Reply With Quote
I think if this keeps up we'll see more conventional warfare, which could get ugly because Israel has nukes and every intention of surviving.
No political bull and hand-wringing. Simple question.
Is this current iteration the future of warfare? Small, rogue bands of isolated individuals fighting without being under a flag?
If so, how does one "win" this sort of engagement?
I think if this keeps up we'll see more conventional warfare, which could get ugly because Israel has nukes and every intention of surviving.
Honestly, this sort of thing is getting tiresome. For all my mongering, I ask only because the end does not justify the means in this case only.
It can be painted one way or the other by the politicians, but the truth is we are fighting a religion. For allllllll the bull we comb over everyday here, sniping one way or the other, how did it all come to this?
Heres the skinny...We cant win.
There, I said it. It also happens to be true.
For every terrorist/insurgent/whatever killed, they are considered martyrs and 3 more take their place. With every so-called victory, the enemy becomes stronger.
We are attempting to fight an ideology by proxy of fighting in countries. Ideas do not die. They grow with every transgression. Our nation was founded on this very principle. Every time England went a little too far, the movement got stronger and stronger.
The parallels dont end there.
Much in the same way the USA won its independance by changing the tactics of warfare, the same is being done right now, IMO.
The USA won it by taxing the English army beyond its limit. To travel from England to America was very expensive. England was BY FAR in its best postion to fight such a war if need be on the swollen coffers of the American colonies. Yet, they lost.
Not because they ran out of money. Or even ran our of resolve. They lost because they never adjusted to the new brand of warfare, and by the time they realized their fault, it was much much too late to do anything about.
I realize the parallels arent exactly cogent in the sense that England was our sovereign at the time, but the mechanics (if you will) seem to be getting very similar.
Now, obviously the US has the means to see it out, but do we have the resolve? A poll released this week conducted in Europe was pretty interesting. It was compared to a very similar poll that was taken before this whole Iraq debacle.
Before Iraq, Europe (in general) viewed the United States as a singular Superpower capable of holding sway over whomever, when ever it wanted. It was a pretty ridiculous stat too, like 70% or something.
Same survey, this week. The same percentage think the US is vulnerable and overtaxed. They see it as a fall from grace. A in the armor.
I know it doesnt mean really, but sometimes perception is reality. If the closest thing to allies we have reside on the European peninsula, and even they think we are headed for a fall, what compells them help when we need it?
My fear is this...
Some times life aint fair. Actually, most of the damn time. People claimed the world was flat and would persecute and excommunicate any who thought otherwise, only to be proven wrong.
Terrorism is atrocious and de able, but are our pretentions and sensibilities getting in the way of victory?
The old "Fire with Fire" argument, but sometimes its the only way. Unless you want to go the apocolyptic route and nuke the entire region wiping out 1/5 of the worlds population and dealing with the stigma of being more deadly than the plague, AIDS, influenza, and TB combined.
Or, we start our own brand of "Insurgency" (terrorism is such a dirty word). Train wings of special forces to deal with these groups indiscriminantly, on our soil and abroad, unilaterally. I mean greatly expand, into the thousands upon thousands.
One could even make it an international force. A hit squad. Strategically placed in every nation they deem necessary to have a presence in. First sign of the enemy, death becomes them. No jury, no judge, maybe with oversight and the final "Go" from relevant persons in charge. I am aware that mistake will be made, but you have to break some eggs to make an omelette.
Obviously, this wouldnt be public knowledge. Maybe said organization answers to a secret board of Defense Secretaries from around the globe.
I dont have answers, or even realistic solutions, but I think the time has come to start entertaining alternative solutions to a growing problem.
It would take thousands that would also have to be able to blend in with the locals.
Impossible endeavour I think.
When large numbers of this enemy are gathered its because their dug in and waiting to be persude. You won't find the same tactic in New Hampshire.
There doesn't appear to be a military solution, at least in the conventional sense we were accustomed to in the 20th century. As we have discovered in Iraq and now Israel is experiencing in Lebanon, there is a new paradigm for how to fight at least this type of war.
China while not a present danger could loom in a more old school type of war. Yet today, we find ourselves emerged with this "war on terror". I make the China reference only to say the military does not need to be made over to fight what we are facing in Iraq because more conventional potential enemies continue to exist.
It was either Rove or Cheney but, one of them derided Democrats in general and Clinton in particular for taking terrorism as a law enforcement issue. That is exactly what it is. These stateless terrorists fight the only way they can prevail which is to say: suicide bombings, without uniforms and mingling with civilian populations. When their enemy retaliates for some act there is usually collateral damage. You could liken it to being a guest in someone's home and spotting a bee and using a revolver to try and kill the bee. While your host may want the bee killed, they will end up angrier at you than the bee if you begin discharging rounds in their house trying to kill the bee.
To fight terrorism, one has to have international cooperation, be surgical in their approach, understand their enemy and understand those who are neutral in the fight as they can easily be coaxed to one side or the other by a wreckless act. They way we initially fought the Taliban and pursued al Quada in Afghanistan is a good example of the way the fight needs to be executed. Since Iraq though, Afghanistan has become back burner and Iraq has been a debacle for our interests.
Old line governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are fearful of the emergence of these terrorists as well because their existence is in more peril than ours by the threat. Yet, their opinions have changed from criticizing Hezbollah to Israel as the skirmish has gone on. This is a survival instinct on their part.
The Sunni Saudis and Egyptians are no friends of the Shia Iranians and they feel threatened by any gains Hezbollah now makes. Iran was once neutralized by the secular Saddam but now the Shia dominate Iraq despite an American occupation. Can Lebanon be far behind forming a Shia Crescent north of the Arab states of Jordan, Saudi and Egypt?
The Arab street is instinctive anti-Israel and by proxy anti-American. Whether they be Sunni or Shia, they will allign with their Muslim brothers to fight the infidels. Once that fight is complete, then they will fight one another.
Back to is this the future of warfare I say yes, it is. To succeed we must adapt. There is no military solution to the problems of the middle east. To those who would "bomb them back into the stone age", the Arab street is not that far removed from the stone age. They have a different value on life than we do and are willing to let countless innocents die if it advances their cause. Crazy as the logic is, the more innocents that die by Israeli or American bombs, the more they win.
Bush was right about one thing post 9-11. He said the war could take decades. It will because it has been going on for millenia and we have to radically change the way we fight the terrorists.
If every nation that is predominately Muslim were granted democracy today, they would vote in Islamic theocrats given the choice. While freedom and democracy is the desired goal for the middle eastern nations, immediate freedom and democracy would be devastating to Western ideals and interests.
Part of the future of warfare has be selling why freedom and democracy is important but human rights for all, Christian, Jew, Muslim and other faiths without their orgins from Abraham have to be respected and free. While the middle eastern nations may be ready for elections, they are not ready for freedom.
What you do, is with the US's superior investigating stuff, you tell all the leaders to meet up at a place for a secret terrorist meeting but you play to be someone else, then they'll all meet up at that one spot and that's when you destroy them.
Awesome insight.
Octillo, do you believe that most ME nations would agree to a coalition of sorts?
You sight good reason that Saudi Arabia & Co would be interested, but the ME is more than them. Saudi Arabia is the same country that still requires all female airport grounds crew to be removed from the tarmac when they land in a host country.
Excellent take! Insurgent wars aren't new they've been going on for centuries. Really the only way to win a insurgent war in a ground war is with a overwhelming number of troops and resources. I think the current ratio of troops needed is close to 10-1, so for every suspected insurgent you would need 10 troops. If there are ~30,000 insurgents in Iraq, the US needs 300,000 troops. There are about ~150,000 US and coalition troops in Iraq right now, that means that there are well over 15,000 insurgents.
You really think that would work?
No, I think he slipped and accidently fell on his keyboard. Nevermind him.
Hey, if TV has taught me anything it's that if you want to take down a number of guys working against you, you have to fake a meeting with everybody dazed and confused saying, but Osama called me to meet up with Abdullah down here and Osama replied, now I didn't, Adjhemehinihad said he was gonna let his wife blow me and to meet here, and then that's when it hits them and they all are about to say OH , but they get cut off by a blast.
Let me ask you, do you think that if you were able to go back in time and kill Hitler that WW2 wouldn't have happened?
Isurgencies have been around for a very long time, but what is new is the availability of new weaponry to these groups as well as other forms of technology. Hezbollah has the weapons and training of a modern army and I feel they could not be beat in a standard war because of the tactics they will fall back on when those weapons are destroyed.
They'll do whatever it takes to win. And you're absolutely right when you say that convential attacks simply make them stronger. This is a problem that is going to take generations to solve. The problem is, everytime you start a new military action and kill so many civilians, you prolong the solution. How long will it be before there are people who are born in that region who don't hate each other?
Wesley Clark faced many of the same problems in the Balkin wars. What he did is started destroying the capital assets of financiers suspected of funding the Serbian war machine. Worked very well, however I hardly think the U.S. is ready to destroy assets in every ME country that supports Hezbollah. We just gotta find another way to stop the money.They'll do whatever it takes to win. And you're absolutely right when you say that convential attacks simply make them stronger. This is a problem that is going to take generations to solve. The problem is, everytime you start a new military action and kill so many civilians, you prolong the solution. How long will it be before there are people who are born in that region who don't hate each other?
To be honest, I'm not very familliar with the actions of the Balkan wars. I know the basic history inolving the actions there, but I never did a good job of reading about it.
I will say this, Clark ran the one campaign I can think of that was won with an air war. I would think there is a lot to be learned from that.
That's it, right there.
We're not going to do whatever it takes to win, because according to our moral code, the reward of eliminating the terrorist threat decisively is not worth the cost in innocent lives killed at our own hands.
In order for the reward of eliminating the threat to become worth it, the cost to us of its ongoing existence must become orders of magnitude greater.
Well you have Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the various Saudi countries (Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, etc....) The easy route is to deal with the leaders directly which is part of the problem. For the most part these are authoritarian regimes that do not have the full support of their peoples, they only dominate them through brute strength. You can work with the leaders through flattery and money but it does not solve the problem of the seething hatred that resides at the level of the everyday street Arab.
The strides that were made by Sadat and Begin are resented in the slums of Cairo. The Jew and westerner have been demonized by the leadership there and clergy because the easiest way to unite a people is a common enemy.
Mubarak and the Saudi Royal family while they have an iron grasp on their countries, have to have eyes in the back of their head. From the Sunni extremist side you have Bin Laden who is their enemy and from the Shia side you have the Mullahs of Iran who they see as their enemy. That is one reason why Israel is such a convenient scapegoat to use on their populations.
In Pakistan, you have a leader who is considered to be supportive of our fight on the war on terror but there are elements within Pakistan that want him dead for that reason. There have been two assasination attempts on Musharref and if one of these wack jobs get's lucky, all of a sudden Iran doesn't have to develop nukes for our Islamic enemies to have access to nukes. If the crazies that are supportive of al Quada take over in Pakistan, how long before they (al Quada) get a bomb to do what they want?
There is no quick and easy solution.
It will take generations as Manny said and that is assuming we do thing correctly. In hindsight, while Saddam was an evil mofo, he at least provided some balance to the region which bought time. That is really all we can do at this time is buy time. Then you have to accent the positives of the most progressive governments in Islamic countries. Jordan and Turkey come to mind.
A focus on making Afghanistan work needs to be done. It is smaller than Iraq and would be an easier task. Lebanon prior to the Hezbollah incident would have been a candidate. We should be talking with Syria despite our differences to find common ground. With proper diplomacy, perhaps the Golan Heights could be returned to Syria in exchange for some sort of treaty between Israel and Syria.
It's like trying to play pick up sticks. You try to do something without impacting other areas and it is nearly impossible.
I think countries who support such "rogue" bands of terrorists and countries that are either too weak to control the factions within their borders or are complicit in the terrorism will start being the proxy recipients of retaliatory strikes and the objects of war (i.e. Lebanon).
As a country, we limit ourselves with our broad public spectrum of morality and beliefs, in terms of military efficacy with entrenched guerillas. Also, what the world, and the united states has already established as "ethical" in a war setting will not be blatantly ignored, at least not any time soon.
Also, the fact that all of these problems are almost as far away from our homeland as you can get, serves to dilute the public's perception of the threats there, and their willingness to cooperate with a war effort. Selfishness has only increased since public war efforts like that in WWII. Do you really think the common Jr High student gives a about any muslims in Iraq? Apathy is rampant in the U.S., and I'm afraid that if we're already at this point after only a few years since 9/11, it will take a huge major attack for the public to truely be willing to support what it takes to eliminate such threats.
We have the ability, just not the balls.
But to answer the main question, yes, groups like this will only persist and we must adapt or perish.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
