has come to its present power of ascendancy by playing us for fools and they have been steadily preparing for war with us. That you fail to either apprehend it or purposely ignore it does not speak well of you.
Your support for an isolationist policy and fortress America mind-set is profoundly mistaken. That is NOT my opinion but the verdict of history.
Kill them all and let allah decide who earns the imaginary virgins. Personally the death of a billion muslims stacked against my 6 grandchildren is a no contest question. Kill them all and let my grandchildern live. Sheesh, why is there any argument!
Why not kill them all? well, why not just let the JOOOOOS do it, to save Israel? Perhaps before Tel Aviv is nuked, tho perhaps only afterward…
There has been NO declaration of war — therefore the USA has not really been on a “war” footing. Even if it seems like it.
The stupidity (duplicity?) of Obama and Democrats, not the “Left”, has been hugely responsible for the loss of security in the world, and the pre-mature end to the Pax Americana.
American Democrats, especially those registered as Dems, or donors to Dems, but in fact all those who voted for Dems, they are the occasional plurality who are replacing support for historical strong America with support for anti-Americans.
Thanks, blert, for the info about the stupid ’74 S. Viet gov’t allowing its Oil to get blown up, in the face of US Army CoE alternative advice.
Still, after Nixon resigned and Ford took over, there was chance to use Air Power to destroy N. Viet invaders in ’75, but the Dem dominated US Congress refused that, too.
Giving others Freedom includes giving them the freedom to make stupid mistakes. The US should have tried to harder to stop the Genocidal Commies from winning — the US went to war in Vietnam against the commies, when the US stopped fighting, the commies won.
And the US should have kept some 10-20,000 troops there, learning from the Peace in Germany — when did the US leave Germany after WW II?
(We’re still there ….)
Each and every anti-Viet War protester was, in actual fact, a supporter of commie genocide. Historians that don’t record that are “hiding” this shameful truth about America. People like John Kerry should have been far more labeled a supporter of commie genocide than he was.
Today, America is fighting against Islamic terror, as well as ISIS, a radical Arab Sunni group. Can’t help but remember that maybe 1,000,000 Muslims killed each other in the Saddam Iraq war vs Iran 1980-1988, far more than America killed. And more Sunni vs Shiite killing/ Muslims dieing is going on once again than when America was fighting in Iraq.
I’d prefer a bi-partisan Declaration of War, and America to go in, win the war, dominate the gov’t during a limited rebuilding phase, and separation of both Iraq and Iran into smaller provinces/ cantons, especially including separate Kurdistan, or 4 (Iraqi, Syrian, Iranian … and Turkey).
” It was in the occupiers’, as well as the Kurdish interest, to detach self-governable Iraqi Kurdistan from the rest of the mess; indeed to split Sunni from Shia territories, and govern them differently. In retrospect, the commitment to a united Iraq was the biggest of many victories of diplomacy over realism.”
Let each religious / ethnic group have their own little or big majority area — under a light occupation gov’t.
But only after a Declaration of War — I oppose US fighting until then, with notes that the Democrats who oppose war are allowing the killers to rape and murder Christians.
Geoffrey Britain:
The Trojans always had their citadel to retreat to, so their ‘willingness’ was tempered by the safety their walls offered, whereas the Greeks did not but I’ll agree that an argument can be made both ways. I still think that a purely defensive strategy is ultimately doomed to failure. Constantinople certainly did protect the Byzantines many times but the Byzantines defensive strategy in reaction to Islam’s aggression resulted in the same outcome, so IMO the example remains valid.
A fortress mentality doesn’t just mean building fortresses, it means hiding behind your walls and never being willing to sally forth and take the fight to the enemy, something which the Trojans did all the time.
The Byzantines adopted a defensive strategy against the Muslims because they were too weak to win an offensive war against the Caliphate. Once the Islamic world started politically fragmenting in the ninth and tenth centuries, the Byzantines did indeed go on the offensive. Even after the loss of Anatolia to the Turks, the Byzantines still mounted major offensive operations. (In fact, arguably during the 12th century their rulers had gone to the opposite extreme, launching potentially lucrative but impractical ventures against places like Egypt or Italy whilst ignoring the Turks right next door.) Even during the later Empire, when the Latin occupation of Constantinople had left Byzantium a shadow of its former self, they continued attacking, e.g., the Latin states in the Aegean. They only really developed a fortress mentality during the last decades of the 14th century, when the Empire was too weakened to take the initiative and essentially had no alternative but to rely on the walls of Constantinople. Even then, they managed to survive for another century, thanks largely to the strength of said walls.
willingness to confront the Soviets over Cuba stopped communist nuclear incursion into the Western Hemisphere.
An example of a vital national interest with which I have no problem. Take it as given, I am NOT an absolutist/purist on isolationism. I desire only that it be the default position from which exceptions — our vital interests – are made.
We didn’t just ‘imagine’ the threat from communism. We aren’t just imagining the threat from Islam.
The threat assessment is as suspect as our risk/reward rationalizations. If Islam is a threat — it is — it should be dealt with first where it is most threatening — here, in our government — Muslim Brotherhood infiltration throughout our government and social institutions. Droning to death Islam’s culprits on distant sand dunes/bat caves makes no sense. It reminds me of the nightly reports of the Cronkite reports way back when during our Vietnam adventures. The news had a daily reckoning of enemy dead — as though it meant something. More dead commies — hooray! We’re winning!
Pax Americana for one. The (so far) prevention of the continued spread of communism.
You’re shitin’ me — right? Pullin’ the ole’ leg- yes? Our educational establishment is rife with Communists/Leftists. You can’t swing a cat around a university department assembly without hitting a commie/leftist. The infamous Mr Bill — William Ayers — reconstructed from his days as terrorist, was made at large minister of education and together with the another infamous commie/leftist — Ophilia — jointly worked together on an education reform project in Chicago – the Annenberg Challenge. Cheezits Cripes almighty — the head of the Chicago Public School teachers union is a commie and had tossed her hat into the recent mayoral race in Chicago until illness had caused her to withdraw.
Our open borders are the result of Obama’s machinations.
You don’t see it, do you? Pax Americana. Spread of communism. Obama’s machinations. It’s three damn dots and you can’t connect them. Three damn dots!
No GB, It’s not me that’s unfit to make recommendations. No more shibboleths of “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”. They’re (Commies/Islamists) here, they’re in ever greater control — ‘they’ are in the Oval Office for Cripe’s sake. Until you open your eyes, and make use of the senses God gave you — it’s you who are unfit to make recommendations.
“A fortress mentality doesn’t just mean building fortresses, it means hiding behind your walls and never being willing to sally forth and take the fight to the enemy”
That is the most extreme and narrow definition of a defensive strategy. I disagree that to be the only correct definition of a defensive strategy. The mind-set comes before whatever action may be taken and the Trojans were clearly defensive minded. IMO, overall so too were the Byzantines, despite occasional lapses where they flirted with an offensive strategy. The Byzantine-Islam conflict lasted for centuries, plenty of time for the Byzantines to develop greater strength, instead they hoped that the problem would eventually go away. The very definition of a defensive mind-set.
George Pal,
I’ll have to respond later today, personal business prevents a more prompt response. But I will respond.
Tom,
You’re representing a Declaration of War as more than it is as a legal/policy mechanism. An AUMF is equivalent.
blert:
Grounded in fact and the bedrock law and policy that defined the operative enforcement procedure and outlined the parameters of the mission.
The facts are critical, but arranging them coherently in a compelling, accurate narrative requires presenting the facts upon the controlling law and policy frame. In other words, an IRAC (Issue-Rule-Analysis-Conclusion) application, for anyone who’s attended law school.
President Bush’s decisions with Iraq tracked consistently with the UNSCRs, including the UN authorities for the US-led occupation, and the US law and policy on Iraq that enforced the UNSCRs.
The structural narrative error committed by most leading pundits who support OIF is they’ll spray facts but miss the necessary law and policy contextual frame to construct a compelling, accurate narrative with the facts.
Professor Victor Davis Hanson, who knows the underlying facts of OIF as well as anyone, is guilty of this. He’ll mention the UNSCRs and US law and policy, but only among his jumbled spray of facts. Hanson fails to lead with and feature the law and policy of OIF as the definitional frame that orders all the facts for a coherent fact pattern.
An informational site linked by Neo – http://reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/ – commits the same error as Hanson. It cites facts about OIF without ordering them into a coherent, compelling narrative in an IRAC manner with the controlling law and policy of OIF.
That is the most extreme and narrow definition of a defensive strategy. I disagree that to be the only correct definition of a defensive strategy.
You were talking about “a ‘fortress’ mindset”, which usually refers to something more extreme than simply adopting a “defensive strategy”.
The mind-set comes before whatever action may be taken and the Trojans were clearly defensive minded.
The military action in the Iliad basically consists of the Trojan sallying forth to try and drive the Greeks away. That’s the complete opposite of “defensive minded”.
IMO, overall so too were the Byzantines, despite occasional lapses where they flirted with an offensive strategy. The Byzantine-Islam conflict lasted for centuries, plenty of time for the Byzantines to develop greater strength, instead they hoped that the problem would eventually go away. The very definition of a defensive mind-set.
The Byzantines were “overall” defensively-orientated because (a) they generally faced threats on multiple fronts, and so couldn’t concentrate troops without leaving other frontiers exposes, and (b) a lot of the time, their enemies were stronger than they were — e.g., for two centuries after the Muslim conquests, the Caliphate stretched from India to the Atlantic, whereas Byzantium was basically just Anatolia plus a few coastal cities in Greece and Italy. Byzantium could — just about — parry Muslim invasions into its heartland, but in terms of offensive actions the best they could hope for was to capture the odd fortress or border city when the Caliph was looking the other way. Trying to take the fight into the Abbasid heartland would have been about as realistic as the Viet Cong trying to occupy New York. I think you’re confusing “fortress mentality” with “not being actively suicidal”.
Incidentally, if you want examples of the perils of an anti-fortress mentality, just looking at the opening stages of WW1. The cult of the offensive which had developed in the previous decades led planners to underestimate the strengths which military technology gave to the tactical defenders, leading to massive casualties as soldiers charged entrenched machine-gun nests.
Neo (asked in 2005): “How does one plan for a war and its aftermath [with Iraq]?”
I can provide several insights, though perhaps not a satisfying answer.
First, to set the baseline, see the White House Briefing on Humanitarian Reconstruction Issues [in case of war with Iraq], from February 24, 2003.
Notable excerpts:
The briefing shows that the military shifting to a muted role in the aftermath was by design because the state-of-the-art, standing peace-operations doctrine at the time, based on 1990s humanitarian missions, was for the military to step back to support GO and IGO humanitarian agencies (especially the UN) taking the lead in the transition to the post-war reconstruction stage.
Second, some personal insight on the military’s ‘Powell Doctrine’-based attitude and doctrinal orientation towards occupation at the time.
Third, our engagement with Iraqi regime change didn’t accelerate from 0 to 60 MPH in March-April 2003. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 wasn’t passive law and policy. It was actively applied by the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration and possibly the HW Bush administration, before the Bush administration, had been working with Iraqi dissidents inside and outside Iraq, actively and openly, towards regime change for years. Which is to say, we didn’t enter the post-war stage wholly unprepared. We entered it with groundwork and relationships – however inadequate they later proved to be to counter the ruthless, aggressive terrorist insurgency – that informed our immediate interactions with the Iraqis upon regime change.
“We didn’t just ‘imagine’ the threat from communism. We aren’t just imagining the threat from Islam.”
”The threat assessment is as suspect as our risk/reward rationalizations. If Islam is a threat — it is — it should be dealt with first where it is most threatening — here, in our government”
While I agree that Islamic infiltration of our government is the greater threat, that internal threat does not obviate the external threat. As for prioritizing one over the other, as long as the democrats hold the WH there is little that can be done to neutralize the internal threat. So insistence upon it being our highest priority while ignoring the outer threat is futile and therefore foolish.
“Droning to death Islam’s culprits on distant sand dunes/bat caves makes no sense.”
Drones have their place in the order of battle. Attacking jihadist’s command and control needs no defense.
“Pax Americana for one. The (so far) prevention of the continued spread of communism.”
”You’re shitin’ me — right? Pullin’ the ole’ leg- yes?”
Not at all but you’re doing a fine job of obfuscating my point. Pax Americana guaranteed unhindered trade, the lifeblood of economies. In the past 20 years what major nation has forthrightly embraced communism? The answer as we all know is none. Communism’s undisguised advancement has been stopped. Communism’s subversive infiltration of America’s institutions is another front and one doomed to ultimately fail. That is because it relies upon lies for its veracity and lies are an inherently unstable foundation.
“Our open borders are the result of Obama’s machinations.”
”You don’t see it, do you? Pax Americana. Spread of communism. Obama’s machinations. It’s three damn dots and you can’t connect them. Three damn dots!”
It’s not that I don’t see the pattern you attempt to draw, I simply disagree. The ONLY connection between the Pax Americana and the spread of communism is the obstacle that the Pax has presented to the spread of communism. Yes, there is a connection between the spread of communism and Obama’s machinations. But Obama’s goal is not purely Marxist. He favors a European style of bureaucratic socialism dominated by non-whites.
Your arguments demonstrate your unfitness to make recommendations. We do have to fight them over there or we will surely fight them over here, as they have repeatedly told us! But… that does not argue that we don’t have a domestic fight as well. I advocate fighting both, you wish to pretend that we can safely ignore the outer threat until it manifests upon our shores.
A “defensive strategy” extends from a fortress mind-set and that mind-set has various permutations.
“The military action in the Iliad basically consists of the Trojan sallying forth to try and drive the Greeks away. “
That’s not my reading of the story. Each side sought domination of the other, when a battle went badly for the Trojan’s they fled within their walls. That option created their defensive mind-set. Fleeing was not an option for the Greeks, which created their offensive mind-set.
Yes the Byzantines faced all that you state. But there’s more to the story. This is the Byzantine empire in 565AD and this is a greatly reduced Byzantine empire in 814AD. I’m asserting that the reason for that reduction is that the Byzantine Empire reacted to Islamic fanaticism with a defensive mind set which resulted in a defensive strategy.
An offensive strategy that badly underestimates the strengths which new military technology gives to the tactical defenders is the result of “generals fighting the last war”. It’s a failure of imagination and understanding that leads to a failure in strategy.
I’m NOT suggesting that a defensive strategy never has value. I am suggesting that a defensive strategy must always be in service of an offensive strategy.
One must chuckle at the Trojan – Byzantine duo.
In economic, political and military terms they were virtually identical in position.
1) Both were economically driven by their total command of the trans Black Sea to Agean Sea trade nexus.
(The Trojan position stood atop/ astride a (fresh) water source critical for any castle/ fortification for that era.)
Their famed ‘horse economy’ is an unwitting reference about the Trojan’s access to unlimited horse flesh grazing across the northern arc of the Black Sea. They weren’t getting their horses locally.
Greek names for cities along the northern Black Sea have been handed down through the generations. After a fashion, Putin is actually ‘conquering Troy’ as we type. (!)
[Mariupol, et. al.]
&&&&&&&&&
FYI the ten-year Trojan campaign was merely ten-months long. That must be evident from the Iliad itself.
In the ancient days, the bigger the event — the longer the time span — to include the ages of the players. Some fellows in the Torah/ Old Testament were granted ages into the centuries by the scribes. (!)
Ten months also explains why the gal was still beautiful (Helen) and the men were not crippled from old age and battle wounds.
The Trojan Horse has also been de-mystified.
The Greeks got the Trojans DRUNK.
After ten months of siege the Trojans where restricted to water!
The Greeks rolled up their fresh supply of (Beaujolais?) in huge ceramic vases — CLEARLY depicted in contemporary art — resting on the base of the Trojan Horse.
Whereas the modern concept of the Trojan Horse is quasi-realistic — actual Trojan Horses pre-existed the battle — as quasi-icons for their own horse worship.
These ALWAYS featured a flat base to hold the legs steady — in effect a cart — and by tradition was a location for gifts.
Sort of a Christmas tree for Trojans.
This annual feast coincided with their annual round up and auction of horse-flesh — which just happened to be hard on their wine celebration. (A Trojan version of October fest — ie beer in Germany.)
[ Does culture ever repeat itself? And HOW. ]
The Trojan way of war was either mounted or aship. The land army prowess of the Spartans was so over-awing (Helen was a Spartan lass) that the universal judgement was that they must be thwarted by high walls.
Athens did the EXACT SAME THING during its war with Sparta… erecting a massive stone wall all of the way around the ancient city — and — down to the port and back — with the port sheltered behind stone walls, too. (!) Yes, it was a back breaker to put in place.
Eventually the Spartans breached that famous wall and Athens fell — without an iconic horse in sight.
The total absence of a naval skirmish with the Greeks strongly implies that the Greeks (deliberately) attacked when the Trojan fleet was off up in the Black Sea.
It stayed there because the Greeks had totally overwhelmed the battle zone with their (fleet) numbers.
That and the Athenians already had a killer reputation at sea. It was hugely based upon BRONZE and the Athenian copper and tin connections. The Athenians were casting staggeringly massive (multi-ton bronze) plow horns for their attack fleet. They had them — and plenty of them — when their rivals didn’t. It was as simple as that. The Athenians had won the strategic arms race — back at the shipyard!
The size of those bronze castings largely explain the missing forests of southern Europe… especially to include Greece. (!)
&&&&&&
Folks, we are suffering the effects of Active Measures — and the arrogance of our in-bred Ivy League elites to ever imagine that they, themselves, have been gamed.
This was the exact same error that did in Hitler and Tojo. Both thought that they had the absolute upper hand in secrecy and encryption.
When that stopped, all Axis victories stopped — pretty much on a dime.
The strategic swing in crypto-dominance during WWII was so important, so hyper-critical, that none of the players has been remotely honest about it.
Indeed, the Internet is STILL being swept to purge accurate historical accounts of the ‘wrong’ battles.
To this very day the MOST important battles of WWII are unknown to the world. They flipped EVERYTHING — but did not involve staggering numbers of troops — nor bullets.
Instead, they merely handed over the oppositions playbook — for the rest of the war!
Suddenly, the Allied Powers couldn’t lose.
Now, with Active Measures roiling the land, we can’t even think straight — which see the blather from Chucky.
GB,
I advocate fighting both, you wish to pretend that we can safely ignore the outer threat until it manifests upon our shores.
It may have escaped your perspicacity, but my entire argument against our foreign adventures, especially but not limited to the Middle East, is not anti-militarism, anti-Americanism, pacifism, but that:
1. we have no vested interest, and especially no vital interest, in certain areas of the world. Ukraine comes to mind. What attention of ours does that country command? To what vested interest, or more remotely, vital interest do we instigate a regime change there? What vested interest, or more remotely vital interest had we in Iraq? Iraq was never, ever, never-ever a threat to the US.
2. we are unprepared, volitionally, to fight to an efficacious conclusion – unlike those we engage. It’s not the long run that dissuades or frightens us — it’s the coup de gré¢ce. We will not engage ruthlessness to win; those we engage are not so timid. Note that it was one military attack that had us scampering out of Beirut, our dead Marines, in body bags, in tow. If our fight is graced by self-preservation, or by good v. evil, then what are we to make of our faint-heartedness? All I can make of it is we have not been convinced for some time now that our safety/existence was at stake nor had we a moral argument to stand on.
3. we are unprepared to define our enemy. A “war on terrorism” is posturing, it is pretense, it stands to sanction military adventurism, perpetual war footing, a burgeoning surveillance state and misdirecting our attention from that which is already manifested on our shores — mosques, and imams, the Ikhwan, and their plots and schemes.
We are in fundamental disagreement. If you would make the world safe for democracy, a better place, a safer place, first make it so where you live. The paragon has much to recommend it. It is persuasive and influential beyond the capacity of all the drones, Talons, Griffins, Tomahwks in all the world’s arsenals. Shock and awe turns out to have been nothing more than hyperbole.
The very learned comments notwithstanding, I think Neo’s concerns are the feeble quality of American leadership on Iran, the grim prospects for pushing back the thugs of the world, and the added sting from seeing today’s events envisioned back in 2006 (thus implying that these setbacks were completely preventable).
Mark30339 : “I think Neo’s concerns are the feeble quality of American leadership on Iran, the grim prospects for pushing back the thugs of the world, and the added sting from seeing today’s events envisioned back in 2006 (thus implying that these setbacks were completely preventable).”
Envisioned back in 1998. The consequential effect if American leadership weakened in the mission to enforce Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCR 660-series resolutions was warned about in 1998.
President Clinton, remarks to Pentagon staff, February 17, 1998: