Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Public discussion of the war and the Four Big Axes
I am not the only one to be frustrated by the degradation of what should be an intellectually honest discussion of our national security. George Friedman's most recent letter($), which discusses al Qaeda as a warfighting organization, leads with the following:
In recent weeks, we have been trying to analyze the state of the U.S.-jihadist war, touching on subjects ranging from the decision -- announced this past week -- to begin reducing U.S. troops in Iraq to the idea that we are in the midst of a surge of jihadist attacks, intended to reshape the course of the war.
As often happens, our readers -- mostly non-subscribers, we would note -- have lambasted us. Critics of the war have accused us of pimping for the Bush administration for daring to imply that the war was anything but a total and catastrophic failure. Supporters of the war wrote to condemn us for even imagining that al Qaeda might consist of people who actually think and plan things, rather than of raving psychotics seeking slaughter because they feel like it. One e-mail said the war is the result of George W. Bush's unresolved Oedipal conflicts. Another said that we were naïve in assuming that all Muslims were not deranged killers. Discussions of the war have never been elevated, but they have now degenerated to a Warner Brother's cartoon -- with Sylvester, Tweety, Elmer and Bugs all cranked up on speed and self-righteousness.
Of all the things that may be said about the
4 Comments:
By 
Sluggo, at
Tue Aug 02, 03:43:00 PM:
I'd like to know which chuckle-head came up with this SAVE business. Probably the same genius that put Gerald Ford out there with his Whip Inflation Now buttons. Doesn't this have the odor of the Democratic 'strategy' of framing? At least it will end the nonsense about how Republicans are geniuses at issue manipulation.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Aug 02, 03:45:00 PM:
I think TH's post is correct but unsurprising. The fog of war is, um, foggy. Progress is uneven, and we suffer setbacks. We also manage information to deceive the enemy (or we don't manage it to deceive the enemy). For instance, what does it mean that an NIE "leak" on Iran's nuclear capabilities made it into the Washington Post today; the same day, by the way, that Israel denied having the capability to address Iran's nuclear facilities militarily; within days of a letter from the EU 3 to Iran stating that reignition of Iran's nuclear program will have "unknown" consequences. Is this coordinated? Or not?
The US and its allies are getting better at fighting the islamist enemy on multiple fronts; and remember, Iran is the big prize. So we should expect the fog to grow thicker.
Confidence, folks. And patience. And toughness.
By 
, at
Tue Aug 02, 06:01:00 PM:
Dear Mr. TigerHawk:
A most excellent post. 9/11/01 and all that has come after it has stirred up, to a frenzy in many cases, the emotions of virtually all who think about where the world is going.
However, policy-makers, and those who elect them, have serious decisions to make on how to confront the problems that we face. We at Westhawk started our blog because we believe we needed to see more rational, and less emotional, analyses of the problems, scenarios, decisions, and consequences of national security and diplomatic issues.
It seems as if you do, too.
Westhawk
By , at
Wed Aug 03, 12:12:00 AM:
GWOT? SAVE? Enough with the silly labels. Let us remember grade school grammar. "Violente extremism," and "terrorism," are abstractions. These words and phrases describe the enemy's behavior. They do not identify the enemy. There is "terrorism" and "violent extremism" in North Ireland, Basque Spain, Ceylon, and elsewhere throughout the world, that poses no threat to western civilization.
Whether you prefer to call it a "war" or a "struggle," we are engaged against an enemy, not against a behavior. That enemy is Fascist Islam, in the persons of the clerics who preach mass murder, their disciples, the nations that harbor them and the organizations that abet them. Of course it is politically incorrect, and offensive to modern western sensitivities, to classify human beings, particularly by religion. But when an identifiable group of humans (Islamic fascists) overtly attempt to kill us, our families, and our neighbors, simple prudence suggests that we defend ourselves against that group. They are the enemy. They have willingly identified themselves as such. How foolish are we, for the sake of social diplomacy, to pretend otherwise?
I hope our Marines and soldiers have the good sense to shoot at the Islamic fascists. Asking them to shoot at "terrorism" or "violent extremism" is a prescription for failure.
Failing to identify the enemy, by substituting abstract euphemisms, is both a self-imposed obstruction to military success, and a self-delusion that endangers real lives among both our military personnel and the commuters in our subways.
