A War of Endurance
NCfan
Posts: 945
January 8, 2007
A War of Endurance
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services
As we begin a new year, with a new Congress being sworn in Thursday, it's a good time to take stock of the "global war on terror." The enormous conventional military power of the United States probably ensures that we will not lose in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. Yet the considerable advantages of the jihadists suggest that we might not necessarily win, either.
So before we surge troops into Baghdad, as many Republicans wish, or yank everyone out of Iraq, as many Democrats are calling for, it is wise to review why America has had trouble turning wins over the Taliban and Saddam Hussein into long-term strategic successes.
Creating new political systems on the ground is far more difficult than simply blasting away terrorist concentrations. Such engagement demands that American soldiers leave the relative safety of ships, tanks and planes to fight subsequent messy battles in streets and neighborhoods. Once that happens, the United States loses its intrinsic military advantages
First, the Islamists have just enough Western arms — automatic small weapons and explosive devices — to achieve parity with individual Americans on the ground. Our billions spent on aircraft carriers, drones and stealthy jets were not intended to fight hundreds of terrorists hiding in houses.
Second, when losses mount, they are viewed differently by the two sides. Violent death and endemic poverty are commonplace in the Middle East, but not so in the West. We aim to avoid casualties in our war making; the Islamists want only to inflict them, whatever the cost to themselves.
Third, everything our soldiers do is subject to Western jurisprudence and ethical censure. Americans distinguish soldiers from civilians to avoid collateral damage. Jihadists deliberately hide among women and children to ensure that our restraint provides them sanctuary. Our utopian moral expectations can never be met; their very lack of such considerations means we are accustomed to rather than are outraged by their beheadings, kidnappings and suicide bombings.
Fourth, in the process of reconstruction, Americans are held responsible for keeping the electricity and water on to ensure that life for Afghans and Iraqis gets better. Jihadists win only by destroying such efforts. And it is always easier to tear down than to build.
So we are at an impasse. Now after five years of fighting, Americans have two stark choices in the war against terrorists.
One, we can withdraw ground troops and return to punitive and conventional bombing — tit-for-tat retaliation for each attack in the future. That way, the United States stays distant and smacks the jihadists on their home bases below. Few Americans die; terrorists sometimes do. The bored media stay more concentrated on the terrorists' provocations, not on our standoff response from 30,000 feet in the clouds.
Or American forces, at great danger, can continue to change the political and economic structure of the Middle East in hopes of fostering constitutional governments that might curb terrorism for generations. This current engagement demands our soldiers fight jihadists on their vicious turf, but by our humanitarian rules. For this, we must pay the ensuing human and materiel price — all broadcast live on the evening news.
The first choice, a return to what was practiced throughout the 1980s and 1990s, is easy and offers short-term relief with little controversy. But the second path, which we have taken to prevent another 9/11, is hard, lengthy and thus unpopular. Yet it holds out the promise of long-term solutions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Presidents Reagan, Bush senior and Clinton, who respectively skedaddled out of Beirut, skipped Baghdad and fled from Mogadishu, didn't risk, lose or solve much against the terrorists.
In contrast, George W. Bush wagered everything by going into Afghanistan and Iraq. And he will either make things much worse or much better for millions — depending on how successfully the United States can endure the messy type of war that jihadists welcome and the American military usually seeks to avoid.
Military success on the ground now demands that we expand the rules of engagement to allow our troops to shoot more of the jihadists, disarm the militias, train even more Iraqi troops to take over security more quickly, and seal the Syrian and Iranian borders.
This solution, of course, is easier said than done. The military must use more force against those who are destroying Iraqi democracy at precisely the time the American public has become exasperated with both the length and human cost of the war.
Imagine this war as a sort of grotesque race. The jihadists and sectarians win if they can kill enough Americans to demoralize us enough that we flee before Iraqis and Afghans stabilize their newfound freedom. They lose if they can't. Prosperity, security and liberty are the death knell to radical Islam. It's that elemental.
©2007 Victor Davis Hanson
A War of Endurance
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services
As we begin a new year, with a new Congress being sworn in Thursday, it's a good time to take stock of the "global war on terror." The enormous conventional military power of the United States probably ensures that we will not lose in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. Yet the considerable advantages of the jihadists suggest that we might not necessarily win, either.
So before we surge troops into Baghdad, as many Republicans wish, or yank everyone out of Iraq, as many Democrats are calling for, it is wise to review why America has had trouble turning wins over the Taliban and Saddam Hussein into long-term strategic successes.
Creating new political systems on the ground is far more difficult than simply blasting away terrorist concentrations. Such engagement demands that American soldiers leave the relative safety of ships, tanks and planes to fight subsequent messy battles in streets and neighborhoods. Once that happens, the United States loses its intrinsic military advantages
First, the Islamists have just enough Western arms — automatic small weapons and explosive devices — to achieve parity with individual Americans on the ground. Our billions spent on aircraft carriers, drones and stealthy jets were not intended to fight hundreds of terrorists hiding in houses.
Second, when losses mount, they are viewed differently by the two sides. Violent death and endemic poverty are commonplace in the Middle East, but not so in the West. We aim to avoid casualties in our war making; the Islamists want only to inflict them, whatever the cost to themselves.
Third, everything our soldiers do is subject to Western jurisprudence and ethical censure. Americans distinguish soldiers from civilians to avoid collateral damage. Jihadists deliberately hide among women and children to ensure that our restraint provides them sanctuary. Our utopian moral expectations can never be met; their very lack of such considerations means we are accustomed to rather than are outraged by their beheadings, kidnappings and suicide bombings.
Fourth, in the process of reconstruction, Americans are held responsible for keeping the electricity and water on to ensure that life for Afghans and Iraqis gets better. Jihadists win only by destroying such efforts. And it is always easier to tear down than to build.
So we are at an impasse. Now after five years of fighting, Americans have two stark choices in the war against terrorists.
One, we can withdraw ground troops and return to punitive and conventional bombing — tit-for-tat retaliation for each attack in the future. That way, the United States stays distant and smacks the jihadists on their home bases below. Few Americans die; terrorists sometimes do. The bored media stay more concentrated on the terrorists' provocations, not on our standoff response from 30,000 feet in the clouds.
Or American forces, at great danger, can continue to change the political and economic structure of the Middle East in hopes of fostering constitutional governments that might curb terrorism for generations. This current engagement demands our soldiers fight jihadists on their vicious turf, but by our humanitarian rules. For this, we must pay the ensuing human and materiel price — all broadcast live on the evening news.
The first choice, a return to what was practiced throughout the 1980s and 1990s, is easy and offers short-term relief with little controversy. But the second path, which we have taken to prevent another 9/11, is hard, lengthy and thus unpopular. Yet it holds out the promise of long-term solutions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Presidents Reagan, Bush senior and Clinton, who respectively skedaddled out of Beirut, skipped Baghdad and fled from Mogadishu, didn't risk, lose or solve much against the terrorists.
In contrast, George W. Bush wagered everything by going into Afghanistan and Iraq. And he will either make things much worse or much better for millions — depending on how successfully the United States can endure the messy type of war that jihadists welcome and the American military usually seeks to avoid.
Military success on the ground now demands that we expand the rules of engagement to allow our troops to shoot more of the jihadists, disarm the militias, train even more Iraqi troops to take over security more quickly, and seal the Syrian and Iranian borders.
This solution, of course, is easier said than done. The military must use more force against those who are destroying Iraqi democracy at precisely the time the American public has become exasperated with both the length and human cost of the war.
Imagine this war as a sort of grotesque race. The jihadists and sectarians win if they can kill enough Americans to demoralize us enough that we flee before Iraqis and Afghans stabilize their newfound freedom. They lose if they can't. Prosperity, security and liberty are the death knell to radical Islam. It's that elemental.
©2007 Victor Davis Hanson
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Here is what I see wrong with this article. First Iraq should not be lumped in to this all incompasing "War on Terror". Prior top our invasion of the country Iraq was not a terrorist base of operation. Even now, as reported by the Iraq Study Group, jihadist attacks in Iraq are few. Most of the violence in that country is generated by Sunni insurgents and Shia militias, not Al-Qaeda or like minded organizations. Second the author insinuates that by keeping our troops on the ground we will prevail. He fails to make any mention of the Iraqi mindset. The problem is not the number of troops on the ground. the problem is that from the Iraqi government to the police and military sectarian loyalty over-shadows any sense of national unity. You can have 150,000 or 500,000 US troops on the ground but that will not solve the cultural divide in Iraq. You have prominent ministries in the Iraqi government who are loyal to the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr or Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Each of these ministries is armed with it's own state supported US trained security force which basically acts as a militia to advance the interest of their leaders. The Badr Brigade, just one example, has completely infiltrated and integrated itself with the Iraqi police. They are closely tied with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's political party which has close ties the Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. These people have no interest in creating national unity between all parties. They want to exact revenge for 1,300 of oppression and form a government controlled by the Shias. This issue can not be resolved with troops numbers. To me this is the singal most pressing issue facing us in Iraq and until our leaders start realizing that you can not change the hearts and minds of Iraqis with a rifle we will never make any progress in that country. When we needed the troops most, at the start of the occupation we didn't have them. When training the Iraqi police and military had we taken a quality versus quantity approach we may not have had such a high rate of infiltration by Sunni insurgents and Shia militia men. Now our administration wants to send more troops into a hornets nests. They are a day late and a dollar short. If the Iraqis are unwilling to put aside cultural differences then it is time that we step back and let them hash it out. Why keeps our troops in harms way when their sacrifice is in vein.
Well I don't agree with everything in this article either. But I think it's a nice read, and it's always good to hear a perspective from a reasonable and knowledgable source.
True. I do respect Victor Hanson's opinion on such matters because of his expertise and I am always looking forward to what he has to say. I just wanted to be a bit of a critic.
The answer... IRAQ.
...
Iraq was something only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted and they twisted every piece of data, reason and logic to get this war going.
...
If you bleieve in 'Personal Responsibility' and holding responsible parties accountable for their actions... why doesn't this apply to our current leadership?
Hail, Hail!!!
i'm sure that some are comforted by the idea that the whole thing can be solved by simply killing more people, but not every situation is that easy to reconcile.
Thank you Captain Obvious. The article didn' attempt to offer answers to all the complexities of Iraq. It was simply trying to outline why we aren't acheiving our goals and that the rules of engagement need to change if more troops are to be sent.
You're welcome, Sargeant Sensitive.
Didn't we try this exact same approach in Baghdad not too long ago? How'd it work out? Was it an unqualified success? Well, given that things have gotten worse since then, I'd have to say not so much. Why are we talking about trying it again?
The problem with the article is the same as the problem with the original strategy for the war. What do you do AFTER you've shocked and awed?
If Hanson doesn't have the answer to that, then I'm not sure the "kill more bad guys" strategy tells us anything we haven't heard before.
...
That must be the Neo-Con method... forget about personal responsibility and blame it on everyone else.
Any of you Conservative Republicans see my arguements with this? I am all about personal responsibility and holding myself accountable for the decisions I make and the actions I take. That is what I see as Conservative values... Not blaming everyone else and making lame excuses.
Hail, Hail!!!