Replies

(Note: This op-ed was sent to me by a Leftist friend under the subject heading "Common Ground". It goes part way to logical discourse, but takes an offramp when it comes to furthering the Liberal agenda at the cost of legitimate governance)

Where I would begin disagreement with the author is in planning and conduct of the Iraq Liberation. He seems to be more in to the political issues surrounding war than the strategic and tactical issues of warfare (maybe simply because he’s focusing on that issue here). Every smart military man knows that no matter how good a battle plan you might have, you have to be flexible in its application, because armed conflict is nothing but chaos. You never know exactly what is going to happen, so you have to be ready for anything. The very nature of tactics is that they have to be fluid.

What’s different about the Iraq Liberation, though, ARE the political and civilian considerations. In our age of extremely precise weapons, we’re used to the idea of “surgical strikes.” In spite of that, there will always be noncom casualties in combat simply because of proximity.

The United States (and probably any other state) has been the most successful in warfare when they can beat the crap out of their enemies with maximum firepower until their enemies can’t fight anymore. That’s how you win. Things get complicated when you factor intra-national division in to the whole equation. WWII was fought as an all-out conflict – what was important was the material, and even more importantly, psychological defeat of the nation-state waging war against us. Korea and Vietnam were conflicts waged against revolutionaries without clear nation-state organization. If nuclear weapons had not existed, I would venture to think that those conflicts would have been waged more like the wars before them – maximum firepower – instead of going half-assed because there’s a huge communist government with nukes backing up your enemy.

So, at this point in history anyway, the United States needs to figure out how to defeat an enemy in war without absolutely beating the crap out of them because of collateral civilian casualties. If the Democrats have a better idea than what we’re doing in Iraq, I’d love to hear about it. That idea needs to be different than the U.N.-administered debacle that was Somalia. Political, strategic and tactical issues become all the more complicated because the enemy really has no such similar qualms about noncom casualties – if you’re an infidel, you’ll burn in hell; if you’re a real Believer, you will be sent to paradise. In other words, “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.” That may have been okay as an off-the-cuff concept with limited scale weaponry, but when one can actually put that idea in to real absolute practice with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, our enemies have to be viewed with moral and ideological clarity. In other words, there is such a thing as good and evil.

The author also seems to think that Bush is the best communicator Republican ideals. IMO, that is far from the case. Whether it be by Bush himself or the way the press portrays and reports him, he’s not as effective as he could be at communicating what is an excellent message of freedom, opportunity, optimism and compassion. To say that the Democrats are the only people that can pull our wayward allies (we have a bunch in Iraq, in case you haven’t noticed) back to us is simplistic. Furthermore, establishing a shadow Democratic government to communicate with those wayward allies is bordering on treason. If Republican politicians were jetting around the world attempting to implement their own foreign policy contrary to a Democrat president, the Democrats would be screaming bloody murder.

I have no problem with the Democrats putting together a team of people that have international reputations and coming up with some good ideas. At the very least, it raises the bar on dialogue and discourse. But their goal should be to consider and establish viable options in foreign policy, not to actively undermine the current foreign policy being implemented by a legitimately-elected President, spout rhetoric that demoralizes our troops and emboldens our enemies. If guys like Ted Kennedy keep that stuff up, they will make Iraq-as-Vietnam a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"He seems to be more in to the political issues surrounding war than the strategic and tactical issues of warfare"
That's because he's a pampered liberal who knows absolutely NOTHING about the military or intelligence. Much like the 9/11 commissioners.
This guy does seem to have the political conflict in the middle east summed up fairly well, but his lack of military knowledge and his political hackery towards the end really discredits him.

For a democrat, this guy at least seems to have the ability to present rational arguments. Even though I disagree with the concept of a "shadow" government (and think it would be a dangerous precedent), I respect him for not just throwing out typical DNC talking points. I almost get the feeling that a debate with this guy would be tolerable for me, even though we would disagree about much.

Terror grows out of something larger — an enormous wave of political extremism. Like escalating Liberal Hateism?!

While this is true of some forms of Terrorism - IRA, Basque Separatists, Earth Liberation Front, perhaps even the early PLO -to assign the tag of 'political extremism' to the Islamofascism would be like writing off the Khmer Rouge as a political action committee. Do let's give the enemy credit for being much more than ideological zealots concerned with the specific nature of government. There is an extreme philosophical schism here between the concepts, definitions and nature of the existence Man; a war between We the Living, and They the Living Dead!

Mr. Berman's further myopia is exposed with this line..."The wave began to swell some 25 years ago and by now has swept across a big swath of the Muslim world." Twenty five years? What arbitrary marker is that? I am reminded, Dueler, of the article you linked on the history of the Saracens (please linked it here, if you would). 'Swell' might be the key word, but let's not get the impression that Islamic extremeism of the murderous variety is a new threat to Western Civilization; a civilization surely reeling from it's own modern desire to balance suicide and atrocity with little time nor inclination to play parental surrogate to Arab nations with enough history to know better than to "[committ] murders on a gigantic scale." American intentions and policies were neither "cruel" nor "cynical,"but pragmatic in a era balanced on the edge of atomic Armaggeddon.

The rest of his point is equally as mis-directed as the first four paragraphs. But, the artcile is interesting in the sense that someone on the Left has finally noticed the taste of their own feet. Perhaps it has given them a sense of their ideological mortality as reflected by the impotence of their ideas, and irrelevancy of their quasi-intellectual pontifications to a people who know exactly where they stand in history, and further comprehend the significance of their legacy.... again!

Mr. Berman did get one thing right here, both in terms of his article and with regard to the further significance of his Democrat allies. "War requires clarity. Here is incoherence!"

Your own analysis, Dueler, offered much greater insight. I especially appreciated your recognition of the capitulation by the Left of some scant fragment of common ground. At the very least, it raises the bar on dialogue and discourse.

At least it does that.