Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[couchcommander]

Perhaps, as Kennan noted about Bolshevism, Militant Islam (especially of the Salafist variety) contains the seeds of its own collapse.   This is undoubtably something to exploit.

Indeed, very true.

As unfortunate as the circumstances are of the people in Iran (and before in Iraq), trying to forcibly change the situation and bring about relative harmony between these states and the west by direct military intervention will not (is not?) working. It is having about the same affect as forcibly trying to change the Soviet Union to a democratic, capitalist society would have hand when Stalin was around (when the populace did in fact believe in what they were doing, or at least a big enough portion to cause all types of trouble).

It's an unfortunate, and ironic, consequence of our greed for resources that we are in fact dependant upon the states with which was are now engaged in pseudo conflict with. Fundamentally, the best option to deal with this situation, and the same option that brought down the soviet union (or more appropriately allowed itself to self distruct without bringing the rest of the world with it), would be containment. Extensive economic, political, and social containment until a series of demands for reforms are met (probably take 50-100 years). We can combine this with occasional air strikes to ensure they do not ever aquire WMD, and massive military force should they ever undertake offensive action. Otherwise, just wait until the people have had enough of living in squalor and reject fundamentalism (as the soviet people ended up rejecting communism), and then welcome them with open arms into our great socieities.

But alas, as I said, we need their oil, so in the end, who's really got who by the balls?

 

[a_majoor]

It's an unfortunate, and ironic, consequence of our greed for resources that we are in fact dependant upon the states with which was are now engaged in pseudo conflict with. Fundamentally, the best option to deal with this situation, and the same option that brought down the soviet union (or more appropriately allowed itself to self distruct without bringing the rest of the world with it), would be containment. Extensive economic, political, and social containment until a series of demands for reforms are met (probably take 50-100 years). We can combine this with occasional air strikes to ensure they do not ever aquire WMD, and massive military force should they ever undertake offensive action. Otherwise, just wait until the people have had enough of living in squalor and reject fundamentalism (as the soviet people ended up rejecting communism), and then welcome them with open arms into our great socieities.

Although we like living a comfortable lifestyle, we get our resources by the always successful method of buying them from a willing vendor. Believers of the "We are in the war for Oil" paradigm might stop and consider that Canada has a huge stockpile of oil, water, minerals, agricultural resource and so on. If "greed" was the motivating factor, then shipping 150,000 servicemen halfway around the world "for oil" makes no sense at all, since they could accomplish that goal with a short drive north of the 49th parallel.

The implosion of the USSR wasn't caused by the population living in squalor; their conditions were far worse in the 1930s. The reasons were two fold; first the United States began mounting challenges in the political, diplomatic, economic and military spheres, which the USSR was structurally unable to meet. The second reason was the chosen method of response (Perestrioka) relaxed the central control that the CPSU help over the USSR in an attempt to bring creativity and initiative to bear on the problems of a stagnent economy, only to discover the age old truth that people are in it for themselves and their families. Once the genie was out of the bottle, there was no practical way of reversing course.

The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and the current drives towards a democratic, free market Iraq, and the student protests against the Theocracy in Iran represent the real means of isolating the Jihadis from the populations. Western military presence provides security and allows the civil populations to carry out their activities in a more protected atmosphere (the Lebanese people have hated Syrian occupation for 27 years, but until 150,000 armed coalition servicemen occupied Iraq they had no way to protest in saftey). In the short term, the Jihadis, Ba'athists, Autocrats and Theocrats can always deamonize the coalition to distract their populations, but time is actually on our side, if we have the patience and will. People in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other countries will eventually wonder why conditions seem so different on the other side of the fence, and why the supposed enemy is not attacking or otherwise threatening them (the people, not the regime).

That is the way for the West to achieve victory. Judicious use of military force to provide security for the masses while allowing them to expend their energies on themselves, and mounting military, economic and diplomatic challenges that the Ba'athists, Autocrats and Theocrats are unable to respond to, colapsing their brittle regimes.

 

[TCBF]

"One of the problems is fighting WW IV is the difficulty in articulating what exactly needs to be done, and getting support to doing it."

- Yep.  the other problem is convincing the Western World that we are fighting World War IV.

Tom

 

[couchcommander]

Hey a_majoor,

Although we like living a comfortable lifestyle, we get our resources by the always successful method of buying them from a willing vendor. Believers of the "We are in the war for Oil" paradigm might stop and consider that Canada has a huge stockpile of oil, water, minerals, agricultural resource and so on. If "greed" was the motivating factor, then shipping 150,000 servicemen halfway around the world "for oil" makes no sense at all, since they could accomplish that goal with a short drive north of the 49th parallel.

I must have not conveyed what I was trying to say. In this particular post I was not pushing the thought that Iraq was invaded for primarily strategic economic reasons (different argument... though just quickly on that note, the "oil" we have here in Canada is very different than the oil they have in the middle east, and is primary used for different products.... but that is neither here nor there). In this case I was just pointing out that we can't go on an all out offensive against these states even if we wanted to, as they have the oil we need (thus our balls....ouch).

The implosion of the USSR wasn't caused by the population living in squalor; their conditions were far worse in the 1930s.

I agree. One will find that the populations that become the most revolutionary are not the ones who are the worst off (people who are too busy looking for food don't care about governments, whereas someone who has food and hears a rumour that there might not be food in the future will loose it).

The reasons were two fold; first the United States began mounting challenges in the political, diplomatic, economic and military spheres, which the USSR was structurally unable to meet. The second reason was the chosen method of response (Perestrioka) relaxed the central control that the CPSU help over the USSR in an attempt to bring creativity and initiative to bear on the problems of a stagnent economy, only to discover the age old truth that people are in it for themselves and their families. Once the genie was out of the bottle, there was no practical way of reversing course.

I personallly think two fold is way too much of an understatment. Yes indeed the US was putting pressure on the USSR... anymore than they had for the past 30 years.... that is really debatable. But in the end it is of course fair to say that pressures (IMO mostly on the soviet economy due to the arms race) from the US if anything greatly sped up the collaspe of the soviet union. "Structually unable to meet" is a great phrase, and very very true. Ah this is a such broad topic, I've spent four months in seminar on THIS specific topic alone to only come to the conclusion that there were many, many "possible" causes.   You particular suggestion regarding Perestroika does indeed have a lot of weight, and in any event I believe that it did indeed contribute to the collaspe, on top of many other things, and of those was a steadily decreasing standard of living vs. the westernized world (not an absolute decrease in the standard of living).

The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and the current drives towards a democratic, free market Iraq, and the student protests against the Theocracy in Iran represent the real means of isolating the Jihadis from the populations.

Just shows what can happen, even if we don't take direct military action.

Western military presence provides security and allows the civil populations to carry out their activities in a more protected atmosphere (the Lebanese people have hated Syrian occupation for 27 years, but until 150,000 armed coalition servicemen occupied Iraq they had no way to protest in saftey).

I don't agree, I think it had more to do with a series of political and social events in Lebanon (ie a deep routed and long standing movement with widespread sympathies, combined with a trigger, and a weak syrian response (I think we've got at this particular point before... lol).

In the short term, the Jihadis, Ba'athists, Autocrats and Theocrats can always deamonize the coalition to distract their populations, but time is actually on our side, if we have the patience and will. People in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other countries will eventually wonder why conditions seem so different on the other side of the fence, and why the supposed enemy is not attacking or otherwise threatening them (the people, not the regime).

I agree 100%

That is the way for the West to achieve victory. Judicious use of military force Concerted international pressure (ie non-UN), a judicious use of "non-conventional means" to provide security for the masses while allowing them to expend their energies on themselves, and mounting military, economic and diplomatic challenges that the Ba'athists, Autocrats and Theocrats are unable to respond to, combined with a demonstrated ability and will to then aid the revolutionaries once they have begun the uprising, will collaspe their brittle regimes.

Ah, much better.

 

[a_majoor]

That is the way for the West to achieve victory. Judicious use of military force Concerted international pressure (ie non-UN), a judicious use of "non-conventional means" to provide security for the masses while allowing them to expend their energies on themselves, and mounting military, economic and diplomatic challenges that the Ba'athists, Autocrats and Theocrats are unable to respond to, combined with a demonstrated ability and will to then aid the revolutionaries once they have begun the uprising, will collaspe their brittle regimes.

You are coming along quite nicely couchcommander, and I will soon have you in the clutches of the Straussian cabal  .

Our main point of disagreement seems to be not in the ways, but rather the means. I have a lesser view of the use of "concerted international pressure", since there are very few historical examples of this working without the backing of force. What event got results (we will argue about positive or negative another day), an edict from the Roman Senate or dispatching the Legions? A Papal Bull or the Crusades? The march by the Fascist regimes of Europe or edicts from the League of Nations?

Even in the case of Syria, many nations have made statements calling of Syria to withdraw from Lebanon, but the Ba'athists had no incentive to do so. Perhaps the weak response this time had to do with the chilling effect of a massive military machine on the other border. Judicious military response can cover a lot of ground, random bombing and cruise missile attacks are not "it", but everything from SF teams finding and neutralizing key players and assets of the "enemy" to various "nation building" tasks can fill the bill.

 

[mdh]

You are coming along quite nicely couchcommander, and I will soon have you in the clutches of the Straussian cabal  .

Hey whatever happened to opsec????? 

cheers, mdh

 

[couchcommander]

You are coming along quite nicely couchcommander, and I will soon have you in the clutches of the Straussian cabal   .

NEVER!! I forgot to mention a nice big helping of touchy feely respect and good will towards your fellow human beings, regardless of the choices they make!

Our main point of disagreement seems to be not in the ways, but rather the means.

Yea I'd agree with that. I think in the end we both want to have nations who are not threatening us, and whose populace is happy and well treated (for me, this does not necessarily mean democracy, though this is often the best route)?

I have a lesser view of the use of "concerted international pressure", since there are very few historical examples of this working without the backing of force. What event got results (we will argue about positive or negative another day), an edict from the Roman Senate or dispatching the Legions? A Papal Bull or the Crusades? The march by the Fascist regimes of Europe or edicts from the League of Nations?

I would argue that these things may have more immediate impact, but their lasting value is often times not that good. Realtively permanent solutions (IMO) can really only be had when the parties involved are all satisfied with said solution (or one side will always be looking for a way out). Using force to impose settlements, at least in recent history (think colonialism) doesn't have that good of a track record.

This, to me, means that military force should only really be used to enforce widespread popular movements (if the revolutionaries actually want you there), not to try and start one. This then presents a couple of benefits. Firstly, not everyone is your enemy, you at least have some indiginous allies, and hopefully this is the majority. Secondly, the hard part with which we seem to have the most trouble with, "winning hearts and minds" if you will, is already done for you. Thirdly, you don't look like an evil imperialist empire, but rather a liberator (will help when trying to continue the fight later on, and with gathering allies).

Re: international pressure

I'm always of a big proponent of the old (very old) maxim of "If you want peace, prepare for war" (Vegetius, Epitoma Rei Militaris). You cannot have absolutely no way of stopping someone from doing something, and still have them listen to you when you tell them to stop.

Having the resources to back up demands (such as, no genocide, which to me is one of the few grounds on which those responsible should be immediately "extricated" from country by whatever means necessary and immediately put on trial), makes them much more forceful.

Furthermore, league of nations edicts, UN resolutions.... the reason they carry no weight is because they carry no weight, rarely do the nations who put together the resolution actually do what they say they are going to do, and rarely do the resolutions go far enough. Whereas if we (the G8) were to say to someone like Mugabe, and actually mean it, that unless you bring about democratic reforms we will not engage in any type of social, political, or economic interactions except those that are humanitarian in nature; and furthermore if you continue to presist in this we will ensure, by whatever means necessary, that your remaining term in office will be your last; I think we would have a much better reaction.

Even in the case of Syria, many nations have made statements calling of Syria to withdraw from Lebanon, but the Ba'athists had no incentive to do so. Perhaps the weak response this time had to do with the chilling effect of a massive military machine on the other border. Judicious military response can cover a lot of ground, random bombing and cruise missile attacks are not "it", but everything from SF teams finding and neutralizing key players and assets of the "enemy" to various "nation building" tasks can fill the bill.

I'd agree with the SF teams bit as a last resort, but I think that the US was, at the time, and even now, incapable of actuallly invading Syria, and they knew it.

Now bombing it into the stone age, that's another story.... that definately may have factored into their thinking if the US suggested it. However that threat could have credible and exercise whether or not the US was in Iraq.

Throughout all of this, though, we have to remember that these people are not us, and they may have very different views about what is a "good" society. IMO as long as that vision does directly threaten us, or the well being of other peoples (minorities within said nations), we should help them along their path. Of course if this vision does directly threaten us (Western Nations should be obliterated, etc.), ignore it, contain it, wait for it to pass, and only respond or use force if necessary, and then only as a restorative, not punitive or reformative, measure.

EDIT:

Interesting thing popped up

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/10/31/csis051031.html

One of the not so good effects of overt and judicious military action when it is not generally perceived as a good thing.

 

[a_majoor]

I would argue that these things may have more immediate impact, but their lasting value is often times not that good. Realtively permanent solutions (IMO) can really only be had when the parties involved are all satisfied with said solution (or one side will always be looking for a way out). Using force to impose settlements, at least in recent history (think colonialism) doesn't have that good of a track record.

I suspect the citizens of Carthage might tend to disagree

I'm always of a big proponent of the old (very old) maxim of "If you want peace, prepare for war" (Vegetius, Epitoma Rei Militaris). You cannot have absolutely no way of stopping someone from doing something, and still have them listen to you when you tell them to stop.

Having the resources to back up demands (such as, no genocide, which to me is one of the few grounds on which those responsible should be immediately "extricated" from country by whatever means necessary and immediately put on trial), makes them much more forceful.

Furthermore, league of nations edicts, UN resolutions.... the reason they carry no weight is because they carry no weight, rarely do the nations who put together the resolution actually do what they say they are going to do, and rarely do the resolutions go far enough. Whereas if we (the G8) were to say to someone like Mugabe, and actually mean it, that unless you bring about democratic reforms we will not engage in any type of social, political, or economic interactions except those that are humanitarian in nature; and furthermore if you continue to presist in this we will ensure, by whatever means necessary, that your remaining term in office will be your last; I think we would have a much better reaction.

You seem to want to take your proposition and eat it too. How exactly do you expect these things to happen unless there is the ability and will to put muscle behind these pious statements. Canada is notorious for preaching on the world stage without follow through, it has gotten to the point that even rock stars like Bono have emerged from their hedonistic stupor to criticise Canada's lack of contribution/response to some of these crisis you have named.

I'd agree with the SF teams bit as a last resort, but I think that the US was, at the time, and even now, incapable of actuallly invading Syria, and they knew it.

Now bombing it into the stone age, that's another story.... that definately may have factored into their thinking if the US suggested it. However that threat could have credible and exercise whether or not the US was in Iraq.

There are several threads on this very topic, I am a big believer in the idea that the US has the ability to deliver incapacitating "head shots" to offensive regimes, their primary weakness today is the ability to follow up quickly enough to stabilize the country and establish a working government (the last time they did this was in 1945, so Iraq and Afghanistan represent some hard OJT on the subject). Rest assured, if the Americans fell there is a compelling reason to do so (like nuclear provocation), action WILL happen.

Throughout all of this, though, we have to remember that these people are not us, and they may have very different views about what is a "good" society. IMO as long as that vision does directly threaten us, or the well being of other peoples (minorities within said nations), we should help them along their path. Of course if this vision does directly threaten us (Western Nations should be obliterated, etc.), ignore it, contain it, wait for it to pass, and only respond or use force if necessary, and then only as a restorative, not punitive or reformative, measure.

Before you can restore or rebuild, you need to excise the cancer. Sanctions and "International Pressure" have track records similar to using homeopathy in curing cancer, wheras direct action works more like a scaple and chemotherapy. Iraq is simply undergoing an intensive course of chemo right now.

(edited to remove annoying nested quotes)

 

[couchcommander]

I suspect the citizens of Carthage might tend to disagree

Yes indeed, but that was before the idea of a nation even existed. Once we see the birth of nationalism (ie recent history), trying to force a population to do something, and continue to do it for a long period of time, via large scale military force applied by another "nation" does not have that many examples of success (of course that is unless you completely and utterly destroy the will of the population to fight, but I don't think we will be engaging in any World War's any time soon, IMO. So unless we are prepared to go into all out combat against civilian populations (ie bomb their cities to the ground), to me this doesn't seem like a method that has that good of a chance of being a semi-permanent solution).

The point is it's like me arguing with my girlfriend. If I have any hope of her actually being happy with what the end result is, it'd better seem to her that it is her idea in the end (even if it's not).

You seem to want to take your proposition and eat it too. How exactly do you expect these things to happen unless there is the ability and will to put muscle behind these pious statements. Canada is notorious for preaching on the world stage without follow through, it has gotten to the point that even rock stars like Bono have emerged from their hedonistic stupor to criticise Canada's lack of contribution/response to some of these crisis you have named.

That's exactly what I am saying though. a) we need to firstly have the ability to enforce whatever it is we are trying to enforce, b) we need the people whom we are trying to enforce it upon BELIEVE we have the ability to do so.

In large part this is done by carefully choosing precisely what it is you are threatening, ie don't threaten invasion if a) you really don't have the ability to control the country afterwards, and b) a much less intentsive, surgical operation would have, over time, the desired result. So for the example of mugabe, don't threaten to invade and remove him, threaten to kill him with a sniper or use SF to extracate him from the country, and all of his cronies.

The point of this is that indeed we need a strong and powerful military, but, hopefully, have to never use it.

If our threats are credible and believed, they will most likely be heeded.

And on your last point here, I am not really supportive of our position vis a vis Mugabe, the Sudan, etc.

There are several threads on this very topic, I am a big believer in the idea that the US has the ability to deliver incapacitating "head shots" to offensive regimes, their primary weakness today is the ability to follow up quickly enough to stabilize the country and establish a working government (the last time they did this was in 1945, so Iraq and Afghanistan represent some hard OJT on the subject). Rest assured, if the Americans fell there is a compelling reason to do so (like nuclear provocation), action WILL happen.

Fair enough, but one does have to realize that even American arms have limits.

Before you can restore or rebuild, you need to excise the cancer. Sanctions and "International Pressure" have track records similar to using homeopathy in curing cancer, wheras direct action works more like a scaple and chemotherapy. Iraq is simply undergoing an intensive course of chemo right now.

Containment has shown itself to be a very effective treatment for Authoritaranism Tyrantitis (the elephant in the room example is of course the Soviet Union, which so happened to collaspe whilst the US policy regarding it was containment).

And sure, but do you remove the entire brain, or, like some of the newest and most sucessful emerging treatments, do you cut off it's oxygen supply and slowly watch it wither away until the body goes and desposes of the empty shell that was the tumour on it's own?

 

[Infanteer]

Yes indeed, but that was before the idea of a nation even existed.

What are you talking about - "nationalism" is merely tribalism writ large.  Look at Athenian or Roman citizenship laws.

 

[paracowboy]

couch, you're ignoring the fact that the "containing" of the Soviet Union involved fighting wars all over the globe, with both sides at times committing large numbers of conventional forces.

 

[couchcommander]

What are you talking about - "nationalism" is merely tribalism writ large.   Look at Athenian or Roman citizenship laws.

Duiker and Speilvogel give a good synopsis "Nationalism arose out of an awareness of being part of a community that has common institutions, traditions, language, and custos. This community is called a nation, and the primary political loyalties would be to the nation. Nationalism did not become a popular force for change until the French Revolution. From then on, nationalists came to believe that each nationality should have its own government. Thus the Germans, who were not united, wanted national unity in a German nation-state with one central gvoernemtn. Subject peoples such as the Hungarians, wanted the right to establish their own autonomy rather than be subject to a German minority in the multinational Austrian Empire".

The germans are a good example. Though they have had many many small city states, and people did indeed feel attachment to these city states (as was the case in Roman or Hellenistic times), there nationalist sentiments, once realized, belonged to the "German" nation (the entire collection of city states who as a whole shared this identity), which went beyong these political boundaries. The same thing happened in Greece and Italy once this was realized. Belonging, as a citizen, to a political entity such as a city state does not constitute nationalism.

To further make my point:

"...nationalism too, has its roots in the French Revolution" - Merriman

"Nationalism...arose so largely in reaction against the international Napoleonic system.... It was the most pervasive and least crystallized of the new 'isms'." - Palmer, Colton, Kramer.

And Para,

You're absolutely right. And should this become necessary (ie if one of these states tried to forcibly break out of containment), then the absolutely right thing to do would be to respond with overwhemling force, but only in so far as to restore the situation (ie they did not ever directly attack the soviet union, just try and prevent it from growing). If a massive, conventional war were to break out as a result of this policy, then so be it.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't know who Duiker, Speilvogel, Merriman, Palmer, Colton, and Kramer are and, due to the fact that you provide no context, I don't really care.   You say "Nationalism arose out of an awareness of being part of a community that has common institutions, traditions, language, and custos. This community is called a nation, and the primary political loyalties would be to the nation" - common customs, institutions and language is a tribal characteristic; it is what seperated the Gauls from the Romans from the Greeks from the Egyptians.   Your are referring to nationalism in its modern form in which it is tied intimately to the Westphalian State.   But Senatus Populusque Romanus means just as much as the examples you provide, so don't make something out of nothing.

With regards to your the subject matter being discussed, the "nation" that many extremist Muslims refer to (including the Salafists) is the ummah and it is far older than the French Revolution; it is derived from the Qu'ran and has roots in the Caliphate of the Prophet's Companions.

 

[couchcommander]

I don't know who Duiker, Speilvogel, Merriman, Palmer, Colton, and Kramer are and, due to the fact that you provide no context, I don't really care.   You say "Nationalism arose out of an awareness of being part of a community that has common institutions, traditions, language, and custos. This community is called a nation, and the primary political loyalties would be to the nation" - common customs, institutions and language is a tribal characteristic; it is what seperated the Gauls from the Romans from the Greeks from the Egyptians.   Your are referring to nationalism in its modern form in which it is tied intimately to the Westphalian State.   But Senatus Populusque Romanus means just as much as the examples you provide, so don't make something out of nothing.

Duiker, William and Spielvogel, Jackson. 2004. World History. 520. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Merriman, John. 2004. A History of Modern Europe. 470. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Palmer, R, et al. 2002. A History of the Modern World. 445. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sorry for using such general texts in referencing my statement, unfortunately it's the only thing on the topic I have in my library that I could easily find (most of it is 20th century warfare, french revolution, reformation, or really, really, old books).

I was bringing these up to support my statement that nationalism was a fairly recent thing, which I think they do.  

Back during Roman times yes indeed you did have Gauls or Greeks, but this identity meant much less to them than their affliliation to a particular state, ie Athens, Sparta, Corinth, etc. Egyptians would not really have identified themselves with their fellow egyptians due to an idea of a egyptian "nation", but because they all under the control of a certain Pharaoh, as europeans did with their lords and kings in the dark and middle ages. SPQR does indeed come close to being a nation, but once again falls short as this was largely a political construction, and not social or cultural indentity (think of the Hapsburg empire vs. the German and Slavic nations that were contained within it).

The history of modern european national groups predates 1648, they were just not thought of as a primary indentifying factor until the 19th century.

EDIT: In the end I guess you could call it trumped up tribalism... but I would still argue that the size of the groups invovled and the forcefulness of their sense of common identity presents very special and hard to overcome problems

EDIT to your EDIT:

I had always been under the impression that though they were Muslims, they were still Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese, much as there are Catholics but still Spanards, Portugese, etc. Even if you are right, I think, their feeling of nationalism in regards to ie Lebanese, is still very strong, and as thus we see the rebellion against the Syrians despite the fact that they are both Muslims.

EDIT ^ 3:

This actually makes for "double jeopardy" if you will, as they will not only hate us from imposing "american" values upon their "whatever, say Iranian" nation, but also because we are the infidels who are attacking their "unmah" nation. This actually adds to my point, I believe, that trying to use over military force will not really be that sucessful in the long run.

 

[Infanteer]

Duiker, William and Spielvogel, Jackson. 2004. World History. 520. Belmont: Thomson I had always been under the impression that though they were Muslims, they were still Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese, much as there are Catholics but still Spanards, Portugese, etc. Even if you are right, I think, their feeling of nationalism in regards to ie Lebanese, is still very strong, and as thus we see the rebellion against the Syrians despite the fact that they are both Muslims.

So, you think the insurgency in Iraq is based upon the notion of "Iraqi"?   The Shi'ites who flocked to Moqtada al-Sadr's banner had their reasons for doing so (and so did those who sided with al-Sistani).   The Sunni Insurgency has its own impetus (it is largely under the banner of Ansar al-Sunnah, AFAIK) while the foreign element is there for its own reasons (this is related to fighting Americans and the concept of the ummah that I refered to above).   The foreigners had ties to some Kurdish sects (MUK?), but now seem to have gathered under the Jordanian Abu Musib al-Zarqawi and his Tawid organization (AQ in Iraq).   The other Kurdish factions have their own beef with everyone around them (including our buds the Turks).   Throughout these relationships, we see tribal instinct manifesting itself through religious, ethnic and base tribal groupings.

There is nothing "Iraqi" about this - "Iraq" was the formulation of a "state" out of three seperate Turkish provinces.   It was usurped by what is largely a tribal faction, the Sunni Tikritis (a minority) which used Ba'athist Arab Nationalism to justify what was essentially a tribal putsch in an area with a Shia majority (hence why Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti dropped the last part; tribalism didn't jibe with the whole Ba'ath idea).

You'd see the same in Syria and Lebanon.   You think Syria is entralled by the notion of "Syrian" nationalism?   You've got the same situation as existed in Iraq except the religious scenario is revered - the Assad clan is from the Shi'ite minority Alawites who pulled the same stunt over the majority Sunni population.   Want to see how "Syrian nationalism" turned out?   Look up Hama.   Lebanon is a clash between changing demographics between Christian Moronites, the Druze, and the Shi'ites.   For good measure, throw some Sunnis in there, the odd Palestinian and the Israelis.   Beirut was a nice place, and it may look nice now with "Cedar Revolution" but I have no doubt that the tribalism beneath the whole situation can easily rip the fabric that is "Lebanon" apart again - read Beirut to Jerulsalem by Friedman for a good look at this.   We've already seen some of these tremors with the violence in Beirut and the pro-Syrian rallies that tend to take place after the anti-Syrian rallies.

As I said above, the characteristics of nationalism are nothing new; kin-group preference and selection is something hardwired into the human psyche - "Nationalism" in the Western political sense is when you tie this to the Westphalian Nation state - getting the vast "tribal" identities of Britain or France or Germany to focus on some common themes (Kirkhill can talk about this in detail).   It is largely foreign to the area we are discussing which has its own unique cultural understanding of where tribal loyalties lie (as I mentioned, the ummah is one very important one).

The biggest mistake you can make when looking at the Arabs, the Indians, the Chinese or the Martians is looking at them through the bias of Western thought.   You say that new-fangled "nationalism" provides some will to resist which seems to imply that that capability was lacking before the advent of some complex political idea from France.   I'd say this is a lack of understanding of what can drive the Arab, or any other entity that falls back on its tribal base, to fight.   Read the Gallic Wars; tribalism led to Gaulish fighting the Romans and each other for a variety of reasons and it will have the same effect in the Arab world.

 

[a_majoor]

Most of what we "know" about WW IV is wrong, and here is an analysis of why this is so. Read the entire thing here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/interrogatory/miniter200511030759.asp

Myth Busting
Getting at truths in the war on terror.

Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez

Everything you know about the war on terror is false? Well, not quite. But Rich Miniter has homed in on 22 myths, which comprises his new book, Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror. He recently talked about some of them with National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez.

Lopez: And the CIA isn't to blame for him?

Miniter: I guess '80s music has made a comeback, but memories of 1980s history are fading fast. Yes, the CIA funded Afghans fighting for their country against the Soviets, but virtually all of that CIA money went through the ISI, Pakistan's feared intelligence service. The money was earmarked for seven different factions of the resistance â ” all of them Afghan. Meanwhile, the Saudis funded a separate and parallel program for Muslim radicals drawn from across the Muslim world. Bottom line: Bin Laden was funded by the Saudis, not by us. I interviewed all three of the CIA station chiefs responsible for managing the Afghan war. All denied that any CIA money went to any Arabs, let alone bin Laden. I also pored over every bin Laden interview conducted in any language from the 1980s to today. In every single instance bin Laden is asked about CIA money, he denies it.

Maybe bin Laden did not get the Talking Points Memo or the e-mail from the DailyKos crowd, and doesn't know he's bucking the antiwar party line.

****

Miniter: There are so many differences between the Vietnam War and the Iraq war that I had to write a 10,000-word chapter just to present all of the evidence. Basically, Iraq is Vietnam in reverse. Vietnam began with a small but growing insurgency and ended with tanks and division-strength infantry assaults on our forces. In Iraq, we destroyed the tanks and vanquished the army in a few weeks. The insurgency in Iraq is estimated today at 20,000 men. In 1966, Viet Cong and North Vietnamese regulars had combined troop strength of 700,000. By 1973, they had 1 million men under arms. North Vietnam had two superpowers supplying cutting-edge weapons; the most the insurgents in Iraq can hope for is car-bomb expertise from Iran and Syria. Ho Chi Minh was a compelling leader whose propaganda promised a better life for peasants. Al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian street thug who gets no respect in Iraq and offers no vision of a better life. I could go on and on about all of the important differences. Once you read this chapter, you will be able to shoot down liberals at cocktail parties for the next 20 years.

As for the 2,000, why does the press treat brave men and women as mere statistics? Instead of merely telling us that they died, don't we owe it to these fallen soldiers to say how they died? Many of them died heroically, saving the lives of others.

Lopez: Speaking of deaths . . . we haven't killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis?

Miniter: When I investigated the 100,000 dead-civilians claim, I was surprised at how quickly it fell apart. The 100,000 figure is based on a single study in a British medical journal published just days before the 2004 elections. The authors were open about their anti-Bush bias. They got the 100,000 by knocking on doors in 33 neighborhoods across Iraq. They simply asked Iraqis how many civilian deaths they knew about. They did not take any steps to avoid double counting. They didn't demand any proof, such as a funeral notice or a newspaper clipping. Instead they decided to just trust Iraqis to give them straight dope. So if you interview Baghdad Bob you know what kind of answers you're going to get. In that chapter, I also uncovered four other major technical flaws with that study. The 100,000 dead civilians claim is provably false.

****

Lopez: How much information is the fault of foreign sources â ” with agendas? And lazy American journalists picking them up?

Miniter: Quite a bit. The myth that bin Laden is on dialysis came from Pakistan's intelligence service via its newspapers. Pakistan also gave us the myth that Mossad warned the Jews to stay home on 9/11. That is classic disinformation. The media generates a lot of these myths by giving credence to ideologically motivated critics â ” and they have grown too lazy to check. A lot of what we think about as liberal bias is really just poor editing. Editors don't push reporters to present evidence or to evaluate what anonymous sources are telling them. A simple question from a single editor could have saved Newsweek a lot of embarrassment: Can a U.S.-issued Koran actually fit down the bowl of an Army toilet? And 60 Minutes could have saved itself some grief by asking just how credible the claims of General Lebed that Russian suitcase-sized nuclear devices had gone missing. Lebed was known for his wild stories, and U.S. officials had monitored the destruction of such portable nukes years before the story broke.

Lopez: Speaking of foreign entryways, why do you pile on Canada?

Miniter: Because the Canadian border is the real threat, at least from al-Qaeda terrorists. No al-Qaeda operatives have been captured along the southern border, but a number have slipped in from Canada, including Ahmed Ressam, who planned to blow up Los Angles International Airport in 1999. When you read all the evidence, you will know why the FBI worries more about the threat from the north . . .
****

Lopez: Which myth most surprised you?

Miniter: Several ones really surprised me. The notion that terrorism is caused by poverty especially. It turns out that the average al-Qaeda member is from an intact family, has at least a college degree, is more likely to be married than not, and was not particularly religious until he joined a terror cell. A former CIA officer who is now a forensic psychiatrist lays out fascinating information about what really causes terrorism in chapter 16 and describes the techniques used to keep these otherwise promising people on the path to murder. That was an eye-opener to me, and I have been interviewing intelligence officers for years.

Another surprise was that we did find some WMDs in Iraq. Okay, no stockpiles, but artillery shells loaded with sarin gas as well as other chemical weapons. The antiwar crowd always says "no evidence" â ” nada, zip, zero â ” and they are provably wrong.

Lopez: You should get these myths on postcards. Have them at the door at the bar down the block. Think of the impact on public opinion!

Miniter: Getting the myth onto a postcard is easy. Getting all of the evidence against it on a postcard would require really small font. We'd have to give all patrons little magnifying glasses.

****
Lopez: Is this war â ” the Iraq part in particular â ” salvageable? Katie Couric makes me feel like it's not.

Miniter: Yeah, she's my favorite military expert too. I have been to Iraq and I think that we are winning. The press simply doesn't play up allied victories; they save that precious air time for the next car bomb. Consider the recent campaign in a place called Tall Afar, near the Syrian border. An Iraqi-American force (with more Iraqis than Americans) took on dug insurgents in A series of battles in September 2005. The enemy was quickly beaten and more than 100 terrorists were taken prisoner. Tall Afar was important because it cut a key enemy supply route from Syria to Baghdad and drove the enemy out of its desert strongholds. Or consider that the al-Zarqawi master bomb-maker was recently captured in Northern Iraq, as well as a bomb factory. And so on. Nor has it escaped the notice of Iraqis that most of the victims of the insurgency are civilians and most of suicide bombers are foreigners, some 60 percent hail from Saudi Arabia according to the death notices posted on jihadist websites. The war reporting from Iraq is shockingly one-sided, partly because some of the fixers and translators employed by some Western journalists once worked from Saddam's regime.  

  http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/miniter200511030759.asp

The business about Canada should give us the collective shivers

 

[Acorn]

The business about Canada should give us the collective shivers

Especially since it's such bovine excrement. Who, besides Ressam, is he talking about? Also, what's the whole story about how Ressam was picked up?

 

[paracowboy]

Especially since it's such bovine excrement.

no it isn't. We've had several RCMP, former RCMP, CSIS, and former CSIS types appear in the media over the past several years warning us that we are over-run with terrorists and spies. We have been for decades. We allowed Hezbollah and HAMAS to operate from here for how long? We allowed the Cubans to run a spy ring out of their embassy, and now we have the Chinese stealing everything that isn't nailed down, info-wise.

Let's face it, when it comes to anything resembling Intelligence work, we always screw it up. That's why the Brits and Yanks booted us out of the ISTAR meetings in Bosnia last decade. That's why we had CSIS types losing top-secret files outside of bars, but not losing their jops. And if incompetence doesn't screw us up, our "leader's" concerns with making personal profit at the expense of the nation does it for us.

 

[Infanteer]

no it isn't. We've had several RCMP, former RCMP, CSIS, and former CSIS types appear in the media over the past several years warning us that we are over-run with terrorists and spies. We have been for decades. We allowed Hezbollah and HAMAS to operate from here for how long? We allowed the Cubans to run a spy ring out of their embassy, and now we have the Chinese stealing everything that isn't nailed down, info-wise.

Yes, but is this unique to Canada?  Is Canada the staging point for operations?  I think this is a problem shared with the Brits and the Americans which is what Acorn was getting at.  9/11 and the London Metro bombings were done by groups that worked within those respective countries.

 

[a_majoor]

Canada has the unique problem of not only having to deal with terrorists who are in this country to attack us, but also those who are in country to attack the United States. The proximity of the target and the rather porous border are inviting to wuold be terrorists, as is the rather lax law enforcement here (the alleged bombing ring broken by CISIS, the RCMP and the CBA included a person who was here for several years after being denyed a refugee claim.)

The consequences of a successful attack on the United States mounted from Canada would be swift, severe and painful, as we are much easier to reach and "influence" than other terrorist havens. As Infanteer poits out, you can find these people under almost any rock, but given our proximity to the US, I think we should be paying a "LOT" more attention to this matter tha we do.