Lessons of war forgotten, although all too recently taught
Cross-posted to Random Fate.
—
While the Commissar of The Politburo Diktat rightly points out that there is indeed a real threat from groups who use terrorist tactics, calling it a “war” is wrong on many fronts, not limited to the terminology alone, but also because the strategy and tactics we are using are appropriate for wars past, not the “21st Century Thinking” that those who are promoting the so-called “War on Terror” like to use as a club against their political opponents.
Strategy and tactics, the line between the two is always blurry, and one affects the other, often in ways far wider ranging than those who believe they have control of how the conflict is waged comprehend.
Exactly what kind of conflict are we currently engaged upon? It is not a “War on Terror” as claimed by those who want to frighten us, even from the simple semantic viewpoint that one cannot engage upon a war against a tactic. Aside from the difficulties of definition that the single-minded have, an understanding of the nature of the conflict is required before the correct strategy and tactics can be determined and used.
An example, the Cold War, we must ask ourselves, exactly how did we win it?
For once, the semantics were correct, it was indeed a Cold War, except for the isolated hot spots of Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, limiting that count to the significant conflicts of that struggle where although many died or were wounded physically and mentally, the numbers were still in very small proportion to the magnitude of the contest. This is not to minimize the lives lost or ruined, but we did call it the Cold War, even when it heated up in some areas.
Think about the semantics both past and present, now we want to declare a “War on Terror” to rally the population to a particular viewpoint.
But the question remains, how did we win the so-called “Cold War” that wasn’t so cold after all?
As currently presented, we are in a war of ideologies, a war of ideals, markedly similar to the Cold War. So did we win that conflict merely by spending the Soviet Union to death?
I think not.
Contests of ideals are not won by money alone, no matter what economic theory says.
It is the cause, not the death, that makes the martyr.
—
There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit.
—
The moral is to the physical as three is to one.
-Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821)
Our “War on Terror” is not a war with a nation, we do not have the simplicity of the Second World War to comfort us, nor do we have the easy bipolarity of nations aligned with Communism or Democracy as we liked to frame the Cold War. Instead, we have the blowback from our actions in the Cold War, a conflict that arose from the unlikely alliances we made during those years of seemingly clearly defined good and evil when we made pacts with one devil to defeat another seemingly greater evil, yet somehow the numbers butchered by our allies may have matched or even exceeded those murdered on an industrial scale by our World War II enemies.
Examine the recent battles and their wider effects.
First, the suicides in Guantanamo make a fine example of how the battles are being waged, and lost, by the United States. While the government of the United States is distancing itself from the comments of a diplomat claiming the suicides were “good PR” for the jihadists, the assertions by the military that the suicides were “an act of asymmetrical warfare” draw more ridicule than sympathy from the world. Our nominal allies, the Saudis, are questioning whether the prisoners truly committed suicide or were murdered in the course of torture.
Are we able to win any kind of moral victory in any sense of the word “moral” while maintaining a deliberately extra-legal prison at Guantanamo? Regardless of the protestations of those who want vengeance, not justice, it is important to remember that upon embarking on a course of revenge, one should first dig two graves.
What is the wider meaning in a society that claims that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men?
Remember, if we are in a war, it is a world-wide war, a war of ideas and ideals that is fought in the hearts and minds of the world, not on some physical battlefield.
A second battle did indeed take place upon a battlefield, but its effects have strategic rather than merely tactical implications. Haditha, this incident may or may not become iconic, but even without the perspective of history and assuming that all sides are telling their truth in the matter, the effects are not positive for our cause. Some of the marines involved are stating they followed the rules of engagement, and there is no reason to doubt that they adhered to orders. It raises the question of what determines the rules of engagement, what the fundamental goals and rationales are that drive exactly how the rules are written. Any humane commander wants to preserve the lives of his men, and if anything after all our proclamations of the need for “21st century thinking” that apparently involve negating the 19th century ideals underlying our Constitution differentiates ourselves from our enemies, it is our unwillingness to sacrifice our own men for insufficient cause.
If the rules of engagement were followed, and it is worth repeating, there is no reason to assume they were not, regardless of any supposed cover-up of any civilian, non-combatant deaths, for that would involve the collusion of many higher up the command chain than those directly involved in the incident itself. However, what were the rules of engagement focused upon? Preserving the lives of the soldiers involved, minimizing civilian casualties, or trying to strike a balance between the two?
It is a complex situation, but ultimately in the world, not limited to our own, ADD age, the simple explanation is the one that influences the most hearts and minds, and the simple explanation is that of a wanton massacre, whether officially sanctioned or not, and in either case it reflects badly upon us.
At the end of the Cold War, how was the United States perceived by the world? The conception of us was significantly more positive than that of the Soviet Union, and it was based not in any small part upon the actions of the USSR upon both its own citizens along with how that government acted in the world at large.
How did we win that war?
He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat.
-Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821)
Our greatest danger of losing came when we reacted out of fear.
What has been our reaction to September 11, 2001?
Fear.
In that response we have given our enemies their greatest victories. It is not for naught their tactics are called “terrorism” for their goal is to strike terror in their opponents, and we ourselves have served their ends to far greater an extent than they could have hoped in their wildest dreams.
Consider our reactions and subsequent actions, and think about the larger picture, and decide if our actions are truly carrying us towards victory.
8 Responses to “Lessons of war forgotten, although all too recently taught”
Well said, Jack. Good post, and the very point that many who don’t support our Iraq adventure have, with few successes it seems, been trying to make.
While militarily we are likely to win almost every battle, we are losing the “war.” When I think of the old Soviet Union and how it was perceived by the majority of the world at the time, it is the image of a clumsy bear lumbering around the globe breaking everything it touched, and taking by force what it could not hope to earn. My fear is that we are fast becoming that global bull in a china shop as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
“He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat.
-Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821)
Our greatest danger of losing came when we reacted out of fear.”
Napoleon was an authoritarian ruler. It may be better for generals to not know fear, but its natural for democratic peoples to know fear.
Plenty of Americans were afraid during the Am Rev. Plenty were afraid after Pearl Harbor. Many brits were afraid during the blitz.
And yes, we were afraid after 9/11.
Courage is not the absensce of fear, but the decision that there is something that is more important than fear.
And yet, this is directed at both hawks and doves who would disparage a fear that, i may say, was quite earned.
Great post! I read an article today discussing how the Bush “War on Language,” in effect, results in us being immune to euphemisms such as the phrase “‘manipulative self-injurious behaviour’ or ‘SIBs’” allegedly used as a category for suicide attempts, in order to reduce the number that need be reported as suicide.
Good reading, and relevant to your post–which of our principles have we sacrificed in the name of fear, knowingly or willfully ignorant of the truth? I’ll be writing about this more in my blog soon.
Congatulations Jack for highlighting certain neglected aspects of the ‘War on Terror’. You have raised pertinent points with regard to the motivational factors.
Can the ‘war’ be justified/sustained by just playing on the fear factor? What are the long-term implications for the Americans, and a large majority of people elsewhere, who want amicable settlement of the problem? Or, shouldn’t one follow the dictum of live and let live?.
Is it wise to act on the old saying that “to kill a rat one should bring down the entire house”?
How long can the initiative rest on a leadership which does not have the mandate, as the opinion polls show, to carry on a particular policy? Hasn’t the present leadership in the USA and Britain brought into question the efficacy of both the Presidential and Parliamentary forms of democracies?
Can a society bombarded with a prolonged and heavy dose of hatred, fear, greed, anger and violence manage to retain the ethos of democracy?
Are individual Americans not bothered to be labelled as “vindictive” and “brute” when the US administration takes the ‘war’ to the soil of different countries?
Has an average American become a helpless and a mute spectator? Does this not amount to suicide worse that the ones committed by the inmates of Guantanamo? Isn’t the ‘war on terror’ dehumanising soldiers/people?
What happens when one gets caught in a web of lies? Especially when, in the beginning, the stated reason for waging the ‘war on terror’ was the stockpiling of WMD by “the enemy” in the desert? When this lie was nailed why the world leadership turned a blind eye to the naked aggression in the desert?
Is it not a sure way of leading a nation into a schezophrenic state? Many of the arguments now being raised within the media in the USA reflect this alarming state of mind? Why no one is talking of healing the “sick” instead of allowing them to go on smashing things with the help of “war machine”?
Is there a way out?
Will try to discuss these issues in a post later. Meanwhile Jack thank you very much for encouraging people to think differently.
Perhaps there is a need to try to heal oneself before going out, armed to the teeth, to “change others into my way of thinking” and declaring oneself as a “saviour”. It is not possible to force people in the world to hold a Coca Cola bottle in one hand and a McDonald hamburger in the other!!!
Very Good Jack.
You pretty much described my assessment of this awful mess. In addition to “fear” I would also add “greed”. Invading Iraq is one matter, but to do so on the cheap in order to facilitate a class specific tax cut during a “war” fought largely by another class is despicable.
However Jack, to be honest, I have horrible reservations. To the consternation of many, I am in a constant state of confusion and my posts are not consistent. I have spent better than a decade in that larger region and I have some experience with these people. I have been in many wars, experienced many political upheavals and lived through several battles from small arms to missile and air attack. I have lived with various people’s there and have became as close to some as I believe is possible. Their religious leaders do in fact teach their followers to dislike, restrict contact with, spy on, and distrust non-Muslims at best, but to kill them at worst. Though the difference is wide to us, it is not so wide to them.
So I wonder, are we judging the merits of this war fairly? Are we truly being objective? I have always believed that people are far more alike than they are different. However their value system is alien and incomprehensible to just about every other on the planet. They do not understand “Honor� as we understand it. Jack I have seen two life long friends become enemies and kill each other with knives over a woman on the television!
Whatever government the Iraqi manage to put together, guaranteed it will be wholly corrupt by any standard. They have no concept of nobility. What I hate most, is that we have let these people divide us and they are keen to notice!
Yes, congratulations to you all on another masterful word-game.
Fact is – we’re in a conflict, whether you want to call it a war, a scuffle or a game of checkers is not really the point. Why do people waste so much time looking for clever ways to turn words against each other when there is in fact a very real, and dangerous, enemy who has openly stated their desire to destroy western civilisation? How they must boggle at our lack of focus….
Napoleon’s quote – well suffice to say that he lead his country into a series of ultimately disastrous wars for no real gain. Hey, now you can start comparing him to Bush, right?
Let’s make up our mind. What are we aiming at? Seeking markets abroad under the guise of moral posturing. “Let’s fight evil and establish democracy.” Blah…blah…blah”…”The real word game”.
I am astonished that some people should object to a healthy discussion. I am alarmed at the aggressive manner some people wish to impose their viewpoint on others.
This is a sign, I repeat, of a serious schizophrenic symptom brought about by certain developments/issues with which a large section of the American people/media were unfamiliar with until these manifested in all its ugliness on 9/11.
In India, and elsewhere, people have been living with the menace of terrorism for over two decades. (There are allegations that these were aided/abetted by the actions/inactions of different US administrations…For years India has been complaining to the USA about the existence of terrorist training camps in Pakistan. And, yes, there is that nuclear-trafficker AQ Khan).
But no one has lost its head as has happened to the decision-opinion-makers in the USA. In the face of terrorism one must be cool and calm to plan a long-term strategy. (The conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan is still going on with no end in sight). There are no short-cuts.
A nation cannot imitate a terrorist and indulge in mindless torture and mayhem. Thus reducing oneself to a dehumanised clone. One has to win the hearts and minds of people by generating a healthy debate, and going in for positive policy intiatives. If you can’t do it, just get out of that country!
No brute force would ever work. It will only invite retribution. “An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth”. And soon we may all be turning blind!!!
The USA has to make up its mind. Are you fighting an unending “crusade” and would leave a country/countries only when your vague objectives have been met?
Is it a divine order that to fight all the ills of other nations, the USA must send its armed forces and station them permanently in those countries?
Aren’t these symptoms of schizophrenia? If you look up this word in the dictionary you would realise the gravity of the situation.
Well put Jack.
We are in a war like none before it in our nations history. Many other countries, most notably the British, have shown us the blueprint for how not, and in some cases how to fight/end this type of conflict. Now wether the current leaders we have understand, let alone study these examples is of major concern.
This going to take a nuanced reply from the US, and the world. We can’t go around invading countries on whims anymore, we blew our make one big mistake wad with Iraq. Yes we showed we are serious, and will whip some arse, but we also showed we have the ability to lose our cool/focus by doing that. We do need military replies, but targeted military replies are more the type of replies we need, like special forces sniping/eliminating with extreme predjudice certain bad individuals, not carpet bombing cities. Thats was for effect, and is not anything we’ve really done, so don’t pop a blood vessel folks, I do believe in using the military but only when we got a real target/proven danger, and endgame solution for said military action on the table.
The other part is diplomacy, which we are sorely lacking with the current leaders we have, but the world/ our allies is providing really softball/ no answers. This is such a nuanced subject no single way of saying it exsist, and for each country/ group the terrorists hide behind it would have to change. But I also leave room here for breaking the diplomatic rules and using special forces without notifying said countries/groups Israeli special forces style (forget the name of that unit…anyone got the name?), and pull elimination ops of known bad guys, and be damned the world response when said country/ group ddoesn’t comply. So don’t call me a cut and run type, or a peacenik, I am hawkish, just tageted hawkish is all. We use real diplomacy backed with an iron fist approach to killing the leaders of these groups, and I’m sure we’d be feared on a real level, rather than the flail out at the wind, and do their recruiting for them approach. Nothing says we mean business like killing the guys that run these groups, but not blow up the whole block they live on. See power guys like to think they are untouchable, and run like chickens when they aren’,. and I’m sure Bin Laden would pee his pants like a wuss.
We have to be careful whom we kill is all. Like when Bin Laden was having a hunting party and we knew it, but didn’t kill him because some of the royal family from the UAE happened to be with him. I say we should have done him, and then when the UAE got mad ask why they were hanging out with a known terrorist that had recently attacked a ship. That is my version of nuance.