thedrifter
12-21-07, 03:08 AM
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Military expert: "we have lost this war" - but how is the enemy doing? [Updated]
shieldofachilles.blogspot.com/2007/12/military-expert-we-have-lost-this-war.html
Well, no, he's not really an expert, but because he's one of the most successful bloggers there is, he thinks he is. A recent posting by Andrew Sullivan drew a lot of attention from Ron Paul fans because he publicly endorses the candidate for President. I don't really care much about who he endorses, but his statements on the war are irresponsible:
Let's be clear: we have lost this war. We have lost because the initial, central goals of the invasion have all failed: we have not secured WMDS from terrorists because those WMDs did not exist. We have not stymied Islamist terror - at best we have finally stymied some of the terror we helped create. We have not constructed a democratic model for the Middle East - we have instead destroyed a totalitarian government and a phony country, only to create a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic failed state, where the mere avoidance of genocide is a cause for celebration.
We have lost the war? That's certainly news to our troops on the ground, where every indication is that the war is improving.
Now, granted, there will never be any clear-cut victory in Iraq or Afghanistan because these are not clear-cut wars. For the same reason, you won't have a clear-cut defeat either. Even in non-war zones like Algeria, Pakistan, and Turkey (to name a few) have all suffered major terrorist bombings this year, even though the United States is not occupying any of those countries. Are they winning or losing? Should they stop fighting?
So what would be a victory then? Maybe it would be something like weakening terror groups like Al-Qaida so badly that they cannot mount another major attack, and its few surviving elements remain in hiding and on the run. Which is, in fact, exactly what has happened. When Mr. Sullivan states "We have not stymied Islamist terror" I wonder if he would like to point out any attacks like the Cole bombing, Embassy bombings, or 9/11 that have occurred since the war on terror started.
And that leads to my next point. In any case, if you want to know who is "winning" it is only fair to also compare how well the enemy is doing on their objectives. There is more than one enemy involved here, so let's take a broad look:
1) End US support of Israel and force the US to shut down its military bases in Saudi Arabia (Al Qaida's reasons for attacking us on 9/11) - Failed [or partial success, see update below].
2) Hold on to Taliban power in Afghanistan - Failed.
3) Defend Saddam's regime - Failed.
4) Drive coalition forces out of Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed.
5) Set up Shia/Sunni religious theocracies in Iraq - Failed.
6) Force the US to at least drawdown their forces in Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed. (we gave them a surge instead).
7) Make territorial gains - Failed.
Openly control any terrritory at all - Failed.
9) Win popular support of the population of Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed.
9) Turn world opinion against the US - Partially Succeeded.
10) Terrorize people - Succeeded.
So overall, America's enemies are not doing very well. One might even be tempted to say they are losing...
Incidentally, I am not endorsing any candidate at this time, nor am I likely to. I believe it is not productive toward trying to remain objective on the issues. I think it's better to simply say what I like and/or dislike about them, and leave it at that.
UPDATE 2007/12/20 12:01:00 PM:
Andrew Sullivan wrote me to say: "didn't we pull the bases in saudi arabia?"
This is mostly true, so I should make a partial correction. We did pull (by official numbers) about 4500 troops from Saudia Arabia, most were Air Force personnel that relocated in Qatar. But about 500 US military personnel still remain in the Saudi Kingdom, most of them belong to the 64th Air Expeditionary Group in Eskan Village, which is about 20k SE of Riyadh (that official page is very sparse, more on their wiki page). So I suppose that by Al-Qaida's viewpoint, this is a partial success of one of their key objectives, even though the bases were closed more due to redundancy and disagreements with the Saudi government than anything else.
SECOND UPDATE 2007/12/20 05:57:00 PM:
Mr. Sullivan mentioned me on his blog, which I appreciate, but he misses my point. To my statement "When Mr. Sullivan states 'We have not stymied Islamist terror' I wonder if he would like to point out any attacks like the Cole bombing, Embassy bombings, or 9/11 that have occurred since the war on terror started.", he responds:
Madrid, London, Bali and all over Iraq.
But except for Iraq, that's apples and oranges. Is the US responsible for the entire world? Isn't that the same arrogance that Mr. Sullivan and others criticize Bush for? And Bali is a particularly weak example anyway. The incident was in 2002, before the war in Iraq. Additionally, Osama Bin Laden claimed the motive was not just support for the US War on Terror, but also for Indonesia's support of Australia's operations in East Timor.
In any case, I was only speaking about US interests. I wasn't talking about places like Madrid, London, or Bali, which, btw, have a far greater percentage of Muslims in their populations than the US does. Not because I'm not concerned about these nations too (and I have written about them, plus I live in Europe), but simply because the US is not actively engaged in fighting terror in those countries, nor does it have the right to do so. Even if we were 100% successful in destroying Al-Qaida in the Middle East, we can't do anything about terrorists who are beyond our reach under the theory (sometimes true, sometimes not) that our allies are better at policing themselves instead of having US soldiers do it. I understand that we should be conscious of the effect that a war in the Middle East may have elsewhere, but Spain and the UK were full-fledged members of the coalition in Iraq, no one forced them to join.
But in the larger point, if you want to claim that the US's War on Terror should have the goal of making the entire world safer, then the entire world, or at least all the world's leaders, would have to get on board with it. Of course, I don't have a crystal ball, and I can't see what would have happened if the US had pulled its support for Israel and/or and decided to seek compromise with Saddam or Al Qaida instead of war. But I would be willing to bet the result would have been very unpleasant. At the very least, some of the terrorist objectives above labelled "failure" would now read "success" instead.
Ellie
Military expert: "we have lost this war" - but how is the enemy doing? [Updated]
shieldofachilles.blogspot.com/2007/12/military-expert-we-have-lost-this-war.html
Well, no, he's not really an expert, but because he's one of the most successful bloggers there is, he thinks he is. A recent posting by Andrew Sullivan drew a lot of attention from Ron Paul fans because he publicly endorses the candidate for President. I don't really care much about who he endorses, but his statements on the war are irresponsible:
Let's be clear: we have lost this war. We have lost because the initial, central goals of the invasion have all failed: we have not secured WMDS from terrorists because those WMDs did not exist. We have not stymied Islamist terror - at best we have finally stymied some of the terror we helped create. We have not constructed a democratic model for the Middle East - we have instead destroyed a totalitarian government and a phony country, only to create a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic failed state, where the mere avoidance of genocide is a cause for celebration.
We have lost the war? That's certainly news to our troops on the ground, where every indication is that the war is improving.
Now, granted, there will never be any clear-cut victory in Iraq or Afghanistan because these are not clear-cut wars. For the same reason, you won't have a clear-cut defeat either. Even in non-war zones like Algeria, Pakistan, and Turkey (to name a few) have all suffered major terrorist bombings this year, even though the United States is not occupying any of those countries. Are they winning or losing? Should they stop fighting?
So what would be a victory then? Maybe it would be something like weakening terror groups like Al-Qaida so badly that they cannot mount another major attack, and its few surviving elements remain in hiding and on the run. Which is, in fact, exactly what has happened. When Mr. Sullivan states "We have not stymied Islamist terror" I wonder if he would like to point out any attacks like the Cole bombing, Embassy bombings, or 9/11 that have occurred since the war on terror started.
And that leads to my next point. In any case, if you want to know who is "winning" it is only fair to also compare how well the enemy is doing on their objectives. There is more than one enemy involved here, so let's take a broad look:
1) End US support of Israel and force the US to shut down its military bases in Saudi Arabia (Al Qaida's reasons for attacking us on 9/11) - Failed [or partial success, see update below].
2) Hold on to Taliban power in Afghanistan - Failed.
3) Defend Saddam's regime - Failed.
4) Drive coalition forces out of Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed.
5) Set up Shia/Sunni religious theocracies in Iraq - Failed.
6) Force the US to at least drawdown their forces in Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed. (we gave them a surge instead).
7) Make territorial gains - Failed.
Openly control any terrritory at all - Failed.
9) Win popular support of the population of Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed.
9) Turn world opinion against the US - Partially Succeeded.
10) Terrorize people - Succeeded.
So overall, America's enemies are not doing very well. One might even be tempted to say they are losing...
Incidentally, I am not endorsing any candidate at this time, nor am I likely to. I believe it is not productive toward trying to remain objective on the issues. I think it's better to simply say what I like and/or dislike about them, and leave it at that.
UPDATE 2007/12/20 12:01:00 PM:
Andrew Sullivan wrote me to say: "didn't we pull the bases in saudi arabia?"
This is mostly true, so I should make a partial correction. We did pull (by official numbers) about 4500 troops from Saudia Arabia, most were Air Force personnel that relocated in Qatar. But about 500 US military personnel still remain in the Saudi Kingdom, most of them belong to the 64th Air Expeditionary Group in Eskan Village, which is about 20k SE of Riyadh (that official page is very sparse, more on their wiki page). So I suppose that by Al-Qaida's viewpoint, this is a partial success of one of their key objectives, even though the bases were closed more due to redundancy and disagreements with the Saudi government than anything else.
SECOND UPDATE 2007/12/20 05:57:00 PM:
Mr. Sullivan mentioned me on his blog, which I appreciate, but he misses my point. To my statement "When Mr. Sullivan states 'We have not stymied Islamist terror' I wonder if he would like to point out any attacks like the Cole bombing, Embassy bombings, or 9/11 that have occurred since the war on terror started.", he responds:
Madrid, London, Bali and all over Iraq.
But except for Iraq, that's apples and oranges. Is the US responsible for the entire world? Isn't that the same arrogance that Mr. Sullivan and others criticize Bush for? And Bali is a particularly weak example anyway. The incident was in 2002, before the war in Iraq. Additionally, Osama Bin Laden claimed the motive was not just support for the US War on Terror, but also for Indonesia's support of Australia's operations in East Timor.
In any case, I was only speaking about US interests. I wasn't talking about places like Madrid, London, or Bali, which, btw, have a far greater percentage of Muslims in their populations than the US does. Not because I'm not concerned about these nations too (and I have written about them, plus I live in Europe), but simply because the US is not actively engaged in fighting terror in those countries, nor does it have the right to do so. Even if we were 100% successful in destroying Al-Qaida in the Middle East, we can't do anything about terrorists who are beyond our reach under the theory (sometimes true, sometimes not) that our allies are better at policing themselves instead of having US soldiers do it. I understand that we should be conscious of the effect that a war in the Middle East may have elsewhere, but Spain and the UK were full-fledged members of the coalition in Iraq, no one forced them to join.
But in the larger point, if you want to claim that the US's War on Terror should have the goal of making the entire world safer, then the entire world, or at least all the world's leaders, would have to get on board with it. Of course, I don't have a crystal ball, and I can't see what would have happened if the US had pulled its support for Israel and/or and decided to seek compromise with Saddam or Al Qaida instead of war. But I would be willing to bet the result would have been very unpleasant. At the very least, some of the terrorist objectives above labelled "failure" would now read "success" instead.
Ellie