Posted on 11/17/2006 2:34:57 AM PST by drellberg
"Our strategists are constantly asked, how can we win the war in Iraq? But it is the wrong question, and therefore has no correct answer. Read Reuel Gerecht in Friday’s Wall Street Journal: “(The Baker/Hamilton Commission) cannot escape from an unavoidable reality: We either declare defeat and withdraw completely tout de suite, or we surge troops into Baghdad and fight. The ISG will surely try to find some middle ground between these positions, which, of course, doesn’t exist.”"
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Ledeen teaches me more about the ME and the WOT than any other commentator. But often his policy prescriptions do not follow directly from his arguments (e.g., "faster, please" is typically a huge logical leap from whatever he has written) and those arguments often have huge, unstated assumptions that are key to his reasoning.
In this case, Ledeen assumes that the Iraqis can not stand up for themselves. Of course, that would be dangerous. Of course, freedom requires extraordinary personal sacrifices, and often one's own life. Of course, it would be asking more than would be reasonable for Maliki and others to give up their lives for freedom. Of course. But if they want freedom; if they love it; then there is no other choice.
Part of the solution in Iraq is for the US to stand firm, as Ledeen asserts. More important, though, is that the Iraqis love and desire freedom so much that nothing else matters in the end, including their own lives and the lives of the family and friends that they hold most dear. The United States can help the Iraqis win this war. They can not win it for them. Ledeen totally and completely misses this.
Fighting and winning a transcivilizational war is radically different from an inracivilizational one. The measure of victory is breaking of the enemy's will to fight [where's a will, there'll be a way - look at Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a very good illustration] - and when this will is rooted in the enemy's very civilizational identity, breaking it is an extremely dirty and bloody business.
inracivilizational=intracivilizational
Clarity, in a sea of confusion. Ledeen really nails it. The question is, why have we not been fighting to win in the WOT? The people who say that all America has done since terrorists first killed Americans, is create enemies. They are closer to the truth than some who say we are winning. Heck, even Reagan ran when Americans were slaughtered.
" breaking it is an extremely dirty and bloody business"
The reason it will be dirty and bloody, is because we did not ever have the will, or the common sense, to SEVERELY punish the terrorists when they first dared to kill Americans. We should have destroyed every terrorist camp that we knew of, or could find through our connections.
Who could have argued with that strategy but the terrorists themselves, and of course those countries who gain from their actions? All cards would have then been on the table.
Defending the people of the United States is the most important role of the federal government. Pity, people do not take that seriously.
I don't think there's much chance Baker-Hamilton will see the light and so probably the bloodbath cometh.
Well, the Israelis have been punishing the terrorists attacking them for how long by now? The required level of severity is bordering on genocidal.
Excellent, thanks for posting. Some management guru once said something about resolving a problem by expanding its boundaries to the larger picture. Very good application here of that technique.
From what I have seen of Israeli retaliation, they have never went beyond one-for-one, or an eye for an eye. The terrorists would, of course, be perfectly willing to make that trade. I was referring to a massive retaliation, meant as a punishment sufficient to stop the undesired behavior, giving the enemy something o think about.
The punishment sufficient to stop the undesired behavior was, say Sabra and Shatila camps. Was there any undesired behavior there afterwards? This is an illustration of what's needed - versus what is being done.
I agree that the key to victory is not more troops in Iraq, but an active involvement in destabilizing and overthrowing the regimes in Iran and Syria. We should do more than give lip service to groups wanting to overthrow the dictators in Tehran and Damascus, but give them money and arms to wage a serious war.
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.