Honesty About Iraq
NCfan
Posts: 945
Honesty About Iraq
How are we doing?
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
The United States can usually win even postmodern wars abroad if it can play to its strengths — which are marshaling our enormous material, intelligence, and technological advantages to defeat the enemy before he inflicts enough casualties to convince an affluent and comfortable public at home that such losses are simply not worth the envisioned aims.
So how are we doing?
As expected, many of our traditional advantages are being nullified.
How can Americans use air superiority against an enemy that hides among civilians and dares them to destroy infrastructure essential to our friends?
We create sophisticated communications at great cost and investment; the parasitical terrorists simply bore into them and use them at no cost and sometimes with greater effect than do their inventors (e.g., Why are not jihadist websites deemed as dangerous as IEDs, but not attacked in similar fashion?).
Money and know-how can rebuild Iraq along the designs of Western material society — but that only makes it more vulnerable as a single transformer blown up or a pylon brought down can suddenly take away the newly found improved life. It’s not just that a suicide bomber with a $100 vest can destroy $1 million worth of electrical infrastructure, but in the gruesome equation cast the American engineers into the role of the incompetent or sinister by their failure to repair and rebuild faster than an illiterate can destroy.
The globalized media is an American epiphenomenon, but the narrative of the war is still the IED, not the purple finger. We apparently have no way of convincing the world that the primordial enemy commits daily something far worse than the sexual humiliation of the entire Abu Ghraib fiasco. Somehow “thousands have been killed” is never qualified as those mostly butchered and blown up by insurgents — since the loose use of the passive voice lends a general sense that somehow Americans are directly involved in, or responsible for, the killing.
Our soldiers are fighting brilliantly, and history will record they are defeating the enemy while suffering historically low casualties. But if the sacrifice of American youth is not tied — daily, hourly — to larger strategic and humanitarian goals by eloquent statesmen who believe in the mission, then cynicism follows and, with it, despair.
The establishment of consensual government in Iraq, with the concomitant defeat of jihadists, will have positive ripples that will undermine Islamism and help to cleanse the miasma in which al Qaeda thrives. But again, unless explained, most Americans will not see a connection between the ideology of the head-drillers and head-loppers we are fighting in Iraq and those who try to do even worse at Fort Dix and the Kennedy airport. The war to remove Saddam was won and is over; the subsequent and very different war in Iraq that followed is for nothing less than the future of the Middle East — and now involves everything from global terrorism and nuclear proliferation to the world’s oil supply and the future of Islam in the modern world.
We need to confess that the jihadists are not only keen students of insurgency warfare, but good observers of the American psyche. We think their kidnapping, childish infomercials, gruesome tactics, and horrific websites are primordial and counterproductive; but they are more likely horrifically simple in inciting the most basic fears and self-preservation instincts of ordinary people. Precisely because decapitation belongs to a different century makes it more gruesome now, not less. Because the al Qaedists steal many of their talking points from the Western Left does not make them unimaginative as much as eerily familiar. And because we can daily predict the serial barbarity of the jihadists makes it not so much unimaginative as savagely inevitable.
So what to do?
We can quibble and fight about tactics on the ground, manpower numbers, strategic postures toward Iran and Syria, the need to prod the Iraqis, but our problem is more existential. Either stabilizing Iraq now is felt critical to the United States and the West or it isn’t. If the Left is right that it isn’t, then we should flee; if they are wrong, and I think they are, then we must start using our vast cultural and media resources to explain what is at stake — in a strategic and humanitarian sense — and precisely what it is costing America and why it in the long run is worth it, and how we have adjusted to counter our enemies who in the last four years have not won in Iraq or anywhere else either.
By our relative inaction on these critical informational fronts, we are only raising the bar impossibly high for General Petraeus when he reports back to Congress in the autumn. For election-minded Republican senators and representatives (whose defection alone can end the war) the barometer of success unfortunately may be soon not be improvement in six months, but only an impossible demand for absolute victory in 2007.
So more explanation, less assertion; more debate with, rather than dismissal of, critics. And the final irony? The more brutal honesty, the less euphemism and generalities, the more Americans will accept the challenge.
©2007 Victor Davis Hanson
How are we doing?
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
The United States can usually win even postmodern wars abroad if it can play to its strengths — which are marshaling our enormous material, intelligence, and technological advantages to defeat the enemy before he inflicts enough casualties to convince an affluent and comfortable public at home that such losses are simply not worth the envisioned aims.
So how are we doing?
As expected, many of our traditional advantages are being nullified.
How can Americans use air superiority against an enemy that hides among civilians and dares them to destroy infrastructure essential to our friends?
We create sophisticated communications at great cost and investment; the parasitical terrorists simply bore into them and use them at no cost and sometimes with greater effect than do their inventors (e.g., Why are not jihadist websites deemed as dangerous as IEDs, but not attacked in similar fashion?).
Money and know-how can rebuild Iraq along the designs of Western material society — but that only makes it more vulnerable as a single transformer blown up or a pylon brought down can suddenly take away the newly found improved life. It’s not just that a suicide bomber with a $100 vest can destroy $1 million worth of electrical infrastructure, but in the gruesome equation cast the American engineers into the role of the incompetent or sinister by their failure to repair and rebuild faster than an illiterate can destroy.
The globalized media is an American epiphenomenon, but the narrative of the war is still the IED, not the purple finger. We apparently have no way of convincing the world that the primordial enemy commits daily something far worse than the sexual humiliation of the entire Abu Ghraib fiasco. Somehow “thousands have been killed” is never qualified as those mostly butchered and blown up by insurgents — since the loose use of the passive voice lends a general sense that somehow Americans are directly involved in, or responsible for, the killing.
Our soldiers are fighting brilliantly, and history will record they are defeating the enemy while suffering historically low casualties. But if the sacrifice of American youth is not tied — daily, hourly — to larger strategic and humanitarian goals by eloquent statesmen who believe in the mission, then cynicism follows and, with it, despair.
The establishment of consensual government in Iraq, with the concomitant defeat of jihadists, will have positive ripples that will undermine Islamism and help to cleanse the miasma in which al Qaeda thrives. But again, unless explained, most Americans will not see a connection between the ideology of the head-drillers and head-loppers we are fighting in Iraq and those who try to do even worse at Fort Dix and the Kennedy airport. The war to remove Saddam was won and is over; the subsequent and very different war in Iraq that followed is for nothing less than the future of the Middle East — and now involves everything from global terrorism and nuclear proliferation to the world’s oil supply and the future of Islam in the modern world.
We need to confess that the jihadists are not only keen students of insurgency warfare, but good observers of the American psyche. We think their kidnapping, childish infomercials, gruesome tactics, and horrific websites are primordial and counterproductive; but they are more likely horrifically simple in inciting the most basic fears and self-preservation instincts of ordinary people. Precisely because decapitation belongs to a different century makes it more gruesome now, not less. Because the al Qaedists steal many of their talking points from the Western Left does not make them unimaginative as much as eerily familiar. And because we can daily predict the serial barbarity of the jihadists makes it not so much unimaginative as savagely inevitable.
So what to do?
We can quibble and fight about tactics on the ground, manpower numbers, strategic postures toward Iran and Syria, the need to prod the Iraqis, but our problem is more existential. Either stabilizing Iraq now is felt critical to the United States and the West or it isn’t. If the Left is right that it isn’t, then we should flee; if they are wrong, and I think they are, then we must start using our vast cultural and media resources to explain what is at stake — in a strategic and humanitarian sense — and precisely what it is costing America and why it in the long run is worth it, and how we have adjusted to counter our enemies who in the last four years have not won in Iraq or anywhere else either.
By our relative inaction on these critical informational fronts, we are only raising the bar impossibly high for General Petraeus when he reports back to Congress in the autumn. For election-minded Republican senators and representatives (whose defection alone can end the war) the barometer of success unfortunately may be soon not be improvement in six months, but only an impossible demand for absolute victory in 2007.
So more explanation, less assertion; more debate with, rather than dismissal of, critics. And the final irony? The more brutal honesty, the less euphemism and generalities, the more Americans will accept the challenge.
©2007 Victor Davis Hanson
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Your boys in power should have thought of this first instead of the dinky cars and moving long range lego parts that they tried to sell the country and world on. When all else fails, use the ruthless dictator page who the country convieniently forgets who propped up and supported with weapons.
Maybe toss in the pic of Rummy shaking the bad guy's hand to rally the ole troops up.
There is a guy suing in NYC for a plane that went off course and went through his apartment. I wonder if all the people who die from misguided, precision bombs were to sue if the American public would foot the bill?
-00, Stockholm
-07, Copenhagen
-09, Berlin
-10, Berlin
-11, East Troy 1+2
-12, Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen, EV London 2
-13, London, Chicago
-14, Amsterdam 1+2, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo
-16, TOTD San Francisco 1+2
-17, EV Amsterdam 2+3
-18, Amsterdam 1+2, London 1+(2), Barcelona, London 2
-19, EV Brussels
no soldiers died on 9/11
let's see, Americans don't have the stomach to keep this war going...the terrorists are using the Left's talking points...the beheadings make us scared inside....Congressmen will be making an impossible request for Victory....
and suddenly it's time to be honest....
great piece...
of garbage...
and Jlew, I think our Swedish friend meant to say : Haven't more soldiers died in Iraq than the number of people who sadly died on 9/11....
This should have been the one factor that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crew focused on... not diversion from the serverity of the situation. 300,000 to 400,000 QUALITY boots on the ground to cover the square mileage and population of Iraq. The only way Iraq would have been able to stabilize was if security was established first.
...
So... where do we go from here? The same place... 300,000 to 400,000 QUALITY (trainned and trustworthy) boots on the ground to overwhelm the insurgency, not just stop them in Fallujah, only to have them pop up in Mosul. Hammer Fallujah AND Mosul and quit playing Whack A Mole with them.
Where do we get 160,000 to 260,000 additonal troops? I would say either NATO, a REAL Coalition (not one we coerce or bribe) or fire up the good ol' Selective Service Lottery Drum. It all depends upon how serious we are, as a nation, about Iraq.
Hail, Hail!!!
I don't know, I think your boy, bushy, is as bad as any war criminal...
I know we disagree on that...but history will prove one of us right...sadly, we won't know the real answer for years to come...if ever...
The American people, like you, cannot stomach a war. The loss of soldiers' lives in Iraq (while each is important) does not even come close to prior wars. Fighting terrorists is important, because you are not going to be able to talk to these Muslim fanatics. They are in Iraq now, and we need to keep fighting them there and elsewhere. But, Americans like you do not have the stomach for it, and the insurgents and Al Qaeda are using you like puppets. There are areas in Iraq that are improving, and terrorist attacks are down 90%, but you will NEVER hear that in the news, and the terrorists know this.
And if people like were in power we would be walked over, so either way people are going to die.
Yeah because we see people walking all over other countries in Europe and elsewhere. Mostly, when countries are getting walked over...it's us doing the walking.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Some died in the Pentagon, no?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Fighting terrorist is somewhat important... but arming and fighting both sides of a civil war is idiotic.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Ninety percent down, but soldier and civilian deaths are up? Got it. How could I have ever been so blind?
What is more important?
The health care and education of our citizens.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Fighting terrorism is essential in preserving the health and care of our citizens.
but we will never defeat terrorism militarily... it can't be done.
I would much rather focus our energy and money on our on citizens and as far as foreign policy goes, directing that energy and money to help combat the roots of terrorism, not invade countries and create more terrorist.
We will never be able to stop a dozen madmen from carrying out a terrorist attack... All we are doing now is creating countless more people who have the desire to carry out a terrorist attack against us.
The only good thing that is going on by creating more terrorists and terrorist groups so quickly, is that we have an opening to get some intelligence operatives to infiltrate these groups, but I have a suspicion that we aren't even accomplishing that.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
oooooooo...tough talk from a little lady...that sounds right...
anyway, It's nice that you're willing to play chess with the lives of others...but that's not the important, at least to people like you...
fact of business is this: People like you are the ones who are scared and don't have the stomach to live without fear of others...people like you are little babies, afraid the big bad tar-or-ist is going to blow your trailer down...
so, I would be so quick to call others puppets, ok, miss piggy..?
if people like me were in power, you'd be a happy little person...
I'd lower taxes, shrink the gov't, stop earmarks, focus on the domestic issues, and I might even give tax breaks to mullet-wearing folks like you, lord knows, you'd need the extra help...
I would argue then that the key objective would be to make ourselves independent of oil. Then the war will end. We'll have no reason to promote democracy there, (see Darfur).
I agree that nation building isn't going so well. I don't know if that's because it's not possible or it's because of who is running it, but we'll assume a little of both. But fighting terrorism is essential. Just because it cannot be completely irradicated does not mean resources are simply better used elsewhere. Staying on the offensive is key. Look at all the terror plots we've stopped since 9/11. None of them occurred via military means, but rather through intelligence, breaking down barriers of communication between law enforcement agencies, the Patriot Act, etc.
That's my kind of offense.
But until we find an oil solution, we're stuck putting boots on the ground in the MidEast. Either way, I'd rank anti-terrorism and alternative energy as #1 and #1a on this country's priority list, not a national healthcare plan or education. (JMHO)
Okay... US American people cannot stomach the deaths of our citizen soldiers for the war in Iraq... does this mean that YOU have the stomach to find their deaths as acceptable losses in the name of your 'freedom'?
So, please tell me... is there a point where the number becomes unacceptable to you? I mean, are you in it for the long haul... where the number of flag draped coffins and body bags reaches what... 10,000? 100,000? And it's still okay. At what number does it become unacceptable losses?
Hail, Hail!!!
I seriously just don't understand the logic. On 9/11 we lost 1,000 lives...everything changed and now we have to aggressively fight terror to keep this from ever happening again. We do this by sending even more people to Iraq to die and while we're at...infuriate the arab world by our reckless behavior which has killed hundreds of thousand of them???? How has this war stopped any terrorism or solved anything at all. Even Saddam wouldn't have killed this many people in just 4 years.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
whatcha rollin' those eyes about, jlew? hmmm?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I also love it when the pronoun, 'We' is used by war cheerleaders... when referring to the War in Iraq. 'WE' aren't doing anything for the War effort. The ones who are shouldering the full weight of this bullshit are the Soldiers and their families... THAT'S IT. No one statesside is making any sacrifices... is there any rationing of goods or services? Are our Taxes being increased to cover the 700 Billion dollar costs sos far? NO. The only one making sacrifices are the soldiers and their families... and the 9 and 10 year olds whom we are passing the bill to.
...
And 90% of terrorist attacks are down in Iraq. Tell that to the 6 soldiers whose HMMWV took an I.E.D. on the highway to the airport... I'm sure that'll make their day. Oh, wait... they DIED. So, tell their families back home how well everything is going over there.
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm not necessarily anti-war, I'm just using common sense how about people work given the case of terrorism.
the entire country died.
They may be brave, but are they soldiers? Right me if im wrong but isnt the most "soldiers" just poor people who have no work and goes to Iraq for money?
How many of the 100 senators has sons in Iraq?
-00, Stockholm
-07, Copenhagen
-09, Berlin
-10, Berlin
-11, East Troy 1+2
-12, Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen, EV London 2
-13, London, Chicago
-14, Amsterdam 1+2, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo
-16, TOTD San Francisco 1+2
-17, EV Amsterdam 2+3
-18, Amsterdam 1+2, London 1+(2), Barcelona, London 2
-19, EV Brussels