London Calling
From Jake on July 21, 2005:
http://slate.com/id/2123010/
I know some others read slate.com regularly, too. (If not, you should). This article really caught my attention, 'cause if the three studies cited are correct, it changes things dramatically. It also makes the distinction between approval and understanding. (I think those were the words of choice). It has been stated that generals are always fighting the last war's battles (i.e. employing great tactics and strategies better suited for the technologies and weapons present in prior wars). I think this builds upon that.
From JRB, in response:
Jake,
I'm glad you forwarded this. It highlights an issue that, in my opinion, will determine the outcome of this "war" and history's verdict on our procession right now. Kaplan's focus on the actual enemies, the foot soldiers, again bely our government's, GOP and Dems alike, insistence on labeling this a "War on Terror." It is no such thing. This is a war on radical islamist guerillas, and the sooner we decide to narrow our focus, the sooner we stop the murder of innocents by brutal bombers. I hope that we all agree that we must resist, even offensively, the campaign of these guerilla fundamentalists and their murderous agenda. Finally, mainstream Muslims seem to be waking to the madness in their midst. We must call the spade a spade and quit referring to this as a war against a method, that is, terrorism, but against an enemy, the loosely organized guerilla militia of approximately 20 known groups who attack civilians in over 80 countries. No one ever will win a war against a method, but we may actually defeat this enemy.
To that end, I think we need much more police, intelligence and crime fighting tactics, a la organized crime prevention, to marginalize the enemy and eradicate their agenda. You make such a strong point about "the last war's battles," because nothing in military history compares to this.
That said, I am reminded of something striking in Kaplan's piece, that these guys mostly are not motivated by religious zeal, but by Arab nationalism, much like the Viet Cong weren't ideological Communists but were mad at Western invaders, from their point of view. Thus, our fight against Communism (and our stubborn insistence to see it otherwise) hamstrung any real possibility of victory, because we misunderstood the relationship between the USSR, China and the foot soldiers. Likewise, here, until we understand why our enemy is fighting, we will never really understand how to defeat them, or at least stop them or remove the motivation for their violent tactics.
To that end, I conclude now by saying, we must stop referring to this as a War on Terror and study carefully the motivation of the guerillas we hope to stop. Until we realize and apply the discipline it takes to confront this reality, this "war" will drag on interminably.
(As an aside, I suspect the President and GOP actually enjoy the vague description of this war, because when it ends, so does the political largess, rhetoric and increased executive powers that always accompany war. If this war were well defined and if we had a disciplined policy to stop or defeat our actual, specific enemy, then we would be well down the road to a resolution, and a resounding victory. If that comes too soon, then our President and his party would find themselves without a good reason to expand their power continuously without better justification.)
Please share your insights.
UPDATE, JULY 27, 2005:
Over the lase few days, several outlets have been reporting about the Bush administration's new language to describe what it is we're doing. No longer are we fighting a "War on Terror," but now we're engaged in the "Struggle against Violent Extremism." Today's Slate mocks the shift, but, while acknowledging the sham of political PR, here the shift in slogan is significant. Language is our most powerful tool, and until we define properly what he hope to achieve (or whom we hope to defeat), we will be forever hamstrung. That said, I'm astonished that it took the Bush administration this long to come around.
http://slate.com/id/2123010/
I know some others read slate.com regularly, too. (If not, you should). This article really caught my attention, 'cause if the three studies cited are correct, it changes things dramatically. It also makes the distinction between approval and understanding. (I think those were the words of choice). It has been stated that generals are always fighting the last war's battles (i.e. employing great tactics and strategies better suited for the technologies and weapons present in prior wars). I think this builds upon that.
From JRB, in response:
Jake,
I'm glad you forwarded this. It highlights an issue that, in my opinion, will determine the outcome of this "war" and history's verdict on our procession right now. Kaplan's focus on the actual enemies, the foot soldiers, again bely our government's, GOP and Dems alike, insistence on labeling this a "War on Terror." It is no such thing. This is a war on radical islamist guerillas, and the sooner we decide to narrow our focus, the sooner we stop the murder of innocents by brutal bombers. I hope that we all agree that we must resist, even offensively, the campaign of these guerilla fundamentalists and their murderous agenda. Finally, mainstream Muslims seem to be waking to the madness in their midst. We must call the spade a spade and quit referring to this as a war against a method, that is, terrorism, but against an enemy, the loosely organized guerilla militia of approximately 20 known groups who attack civilians in over 80 countries. No one ever will win a war against a method, but we may actually defeat this enemy.
To that end, I think we need much more police, intelligence and crime fighting tactics, a la organized crime prevention, to marginalize the enemy and eradicate their agenda. You make such a strong point about "the last war's battles," because nothing in military history compares to this.
That said, I am reminded of something striking in Kaplan's piece, that these guys mostly are not motivated by religious zeal, but by Arab nationalism, much like the Viet Cong weren't ideological Communists but were mad at Western invaders, from their point of view. Thus, our fight against Communism (and our stubborn insistence to see it otherwise) hamstrung any real possibility of victory, because we misunderstood the relationship between the USSR, China and the foot soldiers. Likewise, here, until we understand why our enemy is fighting, we will never really understand how to defeat them, or at least stop them or remove the motivation for their violent tactics.
To that end, I conclude now by saying, we must stop referring to this as a War on Terror and study carefully the motivation of the guerillas we hope to stop. Until we realize and apply the discipline it takes to confront this reality, this "war" will drag on interminably.
(As an aside, I suspect the President and GOP actually enjoy the vague description of this war, because when it ends, so does the political largess, rhetoric and increased executive powers that always accompany war. If this war were well defined and if we had a disciplined policy to stop or defeat our actual, specific enemy, then we would be well down the road to a resolution, and a resounding victory. If that comes too soon, then our President and his party would find themselves without a good reason to expand their power continuously without better justification.)
Please share your insights.
UPDATE, JULY 27, 2005:
Over the lase few days, several outlets have been reporting about the Bush administration's new language to describe what it is we're doing. No longer are we fighting a "War on Terror," but now we're engaged in the "Struggle against Violent Extremism." Today's Slate mocks the shift, but, while acknowledging the sham of political PR, here the shift in slogan is significant. Language is our most powerful tool, and until we define properly what he hope to achieve (or whom we hope to defeat), we will be forever hamstrung. That said, I'm astonished that it took the Bush administration this long to come around.
posted by JRB at 5:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home