A proper war
Over at NRO, John Derbyshire had a few posts decrying the US continued involvement in Iraq. His view is that the US should've gotten out right after the elections. (See here and here and here and here.)
I agree with him that the war against terrorists has not always been conducted "properly". His phrase "a lawyer's war" is somewhat apt, though maybe not an entirely accurate picture of what good professional US soldiers are doing on the ground.
In my opinion, there has not been nearly enough "shock and awe", to trot out a phrase that now wrinkles my nose after seeing the BBC fixate on it during the initial invasion.
At the time, terrorist powers like Syria and Iran stopped for a moment to see just what the US was about. Were we a mad raging elephant crashing about, trampling all in our path? Worse, were we a tiger, whose controlled rage and power could be coldly targeted against prey that was no match for us?
No, it turned out we didn't have the will and/or the resources to fully carry the fight to the enemy. And, Syria, Iran, the Saudis, etc... all heaved a sigh of relief and continued their smoldering war against us.
He wonders if "there is something in our national psyche that prevents us doing it right". I think part of it is a genuine moral restraint that says there must be other means worth trying first before we carpet bomb women and children. However, I do think there is something missing. Why, after 9/11, weren't the recruiting centers filled with American young people, eager to go kick the tails of the people who attacked us? Why hasn't President Bush called for such service?
The problem I see with his comment about conducting the war through covert ops is the question of how we would find the targets? Flying over head at 20K feet is not a very efficient way to find jihadis buried in Iraqi society. That is a chief benefit of being on the ground, we can get in their faces. "Close with the enemy" is sound military doctrine. So is "maintain contact with the enemy".
With covert ops, how do you kill enough of them to matter? It is no small feat to put a team in enemy territory. Attacking a house and killing one, or at best a few, terrorists is not a very cost effective use of resources. Little bang for the buck.
We are in Iraq, and we cannot leave before the Iraqis can provide their own security. To leave before then would just invite a bloody civil war. There may well be civil war anyway, but at least give Iraq a chance to stand on its own two feet. It does matter if there is a democracy in the heart of the failed dysfunctional Arab world. When young people in Iran dip their fingers in purple ink to show their desire to vote, you know the US is doing something right in Iraq.
I agree with him that the war against terrorists has not always been conducted "properly". His phrase "a lawyer's war" is somewhat apt, though maybe not an entirely accurate picture of what good professional US soldiers are doing on the ground.
In my opinion, there has not been nearly enough "shock and awe", to trot out a phrase that now wrinkles my nose after seeing the BBC fixate on it during the initial invasion.
At the time, terrorist powers like Syria and Iran stopped for a moment to see just what the US was about. Were we a mad raging elephant crashing about, trampling all in our path? Worse, were we a tiger, whose controlled rage and power could be coldly targeted against prey that was no match for us?
No, it turned out we didn't have the will and/or the resources to fully carry the fight to the enemy. And, Syria, Iran, the Saudis, etc... all heaved a sigh of relief and continued their smoldering war against us.
He wonders if "there is something in our national psyche that prevents us doing it right". I think part of it is a genuine moral restraint that says there must be other means worth trying first before we carpet bomb women and children. However, I do think there is something missing. Why, after 9/11, weren't the recruiting centers filled with American young people, eager to go kick the tails of the people who attacked us? Why hasn't President Bush called for such service?
The problem I see with his comment about conducting the war through covert ops is the question of how we would find the targets? Flying over head at 20K feet is not a very efficient way to find jihadis buried in Iraqi society. That is a chief benefit of being on the ground, we can get in their faces. "Close with the enemy" is sound military doctrine. So is "maintain contact with the enemy".
With covert ops, how do you kill enough of them to matter? It is no small feat to put a team in enemy territory. Attacking a house and killing one, or at best a few, terrorists is not a very cost effective use of resources. Little bang for the buck.
We are in Iraq, and we cannot leave before the Iraqis can provide their own security. To leave before then would just invite a bloody civil war. There may well be civil war anyway, but at least give Iraq a chance to stand on its own two feet. It does matter if there is a democracy in the heart of the failed dysfunctional Arab world. When young people in Iran dip their fingers in purple ink to show their desire to vote, you know the US is doing something right in Iraq.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home