Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Microwave Victory
In his blog, Sean LaFreniere is claiming that we have lost. His reasoning is laid out here:
"Why do I think say we are losing? Because I hear too many accounts of Iraqis who used to support us speaking against us. And too many of those who once supported the war now calling for the troops to come home. We have lost the hearts and mind campaign, both in Iraq and at home."
Sean has a point about the importance of will in war, but he misses something else that is even more important: the importance of logistics in battle. The enemy's logistics runs throughout the Arab world. We are not in a fight for Iraq against the Baathists, we are in a fight for civilization against the Islamists. Unlike Vietnam, we are pursuing the logistical train to the various sources and interdicting it there. Iraq is not the goal; it is the ground our leadership has chosen to fight on.
It remains to be seen how much material and personnel support the enemies of western civilization will be able to draw from the dedicated Islamists. As I write this, a quiet war of interdiction is going on in the Horn of Africa; names are being gathered, familiarity with the region is being gained, and enemies are being captured. ( Hat tip to Instapundit) All of this is being done with the full support of the local governments who have a clear idea of what happens to the former rulers of states controlled by Islamists. While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, other battles are being fought in the back of beyond.
The ability of a force to supply itself is the most crucial determinant in war. South Vietnam fell largely because the North Vietnamese Army had more trucks supporting their attack that the Wehrmacht had during the Blitz and because the US Congress prevented Ford from supplying our allies with ammunition for their artillery. There is no longer any likelihood that the US is going to let that kind of farce replay itself. Our people are working to interdict the supply for not just this insurgency, but the next one, and the ones after that.
This is not going to be a microwave victory, Sean. This one is going to go the distance, and it is in no small part up to us to keep the faith. Remember that the map is not the terrain, the report is not the battle, and that supply is everything. Iraq is a battle, not the war.
Monday, November 24, 2003
Obdurate - ob•du•rate stubbornly persistent in wrongdoing
Multilateralism routinely fails to accomplish even simple tasks in the face of obdurate opposition. It is arguably true that multilateralism itself is a "fog of war" that makes even the simplest tasks very difficult.
In any case, this is not a new phenomenon. It has been clear for quite some time now that multilateral efforts can readily be thwarted by persons willing to abandon their humanity. This is not quite the same as encouraging vile behavior, but multilateral peacekeeping often functions to do so.
Arguably the most ready defense against a multilateral attack is the ability to generate a sense of futility.
Monday, November 17, 2003
It's too early to talk about…
One of my hobbies used to be programming science fiction conventions. Not Trekker cons, I've met the folks who run those and they are quite nice, but they deal with a different crowd. I dealt with the people who read and write speculative fiction on a wild variety of topics. I arranged time, space, interesting people when possible, and interesting (at least to them) topics. Personally, I think it is too early to talk intelligently about man's ascendance into a higher plane, but I don't begrudge others for their interest in doing so.
Recently KINK FM-102, a local radio station with an amazingly diverse range of musical offerings for a commercial station, held a poll. They do this in order to keep in touch with their audience and in general, this is a good idea. Here were the three possible options:
1. Pull out immediately & let the Iraqi people take over
2. Start the process of pulling out
3. It’s too early to talk about leaving the country
I am in favor of the war, but also believe that we should not be garrisoning that country forever. I do believe that the US should leave defensive bases in Germany but keep some essential transportation and medical facilities there. After all, we've been on the ground there for almost sixty years and have invested a substantial fraction of our nation's GDP defending them. I don't think it was too soon to talk about leaving Germany in 1943, but I don't think that anybody could have come up with an intelligent exit strategy then. There was too much data missing to make the necessary choices and no clear understanding of how the post-war world was going to sort itself out.
It is not too early to talk about pulling out of Iraq. In the absence of a reasonable choice advocating national will in the face of grave danger to our survival, I chose the unpalatable third. I like KINK FM-102, but I wish they would stop asking me when I stopped kicking my dog and otherwise insulting my intelligence. Would it have been so hard to have asked five questions, one of which might have allowed reasonable people the option of supporting a long term strategy of projecting force in a region where attacks against our nation? What about this:
Support freedom forever, in Iraq and the rest of the world.
UPDATE:
In the brief time it took me to make my lunch, Leann Warren Inessa got back to me. Leann did call me Patricia, but I stopped getting silly about that some time ago.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Fire Ted Rall
To the editors,
Ted Rall's Veteran's Day column was offensive to me. I am a veteran who served from 1987-1995 in the US Navy. While I do not require all people to bow and scrape to me for my sacrifices on this day, I do appreciate at least a modicum of respect for my efforts.
I understand the need for balance in the opinion columns, and if there was the slightest indication that Ted Rall had any interest in balance I would not be writing this. There is no reason to believe that Ted Rall respects me, the other members of my family who have served, my friends who have served, or anybody who has ever made this nation possible. There is every reason to believe that he welcomes our death at the hands of vicious genocidal criminals for presuming to free slaves. This is not a view that I can see benefits, educates, or enlightens me. This is a view that functions to glorify the sworn enemies of my nation.
I do not begrudge Ted Rall's right to say these things. As far as I'm concerned, he can go to any street corner in America and shout them at the top of his lungs. He can go to blogspot.com and publish them to his heart's content for free. He can print stacks of his articles at Kinko's and distribute them everywhere. I will not call for his arrest or harm upon his head.
However, Ted Rall should not be paid for this hateful rhetoric. Not by a major news agency that intends to present factual reporting with integrity. I ask for his dismissal for cause. He has violated any contract by presenting odious views as reasonable commentary. He does not deserve to be paid for hating me.
Patrick S Lasswell
Portland, OR
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Informed Planning
What are the power requirements for Mosul? How much food needs to be transported in every week during the drought season? What are the essential goods that need to be brought into the city on a monthly basis? Which are the bad neighborhoods and which ones have a strong and cooperative community spirit? What contractors can do the reconstruction work that we need done? Which local tribal leaders can be trusted to stick with a deal?
Some people thought there were WMD in Iraq before the war, some didn't, but it appears certain that almost nobody knew. There is some moderately compelling information that indicates Saddam Hussein did not have a clear understanding of the WMD stockpiles before the war. In the face of an information shortage that fundamental, how exactly did you expect to develop projections for power requirements in Mosul? Which data was more critical to obtain? Where would you have put your information gathering assets?
We surely did not know the power requirements for Mosul or a million other important answers useful for the reconstruction plans in Iraq. This "failure" is due to making a priority of WMD attacks against our country, our allies, and our troops in the region. This is a choice, and although the WMD attacks never materialized, it still is an infinitely defensible one. We may not have had the Golden Fleece, the Holy Grail, or the Perfect Plan for Reconstructing Iraq, but our troops and the CPA are doing fine work with the job they have.
Monday, November 10, 2003
We Had A Plan Once…
There has been a lot of criticism of the Iraq invasion because the coalition forces did not have a plan. There is not much one can say in response to this, which is why it is such a damaging, and therefore repeatable, meme. If you are in charge and anything goes wrong, you had a bad plan. Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no answer only?
That meme does have a problem, though. Every once in a while somebody repeating the meme gets the notion that the US has not learned from history. Then we get to tell a funny story. After WWII, we put a lot of folks in charge in Germany and Japan who had never had civilian authority before and a few who had. But Washington never sent in a plan for them to follow. Part of this is because after Roosevelt's death, a lot of things were left unfinished. Most of this was because Harry S Truman had been a combat commander and knew how to trust competent subordinates. One of the results of this is that we now talk about the Marshall Plan, the vision of a trusted subordinate who handled a problem excellently, after he had seen the problem on the ground.
The communist invasion of South Korea caught the US flat footed, and there was a lot of scrambling. Towards the drawdown of that war, the US started looking at where we were likely to become engaged next. Plans were drawn up. Extensive, elaborate plans were made. New methods of planning were put into place. People fell in love with the plans. Eventually the plans were put into place, in a nation called South Vietnam…
It is important to remember that the map is not the terrain and that the plan is not the situation. That is a great lesson that we have learned from history, make plans according to reality, not projections. Iraq is not Vietnam.
UPDATE: Thanks to Michael Totten for his link. If you are arriving here from there, welcome. Please enjoy the blog and don't be afraid to explore. I am not doing comments yet, but feel free to send me an email.
Sunday, November 09, 2003
New Yahoo Game: Biased Headlines
Yahoo has a new game: how many times can you put headlines on the main page for the same anti-administration story? Here's the thing, when called on this sort of behavior, the Yahoo news staff claims that they don't write the stories. But when they link the same story by the same writer twice, they are displaying bias. Perhaps they feel they can excuse themselves on the basis of actually stalking Jennifer Kerr, but I'm not buying it.
Come on, admit that you are biased, that's much better than just being incompetent, right? If you actually wanted to get a message across, don't look stupid doing so. Linking the same story with different headline twice makes you look dumb. I would rather have at least single helpings of biased headline selections and compositions, double helpings gives me a tummy ache.
Gore Accuses Bush of 'Big Brother' Policy
Sun Nov 9, 5:34 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Former Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) accused President Bush (news - web sites) on Sunday of failing to make the country safer after the Sept. 11 attacks and using the war against terrorism as a pretext to consolidate power.
Gore: Bush Has Failed to Make U.S. Safer
1 hour, 11 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Former Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) accused President Bush (news - web sites) on Sunday of failing to make the country safer after the Sept. 11 attacks and using the war against terrorism as a pretext to consolidate power.
And Your Point Is?
I have seen in the comment arguments of several blogs a train of logic that is starting to bug me. Stick with this carefully, the train of the discussion goes something like this.
Blogger: Invading Iraq was certainly a good thing; we freed oppressed people.
Rude Commenter: George Bush is an idiot forever, he never does anything right!
Supportive Commenter: Well, he has liberated fifty-odd million people in the last couple of years, and that was good, correct?
Rude Commenter: But W doesn't understand complexity! Why didn't he invade Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Burma, Liberia, Malaysia, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands Antilles? If invasion is good once it should always be good everywhere or it is a bad policy and Bush is an idiot!
Supportive Commenter: All those places are different situations and the President is dealing with them differently. There are a lot of complex issues and the administration is using a variety of methods to deal with them.
Rude Commenter: There, you said complex, so I'm right and Bush is an idiot!
Have other people seen this? The accusation becomes: Bush is an idiot and a liar because he is not giving all people freedom immediately and is attempting to avert thermonuclear exchanges on our allies' territory. According to this logic, Lincoln lacked moral fiber because the Japanese were planning to subjugate Korea during his Presidency and he did nothing to stop it while fighting the Civil War. Is it just me or is this insane?
There seems to be an impression that attitude and repetition replaces convincing logic in a discussion. Their only real complaint about current trends in foreign policy is the leadership accomplishing it, but for some, that's all that seems to matter. I would be bothered less if I didn't suspect that a lot of people are going to make a Kool Aid dissent after the election in 2004 keeps Bush in power.
P.S. I'll be getting back to arguing with Sean soon, life got in the way.
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Arguing With Sean: Tort Reform
I make no secret of my regular disagreement with Sean LaFreniere. I agree with him on many, probably almost all, important things. I also find him misinformed and with bad priorities a lot of the time. What is more entertaining is that we are both comfortable with confrontation. Sean credits this to our mutual Irish ancestry, and is very wrong because I have never punched him in the nose, a key racial identifier for dispute resolution.
Most recently, Sean and I are arguing about Tort Reform. I would have this argument in the comments section of his blog, but I hate the tiny type of the java app that he is using and I don't like to get caught misspelling. (I'm not complaining too bitterly, my blog doesn't even have a crappy comments function, I have to envy his.) I think this argument is worth having and should be done on the Big Screen, so here goes:
The personal injury and class action lawsuit aspect of our legal system is broken. The tort bar is not held responsible for the economic and social impact of their actions. The reward of money for unprofitable activity is best used as a spice, not a staple. In many States of the Union, the tort bar controls the judicial process to the extent that they have made the reward of money for unprofitable activity a staple for a considerable portion of the populace. The most dramatic result of this process is that in several states it is difficult if not impossible to get medical care. Obstetricians, emergency physicians and neurosurgeons in particular are moving from states where they can no longer afford malpractice insurance because of out of control tort bars. Indulging lawyers at the price of prenatal care is indefensible.
Beyond this, the drive to jackpot justice at the State Attorney General level is rapidly approaching frenzy. This is a particularly destructive trend because Attorney Generals are not subject to the same political opposition and accountability for their actions that other statewide politicians are due to the technical nature of their jobs. State Attorney Generals do not get unseated for indulging in frivolous lawsuits against out of state companies, especially when there is settlement money in the offing. This is egregiously pernicious because the AG's sub-contract the work and part of the settlement to powerful and wealthy class action specializing law firms who are in no way accountable to the citizens of the state. These large class action firms have, since the asbestos and tobacco settlements, achieved what can be described as critical mass; they are capable of self-sustaining operations. When a firm can spend a decade grinding down a profitable business with the expectation of a reward regardless of the merits of the case, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. That is the situation we have today.
Finally, the effects of the out of control tort bar outweigh the benefit they might give. In much the same way that criminals do much more damage than they ever profit from, tort lawyers are now imposing a much higher economic and social burden than they are delivering an economic or social benefit. Effort spent hiding and defending profit from rapacious lawyers is effort not spent generating beneficial and profitable new products and industries. Judicial hellholes that support jackpot settlements destroy the communities they occupy. Settlements made on the basis of anguished testimony instead of scientific proof destroy the standards of evidence that make the legal system functional. When it becomes more profitable to be litigious than civil, the fundamental social compact is broken, and that is what we are confronted with today.
So tell me again, Sean: Why should we increase the personal injury caps?
On Resolve
Lt. Smash checks in with some telling words on national resolve. I still resent the years I spent on a Reserve frigate, but as time passes I realize that the problem was Congress, not the USNR. He does the JAFR's proud. TrackBack
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
First Rule of Military Leadership and the First Amendment
The first rule of military leadership is to never give an order you know your subordinate will not follow. It is a disservice to your subordinate and yourself because it breaks the bonds of military cohesion and will destroy your command. There numerous other rules, but arguably the next is: Do not give a subordinate an assignment that you are unwilling or unable to follow yourself. One of the critical reasons that the Iraqi military fell apart is that these two rules were flouted regularly.
Not long ago, in military history terms, a general gave an order to a subordinate that he was sure the subordinate would follow. In the event, the subordinate hesitated, so to follow the second rule, the general carried out the assignment himself. The order was to execute a spy caught in civilian clothes in the act of murder during an armed insurrection. The order was legal and the order was a good command decision in the field in every regard save one. There was a film crew from NBC and an Associated Press cameraman on the scene. Although the execution made no difference to outcome of the war, the image of that execution, a military professional coldly performing his duties in the eye of the world, probably lost the war.
Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya are coving the events in Iraq very closely. That they have been in the vicinity of bombings very soon after the event has caused some grave suspicion and concern. That they have not covered incidents of oppression in Iran is a strong indicator to their priorities. If a similar image was to become available to those agencies, there is no reason to doubt that they would broadcast it widely. There is also no reason to believe that the western media would not pick up the image and run with it. For the media, the impact of the image is much more important than the consequences of revealing it. There is no reason to believe that any of the major media outlets, with the exception of the Wall Street Journal, are significantly concerned about the outcome of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan save that they are a source of ongoing copy.
The public has a right to the story, but telling that story dishonestly, out of context, and with substantial bias is a de facto infringement of that right. In order to defend our rights, we must commit to an ongoing awareness of media bias. Incomplete, misleading, and unverifiable stories must be challenged early, often, and anywhere they are published. If we cannot follow this basic integrity, we allow sloppy and abusive media to control our perceptions and our future. The image is not necessarily the story, and the news is not always the truth. Anybody who says differently is lying, and no honest journalist will do so. Eddie Adams, the photographer who took the picture of General Loan regretted it for the rest of his life and apologized to the General until his death. If we do not wish to be fooled again, we must do more than just pray for integrity. The first rule of civilian leadership must become transparency.
Monday, November 03, 2003
What Decision Sounds Like
When I was younger, and in reach of such things, I had the opportunity to join the SEALS. Well, I would have had to work out for a solid year first, but I could have done so. I even had orders in hand to Boat Unit One that would have given me the time and location to do so. What was lacking for me was the need to do so. My father needed to be a Marine, the toughest combat troops in the world at the time, in order to accomplish his inner needs, and he did so. I never needed to, I didn't have the drive, and I didn't kid myself that I did. I remember thinking about this and what it would have taken to get me to commit so strongly to a goal that I would make it through Hell Week and all the agony leading up to it.
On September 13, 2001, George W Bush was interviewed and said the following:
BUSH: Well, I don't think about myself right now. I think about the families, the children. I'm a loving guy. And I am also someone, however, who's got a job to do, and I intend to do it. And this is a terrible moment.
This is what it sounds like when somebody decides to spend the rest of their life accomplishing something. I'm not saying that W has been spending his copious 4.2 minutes a day of free time getting ready to spend six months in Coronado becoming a SEAL. By September 13th he had decided to spend the rest of his life eliminating the things that made 9/11 possible.
It is said that most people make two mistakes about George W Bush; they think he is stupid and they think he is nice. While I am not saying that W is the smartest man to have ever been President, that was probably John Quincy Adams, he is not dumb. If W was stupid, the occasional sniping we get from the senior advisors would have been a continuous war with that many brilliant, determined, and ambitious people having to work together. If he was nice, the Taliban and Hussein would still be in power.
People need to keep in mind that George W Bush is going to destroy the Democratic candidate next year. He is raising enough money to make that inevitable. This is not about wanting to be President; this is about needing more time to save the world. The campaign money makes sure that he doesn't have to engage in stupid desperation and useless distraction. The money is there to reduce the amount of time he has to spend on things other than saving the world next year. Bush is running around the country now because he has the time to do so, next year he might not. The other candidate may have decided to spend the next year to become the President, George W. Bush has decided to spend the rest of his life saving the world.
Saturday, November 01, 2003
Balance and Dignity
For a long while now, the specter of total war as seen in WWI and WWII has defined the intellectual and emotional understanding of warfare in western culture. The total war horror of WWI and atrocity of WWII were certainly more documented and made a more graphic impression on our culture than any prior war did. Coming of age and living as an intellectual has for quite some time meant embracing the belief that acceptance of war meant inviting a repetition of those past horrors and atrocities.
What Roger, Michael, and many others have been forced to confront since the end of the Cold War is the difference between total war and limited war. We are now engaged in a very broad limited war, but not a total war, despite the efforts of various Islamists to make it so.
Roger and Michael are certainly not advocating or in any way calling for a return to the imprecise and contagious total war with its attendant demonization and hypocrisy. They are well aware of the dangers involved with such a course and are now finding their way through what for them is unfamiliar ground, the advocacy of limited violence to accomplish a specified goal. The difficulty of their task is also compounded by the complexity of what they are attempting to accomplish. Any idiot can ask with fervor for unrestrained violence, and many do. It is much harder to strongly support a limited goal that combines humanity, ruthlessness, and diplomacy all at once.
Roger and Michael are doing pretty well, considering the degree of difficulty and the paucity of supporting material from their prior reading. I think they would do well to read a biography of Chesty Puller, a great human who understood these things.
Just Like Old Times
My friend Michael Totten got accused in the comments section of his blog of being a front. The evidence given is that his name was "too normal" and that his views contrasted too strongly with the Left. The accuser tried to pawn off his libel as "honest inquiry" and what was more chilling was that somebody else supported this "inquiry". When I posted that I had known him for years, worked with him, knew his family, talked with him through any number of very long lunches, and so on, my testimonial was attacked. This smells like the old tricks.
This kind of behavior has happened in every major reformist movement since Robespierre made the streets of Paris run with blood indulging it. These are the methods of the communist purge and the national socialist night of long knives; denounce, divide, and destroy. Although it seems unlikely that anybody will send intellectuals from South-East Portland to the Gulag for their counter-revolutionary statements, it looks like denial of service attack is not the only method being used to silence the blogs.
For those of you not familiar with the methods, here's how they work: first, denounce the target as not being true to an undefined ideal. Second, attack the targets defenders. Third, loudly denounce anyone behaving rationally, with integrity, or without fear of the denouncers. Fourth, find old grudges and use them to split apart any community that is not serving you. Add flourishes like secret meetings and tribunals to taste and serve. The targets feel compelled to defend themselves and eventually they will make a mistake you can exploit.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that after spending a couple of years discrediting the kinds of people who use intimidation tactics that they would turn them on us. We don't have to do this in the blogsphere. We are educated, intelligent, and can move quickly. We can communicate these attacks and support each other. We can agree to not fall for the old tricks. We can decide to not be ruled by fear.
|
