Topic: Visiting the way stations of a new 'long war'

[E.R. Campbell]

Here is a piece from Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson, it is reproduced in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060822.wsimpson22/BNStory/National/home 

Visiting the way stations of a new 'long war'

JEFFREY SIMPSON
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

The “long war,” U.S. scholar Philip Bobbitt's description for the interconnected hot and cold conflicts from 1914 to the collapse of the Soviet Union, was fundamentally about the relationship between individuals and the state.

Liberal democracies ultimately prevailed in that “long war” against their ideological foes, notably communism and fascism. But it was easy to forget in the euphoria of that victory that an offshoot of the “long war” had implanted itself in the heart of Islam, namely Israel.

Of course, Jews wishing a homeland had been in Palestine before the Balfour Declaration, before and during the British mandate, before and after Theodor Herzl's Zionist call for a Jewish state. But the “long war,” with European Jews as leading victims, pushed enough of them to Palestine to force the making of modern Israel and created the political geography and psychological reflexes that plague the area.

The old “long war” between liberal democracies and its foes culminated, if not with the “end of history,” then with the dominance of the countries that upheld those values, notably the United States.

Then began the next “long war,” of the weak against the strong, a war fought by asymmetrical means and once again about different conceptions of the relationship between individuals and the state. Since this struggle, like the last one, is essentially about values and political conception, and since these take a long time to change, this latest “long war” bids fair to be a matter of generations.

The weak were (and are) the Islamists whose states, or so they believe, betrayed the faith by not insisting that all phases of individual and collective life be shaped by it.

Having been made acutely aware of their states' and societies' own weaknesses — economic stagnation, endemic corruption, corrosive politics, military defeat — these individuals and groups rationalized those weaknesses by blaming others, targeting Israel, and devising means to strike at the strong.

The seeding ground for this anger came from Arabs themselves — the economists and others who wrote the devastating portrait of the miserable performance of these countries (the Human Development Reports) for the United Nations.

While many Asian countries, all the former Communist states of Eastern Europe and some Latin American ones have been pulling themselves up economically, the Arab ones — including those with huge quantities of oil — have been going nowhere.

A careful analysis of this sad state of affairs, such as that provided by the UN authors, ought to have sparked serious introspection and radical changes. Instead, these painful truths were either ignored or interpreted as further evidence of the oppression imposed by “others,” the remedy for which was more stringent adherence to the faith.

Iran is a classic example of oil revenues wasted. A country that should be rich as a Persian king might have imagined is mired in corruption and stagnation, with a bloated bureaucracy and a chaotically bad infrastructure.

The appeal to a certain version of the faith, the rhetoric of being surrounded by enemies, the fixation with Israel, the “death to America” sloganeering and the appeal to Persian nationalism are all symptoms of a country averting its eyes from its own weakness and determined to compensate for such weakness by equipping itself with the mightiest weapon of all: a nuclear bomb.

The weak, of course, are not without tools. Some are psychological: the age-old Shia sense of martyrdom where military setbacks such as that suffered by Hezbollah are parlayed into glorious victories, and where the Arab memory of humiliating defeats inflates rocket attacks against Israel into triumphs. Some of the tools are violent ones, used by terrorists, militias (in Iraq, for example) and governments against their own people (in Afghanistan under the Taliban, for instance, and in Egypt against the Muslim Brotherhood).

The weak in this new “long war” are lucky, too, in their adversaries, especially the administration in Washington that has become so widely reviled. They also have been fortunate — although there is blame aplenty on all sides — that no solution has been found for the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma.

What we have witnessed in recent weeks — another spasm of Israeli-Arab fighting in Lebanon, an aborted terrorist attack in Britain, 3,000 dead in the cauldron of Iraq, violence in southern Afghanistan — are but way stations of this “long war.”

jsimpson@globeandmail.com

Simpson has part of it right, but only a bit.

This new war will be long, at least as long as the liberal West vs. fascist/communist Europe one.  It will also be asymmetrical.

The UN report on human development in Arab nations is, indeed, instructive.  The Arabs are abysmal failures at nation building and statecraft.  There are many reasons for this, almost all cultural: beginning with a distaste for education, beyond religious education.  This is the main medieval aspect of parts of the 21st century Islamic world.  It is reported (I cannot find the reference at the moment) that religious studies are overwhelmingly dominant in almost all Middle Eastern universities – even in Cairo and Amman; the exception is in Palestine where commerce, engineering and medicine (the ‘trades’ of academe) predominate.  One need only to look at Saudi Arabia: it has a largeish modern air force which would be grounded the day after all the foreign, mostly Anglo-American ex pat tech reps left.

But, being a journalist, Simpson is terribly short-sighted; being a Canadian he is required, culturally, to go off the rails and blame George Bush for almost everything.  Ditto his views on the Arab/Israeli ‘dilemma’.  It is not a dilemma at all: one side or the other must win.  Historically, it probably doesn’t matter all that much which one does.  I rather hope the Israelis win, I rather expect both to lose in the short term, with an eventual completely (and literally) pyrrhic victory going to the remnants of the Arabs.

The Globe and Mail invites readers to comment.  I often do – despite a very user unfriendly system which limits both size (not a bad idea) but does not allow paragraphing.  Here is my offering:

Simpson is a typical journalist: short sighted.  He recognizes that we are in yet another long war but then, because he cannot resist, he drags in the current, short term, American administration.  The group which will lead the West to yet another victory, this one over Islam - militant or not, (see Victor Davis Hanson for some historical, classical perspective on the long, long list of wars and Western victories) is the "Anglosphere" - which has been rising, and continues to rise, for about 400 years.  (It replaced the essentially Asian hegemony started by Timor and completed by Babar’s Mogul Empire.)  The zenith of the Anglosphere's power is still in the future, but maybe not even 100 years in the future; the nadir of its power is 500+ years away.  In the interim it will defeat the Islamist threat and, possibly, hopefully stimulate a necessary reform and enlightenment within Islam and the Middle East.  It will also contain and moderate China which will join it, perhaps supplant it, as the leader of an equally powerful "Sinosphere".  Long term, strategic and historic thinking is required for a long war: not immediate journalistic navel gazing.

[whiskey601]

Bush bashing and foot shooting aside- it is a long war and it may be accelerating in pace towards some sort of major bench mark moment which will influence the war for some time to come. I personally consider 911, the current Iraq war  and the simmering Israeli-Lebanon issues to be small fare in the long run and therefore fairly minor events, tragic consequences notwithstanding.

In my opinion, there will be one or more major collisions between the Anglosphere and Islam of truly epic proportions far surpassing the current skirmishes in scale and scope before the long war takes any course one way or the other.  One or more Anglosphere nations will be lost or essentially destroyed in the process however I think the price to be paid by the global Muslim population [including subjugated Muslims] will destroy extreme Islam in the long run.

Cheers

[Thucydides]

I'm not sure what you mean by an Anglosphere nation being lost or destroyed, Whiskey, unless you are referring to an attack by WMD smuggled into a major Western city. In terms of military effectiveness, only the Anglosphere West has the ability to project power on a global basis (and according to VDH [Carnage and Culture], this is the only civilization which ever had this capability).

If you want to draw the battle lines for open military action in WW IV, start with Somalia, move north along east Africa (the Sudan, Egypt); cross into SW Asia via Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Kashmir region, then go south and east into the Phillipines and Indonesia.

Terrorist attacks against Europe, Russia and North America can be seen as economy of force efforts to drive nations out of the "Coalition of the Willing" (i.e. Spain) and break the Western will to fight, although I suspect it will harden the resolve of more people than it will break them.

In terms of how we should fight, a combination of containment, "3D" and kinetic effects is needed. The most dangerous players are State actors like Iran and Syria, which have resources to fuel the fires; neutralize them and the problem becomes essentially local and disconnected. Taliban like militias in Somalia won't last very long without outside support, and AQ cells in Indonesia will have their range of action limited for the same reason. Smart "3D" work takes away the local support and they will eventually dry up. Each locality can be dealt with individually, and regional solutions (i.e. an East African strategy, one for the Levant, one for SW Asia and so on) can be adopted and prosecuted on the basis of urgency and resources available. Side prediction: SW Asia will get the bulk of the resources and attention, although in my opinion, Pakistan should be the real focus of attention after Iran and Syria are sorted.

Pakistan is worrying, since they are the only known nuclear power, have a fractured and unstable society and are also supported by an outside player: China; who may have motives to enter the game to keep the Anglosphere off balance for their own reasons. Pakistan and India also have a dynamic which is separate from India's participation in the Anglosphere, which also adds uncertainty.

[Carcharodon Carcharias]

A good post Arthur!

cheers,

Wes

PS - Anglosphere West, at the ripe ole age of 46, I must fess up and say thats a new word, or at least to me

[TCBF]

I don't see why a few 'Good Ole Boys' can't have a fun time in all of this.  We get a bunch of military superannuates together and form a 'communications consulting' firm. It then specializes in mass un-manned balloonings of special dispensers that individually parachute millions of copies of The Bible and The Koran - all translated into Korean - over North Korea.  Just for fun.  Financing should be easy - the Saudis (as usual), and maybe that Robertson fellow.

[Thucydides]

From VDH

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson082806.html

Relearning Lessons in the War on Terror
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

From the recent Israel-Hezbollah war in southern Lebanon to the jihadists in Iraq's Sunni Triangle to the repeated efforts by Islamists across the globe to trump Sept. 11, what old lessons about terrorism are we in the West finding ourselves having to relearn?

First, death is the mantra of terrorists. In urban landscapes, they hide among apartment buildings, use human shields and welcome all fatalities — friendly or hostile, combatant or civilian. Death of any kind, they think, makes the liberal West recoil, but allows them to pose as oppressed victims.

Their nihilistic hatred intimidates, rather than repels, third parties — whether "moderate" Arabs, Europeans who back off from peacekeeping in Lebanon, or the Western public at large. Our enemies call Jews "pigs" and "apes" and employ racist caricatures of the U.S.'s African-American secretary of state. Meanwhile, we worry about incurring charges of "Islamophobia," when we should be stressing our liberal values and unabashedly contrasting Western civilization with the 7th-century barbarism of the jihadists.

Second, windfall petrol-dollar profits (now around $500 billion annually) financially fuel radical Islam. Iranian cash allowed Hezbollah to acquire the sophisticated weaponry needed to achieve parity in ambushes with the Israeli Defense Forces. Unless the U.S. can find a way to force oil prices back down below $40 a barrel, Islamists may eventually be better equipped with weapons they buy than we are with munitions we make.

Third, as Israel's experience in Lebanon demonstrated, air power alone can never defeat terrorists. Precision bombing is a tempting option for Westerners since it ensures few if any of our own casualties. But jihadists, through the use of human shields and biased photographers, are able to portray guided weapons as being as indiscriminate as carpet-bombing.

Fourth, the use of old shoot-and-scoot missiles — Katyushas, Qassams and worse to come — is altering the strategic calculus, as they now number in the many thousands. The fear of Hezbollah's near limitless mobile launchers enabled terrorists to put whole Israeli cities in bomb shelters and almost shut down the country's economy.

In the Middle East, neither the new Israeli border wall nor the Golan Heights guarantees security from a sky full of rockets. Israel needs a breakthrough in missile defense and may have to target the conventional assets of terrorist sponsors — the power grid, for example, of Syria — to restore deterrence.

Fifth, intelligence remains lousy. The lapses are not just an American problem but stymie the Israeli Mossad as well. The latter had little idea of the anti-tank weapons and impenetrable bunkers of Hezbollah, located a few miles from the border. Western reliance on drones and satellites yields little on-the-ground information. Meanwhile, free societies broadcast on television much of their own debates and plans.

Under the jihadists' code of vigilante justice, local informants suspected of supplying tips to Westerners are almost instantly and publicly executed. We, on the other hand, flay ourselves over targeted wiretaps.

Sixth, there is little evidence of either the efficacy or morality of the vaunted "multilateral" diplomacy. The French have steadily downsized their proposed contribution to the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. Cash-hungry Russia sold its best weapons to terrorists. And oil-hungry China supplies Iran with missiles.

And seventh, the reputation of the international media in the Middle East for both accuracy and fairness has been lost. In the recent war in Lebanon, news agencies were accused by bloggers of publishing staged photos, and one agency, Reuters, was embarrassed when it found out — thanks again to the work of bloggers — that one of its freelancers had doctored war-zone photos.

Journalists rarely interviewed or filmed Hezbollah soldiers; we still have no idea how many so-called "civilians" reported killed were, in fact, Hezbollah terrorists. In the Middle East, reporters are scared stiff of Islamic fundamentalists, but not the Israeli or American military.

Despite the enormous advantages of Western militaries, there is no guarantee we can keep ahead of terrorists — especially since they are becoming more adept while we seem tired and unsure about whom, why and how we should fight.

So far, the U.S. has been able to dodge the latest terrorist bullets. So far, Afghanistan and Iraq are clinging to their newfound democracies. So far, Israel has been able to survive Hamas and Hezbollah, and these groups' state sponsors in Iran and Syria.

But unless we in the West adapt more quickly than do canny Islamic terrorists in this constantly evolving war, cease our internecine fighting and stop forgetting what we've learned about our enemies — there will be disasters to come far worse than Sept. 11.

[tomahawk6]

I read an apocalyptic piece today on what the world might look like with a nuclear Iran and a post-proliferation world. The prospect of a nuclear middle east with a jihad bent on an islamic takeover of much of the world isnt comforting. There will be countries that will submit and a few will fight. The stage will be set for armageddon. Maybe.

Iran cannot achieve its nuclear ambitions without oil and money. If it comes to a strike on Iran I would include its oil infrastructure on the target list. No way we could locate and strike all its secret nuclear facilities,but we can take out the reactors and heavy water facility, as well as their oil facilities. If oil hits $80 or 100 a barrel they wont see any of that money. Their Chinese friends will have to look elsewhere for oil. I would set their oil industry back 20 years if I could. There will be less risk in hitting civilians than trying to get nuclear facilities located in civilian neighborhoods.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWU4MDMwNmU5MTI5NGYzN2FmODg5NmYyMWQ4YjM3OTU=

[Thucydides]

More on how the regional conflicts are converging into a true global conflict, just like the various conflicts in Asia, China, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean converged into WW II:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378402808&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Report: 700 Somalis aided Hizbullah

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST  Nov. 15, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A recent UN report revealed that over 700 Somali combatants aided Hizbullah during the recent war in Lebanon, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The second Lebanon war: JPost.com special report
According to the report, Hizbullah provided the Somali fighters with training and weapons from Iran and Syria in return for their help in Lebanon, thus assisting the Islamic forces' struggle to gain control of Somalia.

Though it was unclear how the information was acquired; if proven true, this would be the first sign that Hizbullah received foreign assistance during the war.

Strange calm prevails in bombed-out s. Lebanon
The UN report also mentioned Iran, saying the country had tried to procure uranium from Somalia in exchange for weapons; however, it was unclear whether the transaction was successful.

An unnamed Israeli official at the UN denied any knowledge of Somali involvement in the war with Hizbullah, and Hizbullah officials could not be reached for comment.

The Security Council will discuss the report, which was presented by a panel of experts who were monitoring Somali violations of a UN arms embargo, on Friday.

The state players can provide funds and equipment, the poor nations and non state players provide the "foot soldiers"

[dglad]

In terms of how we should fight, a combination of containment, "3D" and kinetic effects is needed. The most dangerous players are State actors like Iran and Syria, which have resources to fuel the fires; neutralize them and the problem becomes essentially local and disconnected. Taliban like militias in Somalia won't last very long without outside support, and AQ cells in Indonesia will have their range of action limited for the same reason. Smart "3D" work takes away the local support and they will eventually dry up. Each locality can be dealt with individually, and regional solutions (i.e. an East African strategy, one for the Levant, one for SW Asia and so on) can be adopted and prosecuted on the basis of urgency and resources available. Side prediction: SW Asia will get the bulk of the resources and attention, although in my opinion, Pakistan should be the real focus of attention after Iran and Syria are sorted.

Pakistan is worrying, since they are the only known nuclear power, have a fractured and unstable society and are also supported by an outside player: China; who may have motives to enter the game to keep the Anglosphere off balance for their own reasons. Pakistan and India also have a dynamic which is separate from India's participation in the Anglosphere, which also adds uncertainty.

Well put.  However, "neutralizing" nation-states like Iran and Syria is going to take a degree of political will that will be challenging to muster in the West.  Personally, I think Iran is the key; the country has a well-educated population, by regional standards, and a reasonably progressive, forward looking youth demographic.  The theocrats are a relatively minority that aren't really in step with most of their people.  If it was possible mobilize popular change in Iran, push them into a more moderate leadership role in the region and thereby separate them from Syria, a major step forward would occur.  Syria alone is still a problem, but a much smaller one than Iran and Syria combined.

I'd put MORE emphasis on Pakistan.  This country is almost the opposite of Iran...a relatively moderate and pragmatic secular leadership who are the minority in a country with a largely impoverished, under-educated population contaminated by extremist elements.  And they have nuclear weapons, are forever on the brink of a shooting war with India, and are aligned with China who, as you point out, also has a rocky relationship with India.  Frankly, short of solidifying Musharraf's rule with massive infusions of aid and development resources, I'm not sure what you could do about "neutralizing" Pakistan.

[Journeyman]

One or more Anglosphere nations will be lost or essentially destroyed in the process

I'm not sure which nations you're considering, but the central Western European block of say, France, Holland, Germany - - are all facing increasing radical Islamist problems, at rates faster than most other Western countries.

This may provide, a) signposts of our future, and hence, possible courses of action, and b) adequate warnings if they face imminent crises while we still dither.

[Thucydides]

The situation in Eastern Africa is heating up, and could become even more interesting given this is only a stone's throw from the Sudan, and several of the interested parties in the war are operating in the area as well:

It has been rumored that Somali fighters have received training and weaponry from Iran. The AQ had used the Sudan as a training/stageing area in the past, and may still be doing so. China has extensive interests in the Sudan, especially the oil, and the United States operates some Special Forces in Kenya and Djibouti, and is rumored to be supporting the provisional government of Somalia against the Union of Islamic Courts.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A327413

Islamists mass troops on Ethiopian border

MOGADISHU — Somalia’s powerful Union of Islamic Courts began massing thousands of troops on the border with Ethiopia over the weekend, days after Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said he was ready to confront the Islamic militants in Somalia.

“War is imminent. There is no other alternative,” Islamist military officer Sheikh Mohamed Ibrahim Bilal said by satellite phone from the border. “Ethiopia declared war, so we will defend ourselves and protect our country and people.”

The Islamists have declared a jihad on Ethiopian troops in the country to back the weak transitional government based in the northern town of Baidoa.

Ethiopia last week said it was ready for a confrontation with the Muslim militants, who control most of the country.

Residents of the border area have begun fleeing.

Meles told a news conference on Saturday he had explained Ethiopia’s position to western powers. “Both Brussels and Washington appear to believe that any military response on our part might be counterproductive, saying that dialogue is the best way forward,” he said.

“We, too, agree that dialogue is the best way, nevertheless as the direct victims of the aggression, we feel we might be forced at some stage to respond with force.

“It is our country that is being attacked. Naturally, we do not seek any green, red or yellow from anyone to protect ourselves.

“If, and when, we are convinced that all options of resolving the invasion through peaceful means are exhausted, only then we may act to respond in kind,” Meles said. The Islamists had trained, armed and smuggled hundreds of Ethiopian rebels into the country, he said.

Ethiopia has in the past sent troops into Somalia to fight Islamist radicals, fearing they could stir up trouble in ethnic Somali regions on its side of the border.

Senior Somali Islamist Sheikh Sharif Ahmed has accused Washington of giving Ethiopia the go-ahead to fight his movement.

Meles was speaking two days after appearing in parliament to urge legislators to back plans to fight the Somali Islamists, although he has refrained from declaring outright war on them.

Ethiopia insists it has only sent a few hundred military trainers across the border, but a United Nations-commissioned report says it has deployed thousands of soldiers and weapons in Somalia.

In Mogadishu, senior Islamists and visiting parliamentary speaker Sharif Hassan Sheikh Adan on Saturday condemned the parliamentary address by Meles as “naked aggression”.

The group also issued a 10-point communique which called for the Islamists and the interim government to resume talks in Khartoum next month.

Talks between the two sides collapsed last month, with the Islamists saying they would not negotiate unless Ethiopian troops withdrew from Somalia.

Interim government Deputy Defence Minister Salad Ali Gele said the Islamists had to drop their demands before the government would return to talks.

Meanwhile, some 320 Ugandan soldiers arrived in a military plane at the Baidoa airstrip overnight on Friday as part of a regional peacekeeping mission that is vehemently opposed by the Muslim militants, said a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Security was stepped up at the government’s base in Baidoa, where the internationally backed government put a stop to all civilian flights. Experts have warned the conflict could escalate into an larger regional war.

Somalia has been without strong central rule since the 1991 ousting of a dictator plunged the country into anarchy. DPA, Reuters

[Thucydides]

I believe that Iran is the key to the puzzle, and here might be the action that brings everything out into the open at last:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2006/12/show-of-force-in-persian-gulf.html

Show of Force in Persian Gulf

The United States will make a show of force in the Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran. Iran has continued its illegal nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). It is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment despite threats of sanctions from UN member states. However, the threats have been hollow ones because of reluctance by China and Russia to agree on a strict sanctions regime against the Islamic theocracy.

Drudge Reports:
The Pentagon is planning a major buildup of Naval forces in and around the Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran, it was reported last night.
MORE.
The buildup, which would included a ago second aircraft carrier to the one already there is being proposed as a response to what US officials view as increasingly provocative acts by Iran, David Martin reported on CBS EVENING NEWS.
Recent Iranian naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its nuclear enrichment program which US intelligence believes is designed to produce a bomb." CBS added, "Military officers say the buildup would take place after the first of the year, not to actually attack Iran but to discourage its leaders from spreading their Shiite revolution."

Israel is becoming increasingly worried about Iran's nuclear program and has declared that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would be unacceptable. Coupling Iran's enrichment activities with its threats to "wipe Israel off the map" and its racist conferences denying the Holocaust have caused many to fear a potential nuclear holocaust in the Middle East.

The danger of war will dramatically increase with an increased American military presence. Should Iran take any hostile action against American forces, all hell could break loose. However, Iran is already conducting a proxy war against the US in Iraq by sponsoring terror groups, training fighters, supplying weapons, and sheltering militants.

Perhaps its about time for show down at the Tehran corral.

If the Iranians take the bait and attack the US forces deployed in the Gulf, the Americans can use their long suits: Naval power and Air power, without risking too much engagement on the ground. It also provides a means to puth the crunch on the Iranian economy by disrupting the flow of oil (a naval blockade and perhaps disabling the oil infrastructure). Since the vast majority of Iranians will not see the actual presence of US forces, it will be much more difficult for the Theocracy to either whip up the population against the Americans or deploy against them either.

If things go badly for US forces in the Gulf, or should other factors make it desirable, the US can launch a "head shot" at the key government and revolutionary guard targets, removing the props which hold the theocracy up and taking Iran out of the Long War. This will have positive consequences in Iraq, Lebanon, Palistine and moderate consequences in East Africa as well.

Stand by

[Thucydides]

A veiw of the shape and form of this war:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-cold-war.html
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/16224448.htm

A New Cold War?

The Left's favorite whipping boy on the "War on Terror", a term he dislikes:

Set aside World War I and set aside World War II. Think more of the Cold War.

At any given moment during the Cold War, which lasted 50 years, you couldn’t say if you were winning or losing. The Civil War, as well. There aren’t straight and smooth paths. There are bumpy roads. It’s difficult. The enemy has a brain. They’re constantly making adjustments. Think of the faces of the Cold War when Euro-communism was in vogue, and people were demonstrating by the millions against the United States, not against the Soviet Union. And yet, over time, people found the will - both political parties and Western European countries - to persist in a way that ultimately led to victory.

The circumstance we are in today is more like that than it is like World War II. People are going to have to get more familiar with that idea. It’s not a happy prospect. There are people in the world who are determined to destabilize modern Muslim regimes and re-establish a caliphate across the globe, and anyone who wants to know about it can go on the Internet and read their own words and what their intent is. They’re deadly. They’re not going to surrender. They’re going to have to be captured or killed. They’re going to have to be dissuaded; people are going to have to be dissuaded from supporting them, from financing them and assisting in their recruitment, providing havens for them.

We’re in an environment where we have to fight and win a war where the enemy is in countries we are not at war with. That is a very complicated thing to do. It doesn’t happen fast. It means you have to invest the time, effort and ability. We don’t have the institutions, we don’t have the organization, and we haven’t had the training, as a society, to rapidly develop the skill sets so that the countries that are cooperative with us develop the capacity to develop their own real estate, which they don’t have.

[Colin P]

Also consider that from the time that comminsium fell in the USSR to now, is the longest period Russia has played with a real democracy. It would seem to falling backwards for now, but I think the Russians have the taste in their mouthes and will not forget it. As much as China is building up it's power, they need regional stability to maintain their economy, and will likely not do anything to rash unless pushed. Hard to say about Iran, the government is a bunch of nutbars, but the people don't really want a major conflict as the 10 year war is still fresh in their minds.

[Kirkhill]

I couldn't agree more.  Perhaps the biggest mistake that any of us make is in trying to make sense of things by organising the world into a small number of boxes.  Linnaeus tried to something similar with organizing and naming plants and animals but eventually discovered he kept having to break things down further and further from Kingdoms, Phylums, Sub-phylums, Families, Genera, Species, Sub-Species, Sub-Sub-Species and eventually races and breeds.  Ultimately it boils down to the individual.

By accepting the Enemy as Islam and agreeing that there is one individual that speaks for Islam then we empower that individual - even though Islam may not have chosen that individual on their own  (Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians is a good example - Nasrullah, Ahmadinejad and Osama are well on the way to achieving the same end).

The solution is NOT to look for the ONE leader that can deliver all of Islam.  The solution is to appeal to individuals and those Minor leaders than can be brought over to your way of thinking.  Given the success of Bollywood videos and Nike runners I think it is fair to say their is a solid market for those ideas.

But this also ties into this: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,55276.msg504720.html#msg504720

[Thucydides]

Certainly a "cultural offensive" has the greatest power of all the tools in our tool box, and "we" are not even employing it an any sort of focused fashion! The corporate whiz kids and advertising agencies are our "Al Qaeda", operating in a totally decentralized fashion across millions of separate "operations" and "fronts". The only possible defence against this is to attempt to exclude Western influences, as the communist nations attempted during the Cold War, and looking at things like the "Great Firewall of China" and governments across South West Asia attacking and arresting people for wearing "western" clothes or listening to "western" music and watching "western" TV and movies today gives a good indication of how well "we" are really doing.

Rather than attempting to bring a cultural offensive under government control (which is not only counterproductive, but ultimately self defeating), "we" should use our power and attempt to maintain open channels of communication through every media possible, openly and covertly (slipping instructions on how to bypass internet filters in China is not an "overt" operation, for example). Obviously this is not the only means available to us, economic weakness can be examined and exploited (Iran, for example, has a very poorly maintained oil industry and even has to import gasoline; sanctions against Western oil companies that do business with Iran and manipulating the gasoline market to draw gasoline imports elswhere will certainly have an impact), and "kinetic effects" remain a viable (and in some cases the only) option.

Given the limited resources available, as well as looking at some real time constraints, does mean forcing the issue at selected times and places of our own choosing. Finding and disabling "key" players in the axis of evil will certainly have to be done at some point, I would suggest sooner rather than waiting for some deadly nuclear "later" myself.

[Thucydides]

Status report. Follow link for maps, pictures etc.

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/12/the_state_of_jihad.php

The State of the Jihad
A look at the state of the major theaters, and some under the radar, in the Long War


Pro-Taliban fighters in
Waziristan.
The year of 2006 has seen some interesting developments in the fight against al-Qaeda and its allies across the globe. While the war against al-Qaeda is largely seen as a fight in Afghanistan supported by a police action in certain countries, there is a very hot war occurring in many countries. Al-Qaeda and its allies have initiated hot wars in lesser known countries such as the Philippines, Chechnya, Somalia, and Algeria. Thailand is fighting a serious insurgency against ill-defined groups of Muslim insurgents which haven't been definitively connected to al-Qaeda or the Southeast Asian powerhouse Jemaah Islamiyah, but we don't believe in coincidences.

Iraq, which is often dissociated from the war, is a major theater for al-Qaeda, as both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have stated in numerous communications. Afghanistan has seen its bloodiest year since the U.S. invasion in late 2001. The Taliban and al-Qaeda have fought the Pakistani government to a standstill and have taken over portions of the country. The countries of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Bangladesh simmer, and continue to serve as support bases for al-Qaeda's activities.

Below is a roundup of the major developments in the most active theaters across the globe in the Long War.

 
NWFP/FATA. Click map to view.
 
Pakistan: The Taliban and al-Qaeda have made startling gains in Pakistan during 2006. In the tribal areas along the Afghan border, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have officially taken control over North Waziristan with the signing of the Waziristan Accord in September, and unofficially taken control of South Waziristan after the Pakistani Army abandoned control of the agency. The Taliban has established offices, recruiting centers, a parallel governing administration, and allowed al-Qaeda and other foreign fighters to live in the region. Twenty-two known al-Qaeda training camps exist in the tribal areas. After the Waziristan Accord, Pakistan released over 2,500 Taliban, al-Qaeda and other jihadi prisoners, many of whom fled back to the tribal areas to rejoin or lead their units. The Taliban also maintain a command and control center in Quetta in the south. The Taliban and al-Qaeda recruit, arm, train, sortie and direct their attacks from the tribal area and Quetta.

The Pakistani government is exploring further 'peace accords' in the tribal agencies, and Bajaur would have been the next agency ceded to the Taliban and al-Qaeda had not a missile strike on a madrassa hosting an al-Qaeda training camp sabotaged the talks. The foiled London airliner plot was tracked back to Waziristan, as was the Mumbai, India bombing which killed over 200 railway commuters.

 
Afghanistan UN Security Accessability Map (as of June 20, 2006).Click to view map, .PDF, approximately 1 Megabyte.
 
Afghanistan: The Taliban have stepped up military operations and suicide and bombing attacks in Afghanistan. While the Taliban continues to claim their movement is supported locally, the impetus of the Taliban offensive is provided from the Taliban and al-Qaeda support bases in western Pakistan. The overwhelming violence and Taliban activity in Afghanistan occurs on the eastern border with Pakistan. The Taliban have been attacking border outposts, police stations and district centers in formations as large as battalion sized (about 400 fighters).

But massed Taliban have led to massive Taliban casualties at the hands of NATO forces. Over 4,000 have been killed in Afghanistan this year, but at least 3,500 are Taliban fighters. Afghan, Canadian, British and U.S. forces have been heavily engaged in the southern and eastern provinces of Kandahar, Helmand, Kunar, Khost, Paktia and Paktika. An al-Qaeda suicide cell in Kabul was broken up by Afghan police after a two month bombing campaign over the summer. Many military and political leaders predict 2007 will be a violent year in Afghanistan as the Taliban attempts to destabilize the Afghan government and sideline reconstruction projects.

 
Muqtada al-Sadr.
 
Iraq: Since the destruction of the Golden Dome of the Al-Askaria Mosque in Samarra, the sectarian violence has risen dramatically. After the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, command of Al-Qaeda in Iraq was passed to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, a protege of Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al-Qaeda is attempting to create a political front and put an Iraqi face on the insurgency. Under the leadership of of Abu Omar al-Iraqi, al-Qaeda is attempting to unite the fractious insurgent groups in the Sunni areas, and has created an umbrella political organization called the Islamic State of Iraq. Some smaller Sunni insurgent groups, along with some leaders of Iraqi tribes, have been rolled under the banner of the Islamic State of Iraq, along with al-Qaeda in Iraq's Mujahideen Shura Council.

Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian backed Mahdi Army continue to lead the sectarian violence in Baghdad and efforts to sideline Sadr from political power have so far failed. An Iraqi government was formed after months of painful negotiations to create a ruling Shia coalition, and power was peacefully transferred. There are real concerns about the willingness of the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki to disarm the Shia militias. The Iraqi Army has made significant progress in taking control of the battlespace, yet is still heavily dependent on US forces. In general, the Iraqi police has a long way to go before approaching the effectiveness of the Army. The Baghdad police are said to be riddled with militias. Saddam Hussein was executed on December 30, 2006.

 
The Somalia Battlefield on 12/30/2006.
Light blue - Ethiopian & TFG advances.
Green - ICU territory.
Orange - recent clashes.
Click image to view.
 
Somalia: After a year of seemingly wild success in Somalia, al-Qaeda has suffered a serious blow. The al-Qaeda backed Islamic Courts had taken control over all of central and southern Somalia by July, save for the central town of Baidoa, after defeating the U.S. backed Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism. Ethiopian forces poured into Baidoa and Puntland to reinforce the weak Transitional Federal Government. A five month standoff ensued, then in late December the two sides faced off outside Baidoa. The Islamic Courts conducted two suicide strikes against government targets, and successfully ambushed several Ethiopian armored columns. The Ethiopian Army then conducted a major offensive and drove the Islamic Courts from Mogadishu. The Islamic Courts have fled to the southern port of Kismayo and a training camp at Ras Kamboni, and the the Ethiopian Army is currently heading south to engage them. The Islamic Courts have given all signs that it will begin to conduct an insurgency. Al-Qaeda has expended significant resources in funds, manpower, political and propaganda support, and in establishing training bases in Somalia.

 
Saif al-Adel
 
Iran: The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to pursue its nuclear program, against the wishes of the United Nations. Iran still shelters over 100 al-Qaeda leaders, including Said bin Laden, Osama's son, and Saif al-Adel, al-Qaeda's strategic planner. Muqtada al-Sadr receives the support of Iran, which is working to destabilize the Iraqi government and fomet civil war. Qods Force agents have been arrested in Iraq with ""weapons lists, documents pertaining to shipments of weapons into Iraq, organizational charts, telephone records and maps, among other sensitive intelligence information... [and] information about importing modern, specially shaped explosive charges into Iraq." Hezbollah continues to be Iran's main terrorist proxy, and received significant aid in the form of sophisticated weapons systems, cash and political support. Iranian weapons were fielded during the Israel-Hezbollah War, including a cruise missile which disabled an Israeli warship, medium range rockets, and UAVs. Iran has also supported Somalia's Islamic Courts by providing arms and training to the organization.

 
GSPC Leader Abou Mossaab Abdelouadoud
Click image to view.
 
North Africa/Algeria: Al-Qaeda consolidated the various Salafist terrorist groups and formed Al-Qaeda in North Africa. The organization consists of the Algerian based GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and the Tunisian Combatant Group. While the GSPC isn't a serious threat to the stability of Algeria, the group remains active, has maintained its size and operations, and has conducted attacks against government forces and civilian targets. Moroccan authorities disrupted a major terror plot against foreign targets, and arrested almost 60 in the conspiracy. Al-Qaeda in North Africa and the GSPC maintain an extensive support network in Europe and beyond.

Saudi Arabia: Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia attacked the ARAMCO run Abqaiq facility, the largest in Saudi Arabia. Saudi security forces continue to dismantle al-Qaeda's network of fighters in the country. Saudi Arabia has killed or captured nearly every terrorist on its most wanted lists. But Saudi Arabia continues to allow the support organizations to function. The "Golden Chain," a group of wealthy Saudis and other Gulf states financiers who funnel millions of dollars to Osama bin Laden, still remain free, despite their known identity. Imams and clerics supportive and sympathetic to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations continue to preach hate and justification for jihad.

 
Abu Hafs al-Urduni Click image to view.
 
Chechnya: Al-Qaeda had a very bad year in Chechnya. Shamil Basayev, the leader of the Chechen jihad, along with a large contingent of the Chechen leadership, was killed by the Russian FSB in July. After Basayev's death, large numbers of Chechen rebels defected and accepted a government amnesty. In November, Doku Umarov, Basayev's successor, was wounded after Russian forces conducted an assault on his hideout. Just days later, Abu Hafs, al-Qaeda's Emir of Chechnya, was killed by Russian security services. Russian intelligence believed he was prepared to leave Chechnya... “given the lack of prospects for jihad in the North Caucasus.”

 
Abu Sayyaf Leader Khaddafy Janjalani
 
The Philippines: The Filipino Army has made significant progress in its fight against al-Qaeda linked Abu Sayyaf and Indonesian based Jemaah Islamiyah operating in the southern Sulu archipelago. A force of about 6,000 Marines are fighting Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah on Jolo Island, and are highly confident Khaddafy Janjalani, the leader of Abu Sayyaf, was killed during the operation. Jemaah Islamiyah leader Umar Patek was believed to have been wounded, and the wife of JI bomb expert Dulmatin was arrested and deported to Indonesia. Abu Sayyaf and JI have continued to conduct a low-level bombing campaign, largely in Mindanao. The Filipino government continues to conduct negotiations with the Muslim separatist group MILF.

 
Abu Bakar Bashir
Click image to view.
 
Indonesia: Jemaah Islamiyah still remains active in Indonesia and throughout southeast Asia, although it has not conducted major attacks inside the country. The Indonesian Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda affiliate Jemaah Islamiyah who sanctioned the Bali bombings. Over 60 terrorists were released from jail, including several involved in the Bali bombing. Jemaah Islamiyah still maintains a support base and training camps inside Indonesia.

 
Abdur Rahman, after his capture
 
Bangladesh: Bangladesh was successful in decapitating the senior leadership of the Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh during the spring. Abdur Rahman and Bangla Bhai, the two most senior leaders of JMB were captured. Abdur Rahman was an original signatory of al-Qaeda's 1998 fatwa against the West and the establishment of the International Islamic Front. All together, five of the seven members of JMB's Majlis-e-Shura (central council) are now in custody. Bangladesh is still a haven for al-Qaeda and Pakistani based terrorist groups.

 
Map of southern Thailand. Click image to view.
 
Thailand: Thailand's shadowy Muslim insurgency in the south has stepped up its campaign of terror. Teachers and schools have been the primary targets of insurgents, as 110 schools have been burned and 71 school teachers, administrators and school staff have been killed over the past year. On New Years Eve, a bombing campaign in the capital of Bangkok was successful in stopping Thailand's massive New Years Eve celebrations.

Tags:al-Qaeda
By Bill Roggio on December 31, 2006 3:07 PM | Permalink

[E.R. Campbell]

In line with my known fondness for historical analogues, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act,  is a comment, from today’s (15 Jan 07) Globe and Mail, by Alan G. Jamieson, a Canadian (Alberta) author:
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070115.wcowar15/BNStory/specialComment/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070115.wcowar15

America's Eighty Years War?

ALAN JAMIESON
Globe and Mail Update

In the early 21st century, the U.S. is the sole superpower, the leader of the West. In the mid-16th century, it was the Spanish empire of Philip II that was the sole superpower in the West, then known as Christendom. Not only was it the dominant power in Europe, but Spanish colonies dotted the world from Peru to the Philippines.

Certain parallels between these two superpowers have already occurred to modern writers. In particular, the struggle between the Spanish empire and the Ottoman Turkish empire in the Mediterranean between 1560 and 1574 has been seen as relevant to the modern clash between the West and Islam. Events such as the Siege of Malta (1565) and the great naval battle of Lepanto (1571) have been the subjects of recent books. King Philip II neutralized the Islamic threat in his time, and some commentators look forward to the United States achieving a similar success in our own time.

However, another, less encouraging, parallel could be made between the Spain of Philip II and the America of George W. Bush. The Spanish empire was not brought low by the might of the Ottoman sultan, but by the prolonged resistance of initially insignificant rebels in the Netherlands. The so-called Eighty Years War (1566-1648) eventually led to the independence of the Dutch republic and the eclipse of Spanish power.

Although the struggle in the Netherlands became identified with the wider Catholic-versus-Protestant clash that tore apart the unity of Christendom, it began with both Catholic and Protestant Netherlanders rising up against Spanish exploitation. As Europe's greatest military power, Spain should have been able to suppress the rebellion with ease. At first, that seemed to be the case. However, military success was followed by brutal repression that stirred up further resistance, rather than ending it.

By the mid-1570s, the revolt in the Netherlands was already such a drain on Spanish resources, Philip II was glad to close down his war with the Turks in the Mediterranean. By the following decade, the Spanish had largely succeeded in dividing the rebels, winning over the Catholics of the south (now Belgium), but this did not end the war. The longer the conflict went on, the more it undermined Spanish power and encouraged neighbouring states, such as England and France, to intervene in the struggle.

By the early 17th century, the growth of Dutch power on land and sea was posing a major challenge to Spain, while the revival of French power further weakened the Spanish position in the Low Countries.

Finally, the struggle in the Netherlands was absorbed into the wider Thirty Years War that became a contest for continental hegemony. When that ended in 1648, Spain, bankrupt and defeated, recognized Dutch independence and knew its hold on the southern Netherlands would soon be challenged by France.

Why did the Spanish fight for so long to hold on to such a small part of their empire? Why did they not get out when it became clear that complete victory was impossible? The reasons were three-fold: The Netherlands constituted one of the richest parts of Europe, with economic resources as important to Spain as the silver from the Americas; the Netherlands was seen as a vital ideological battleground between Protestantism and Catholicism, and the rulers of Spain knew their empire could not retain its superpower status if it suffered defeat at the hands of an apparently inferior enemy.

Twenty-first century Iraq may seem far removed from the Netherlands of 500 years ago, just as it may seem perverse to compare a conflict that has lasted fewer than four years with a war that dragged on for decades. Nevertheless, the reasons that kept Spain bogged down in the Dutch quagmire may yet stop America from turning its back on Iraq.

Undoubtedly, Iraq is of great economic importance because of its oil reserves; Mr. Bush has declared the country to be an ideological battleground between democracy and Islamic extremism, and America's superpower status will be undermined if it cannot convince the wider world that it has won some sort of victory in Iraq. The Spanish were eventually humbled by rebels initially disparaged as "beggars." Can America afford to be forced out of Iraq by insurgents they label "terrorists?"

Alan G. Jamieson is the author of Faith and Sword: A Short History of Christian-Muslim Conflict.

It is interesting to remember that the Dutch rebels were, actively, supported by England – sometimes with troops, mostly with money.  That seems to be the case today for the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jamieson also reinforces my view that both Iraq and Afghanistan are but ‘way stations’ on the long, arduous journey from Islam’s founding to its final clash with the dominant secular, liberal Western and secular, conservative Asian civilizations.  It is my belief that such a clash is inevitable – not between civilizations but, rather, between civilization, as we understand it, and a barbaric, medieval, Arab/Persian theocracy.

Some commentators, including Jamieson, argue that the Arabs and Persians (and West Asians and North Africans and Indonesians and, and, and …) are too deeply divided amongst themselves – on religious, linguistic and cultural grounds – to come together any time soon (say within the next two or three generations) to and launch an all out war between Islam and the West or the East.  That may be the case but strong leaders have united most of Islam in the past and I believe there is a cultural proclivity for many (most?) Muslims to submit to a high religious authority and submerge their religious and social differences in pursuit of a ‘greater Islam’ – Osama bin Laden’s caliphate.

[Journeyman]

It is interesting to remember that the Dutch rebels were, actively, supported by England...

But to continue the analogy, the British and the Dutch then went on to fight four distinct wars following Dutch secession (at one point [1667] the Dutch Navy, under De Ruyter, occupied the Thames River!).

Today's insurgent ally (Iran? Pakistan?) may soon be the insurgent's foe. If the analogy holds true, it suggests withdrawal (I know, a whole different can-of-worms/thread) to let them at each others' throats. Then, we take on the winners for the "Civilization Stakes"

[Kirkhill]

To take another tack though "-isms" didn't seem to matter much when Francis I, Christian King of France and acting on behalf of the Medici-Valois-Bourbon-Stewart interests allied himself with the Muslim Sultan Soliman in Istanbul (not much appreciated by Arab Muslims as he was a Turk) against the Hapsburg faction in Rome.

I think we take "belief" too much to heart, whether it is belief in a philosophy, a country or a person.  The people in the crowd change as they die and move on.  Each individual's belief changes. I am not a big fan of the notion of natural progression.  The Great Man theory commends itself to me as people with a desire for power follow Ralph Klein's dictum of finding a parade and getting out in front of it to lead it where they want it to go.  Although perhaps it should be the Great People theory to account for Elizabeth I as well as James VI & I, also to account for Dynastic Oligarchies such as the Medici-Bourbon-Stewart already mentioned, and the perennial power of certain cities dominated by certain families or groups.

I must be in a more pessimistic/cynical frame of mind because I don't think it matters whether we stay or go.  The best any group of people has done in the past is bought local peace for themselves for a generation or two.

[Colin P]

[/quote]
Jamieson also reinforces my view that both Iraq and Afghanistan are but ‘way stations’ on the long, arduous journey from Islam’s founding to its final clash with the dominant secular, liberal Western and secular, conservative Asian civilizations.  It is my belief that such a clash is inevitable – not between civilizations but, rather, between civilization, as we understand it, and a barbaric, medieval, Arab/Persian theocracy.

Some commentators, including Jamieson, argue that the Arabs and Persians (and West Asians and North Africans and Indonesians and, and, and …) are too deeply divided amongst themselves – on religious, linguistic and cultural grounds – to come together any time soon (say within the next two or three generations) to and launch an all out war between Islam and the West or the East.  That may be the case but strong leaders have united most of Islam in the past and I believe there is a cultural proclivity for many (most?) Muslims to submit to a high religious authority and submerge their religious and social differences in pursuit of a ‘greater Islam’ – Osama bin Laden’s caliphate.
[/quote]

You have keyed into the main weakness of radical Islam, most Muslims inhabit a world quite different than Arabia and for the most part are not radicalized. They must be constantly maintained in their state of radicalization. Most governments are keying in on the radical leaders as they realize they are a threat to themselves regardless of their opinion of the US position.
The west must continue to promote moderate Islam in these countries and find ways to funnel money to moderates without contaminating them. It was through money that the Whabbi’s bought their way through the Muslim world, the average mosque and Iman preaching tolerance could never compete with a Saudi run Mosque and if they did, more earthly and violent techniques were used to shut them down.   

[Thucydides]

The war might carry on in a series of spasms as our "attention" is raised or lowered

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/will-to-win.html&title=The%20Will%20to%20Win

[/quote]
It All Comes Down to Will

Mark Burnell (author) ~ “The most valuable commodity of all is time and … patience is control. The reason time is so valuable is that it’s the one resource the poor have in abundance and the rich can’t buy. The West worries about the next financial quarter [or next election]; in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever there are many poor – that’s not a pressing concern. So when dealing with the West this is what they understand; that if they wait long enough they will prevail by default.”

Any sports fan knows that whenever two teams meet the outcome is unpredictable if neither side holds a massive advantage either in skill or training. Most often the outcome is a matter of will; victory goes to the side which can gain psychological momentum and maintain it. How often do sports commentators speak of momentum? … as in “the Eagles have momentum going into the second half!” The concept is so prevalent that we take it for granted and assume that when all things are equal, or not even that equal, the right psychology can win the game.

When it comes to war or even cultural clashes, those who study these know and understand that “will” is likely the most important factor in winning and losing. Sure, technological, numerical, or professional superiority play a vital roll, but in the end, clashes of this sort only end when one side loses the will to keep fighting. As long as the will to fight remains, conflict continues.

John Keegan in The Face of Battle, put it as follows:

    “Battle therefore … is essentially a moral conflict. It requires … a mutual and sustained act of will by two contending parties and, if it is to result in a decision, the moral collapse of one of them”


In a nutshell then, wars are won or lost when one side loses the will to fight.

Consider now the global war being waged by Islamic Totalitarianism. Consider it’s fanaticism; consider its unifying doctrine; consider the willingness of its followers to perish; consider its disregard for suffering and hardship; consider its historical grounding; and, consider its far reaching dispersal throughout the world. Then, consider Western Liberal society, with its short attention spans, its divisive political systems, its decadence, its nay-sayers, and its inner turmoil.


If the War on Islamic Totalitarianism comes down to a battle of wills, who do you think holds all the cards? Just this past year Canadian support for the mission in Afghanistan waned when Canada began taking casualties … since then there has been calm, and support has once again rebounded. The same can be said of American support for the mission in Iraq. It remained relatively stable until civilian casualties and military casualties in Baghdad escalated and became the daily sado-pornography in the media. Then, instead of increased determination, the American public recoiled and today support for the mission is at an all time low.

The lesson for Islamists is this: Kill civilians in any way possible in the most public way possible, and the Western democracies will lose the will to prevail. No matter the training, the weapons, or even superiority in numbers, the West does not have the will to fight a conflict in which death can be broadcast via the media.

Europe lost her will prior to World War 2; in fact, it can be argued that Europe experienced World War 2 simply because she had lost her will after World War One. America lost her will in Vietnam where she buried 57,000 brave soldiers, mostly draftees, and where she spawned an isolationist and pacifist bent that permeates her culture and media to this very day. Canada lost her will after decades of peace and almost total saturation of her institutions with leftist utopianism.

If Keegan is correct, as I believe he is, then we in the West won’t muster the will needed to defeat Islamic Totalitarianism until a true cataclysm assails us. It may take any number of forms, but until then, it is only a minority of Westerns who have the will to prevail. The rest want to go back to a blissful September 10th slumber, where they can focus on concocting myths about American hegemony, Global Warming, and International Zionist conspiracies. Not until they face cultural extinction will they muster the will to fight; and perhaps not even then.
[/quote]

[Thucydides]

From Celestial Junk

05 March 2007
Might, Will, Sacrifice

What does it take to win a war? A young Canadian soldier thinks out loud.

Might:

Ever since the ancient Greeks invented the decisive battle, westerners have held an important edge in warfare. Some historians have hypothesized that the Greeks invented the decisive battle simply out of necessity. Farming was a full time occupation in the Greek city-states, and there simply wasn’t extra time to spend mucking about with protracted warfare.

When differences arose, the Greeks found it simplest to line up in heavy armor with long spears and meet face to face. The battles would be gruesome, but short-lived, and there was never any doubt who the victor was. While easterners like the Persians of the era still fought a modified version of ‘hit and run’ stone age warfare, the Greeks had hit upon something new, brutal, and effective. Subsequently, the Greeks, Romans, and most westerners that followed employed the fearful decisive battle to great effect.

On many notable occasions, easterners found asymmetrical counters to the “western way of war”. The Parthians and Huns gave the mighty Romans quite a bit more than a headache with their mounted warriors. The powerful Muslim hordes used a mix of western warfare, eastern warfare, and a unique religious zeal to conquer their western enemies. Perhaps most famously of all, the mounted Mongol hordes swept aside all resistance, east and west, and carved out the largest empire in human history.

Still, the western way of war has proven ultimately to be dominant. Today, when it is coupled with western technical know-how and Roman devised, Napoleonic era perfected military structure, it is nearly unstoppable. While this once unique way of warfare has been exported to every corner of the modern world, newcomers have not the experience to wield it properly, and still hold a severe disadvantage even though they may brandish the same modern weapons and use the same tactics.

Yet, while the disciplined western soldiers and advanced western weaponry are without equal, the enemy may still hold cards in his favor.

Will:

A society’s will to wage war used to be measured primarily by how long they were prepared to fight, and die, on the battlefield. While the Greeks invention of the decisive battle may have been an attempt to avoid protracted war, their spiritual descendents, the Romans, certainly didn’t shy away from extended warfare. Indeed, the one winning characteristic of the Romans that carried them through impossible odds, and forged one of histories greatest empires, was their reluctance to quit.

This supreme Roman persistence was best characterized by their war with the brilliant Carthaginian general, Hannibal. Repeatedly Hannibal’s tactics decimated Roman armies on the battlefield. Yet when he failed to press his advantage strategically and conquer Rome itself, the Romans would raise a new army and march off to war once again. In the end, the Romans lost nearly every battle against Hannibal, save one. Their great victory was the one that counted, and the one that won the war.

Besides a basic societal will to carry on with a war, there is also another aspect of will, which was very much a mute point until the ‘enlightenment’ of modern societies. The will to inflict pain and death upon one's enemies is a very important feature of post-modern warfare. While our current western society is much opposed to warfare in general, there were no such qualms in ancient Rome.

The ‘barbarians’ that Rome faced in war were quite aptly named. The horrendous nature of Iron Age battles gave pause to none of the barbarians of the time. Indeed, it was often amplified after the fact as those unlucky enough to be captured were tortured before being slaughtered. In turn the Romans offered no quarter. To be sure, the Romans were famous for their ‘barbaric’ acts of slaughter. When they finally brought Hannibal’s Carthaginian Empire to its knees, and conquered its capital Carthage, they razed every single building, slaughtered or enslaved every single citizen, and plowed the soil where the city once stood with salt, to assure that no crops could be grown there in the future.

Today, we find much of western society almost unwilling to go to war at all. Massive casualties, on either side, are very much considered unacceptable. War-like activities are given creative new terms like “peace-making” and “police-action” to hide their true nature. This absolute aversion to warfare and the suffering of ones enemies is certainly a novel and very modern concept. Hardly more than 60 years ago, our society was willing to rain down explosives, firebombs, and nuclear weapons on non-combatant enemies, killing hundreds of thousands. Today, the deaths of a handful of non-combatants in combat can inspire the citizenery to topple whole governments.

While this enlightened, post-modern aversion to warfare may seem a noble and principled idea, it is unlikely to stand for long against the tide of modern day barbarians that have no such qualms.

Sacrifice:

In the past, our ancestors had few possessions to speak of. Life had few pleasures, and many necessities. Life was about survival. Likewise, warfare was often a simple matter of survival, or at least the preservation of ones freedom.

Early in Rome’s history, when the Etruscan era Romans faced off against Carthage, the army was made up of Roman citizens; the richest and most prosperous Romans. These men quite literally fought for their freedom, their way of life, and their empire. Likewise, the barbarian armies of western Europe that Rome fought were composed of every single tribe member, the men fighting up front with spears and the women cheering them on just behind the frontlines. In the truest sense, warfare was an ‘all for one and one for all’ effort.

All of this changed when the Romans invented the professional army. No longer would citizens fight for their rights, rather paid professionals did their dirty work. While this made for exceptionally efficient soldiers, those sitting in opulence in Rome forgot the meaning of sacrifice. Ultimately the ‘true Romans’ living in luxury would be forced to try to bribe and appease their ‘crude’ enemies, to no avail.

A very similar situation has arisen in the modern west. While the western soldier is a fierce and efficient combatant, only a tiny fraction of our society faces the hardship of soldiering and the spilling of blood in battle. What’s more, the soldiers fellow citizens often aren’t even willing to sacrifice the petty niceties of home in order to better equip the fighting men.

It remains to be seen whether the opulent west is willing to sacrifice what is necessary in order to combat societies where luxuries are few and life is cheap.

So where does the tally of might, will, and sacrifice leave us? To be sure, might is most visible, and leans heavily in the west’s favor, even though eastern asymmetrical warfare has dealt deadly blows in the past. A mere 60 years ago western societies had the will to see through the bloodiest conflict in history, whether or not they could do it again today is uncertain. Most worrying of all is the modern day West’s threshold for sacrifice. Can a society willing to give up so little overcome another that is destined to be much more numerous, and willing to give up so much more? Only time will tell.

Posted by Junker at 3:10 PM   

Labels: Geopolitics, War on Islamic Totalitarianism

[Thucydides]

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html#1356420745443012906

FROM IRAQI BLOGGER ALAA, a mixed assessment of U.S. security strategy. "However, between the extreme course of total withdrawal and the present detailed involvement with daily operations; there is a middle way that few are talking about. Complete abandon and retreat by the Americans would indeed constitute defeat and a victory for the enemy, and would turn the tables completely and ignite a larger conflagration in the region. On the other hand the level of involvement of American and other allied foreign troops with detailed street to street policing, house searches etc. etc. should not continue indefinitely. . . . What must be realized is that as long as the U.S. is strategically present, the enemy has no hope of achieving any of his objectives. This enemy knows this only too well; and his prime objective is to bring about this withdrawal and retreat by all means. He pins his hopes on the internal situation in the U.S., and this is his most potent weapon. Therefore most of his actions and attacks are basically publicity stunts aimed primarily at the MSM and American and western public opinion."

[Thucydides]

The arc of decision

If the United States leaves Iraq or not, (or even if the invasion had never happened in the first place) there is a broad outline to what the next 20 to 30 years are going to look like. Given the current political situation in the United States, I can forsee a series of regional wars in the arc, with pressure being applied during some administrations and being withdrawn during others (this is not a slap at the two parties, although consistency would be nice, domestic considerations will determine if an administration commits to war or not).

The arc runs from Somalia in East Africa, north through the Sudan and Egypt, then arcs across the Levant and into Southwest Asia. It passes through the Tran caucus, the “’Stans” and then curves south into the Philippines and Indonesia.

Within the arc are multiple pockets of resistance, from Ethiopia and Kenya in East Africa, and Israel, Christian Lebanon, secular Turkey and “Kurdistan” in SW Asia. Many of these pockets will resist radical Islam for their own survival, but the reality is they are particularistic in outlook and in many cases will not be inclined to cooperate amongst each other (indeed, may even look on each other with suspicion or as potential enemies). Alliance with these nations is fraught with difficulty due to their mutual antagonism as well as the great disparity of force between the radical Islamists and the individual nations concerned. Too little support will not change the situation, but attempting to carry the load for them is a recipe for disaster.

The rest of the population inside the arc is divided by overlapping religions and ethnic divisions, most of which are also mutually hostile. Much of the violence is inter communal, as the main factions are fighting to achieve regional hegemony. The victor of this contest will also have the ability to control the flow of oil from the region to Europe, India, Japan and China. Access to this wealth will provide the victor with a flow of wealth to carry out a broad range of actions to maintain their position.

The ability to control the flow of energy to major markets will have several potential consequences. For the consumers of oil, this may be an inconvenience or it may be intolerable and lead to a new series of conflicts for access to energy. For Russia, the ability to cash in on increased oil and resource prices will provide funds to remain solvent, but the long-term demographic decline of Russia and the proximity of large Islamic populations in the “Near Beyond” will certainly factor in Russian policy during the coming decades. It is quite possible Russia will provide overt or covert backing to Europe, India, Japan or even China to keep Dar al Islam destabilized and divert attention away from itself.

Where does the United States fit into all this? The key advantage the United States has in this conflict lies in the use of naval power to dominate the Indian Ocean, and using this ability to operate interior lines of communications against the arc of decision. Should America withdraw from Iraq, they still have the ability to operate containment missions, including strikes, SOF missions and even raids against any portion of the arc from the sea.

A radicalized Islam, especially if one faction gains regional hegemony and control over the energy supplies will require a response by the United States, although the nature and scope will be dictated by domestic political considerations. Using the naval power of the United States for force projection will allow flexibility of response, but relying exclusively on naval or air power will limit the United States to a policy of containment. Forces on the ground are still needed to influence events and maintain ongoing control of the situation.

It is possible that the Indian Ocean will become the focus of effort on both sides, with the Islamic radicals attempting to deny entry and operations through blockading the western approaches, terrorism and even the use of missiles to deny entry of American forces. American responses could include greater levels dispersion, stationing ABMs in Diego Garcia and mobile ABM systems on Aegis class cruisers and their successors.

Should American find an inspirational and unifying leader (another Ronald Reagan or FDR perhaps), there is the possibility of taking the war back to the enemy heartland. Potential allies exist, including Australia and India, which have certain affinities to the West as part of the Anglosphere, and Japan. Even if traditional ties of alliances and shared values are not enough, there is the overwhelming factor of national self interest, including protection against the forces of radical Islam and the need to access energy resources. These nations have relatively large and modern forces to contribute to the alliance as well.

Utilizing the interior lines of communication that the Indian Ocean basin provides, alliance forces are able to carry out actions anywhere in the arc of decision at the time and place of their choosing. While actions ranging from raids to campaigns are possible, it is likely that the alliance will have developed tools to accurately map the “human terrain” and the ability to apply force based on these social, political and economic “maps” to destabilize enemy societies and change institutions and modes of thinking to support or at least be neutral to the goals of the alliance.

Will there be peace at the end of all this? Like all major conflicts, this will reshuffle the deck, ending some of the causes of conflict but setting up the parameters for new conflicts to come.