Ralph Peters: We've Done Our Part; Now the Iraqis Must Do Theirs

USA Today | June 29, 2004 | Ralph Peters

[quidnunc]

Ralph Peters discusses the proposition that the biggest impediments to a free Iraq with a representative government are the pathologies inherent in Arab culture throughout the Middle East.

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-28-oplede_x.htm

[SMARTY]

'The Middle East is broken — governmentally, socially, educationally and, despite its unevenly distributed oil wealth, economically. It has stagnated on every front that might allow it to compete. That stagnation bred the terrorism that plagues the world today.'

Ain't it the truth!! They are following the rest of the Universe at a distance of about 3 centuries. It cannot be possible for them to enter, much less compete, in the new millennium with the boat anchor of fundamentalism/terrorism tied around their necks.

[ruiner]

Is this the same guy who wrote "War in 2020"? I loved that book when I was a kid, read it about 5 times.

[tkathy]

"pathologies inherent in Arab culture "

Pathologies inherent in Islam. Creates sociopaths and psychopaths, murderers and suicides for sex.

[A Simple Soldier]

Yes. Check out keyword "Ralph Peters"

[Atlantic Friend]

Hey, yes, I read it too. He also wrote "Red Army" a WW3 story told from the Russian perspective, but I never managed to get my hands over it in France.

[OESY]

Yes, it is. Below is a review on BrothersJudd.com.




The War in 2020 (1991)

Author Info: Ralph Peters, 1952-

On the one hand, it seems almost cruel to revisit someone's predictions about geopolitics a decade after they made them. On the other, Mr. Peters is still today making confident predictions about what the war on terror holds in store for us, so it seems worthwhile to look back and see how he did in the past. At least in The War in 2020, you'd have to say his past vision was pretty foggy.

It's an exciting enough book, kind of in the Tom Clancy mold, mostly about the 7th Cavalry's experiences in a future conflict that pits Japan, white South Africa and various Islamic jihadis against a militarily degraded United States and a crumbling Soviet Union. Mr. Peters presents the warfare and the military hardware of 2020 in convincing fashion. He obviously loves warriors and makes the men at the heart of the story, on both sides, suitably heroic.

But what are we to make of a scenario where Japan, a basket case today, is the world's foremost superpower; where Afrikaner South Africa and Soviet Russia both held on for an additional thirty years; and where America has declined so precipitously? He did better with his vision of an aggressive and ambitious Islam, but even there one has to wonder if it will ever be realistic for Muslim extremists, no matter their passion, to project structured forces beyond the Middle East. After all, it's one thing for a small group of men to hijack a plane or for a group of men to hide in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan, but quite another for those groups to try to function far beyond their home turf in conventional military battles against Western armed forces.

The main problem with Mr. Peters analyses, and it has been on display in his writings in recent months too, is that he tends to take the situation of the moment and project it forward in a straight line. Thus, declining powers keep declining infinitely; rising powers rise forever; a pause in a military campaign is conflated into terminal stasis; etc.. This tendency apparently led him to overestimate Japan's necessarily temporary economic success in the '80s just as surely as it has led him to accuse the Bush administration of surrendering any time they aren't moving as quickly as he'd like. This needn't ruin your enjoyment of his novel, but it suggests we should treat his punditry with caution.

(Reviewed:03-Dec-02)

Grade: (C+)

* * *

In my opinion:

Ralph Peters does not understand the political environment in which top-level decisions are made, so he is relentlessly critical without detailing his specific gripes. For instance, he has yet to acknowledge the effect of the parliamentary vote in Turkey has had an effect on how our troops were deployed in the early stages of the war and on our policies toward the Kurds. The lack of a northern front in Iraq meant we were not able to stage the Thunder Rolls through Faludja that worked so well in Baghdad in routing out and neutralizing the most extreme elements of the resistance.

Moreover, Peters has never provided a substantive analysis of the Afghan and Iraq military campaigns other than to proclaim our soldiers are the best. Consequently, because of his rift with the Pentagon, Peters was quick to describe those campaigns as failures, just before they became stunning successes. Meanwhile, most of the world's military analysts saw them as models of how a military campaign could be fought today with less manpower and more shock and surprise. Peters was excessively worried about long supply lines and sandstorms.

Peters' failure to recognize the fundamental principles of warfare hindered his ability to see that it was our superior communications, mobility and firepower that give us tactical and strategic advantage. Although we have been ambushed and helicopters have been downed, we have never lost a battle because we can quickly assemble overwhelming force. Instead of recommending more boots on the ground, which could be dubbed the "Johnson Option" after that president increased our troops in Vietnam by a half million men, Peters should know that would be exactly the wrong strategy while we are attempting to transfer power to the fledgling Iraqi state. This raises questions as to what lessons Peters learned in Vietnam and in the Soviet experience in Afghanistan were they provided countless targets of opportunity, and eventually withdrew.

Similarly, Peters has never commented on the new technologies the military has deployed, particularly in the weapons and in the command and control arenas that enabled less than 400 special operations personnel in Afghanistan teamed with the Northern Alliance to drive off the Taliban. Nor has Peters ever addressed the psyops aspects of our recent campaigns for fear of giving credit to his ideological foes. Instead, we get a lot of rah-rah cheer leading.

Fundamental changes in the battlefield have occurred since Peters left the military and he has not kept up. Rather, he prefers to pursue a personal vendetta against the Pentagon that colors his columns. That is not to say he gets everything wrong, but his track record leaves much to be desired. Caveat emptor.

[thoughtomator]

He did better with his vision of an aggressive and ambitious Islam, but even there one has to wonder if it will ever be realistic for Muslim extremists, no matter their passion, to project structured forces beyond the Middle East. After all, it's one thing for a small group of men to hijack a plane or for a group of men to hide in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan, but quite another for those groups to try to function far beyond their home turf in conventional military battles against Western armed forces.

Islam projects its forces via colonization. There are Islamic colonies in every country in the world that has achieved any degree of success for them to latch onto like parasites. Occasionally it will send out a DC Sniper or other domestic terrorist, but mostly they're trying to achieve the majority that will allow them to impose Sharia.

[StumpyPete]

If I recall correctly, Ralph Peters worked with/for Lt. General Claudia Kennedy when she headed the Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. Claudia is one of John Kerry's intelligence consultants and a high profile critic of the Iraq campaign.

[Redbob]

That's an interesting critique of Peters' book, and it brings up an interesting point, though slightly off-topic:

Remember how just a relatively few years ago Japan was held up to us as the very model of an industrial economy? How their industries were all perceived to be shining examples of efficiency and productivity?
There were just a few voices barely heard proclaiming that Japanese society and politics have structural flaws that would preclude them from becoming a dominant superpower.

Now we see Nissan, Mitsubishi (builder of the Zero), and Mazda failing outright and requiring Western management takeovers, and near-collapse of their banking system.

Of course, the Arab world is far far FAR from the Japanese model, and, far from being ready to enter this millenium, I'm not sure they're really and truly ready even for the LAST millenium!

[A Simple Soldier]

Ping.

[hershey]

Well, it's their religion, folks. That and the fact that many of the states went along with tyrrannical govts. because the ruling elite was happily lining their own pockets. Keep the populace dumb and dumber, no rights, (certainly none for women), blame poverty-stricken plight on the US, and whip the young males (no jobs, so free to demonstrate and throw bombs), into daily frenzies from the mosque. They use Palestine as a beard. If that were settled tomorrow, they'd hate the US for something else. This won't be over until their religious convictions change, because the mullahs aren't interested in education. Schools exists to brainwash the young. Mind control.

[A Simple Soldier]

You recall correctly.

What is your point?

[StumpyPete]

I don't trust Lt. General Kennedy, and I don't trust Ralph Peters.

Simple enough point for a simple enough soldier?

[A Simple Soldier]

No its not. Lets keep this discussion adult, since you have been a member of this site for a whole 3 weeks now.

Fair enough assertion on Claudia Kennedy who ranks as one of the two or three worst senior GOs of the past 30 years, but I am perplexed about your attempt to tie Ralph in with her. He did in fact work for her office, as a MAJOR. Not exactly like they were close pals.

Do you know why he retired? Do you know when he retired? Do you know him?

[OESY]

I agree with you on Japan. It's almost unfair for anyone to try to project out what the world will look like. Unfortunately, too often forecasts are used to score political points, as with Peters.

But I remember the Dems saying that Republicans projecting a budget surplus was like predicting the weather, but then after 9/11 saying we will have budget deficits as far as the eye can see. All forecasts need to be taken with a grain of salt.