thedrifter
10-10-05, 06:05 AM
Using America’s Military Might To Shape The Future
Written by Warner Todd Huston
Monday, October 10, 2005
-Its for our own good, after all
President Bush just gave a rousing speech in favor of staying the course in the war on terror at the National Endowment for Democracy, Thursday the 6th of October, and I couldn’t agree more with his sentiments expressed therein.
Bush has stated in the most direct terms yet what this war is about. He said of this radical Islamism that we face-- “This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.”
Additionally, he reminded us how they have repeatedly furthered their aims. “Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter century: They hit us and expect us to run”, he said. This is a clear reference to the Clinton Administration’s failed efforts to treat terrorism as the war it really is instead of imagining it is a police matter as was done.
He warned that our past reactions have made the enemy stronger.
“They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993, only this time on a larger scale with greater consequences.
“Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments”
How right he is. And how wrong of us to allow them to do so.
Bush went on to develop our strategies. “We’re acting, along with the governments from many countries, to destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leaders,” he said. “Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.”
That means using our armed forces as well as using diplomacy. To that end, Bush said, “For this reason, we’re fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their Al Qaida allies. For this reason, we’re working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we’re fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq.”
I have been reading a bit about modern usage of our armed forces in this war on terror of the GWOT, as it is called. And here is one of the best quotes about the US army I have seen in a while, one that I’d like to share:
“It was in Columbia where I began to see that the genius of the American military was less technological than social, a reflection of American society whose telling feature was the relative absence of class envy… I continually saw master sergeants with affection for the captains, and captains who positively idolized their team sergeants. American democracy spawned rich and poor, but the basis for its revolutionary dynamism was the great middle. The American military was the clearest example of that. As I would see in my travels, few militaries in history had produced such impressive middle ranks.”
-Robert D. Kaplan, Imperial Grunts, The American Military on the Ground
What a great observation. And this very observation is why it s so hard to foment democratic revolution in other countries where class is a far more concrete barrier to overcome, one grounded in a societal structure of generations.
But, I believe that if we continue to push the ideal using our military as advanced trainers throughout the world we CAN create a difference even if the controlling powers that be in other parts of the world resist such measures as democratizing.
We don’t need giant armies to ground pound the world. But send several hundred into Indonesia or Iraq to act as training officers to professionalize the special services of other nations and we can create a power that can be used to take out terrorist cells. It can project the power of democracy often enough and with enough finality per engagement that it will tend to liberalize hard bound societal strata and make democracy easier to introduce by stages as will have to be done to assure success.
Democracies do not go to war with one another, this history has taught. Sure they may fight economically and quarrel and quibble with each other, but armed conflict does not occur. The goal globally, then, is to use asymmetric force projection to cripple terrorist base operations and show them not to be as strong as the locals think they are.
Let’s face it, fear of these groups (Al Qaeda or even the FARC in Columbia for instance) is the prime motivator in the local communities and why they either support them directly, or at the least do not fight against them. But fear can only come from power. And if that power is undermined it will empower local people to break from those groups’ support and therefore be open to democratizing measures.
Guns and butter for them should be our goal. Kill their enemies, build them a school, train their special forces, feed them. It is not as easy as sending in 100,000 troops and blow up a few buildings then bring our boys home. In fact, we don’t need to send great armies about the world. This is long-term strategic thinking and it MUST be supported for the long run and Bush is determined to stay the course.
Bush addressed this in his speech, as well. “Defeating a militant network is difficult because it thrives like a parasite on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution.”
Otherwise, two things happen. We sit idly by as billions of people are oppressed and murdered by local thugs and we allow those thugs to grow in power and embolden themselves to the point where they begin to reach out to attack us. On one had we act in a dishonorable way and on the other we ultimately endanger ourselves and our children. This is what happened under the Clinton administration. We ignored them (Al Qaeda), pretended they did not exist, and they attacked us after they became sure we had no desire or ability to do stop them. Clinton’s strategy is one of weakness and ultimate self-defeat and we should never allow such ideas to plague us again.
One other thing needs to be said about the enemies of Democracy as they fight today. They are cowards. Many on the left want to sit by and in their moral equivalency claim that the radicals we face are just another man’s “Freedom fighter,” that we cannot speak against them as they are just offering “another point of view.” And many on the left go even farther and claim it is we, rather, who are the cowards and bullies.
Bush said this on that subject; “Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, ‘the most cowardly of God’s creatures,’ but let’s be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs and cuts the throat of a bound captive and targets worshipers leaving a mosque.”
He is dead on target. We Americans and our allies against terror are the heroes of history. It is the radicals, the killers of women, children and helpless captives, who are the enemies of all humanity. We are fighting against forces of tyranny no less dangerous than that of Stalin or Hitler, Mao or Pol Pot. And should we lose, we are not just letting down the world’s helpless, but we are endangering our own future.
The President closed his speech with this rousing ending:
“We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.”
I hope every American hears this speech. I only wish he had given it in prime time..
About the Writer: Warner Todd Huston is a free lance writer and graphic designer. His work ranges from historical essays to popular culture and has been published in several magazines and on several websites. He is the editor for Publius' Forum website at www.publiusforum.blogspot.com.
Ellie
Written by Warner Todd Huston
Monday, October 10, 2005
-Its for our own good, after all
President Bush just gave a rousing speech in favor of staying the course in the war on terror at the National Endowment for Democracy, Thursday the 6th of October, and I couldn’t agree more with his sentiments expressed therein.
Bush has stated in the most direct terms yet what this war is about. He said of this radical Islamism that we face-- “This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.”
Additionally, he reminded us how they have repeatedly furthered their aims. “Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter century: They hit us and expect us to run”, he said. This is a clear reference to the Clinton Administration’s failed efforts to treat terrorism as the war it really is instead of imagining it is a police matter as was done.
He warned that our past reactions have made the enemy stronger.
“They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993, only this time on a larger scale with greater consequences.
“Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments”
How right he is. And how wrong of us to allow them to do so.
Bush went on to develop our strategies. “We’re acting, along with the governments from many countries, to destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leaders,” he said. “Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.”
That means using our armed forces as well as using diplomacy. To that end, Bush said, “For this reason, we’re fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their Al Qaida allies. For this reason, we’re working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we’re fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq.”
I have been reading a bit about modern usage of our armed forces in this war on terror of the GWOT, as it is called. And here is one of the best quotes about the US army I have seen in a while, one that I’d like to share:
“It was in Columbia where I began to see that the genius of the American military was less technological than social, a reflection of American society whose telling feature was the relative absence of class envy… I continually saw master sergeants with affection for the captains, and captains who positively idolized their team sergeants. American democracy spawned rich and poor, but the basis for its revolutionary dynamism was the great middle. The American military was the clearest example of that. As I would see in my travels, few militaries in history had produced such impressive middle ranks.”
-Robert D. Kaplan, Imperial Grunts, The American Military on the Ground
What a great observation. And this very observation is why it s so hard to foment democratic revolution in other countries where class is a far more concrete barrier to overcome, one grounded in a societal structure of generations.
But, I believe that if we continue to push the ideal using our military as advanced trainers throughout the world we CAN create a difference even if the controlling powers that be in other parts of the world resist such measures as democratizing.
We don’t need giant armies to ground pound the world. But send several hundred into Indonesia or Iraq to act as training officers to professionalize the special services of other nations and we can create a power that can be used to take out terrorist cells. It can project the power of democracy often enough and with enough finality per engagement that it will tend to liberalize hard bound societal strata and make democracy easier to introduce by stages as will have to be done to assure success.
Democracies do not go to war with one another, this history has taught. Sure they may fight economically and quarrel and quibble with each other, but armed conflict does not occur. The goal globally, then, is to use asymmetric force projection to cripple terrorist base operations and show them not to be as strong as the locals think they are.
Let’s face it, fear of these groups (Al Qaeda or even the FARC in Columbia for instance) is the prime motivator in the local communities and why they either support them directly, or at the least do not fight against them. But fear can only come from power. And if that power is undermined it will empower local people to break from those groups’ support and therefore be open to democratizing measures.
Guns and butter for them should be our goal. Kill their enemies, build them a school, train their special forces, feed them. It is not as easy as sending in 100,000 troops and blow up a few buildings then bring our boys home. In fact, we don’t need to send great armies about the world. This is long-term strategic thinking and it MUST be supported for the long run and Bush is determined to stay the course.
Bush addressed this in his speech, as well. “Defeating a militant network is difficult because it thrives like a parasite on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution.”
Otherwise, two things happen. We sit idly by as billions of people are oppressed and murdered by local thugs and we allow those thugs to grow in power and embolden themselves to the point where they begin to reach out to attack us. On one had we act in a dishonorable way and on the other we ultimately endanger ourselves and our children. This is what happened under the Clinton administration. We ignored them (Al Qaeda), pretended they did not exist, and they attacked us after they became sure we had no desire or ability to do stop them. Clinton’s strategy is one of weakness and ultimate self-defeat and we should never allow such ideas to plague us again.
One other thing needs to be said about the enemies of Democracy as they fight today. They are cowards. Many on the left want to sit by and in their moral equivalency claim that the radicals we face are just another man’s “Freedom fighter,” that we cannot speak against them as they are just offering “another point of view.” And many on the left go even farther and claim it is we, rather, who are the cowards and bullies.
Bush said this on that subject; “Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, ‘the most cowardly of God’s creatures,’ but let’s be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs and cuts the throat of a bound captive and targets worshipers leaving a mosque.”
He is dead on target. We Americans and our allies against terror are the heroes of history. It is the radicals, the killers of women, children and helpless captives, who are the enemies of all humanity. We are fighting against forces of tyranny no less dangerous than that of Stalin or Hitler, Mao or Pol Pot. And should we lose, we are not just letting down the world’s helpless, but we are endangering our own future.
The President closed his speech with this rousing ending:
“We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.”
I hope every American hears this speech. I only wish he had given it in prime time..
About the Writer: Warner Todd Huston is a free lance writer and graphic designer. His work ranges from historical essays to popular culture and has been published in several magazines and on several websites. He is the editor for Publius' Forum website at www.publiusforum.blogspot.com.
Ellie