| Submit your comments on this article |
| On proportion and strategy... |
| 2005-08-01 |
| It's tough being commander in chief. I've never done it, of course, but when you give the subject a little thought you can see where the difficulty lies. George Bush is sworn to support and defend the Constitution, which provides for the common defense. Quite aside from the Constitution there are fundamental matters of right and wrong, the possible and the impossible, the desirable and the undesirable, plus the Law of Unintended Consequences. He's got to deal with all these factors, not sequentially, but all at once, and he's got to make a minimum of mistakes. Despite having been described as "simplistic" by his detractors, he's handling complex events well, making decisions based on events as they unfold, strategy for the coming years, and the constraints as they exist. The U.S. has the capability to "nuke Mecca," to lay waste the entire Muslim world that's declared war on us and that wants to destroy our civilization, despoil us of our riches, and grab our women as sexual playthings. Having the capability and using it are two different things. Extreme actions usually aren't the ones that have desirable outcomes, and they're invariably the ones that have the highest incidence of unintended consequences. Consider:
That leaves Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of whom profess to be best friends with us. The Pak jihadis are the Saudis' surrogate. The country itself is somewhere between Syria and Afghanistan, only with a larger population and a small nuclear arsenal. Left to its own devices, bereft of Saudi funding and outside economic aid, Pakistan's just another failed state, and a fairly spectacular failure at that. Given the right circumstances, Pakistan will become Somalia, or more likely four or five Somalias. So now we're down to only Saudi Arabia. That's where the money comes from. That's where the Learned Elders of Islam reside. That's the headquarters for the "charities." Saudi Arabia is the country people call before exploding in the subway in London and after taking hostages in Moscow. They fund madrassahs to keep Pakistan at a boil, and they export al-Ghamdis to lead the jihad. They also produce a fair amount of the oil that we use, so open hostilities with them is a shot to our economic foot. Just as important, they're of central religious significance to the rest of the Muslim world. Nuking Mecca's the sure way to take all those states out of the "neutral" category and put them into the "hostile" category, and to take most if not all the friendlies and put them there, too. That leaves us with conventional tools, which boils down to diplomacy, military action, legal action, and covert action. That's where the constraints Bush works within show up. Rather than carpet bombing large portions of the Muslim world, we're engaging in diplomacy, trying to give the Saudis the opportunity to quietly cease and desist and we'll all pretend it never happened. Where military action is appropriate, we're using it. Throwing Sammy out was a slice through the Gordian knot of despotism, and trying to establish a reasonably democratic state in the heart of Fanaticstan is a counterattack on the caliphate. Eventually Iran will either collapse from within or we'll slice that knot, too. Legal and police action takes the cannon fodder off the streets and sometimes breaks up an entire network, usually in the wake of an attack. Covert action is hopefully bumping off the holy men behind the jihadis one by one, not that it's something we should ever admit to. Winning the war isn't going to be a quick operation. Cheney warned us about that four years ago. The trick is not only to win it, but to win it with the smallest possible corpse count. "The Masses™" all have faces, homes, children, and they're just as human as we are, even though some of them don't feel shame like we do. The innocents, even the hostile neutrals, haven't done anything that deserves incineration, any more than the people who went to work at the WTC on 9-11-01 did. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #33 "...and trying to establish a reasonably democratic state in the heart of Fanaticstan is a counterattack on the caliphate." Except that we misunderestimated the extent of the fanaticism there, and the Constitution looks increasingly like a roadmap to theocracy, complete with built-in Jew hatred. |
| Posted by: Gun Hippy 2005-08-01 22:56 |
| #32 Just got back from a 2300-mile round trip to bury my wife's mother, so I haven't been on Rantburg, even as a lurker, for over a week. It's going to take some time to catch up. Fred, your article should be plastered all over every newspaper in the world, in whatever language people there read. There are two things I'd like to add, however. We made grave mistakes in Vietnam. One of the worst was creating sanctuaries where our enemy could rest, recover, and rearm. I hope our leaders learned the lesson of that huge mistake, and that there are NO sanctuaries allowed in this war. We already know that Muslims on all sides use mosques to both spew their propaganda, and to hide weapons and equipment. We know that Islam not only allows Muslims to lie to anyone NOT a Muslim, but recommends this technique. We know the mistakes of a Hudna. We've learned a lot about Islam over the past four years, and the understanding of it both as a religion and as a political operation has grown as well. NEVER AGAIN! We cannot allow the same mistakes made in Vietnam happen in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to keep us from destroying enemy troops, stockpiles of equipment, or weapons, REGARDLESS of where they're stored. "War happens when diplomacy fails" is more apt than "War is another form of diplomacy". If we DO wage war against any foe, it should be done with the greatest force necessary to accomplish the objectives. If that means totally crushing our opponents, let's do it. If it means removing one set of lunatics to install another, let's try something else. As you said, this is going to be a long war. Let's learn from our mistakes, both in Vietnam and the Cold War, and not make them again. Let's also try to be a little bit smarter this time, and not make too many NEW mistakes. We may never nuke Mecca, but at the same time we should never state that we won't. We must also be willing to carry through if we feel it's necessary. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-08-01 22:37 |
| #31 A thought for the day, for Fred and the others here: if the search function here were operating well and fine-grained enough (not that I'm complaining) to be able to pick out every time Al Qaeda's operations managers (Zarqawi and Zawahari, I guess) in each theater have bombed a Mosque (Shi'ite, Sunni, whatever) themselves it would still spit out about a hundred articles. I don't think the idea of seeing the Grand Mosque destroyed has *any* deterrent value to the extremists we're stuck at war with anyway. They'd LOVE to be able to rewrite their religion to replace the requirement of the Haj with a requirement to murder an "unbeliever," whether that means a Christian, a Wiccan, an Atheist, or a Shi'ite/Sunni/Sufi/Whatever... I'm not certain they really care about Islam any more than Mao cared about the oppressed proletariat. I think too many of the "war between civilizations or religions" crowd are missing this. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-08-01 21:39 |
| #30 Educated - If the U.S. were to "nuke Mecca" it would be in response to nuclear weapons being used on our territory, against our people. Terrorist activity would have already "increased tenfold" because one of the redlines would have been crossed. The point I was making, and have made many times, is that the use of WMDs is not a decision that we will make lightly. In fact, it's one we'll bend over backwards not to make. It would mean we'd have lost the capability to control the war within the constraints I discussed above and that we had decided to accept the consequences that went with the move. It's a move I hope to never see. TGA - Thank you. I'm flattered. I was trying to sort out the arguments against overreaction in my own mind. I wish I had the time to "think on paper" more often... |
| Posted by: Fred 2005-08-01 19:44 |
| #29 Congratulations Fred, I hope you put a special link to that posting to make it "sticky". It's the essence of this blog (which is more than a blog). Some institutes get paid a fortune to put out analysis which is not half as good. In a short article you summed up everything that's important, something that an editorial of the NYT just doesn't seem to manage. We are all privileged to post here. So let's put any petty quarrels aside and focus on the big picture. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-08-01 19:09 |
| #28 If the U. S. went so far as to nuke Mecca, it wouldn't be the only place nuked. Attendance at Friday prayers would be down almost as much as terrorist attacks. That's why, I hope, it isn't going to happen. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-01 17:37 |
| #27 If the United States went so far as to nuke Mecca, terrorist attacks would increase tenfold. |
| Posted by: Educated 2005-08-01 17:22 |
| #26 Fred, Excellent original commentary. You need to be something like "Fredmont Club" or "PowerlineFred". lol. Appreciate your good work. |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-08-01 16:57 |
| #25 Thanks! :-) |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2005-08-01 15:40 |
| #24 Aris's webjournal url for that nice anonymous5089 http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/ |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-08-01 15:33 |
| #23 Let's make a list, check it twice, so we know who is naughty and nice... I think Sultan Qaboos of Oman is with us too... "General Tommy Franks's 2004 book American Soldier, he described the sultan as a true friend to the United States in the War on Terror, with 'no guile, no secret agenda'." - Wikipedia If Gen Franks says the Sultan is cool, he must be... Oman should be listed as "with us"... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-08-01 15:31 |
| #22 Mrs D. Saudi may already have a few purchased from Pakistan for all we know. A.Q Khan is a person we are not allowed to get an interview with AFAIK. All the Info we have is second hand. I don't think the Saudi's or Pakistan would tell us if they did. They are aimed at Iran not us or Israel, They know what Israel would do if they used one or even tried. Fred I don't think we would ever nuke Mecca. That isn't our way. We do have actual strategic targets to hit that will not hurt us or the world's supply of Saudi oil. It shouldn't be off the table but I don't think we would ever target it. I still look at Dave D's list and mull what stage we will go to next. We certainly are more at the beginning of this struggle than the middle. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-08-01 15:30 |
| #21 OT "I popped over to Aris's web journal after reading his post here". Mrs. Trailing wife, what's the url, if you may be kind enough? |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2005-08-01 15:23 |
| #20 Provided, 1) we keep the Pakistani nukes under control, 2) the MM don't develop nukes, and 3) some Soddie doesn't buy one from Kimmie for Binnie. That's a lot of things to control, even for a hyper-power. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-01 15:19 |
| #19 My guess is that they don't have them, otherwise they would have used them. Instead, they hint at having them and claim to have them, and that way we're still forced to defend agains them. If I'm wrong, then all bets are off and Mecca's toast, with my (probably posthumous) approval. But I think we've seen the worst they can do at Beslan. |
| Posted by: Fred 2005-08-01 15:07 |
| #18 Great Editorial Fred a very well ordered discription of reality. I have to say our side is doing very, very, well considering the constraints. I think some of us (like me) are frustrated with how long it's taking to get this over with. We do fully realising that this is a long slog. I still worry about what we will do when we are blind sided by a series of nukes going off here in the USA. We are after all "The great Satan" who many islamic folk are happy to curse and loudly chant that they want our death. That is my biggest worry. That they will hit NY and Washington again, this time with multiple nukes. That is the AQ way and Iran would be happy to supply them. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-08-01 14:55 |
| #17 I popped over to Aris's web journal after reading his post here. (To tell the truth, it's amazing that he is still pro-American after the Rantburg fireworks -- yes, he was absolutely not an innocent party, but he hadn't the maturity/life experience to understand why his words triggered such a strong reaction. At his age I was equally bewildered.) He's on medical leave from the Greek Army at the moment, having broken a small bone in his foot during an overenthusiastic long march. So he is still doing his service, and won't have much time to post here, whether he wants to or not. I also get the sense he's been forced to mature a bit... much like bratty Israeli boys grow up in the IDF. Certainly the few photos he's posted show he's lost his boyish chubbiness. ;-) I hope that the latest round of verbiage is due to the fact that many of us are feeling wrung out by the events in London, and the constant drumbeat of death, death, death coming from the mainstream media. Certainly I've melted down a time or two, for which I apologize to you all, and thank you for your patience and generosity. Fred, thank you for the big-picture summary -- it's really important to pull back every once in a while, something I don't do very well, I'm afraid. It helps, especially the reminder that our side is actually doing pretty well, considering. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-08-01 14:31 |
| #16 Excellent commentary, Fred--thank you! I admit that I too have moments where I slip back into the belief that the "moderate Muslim" is a mythical being, but we certainly do have plenty of Islamic allies that deserve credit. PLEASE--let's not turn this thread into another whine-tasting! We already have a thread hijacked for that purpose today. |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-08-01 14:22 |
| #15 Mucki, could you do a tune for us? The one with the little chillruns? This would be a fine time. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-01 13:30 |
| #14 My humblest apologies for not reading your pearls of wisdom with sufficent care. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-01 13:28 |
| #13 "It's remarkable how many people comment on what they thought they read instead of what was written. I wrote:" You're right, Osama hasn't been caught. And, who knows what headaches the MM's suffer from that we are indirectly or covertly responsible for. Good Bye, so long! |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2005-08-01 13:23 |
| #12 Tom, I appreciate your frustration but please hang in there. Anon5089, good point. It seems to me the issue is what Europe can do to promote assimilation, assuming that enough Europeans care to maintain their native culture. We make Americans much more efficiently than they make Europeans. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-08-01 13:19 |
| #11 Very well thought, reality-based editorial from the Man, as always... but this applies to the WOT seen from the US side. What about Europe? What about its coming decade with population shift (native pop will shrink and gets older, muslim pop will swell due to higher birthrate and massive immigration, and stay comparatively younger and less affluent), with possible (probable?) civil unrest, sharing of the power between communities, political subversion,... This can't be managed the same way as an oversea meta-war (some of this equally applies to the US homefront, btw). Any thought? |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2005-08-01 12:57 |
| #10 It's remarkable how many people comment on what they thought they read instead of what was written. I wrote: "...Bush has neither bagged Osama nor dealt a setback to Iran." Nothing about Bush not dealing a setback to Osama. I've had all I can take of Rantburg for awhile. The return of Mike Sylwester is a downer. The return of Aris Katsaris is a downer. This commenting without careful reading, which is all too common, is a downer. Goodbye. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-08-01 12:56 |
| #9 The question of whose side is time on is fairly debatable. Time is on our side in the sense that Islamic fanaticism stands no chance whatsoever in a long-term contest of values with Western liberal democracy, which is what the WOT is about. On the proverbial other hand, every passing day may be bringing us closer to the time what the nutjobs are going to have their hands on a nuke. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-08-01 12:55 |
| #8 Brovo, Mrs. D! I especially liked the 'oldest written Constitution' part. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-08-01 12:46 |
| #7 We're not engaging them on their turf, but they're engaging us on ours. Not since 9/11. The conflict is playing out on the turf most convenient to us, Iraq, Afghanistan and an increasingly free media. There is not an American consensus on pursuing this war. Thus, like the cold war, it will be a long slow war of endurance. We have won this kind of war before, and it may be the kind of war for which democracy is actually best suited. Bush has not dealt a set back to Osama? Then why hasn't OBL attacked the US again? Bush hasn't dealt a set back to Iran? Tell that to the mullah keeping the Kurds in the north of Iran under control. Bush hasn't done everything, true. He's started plenty, but left work for his sucessor. But that's part of the strategy. Osama's the one who declared war on the country with the oldest written constitution in the world. Let's see who can last longest. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-01 12:20 |
| #6 Bush has neither ... nor dealt a setback to Iran. Might want to pay a little attention to the troubles the mullahs are having with domestic opposition of late. A small match can light a big fire and set a pot boiling, if the fuel is staked just so and the person with the match knows what he's doing. |
| Posted by: leader of the pack 2005-08-01 12:14 |
| #5 Best Rantburg Editorial Ever. |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-08-01 12:11 |
| #4 Pakistan is a major nuclear problem that could change to far more hostile leadership, almost overnight. Their "bomb" is the "Islamic bomb". Saudi Arabia and Iran have major hostile components and are responsible for stoking much of the terrorism of the last 20 years. Saudi Arabia already has a major weapon -- oil. If the princes' heads roll, Saudi Arabia will use it against us. The leadership in Iran is hostile, clearly developing nuclear weapons, and has a long record of exporting terrorism and supporting it. What all three have in common is that the most dangerous elements in each are located squarely in the Islamic religous leadership. They have no qualms about killing us. The innocents, even the hostile neutrals, haven't done anything that deserves incineration, but if we don't take a firm position now, this evil triumvirate will show us far worse than 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7. They are working every day to develop more martyrs and more-powerful weapons for them to use against us. You say that "The trick is not only to win it, but to win it with the smallest possible corpse count". I would append "on our side" to that and tell you that I'm not optimistic right now. In almost four years, Bush has neither bagged Osama nor dealt a setback to Iran. Afghanistan was a good start. Iraq was a necessary operation. But the only "War on Terrorism" that I see as regards the most virulent parts of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran is a verbal one. We're not engaging them on their turf, but they're engaging us on ours. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-08-01 12:05 |
| #3 Thee's either a bad link, or Fred wrote this. I vote for #2. Well done! If we lump all of "them" into a single category, it makes "us" as bad as "them". |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-08-01 12:00 |
| #2 hear, hear. excellent post, Fred. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-08-01 11:49 |
| #1 All of which goes a long way to explain why the editorial pages of the NYT, the Globe, the LA Times, etc. are filled with comments on what Bush should not have done and say very little about what specifically (i.e., not John Kerry's "I would do it better" line) Bush should do. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-08-01 11:35 |