Major Mike
In trying to bring together my thoughts on the developments in Israel over the past week, I harkened back to my reading of No Victor, No Vanquished back in 1984. And in reviewing it, I was less struck by the content and more struck by the title. For, indeed, the title tells us more about what lies ahead than do any of the tactical or strategic elements in the book.
Ending a conflict with “no victor, no vanquished” is a recipe for the initiation of a follow on action. Stalemates beget further action, for the issues and forces at play in the initiation of the conflict are not removed from the situation, they are only stifled from reaching their dynamic conclusion. Stalemates are often imposed by artificial interventions…political, public opinion, super-power meddling; so such interventions don’t solve the problems, they only delay the inevitable, future realignment of energies, that will result in further conflict.
Our own freedom was not won with a crushing of the British Army, but more a collapse of British will. Without having suffered a crushing defeat, the British were only tempted to try again in 1812.
The resolute defeat of the South that ended the American Civil War, squashed any notion of future secessionist movements in the South.
The politically agreed to Armistice that concluded World War I, only delayed the inevitable, larger war that was necessary to usher out the Franco-Prussian-Anglo-Russo-European martial culture, with its periodic continental conflicts, that had dominated the European landscape for centuries. The crushing defeat of Germany in World War II, the weariness of the rest of the continent, save the USSR, and the costs of fielding a modern army finally ended the near continuous cycle of cross border invasions in Europe. It was the clear defeat of the evil in the Nazi regime, and the coalescing of the good forces of the Allies, that has spared Europe from continental conflict since. An ambiguous outcome would not have provided sixty years of European stability and peace.
The advent of terrorism, coupled with the flooding of weapons into the third world, has given rise to a new type of “modern” army. This is not an army of technological superiority, or of sophisticated weaponry. This is an army of lightly armed, ruthless
Ideologues. It is an army that seeks war when peace is possible. It is an army that launches unguided munitions into non-military target areas. It is an army that manipulates the governments that shield it, the people it represents, international agencies by the score, and the salivating MSM that covers its every move. It is an army that butchers prisoners, and murders innocents. It is an evil force, and as such it must be defeated.
The only way to achieve longstanding peace in the Middle East is to let these forces come to equilibrium on their own terms. This may indeed result in the politically incorrect notion that one party will be defeated, but this is preferable to the false peace of the last 33 years that resulted in hundreds of Israelis being slain innocently in their streets by an endless stream of evil homicide bombers and cross border rocket attacks.
H&H escalated the unstable, costly peace into war. Let them bear every burden of the fury that they have unleashed…they deserve it.
The international community should not interfere, no matter how much the MSM skews the presentation of the facts and ignores its causes. Loss of civilian life is compelling, but no more so than when Israel was losing its citizens when it was supposedly at peace.
Israel needs to press hard and defeat H&H. It is the only way they will see peace. The brokered deals of the past have produced only meaningless Nobel Peace Prizes and no respite from assault…they promise no hope in the future. The only hope is for Israel to vanquish H&H, and for the good nations of the world to coalesce against evil. A stalemate will only delay the inevitable...the convergence of these forces at a point in time when one defeats the other, and the vanquished chooses peace over death. We are on the precipice of being there now. There is no reason for Israel to stop. There is no reason for us to try to stop them.
19 comments:
Mike:
I'm glad you started off with that phrase, and that book. Perhaps no other phrase more succinctly describes what is at the heart of the confict within western liberal culture.
There are times in our past when the debate we're having now simply didn't happen. 1944 - fascism must be annihilated. 1864 - slavery must be destroyed.
In 1865, the South, weary from years of pain and loss, capitulated to the North. In 1945, the United States was weary enough in inflicting and experienceing hundreds of thousands of casualties that they developed and used a weapon of unimaginable power. The fighting became too gruesome and painful to continue. Lincoln, Roosevelt and Truman knew the repurcussions of victor and vanquished. They also knew, however, that to be the victor was much much more preferable to being the vanquished.
My comments do not come without an intense sense of foreboding. We are at a point in the generational cycle when total war is likely to once again be waged. This time around, however, many players in this conflict have the capability to kill hundreds of thousands within a few seconds. The human mind needs a chance to stop and think about the carnage going on around it in order to make a clear decision to do whatever it takes to end the conflict (note that our enemies appear to only want conflict and not victory). How many nuclear warheads will have to go off before we can stop, think, and muster the resolve to stop our enemies' attacks, once and for all?
The process of war used to be a multi-stepped journey full of contemplation. Assemble the troops. Catalogue and prepare the weapons systems. Gather intelligence. Formulate strategic and tactical plans. Excecute those plans. Adapt to changing conditions. Destroy the enemy's ability to fight. Today, however, it is possible for several nations to skip to the last part - destroy the enemy - within a couple of hours. In the past, if the enemy fired a few shells at a city, the response would be to take a day to take out the people doing the shelling, and then take a week to attempt the destruction of the transportation/manufacturing infrastructure that caused those shells to get there. But now - just what is the response to tens of thousands of civilians dead as a result of one single bomb? I'm not sure I want to think about that.
This whole thing smells a little too much like July 1914. Better just let the Austro-Hungarians (Israel) take out the Young Bosnians (H&H) before the Russians (Iran) decide to help out.
What a powerful posting! It reminds me of Orianna Fallaci's "I stand with Israel" piece...we must stand with her to deal with the inexplicable evil of Islamic terrorism, which at its root is the anti-Semitic rot that permeated the Nazi regime.
While I agree that the current conflict is pushing us (US) toward total war, we are not nearly close yet. Most people, who refuse to do the study required, have no clue of the concept of "Victor/Vanquished" or concept of capitulation.
The task at hand is simple, vanquish the state sponsorship of those extremest elements of Islam so they get forced back to the underground fringe element where they have harmlessly languished year, or for... well since the last crusade.
The US is fighting a low grade military conflict in Iraq, and using other (political/financial) means against the other members of the "axis of evil" in an attempt to win with as little bloodshep as possible.
Trust me, lets hope that this "measured" warfare works. A US military that is engaged in the total, unbridled warfare that the world have rarely seen is not a preety thing. I think we've seen it twice, in 1864-65 (against ourselves), and 1944-45 in WW2 (particularly the Pacific theatre). It will be ugly.
We can win easily, or more difficultly... Whether we will win or not is not the question, its the level of violence that is will take that is the question. Lets hope the world "chooses" the easier route.
Ask Japan if the US has implimented "total warfare" yet.
Israel can never 'win' a war against an already vanquished foe without resorting to ethnic clensing. The occupied territories are already an open air prison- rockets are one and half steps up from a shank. The only way to win is to convince your opponent they no longer want to fight you.
Moderates on both sides already want a return to '67 borders. Israel complains that this will not guanrantee thier safety, but no one can do that even with overpowering might (clearly). At least it would marginalize the remaining militants- I am still waiting to see a study on how much the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is worth to militants in the form of fundraising $ from around the world.
The mess in N. Korea is another example that proves your starting point. No Victory in the Korean conflict led to No Victory in Vietnam which led to No Victory in the First Gulf War, which gives us the mess today. We must defeat H&H and we must defeat terrorists wherever they pop up.. I do not care what name they call themselves, I just know that they must be vanquished from Somalia, Sudan, etc...
Mike, thanks for your clear concise presentation.. Foghorn
disadent1, My fear is that that thinking is too narrow.
The US (public anyway) does not care about any of the things you discuss. We care not about 1967 borders, or any of that stuff. We care simply of the security and stability to live as we will (which extremists threaten).
Think of cancer. We have diagnosed the world with a cancer (extremist Islam). We will take the steps needed to eradicate that cancer. Sometimes you can eradicate cancer by focusing on just the cancer with little damage to surrounding tissue (read: innocents) as possible and sometimes you have to nuke (forgive the analogy) the entire area, which kills the cancer and healthy tissue together. I beleive we are trying to do the former, and would only resort to the former if we have to. Granted, we will let Israel fight this particular battle, but it is not the end for the US. TRUST ME HERE.
There is a difference between Katusha rockets and the firestorm we've created before in places. Please understand, I mean this as gently and in gentle means as possible
Major Mike, kudos on your analysis. I agree entirely, historians well know the seeds of WWII were planted in the incomplete outcome of WWI. Now we see the gathering forces of world war on a scale not seen since 1945 and it will not be pretty. I am convinced it is coming and inevitable. Radical Islam has adherents all over the world and they only lack the full power of a state to be far more effective than they already are (Iran now appears to be coming out of the shadows to proclaim their leadership). Belatedly, people are beginning to connect the dots that start in Munich 1972 and travel through Teheran in 1979/80 and now again in Lenanon in the early 80's and again. Our greatest problem is that the radical Islamist perspective has taken root and has a firm ideological basis. If you have not read Milestones by Sayyid Qutb, you need to do so. It is the radical Islamist manifesto for action and clearly establishes the rationale for removing the west. Much of the history of Islam has been founded in conflict and the agenda is to achieve peace through the imposition of Islam everywhere (and especially to maintain Islam where it once was hence the focus on Israel and Andalusia - Moorish Spain). We are in this for keeps and it will become the overarching challenge of our western civilization. I have no doubt we will win but I fear the cost will be very high because we will not be able to carry the fight to the enemy as it must be. It appears there must be an horrific event to change the minds of all too many who want to cut and run, and hide, and dither while the enemy grows ever stronger.
"I don’t want to get any messages saying, “I am holding my position.” We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy.”
“From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder we push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.”
“There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.”
“Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
PATTON
Never forget for one minute: No victor, no vanquished
is the core belief of H&H, Iran and OBL.
Beautifully said. I had not thought about this excellent point before. I think most of us common people would be frightened by this sparkling bit of truth because of its obvious tragic consequences in human terms...Maybe that is why the world chooses more often to ignore it.
MAVS00: I have no idea why the US has some bizzare disconnect between what happens in Palestine and its problems in the greater middle east. Basically you refuse to even address that people might have some legitimate reason to oppose us simply on the grounds that we are a very powerful nation militarily.
You all preach some kind of apocalyptic doom on Muslims, but our armed forces are bogged down in a crappy occupation where they get blown up via garage door opener to IED while walking down the street. Is this victory?
At least in a real war you can unleash your firestorm, but low intensity asemetrical warfare doesnt work like that. In Korea we couldve used nukes against China and won the war, but I think history is clear that we were much better off not winning like that.
The mere fact that you can slaughter millions of civilians does not automatically make it a good idea!
Solve the problems in Israel and you will pacify a couple Muslims who hate america, and a lot of the kinds of semi-ordinary people who currently fund terror in the middle east.
dissident1, I suspect that when you say "solve the problems in Israel," you really mean "solve the problem OF Israel." And US forces aren't "bogged down," despite that you might think that little MSM sound-byte sounds good. US forces are exactly where the US wants them to be. And if we wanted them in Tehran or Damascus, that's where they would be. And the Syrians and the Iranians know it and they also know there's not a damn thing they could do to stop it.
Fortunately, it probably won't come to that, at least where Tehran is concerned. Take a look at a map of the ME -- once Syria falls, Iran is completely isolated -- the Arab nations (other than Syria) gave Israel a permission slip to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas (in case you hadn't heard). The IDF in Damascus would sorely test the limits of that indulgence, but US troops there probably would not, and Iraqi troops certainly would not (that's a few years away yet, which is probably one reason Iran/Syria turned H&H loose now). The biggest reason to proceed cautiously is to make sure our military effort doesn't outpace the diplomatic one -- and I'm not referring to discussions with Tehran, but rather discussions with Moscow and Beijing. The Iranians can't project force, but rely on proxies to do so, but the proxies can't get supplies unless they border Iran or its sole remaining ally (it's getting very ronery in axis-of-evil land). China can't project force either, but they can make problems elsewhere. The primary concern is the Russians, and in light of their problems in Chechnya, they'll probably make the right call -- if the Russians don't bail the Iranians out, neutralizing Syria leads to lasting peace in the ME.
Mike:
Some in America have instituted, in our youth sports leagues, the concept of not keeping scores in the games played because we worry that the loser might suffer a self esteem problem. How in the world are we as a nation going to fight terrorism when some appear to be more concerned with how our enemies might feel about it?
I grew up in a pretty tough neighborhood and the one thing I learned was when being bullied attack the biggest bully with brutal force, do it alone or with the help of other victims but do it.
The problem with "self esteem" parenting, is that it is really only beneficial to the underachievers. Competition is a large part of American life, and is a large part of actually what make the world go 'round. So getting used to competition, using losing as a motivator to try harder, and growing tougher in the process, are all positive benefits of competition.
In flight school we had several hours of boxing...not to teach us to box, but to teach us how tough we could be, how to fight back, and how to reach inward for strength when you think you might go down.
What H&H have inadvertantly done, is give a whole new generation of Israelis boxing lessons. They have forced them to find their resolve, to defend themselves vigorously, and to feel unashamed in that defense. This does not bode well for H&H, who were previously enjoying their gains through a general acceptance of their presence by a large protion of the Israeli population. Those days are gone. The Israelis are rightfully thrashing the pesky needler, and are gaining security in return. MM
It seems that we are headed for total war, whether we like it or not. Total wars bring about total victors and total losers - but not without a good dose of pain and suffering.
The first realization that we must come to is the near inevitibility of this total war. After that, one understands that it is much more favorable to be the victor, rather than the vanquished, in a total war (we're not here yet because we're still trying to decide if our system of government is worth defending). After that, one makes the preparations necessary to effectively fight the enemy, both in mental resolve and adequate investment in weapons technology. After that, one develops a methodology of tactics and strategy to defeat the enemy. Then one implements those tactics.
But back to this point: I don't think most people comprehend exactly what it would mean to *lose* to islamic militancy. I think most people in the liberal west would have a problem with forced prayer every day. I think most women would have a big problem with not being allowed to display their hair. In short, I think most people would have a big problem with not being able to choose their own destiny. THAT is what will happen, in the midst of a horribly broken civilization, if militant islam wins.
We are all human, and therefore have the capacity to fight with incredible ferocity. Would that we were able to muster the same ferocity as a militant islamist. War is hell, and the choice of violence always entails a loss of some degree of humanity. But what awaits us on the other side? where liberal democracies are victors, the vanquished are helped back on their feet, and liberal democracy expands. where totalitarian regimes are victors, the vanquished are murdered or enslaved and liberal democracy contracts or is destroyed.
If we want to live, and live freely, we will learn how to fight, and to win. As it stands now, we haven't decided that we want to live, so what follows remains academic. But academics tends to fall by the wayside when enough people around you start dying.
reliapundit:
thanks very much for the Patton quotes.
Anonymous 8:33:
It wasn't that long ago that Hamas and Hezbollah would be cheered on by EVERY Muslim country in the Middle East. Why do you suppose that they are suddenly isolating themselves from terrorist groups? It seems that the only thing that is keeping this situation from from a replay of the late 1960's and early 1970's is the fact that the U.S. has placed a firm military footprint in Iraq, and all of the reasons that it decided to do so.
Can you imagine asking Orkin to come out to your home to kill some of the termites and urge them to practice restraint with the colony that has infested your basement? Do you think they'd give you a warranty?
Mike,
Thank you for the intriguing post. You've given us some sound ideas to chew on. And I have to say that I agree with the sentiment of your post. However, I believe that your perspective on solution lacks fullness. I would propose a following questions:
How do you vanquish an ideology such as Wahhabi Islam? You can vanquish their military capacity and kill much of this generation of the young suicidal men that make up much of their military. But that will only sow an equal portion of the hatred within those who remain. And this harvest of violence and hatred will be tended and nurtured within the madrassas and transplanted into the next generation of young by the mullahs.
Can you vanquish such a singular, ideological view of Islam except by creating societal systems that promote multiple and various perspectives on Islam. A media that is honest?
The communist Chinese also had (have) some very effective tools for indoctrination of prisoners of war / sections of their population so as to limit their effectiveness if they are re-patriated / released. We need to be savvy about these techniques and provided that they don't violate our own ethics we need to fully utilize them.
Who of you who read this post understand the asymetrical model of warfare currently being used by H&H?
Would it be difficult to utilize this same asymmetrical model of warfare on the current sources of this ideology.
Who is responsible for murder? The 14 year old child that has been brain washed with views of paradise/suicide and carries out the suicide bombing or the mullah who does the brain washing?
We need to attack this problem at it's roots. If we don't remove the source of the problem then our children and our grand-children will have to face these same issues.
Otherwise we are vanquishing nothing.
Anon-7
Anon-7...You pose some interesting questions, but I am at a loss in finding another way to bring the radical Islamacist to his senses. They are clinging to archaic and brutal interpretations of the Koran, that show no adaptation to modern society and no tolerance for ohter religious views.
They have perpetuated their cause through violence and murder, slaughtering thousands in the process. They are content to teach their children to hate and kill, while the rest of the world tries to become multi-cutlural and tolerant.
The issue of brainwashing their children is particularly distubing, for in those teachings they are condeming their children to a life of hatred, violence, and death...an unimaginable picture for me as a parent.
And in the end, it WILL require a vanquishing of those violent souls who prefer death to life, to break the unnecessary cycle of hate and death they wallow in every single day. At that point the survivors' wills will be crushed and peace and tolerance can then be learned.
But sadly, those hard-core Islamacists need the entirety of the souls defeated before Israel, or any nation for that matter, will enjoy a lasting and stable peace.
Post a Comment