Getting Beyond Stalemate to Win a War

[Stravo]

What I found insulting about the piece is that it takes that usual tact of the right wing war apologists "Don't question just do it for the troops" As if a healthy debate and push back on a fucking war is a bad thing and there's this palpable undercurrent of the opposition somehow betraying the troops and the cause.

And please stop with the Iraq is at the forefront of the War on Terror. No it isn't asshole. We made it important by sinking men and treasure into that mess but it certainly was no fucking haven of terrorism or sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. Foreign fighters are going there because we're there not because they're Cobra trying to repel a GI Joe invasion fucker. Iraq as the center piece of the War on Terror is a self fulfilling point because we made it so. You know where I consider a vitally important theater on the War on Terror? Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalist haven + nuclear weapons + unpopular leader + civil unrest = potential 9/11 squared. Where the FUCK else do you think we ought to be?

We pulled out of Afghanistan to sink into that mess in Iraq and now guess what? Taliban is still alive and kicking and counterattacking and we seemingly left our allies to hold the bag on that one.

The man who killed 3,000 Americans is alive and well and making propaganda videos to this day and our president's response to the greatest single mass murderer of Americans alive today?
Have a listen

This article is the bog standard, stop questioning and gumming up the works with your stupid debates and let's just get the job done. You know who was really good at getting the job done without debate and questions? Sadaam. Guess we should emulate Iraq pre-invasion if we want to put up another ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" flag.

[Darth Wong]

What I found insulting about the piece is that it takes that usual tact of the right wing war apologists "Don't question just do it for the troops" As if a healthy debate and push back on a fucking war is a bad thing and there's this palpable undercurrent of the opposition somehow betraying the troops and the cause.

The fact that "the cause" and "the troops" have been tied together is the greatest propaganda coup of the right-wing propagandists in America.

The man who killed 3,000 Americans is alive and well and making propaganda videos to this day and our president's response to the greatest single mass murderer of Americans alive today?
Have a listen

You have to love the way he's smirking and grinning through his nonchalant response to such a serious question about Osama Bin Laden.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Just a nitpick here: "forward" isn't DoubleSpeak for "continue in the same direction". It just plain means "continue in the same direction".

Its doublespeak because it presumes that where we've been heading is toward progress.

[Sarevok]

One thing I always wonder is has anyone did a cost vs usefulness comparison for the idea of battling the angry muslim with a visa by using carrier battle groups ?

Seems to me in material terms barring a fluke like 911 the damage terrorists did is insignificant. Even the damage done in 911, in material terms, is nothing. America can build lots of towers for the money squandered in GWoT. In terms of human lives US has already lost more people than it swore to avenge...

Ultimately whereas Bin Laden could not scratch America, America is now breaking herself with a self inflicted hammer blows.

[Patrick Degan]

First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute.

Sheer idiocy. It cannot succeed even given 50 years to try; Americans cannot even wipe out religious extremism in their own ranks, never mind eradicating it around the world. They are only at war with Al-Quaeda, not "worldwide Islamic extremism". The first tenet of national strategy has to be limiting your enemies in order to keep your strategy manageable, rather than deliberately multiplying them.

As Londo Mollari would say: Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots fights a war on twelve fronts.

Once more, a restatement for perpetual war against an abstraction. I'd almost speculate that these two veterans are actually shills.

[Lusankya]

Just a nitpick here: "forward" isn't DoubleSpeak for "continue in the same direction". It just plain means "continue in the same direction".

Its doublespeak because it presumes that where we've been heading is toward progress.

Except only dumbasses would think that where we're going is progress. The situation is more like this:

America: Let's get going!
Rest of the World: Ok. Where to?
America: Forward!
RotW: But there's a tree in the way.
America: That's not a tree! It's just a mirage!
RotW: No, I'm sure it's a tree. And besides, mirages don't make you see trees. If you think you're seeing a tree when there is in fact no tree, then we call that a hallucination.
America: So you admit it then! You're hallucinating about there being a tree there!
RotW: That's not what I said at all... look, are you going to swerve to avoid that tree or not?
America: No! We can and must go forward!

*CRASH*

RotW: Now do you see what you've done? I told you we'd crash.
America: Ha! You were wrong! That wasn't a tree at all! It was a picture of a tree that someone had painted onto this cliff! Now, bring on the bulldozers.
RotW: Wait a tic. Why do we need bulldozers all of a sudden?
America: Because there's this cliff in the way, and it's stopping us from going FORWARD!

[Spyder]

This article sounds every bit as condescending as any of Bush's speeches. As far as they're concerned, we don't have legitimate concerns about their policies it's that we simply don't understand them.

"We're staying the course with the War on Islamic Extremism!"

"Why? It doesn't seem like we can achieve those goals."

"No, no, by staying the course I mean we're moving forward."

"That doesn't asnwer my..."

"We're making progress! That's a word you people like isn't it? Progress?"

"Wait, are we? While we are seeing the ocassional sign of progress in Iraq the entire operation is still at an enormous net loss. Was Islamic Extremism even an issue in Iraq before we started?"

"Look, obviously you don't understand the complexities of modern politics. What I'm saying is we're seeing this through to the end, for freedom!"

"How?"

"By staying the course! You liberals ask the stupidist questions."

[Alan Bolte]

One thing I always wonder is has anyone did a cost vs usefulness comparison for the idea of battling the angry muslim with a visa by using carrier battle groups ?

Seems to me in material terms barring a fluke like 911 the damage terrorists did is insignificant. Even the damage done in 911, in material terms, is nothing. America can build lots of towers for the money squandered in GWoT. In terms of human lives US has already lost more people than it swore to avenge...

Ultimately whereas Bin Laden could not scratch America, America is now breaking herself with a self inflicted hammer blows.

A Republican politician, or their supporters, would argue that the cost in lives and treasure is irrelevant. If the cost is greater than we would like, or greater than we can pay, it only means that we are warring inefficiently, not that the war itself was a bad idea. The only way to war more efficiently is to continue warring until you figure out how to do it better, i.e. trial and error. That we might have had a better plan to start with is unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant: we're there now, we have to finish what we started.

From Stuart's essay on The Underlying Principals of US Policy:

The Challenger can select the time and place of any confrontation to match its own objectives and capabilities. The Hegemon has to respond for failing to do so will sacrifice prestige and start the bandwagoning process. Vietnam was a classic example; critics of American involvement there always point to the total lack of strategic importance of the place. In “Maximal-Realism” terms, this misses the point completely. Vietnam was not challenged because it was strategically important; it was strategically important because it was challenged.

[Darth Wong]

To summarize Stuart's essay, "Minimal Realism" is schoolyard "king of the hill" rules (he actually uses this analogy himself), while "Maximal Realism" is schoolyard "bully clique" rules. Both models are based upon the schoolyard, and in the essay, the latter model is justified by arguing that its predictions were more accurate than the predictions of the former model in the case of 1930s Germany (because all US policy is based upon the way it remembers WW2).

[HemlockGrey]

To summarize Stuart's essay, "Minimal Realism" is schoolyard "king of the hill" rules (he actually uses this analogy himself), while "Maximal Realism" is schoolyard "bully clique" rules. Both models are based upon the schoolyard,

Stuart's essay is not particulary expansive or even accurate. Realism doesn't necessarily require the existance of a "Hegemon", he's just focusing on one realist school of thought.

[Alan Bolte]

My understanding is that he has a better understanding of the way Republican politicians think than I do, which is the only reason I brought it up. If it fails to describe their thinking accurately, I would love to hear what any of you have to say about that.

[HemlockGrey]

My understanding is that he has a better understanding of the way Republican politicians think than I do, which is the only reason I brought it up. If it fails to describe their thinking accurately, I would love to hear what any of you have to say about that.

Oh, he's probably right about that. I just take issue with his characterization of those two policies as the only facets of realism. "Power-balancing" realism, for instance, states that peace is most likely when a suitable balance of power is achieved.

Realism isn't inherently wrong, because it's fairly obvious throughout world history that the power structure determines the fate of nations and the likelyhood of war. The problem is when we, like Stuart, universally apply it as a model to every situation everywhere.

[Darth Wong]

I just hate the fact that it calls itself "Realism". It's a loaded term, like "Objectivism". In fairness, Stuart does note that the political term does not mean what one might think it should mean from its literal English definition, but that excuses Stuart's use of it. It doesn't excuse the fact that it was given this moniker in the first place.

[Stuart]

Oh, he's probably right about that. I just take issue with his characterization of those two policies as the only facets of realism. "Power-balancing" realism, for instance, states that peace is most likely when a suitable balance of power is achieved.

I don't think so; I believe that I specified there were large numbers of variants of all the theories of how nations interact; the two discussed in my essay were the two that were important for understanding why current decisions are being made the way they are.

Realism isn't inherently wrong, because it's fairly obvious throughout world history that the power structure determines the fate of nations and the likelyhood of war.

Agreed; also I'd point out there's a big difference between political science as taught in academia (where nothing of any great importance hangs on the results) and in the world where these theories are applied for real (where a lot hangs on the results). The real-world versions are meat-ball surgery, rough and ready approximations that are, in the words of the prophet "good enough for government work".

The problem is when we, like Stuart, universally apply it as a model to every situation everywhere.

I'd argue that one as well. What we actually do is apply various kinds of logic to a situation and see what happens. Maximal Realism is the one we try first because it works most often. If it doesn't then we ring the changes until we find one that does and then try to work out what makes that situation different from the norm.

Here's a dirty little secret for you; most times it makes very little difference what theory one uses; by the time one gets to the sharp end, the process of abrasion with reality had rubbed away all the fine nuances.

The historical justification for Maximal Realism goes back beyond Europe in pre-WW2 though. For example, in 1815, the UK was a pure, undoubted and unchallenged Hegemon. One would expect, if Minimal Realism was correct, for coalitions to form against it. In fact, none did and when the UK was involved in a serious war with a challenger (Russia, 1854 - 55) most other nations bandwagoned with the UK against that challenger.

[Stuart]

I just hate the fact that it calls itself "Realism". It's a loaded term, like "Objectivism". In fairness, Stuart does note that the political term does not mean what one might think it should mean from its literal English definition, but that excuses Stuart's use of it. It doesn't excuse the fact that it was given this moniker in the first place.

You and me both. In fact, when I was up at a conference at Halifax University a few years back, I made myself pretty unpopular by saying more or less the same thing. Realism was a bad term, a bad name and should be replaced because it lead to misunderstandings about what the theories lead to and how they worked. Unfortunately the academics disagreed. I'd guess that the moniker was formulated by the people who cooked the idea up in the hope that it would make it harder to disagree with.

My own suggestion was "Comparative Rational Assessment of Power".

[HemlockGrey]

My own suggestion was "Comparative Rational Assessment of Power".

I oppose that term on the grounds that it would make writing my exams even more tedious.

[Stuart]

My own suggestion was "Comparative Rational Assessment of Power".

I oppose that term on the grounds that it would make writing my exams even more tedious.

In which case, just use the acronym.

[Darth Wong]

My own suggestion was "Comparative Rational Assessment of Power".

I oppose that term on the grounds that it would make writing my exams even more tedious.

In which case, just use the acronym.

Clever bastard.

[Patrick Degan]

My own suggestion was "Comparative Rational Assessment of Power".

I oppose that term on the grounds that it would make writing my exams even more tedious.

In which case, just use the acronym.

I do so enjoy it when I can find a spot of witty amusement in a political/military policy discussion.

[HemlockGrey]

The historical justification for Maximal Realism goes back beyond Europe in pre-WW2 though. For example, in 1815, the UK was a pure, undoubted and unchallenged Hegemon. One would expect, if Minimal Realism was correct, for coalitions to form against it. In fact, none did and when the UK was involved in a serious war with a challenger (Russia, 1854 - 55) most other nations bandwagoned with the UK against that challenger.

Yeah, but that was because the Congress system preserved the balance in Europe. Every time there is a hegeomic power, it will ultimately be counterbalanced unless no other competing states exist. This happened to Louis XIV, it happened to Napoleon, it happened to Germany twice, it has happened every time there isn't an international order or set of institutions that preserves the status quo. It's happening today with the United States, and the only thing that's been propping us up is the United Nations, the alphabet alliances, the Bretton Woods institutions and the global economic order.

[Stuart]

Yeah, but that was because the Congress system preserved the balance in Europe.

That doesn't appear to follow. The case proposed is that the UK was the undoubted world hegemon (Pax Britannia and all that_ from 1815 onwards, for most of a century. According to Minimal Realism theory, that overt position should have caused teh other great powers to form a coalition against it. They did not, the only time there was a challenge to the UK position was in 1854/55 with Russia when everybody bandwagoned with the UK against the challenger. I don't see how the Congress sytem affects this situation. Perhaps you could enlarge upon this for us?

Every time there is a hegeomic power, it will ultimately be counterbalanced unless no other competing states exist.

The question is, what is the mechanism by which that process takes place?

It happened to Napoleon

This is an interesting example of Maximal Realism at work. We have France, the dominant Hegemon in Europe, one that has repeatedly battered down all challenges to it - except one from the UK. France proved that it was unable to deal decisively with the challenge from the UK and that meant that, simply by existing, it proved that France's position was no longer hegemonic. That allowed the challenger, the Uk to make its challenge steadily more credible, attracting allies away from France. Eventually, France's inability to deal decisively with the UK meant that it lost its remaining credibility, the UKs survival despite all French attempts to the contrary meant that it was now teh Hegemon, not France and everybody bandwagoned with it and France went down - for the count as it happened

it happened to Germany twice,

Two separate cases and very interesting ones. The first, before teh First World War shows the process of British hegemony slipping, the countryt losing its undoubted hold on world power. Germany was rising as a challenger (by 1914 it had overtaken the UK in industrial production terms) and as its challenge became obvious and more credible, it started to attact supporters. A classic demonstration of maximal realism at work (and one that throws an interesting new light on the naval race). In the event, the challenge was somewhat premature.

The pre-WW2 case is even more interesting, We have a virtually powerless state (in 1920s terms) rising very rapidl. Now. according to Minimal Realism, we would expect other European nations to form a coalition against that country. They did not, quite the reverse. As German successes grow, we see other countries and movements bandwagoning with them. We see neo-fascist movements forming across Europe (ranging from Moseley's blackshirts in the UK to the Iron Band in Romania etc). We see the failure of the hegemon powers in Europe to deal decisively with this challenge causing yet further accelerations of German power growth and expansion - which was gaining it yet further support

it has happened every time there isn't an international order or set of institutions that preserves the status quo.

On the contrary, international organizations have proved ineffective over and over again. We can see this with the failure of the League of Nations and of the relative ineffectual nature of the United Nations. The basic mechanisms we are studying here are completely independent of any such putative organizations (and well-predate them).

It's happening today with the United States

Indeed so; the dithering and ineffectual responses to challenge during the Clinton Era are a direct cause of the problems we face now. Look at teh situation; in 1991 we had brought down the Soviet Union and everybody knew it, they'd challenged us and we'd crushed them. When we whistled, over a hundred nations turned up to bandwagon with us - so much so, we ran ODS at a profit (contributions far exceeded expenses. After eight years of Clinton, when we whistled, the response was dramatically reduced.

and the only thing that's been propping us up is the United Nations,

Not true. The UN is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Its being used to impede our freedom of manoeuver and limit our ability to respond to challenges. It's part of teh current challenge to our hegemon status, not part of the means of supporting it.

the alphabet alliances

Which are a product of our hegemon status, nota cause of it. Nopte taht they stregthen as we stregthen, they weaken as we weaken.

the Bretton Woods institutions and the global economic order.

Which are again products and benefits of our hegemon status, not defenses of it. If we weaken, they weaken, not the other way around.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Right, Stuart. And we should've attacked Iran/Syria in order to maintain our hegemonic credibility after Iraq? To prove we couldn't be trifled with?

[Stuart]

Right, Stuart.

I'm glad you agree

And we should've attacked Iran/Syria in order to maintain our hegemonic credibility after Iraq? To prove we couldn't be trifled with?

Do you really think so? I'd be much more cautious than that. The key point is whether they actually form a challenge of a level and capability where we have to take it seriously. This is a key point in conflict management, determining whether a given nation state is presenting a challenge to the point where it requires a response. The underlying reason why the US went into Iraq was that Saddam Hussein's behavior was a direct challenge to the United States and there did exist a danger that other Middle Eastern powers would start to bandwagon with him if that challenge went unanswered. (I'm not suggesting that was a correct analysis or that the possibility was reasonable, merely that it was the presumption that underlaid the decisions that were being made). There were already signs that other nations were beginning to bandwagon with Hussein so the need for decisive action was necessary - or so the powers that be decided.

(Note all this has nothing to do with WMD, linkage with terrorists etc. They're all red herrings).

Now we have two additional cases. We have Syria that's doing its thing in the Lebanon and Iran that's doing ist things including sending nausea over the border into Iraq. Now, do either of those represent threats to the United States that challenge its hegemon status? That's the key question that has to be asked before an attack decision is made. In the case of Syria, the answer is almost certainly no, Syria's blunt and clumsy actions are actually counterproductive. The country is alienating prospective supporters, not attracting them. At the moment, I'd say Iran is falling into the same category although the omens and portents are less favorable.

To some extent ignoring a challenger's actions can be more damaging to that challenger than responding to them. The worst thing that can be done is to respond ineffectually (like Clinton did when he blew up some empty tents with million-dollar cruise missiles). That was pathetic and risible. The options are to either respond effectively or don't respond at all.

[Elfdart]

From Stuart's essay on The Underlying Principals of US Policy:

The Challenger can select the time and place of any confrontation to match its own objectives and capabilities. The Hegemon has to respond for failing to do so will sacrifice prestige and start the bandwagoning process. Vietnam was a classic example; critics of American involvement there always point to the total lack of strategic importance of the place. In “Maximal-Realism” terms, this misses the point completely. Vietnam was not challenged because it was strategically important; it was strategically important because it was challenged.

That's hilarious. When Noam Chomsky said that the reason Uncle Sam intruded into Indochina was to make an example out of them in order to deter any other colonies of allied states from getting uppity, he was attacked as a godless commie fag and conspiracy theorist. Now the War Lobby and its cheerleaders say the same thing. As usual, right-wingers are 40 years behind.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with Hegemon Theory (a much better name than "Realism") is that adopting it will inevitably commit the self-declared Hegemon into a never-ending series of campaigns against any and all perceived challenges to its authority, thus leading inevitably to over-extension of its capabilities, followed by loss of prestige. Especially since part of the Hegemon's behaviour is to publicly subscribe to Hegemon Theory, thus making it appear as if has been defeated if it does not follow up by acting upon that theory.