Know Your Enemy
This certainly strikes me as a pretty astounding admission:
At the same time, the Americans acknowledge that they are no closer to understanding the inner workings of the insurgency or stemming the flow of foreign fighters, who are believed to be conducting a vast majority of suicide attacks. The insurgency, believed to be an unlikely mix of Baath Party die-hards and Islamic militants, has largely eluded the understanding of American intelligence officers since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government 27 months ago.
Under those circumstances, it's extremely hard to see how you could make any sort of progress. I think Peter Galbraith got the basic dynamic right, "while the insurgents cannot win, neither can they be defeated."
Advertisement
"At the same time, the Americans acknowledge that they are no closer to understanding the inner workings of the insurgency or stemming the flow of foreign fighters"
The past couple of years have been an excellent opportunity to read or reread The Best and the Brightest.
The reason you don't go into a war based on lies is that it creates a tremendous bureaucratic obstacle to thinking clearly about how to win the war.
July 24, 2005 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam, 1993. The story of how we got into the quagmire of Vietnam.
Thanks for the recommendation.
July 24, 2005 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 24, 2005 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
WBC starts with:
"Ultimately, success or failure in Iraq will have nothing to do with our ability to "defeat" the terrorists there"
And ends with:
"When Iraq is able to deal with the situation using its own forces we can largely depart and go kill terrorists elsewhere."
And in that 'elsewhere', will our ability to "defeat" the terrorists also not matter?
But more to the point, when we pick the next 'elsewhere', can we at least pick a place that has terrorists before we arrive?
------
"Ultimately, success or failure in Iraq ... on whether Iraq can develop reasonably representative and effective government that can extend its writ throughout the country."
Will you settle for a Shiite theocracy allied with Iran running most of the country, a permanent Sunni rebellion, and a Kurdish enclave?
Cuz that's about as close to "success" as we're likely to get.
July 24, 2005 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 24, 2005 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can people who label themselves "progressive" be so pessimistic and defeatist?
I don't think thats a pessimistic assessment. I think thats a description of the way things are moving. I agree its not an especially optimistic assessment, but I don't think its a particularly negative assessment either - I'd just say its descriptive.
All one has to do is read a few books about the Middle East and follow the news carefully to see that these are the dynamics at work.
July 24, 2005 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How can people who label themselves "progressive" be so pessimistic and defeatist?"
Because the administration has been making such poor decisions since the opening days of the invasion.
Because even if the administration suddenly started making all the right decisions, it's probably too late to get anything better than non-hostile stability.
Democracy would've been tough to pull off even if things had been done right in '03. And things weren't.
-----
"The last Islamic assault on Western Civilization lasted from the latter half of the 7th century until the second siege of Vienna. That's over a thousand years. I'd say you people are being a bit impatient."
Our enemy's strategy depends on triggering a Clash of Civilizations. If we mismanage this thing badly enough to give them that fight, then we've already lost.
When our era's George Kenan finally emerges, he'll be preaching a long-term effort to prevent a Clash of Civilizations. Winning involves marginalizing Al Qaeda, not repelling an Islamic assault.
July 24, 2005 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
But more to the point, when we pick the next 'elsewhere', can we at least pick a place that has terrorists before we arrive?"
I'm not particular, provided that it is outside the territorial limits of the United States. (WBC)
And when bombs start exploding in US subways and malls? Will you become particular then?
It's not much harder for terror cells to be established in the USA than in Spain or Britain.
One day, too likely, all that bull about fighting them "over there" will be exposed as yet another fraud.
July 24, 2005 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mathew thanks for the excellent links, though some seem to think that trying to understand what is happening in Iraq and what the terrorists are all about is somehow bad I think the Galbraith article shows how important it is to understand. It is merely the difference between success and complete failure.
July 24, 2005 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 25, 2005 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 25, 2005 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"A clash of civilizations is a pretty good description of what we have already. Indeed, the jihadis view this as a continuation of the old struggle (dating back to the 7th century)..."
I think you're dead wrong in your strategic thinking, and in some fundamental ways.
It is in the design and interests of the jihadis to resurrect a clash of civilization. But it is not in our interests.
The jihadis immediate concern is control of the Islamic world, which they currently don't have. Their tactic is to try to achieve a mutual, self-sustaining polarization of both Islamic and non-Islamic worlds. This polarization would be their path to power inside the Islamic world.
Our strategic imperative is in avoiding this kind of polarization.
July 25, 2005 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The jihadis immediate concern is control of the Islamic world, which they currently don't have. Their tactic is to try to achieve a mutual, self-sustaining polarization of both Islamic and non-Islamic worlds. This polarization would be their path to power inside the Islamic world."
When the WTC fell down there was general jubilation in the West Bank and Gaza as well as a number of other places in the Islamic world. With the exception of Kuwait and certain places within the UAE, the United States has been envied and disliked by the Arab masses for some time - long before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is in the nature of a failed "civilization" that thinks itself ordained by God to consider a successful civilization to have become successful at its expense and by unfair means. Thus, the polarization between the West and Islam is already a fact and has been a fact for some time.
The problem in the Arab world is that there is insufficient polarization between the jihadis and the general population. So long as the "Arab Street" considered the jihadis to be a threat to no one but the West, why should they care one way or the other? Moreover, every time Osama did damage to the United States or the West in general, he gained stature by his ability to attack the Western Behemoth. Once the Muslim masses begin to understand that this is not in their interest, perhaps we can see some healthy and productive "polarization" within the the Islamic World between the jihadis and the majority.
"Our strategic imperative is in avoiding this kind of polarization."
Our strategic imperative is to deny the jihadis safe haven any place in the world.
July 26, 2005 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink