 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
December 2006
Elsewhere on the WebVictor Davis Hanson’s Private Papers Victor Davis Hanson Archive on National Review OnlineTour Books
A War Like No Other How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War
by Victor Hanson
Amazon.com’s Best of 2001 Many theories have been offered regarding why Western culture has spread so successfully across the world, with arguments ranging from genetics to superior technology to the creation of enlightened economic, moral, and political systems. In Carnage and Culture, military historian Victor Hanson takes all of these factors into account in making a bold, and sure to be controversial, argument: Westerners are more effective killers.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan Hanson, for those who somehow have missed him until now, is a professor of Classics at California State and also is a part time farmer, both of which have contributed to his writing as a military historian. As a classicist, Hanson is well versed in the sources in their original Greek, and as a farmer he understands how agriculture affected the experience of the Greeks at war.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
Hanson relates the life stories of his farmer neighbors, writing that their way of life will likely soon disappear, thanks in part to a federal system of agricultural subsidies that favors large-scale, industrial farm corporations over individual “yeomen.” This is a sobering and eye-opening book. by Victor Davis Hanson On first glance, The Soul of Battle appears to be three different books: biographies of two well-known generals—Sherman and Patton—and one who is virtually unknown today, the ancient Greek leader Epaminondas. Yet Victor Davis Hanson, a classics professor and author of The Western Way of War, makes a compelling connection between these three men. They were “eccentrics, considered unbalanced or worse by their own superiors” who led democratic armies on missions of freedom.
by Robert B. Strassler (Editor), Victor Davis Hanson (Introduction)
|
December 15, 2006 8:23 PM
Things are coming to a headSurging Troops? Putting Iran and Syria on notice that we will bomb terrorists flocking across their borders. Give an ultimatum to militia heads, especially Moqtadar Sadr, to disband or face annihilation from the United States. Expand the rules of engagement in all matters dealing with IEDs, with a shoot on sight rule concerning anyone found implanting or aiding such efforts. Enlarge the planned Iraqi security forces to near 400,000, and embed far more Americans in those units. Recalibrate the ratio of support to combat troops, so that we don’t simply create bigger compounds to facilitate larger troop levels to end up with more stationary and more numerous targets—and ever more enclaves of Americans behind thousands of acres of bermed reserves. So spell out the mission, the new rules of engagement, and then, and only then, surge—if need be— more troops. Meanwhile, are we losing it here at home? Does running for President allow a candidate to freelance at a time of war by talking to our enemies and triangulating against the president? Why is Gov. Richardson talking to North Koreans, or Sen. Kerry trying to talk to the Iranians, or Sen. Bayh to the Syrians? Wouldn’t that be like a Tom DeLay talking to Milosevic to undermine Clinton during the Kosovo bombing? Or Trent Lott dealing with the Taliban as Clinton sent cruise missiles against them? Perhaps in the interest of fairness, readers can cite past examples where Republican Senators and Presidential candidates went abroad, undercut Democratic foreign policy at a time of war, and made statements that were welcomed by our enemies. I know Senators of both parties talked to Saddam in 1989-90 and often nearly empathized with him, but we were not yet at war with him. Nota bene: Senator Nelson just returned from talking in Mr. Assad’s Syria—the serial murderer of Lebanese reformers, the clearinghouse for Hezbollah, the refuge for the killers of Americans in Iraq—with assurances that Syria wishes to be a stabilizing factor in the region. Sen. Kerry in Cairo just praised Hosni Mubarak, lauding him by chastising President Bush’s failure to listen to this voice of reason and his criticisms of the United States. And why not listen to such advice, since this autocrat has been the recipient of billions in American aid, while squelching all reform for some thirty years in the bargain? No doubt Kerry also lectured Mubarak about once hyping the WMD threat (“Mubarak lied, thousands died?”). Remember, the Egyptian strongman, as part of his reservations about Iraq, had warned our generals that American troops would be targeted with gasses of all sorts by Saddam. Kerry also called for new talks with Iran—a rogue state presently in the middle of uranium enrichment, supplying IEDs to the militias in Iraq, promising to wipe out Israel, and hosting a Holocaust denial love fest in Teheran. Surely if the senator once denigrated our own soldiers as terrorizing Iraqis he can at least say that Iranians do the same? Jimmy Carter is publicizing his indictment of Israel as an apartheid state, this apparently awful democracy that is the only country in the present Middle East where Arabs freely vote in safety, publish their views without censorship, and enjoy a material existence unknown in the West Bank. Perhaps he can offer suggestions on how to deal with Iran, since the last time he entered into that diplomatic arena he sent Ramsey Clark as an official envoy to apologize for American sins, to offer a new partnership, and in vain to beg for the return of the hostages. And we know the results of that gambit—and the subsequent moral careers of both the sender and his emissary. The Iraq Study Group insists that it is not in the long-term interest of either Syria or Iran to perpetuate the present chaos (i.e., Americans soldiers and Iraqi reformers being blown up) in Iraq. But Iran’s own military commanders praise the present violence there for tying down American forces, and presumably giving them a pass to continue their bomb-making, whether nuclear or IEDs. Among the most prominent who praise Iran’s positive role is David Duke, who at last has found a kindred host government. So all in all, it’s been a strange week, in a strange war. More still on our panic What to make of this mass depression over events on the ground? Our supposed setback surely is not comparable to the destruction of the entire French army in less than eight weeks in 1940, the flight of the British from Dunkirk, followed in the next 24 months by the surrender of two British armies at Singapore and Tobruk, all of which led to consideration of a writ of censure of Winston Churchill. Nor is our lament comparable to the hysteria that followed the attack on Pearl Harbor, the loss of Wake Island, and the fall of the Philippines. Nor is the panic comparable to the near destruction of an American army when nearly 1 million Chinese crossed the Yalu in November 1950. A variety of reasons. A media that makes Cindy Sheehan, Valerie Plame, Mark Foley’s email, or lies about flushed Korans in Guantanamo into headline stories is itself nearly lunatic. The once quick victories in Afghanistan (8 weeks) and Iraq (3 weeks), following the easy wins over Noriega and Milosevic, unrealistically sent the message that the United States could almost simultaneously win wars without losses and continue to honor its global obligations with a vastly reduced Army and Marines. And the problem in Iraq has not been so much the constant “mistakes” (such lapses happen in every war), as the inability of our government to articulate why we are there and how we will win. The result is that we have almost worked ourselves into some sort of self-induced paralytic state. But on sober reflection, things in fact are hardly lost. There has been no repeat of 9/11. The U.S. military has killed thousands of jihadists. The Taliban and Saddam are gone. There are still democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq struggling to make it, the first in the history of the region. Our troops in the field have high morale and believe they can secure Iraq. And the world, especially in Europe, has become vigilant against Islamic fundamentalism. We are in much better shape that during any of the crises that Churchill, Roosevelt, or Truman all weathered. And while 50 dead every month since 9/11 is a high toll in this war against jihadism, it does not compare to the 8,000 plus killed from December 1941 to August 1945, a war that similarly started out with a surprise, though less lethal attack on the United states. The World’s Wars Off the battlefield this past year Muslims were threatening Danish cartoonists, the Pope, Salman Rushdie again, German opera producers, French high-school teachers, and Dutch filmmakers. The common denominator in all this is not, pace the Western Left, the nefarious United States, its Patriot Act or wiretaps, but rather Islamic extremists—mad that the modern world both excites them, and ignores and passes them by. And of course they play to the millions of their brethren appeasers who don’t really want these radicals to bring them a Taliban Dark Ages, but sorta, kinda, like the idea that they kill a few of those arrogant infidel Westerners as blood sport. Like Watching the Oedipus or Ajax? The war since 9/11 is sort of like a Greek tragedy whose end we all anticipate, but apparently have no means to avoid. We tried to remove the worst of the Middle East’s murdering regimes, and to offer in their places consensual governments that might serve as models how Muslims need not kill each other, and need not ruin their economies and oppress the innocent. But all the while Islamic jihadism keeps trying to repeat September 11, with the clandestine aid—whether sanctuary, cash, or arms—from Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. We periodically arrest these wannabe terrorists as we kill jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq. But at some point, it is likely, whether from sheer exhaustion or from our own internecine squabbling here at home, we will lower, if even for a second, our guard, and thus experience another mass murdering. And then the United States will be in a quandary, realizing that a sophisticated, and complex society cannot long endure with a catastrophic attack on its homeland about every five years from radical Islamists who count on their sponsors claiming deniability of culpability. At that point, we will either unload on host nations, or John Kerry/Jimmy Carter our way out of it through concessions and beseeching. Either way something either frightening or creepy is in store for us all—unless we begin to get serious and secure both Afghanistan and Iraq, and put Syria and Iran on notice that they will be held collectively responsible for any of their jihadist terrorists who kill outside their borders.
Comments (62)Alex Reed :Alain :100,000 more troops? From where? As it is the Army barely manages to keep up the present numbers. And that is with massive re-up bonuses. Ritchie Emmons :Thanks again Dr. Hanson. I know you've been accused by some for repeating yourself on the topics you've addressed here, but I for one never tire of it. PLEASE don't stop. Junius :Of course, there is the Logan Act, which of course ended up sending Dr. George Logan to the US Senate instead of prison. The date that the IRG thrust in my head is 1956. Just as the US told the UK, France, and Israel to clear out of Egypt, and leave the Middle East to the Arabs, so too the ISG has told America to clear out of Iraq and leave the Islamic world to the Muslims. The 1956 Suez Crisis led directly to the overthrow of the pro-West Iraqi monarchy in 1958, and the landing of US Marines in Lebanon that same year. cfbleachers :A very strange recent few weeks indeed. It appears that we must relearn our ABC's. Baker, Carter and Duke have grabbed the headlines recently and it appears they have been searching high and low for someone to fill the missing "A" in their alphabet. Baker wishes to ignore history, because he views it as too messy and inconvenient...and Israel is a small price to pay. Carter wishes to rewrite history, because it bears witness to his sordid, infeffectual and weakling past...and Israel is a small price to pay. Duke wishes to repeat history, because blind hatred is an opiate for a bigot...and all the sons and daughters of Israel are a small price to pay. So off they go to find the perfect "A" when they come upon Ahmadinejad...who gleefully agrees that Israel is indeed a very, very, small price to pay and by the way, he is quite willing to lead the charges. ABCD, now in place... perfectly aligned. And our honor as a nation, is a small price to pay. "Now we know our ABC's, next time please Quisling with me". (And John Kerry does exactly that). It's been a strange, strange few weeks at that. We have become a nation that has allowed individuals to declae anomy the new religion. Each man is an island unto himself, whereby he gets to declare side agreements, open negotiations, undermine national policy, and carve out his "consituency charter", separate and apart from any collective action. The media, now a political arm of the left, does the same. It creates "caricatures of truth" for us to absorb, so that we may come to "their" conclusions and thereby support the "general notion" of "truth" as they see it. Photoshopped pictures, staged scenes, invisible sources...no matter. The press is its own nation state and therefore owns the "truth" and fake but "kinda accurate" is good enough for us. They are only casting pearls before swine anyway. The media is its own nation state. Failed, ineffectual and weakling ex-politicos are their own nation state. Senators and members of Congress representing a fraction of us are their own nation state. I suppose next that ward committemen and deputy mayors should be allowed to set national and American global policy as well. It's been a very, very strange few weeks indeed. I'm at a loss for how to explain our democratic process any longer. I did not vote for Carter to set policy for me and last I looked, he didn't win. Nor did I vote for Kerry. He's not from my district....and I am singularly unimpressed with his work to date. Last I looked, he held no national office. I have not relinquished my desire for truth, facts and evidence to the media, no matter how much they believe in their political agenda. It's been a very, very strange few weeks indeed. Because I see the rages of anomy and watch as the fabric of our system of self-governance gets torn, bit by bit by bit. Who speaks for this nation? And when will sedition by grandstanding be made to stop?
Dave Begley - Omaha :The fact that John Kerry was almost elected president of the United States still is startling to me. By any objective measure, he was unaccomplished, spoiled, untested, arrogant, weak, two-faced and just plain stupid. And he was going to lead the world's sole hyperpower in war? Right. The only thing he is good at is marrying rich women. And the constitution is very specific: we have one Commander-in-Chief and the Executive deals solely with foreign powers. We don't have 535 people acting as both generals and diplomats for our country. About two weeks ago the moron Anderson Cooper was speaking with the "expert" David Rodham Gergen and remarking how astounding it is that "one man" was in charge of the military. Read the consitution you dope! That is, by the way, how we run the country. Not by committee or consensus. You don't win wars by committee or consensus. It was Alexander the Great - not a committee - that conquered the world. Thomas Leak :Minor correction: The second British army surrendered at Tobruk, in Libya. Judith :Go straight for the jugular, I say. No putting Iran & Syria "on notice," as you say. These regimes have already brought the war to us as their insurgents & weapons are used to kill our soldiers in Iraq. The lethal destabilizing foreign invaders in Iraq are Al-Qaeda & a motley mix of Jihadi-followers from predominantly Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia & Egypt. It's long overdue that the USAF bomb the terrorist training camps in Iran & Syria...who's the superpower here? As Churchill declared, "victory first, then negotiate." So, bring a no-hands-tied-behind-the-back offensive US strategy to Iran to counter & topple their strategy of distracting us as they finish building their nuclear bombs. In the spirit of Chanukah, allow me to stretch the analogy to the valiant band of Maccabees who in 164 BCE strategized in their revolt against the Assyrian-Greeks to ruthlessly "clean house," first, w/o compromise, ridding the foreign Greek invaders from Israel. And clean house they did; literarily sweeping the enemy's idol of Zeus & other pagan remnants from the reclaimed Jewish Temple...defeating Antiochus Epiphanes' army, to gloriously prevail w/ the establishment of the Hashmonean Jewish sovereignty in Israel lasting through the following century. Similarly, until the US & Iraqis muster the will to offensively clean the Iraqi house of the provocative Iranian & Syrian influence all the additional US troops won't make much of a difference. On the home front, of course we need leadership. Too often Bush appears to stand strong on his instincts, but goes wobbly on his resolve. Bush needs to stop trying to please everyone; promoting bipartisan/ Baker ISG type "consensus." A good leader, who may have to stand alone, is also a teacher. Bush should educate a weary American public about his reinvigorated, strongly defined winning strategy & about the true nature of the Islamo-fascist enemy & why its destruction is also in our interest. Americans can handle the truth. Rex :We don't need two more Marine divisions; what we need to do is bring them back to their maximum strength. I remember when each bn had 4 rifle companys. I remember when we didn't have units in cadre. I remember when a jet squadron had 20 aircraft. I remember when the manning level wasn't set at 80% T/O. In short, we could add 40,000 Marines under the current force structure without adding divisions. Anonymous :I've read two books recently that have made me realize that we Americans don't really know what's going on. One is The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr. The other is Reaching for Power by Yitzhak Nakach. They explain the differences between Sunnis and Shiites, and trace the history of the two. Khomeini, for example, was not a tradtional Shiite. He was a revolutionary with Marxist ideas. He seizure of power and putting religious clerics in control of government was totally contrary to Shia principles. The Iraqi Shia are not interested in becoming part of Iran, because the former are Arabs and the latter are Persians. The only columnist I've seen who recognizes that the Sunni-Shiite split is potentially much more explosive for Muslims than the existence of Israel is Ralph Peters. He says we need to take sides and seems to favor the Shiites. I don't know what the answer is, but I think we'd make better decisions if we really understood who the players really are. We can't expect them to be big fans of the U.S., because they don't appreciate the way we seem to treat them like children. Iraq used to be the main center of learning for Muslims, especially Shiites. They're not ignorant by any means. John R :How about war bonds? We could raise the money and not encourage the pols to tax when in doubt. DemocracyRules :“WINNING” IS NOT THE GOAL IN IRAQ, ANYWAY! I am stunned that the MSM has duped the blogosphere into framing Iraq within the context of “winning” and “losing”. The objectives of the Iraq war were to topple Saddam for good, and replace him with a form of democracy that most Iraqis wanted. You’re done! (And, if you like, you’ve won.) Not surprisingly, the Iraqis, after having lived for almost all of their more than 5000 year history under tyranny, are stumbling a bit, but not much, as democracies go. It took the US about 200 years to truly free blacks (or perhaps, you’re not even done yet – where are the black-white love scenes in the popular media?). Canada was not even remotely a democracy until the 1920's (Universal Suffrage – except for Indians, no Bill of Rights until 1950's-60's). France returned to an Emperor in the 1880's, and democracy there still looks shaky to me. Every democracy developed very slowly, but Iraq is rocket fast. At this point, few Iraqi fighters are directly attacking the Allies – they have mainly accepted their presence, and are now attacking each other (does the murder rate compare with Detroit, yet?). The way to know you have WON in Iraq is when the withdrawal is ragged, loose, and ad hoc. Good parents withdraw from control of their growing children’s lives in a way that is quite ragged, loose, and ad hoc. The parent encourages self-sufficiency and independence, but freely permits back-sliding if it seems appropriate. Parents always worry about their kids, and they are always there to help until the end. The US still has troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea (why, by the way?). If the US withdrew tomorrow, they could probably achieve their goal of not being attacked at home by Iraq-based terrorists. Iraq is not, and probably will not become a failed state. If it did, re-intervention is completely possible, and history is full of such events. Britain has re-stabilized Iraq before, and in Basra, in some cases they re-occupied buildings that they left from last time. The MSM fantasizes that the Iraq war has to be punctuated at the end by some type of “Clear Win”. Why? What, exactly would that be, anyway? Curly Smith :Victory in Iraq will requires repudiation of our fundamental foreign policy objective "Punish our allies, Reward our enemies". The inability to reach an Israeli-Palestine peace largely flows from this misguided objective, as does the continued interference by Iran and Syria in Iraq. Why should Moqtadar Sadr disband his militia? The more people he kills the more stuff we promise to give him. It's the old Yassar Arafat model, no updates or modifications, and our esteemed government officials can't understand why it's not working. As I see it, there are three main groups in Iraq. First, we have those who are peacefully working for a free democratic Iraq - we must reward this behavior. Second, we have those who are just getting on with their lives; they've nonviolent but are largely content to wait and see who wins - we must also reward this behavior. Last, we have those who wish to instill their own vision through violence, like Moqtadar Sadr, and these, as Dr. Hanson states, we must annihilate. In other words, we have to implement the "Reward Allies, Punish Enemies" program. Unfortunately, the brain trust in Washington can't figure out that rewarding bad behavior just guarantees more bad behavior. The public, quite rightly in my mind, is well past impatient with the "Peace Process" mentality that hasn't shown any results with Israel and the Palestinians and they see the same scenario playing out in Iraq. Who wants to keep the troops in Iraq for the next 173 years? Maybe it's time to pick sides... don't I recall something about a "Bush Doctrine"? I guess not, else we'd be following it. Anonymous :Dear Prof. Hanson, you say: "Why is Gov. Richardson talking to North Koreans, or Sen. Kerry trying to talk to the Iranians, or Sen. Bayh to the Syrians? Wouldn’t that be like a Tom DeLay talking to Milosevic to undermine Clinton during the Kosovo bombing? Or Trent Lott dealing with the Taliban as Clinton sent cruise missiles against them?... I know Senators of both parties talked to Saddam in 1989-90 and often nearly empathized with him, but we were not yet at war with him." You seem to undercut your own argument here. The United States is NOT- repeat NOT- at war with Syria, Iran, or even N. Korea. If Kerry had visited BAGHDAD before the recent invasion to talk to Saddam, then that might be analogous to "Trent Lott dealing with the Taliban." The visits of Kerry et al. are more like the visits to Saddam in 1989 that you defend. While it is true that N. Korea is our intractable enemy, it is conceivable that Syria and even Iran could convinced to change course sometime in the relatively near future. Will the price be too high? Quite possibly. But it's impossible to know unless we talk to them. William :We get 100,000 troops by replacing regular army troops in Japan, Germany, Okinawa, Hawaii, etc. with Reservists and National Guardsmen. Les Brunswick :"Give an ultimatum to militia heads, especially Moqtadar Sadr, to disband or face annihilation from the United States" The problem is that Iraq has a parlimentary form of government, and the two strongest militias are arms of the two biggest members of the ruling coalition. For that reason Maliki has been strongly resisting US action against the militias. If he didn't, SCIRI and Sadr's organization would withdraw, and the government would fall. If the US decided to go ahead over Maliki's objections, we would be at war with not just the Sunni insurgency but also the elected Iraqi government. If that is what you are proposing, Victor, then say so and tell us how you think it would play out. USMC Ken :We could add 100,000 more troops, if we had the will to do so. We are a nation of 300 million. We can make a bigger military. Recruiting more troops is a function of spending more money to create more recruiters to send them out recruiting more people. And of putting those recruiters where there is the largest pool of potential recruits. How did the National Guard make their recruiting quotas? By sending out more recruiters. As it is now, the limited recruiting budget is further hamstrung by having to have some recruiters in pretty much every congressional district. So, we waste resources in places where the population has little interest in serving, like the Northeast and Northwest and urban midwest, and short-change places like Texas, the South and the West. Further, expending more recruiting dollars and assigning more recruiting personnel to the South, West and Texas will benefit the infantry because those are the places where you recruit most combat arms personnel, while the other regions send more support types. Ted :"By any objective measure, he was unaccomplished, spoiled, untested, arrogant, weak, two-faced and just plain stupid. " With the use of this phrase by a Bush supporter to describe John Kerry, irony passed into death, Dec. 16, 2006. mark k benenson :100,000 more is de minimus. In WWII from a population half what it is now, and in a country vastly poorer, we raised a military of over 8,000,000. Today it is about 1.5 million. Surely with little strain we could double our force, putting us in a position to face down all our enemies without actually having to fight them. AJB :A media that makes Cindy Sheehan, Valerie Plame, Mark Foley’s email, or lies about flushed Korans in Guantanamo into headline stories is itself nearly lunatic. You forgot semen stained dress. Old Patriot :Your comments about more men is right on target. I have suggested, many times, that the US military needs to be expanded by 24 Brigade Combat Teams - 16 Army (10 active, 3 Reserve, 3 Guard) and 8 Marine (6 active, 2 reserve). The manpower will be there if the pitch is made correctly that we are in a decades-long war against totalitarianism, and the US MUST win to stay free. There are some standards that can be relaxed that won't hurt the overall combat capability of the US military, but which keep many dedicated people on the sidelines. Rules of engagement in this war are a joke. We should be refurbishing B-52D models as fast as we can, and use them as we did in Vietnam: both as a combat strike, and as a psychologically devastating weapon. Ask anyone even near such a strike and they will confess to their terror. The one thing we haven't done in this war that is a must is to convince the enemy that it's not in his best interest to keep fighting. A few ARCLIGHT missions down through the heart of "indian country" would change a lot of hearts and minds - or at least make our enemy a little more fearful of the fighting strength of the US. jon galacek :And how do you propose we annihilate al-Sadr's militia short of flattening the neighborhoods and cities he controls? How do you propose we separate civilian from combatant in your plan to attack those crossing the borders? How many civilians are we going to kill with your shoot on sight rule for IEDs? The usual problem with counterinsurgency warfare is that the occupying power uses force as a blunt instrument, killing civilians and destroying cities as if it were a conventional conflict, alienating the population and driving them to support the insurgents. We have been making this mistake for years already in this conflict. Your plan to kill them all and let God sort them out will only make us more enemies, unless of course you are willing to go to the extreme of doing what Saddam himself did to Iraq, indiscriminately murdering civilians and terrorizing the entire population into submission. (I guess I wouldn't put it past you.) The reason we need more troops is so we can protect the population, maintain law and order, win the support of the population and methodically root out insurgents as we facilitate national reconciliation and build a government. At this point it is probably too late for such a strategy would succeed, but it is the only strategy that has any chance of success. I'm still waiting for the day when you recommend a political or military strategy that doesn't involve "annihilation." Your suggestions always seem to involve more killing when the first round of killing doesn't turn out how you hoped. Terry Gain :cfbleachers, Your poetic summary of the current situation is brilliant. Thank you. I suggest the Rules Of Engagement be changed to provide that anyome carrying a weapon in public who is not authorized to do so should be shot on sight. No doubt harsh, but I believe effective- and in the long run, compassionate. Russ :I wish we could put 100,000 more in the field, but the problem is where to base them. We've shut down a lot of major installations, and opening up new ones would cause quite the shrieking amongst the activists. No Congressman would stand by and let a new tank range, with all that implies(noise, pollution, expended ammo, etc) in their district. This is all a consequence of the short-sighted "peace dividend." Remember this the next time someone says there is no threat and we need to reduce the defense budget. Richard McConchie :I'm not sure how it works as an analogy, but "the valiant band of Maccabees" sound like jihadis to me, and I suspect that we are the Greeks. Jimmy :A collapsed Iran/Syria would be better than what we have now. Cruise missiles make good diplomacy for the likes of Ahmadinejhad. We might not have the troops, yet, but that doesn't let them off the hook. Sure that might make them heroes, but nobody really remembers dead heroes as long as they remember the heroes that won and died of old age. And before we hear these pretenses about "collateral damage" large segments of the muslim population support terror attacks consistently in the polls, they elected hamas no less, and I remember the pictures of palestinians dancing in the streets for 3 days after 9/11. Part of the rethinking of the rules of engagement is to really analyze who is a civilian and who is a combatant because old women are suiting up bomb vests too. The enemy makes use of human shields and we allow that. That has to stop. patrick k. neid :just a simple question...... if, as the President has stated, we are in a war on terror and the states that harbor, fund and encourage them why are the known leaders of sudan, syria, iran, hamas, hezbollah and al sadr still alive? we know where they are at virtually all times. why do they continue to live spewing hate and funding death and mayhem against our civilians, soldiers and western civilization not to mention their own societies? these political leaders are the new generals in this 21st century war. until folks realize we are in a war--not some stupid clintonite criminal affair--we have no chance of victory. again a very simple question. are we in a war? if the answer is yes we should be killing, by any means, short of nuclear, all enemy combatants--political or otherwise. when new leaders replace them we should kill them also. how the rest of the muslim world feels about it is irrelevant. we were not concerned how the japanese or the germans felt. we devastated all of their societies and induced starvation and all manner of horrors so they would forever give up their death cults--Nazism and Shintoism, all very similar to radical islam. if radical islam is for real we have no clue what is coming much like europe and america sans 1936. patrick k. neid :just a simple question...... if, as the President has stated, we are in a war on terror and the states that harbor, fund and encourage them why are the known leaders of sudan, syria, iran, hamas, hezbollah and al sadr still alive? we know where they are at virtually all times. why do they continue to live spewing hate and funding death and mayhem against our civilians, soldiers and western civilization not to mention their own societies? these political leaders are the new generals in this 21st century war. until folks realize we are in a war--not some stupid clintonite criminal affair--we have no chance of victory. again a very simple question. are we in a war? if the answer is yes we should be killing, by any means, short of nuclear, all enemy combatants--political or otherwise. when new leaders replace them we should kill them also. how the rest of the muslim world feels about it is irrelevant. we were not concerned how the japanese or the germans felt. we devastated all of their societies and induced starvation and all manner of horrors so they would forever give up their death cults--Nazism and Shintoism, all very similar to radical islam. if radical islam is for real we have no clue what is coming much like europe and america sans 1936. Alexander Baldal :The solution to the whole mess is obvious to any civilised THINKING individual. Start using free or renewable enrgy sources and inventions. That will free us all from the mad greed for oil and stop all the violence around it. It will start the beginning of civilisation. Up to today civiisation has not yet started, the barbarians have been for 2000 years and still are in charge. Civil people would use free magnet energy as invented by Tesla, Tom Bearden and Steorn. Pollution free, violence free, the stuff that peace is made of. Alexander Baldal :The solution to the whole mess is obvious to any civilised THINKING individual. Start using free or renewable enrgy sources and inventions. That will free us all from the mad greed for oil and stop all the violence around it. It will start the beginning of civilisation. Up to today civiisation has not yet started, the barbarians have been for 2000 years and still are in charge. Civil people would use free magnet energy as invented by Tesla, Tom Bearden and Steorn. Pollution free, violence free, the stuff that peace is made of. Mark :Excellent piece Mr. Hanson, Going into Iraq, to me, was like going to the doctor knowing you were sick but not really wanting to know how bad it was and then when you got blood tests and x-rays finding out your body was poisoned and it was going to be a struggle to get healed. The Middle East and Iraq were much more full of jihadism and violence then we could really assess from spy satellites or HUMINT and we really had to not only get in there but get in there and get rid of some of it. The side effects of removing some of the disease were worse than the previous symptoms though noone really knows how bad the disease would have gotten if left untreated. Much of MSM and "conventional wisdom" is that if we'd just left the disease alone it wouldn't have been a problem, as long as we pretended it wasn't there. For many of us, it was always there and we couldn't turn our heads. Tom Paine :"Getting tough" with Iran and Syria is good, and probably necessary. "Sustainability" is the problem. Such an effort will need more than 2-3 months, which is all it will get from the public under present circumstances. Sustainability is governed by politics, which is controlled by media. (Note that I do not say "the media"). The administration understands this but has failed so far to come up with a way to "reach past" the MSM portion of the media to "catch the American people in the heart". Bush (and others) have explained the intellectual arguments (ad infinitum), and these are clear to everyone paying attention and not in automatic rejection mode. But most people aren't paying attention on that level (and really don't have the time). Instead, their emotions are being controlled, and worn down, by the 24/7 negative "impressions" that they get through the MSM (which won't report the full story). "Alternate channels of information" are urgently needed. E.g. the White House website could take the Washington Post website as its model and aim for the same levels of "production quality" (with an administration editorial slant of course). E.g. teams of military "videographers" could be assigned to Iraq with production of "Frontline" quality documentaries as their model (different editorial focus of course). Etc. Where is the video of soldiers who have acted heroically; where are the documentaries of Iraqi kids flown to military hospitals; where are the documentaries of infrastructure projects completed despite bureaucracy, insurgent attacks, and all the other third-world and wartime obstacles? MIA. Americans cannot be proud of what they do not know about. But if we did know... sustainability would evaporate as a problem. Byron :I do wonder what disbanding militias means in practice. These are not regular troops, so they will just hide their weapons, melt back into their civilian roles, and reassemble as needed. These guys like to fight, are convinced their cause is just, and what they are doing is far more exciting and fulfilling than anything else has ever been in their lives or is likely to be in the future. Do we really think they are going to go back and settle down to lives of repairing bicycles, waiting tables, or whatever? Not likely. I think what's required is to lure them out into open fighting, where they can be taken down permanently. Alexander Baldal :The solution to the whole mess is obvious to any civilised THINKING individual. Start using free or renewable enrgy sources and inventions. That will free us all from the mad greed for oil and stop all the violence around it. It will start the beginning of civilisation. Up to today civiisation has not yet started, the barbarians have been for 2000 years and still are in charge. Civil people would use free magnet energy as invented by Tesla, Tom Bearden and Steorn. Pollution free, violence free, the stuff that peace is made of. tom :"the taliban are gone"? Do you follow any news of Afghanistan? Sorry, but you are not to trusted as to fact or opinion. William :I hate to spoil things, but a few points. "I know Senators of both parties talked to Saddam in 1989-90 and often nearly empathized with him, but we were not yet at war with him." Second, Egypt is the second largest receiver of US foreign aid behind Israel. If you don't like Mubarak, I would start with the billions he receives from our government, and then move down to amiable comments he receives from our senators. I will say it is very heartening to hear our current war compared to WWII. We are doing better now than then, albeit the enemies we face now are nowhere near as powerful, and I still believe we can be doing better. Much better. Barry :I bet we pull a Nam run and leave the place to straighten itself out. Boghie :To all, The yakking about the manning and force structure for the Marine Corps - and I assume the Army - is not up to speed. For all you might think about Rumsfeld, he has helped create about 20,000 more Marine ground pounders since the first budget he had any influence over. He 'moved the spiquet' down on the water barrel. There are far fewer support personnel wearing green than before 2002. And, that does not include the 20,000 more personnel in pure force structure numbers. The Corps now has about 185,000. That is a bit better than the 162,000 Rumsfeld and Bush inherited after years of the peace and prosperity of appeasement. My understanding is the Army is undergoing the same transformation – in effect modeling itself after the Marine Corps. That is pissing lots of folks off, but it is necessary. Our Army under Clinton/Shinseki was a peacetime army – with half of it reserves. There was no way we could have created the force structure of 400,000+ ground forces remarked upon by General Shinseki under the force structure created by Clinton/Shinseki. Our Active duty Army stood at about 390,000 in 2002, it apparently stands at a bit over 500,000 personnel now. So, since FY2000 we have increased our force structure and manning structure by over 130,000 personnel – with a much greater percentage of those being ground pounders. This ain’t the Vietnam era folks. It ain’t even the Desert Storm military. My concern is that it still does not respect the information era it finds itself in. Some of the outsourcing implemented since the mid-90’s (and through the Rumsfeld era) will, and has, resulted in a capability gap that is manifesting itself on the battlefield. When was the last time you read something like ‘Delete from TbPerps Where’ (Belmont Club, Thursday, September 09, 2004 - I guess I can't create links here)? You should be reading commentary like that all the time in the modern era. Regardless, our ground force structure is still too small if we have to station 200,000 personnel in the Middle East and Africa. Teflon Don :Dr. Hanson: Give an ultimatum to militia heads, especially Moqtadar Sadr, to disband or face annihilation from the United States. Easy to say, difficult to do. Al-Sadr's private army numbers over 30,000, according to reports, and extends itself into the army, the police, and various branches of government. He is not likely to disband, particularly given Maliki's reluctance to turn on Al-Sadr. Fighting him would likely prove not only impossible, but incredibly destructive to the future of Iraq. Expand the rules of engagement in all matters dealing with IEDs, with a shoot on sight rule concerning anyone found implanting or aiding such efforts. Already done. The acts of constructing, emplacing, and detonating IEDs have always been solid grounds for engagement, with lethal force if necessary. *note: we stand to gain more from grabbing the guy and getting to his friends than we do by killing him outright* Recalibrate the ratio of support to combat troops, so that we don’t simply create bigger compounds to facilitate larger troop levels to end up with more stationary and more numerous targets—and ever more enclaves of Americans behind thousands of acres of bermed reserves. Oh, please yes! I've been saying this, other people in the military have been saying this, hell, even the new military counter-insurgency manual says this. Now, it just needs to happen. Terry Gain : Here's the problem: Everyone in Iraq is authorized 1 AK-47 (or similar weapon) and a magazine of ammunition. There's really no way to tell at first glance if someone holding an AK is a permit-carrying citizen, or an insurgent.
tom swift :The idea that oil and gas are merely something to be taxed whenever someone sees a need for funds somewhere is pernicious. The ripple effect is colossal - an increase in oil or gas prices raises the price of everything. The United States is a big place; everything we use, everything we wear, everything we eat, or repair our cars with, or write on, or live in, has to be transported from somewhere else, and on average it has to be transported a good distance. That must be done by gas or oil-fuelled vehicles - trucks, trains, ships, or aircraft. Horses and wind-powered East Indiamen won't do the job. Raise the cost of transportation by x cents per mile, and what happens to retail prices? Or perhaps that's backwards - what happens to sales? It's a formula for recession. Not to mention, another excuse to raise postal rates. Michael Reynolds :A few problems with your ideas: 1. Are terrorists demonstrably "flocking" over the Syrian and Iranian borders now? What evidence is there of it? What evidence is there that we refrain from bombing them now? 2. In the same way: are we not already "shooting on sight" all those we catch planting IEDs? You imply we are not; what is your evidence? 3. re Muqtada Sadr: why bother with the ultimatum before we annihilate him? Why give him warning at all? 4. Some have asked why we can't win this like we did WWII. Here's what that would mean: pull back initially, let the jihadis set up their crackpot regime in Tikrit, Ramadi, Baquba, Fallujah et al. Stephennnn :I'll be right behind you when you and your family volunteer to fight this noble war. TBranin :The butcher's bill will have to be paid before Islamofacism goes away. In this regard see, [www.theobjectivestandard.com/iss...] Michael Smith :And how do you propose we annihilate al-Sadr's militia short of flattening the neighborhoods and cities he controls? How do you propose we separate civilian from combatant in your plan to attack those crossing the borders? How many civilians are we going to kill with your shoot on sight rule for IEDs? 1) We should, in fact, flatten those neighborhoods using airpower like the ARCLIGHT strikes mentioned by another poster. 2) We should make it clear that anyone crossing the border anywhere other than at an officially approved crossing point is a legitimate target and will be killed if possible. 3) We should shoot to kill anyone seen planting an IED or a suspected IED, be they civilian or otherwise. In any conflict between those attempting to establish a free society and those seeking, instead, to create a totalitarian dictatorship of any sort -- including an Islamic totalitarian state -- the responsibility for ALL deaths, including the deaths of any civilians, is the sole responsibility of the totalitarians that make the war and the killings necessary. It is the Islamic totalitarians of every type -- al Qaeda, Baathist insurgent, death squad leader, etc -- that must bear ALL the moral guilt for the death of any "innocents" in a war. Jerry K. :Let's not forget that what is actually happening in Iraq has not been accurately portrayed in the US media, so any feelings or understandings that have been developed by US citizens in response to such media portrayals are being used to convince their compatriot US citizens that things in Iraq are going worse than actually they are. Not to say that things in Iraq are not bad, but in the long view of history - are they really any worse, or are they actually much better, based on total Iraq citizenry percentages (i.e., numbers being killed and by whom). What's happening is that US politicians like JF'nK are working to undermine the US military's ability to actually do the job the President sent them to do. The politicians are as much to blame for conditions in Iraq as anything resembling civil war. The politicians restrict our troops from actually doing their jobs. jon.galacek :Your moral absolutism is convenient but it does not help us win this war. When we are indiscriminately bombing and shooting at combatants and civilians, unable to distinguish friend from foe from neutral from innocent bystander, the Iraqis are not going to blame "Islamic totalitarians," they are going to blame us. If you read my post, my main objection to Hanson's strategy is not moral but practical; how do we win the support of the population and end this war? (Though I guess my moral objections are pretty clear, if implicit.) You must also recognize that Iraqis are not convinced, as you are, that we are attempting to establish a free society against those who want totalitarian dictatorship. They trust the militia and insurgent leaders far more than they trust us, and they support the goals of these leaders far more than they support our goals. Whatever government we leave behind will not survive under such circumstances. For me, your post epitomize the problem with thinking on this war, a problem VDH shares. You believe that the inherent righteousness of our cause makes it so that any means justifies our ends, no matter what the consequences, how practical are our ends, how productive or counterproductive are our means, how convinced others are at the righteousness of our cause, what the costs of the policy is, how many innocents are killed, etc. Declaring our unimpeachable moral superiority and killing all who oppose us is no way to accomplish anything. Look, if you want to flatten the neighborhoods al-Sadr controls, be prepared to flatten almost half of Baghdad. We'll see how grateful the Iraqis are for our "help" after that, and where they place the "moral guilt" for civilian deaths. harrison :Anyone who refuses to recognise the sheer reality that we are already at war with Syria and Iran as of now - albeit at the budding stage of proxy war - is delusional. As such, their blatant funding of Hezbollah in Lebanon, assassination of Lebanese politicians, rearming Palestinian militants and Hamas, resupplying and training Shiite militias and death squads in Iraq - undeniable casus belli for us to seize the initiative and start taking out our enemies - clearly defined as those who would threaten stability - Shiite or Sunni. From what I can gather so far, the inevitability of the scenario in which we are forced to back Sadrist militias and death squads in support for Iraqi sovereignty against al-Hakim's Badr Brigades and Iranian hegemony with which it threatens to foist upon Iraqis is evidently already proceeding towards manifestation. Here's where we abandon – not the Iraqis – our appeasement strategy with the militias, because if we can hardly control factors that are out of our control – in this case, Iran, Syria and possibly the Saudis in the future – then we might as well start eradicating the established patrons of such external aid. The Shiites either play by our rules, or we deal with them in the only language they understand: force. Shiites, and by extension Sunnis, Kurds and all of Iraq value their nation's sovereignty – heck, even if they don't, we do! wade :look, i know you get a different perspective on things when you view them from cloud-cuckoo land, but down here on planet earth things like carpet bombing civilian neighbourhoods and indiscriminately killing refugees fleeing from the war that you have inflicted on them are bad things (i'm assuming you do at least believe in the concepts of right and wrong and morality). The "they made me do it" defence doesn't wash, sorry, you don't get to do as you please unless and until you have actually been invaded - certainly not when you are a guest in someone elses country. Peace. Scott Malensek :Outstanding article. Dead nuts on the money. The only thing I'd suggest would be something too large to include: the deliberate misleading of Americans and the world by the leaders of the Democratic Party, the traditional media, and unofficial leaders of the left. The rhetorical runup to war with Iraq was mentioned at the end of January 2002, but then cast aside by the right until the 9/12/02 address to the UN. From January to June there was no anti-war movement, but then Gov Dean (encouraged by the DLC conference that June) tried to fuel the anti-war movement by giving the false impression that there was an option to war...that the 1991-2002 US war on Iraq which had compelled Bin Laden to start killing Americans and reform Al Queda was somehow going to go away. Even today most Americans look at the period between Desert Storm and the invasion of Iraq as a peaceful time, but the view in the Arab Street was quite different. The war had to end, and since all other means to end the war (at least 4 coups, at least 3 rebellions, nearly 60 assassination attempts, 4 air campaigns, 2 sustained air campaigns, sanctions/blockade, bribes, offers of exile and amnesty) had all failed the last resort was invasion. Gov Dean and the political left as well as the mass media chose to pretend that inspections would prove every tin can of anthrax in Iraq had been accounted for, but Dr Butler, Dr Blix, even Scott Ritter all admit that 100% compliance could never be guaranteed, and though the saying is, "close only counts in hand grenades and nuclear weapons"...it counts as well in vials of botulinum toxin. No, the pics from the ISG report prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that inspections could never have proven Saddam was compliant with the UN, and even if he were-are we to believe that a negotiated/agreed upon peace would forever last with a man who had never once fulfilled an agreement, or that his calls for vengence were as solid as DNC political rhetoric in the 2006 midterms re A New Direction in Iraq? Here's an idea...never trust a dictator. The other ISG group has done a nice job trying to provide political cover for the Democrats in allowing them a way to appear bi-partisan and support the same objective as the President's (the only viable and acceptable objective), but it's too late. The anti-war monster created in 2002 has come to believe anything-anything except that there is a rational reason to be in Iraq. Now, the left is hiding from their pledges of immediate withdrawal. Why? Because they promised it, but realize they can't afford to live with its consequences. Now that they have power, they are simply afraid to use it and do what they promised. Why? Because they marketed a cure that's worse than the disease. It started election night when Gov Dean admitted their big campaign mantra of "A New Direction In Iraq" was just hot air-they hadn't even formed a group to consider what the new direction might be. Spea ker Pelosi was next when she said immediate withdrawal was not on the table. Then came the brilliant work of the ISG-a group packed with military minds like Vernon Jordan's and Sandra Day O Conner, and they tried to sell the idea that immediate withdrawal isn't a good idea as well. Now we have Sen Majority leader Reid doing it as well. One need look no further than the rejection of Rep Murtha in favor of a more centrist Dem for House Maj leader. Fact is no one wants war, and the popular divide is between those who can accept it as one accepts the need for a painful surgery vs those still believe the gangreous infection of Saddam's regime in the middle of Middle East would somehow go away without more future side effects like Bin Laden's decision to start killing Americans in December 1992, through 911, and even today. All the while there are doctors screaming that the surgery must be done, and there are competing holistic health advisors marketing pyramids and aromatherapy candles as realistic solutions to the disease-a disease that was festering, causing all kinds of problems, could not be stopped with feng shui, and everyone knew it. We knew it then in regards to Saddam's regime, and we know it now in regards to the terrorist groups seeking to create chaos in Iraq so that they can turn it into what Afghanistan was in the 1990's, what Lebanon was in the 1980's, and what Somalia/East Africa is today. Why has America (and the world) become so unhinged? It's simple. We all see the problem-really, we do. Jihadi suicide mass murderers are not criminals to be arrested or militaries to be deterred (stop! Or we will make you live!). Nope. We all know the problem, but many find it easier to find hope in aromatherapy cures and political bastardizing than in facing the (literally) unfathomable cure of having to fight against Jihadis wherever they may be. If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war. Does anyone think that by staging the largest anti-war protests in history in Feb 2003, that Saddam was encouraged or discouraged from blowing off the US and seeing invasion as a real threat? How about today? Does the enemy take heed in the politically fueled anti-war, get out of Iraq rhetoric? quote: The leader of the Hezb-e-Islami militant group also touted the Republican Party defeat in last month's midterm elections as a victory for militants fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. "It seems that every bullet that mujahedeen had fired toward the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan has turned into a vote against Bush," Hekmatyar said in the undated video statement received by AP Television News in Pakistan.
Rachel :"Perhaps in the interest of fairness, readers can cite past examples where Republican Senators and Presidential candidates went abroad, undercut Democratic foreign policy at a time of war, and made statements that were welcomed by our enemies." TPM Cafe recently republished a 1999 editorial by Michael Kelly castigating Republicans for their dealings with Yugoslavia. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind? soccer dad :Here's a link to the article Rachel cited. I had remembered that Rep Saxton had been involved. I had not remembered the others. Papa Ray :All good suggestions and valid points. Which I might say, you and others (even myself) have talked, argued for months, sometimes years. But, the problem is. Those in power will not listen because of their various selfish interests, or misguided beliefs. What do you say to a President, who still can't seperate the "Religion of Peace" from fiction to the fact that it is nothing more than the most powerful destructive cult ever placed on this planet? How do you get him to do the "right" thing? Us Rednecks don't have that problem, of course, we are not too interested in winning anyone's hearts or minds. We just want them to fear us, and know that we intend to destroy all of those who even think about doing harm to innocents or to our Military...anywhere on this globe. We are not as dumb as most think we are. We recognised the danger and evil in Islam after only a few years study and watching what those that practice Islam as true believers do. We also know that the moderate Muslims want to rule too, but are willing to do it without the sword. So far, they are doing a very good job. But we Rednecks are in short supply, our American Educational System has been churning out more and more liberal socialists or at the least, pacificists with a green thumb. How are we going to change that? Well we will give the vote a few more trys, but if it looks like this Republic is in close danger, we may have to let our minority be known in ways that have not been seen in a couple of hundred years or so. Papa Ray harrison :>wade, do you suggest we placate the militias? The failure to exact total defeat upon Germany's military leaders while allowing them to get away with an armistice in 1918 eventually engendered the feeling that the war was lost due to the "November criminals" who signed the armistice ie. the Weimar Republic. The socialists were ever more dependent on the old conservative military order, who happened to be the only group absolved of all responsibility for Germany's defeat. Thus, the traditions of militaristic adventurism, anti-democratic ideology and authoritarianism were bolstered and thrived in continuance - General Hindenburg became president, while the army became central to Hitler's plans. There needs to be total defeat in a war to ensure a clean break from the past. What can we learn from this? If we save the Sunnis, the Shiites are going to accuse us of supporting the insurgency and undermining the government, thereby betraying democratic principles and our pledge to Maliki will be well null and void. We would lose ALL credibility and therefore lose what little leverage we have in Iraq. If we continue supporting the Shiites, it would probably engender a Sadrist state that may possibly struggle with Iranian intentions of turning Iraq into a proxy state. Either way, we would be increasingly beholden and dependent on the militias and death squads for security and peace in Iraq. We need to wage "war" again, and this time, we deal with the militias - otherwise, the Iraqi Army along with the concept of national security might as well be forsaken. Terry Gain :Rachel, Without geeting into the particulars of Mr. Kelly's criticisms are you seriously suggesting that the reputation of the United States was "on the line" in the Yugoslavian civil war. G. Golden :Re: Jimmy Carter I was under the impression that non-Jewish citizens of Israel could NOT vote. That is one reason Carter is comparing it to apartheid. dicentra :But at some point, it is likely, whether from sheer exhaustion or from our own internecine squabbling here at home, we will lower, if even for a second, our guard, and thus experience another mass murdering. And then the United States will be in a quandary, realizing that a sophisticated, and complex society cannot long endure with a catastrophic attack on its homeland about every five years from radical Islamists This suggests that people who currently deny the dire threat will awaken to it. It is more likely that they will blame everything bad that happens to us from now on as the result of invading Iraq. "If Bush hadn't..." will become the new mantra, and they will further resist any bellicose response on our part because "it just makes things worse, QED." If you didn't figure it out from 9/11, you probably won't figure it out at all. dicentra :I was under the impression that non-Jewish citizens of Israel could NOT vote. And I was under the impression that this is a bald-faced lie that has an incredible life span. Anyone know the truth for sure? It's not like this is a matter of opinion. I don't trust Wikipedia and I don't know where else to look. dupage :Finally--yes, we should expand the military... 1) we need not necessarily send more troops anywhere right now, we just have to show that we COULD, if pressed, or even if just seriously annoyed 2) we need to give relief to the men and women who have already borne the battle two-three-four times 3) we need to show the bad guys that there is an inexhaustible supply of slightly crazy unpredictable cowboys--or however they want to characterize us--that just might show up right in the middle of another of their countries for no special reason except that we don't like them, and that we're slightly crazy unpredictable cowboys--and DANGEROUS when excited How can we expand the Army? How about ASKING? Instead of going out of our way to portray the Army as a profitable personal experience, how about saying in effect "we know this is a rotten job, but someone's got to do it. Your country is at stake. Do something for the good of others for a couple years. You can get back to chasing the almighty dollar when the country is safe again." Or how about "It's your duty. Others have fought for you, now it's your turn." Or just the simple "Your country needs you." We can do it by making it clear what we are fighting and then calling upon the youth of America to stand by their country. So far we have not done this. Patriotism is considered a bad word and an unfair recruitment tool by both parties. We should pull out all the stops. Make it clear that America NEEDS its people to support our way of life, and that PATRIOTS will do something about it. Army recruitment now seems to focus on adventure, travel, job training, and college money. The new ARMY STRONG promotion goes more for the gut and also stresses service and devotion to the greater mission. It instills a pride that was missing in earlier efforts, but still does not ASK for service. We do not challange America's youth, we do not ask for their support, we do not express our need of them, our pride in them, our confidence in them. Why should they flock to the recruiters? At least now, unlike Vietnam, we honor the troops already in service, and we cheer them at the airport, and we have our our little "support the troops" decals all over the place. But these are after-the-fact kudos to those already enlisted. We need recruitment rallies, war bond drives, posters in windows, media and sports heroes making the pitch and making the challange on TV, things that can make the 40 MILLION or so young men--and in this enlightened age, 40 MILLION or so young women--of "military age" in the US, think that perhaps they can be of greater value to their nation by serving in its military for awhile than by becoming the next top chef or Wall Street trader or hip-hop DJ or whatever. Sure this is a different age than the 1940's, but human nature probably hasn't changed all that much, and what young people want is to be recognized, to be needed, to be challanged. We need to speak TO them, not ABOUT them, before we throw up our hands and say "100,000 more soldiers? It'll never happen." Grumpy Old Man :The gas tax/farm subsidy thing should have been done in the wake of 9/11. A weak President and a Congress run by lefty millionaires won't do it. I don't think this country has the political will to fight a foreign war unless we are directly attacked (there's still very little opposition to Afghanistan). Given that the danger of Europe and Eurasia uniting against us is no longer a major factor, we could remember Washington's Farewell Address, erect statues to Wm. Jennings Bryan, and pull out, not just of Iraq, but Germany (and NATO), Korea, Okinawa, Kuwait, etc., build nuclear power plants and mass transit, secure the frontier, cut immigration, and do very nicely, thank you. The alternative is to get a whole lot tougher and nastier than we have been so far. It will probably take something worse the 9/11 to get us there. And it may be neither wise nor just to travel that road. wade :Harrison.... what do you mean, "this time we deal with the militias"... what do you think we have we been trying to do since 2003? Handing out sweets and flowers? We can't deal with the miltias in any meaningful way because we don't speak the language. We can't speak to the locals, so we can't distinguish between those who are trying to help us and those who are trying to lead us into a trap. So we don't trust the Iraqis, and they don't trust us. Sure, we can out fight anyone stupid enough to directly engage us in open combat, but that just isn't going to happen. We will die slowly from a thousand tiny cuts when we are drawn into urban guerrilla warfare, where we will try to kill anyone we see with an AK47 - and just about everyone in Iraq has one of those.Our troops are not monsters, they will soon become demoralised with shooting children. Face facts man, we have spent our credibility, there is none left. Carven Scott :I would suggest that we turn the frontier border areas within 10 miles of Syria, SA, and Iran a free-fire zone from sunset until sunrise. Keep UAVs, AC-130s, and TACAIR in orbit and anhialate anything with a IR signature for the next year. That will stop the inflow. harrison :What we have been doing since 2003 was to side with the Shiites and abandon the Sunnis - not to discount the fact that they chose to exclude themselves and turn to insurgency as a way to punish Iraqis. al-Sadr was perceived as a bumbling, incompetent cleric early on, and we simply dismissed him with a wave of the hand; now, he has manifested into the greatest internal threat to the Iraqi government and its sovereignty. You assume that when I suggest "dealing with the militias", I mean outright conflict ala conventional warfare in the Iraqi war. You are mistaken in that aspect - it is not up to our troops to do that because we aren't as skilled as the Iraqis themselves in dealing with insurgencies and death squads. It is the Iraqi Army that should be allowed free rein to run their own counterinsurgency operations against the Shiite and Sunni militias. It's because we didn't note the rising influence of the militias that has engendered today's predicament. No more what-ifs. The militias cannot be allowed to exist and undermine the Iraqi government. Comments have been archived for this page. |
Pajamas MediaIs Racism Hurting Obama in Middle America? Barbara Walters and Her Amours A Russian Documents the Truth About Russia Amazon’s Kindle Draws the Reader In Ethically Speaking: Should You Vacation in Burma? Critics Miss Benefits of ‘No Child Left Behind’ The Singing Revolution Against the Evil Empire How Iran Is Killing U.S. Troops in Iraq
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsADVERTISEMENT
|
digg this
del.icio.us
For more on the Rules of Engagement question, v.:
The Captain's Journal
• [www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/...]
•
[www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/...]
Dec 16, 2006 02:49 AM