Posted on 08/13/2006 6:14:03 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
Quite a bit has been written recently about the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. And while initially, public opinion has been on the side of the Israelis, this has changed over time. One of the main factors which seems to have soured “world opinion” on Israel has been the photos of civilian casualties among the Lebanese people.
Now, there are quite a few objections that can be raised to this, including that of (say) blogsite Little Green Footballs (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com) stating that many of the photos of civilian casualties on the Lebanese side have been staged. The techniques include placing of childrens’ toys atop piles of rubble(*); rearrangement of the time sequence of photos; people alive in one photo posing as corpses in another; photoshopping of smoke clouds to exaggerate damage; and most horrific of all, taking previously dead bodies and rearranging them to make a better picture. (I take that back. What is most horrific of all is carefully leaving out of the reporting any graphic photos of Israeli casualties, and pretending that the Israelis are deliberately targeting civilians—while the exact, literal opposite is true. But it doesn’t matter, right? In war, it doesn’t count who’s right, but who’s left.)
Thinking of “who’s left” got me thinking of the catch-phrase which was making the rounds, as the first Arab casualties were noised about. “Disproportionate response.” What does that mean? Why it means that Israel overreacted—first politically, then militarily. After all, why kill a bunch of civilians who had nothing to do with the missile launches? But I am not here to defend Israel’s response; nor to criticize it. I am considering the whole nature of a proportionate vs. a disproportionate response in this context; and then in the larger context of worldwide Jihad.
It is instructive to consider the historical interplay between military might and technology. First hands, then rocks, clubs and knives; then spears, and arrows and slings; the use of horses; the use of armored knights; then larger projectiles from catapults, mangonels, trebuchets; the appearance of gunpowder; the development of massed cannons and machine guns; the use of planes and bombs, then jets and missiles, and finally, nuclear weapons. Each advance in military technology has been countered by advances in defenses; and each military technology has swept the obsolete before it, with the attendant threat “you cannot stop us now.” The idea being that the possessor of the superior technology had the ability (literally) to destroy the enemy—the new technology being irresistible.
Of course, with each advance in technology, the necessary changes in tactics, both offensive and defensive, to adapt to the new realities. From the Battle of Agincourt, to the Monitor and Merrimac; from grapeshot and Pickett’s charge to the trenches and slaughter at Passechendale. Oh yes, Passechendale. Which brings to mind poison gas; and from there it is but a nimble mental step to the firebombing of Dresden, to the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The wholesale slaughter of the civilian populace by a foreign power, which cannot be held back by the feeble powers of their government. And this brings us to the threat of “disproportionality.”
The Islamic powers, faced with the overwhelming military superiority of the West, had only one choice (as they saw it); although anyone other than a moonbat or a Democrat knows that the eternal bent of the United States is toward isolationism, and not conquest.. Yes, it was possible to buy weapons which on paper would match those of Israel and the United States; but between uncertain supply, the large cash outlays, the lack of training (can you say “combined arms”), the use of advanced arms against the West would still be a fool’s errand—martyrdom would be certain, but no Caliphate restored.
Hence, the concept of “asymmetrical warfare” – the use of unconventional means, to attack a superior force. Where death is not to be avoided, but courted, since the goal is not to survive, but to inflict disproportionate casualties on an unwilling foe, and thereby attacking their will to resist. We have seen it in World War II, with some of the German fanaticism near the end of the war, and with the Japanese Kamikazes. And we are seeing it today, with the rise of the suicide bomber, airplane attacks, and beheadings among the Jihadists.
Why is asymmetrical warfare so successful? Because war among Western nation-states (perhaps due to a common Christian background) has been played, more or less, according to rules. One does not generally go out of one’s way to target civilians; prisoners are supposed to be treated more or less equably; some lines of communication are open for the sake of negotiation and treaty. But asymmetric warfare turns all of these on their head—no one is safe, no matter their preparedness, or neutrality. Civilians are targeted without warning, and a childish glee publicly displayed over the gruesomeness of their deaths; and good-faith negotiations are used merely to lull the enemy into complacency.
What can be done about this? Or rather, why isn’t more being done, despite the glaring, overwhelming superiority of the Western materiele and manpower? There are several reasons. First, in many circles, there are twin feelings of shame and guilt over being western at all. From Jesse Jackson’s college protest “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Culture’s got to go!” to Jane Fonda’s posturing with a Viet Cong anti aircraft battery. “What did we do to make you mad at us?” implies that merely by attacking us at all, the Jihadists (or any others) have established not only their bona fides, but their intrinsic moral superiority. Second, the remembered guilt over past occurrences (even ones that didn’t actually happen) constrains public opinion—would we really firebomb Dresden or attack Hiroshima again? These two points together effectively neutralize the superiority of western weapons—we could easily open a disproportionate response, and it would be efficacious: a single division of US troops would easily suffice to pacify Iraq, or Lebanon. Or a single nuclear-powered aircraft carrier battle group could easily neutralize Iran. Provided we had the willpower to use them ruthlessly, as the enemy has no compunction about targeting our civilians.. The reason the US and Israel are suffering large casualties are that we are wrapping our iron fist in a—well, not even velvet, it’s more like marshmallow—glove.
Does this mean that I am advocating the wholesale slaughter of civilians? No. There is one other overlooked aspect of asymmetrical war which has been overlooked. Our current weapons would be ideal for mass destruction, and fearfully powerful at doing so: but since they are not being used in the way for which they have been designed, it is no wonder they are not yielding the victory. The answer is not to go after enemy populations, but to change the rules ourselves: pinpoint, surgical strikes against the leadership who so radicalizes the masses of Jihadists. And this need not involve tanks or aircraft. It could instead involve snipers; or bombings of government buildings of the enemy; or a generalized campaign of sabotage; or moles. After all, the enemy is creative and unorthodox. Why shouldn’t we be?
Final Note: If, on the other hand, there is a mass attack on civilians on US soil, the rules should change. Has anyone noticed how well the United States now gets along with Germany and Japan?
(*) By the way, I saw on one of these photos that the doll was a Mickey Mouse. How popular is ol’ Mickey in the Middle East anyway? Perhaps someone could contact the Walt Disney company and ask for a rundown of their sales, by product, by country.
I agree! Is 3000 at a time mass enough for you? It is for me!
Their leadership is centrally located in the Saudi city of Mecca. Why is it still inhabitable? We could relocate the survivors to live in the empty office spaces of the WTC.
I agree! Is 3000 at a time mass enough for you? It is for me!
Their leadership is centrally located in the Saudi city of Mecca. Why is it still inhabitable? We could relocate the survivors to live in the empty office spaces of the WTC.
Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam
University of Chicago Press ^ | John A. Nagl
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600263/posts
Posted on 03/21/2006 8:40:22 AM CST by Valin
Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam John A. Nagl
Preface to the Paperback Edition Spilling Soup on Myself
"The answer is not to go after enemy populations, but to change the rules ourselves:"
Many excellent points and background info in this article.
For me, the best of the best was the line above. Well stated!
L
Very well said! Thank you for pointing me here.
Better a thousand muslim mothers wailing for their little jihadists, than ONE American mother crying for a lost son.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.