REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Islamic Way Of War

POSTED BY: FREDGIBLET
UPDATED: Saturday, December 4, 2021 12:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1809
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:01 AM

FREDGIBLET

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:12 AM

CHRISISALL


" It’s time for Americans to recognize that the enterprise that some neoconservatives refer to as World War IV is unwinnable in a strictly military sense. "
The writer obviously suffers from Bush Hate Syndrome, which blinds him to truth and logic, and makes him unfit to write or be an American.

Sarcasm: off

Yeah, it was all right (No pun intended) on.

Violent Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:15 AM

FREDGIBLET


Of course the issue is this: they probably know already.

They know it's unwinnable and they don't want to win, because then they would have to engineer a new emergency to get themselves re-elected.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:24 AM

KANEMAN


The whole premise of that article is Hogwash. A war we can't win? Says who? The sun has set, military embarrassments, end of western dominance, Wow!! that is news to me. First, the war is not over and it may be quite a bit longer before it is, that being said, I wouldn't wager on the out come just yet. Secondly, The war has been a success in two important areas. Saddam is gone and Iraq is taking steps towards a much better future. The terrorists have been boxed into their corner and are not free to run around the US. Seems to be working to me.

This article reeks of "progressive" agenda, bias, and anti-military rhetoric. Shame on the author, he could have at least tried to hide his pro IslamoFascist slant. Well it's true.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:37 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
The whole premise of that article is Hogwash. A war we can't win? Says who? The sun has set, military embarrassments, end of western dominance, Wow!! that is news to me. First, the war is not over and it may be quite a bit longer before it is, that being said, I wouldn't wager on the out come just yet. Secondly, The war has been a success in two important areas. Saddam is gone and Iraq is taking steps towards a much better future. The terrorists have been boxed into their corner and are not free to run around the US. Seems to be working to me.

This article reeks of "progressive" agenda, bias, and anti-military rhetoric. Shame on the author, he could have at least tried to hide his pro IslamoFascist slant. Well it's true.





BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAHAA

HAAHAAAAHAAAHAAA

HAAAHAAA

HAAA

HA.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:41 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
The whole premise of that article is Hogwash. A war we can't win? Says who? The sun has set, military embarrassments, end of western dominance, Wow!! that is news to me. First, the war is not over and it may be quite a bit longer before it is, that being said, I wouldn't wager on the out come just yet. Secondly, The war has been a success in two important areas. Saddam is gone and Iraq is taking steps towards a much better future. The terrorists have been boxed into their corner and are not free to run around the US. Seems to be working to me.

This article reeks of "progressive" agenda, bias, and anti-military rhetoric. Shame on the author, he could have at least tried to hide his pro IslamoFascist slant. Well it's true.





BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAHAA

HAAHAAAAHAAAHAAA

HAAAHAAA

HAAA

HA.




Aways happy to put a smile on your mugg Oldenglanddry.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:43 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
First, the war is not over and it may be quite a bit longer before it is, that being said, I wouldn't wager on the out come just yet.



That was part of the point of the article, we can't just waltz in and bitchslap the Arabs anymore, they've learned how to fight a guerilla war that will probably take decades to finish. In the meantime we are spending billions (trillions?), and losing thousands of troops (with tens of thousands of physical and emotional cripples to boot). We will probably eventually finish off the insurgency, but that doesn't mean we will have won anything.

Quote:

Secondly, The war has been a success in two important areas. Saddam is gone and Iraq is taking steps towards a much better future.


Saddam had no WMD's, we went to war on false premises and pissed of the whole world. Now that North Korea has, and Iran is working on nuclear weapons we can't do shit about it. Why? because our troops are tied up in Iraq and few if any nations are going to support us in another invasion.

Quote:

The terrorists have been boxed into their corner and are not free to run around the US. Seems to be working to me.


Bullshit, the terrorists are no more boxed in now then they were before. We have killed a huge number of terrorists true, but every one we kill spawns at least one more. Additonally we have not protected our actual country. Our borders still resemble sieves, and our NBC protection is still a joke. Instead of protecting our country the war in Iraq has drained money away and created ill-will across the world.

Quote:

This article reeks of "progressive" agenda, bias, and anti-military rhetoric. Shame on the author, he could have at least tried to hide his pro IslamoFascist slant. Well it's true.


Go back to the article and click on the about us at the top. The magazine was co-founded by Pat Buchanan, hardly an Islamo-Facist (maybe Judeo-Christian Facist, but not Islamo).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:24 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
First, the war is not over and it may be quite a bit longer before it is, that being said, I wouldn't wager on the out come just yet.



That was part of the point of the article, we can't just waltz in and bitchslap the Arabs anymore, they've learned how to fight a guerilla war that will probably take decades to finish. In the meantime we are spending billions (trillions?), and losing thousands of troops (with tens of thousands of physical and emotional cripples to boot). We will probably eventually finish off the insurgency, but that doesn't mean we will have won anything.

Quote:

Secondly, The war has been a success in two important areas. Saddam is gone and Iraq is taking steps towards a much better future.


Saddam had no WMD's, we went to war on false premises and pissed of the whole world. Now that North Korea has, and Iran is working on nuclear weapons we can't do shit about it. Why? because our troops are tied up in Iraq and few if any nations are going to support us in another invasion.

Quote:

The terrorists have been boxed into their corner and are not free to run around the US. Seems to be working to me.


Bullshit, the terrorists are no more boxed in now then they were before. We have killed a huge number of terrorists true, but every one we kill spawns at least one more. Additonally we have not protected our actual country. Our borders still resemble sieves, and our NBC protection is still a joke. Instead of protecting our country the war in Iraq has drained money away and created ill-will across the world.

Quote:

This article reeks of "progressive" agenda, bias, and anti-military rhetoric. Shame on the author, he could have at least tried to hide his pro IslamoFascist slant. Well it's true.


Go back to the article and click on the about us at the top. The magazine was co-founded by Pat Buchanan, hardly an Islamo-Facist (maybe Judeo-Christian Facist, but not Islamo).



The fact that we "bitch slapped" them instead of "putting our boots in their ass" was a mistake. We sure as hell still can. It is just to late. The author is clearly anti-American military, surely you can see that. What does Pat Buchanan have to do with it? This guy can write what he wants. Just read the freedom of speech thread. The Arab governments and their armies can be "bitch slapped". The insurgents are harder to get our paws on. It will take time, Gorilla war style or not. We are the 300 pound Gorilla after all.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:43 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
The author is clearly anti-American military, surely you can see that.



I can see that he doesn't think that we can just waltz in and win a war in a place full of people who hate us, that isn't anti-military but just common sense.

This war will take years if not decades to end, we will end up with thousands dead, tens of thousands with permanent physical or emotional damage and probably trillions spent on a war that wasn't really all that neccesary and which didn't really benefit us.

Quote:

What does Pat Buchanan have to do with it?


You said the author was progressive and an islamo-fascist, Pat Buchanan is not progressive or an islamo-facist.

Quote:

The Arab governments and their armies can be "bitch slapped".


True.

Quote:

The insurgents are harder to get our paws on. It will take time,


And large numbers of casualties (dead and physically/emotionally crippled), and incredible amounts of money. Phyrric victories don't count as victories in my mind.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:35 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I think the author is probably overstating things. The tactics employed by the insurgency are not unique to Muslims nor are they particularly novel or innovative.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:19 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
First, the war is not over and it may be quite a bit longer before it is, that being said, I wouldn't wager on the out come just yet.



That was part of the point of the article, we can't just waltz in and bitchslap the Arabs anymore, they've learned how to fight a guerilla war that will probably take decades to finish. In the meantime we are spending billions (trillions?), and losing thousands of troops (with tens of thousands of physical and emotional cripples to boot). We will probably eventually finish off the insurgency, but that doesn't mean we will have won anything.

Quote:

Secondly, The war has been a success in two important areas. Saddam is gone and Iraq is taking steps towards a much better future.


Saddam had no WMD's, we went to war on false premises and pissed of the whole world. Now that North Korea has, and Iran is working on nuclear weapons we can't do shit about it. Why? because our troops are tied up in Iraq and few if any nations are going to support us in another invasion.

Quote:

The terrorists have been boxed into their corner and are not free to run around the US. Seems to be working to me.


Bullshit, the terrorists are no more boxed in now then they were before. We have killed a huge number of terrorists true, but every one we kill spawns at least one more. Additonally we have not protected our actual country. Our borders still resemble sieves, and our NBC protection is still a joke. Instead of protecting our country the war in Iraq has drained money away and created ill-will across the world.

Quote:

This article reeks of "progressive" agenda, bias, and anti-military rhetoric. Shame on the author, he could have at least tried to hide his pro IslamoFascist slant. Well it's true.


Go back to the article and click on the about us at the top. The magazine was co-founded by Pat Buchanan, hardly an Islamo-Facist (maybe Judeo-Christian Facist, but not Islamo).




Pat B. is not the author.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:53 AM

CAUSAL


Don't feed the troll, people. It will only make him stronger.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:58 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Pat B. is not the author.



I know, my point is that the 'zine wwas co-founded by Pat, therefore it's unlikely that they are going to publish "progressive islamo-facist" authors.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:15 PM

CAUSAL


Great article, Fred! A couple of minor quibbles:

While we were definitely "sent packing" by the Somalis, it wasn't in any military sense. The operation actually achieved its objective (the "Delta"/Ranger element got the guys they were after), so they didn't beat us on that point. During 18-hour running gun battle, an estimated 1,000+ Somalis were killed whilst they managed to kill only 19 Americans. By any metric, we won that particular confrontation. It could be the case that had we stayed and fought on, they would have “sent us packing”--but they definitely lost that battle. We were "sent packing" not via military defeat, but by the loss of political nerve. The administration couldn't stomach flag-covered coffins (and I'm not here to debate the merits of the pull-out, just to defend my Special Operations brethren), and pulled us out, toot-sweet.

We've got to be more careful with the word “defeat” when talking about the Israelis and Hezballah. The Israeli metric of success for this latest crisis was the utter destruction of Hezballah. The Hezballah metric of success seemed to be not being completely destroyed. Now, Hezballah did meet their metric for success: they weren’t annihilated. But that does not a “victory” make (see http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2006/jul/060728.dawisha.ht
ml
for a great analysis by Adeed Dawisha of the “meagerness” of Hezballah’s accomplishments). The unfortunate fact is that neither side achieved much of anything at all, other than a massive loss of life.

Those quibbles aside, I really enjoyed the article. As I watched the conflict unfold I thought to myself, "I do believe we are witnessing the evolution of the way wars are fought." John Arquilla, of the Naval Post-Graduate College calls it "Net-War". Militaries are no longer organized in a rigidly hierarchical structure with orders flowing neatly up and down the chain of command. Arquilla predicts a future of small, loosely joined "network" style militaries, largely autonomous in terms of command-and-control, very fast and agile, and (significantly) extremely flexible and adaptive. I think this is why we are having so much trouble fighting in Iraq. We want the other guy to get his tanks and his infantrymen together into orderly formations and bring them out to some field somewhere (or, failing that, some city somewhere) so we can both duke it out and decide who gets to own this piece of land. But that is just not how the Iraqi insurgents are fighting. And because we are slow in adjusting to that, they are going to win. As far as I can see, it's at least possible for the U.S. to adjust its methodologies in such as way that they can defeat these guys--but it will never, ever happen as long as we continue to use "3rd generation" warfare against a "4th generation" foe.

I'd highly recommend having a listen to Arquilla via NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5618399 . Also check out The Sling and the Stone by Colonel Thomas Hammes (a great analysis of the future of warfare, which he calls 4th Generation warfare) (NPR interview with Hammes here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4176645 ), and The Advent of NetWar by John Arquilla, which explores the transition away from the tight-knit, hierarchical military toward, the "sprawling, leaderless networks".

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:23 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Great article, Fred! A couple of minor quibbles:

While we were definitely "sent packing" by the Somalis, it was definitely not in any military sense. The operation actually achieved its objective (the "Delta"/Ranger element got the guys they were after), so they didn't beat us on that point. During 18-hour running gun battle, an estimated 1,000+ Somalis were killed whilst they managed to kill only 19 Americans. By any metric, we won that particular confrontation. It could be the case that had we stayed and fought on, they would have “sent us packing”--but they definitely lost that battle. We were "sent packing" not by via military defeat, but by the loss of political nerve. The administration couldn't stomach flag-covered coffins (and I'm not here to debate the merits of the pull-out, just to defend my Special Operations brethren), and pulled us out, toot-sweet.



All I know about Somalia I learned from Black Hawk Down (movie not book).

Quote:

We've got to be more careful with the word “defeat” when talking about the Israelis and Hezballah. The Israeli metric of success for this latest crisis was the utter destruction of Hezballah. The Hezballah metric of success seemed to be not being completely destroyed. Now, Hezballah did meet their metric for success: they weren’t annihilated. But that does not a “victory” make


True.

Quote:

The unfortunate fact is that neither side achieved much of anything at all, other than a massive loss of life.


Which, oddly enough, can be said of many of the wars in the past few thousand years.

Quote:

Militaries are no longer organized in a rigidly hierarchical structure with orders flowing neatly up and down the chain of command.


One of the few things I can think of that the Bush administration has done right is push the military away from the Cold War architechture.

Quote:

I think this is why we are having so much trouble fighting in Iraq. We want the other guy to get his tanks and his infantrymen together into orderly formations and bring them out to some field somewhere (or, failing that, some city somewhere) so we can both duke it out and decide who gets to own this piece of land.


Exactly, we are still in the Cold War, clash of the titans, meet you on an open plain and beat the crap out of each other mindset.

Irony: we won against the British by decentralizing, and staying out of the formation movement style of combat.

Quote:

But that is just not how the Iraqi insurgents are fighting. And because we are slow in adjusting to that, they are going to win. As far as I can see, it's at least possible for the U.S. to adjust its methodologies in such as way that they can defeat these guys--but it will never, ever happen as long as we continue to use "3rd generation" warfare against a "4th generation" foe.


Exactly, but I do think we have been making progress in this direction lately, I just hope we're making enough progress.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:52 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

But that is just not how the Iraqi insurgents are fighting. And because we are slow in adjusting to that, they are going to win. As far as I can see, it's at least possible for the U.S. to adjust its methodologies in such as way that they can defeat these guys--but it will never, ever happen as long as we continue to use "3rd generation" warfare against a "4th generation" foe.


Exactly, but I do think we have been making progress in this direction lately, I just hope we're making enough progress.



Concur.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:56 PM

DREAMTROVE


Good stuff. amcon is like the nation in reverse. These are the guys I use to keep a handle on where the conservative movement used to be, should be, and will be again, once this madness subsides. At the moment Jesus King Bush reigns, but in '08, Hillary will crush is with an iron fist, and maybe we on the right can regroup under a saner banner.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:59 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think the author is probably overstating things. The tactics employed by the insurgency are not unique to Muslims nor are they particularly novel or innovative.



You're right--the tactics are not at all new; they're right out of the guerilla playbook. But what is making things like Iraq and Lebanon and, well, basically terrorism so successful isn't the tactics as such--it's the way they're organizing themselves. It isn't impossible to win against a guerilla force--the British did just that during the "Malayan Emergency" in what is now Malaysia. But when you combine those tactics with an extremely loose organizational structure, one that is decentralized and non-hierarchical, one that can flex and adapt--well, that's something else entirely. You just can't beat something like that with "conventional" military tactics, cause there's no head to cut off, and beating one cell doesn't mean beating the whole network. In addition, they're going to fight where they have maximum advantage, and stay away from where you're strong. Add all that up, and we're in deep until we can figure out how to respond to something like that.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:01 PM

CAUSAL


I'd be curious what your read on the article is, DT (I told you you'd make my smart-guy list!).

BTW, I agree with the whole "let's regroup with a saner ideology" thing. I just can't believe the direction the "conservatives" have taken under W.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:25 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Quote:

I think the author is probably overstating things. The tactics employed by the insurgency are not unique to Muslims nor are they particularly novel or innovative
Finn and I finally agree on something. To call it the "Muslim way of war" is a really stupid point in an otherwise interesting article. (Now, if they were to religiously dispatch their enemies like hallal butchering, the author might have something there.) It's the way people on their own soil fight when they don't have much money. Very similar to the Viet Cong, to guerilla groups in S and Central America and the American revolutionaries.

But he is correct that waging war against guerilla resistance at the end of long supply lines is difficult at best. I can't think of ANY successful modern campaigns against groups with popular support. Finn... you seem to be "up" on military hx... can YOU?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:38 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I don’t really disagree with your assessment of the difficulty of the situation, and it is true that the insurgency in Iraq as well as the militias in Lebanon have adapted to the information age. But so have we, and we’ve done so far more then they have. So the advancement of guerrilla tactics to adapt to information technology is not really the problem. The problem is, as it has always been, that guerrilla warfare is frequently successful in deferring peace and Western Nation tend to loose their political nerve in long stalemates. The stratagem to winning in Iraq is recognizing that the enemy has been defeated to the extent that it could be on the battlefield, and from here on out it will simply be a matter of controlling the insurgency and political nerve until we can hand the problem over to the Iraqi government. I don’t think that completely crushing the insurgency should be our goal. Not that it necessarily couldn’t be done or hasn’t been in other instances, but that could prove to be a little bit Pyrrhic, I think.

As for guerrilla wars that have been unsuccessful there are actually far more then people realize, I think. The problem is that we only talk about the ones that are successful. We often don’t even give names to the unsuccessful ones. After World War II, guerrilla campaigns were waged throughout the Soviet Block Nations, most of them popular and unsuccessful. In fact the Soviets didn’t really have a problem controlling insurgents in the nations they occupied until the Soviet government began to collapse, then hell broke loose. Another example would be the Irish Civil War and possibly the Spanish and Greek Civil Wars, but I’m not sure about those. So yeah, defeating guerrilla insurgents can certainly be done, though I would rather take an easier path if at all possible.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:15 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I can't think of ANY successful modern campaigns against groups with popular support. Finn... you seem to be "up" on military hx... can YOU?



If by "modern" you mean conventional military vs. insurgency, then yes (even though you weren't asking me): the British response to the "Malayan Emergency" was a textbook example of how to defeat a guerilla insurgency: military victories (where the opportunity presented itself), the denial of popular support and denial of resources, plus a dash of hearts-and-minds. And it worked!

Edited to add: Hammes talks about the Malayan Emergency in that article I liked, and in The Sling and the Stone, if I remember correctly.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:25 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's the way people on their own soil fight when they don't have much money. Very similar to the Viet Cong, to guerilla groups in S and Central America and the American revolutionaries.



But what's new about the current way that guerillas fight is the way they are organizing themselves. Even the Viet Cong had a hierarchical leadership structure. It didn't operate exactly the way that a conventional military does, but it was far closer to that than the networked insurgencies we're seeing now. I think you're right that "Muslim way of war" is a pretty stupid tag for it; but it isn't just exactly like all insurgencies. It's the organization that makes this a different animal.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:29 PM

DREAMTROVE


Casual

I'm tempted to agree with FInn that we have adapted more than they have, but they have adapted, and I agree with the articles conclusion that this is not going to be won on the battlefield. The muslims have moved to a strategy of using amorphous units in an

acephalous organization. This means that the game will ultimately come down to numbers and in this respect, the authors are right, it's an unwinnable conflict because they clearly outnumber us.

It would be foolish to dismiss the idea that the authors had a preconceived position and that they built their argument to support that position. (I think it would be foolish to not consider that the counter arguments are doing the same.) But the basic precept is a good

one, and it follows that idea well in spirit, as an argument. Taken that the base conservative viewpoint is PWL, preservation of a way of life, the paleocon viewpoint established around the turn of the 20th century was based on an internationalist idea: That in order to

get others to respect your right to preserve your way of life, you had to respect theirs.

We will never win in a clash of cultures against islam, and if we did, what would be the point? Already the definition of freedom has been ripped a new one in this conflict, thus radically, and some say irreparably, altering our society, and threatening or PWL.

Furthermore, the cost of the war alone has wrought havoc on our economy, further damaging our way of life. Though the idea is not an isolationist one, the basic tenet that one can not maintain the sanctity of ones own society while agressively defaming and

dismantling another holds true, and ultimately, while we cannot win militarily, we can succeed in creating an opponent who will seek to destroy us, which should never be the goal of any US policy.

What I think is implied here, but not stated for reason of not wanting to sound "enemy coddling" is the underlying truth that Hezbollah has a lot more in common with the armies of george washington than we do, and we today have a lot more in common with king george. It's not an identical match up, times change, and situations are different, but bin laden and company have found a way to rapidly adapt their fighting style to defeat the forces of order with chaos. This was known before, and we had it all spelled out for us that this victory was impossible, but an inherent racism took over, and the belief that arabs were incapable of fighting was counted in, bogus american kill ratios based on stats from late vietnam were plugged in. (Bogus because nixon's forces engage in minimal conflict positioning, ie. seizing the eaiest territory while avoiding hotspots, so vietnamese were killing each other far more without ever meeting american soldiers, and the total death tolls were counted up and are sometimes reported as between 9:1 and 10:1) All of this combined with an undue faith in fighting robots gave a level of arrogance to the military commanders to engage in a military conflict they actually are unable to win.

In the greater sense. We control small portions of Iraq and afghanistan for limited times. If we say we have a govt. in afghanistan, that's really overstating the case. We have a govt. in kabul, and another on in parts of baghdad. Israel has wrought chaos on southern lebanon, and gaza and the west bank. Really, opponents can be subdued by superior firepower, but military conflicts are not won by it. If your opponent refuses to surrender, and outnumbers you, and you lack a sense of overall order and any diplomatic ability, imagination or a willingness to compromise or respect your opponent, then ultimately victory is not possible. Nazi Germany was never "in control" of anything it took. It remained in power as long as it was able to wage the war. When it could no longer do so, it collapsed under the weight of the collective hatred of the populations it controlled. The occupied peoples gave nothing towards the defense of the German regime, and allowed it to be crushed by the invading allied armies, in fact aided them in the process. We will find ourselves in the same situation. The Iraqis and Afghans will not defend the govts. we have created when we are no longer able to wage this war, they will aid the armies that come to crush them.

Edit -

In case anyone is going to make the claim that I'm rejoicing in our defeat, I'm not. I was quite hopeful for the govt. that we set up in Iraq, which I think was vastly superior to what came before or what is likely to come after, which I expect to be a theocratic sheikdom. But I'm beginning to see that we've water the seeds of hate sewn in the arab world by the jihad, and when the armies come, the iraqi people will throw *them* a rosepetal parade. The agenda has failed, and the tactic was the cause.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:37 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t really disagree with your assessment of the difficulty of the situation, and it is true that the insurgency in Iraq as well as the militias in Lebanon have adapted to the information age. But so have we, and we’ve done so far more then they have. So the advancement of guerrilla tactics to adapt to information technology is not really the problem.



Now here is where I dislike the term "NetWar". Although information technology is certainly something that 4th Gen militaries can use (and some use them to great effect, like the more powerful Islamic terrorist organization), NetWar is a bigger concept than adaptation to the information age. Think of the conventional military as a ladder: LOTS of vertically integrated folks making up a VERY complex organization--and if used properly, it's a very powerful tool. But if a rung or two gets removed, the whole damned thing falls apart. It doesn't adapt well, because to some degree, the organization IS the point. 4th Gen military (the "NetWar" folks) aren't typified by their use of IT--what makes them "NetWar" militaries is their organization. If conventional militaries are organizaed vertically, NetWar/4th Gen militaries are horizontally organized. Lots of autonomous/semi-autonomous groups with their own leaders who can take the initiative in terms of timing and targets and tactics and sub-organization. And because they are horizontally organized, you can't decapitate them. If you blow up one cell, the others just shift around--they don't fall apart. And the really scary thing about the networked (not in terms of info-tech, remember, but in terms of organization) military is that it is wickedly flexible and adaptable. A vertical military doesn't get to flex to the situation without some higher up giving the say so. But a networked military can, because each cell is autonomous. So each local commander gets to do whatever works for him, without waiting for orders. So they are extremely nimble and extremely adaptable, which is something the vertically organized military can't be (and, maybe, can't even respond to).

Quote:

The problem is, as it has always been, that guerrilla warfare is frequently successful in deferring peace and Western Nation tend to loose their political nerve in long stalemates.


Take a listen to that Hammes interview on NPR that I linked. He talks about how the 4th Gen warrior wants not necessarily to win, per se, but to convince the other side that they can't. Because if he can do that, it's a pretty good bet that they'll just pack up and go home. And hey! It's working!


________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:12 PM

DREAMTROVE


Casual,

I think you missed my post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 1, 2006 2:51 AM

CAUSAL


Didn't miss your post, DT--but I got home late last night and wanted to give it a more thorough consideration.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Casual

I'm tempted to agree with FInn that we have adapted more than they have, but they have adapted, and I agree with the articles conclusion that this is not going to be won on the battlefield. The muslims have moved to a strategy of using amorphous units in an acephalous organization. This means that the game will ultimately come down to numbers and in this respect, the authors are right, it's an unwinnable conflict because they clearly outnumber us.



It's definitely a numbers game, at some point, because they can just keep throwing guys at the problem. But the other key is that as long as they can win the media war (that is, as long as they can convince us that victory is impossible), they will win the the fight.

Quote:

Taken that the base conservative viewpoint is PWL, preservation of a way of life, the paleocon viewpoint established around the turn of the 20th century was based on an internationalist idea: That in order to get others to respect your right to preserve your way of life, you had to respect theirs.



You know, there'd always been something nagging at me about W's foreign policy, and I think you've pretty much hit it on the head here: he seems to think that the U.S. should be inviolable both to attack and to ideological and political change, but then he goes and attacks another country to try and force political change. How much sense does that make? We're not respecting the sovereignty of other countries, we're just treating them like errant children in need of correction.

Quote:

We will never win in a clash of cultures against islam, and if we did, what would be the point? Already the definition of freedom has been ripped a new one in this conflict, thus radically, and some say irreparably, altering our society, and threatening or PWL. ...Though the idea is not an isolationist one, the basic tenet that one can not maintain the sanctity of ones own society while agressively defaming and dismantling another holds true, and ultimately, while we cannot win militarily, we can succeed in creating an opponent who will seek to destroy us, which should never be the goal of any US policy.



To be honest, when it comes to a clash of cultures, I'm not even sure what a "win" would look like, for either side. Maybe it would be easier for them to "win" because they seem to want to be left to their clerical theocracies and sharia law (which they can acieve if we will just go home). What, exactly, are we trying to achieve? The spread of freedom? Hard to make that case when you twiddle with civil liberties at home, although to be fair, they're at least trying to set up democratic governments. In some sense, we are doing exactly what they want us to: we're reacting to them in fear. So I guess in some way our way of life is changing (oh, say, no liquids on airplanes), so they are already winning, I guess. Plus, the notion that we are creating some sort of "enemy for life" is really compelling. It isn't just Al Qaida and the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents who are mad at us. By coming to their neighborhood and beating up on some of their neighborhoods, we've pissed off an extremely large chunk of the Arab world, creating yet more potential enemies; I fail to see how that is a good thing.

Quote:

In case anyone is going to make the claim that I'm rejoicing in our defeat, I'm not. I was quite hopeful for the govt. that we set up in Iraq, which I think was vastly superior to what came before or what is likely to come after, which I expect to be a theocratic sheikdom. But I'm beginning to see that we've water the seeds of hate sewn in the arab world by the jihad, and when the armies come, the iraqi people will throw *them* a rosepetal parade. The agenda has failed, and the tactic was the cause.



The people who came to fly buildings into the Pentagon and the WTC were trained, equipped and carrying out a plan laid by men who had cut their jihadi teeth fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. They were tough, they were brutal, they were efficient, and most of all, they were survivors. They were so deadly good at their craft because they'd had all the training they needed fighting the Soviets. Now you have thousands of angry young men flooding into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight us. They will learn, adapt, and become good at their craft. And 20 years from now, they just might think it's a great idea to train up some young guys to go over to the US and create some havoc. That's why the current conflict scares me. I guess in some sense I don't want us to "lose" the current war. But in a much more real way, I'm concerned because we've created the very terrorist training ground we sought to deny.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 1, 2006 6:15 PM

DREAMTROVE


Casual
Quote:

we're just treating them like errant children in need of correction.


This is exactly right. Listen to Bush/Cheney/Rummy, even Condi. This is definitely the underlying attitude.

Quote:

To be honest, when it comes to a clash of cultures, I'm not even sure what a "win" would look like, for either side.


Look at China in Tibet, or anywhere it goes. It obliterates the local culture. What they end up is exactly what they had to start with, but with a more massive population. I don't really so the point, I basically think it's unchecked evil, like startrek's Borg, more than anything else.

One of the ways human evolution works is that we have several different running societies at once. That way, whenever a new problem comes up, someone has a better way of dealing with it. It's not always the same guys. Otherwise, we would all go along doing exactly the same thing until it was wrong, and then we'd all die.

This society, IMHO, has already failed. Disease, drug use, poverty, and crime run rampant in our society. America is an objective disaster. Are there worse ones? Sure. But that's not the point. We failed to find the best way to deal with each of the problems as it came, we did our way or the highway, and now here we are, forcing everyone else to do it our way. And don't think that this doesn't play into it, read the arab media, you'll
hear "America is bringing us AIDS and crack and gangs." And it's true, we are. It's just another added incentive for those who fight against us. We're not just the barbarian hordes, we're the diseased barbarian hordes. We need to deal with some issues here at home, but I'm beginning to dispair that that's going to happen.

Quote:

What, exactly, are we trying to achieve?


A whole bunch of agenda items have lined up in the same direction, which has allowed this to happen:

1. The neocons want to establish a one world police state, which will be assembled of multinational unions, so they can do it without having to ever deal with nations. Also this helps the whole compound majority.*

2. Oil companies will fund any candidate who will invade an oil rich nation and give them its oil.

3. The Military Industial Complex has been jonesing for a big enemy since the end of the cold war. Stoke up the fires of terrorism.

4. There's always a collection of religious looneys who will vote for a crusade, probably anywhere within 'western' faith, there certainly are no shortage of martyrs signing up for the jihad.

* The compound majority concept is: The more levels you have to a democracy, the smaller your base can be. This is how Tony Blair got elected, and it's how the neocons will control the world. 60% of 60% of 60% of 60% of 60% is a pretty small number. So multinational unions, nations, states, districts, pr vote for something,

Quote:

The spread of freedom? Hard to make that case when you twiddle with civil liberties at home, although to be fair, they're at least trying to set up democratic governments.


In Iraq, yes, sure. In the US? Not so much :)

Quote:

In some sense, we are doing exactly what they want us to: we're reacting to them in fear.


Good point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 1, 2006 6:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

The people who came to fly buildings into the Pentagon and the WTC were trained, equipped and carrying out a plan laid by men who had cut their jihadi teeth fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.


Casual. I'm convinced now, after truly dilligent study of the evidence, that 9-11 was more or less an inside job. At least an inside assist. I'm not sure what the implications of this are. I think people are too afraid of the idea. Everyone has already accepted that the Lusitania was an inside assist, and that Churchill was the perp, it's not a conspiracy theory, now it's a matter of public record, and yet society persists.

So, the only thing I'm sure of is that 9-11 cannot be used as a logical basis for any argument of the ME policy, because it was not a sole ME terrorist action. This is the only conclusion I know has to be drawn from it. If I have another conclusion, it's that OBL was not directly connected to the 9-11 plot. He may have been indirectly connected to it through Al Qaeda, but he seems to lack a direct connection.

Obviously, this would also mean that someone in washington is a terrorist, and probably high up. I don't think it has huge political implications for me, since I was already convinced that these people were basically evil, and have been since Waco.

To the great portion of the population who don't get it yet (it took me years) I say, study everything everywhere on it (if you're interested) then discard the 90% that lacks conclusive evidence, study the remainder, and it's an open and shut case.

Quote:

They were tough, they were brutal, they were efficient, and most of all, they were survivors. They were so deadly good at their craft because they'd had all the training they needed fighting the Soviets. Now you have thousands of angry young men flooding into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight us. They will learn, adapt, and become good at their craft. And 20 years from now, they just might think it's a great idea to train up some young guys to go over to the US and create some havoc. That's why the current conflict scares me. I guess in some sense I don't want us to "lose" the current war. But in a much more real way, I'm concerned because we've created the very terrorist training ground we sought to deny.


Sure, the irony of this is unmissable. Unless of course, creating a new massive enemy was the goal. I think to some extent the paranoid state is really concerned about this. I'm not. The reality is that terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. It's a tactic used by desperate people with no recourse. It would not take a long time in America for muslims to realize that there was a court system, and elected officials, and 24 hour news networks, and it would be very easy for them to get their message our without blowing up schools. Sure there might be a terrorist incident or two, but they'd catch on quick. They're are a couple who appear on the daily show now, and Jon Stewart in not only jewish but has long been a zionist. Clearly, muslims are not stupid, they figured it out. Now new muslims who dribble in may start on a jihad, but they'll figure out america before too long.

Which is why america has not had a problem with terrorism. govts. like france and england have suppressed opposition, rather than argued against it, which has made it desperate. Countries like Saudi Arabia have viciously persecuted opposition, which drives it over the edge. In Afghanistan, the Soviets massacred opposition, which makes it into a revolution. This is how we're behaving in Iraq, (And israel in lebanon/palestine) and we need to change.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 2, 2006 3:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Quote:

As for guerrilla wars that have been unsuccessful there are actually far more then people realize, I think. The problem is that we only talk about the ones that are successful. We often don’t even give names to the unsuccessful ones. After World War II, guerrilla campaigns were waged throughout the Soviet Block Nations, most of them popular and unsuccessful. In fact the Soviets didn’t really have a problem controlling insurgents in the nations they occupied until the Soviet government began to collapse, then hell broke loose. Another example would be the Irish Civil War and possibly the Spanish and Greek Civil Wars, but I’m not sure about those. So yeah, defeating guerrilla insurgents can certainly be done, though I would rather take an easier path if at all possible.
You will notice, Finn, that these were civil wars??? That means VERY SHORT supply lines. Can you name a guerilla war at then end of a LONG supply line that was defeated? Just curious.

Causal- I will look up your example. Thanks.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 3, 2006 8:01 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think the author is probably overstating things. The tactics employed by the insurgency are not unique to Muslims nor are they particularly novel or innovative.
-- Cicero



Very true. If the Viet-Cong was Elvis, then this insurgency is like a 300 pound French Elvis-impersonator. Not to be taken lightly, but nothing new or particularly Earth-shattering.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 4, 2006 5:45 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
You will notice, Finn, that these were civil wars??? That means VERY SHORT supply lines.

I’d hardly call London-Athens a very short or even a short supply line, particularly in the 1940s.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 3, 2021 7:15 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


Female jihadist suicide bomber blows herself and her baby daughter up in Tunisia
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9430019/Extremist-kills-self-
baby-Tunisia-suicide-bombing.html


New Niger president lashes out at jihadist 'war crimes'

Iran Marks 42nd Anniversary of Islamic Republic aka Shitlamic Shithole Country

Saudi continues to bomb Yemen

France's Total closes gas plant after Mozambique jihadist attacks


Indonesia Increases Security in Churches after Jihadist Attacks
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=2500495&CategoryId=12395

Three killed in suspected jihadist attacks on Ivory Coast border
https://news.yahoo.com/three-killed-suspected-jihadist-attacks-1108442
44.html


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 4, 2021 12:40 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


islam?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jNFXfMe-Cuk/

20 million illegal Bangladeshis have settled in India, mainly in West Bengal and Assam.
http://sheikyermami.com/

ILLEGAL ALIENS from Islamic terror-plagued nations are easily crossing the U.S. Southern Border
https://barenakedislam.com/2021/12/03/illegal-aliens-from-islamic-terr
or-plagued-nations-are-easily-crossing-the-u-s-southern-border
/


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Abortion
Fri, May 20, 2022 03:00 - 199 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Fri, May 20, 2022 01:04 - 10533 posts
Why is Russia losing so much military equipment?
Thu, May 19, 2022 20:53 - 17 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Thu, May 19, 2022 20:26 - 246 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, May 19, 2022 19:57 - 545 posts
Russia keeps threatening with nukes
Thu, May 19, 2022 15:06 - 77 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Thu, May 19, 2022 10:52 - 327 posts
Biden
Thu, May 19, 2022 07:43 - 579 posts
I never thought I'd miss this evil little Goblin...
Wed, May 18, 2022 23:36 - 1 posts
Trump's Budget
Wed, May 18, 2022 19:34 - 297 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, May 18, 2022 14:46 - 322 posts
SILENCE!!!
Wed, May 18, 2022 03:04 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL