The Thin Red Line

Your Curmudgeon is a student of military history and military planning, among other things. These are subjects that bring a perspective available in almost no other field of the intellect. Of course they would! Their subject matter is literally life and death: the life and death of men and nations committed to a struggle from which some will, inevitably, not return.

Unfortunately, there's far more of that sort of activity about than we should really tolerate. Putting an end to war may well be beyond our powers -- "Nations in general will go to war whenever there is a prospect of getting something by it." quoth John Jay -- but surely we can keep the mindset of war from infiltrating our domestic politics?

Perhaps not. Politics has much in common with war. At its regrettable best, it's a zero-sum game; what one wins, another must lose. Moreover, public policy is an ongoing contest, in which the parties can never cease to contend for further gains or defend ground already taken. No armistice is possible in political combat.

"Defense in depth," one of the key concepts of modern war, was invented rather recently, in the latter stages of World War I, by the German forces that occupied Belgium and northern France. A defense in depth wraps several layers of protection around a position, such that the enemy cannot produce a major tactical success with a single breakthrough. This has tactical advantages almost too numerous to list. Among other things, by extending the time period over which a breakthrough would take place, it allows inner defensive cordons to amass information about the strike and to marshal an optimal response to it, while simultaneously the strike force is being eroded and slowed by the outermost or "front" line of defense. It was this development in tactics that allowed the Germans to resist the numerically, economically, and technologically superior Anglo-Franco-American forces arrayed against them for as long as they did.

But of course, nothing stands still. Offensive tactics were developed to counter defense in depth that eventually restored the rough parity between offense and defense on the battlefield. Having several lines of trenches and fortifications could not thwart a greatly more powerful attacker forever, or we'd still be fighting on the Somme and at Ypres.

If it's legitimate to speak of an ultimate result to these developments, it would be this: defense in depth went from being the trump card of ground warfare to being one more requirement that had to be added to all the others, but which in itself was not sufficient for victory. Put another way, defense in depth can no longer frustrate an attacker indefinitely -- but its absence is an exploitable flaw that fills the opponent's heart with joy. A competent general never strikes at strength. He always looks for weakness and concentrates his offensive forces against it. There, a breakthrough can have real meaning.

The intensity of that particular contest has been rising steadily, although a lot of the escalation has been masked by the dramatic news from the campaign in Iraq. At this time, Senate Democrats are staking the future of the Democratic Party on a single cast of the dice -- the conviction that to expend essentially all their inter-party good will, such as it is, on preventing the confirmation of Bush judicial nominees Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, and Charles Pickering by filibuster is a necessary step for maintaining their gains over the half-century past.

There are others, but the political impact of these two eclipses them. The demographics of Democratic Party affiliation confirm this strongly.

The right to abort was a creation of the Supreme Court's 1973 session, as hardly anyone need be told today. Race-based preferences backed by the force of law arose legislatively, from a sequence of "civil rights acts," but are most threatened by a developing Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence that could soon rule them unconstitutional. Should the Left's grip on the federal courts fail, both these politically critical shibboleths could be swept away. They are not "defended in depth."

Democratic planners have to be aware that the country is trending rightward. Though the elections of 2000 were unimaginably close, the 2002 midterms were not nearly so. The elections of 2004, colored by the country's rising admiration and affection for President George W. Bush and the team he's built around him, have a real chance of reducing Democratic positions in Congress to below the level required to command influence.

Federal judges, who have played fast and loose with the Constitution for fifty years, are now the "thin red line" that protects the Democrats from sliding into irrelevance. Republican strategists, sensing the weakness of the Democratic position, are preparing a breakthrough.

Most ironic of all this is how the perception of the "standoff" is playing to the electorate. For the moment, Democratic panic and obstructionism are merely raising eyebrows. But if Republicans reach for any of the "nuclear options" available to them, it will compel a greatly increased degree of public attention, and an assessment of Democratic aims that's unlikely to be favorable to them. Some of the changes brought about by left-leaning judges -- absurdly overextended criminals' rights; use of unproven theories of science and psychology in the courtroom; judges awarding themselves the power to redesign school districts and impose property taxes -- have engendered developments not even hardcore Democrats are proud of.

2004 isn't that far off. The Democrats' lack of defense in depth leaves them in a two front war -- the nominations and the upcoming election -- and nowhere to retreat should either line fail.

For the moment, Democratic panic and obstructionism are merely raising eyebrows. But if Republicans reach for any of the "nuclear options" available to them, it will compel a greatly increased degree of public attention, and an assessment of Democratic aims that's unlikely to be favorable to them.

I agree with all of your post except this.

I think the RATs have laid two traps for the Senate GOP on the way to 2004.

The first trap is a 24/7 filibuster, which they would spin as Republicans "shutting down the government". When Newt shut it down in 1995, nobody cheered louder than I. I thought it would be the most popular action by a public official in that century. But I was wrong.

The second trap is the "nuclear option" of using a parliamentary trick to close debate with 51 votes. The RATs are ready to spin this one, also, as "angry white males" being "unfair".

Instead of the GOP falling into either trap, GWB and Frist are just chillin', letting the RATs be RATs-which is the one thing the American people won't be able to take for month after month after agonizing month.

I have been a big supporter of a 24/7 filibuster, but I'm getting more and more comfortable with this strategery.

At its regrettable best, it's a zero-sum game; what one wins, another must lose.

OK, maybe I need more coffee but I fail to see just what is regrettable about this. I want to win and I want the other side to lose and lose badly. I want their ideas to be so discredited that the mere mention of them provokes laughter.

This is not an argument over the color of the curtains, this is serious. And when it is serious there can be no compromise and some one must lose.

At its regrettable best, it's a zero-sum game; what one wins, another must lose.

George W. Bush wins, Saddam Hussein loses.
U.S. interests gain in both the long and the short, Franco-Germanic-Russo interests lose in the short.
Formerly enslaved people win freedom from torment; currently enslaved people gain hope; current enslavers are looking over their shoulder; former enslavers are dead or in hiding.
There is progress for individuals as worldwide there is now a buzz among rulers to see reassurances to reassess their usual, individual stifling, plans.

"At best, war is a zero sum game" depends too much on your limiting the winners and losers to those amorphous pronouns I underlined in your statement. Maybe you are right in general, but only for Generals. When you associate a name or label to the discrete pronouns, it is no longer limited to a zero sum game.

On the whole, particularly after this war, for the number of individuals benefitting short term and with better prospects for the long term, this one appears to be have been a positive sum game.

So it is quite simply wrong to label all war as "a zero sum game at best."

Perhaps a little history of The Thin Red Line may be informative. The term goes back to the Crimean War when a regiment of Higlanders [I believe the 33rd] received a charge by Russian cavalry in line [the British red coats were the thin red line] rather than forming square which was the traditional defence. This was at the same time as the more famous Charge of the Light Brigade.

The receiving of a cavalry charge in line was somewhat of an insult, indicating that the British commanding General did not think that the Russian charge was sufficiently "manly" enough to mertit a change in tactical formation.

You are entirely correct, my fellow Curmudgeon. I liked the tactical parallels quite a lot, even though the original "thin red line" was composed of brave good guys and the one I described is composed of, well, our philosophical and political adversaries. Doesn't hurt that socialism is heavily identified with the color red, either.

Hey, why did the GOP-majority districts in Election 2000 get colored in RED on that famous map? Wasn't that color more appropriate for the Democrat-majority areas?

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

"Hey, why did the GOP-majority districts in Election 2000 get colored in RED on that famous map? Wasn't that color more appropriate for the Democrat-majority areas?"

Seems to me that pubs were blue on those maps on election days until very recently.

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.