War in the Absence of Strategic Clarity

Claremont Institute ^ | Sept 17, 2003 | Mark Helprin

[Sam Cree]

This was posted a couple months ago, but some of the points are so pertinent, perhaps even more so today, that I thought it worth putting up again.

[Sam Cree]

Kind of a long read, I can't say if Helprin is right on everything here, but some of the remarks are really on the money.

[Valin]

The war is waged as if accidentally
Accidentally? Oh I don't think so! So far we've taken out his base camp nation (Afghanistan), and we are now in the process of seting up a democratic form of govenment in the middle of the middle east.

Thus, for want of a minimum of political courage, our soldiers are dispatched to far-flung battlefields to fight an ad hoc, disorganized war, and, just as it did in the Vietnam War,
Lack of political courage! the political expedient thing to do would have been to take out Afghanistan declare victory and come home. Instead this President has chosen the politicly risky course of actually destroying the terrorists and the mind set that fosters them.

Not surprisingly, militant Islam arises from and makes its base in the Arab Middle East. The first objective of the war, therefore, must be to offer every state in the area this choice: eradicate all support for terrorism within your borders or forfeit existence as a state. That individual terrorists will subsequently flee to the periphery is certain, but the first step must be to deny them their heartland and their citadels.
Gee this seems to me to be more than a little politicaly inexpedient.

Some good stuff here but too say there's not a plan.
GIVE ME A BREAK!

[Think free or die]

Interesting read. I believe there is more strategic clarity within the White House and Pentagon than is being communicated effectively to the nation. The negative drumbeat of the media isn't helping matters any.

[Sam Cree]

"Accidentally? Oh I don't think so! So far we've taken out his base camp nation (Afghanistan), and we are now in the process of setting up a democratic form of government in the middle of the middle east."

I think Helprin here is more making the point that the enemy, seen as all the Arab world that offers any support to the "militants," which seems to be most of it, is not being clearly defined for the sake of political expediency. This leaves people like myself to wonder if GW really is doing what I think he is, or if he is somewhat unfocused. I personally hope GW is a visionary, but is keeping it to himself.

However, I quite agree that taking out 2 Middle Eastern countries is more than decisive, and, if successful, will change the complexion of the modern world, which is the only way to defeat terrorism, IMO.

Additionally, I have no trouble understanding that GW has been willing to sacrifice his presidency, if necessary, in pursuing his quest.

Nevertheless, there are points in the article that got my attention strongly, especially considering current events.

[TheCrusader]

"The enemy's strengths should not be underestimated. He has a historical memory far superior to that of the West, which has forgotten its thousand-year war with Islamic civilization."

This is the most important element of the entire article. Militant Islam knows they are at war, militant Christianity is suffering from narcolepsy.

[Sam Cree]

Interested in you guys' take on this, if you care to give it a read.

[Sam Cree]

Meant to ping you, Carton, as this is your area of expertise.

[tbpiper]

My first reaction was that Mark Helprin is full of sh*t. But upon reading his commentary, I've come to believe that Mark Helprin is really full of sh*t.

[Monti Cello]

Interesting....I'd agree with almost all of it...I do see some contradiction though. On 9/12 there must have been serious concern that there were a series of attacks in place ready to be executed in response to our reaction.

If we, say took out several Middle East governments with bombing on 9/12, and the attacks here kept coming...the President would look impotent and desperate to stop further damage and be taking hits for ineffectiveness and collateral damage.

This would be the galvanizing force for the Middle East Bin laden sought. I'm not sure the pussified political climate would tolerate cratering Arab cities even after 9/11.

While we haven't shocked the Arab despots, I'm sure we've gotten their attention and we do retain the option to escalate quite a bit more, which has to be a deterrent in itself.

The Middle East tyrants must be aware that Bush does have options to escalate if further attacks occur on our soil. They may be in the position where significant attacks here do them more damage than good, which is a preventative.

[Valin]

Additionally, I have no trouble understanding that GW has been willing to sacrifice his presidency, if necessary, in pursuing his quest

I recall reading that very thing a while ago.

Nevertheless, there are points in the article that got my attention strongly, especially considering current events.
Examples?

Will check back later tonight.
I have to go pretend I'm working. :-)

[bassmaner]

Recognizing that the enemy is militant Islam with its center the Arab Middle East, it is possible to devise a coherent strategy.

This simply cannot be stressed enough. We are at war with ISLAMISTS, not "terrorism", just like in 1941 when we were at war with JAPAN, not "torpedo dive bombing". Please, W, if we're to ultimately prevail, please drop the P.C. crap.

[Sam Cree]

Yeah, I got stuff to do too, will list 'em later.

[carton253]

We are at war with ISLAMISTS

And what exactly do you mean by that. How do you define ISLAMISTS?

[carton253]

You do realize that there is a difference between the government of Japan who sent the dive bombers to attack us and Islamic terrorists who do not operate with the permission of all Middle Eastern governments.

Do you make that distinction, or do you just want to bomb indiscrimantly... even those countries who have helped us in our war on terror?

[carton253]

MORE THAN ANYTHING, WE NEED TO STUN THE ARAB WORLD.

If Helprin doesn't have the sense to see that the Arab world is stunned... then he doesn't have any business writing a single word about the war on terror.

I believe that the disconnect comes because the terrorists are fighting back. He seems to think that counterattacks are somehow indicative that we are losing. We are not losing. We are winning. President Bush, through great political courage (don't even get me started on the Rove tin-foil crap) is leading us to victory...if we do not stop.

[Sam Cree]

"Examples?"

OK, here's what got my attention, and kind of resonated with me:

no matter that a Republican administration in electoral fear leans left and breaks its promise to restore the military; and no matter that because the Secretary of Defense decided that he need not be able to fight two wars at once, an adequate reserve does not exist to deal with, for example, North Korea.

For domestic political reasons and to preserve its marginal relations with the Arab World, the United States has declined to identify the enemy precisely

The first objective of the war, therefore, must be to offer every state in the area this choice: eradicate all support for terrorism within your borders or forfeit existence as a state.

He has a historical memory far superior to that of the West, which has forgotten its thousand-year war with Islamic civilization. Islamic civilization has not forgotten, however, having been for centuries mainly on the losing side.

Despite many flickers all around the world, it is a fire far from coming alight, but as long as the West apprehends each flare as a separate case the enemy will be encouraged to drive them toward a point of ignition, and the war will never end.

The proper strategic objective for the West, therefore, is the suppression of this fire of 'asabiya in the Arab heartland and citadels of militancy—a task of division, temporary domination, and, above all, demoralization.

If the United States had the will, it could, excessively, field 20 million men, build 200 aircraft carriers, or almost instantly turn every Arab capital into molten glass, and the Arabs know this

As of this writing, the army reportedly has 23 combat brigades, 18 of which are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, three of which are in refit, one in Kosovo, and two in Korea, leaving nine brigades, or about 45,000 men, to pick up the slack anywhere and everywhere else. Though independent echelons and the Marines increase this figure many fold, they do not have sufficient lift and logistics, and even if they did it would not be enough. This is as much the result of the Bush Administration's failure to increase defense spending appreciably and rebuild the military before (and even after) September 11, as the lack of real shock and awe was the result of the administration's desire to go to war according to a sort of just-in-time-inventory paradigm.

They know that they did not seize our full attention. They know that we have hardly stirred. And as long as they have these things to know, they will neither stand down nor shrink back, and, for us, the sorrows that will come will be greater than the sorrows that have been.

[Sam Cree]

"If Helprin doesn't have the sense to see that the Arab world is stunned... then he doesn't have any business writing a single word about the war on terror."

Yeah, Carton, but are they stunned in the following context?

the proper objective should have been not merely to drive to Baghdad but to engage and impress the imagination of the Arab and Islamic worlds on the scale of the thousand-year war that it is to them

[Valin]

How do you define ISLAMISTS?
Great question! And one that's not ask often enough.

Islamism
Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology.

The word "Islamism" is highly appropriate, for this is an "-ism" like other "-isms" such as fascism and nationalism. Islamism turns the bits and pieces within Islam that deal with politics, economics, and military affairs into a sustained and systematic program. As the leader of the Muslim Brethren put it some years ago, "the Muslims are not socialist nor capitalist; they are Muslims." I find it very telling that he compares Muslims to socialists and capitalists and not to Christians or Jews. He is saying, we are not this "-ism," we are that "-ism." Islamism offers a way of approaching and controlling state power. It openly relies on state power for coercive purposes.

Islamism is, in other words, yet another twentieth-century radical utopian scheme. Like Marxism-Leninism or fascism, it offers a way to control the state, run society, and remake the human being. It is an Islamic-flavored version of totalitarianism. The details, of course, are very different from the preceding versions, but the ultimate purpose is very similar.

Islamism is also a total transformation of traditional Islam; it serves as a vehicle of modernization. The ideology deals with the problems of urban living, of working women and others at the cutting edge, and not the traditional concerns of farmers. As Olivier Roy, the French scholar, puts it, "Rather than a reaction against the modernization of Muslim societies, Islamism is a product of it." Islamism is not a medieval program but one that responds to the stress and strains of the twentieth century.

In this, Islamism is a huge change from traditional Islam. One illustration: Whereas traditional Islam's sacred law is a personal law, a law a Muslim must follow wherever he is, Islamism tries to apply a Western-style geographic law that depends on where one lives. Take the case of Sudan, where traditionally a Christian was perfectly entitled to drink alcohol, for he is a Christian, and Islamic law applies only to Muslims. But the current regime has banned alcohol for every Sudanese. It assumes Islamic law is territorial because that is the way a Western society is run.

I also wish to note that Islamism has few connections to wealth or poverty; it is not a response to deprivation. There is no discernible connection between income and Islamism. Rather, this movement is led by capable people coping with the rough and tumble of modern life. The ideology appeals primarily to modern people; I am always fascinated to note how many Islamist leaders (for example in Turkey and Jordan) are engineers.

Islamism is by now a powerful force. It runs governments in Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan. It is an important force of opposition in Algeria, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. (By my understanding Saudi Arabia and Libya are not Islamist.) I estimate that some 10 percent of the Muslim population world wide is Islamist. But it is very active minority and it has a reach that is greater than its numbers. Islamists are also present here, in the United States, and, to an stunning extent, dominate the discourse of American Islam.

The Islamists' success in Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan, show that were they to come to power elsewhere, they would create enormous problems for the people they rule, for the neighborhood, and for the United States. Their reaching power would lead to economic contraction, to the oppression of women, to terrible human rights abuses, to the proliferation of arms, to terrorism, and to the spread of a viciously anti-American ideology. These are, in short, rogue states, dangerous first tho their own people and then to the outside world.
Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism
Center for Strategic and International Studies
June 30, 1998
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/954

[Valin]

For domestic political reasons and to preserve its marginal relations with the Arab World, the United States has declined to identify the enemy precisely

While I can't speak for others by 9-13-01 I had a pretty good idea of precisely who the enemy is.

Despite many flickers all around the world, it is a fire far from coming alight, but as long as the West apprehends each flare as a separate case the enemy will be encouraged to drive them toward a point of ignition, and the war will never end.

World class assuming going on here. Whenever or where ever these thugs stick their heads up they get smacked down pretty fast and hard. And yes this war will be going on for a long while, as long as the cold war? Could very well be the case.