« Not All the Way | Main | Trading on Panic »
July 8, 2005
Conclusions
Frances Porretto has two posts, one quoting John Derbyshire on what kind of attitude it will take to win the Terror Wars, and another discussing why it is necessary to win the war fast - even if brutally - rather than drag it out to a more-destructive conclusion.
Our enemy, the jihadis, has goals (including our death or enslavement), on which he is unwilling to compromise and which are utterly unacceptable to most Americans, Britons, Australians, Israelis, Indians, Japanese and frankly most everybody else if it comes down to it. Our enemy craves death, and glories in slaughter of the innocent. Our enemy has a vast area and large population in which he can hide and from which he is not generally distinguishable when he chooses to hide, and that population is, even when not actually sympathetic to the enemy's goals or methods, generally willing to conceal and materially support the enemy. Our enemy can move freely within our own societies, with very little inconvenience or chance of detection, because a part of the enemy's concealing population lives in our societies, and we are unwilling to tolerate the massive police powers necessary to find and eliminate the enemy in our own territory. Because of our unwillingness to slaughter innocents, and our unwillingness to kill those preaching the ideology of jihadism, our enemy can replenish his numbers indefinitely (though replenishing those numbers with trained and effective cadres is somewhat difficult for him).
In addition, the existence of supportive states gives the enemy shelter, sustenance, transportation, armament, training and funds. Furthermore, the technology required to develop nuclear weapons is such that a growing number of states are capable or becoming capable of doing so, including a few who also fall into the category of harboring and supporting the enemy. This axis of evil, though the term is much derided rhetorically, includes N. Korea and Iran most prominently, and also includes Syria and Saudi Arabia (though they do not appear to be developing nuclear weapons at present), and is a quite real threat. It is not inconceivable that an enemy cell could obtain from one of these states a nuclear weapon, nor is it unlikely that the enemy would use such a weapon (most likely in Israel, somewhat likely in the United States, and not inconceivably in Europe) once having obtained it. As time goes on, the probability of our enemy obtaining nuclear arms grows to an almost certainty, though this might take decades.
As time goes on, too, and casualties mount - particularly as enemy attacks continue to target our countries directly, and the casualties are civilian - the American character is such that we will become less and less tolerant of those who might be the enemy, and more willing to kill innocents amongst whom the enemy is sheltering. The enemy likely doubts this. The French, having never seriously warred with us, likely doubt this. The Japanese, the British and the Americans have no questions at all on this score. After all, we are a country that fought a four year civil war - in which something like 20% of the military-age men were killed - over a matter of principle: whether or not all men were truly created equal, as we claimed in our Declaration of Independence. Our capacity to wage war - even unmobilized - is unequalled and indeed unprecedented; our ferocity in war, once inevitably committed, is virtually unlimited; and our ability to adapt to changing circumstances as needed to defeat any threat has been repeatedly proven. We only get out of a conflict if we force the enemy to surrender unconditionally, destroy the enemy, or where we went in as good samaritans. This is a subtlety the enemy (and many of our own people) miss: the only exception to this rule was Vietnam, where our interests, but not our existence, was at stake, and our leaders were uniquely incompetent. In Somalia and Beirut, we simply went in to do a good deed, but we weren't willing to die to feed the hungry or protect the endangered.
Certainly, any provocation along the lines of, say, detonating a nuclear weapon in an American or allied city, would result in a nearly-instantaneous and nearly-complete genocide of Muslim countries not absolutely on our side.
The most threatened country in the Terror Wars is not America, but Israel. Israel has the most competent armed forces in the world, excepting only our own and possibly Britain's; is fighting on home ground; is fighting for its very survival; and has a literally living memory of the Holocaust. For the Israelis, "never again" is not just a slogan. Israel is also a nuclear power, in range of all of the terror-supporting Muslim states.
Given all of these facts, there are only a few possible conclusions to the Terror Wars: the enemy will give up, either through an ideological transformation or because a democratizing populace stops providing them with concealment and support; the enemy's supporting states will all be overthrown or will democratize, depriving the enemy of sufficient resources to continue an effective campaign, and will recede to nuisance level attacks; the enemy will attempt to destroy us, and will instead be destroyed; the enemy will attempt to destroy Israel, or will appear to seriously threaten Israel's existence, and will be destroyed. The remaining alternatives, involving the enemy defeating us, simply will not happen. While it is possible that we would attempt, in the short run, to walk away from the fight, our enemy will not stop at that, and will eventually attack again in our territory, which will put us right back to the options we have now. And utterly destroying us is beyond the enemy's capacity.
In short, the options over the long term boil down to two: the enemy is defeated or gives up; or the enemy and his supporting population is slaughtered en masse.
As Fran said, "Winning this war quickly will save a greater number of innocent lives in the long run, even if the methods used seem brutal and callous."
UPDATE: Dave Schuler of the excellent Glittering Eye has expanded his comments with a discussion of the various positions staked out in the blogosphere - and for that matter in society in general - vis a vis the Terror Wars. It's well worth reading.
I'd like to make two additional points. The first is that while the mainstream Lefty blogs tend to positions 3 (Denial), 4 (Fortress America) and 5 (Focus on the Real WoT), their commenters tend to have a large number of proponents of position 2 (anti-American/anti-Western) and 3, and somewhat less of 4 and 5 (although those arguments often show up in point scoring comments).
Similarly, mainstream Rightest and Libertarian blogs tend to position 6 (Neocon), but the Rightest blogs that allow comments, such as Little Green Footballs, tend to have a significant section of their comments in position 8 (Kill 'em all).
In other words, the commenters tend to be more extreme than the bloggers themselves. The reason LGF sometimes gets called a hate site tends to be more because of the comments than because of Charles Johnson's posts per se.
The second point is that while I certainly support position 7 (faster, please), I don't think that fighting a more vigorous war on terror-supporting states is itself sufficient for meeting our long-term objective of ending jihadism. In fact, I'd say that doing so requires a stronger neocon position (rebuild the conquered states as democracies) than simply trying to democratize the states requires. The reason for this is that the pure neocon position allows a lot of changes to be made in place, essentially fixing the societies as best we can from where they are now; the faster, please position requires first breaking some societies that are already dysfunctional, so that the rebuilt societies will be stronger. But because there's more breakage to start the rebuilding with, the rebuilding effort is harder and more expensive.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/303
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Conclusions:
» Revisiting the taxonomy of positions on the WoT from The Glittering Eye
In the aftermath of the attacks in London there's been quite a bit of commentary emerging from the blogosphere. There's also been quite a bit of posturing on all sides. Shortly after I started this blog I attempted a taxonomy... [Read More]
Tracked on July 9, 2005 8:36 PM
Comments
That's the conclusion I reached very shortly after September 11, 2001 and it's the reason perhaps oddly that I've opposed the half-measures in Afghanistan and Iraq.
My sense of public opinion four years ago was that the American people weren't prepared to win the war. They still aren't.
Early on in the life of my blog I produced a taxonomy of positions on the War on Terror and I can see it's time to re-visit that subject. The positions I see out there now seem to be:
1. Pacifist
2. Anti-American or anti-Western or both
3. “Fortress America” viz. Josh Marshall
4. Neocon (democratize the region)
5. The position that Francis is advocating (short, sharp, harsh blow)
6. Kill 'em all.
IMO all of the first four positions maximize the likelihood that #6 will prevail. #1 through #3 do absolutely nothing to reduce the likelihood that #6 will prevail. It's possible that #4 could work but IMO it will take far too long.
Posted by: Dave Schuler ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 9, 2005 11:10 AM
Another position has occurred to me (which probably should be inserted between #2 and #3): denial. There is no threat. 9/11 was an isolated incident. 3/11 was an isolated incident. 7/7 was an isolated incident. This point-of-view is very common and is frequently conjoined with the claim that the Bush Administration is exaggerating the threat for political purposes.
Posted by: Dave Schuler at July 9, 2005 1:50 PM
Thanks for those points, Jeff. I'd meant to make the distinction between the bloggers and their commenters myself but somehow it got away from me. ;-)
Posted by: Dave Schuler at July 9, 2005 10:05 PM
Jeff,
Two things:
[1] You've factored India and Russia out of the analysis. Don't. Jihadi islam is equally at war with those 2 civilizations, and the consequences could be at least as significant as what we're seeing on the current front.
Imagine the Chechens getting their hands on Russian WMD and launching an attack, and what the response would be. Or imagine the jihadists triggering an India/Pakistan showdown for all the marbles. At this point, I'd consider the "American city boom" trigger as about 3rd place on the "likely" list, maybe 4th.
If India was the flashpoint, what you'd see would be a gaping hole cut in Islam and a regional catastrophe, but not the destruction of jihadi Islam. Russia would be a more serious case. Outside of a "Samson Option," a Russia-related scenario remains the most probable future eventuality under which Mecca and/or Medina would be wiped from the earth (if only one, it would be because the other would be left as a "hostage" of sorts), along with the rest of Saudi Arabia, swathes of Central Asia and a few other places besides. We'd be dealing with a perfect storm: no inherent inhibitions in their response, global thermonuclear reach couple with weak conventional options, and economic interests that actually make wiping out other sources of oil production a likely plus. This, and not America, is probably the darkest possible scenario froma Muslim point of view. Because Russia can destroy but not transform, however, this scenario is likely to ne up quarantining the problem rather than defeating it (unless the USA steps in thereafter to play the trasnformative role).
[2] I think you misread LGF's comments section. A number of our authors and columnists are part of LGF's regular comments section, or came from there. The diversity of views there may be larger than you represent - and I think the emphasis is elsewhere.
I'd say that most of the LGF folks you target are closer to the sharp blow category than the "kill em all," and would be completely satisfied with seeing the war fought a la Derbyshire's column.
There's a strong strain of "Islam is the problem" there - but one can conclude from this that military defeat in a relentless, sharp war would create the Germany/Japan type conditions necessary for the societies to decide "never to touch the stuff again," as it were. There are some of the #8 type as you'd expect from statistics alone, but not among the regulars as far as I've seen.
Posted by: Joe Katzman at July 10, 2005 1:10 PM
I did not intend to factor India and Russia out, as it were. I just think that they are not the most pressing problem for the jihadis; that goes to Israel followed by the US. I'd put India third and Russia fourth, although it's true that, in terms of consequences, Russia would be a worst-case option, due to the size of their arsenal, their lack of internal constraints, and their lack of conventional options.
As to LGF's comment section, it's terribly difficult to generalize about a place with so many commenters. True, there are the types that you mention, and the types that I focused on, and there are the Lefties that post mainly as trolls, and others. But I think my characterization was fair, at least to the extent that Charles' commenters tend to be more extreme than Charles appears to be.
Nonetheless, I probably did narrow the focus too closely, because it's very true that LGF's commenters are of a much broader diversity (and for that matter, a deeper intellectual bent) than, say, Kos' commenters are.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at July 10, 2005 3:20 PM