In the land of good and evil
Is Hezbullah winning? I think that's a real question right now. Every day that they are perceived to still be fighting and their leaders are free, they gain more and more support from the Arab world to their cause.
Can the Israelis defeat Hezbullah? Yes, and no. Yes, the Israelis could win this localized battle by loading massive fire upon Hezbullah's strongholds followed by a large scale invasion and kill a fair majority of the Hezbullah fighters in the region at a significant cost in civilian and IDF lives.
But, no, the Israelis would lose the war, as all of their efforts to kill the Hezbullah forces concentrated in southern Lebanon would generate more fighters and more political, financial, and weapons support from other Arab groups and nations.
It's very similar to what the US faces in Iraq. For every insurgent killed, more are created. For every action in the war on terror, a reaction is created. That's why having a "decider" living in the land of absolutes, the land of good and evil, has made our situation worse.
One of the early errors in Vietnam was Westmoreland's strategy to attempt to destroy men and assets faster than they could be replenished. This was also the early concept in the "War on Terror" that we might round up all the assets of Al Qaeda. It failed in both applications because it did not take into account the underlying momentum of the movement.
Al Qaeda does not engage in "evil" acts because they are evil. They represent the extreme end of a political movement, and, thus far, many of the actions taken in the war on terror have pushed more towards that extreme end, thus, replenishing them.
In wars like these, civilians are not background. They are the battlefield.
I've been thinking alot about the limits of modern military power lately. Modern militaries are largely built to take ground. Against actors with a strong hierarchical structure and territory to defend, the modern military, with the US as a prime example, is very well equipped. Tell the US military to take the ground to Baghdad and seize x number of key buildings, and they will do it with a remarkable speed, effectiveness, and agility.
But what if there aren't any objectives? What if there isn't a hierachical structure?
There's been alot written about assymetrical warfare, but I've seen very little describing it as an inevitable development. Faced with overwhelming US (or Israeli) might, a decentralized, low cost, resiliant fighting structure was bound to develop. It is the only effective means of real resistance available.
The US Pentagon spends just south of $500 billion a year, and that does not include the now $100 billion a year in special allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Did you know that in 2001, Iraq's total GDP was $59 billion? (CIA factbook.) $94 billion in 2004? (although I find that hard to believe.)
Appreciate that for a minute. Even if you split the Pentagon budget so that only a portion is going towards Iraq, the US is still spending significantly more than Iraq's GDP and is still "not losing."
My point in this long rambling compilation of stray thoughts is that we can't win. Not through military force. Our military that is constructed to kill people and break things does not fit this problem. And time will not resolve it, and money will not resolve it, and more troops will not resolve it.
The only way to resolve Iraq is to have Iraqi opinion turn favorably toward the US. The only way to win the war on terror is to have Muslim opinion turn towards us. And that will not happen through the application of more force.
I know that doesn't make sense to a president who lives in the land of good and evil, but that dichotomy is a false construct thrown up by a simple mind. Iraq is not good versus evil, it is a problem to be solved. Parties that need to be accomodated.
(Please forgive the rambling post. It's just a collection of stuff that's been in my head for a couple of days. I know it says alot "we already know," but I felt the need to get it out.)
Can the Israelis defeat Hezbullah? Yes, and no. Yes, the Israelis could win this localized battle by loading massive fire upon Hezbullah's strongholds followed by a large scale invasion and kill a fair majority of the Hezbullah fighters in the region at a significant cost in civilian and IDF lives.
But, no, the Israelis would lose the war, as all of their efforts to kill the Hezbullah forces concentrated in southern Lebanon would generate more fighters and more political, financial, and weapons support from other Arab groups and nations.
It's very similar to what the US faces in Iraq. For every insurgent killed, more are created. For every action in the war on terror, a reaction is created. That's why having a "decider" living in the land of absolutes, the land of good and evil, has made our situation worse.
One of the early errors in Vietnam was Westmoreland's strategy to attempt to destroy men and assets faster than they could be replenished. This was also the early concept in the "War on Terror" that we might round up all the assets of Al Qaeda. It failed in both applications because it did not take into account the underlying momentum of the movement.
Al Qaeda does not engage in "evil" acts because they are evil. They represent the extreme end of a political movement, and, thus far, many of the actions taken in the war on terror have pushed more towards that extreme end, thus, replenishing them.
In wars like these, civilians are not background. They are the battlefield.
I've been thinking alot about the limits of modern military power lately. Modern militaries are largely built to take ground. Against actors with a strong hierarchical structure and territory to defend, the modern military, with the US as a prime example, is very well equipped. Tell the US military to take the ground to Baghdad and seize x number of key buildings, and they will do it with a remarkable speed, effectiveness, and agility.
But what if there aren't any objectives? What if there isn't a hierachical structure?
There's been alot written about assymetrical warfare, but I've seen very little describing it as an inevitable development. Faced with overwhelming US (or Israeli) might, a decentralized, low cost, resiliant fighting structure was bound to develop. It is the only effective means of real resistance available.
The US Pentagon spends just south of $500 billion a year, and that does not include the now $100 billion a year in special allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Did you know that in 2001, Iraq's total GDP was $59 billion? (CIA factbook.) $94 billion in 2004? (although I find that hard to believe.)
Appreciate that for a minute. Even if you split the Pentagon budget so that only a portion is going towards Iraq, the US is still spending significantly more than Iraq's GDP and is still "not losing."
My point in this long rambling compilation of stray thoughts is that we can't win. Not through military force. Our military that is constructed to kill people and break things does not fit this problem. And time will not resolve it, and money will not resolve it, and more troops will not resolve it.
The only way to resolve Iraq is to have Iraqi opinion turn favorably toward the US. The only way to win the war on terror is to have Muslim opinion turn towards us. And that will not happen through the application of more force.
I know that doesn't make sense to a president who lives in the land of good and evil, but that dichotomy is a false construct thrown up by a simple mind. Iraq is not good versus evil, it is a problem to be solved. Parties that need to be accomodated.
(Please forgive the rambling post. It's just a collection of stuff that's been in my head for a couple of days. I know it says alot "we already know," but I felt the need to get it out.)
posted by mikevotes at
8:59 PM
12 Comments:
Well said Mike and thanks.
Israel is certainly losing the PR war. I also note that the plan to push ground troops into Southern Lebanon has been halted for now.
As you say, this is not conventional warfare, and it cannot be executed (if there is a need to do so) with conventional thinking.
This has gone from an illfounded 'war on terror' to a nursery of terror. Almost literally when children are drawn into the conflict.
By
Cartledge, at 11:19 PM
Muslim opinion doesn't have to turn to our thinking, it has to denounce the violence and religious abuse of the extremeists of their own people.
Do Muslim's really want a religion that approves of going around and killing people?
By
Unknown, at 12:35 AM
law enforcement option. It doesn't cause any collateral damage.
By
Graeme, at 12:50 AM
Great post Mike.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if you did posts like these more often, but your hands-off style is also very effective.
So many things I agree with and have thought I wouldn't know where to start.
Killing terrorist is often like Mickey Mouse trying to destroy the water-carrying brooms in Fantasia.
The home team only needs a draw to call it a win.
A thought on the GDP figure. Wouldn't a lot of these public works projects count towards GDP since they are being carried out by private companies? That might explain the (unbelievable) figure.
By
Praguetwin, at 2:24 AM
Hezbullah doesn't have to win..it has to survive and prevent the Israelis from winning to achieve it's objectives. There has been one backlash in the Muslim world..in many countries recent US popularity because of aid efforts in Pakistan for the quake and in Indonesia for the Tsunami have been disappated post lebanon. More critically Hezbullah has just broadened its support big time..
By
Zak, at 7:16 AM
Let me start with the criticism.
Time, you are dead on right. That was very sloppy on my part. It's the exact same type of linear/binary thinking I was criticizing, "either with us or against us." False choice. It's a multi-dimensional world with lots of courses that don't cause collision. Thank you.
Cartledge. I found that decision not to go in very telling. Israel has not really made clear their goals in this operation. They've set terms for a ceasefire, but that's not necessarily what they're willing to fight for.
Graeme, I agree, although I'm really not too sure on Afghanistan. I do think we could've poured into Afghanistan without too much blowback, assuming we got in and got out.
And, remember the tone with which the Republican's attacked the "law enforcement option?"
Praguetwin, a draw. I like the analogy, although understand that there are no "American" sports that really allow for a draw. Something in our national myth/character/identity. I would prefer a philosophy that focused more on defense, ports airlines, borders.
I wondered about that on the GDP number as well. If a foreign company cotracts work from another foreign company fo, let's say, construction in the US, I think a portion of the transaction would record as US GDP, but I don't know.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:20 AM
Zak, yep. Hezbullah just needs a score draw or a close loss.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:21 AM
Moral imperative.
When you have it, you can win. When it's false, you will lose.
We are losing in Iraq and Israel is and will lose in Lebannon. Eradicating opponents using assymetrical warfare is like trying to eradicate ants. Ain't gonna happen without destroying everything including yourself.
The assymetrical response to American military power was inevitable. In any relationship, ANY, power ALWAYS equalizes. Disequilibrium can only exist for a short time before people find ingenious ways to counter disproportion power that opposes them. It's why the military is a very limited option in solving world problems and world conflicts.
If individuals, parents, corporations, institutions, governments and countries would all learn this fundamental lesson, our world would be a far better and more peaceful place. But to make that change requires thinking over reacting. And humans are far better at reacting.
And so it goes .....
By
Greyhair, at 11:46 AM
That's an interesting point about power. But I don't know if I fully agree. I think it's definitional. Because in a relationship someone can give up their power to the other. Now, whether being in that relationship gives them a potential power they're not accessing, I don't know.
Let me chew on it awhile.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 12:29 PM
The very act of giving away power is powerful and is done in service of some goal (which is exercising power).
I know I know. Your head hurts.
But think about it.
BTW. "Victimization" is one of the most powerful postures possible.
By
Greyhair, at 1:19 PM
That's what I was guessing. Frankly, I've it's an area I've never through too much about.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:46 PM
I only bring it up in the context of international relations. It's a highly important concept that leads to enormous miscalculations if not understood.
By
Greyhair, at 5:09 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home