Category: Geopolitical Brouhaha

And we have no idea what that means.

Desert Storm wasn’t a war. Because it didn’t strike home. There were few (American) casualties, and no privations. There was broad natinoal debate as to whether we ought to be doing anything (answer: of course we should have, idiots, though it was a shame that the Kuwaiti royal family is so unsatisfactory a group to “fight for”).

The last war before that — ignoring silly excursions to Grenada and Panama — was Viet Nam. And that was a war — we lost people — but it was also lacking any sort of national determination. It was also lacking any privations. Aside from those who lost friends, family, or loved ones, you’d never know back here in the states that we were fighting a war. It destroyed the Johnson Administration (and the budget) to try to provide both Guns and Butter, but we did it. Sorta.

But this. America’s “New War.” The “War on Terrorism.” It’s in our faces, America. It’s not just lobbing missiles and bombs at targets unable to defend themselves. There’s enough serious talk of ground war that I’m pretty sure it’s coming. But it’s not just troops, but here at home. Security restrictions. A major change in what’s worth debating up on Capitol Hill. Job losses. Industrial dislocation.

People are talking differently. They’re talking about war.

That’s scary, folks.

They’re not all bad guys, guys

A very prestigious group of Muslim clerics issue a fatwa condemning the 9-11 attacks, and allowing Muslims in the US to serve in the US military effort against their perpetrators.

(Link via Instapundit)

Welcome to America

A story everyone should read. A good story. A story of what it’s all about, brothers and sisters.

(And a pretty good site, too. Wow — two adds in one day.)

And on a related note, Ulro, Jr., on the jihad — the other one that folks aren’t expecting. I don’t know if it makes me feel as good — but it rings just as true.

The more things change …

Why, look: some of the folks we’re seeking as allies against our latest enemy have ulterior motives of their own that are not in our long-term best interests. I’m shocked, absolutely shocked.

You didn’t think I could go very many days without jabbering more on the topic, do you?

Randy forwarded me an e-mail with a short article by Richard Kidd, a West Point grad who, among other experiences in the region, was in 1998-99 Deputy Program Manager for the UN’s mine and UXO clean-up efforts in Afghanistan. A few extracts from his view of Afghanistan and the impending war there:

It is my assessment that most Afghans no longer support the Taliban. Indeed the Taliban have recently had a very difficult time getting recruits for their forces and have had to rely more and more on non-Afghans, either from Pushtun tribes in Pakistan or from OBL. OBL and the Taliban, absent any US action, were probably on their way to sharing the same fate that all other outsiders and outside doctrines have experienced in Afghanistan — defeat and dismemberment.
… The concept of having a place of “honor” and “respect” is of paramount importance and blood feuds between families and tribes can last for generations over a perceived or actual slight. That is one reason why there were 7 groups of Mujehdeen fighting the Russians. It is a very difficult task to form and keep united a large bunch of Afghans into a military formation.
During their history, the only events that have managed to form any semblance of unity among the Afghans, is the desire to fight foreign invaders. And in doing this, the Afghans have been fanatical. The Afghans’ greatest military strength is the ability to endure hardships that would, in all probability, kill most Americans and enervate the resolve of all but the most elite military units.
… OBL and others do not think the US has the will or the stomach for a fight. Indeed after the absolutely inane missile strikes of 1998, the overwhelming consensus was that we were cowards who would not risk one life in face-to-face combat. Rather than demonstrating our might and acting as a deterrent, that action and others of the not so recent past, have reinforced the perception that the US does not have any “will” and that we are morally and spiritually corrupt.
Our challenge is to play to the weaknesses of our enemy, notably their propensity for internal struggles, the distrust between the extremists/Arabs and the majority of Afghans, their limited ability to fight coordinated battles, and their lack of external support.
More importantly through is that we have to take steps not to play to their strengths, which would be to unite the entire population against us by increasing their suffering or killing innocents, to get bogged down trying to hold terrain, or to get into a battle of attrition chasing up and down mountain valleys.
First, I would give the Northern Alliance a big wad of cash so that they can buy off a chunk of the Taliban army before winter. Second, also with this cash, I would pay some guys to kill some of the Taliban leadership, making it look like an inside job to spread distrust and build on existing discord. Third I would support the Northern alliance with military assets, but not take it over or adopt so high a profile as to undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of most Afghans.
Fourth would be to give massive amounts of humanitarian aid and assistance to the Afghans in Pakistan in order to demonstrate our goodwill and to give these guys a reason to live rather than the choice between dying of starvation or dying fighting the “infidel.” Fifth, start a series of public works projects in areas of the country not under Taliban control (these are much more than the press reports) again to demonstrate goodwill and that improvements come with peace. Sixth, I would consider very carefully putting any female service members into Afghanistan proper — sorry to the females of our class but within that culture a man who allows a women to fight for him has zero respect, and we will need respect to gain the cooperation of Afghan allies.
I would hold off from doing anything too dramatic in the new term, keeping a low level of covert action and pressure up over the winter, allowing this pressure to force open the fissions around the Taliban that were already developing — expect that they will quickly turn on themselves and on OBL.
When we do “pick up” the pieces, I would make sure that we do so on the ground, “man to man.” While I would never want to advocate American causalities, it is essential that we communicate to OBL and all others watching that we can and will “engage and destroy the enemy in close combat.” As mentioned above, we should not try to gain or hold terrain, but Infantry operations against the enemy are essential. There can be no excuses after the defeat or lingering doubts in the minds of our enemies regarding American resolve and nothing, nothing will communicate this except for ground combat.
And once this is all over, unlike in 1989, the US must provide continued long-term economic assistance to rebuild the country.
… Our opponents will not abide by the Geneva conventions. There will be no prisoners unless there is a chance that they can be ransomed or made part of a local prisoner exchange. During the war with the Soviets, videotapes were made of communist prisoners having their throats slit. Indeed, there did exist a “trade” in prisoners so that souvenir videos could be made by outsiders to take home with them. …We can expect our soldiers to be treated the same way. Sometime during this war I expect that we will see videos of US prisoners having their heads cut off. Our enemies will do this not only to demonstrate their “strength” to their followers, but also to cause us to overreact, to seek wholesale revenge against civilian populations, and to turn this into the world-wide religious war that they desperately want. This will be a test of our will and of our character.
This will not be a pretty war; it will be a war of wills, of resolve and somewhat conversely of compassion and of a character. Towards our enemies, we must show a level of ruthlessness that has not been part of our military character for a long time. But to those who are not our enemies we must show a level of compassion probably unheard of during war. We should do this not for humanitarian reasons, even though there are many, but for shrewd military logic.

I don’t know if this guy is full of it or not, but this is probably one of the most plausible, believable, balanced synopses of what we face, and what we should do about it, that I’ve read.

I hope other people are reading it.

From the below-mentioned Victory Blog, a Sunday Times of London article with a very different view than what you might be hearing elsewhere (“elsewhere” including, occasionally, “here”):

So at the most basic level America is loathed simply because she’s on top. The world leader is always trashed simply for being the leader. The terms of the trashing are remarkably consistent. Nineteenth-century Germans, Lind points out, responded to Britain’s dominance by saying, in effect, “they may be rich but we have soul”. That is exactly what many Europeans and all anti-Americans are now saying: we’re for God or culture or whatever against mammon. This is inaccurate – America has more soul, culture and a lot more God than any of her critics – but it is the predictably banal rhetoric of envy.

Good stuff.

‘Why do they hate us?’

An interesting (and sobering) look at how a variety of people around the Muslim world perceive the United States and its actions.

I’m really bad at predictions, of figuring out what’s going to happen next in the movie I’m watching or the book I’m reading (or the game I’m playing in). I tend to take things on face value, as they come along.

(Margie, it must be noted, regularly figures these sorts of things out way before I do. “Oh, it’s Ben.” “Huh?” “Ben. He’s the figure they saw by the boat house.” “Wait, the boat house? Ben?” “Yup.”)

So bear that in mind as I go through the following.

I’ve been reading a fair amount of consternation about the massive US military build-up near Afghanistan. The consensus of everyone from the doves to the folks who know anything about Afghanistan is that we’ve more than enough ordinance there already, and there are so few targets to throw it at that we’re only going to make “the rubble bounce.”

So is it all just meant as saber-rattling? As a public show for the folks back home? As a delaying method while we figure out where to hit?

Karnak the Magnificent predicts … we’re targeting Iraq.

Consider. There have been a number of shadowy, downplayed reports that indicate that Iraq may have been a (if not the) key player in the 9-11 attacks. They certainly have the motivation to do so, both for revenge and to pull some of the pressure off of them (depending on how things went with Afghanistan, Iraq could offer to assist in return for eased sanctions, or, more likely, try to rally the Muslim world around its own cause as an extension of the Afghan conflict). And they’ve certainly showed the callous disregard for life to pull something like 9-11 off.

The biggest problem in the US dealing with Iraq, though, is that there’s been increasing lack of interest (officially) in the Gulf for taking further action, or even maintaining the embargo regimen in place. And to really do a job on Iraq would require a slow, massive military build-up in the region which would be both obvious and lengthy, and give the Iraqis plenty of time to play all the diplomatic demogoguery cards they could.

A slow, massive military build-up.

After which, we can (relatively) turn on a dime and hit whomever we’re intending to hit, assuming they are the sorts who can be hit with the armada assembled.

What exactly is being discussed behind closed doors during the US’ diplomatic full-court press? What evidence is being presented? Is bin Laden really the target? The primary target? Is there a reason why we’re still only referring to him as “the prime suspect”? Is there a reason why very few people are talking about Iraq? Or why there’s been a remarkably heavy veil of secrecy over exactly what we’re going to try to do?

Like I said, my Predict-o-meter is not terribly reliable. Take this with a grain of salt. Your Mileage May Vary. Void Where Prohibited.

What’s in a name?

U.S. Renames Buildup ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’.

Can’t tell your players without a program

An interesting New York Times article (courtesy of Yahoo) about who the “Northern Alliance” is, and who the other players in Afghanistan are that are being courted. I do worry, of course, that in our efforts to throw out the Taliban (who, frankly, regardless of whether they are bin Laden’s best friends or worst enemies, are eminently worth of being thrown out) that we’ll end up with yet another group perceived to be a US puppet and who turn out to be less-than-worthy rulers. Happened before, way too many times.

Afghanistan Is Like Nothing You’ve Ever Seen, Soviet Vets Say

A rather sobering tale. The Soviets had their own problems, of course. But, still ….

I’m actually sorry I missed Bush’s speech last night. Evidently it was — well, not spectacular, but a lot better of a speech than most people thought him capable of.

It sounds like bin Laden is the target of the hour, going beyond “prime suspect” into the realm of “we want him, give him to us, or face the consequences” messages to the Taliban. There’s further sabre-rattling going on, and indications are we may see air and missle strikes Real Soon Now.

Which is stupid, because those are just the things to be least likely against terrorist groups like this, but most effective at hurting innocents.

The Taliban, of course, are saying, “Show us the evidence,” though there’s certainly reason to believe they’re being disingenuous in their request. No such evidence seems to be forthcoming, though, which either means it’s Secret, and revealing it would endanger the sources we got it from, or else it’s not convincing, and the Administration is moving forward with this simply to be seen as Doing Something.

I sure hope it’s the former.

I’ve seen a couple of different versions. Here’s the “real” one, from Salon.com, where it seems to have been initially published (and, ahem, copyrighted).

Ansary makes some very good points about what is at stake in any “war” against Afghanistan and the Taliban, what might be necessary, and whether that’s not exactly what bin Laden wants. It’s not easy reading, because it flies in the face of what so many people want to believe and do — and, in the end, might have to do, regardless, since there aren’t a lot of alternatives — but it’s reading that has to be done.