The Israeli Option in Strategy

[SteveMetz]

I wanted to pick up an idea I tossed out in another thread and elevate it to it's own. I've kind of been playing with it for a few years.

Here's the gist: one of the foundation assumptions of current American strategy is that most people around the world like us hence we can and should work through local partners to win "hearts and minds." We realize there are "evil" people who don't like us but we figure we can counter them with strategic communications or information operations, and by "empowering moderates" (largely defined as people who ARE favorably inclined towards us). This may simply be a false assumption.

I'm moving toward the conclusion that our problem is NOT that people don't understand us (and hence the problem is NOT poor strategic communications or information operations). Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for.

These two alternative assumptions suggest very different overarching strategies. The first suggests our current strategy--empower moderates, use strategic communications and information operations, strengthen local partners and win hearts and minds. The second would certainly take friends where they exist, but not try to pretend that they exist everywhere. Instead it would basically say, "You don't want to be our friend, fine. But if you generate projectable power that might be used against us or our friends, we're going to drop out of the sky, bust it up, then leave. Many times across many decades if necessary. If you, on your volition, change your mind and want to be our friend, give us a call."

[tequila]

I'm in broad agreement with you that we need to understand that differing interests exist and these cannot always be bridged by a bigger, better IO strategy. That's why we have diplomacy and professional negotiators, and sometimes why we reassess our definition of "national interest".

Disagree with the idea that Zeus' thunderbolt is the answer. This will, in the end, lead to far greater engagement with the world as the thunderbolt will be called upon to attack any possible threat. Any other country that is near a thunderbolt capability of their own is an impossible strategic threat and must be neutralized, else they use a similar strategy on us.

Also this idea seems to require foreign policy consistency across decades. I submit that this is pretty much impossible in any country and perhaps least of all with American democracy.

[SteveMetz]

Disagree with the idea that Zeus' thunderbolt is the answer. This will, in the end, lead to far greater engagement with the world as the thunderbolt will be called upon to attack any possible threat. Any other country that is near a thunderbolt capability of their own is an impossible strategic threat and must be neutralized, else they use a similar strategy on us.



I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems to suggest that our policymakers will be unable to distinguish real threats which demand actions from those which do not. That may at times be true, but that holds whether we are implementing our current strategy of trying to stabilize and transform conflictive regions or not. Phrased differently, I think we have two different concepts: I'm suggesting an alternative WAY to apply power, not alternative criteria for WHEN we apply power.

[tequila]

I suppose I'm arguing a bit that an "Israeli" strategy when applied to the U.S. will basically assume the essential hostility of many world actors unnecessarily. This will, as always, lead to an inflation of the risk posed by such actors once they have been deemed as such - basic institutional prerogatives dictate this, especially once the commitment to a defensive crouch combined with an aggressive first strike deterrence policy comes into effect.

Fleeing engagement for Fortress America will of necessity reduce our toolkit for dealing our enemies in a nonviolent fashion. That is, after all, part of the appeal. However this, inevitably, leads to a more violent engagement as the rest of the world begins to look more and more hostile the more we withdraw from it.

edit: Also, from my response in the other thread:


The Israeli strategy also is predicated on what is, in essence, a reactive and defensive posture towards the region. Israel cannot directly influence any of its neighbors and has no pretensions to do so. The U.S., as strategic superpower, is economically and militarily involved with hundreds of nations and actors. Withdrawing from this into a Fortress America setup would require a massive institutional reset on the part of the U.S. and indeed a substantial cultural shift. It's hard to see this happening.

[Stu-6]

I think the communication problem is internal. We have a set of beliefs about ourselves (we are the good guys supporting freedom and democracy etc etc), we view our actions though the prism of these beliefs, which causes us to have an excessively positive opinion of them. Others not subscribing to these beliefs see out actions in a much harsher light. This problem becomes most obvious with what you called strengthen local partners. Seeing these partners though our prism we tend to think of them as the best choice among bad options. Often the locals will view these partners though their own beliefs, often a more honest view, and many times end up seeing them as just a bad choice. Which leads them to think the US talks all of this wonderful stuff about freedom and human rights but is allies with terrible men, therefore the US is not to be trusted. Examples of this can be seen in the Shaw in Iran, Musharraf in Pakistan, etc.


Back to the root of this thread the problem with the Israeli option is that it can never end, making it a strategy of perpetual war. While the Israelis are dominate for now, they can never enjoy it and almost certainly they can not keep it up forever. While the Arab states are so dysfunctional that they can do little more the bluster; the Palestinians are with in Israeli’s borders, mad as hell, have nothing to lose, and perhaps most importantly have an expanding population. As the Doors said “they got the guns but we got the number Gonna win, yeah, we're takin' over”.

The Israelis are strong but they can’t fight forever. Out of necessity their strategy works for now but it won’t last. If we model ourselves on them we doom ourselves to a similar fate.

[SteveMetz]

Back to the root of this thread the problem with the Israeli option is that it can never end, making it a strategy of perpetual war.

True, but that raises another question: is the traditional American conceptualization of war that sees it as a discrete event with a clear beginning and end applicable in today's world? Or have we entered an age of perpetual war whether we like it or not?

Phrased differently, are we trying to operate in an age of perpetual war with a strategy based on episodic war?

[JJackson]

I am British and not a fan of US foreign policy. I would fall into the group that believes the some within the administration are labouring under the impression that much of the anti-American feeling globally is just because ‘they’ don’t get what we are trying to do for them. I think we get it, we just don’t want it.

Tony Blair’s willingness to bend over backwards (or was that forwards?) to align the UK with US policy on a number of issues killed him with the electorate.

What is it that is so unpopular? The US is just trying to make the world safe for democracy and freedom, who could object to that. May be, but that is not what it looks like to the rest of us. A military that is so far in excess of anything any other country would view as necessary to protect itself would be a matter of concern in any age. Changes – mainly post 9/11 – have led more people in countries that would traditionally be neutral or friendly to question the basis for this closeness. The British particularly have had a traditional view that ‘Americans are just like us but with a few bad habits, they ice their beer and put it in whisky’ while the continentals have been the badies in our history books for generations and ‘don’t even speak English’. On closer examination the US is a radically different society; neither its flavour of democracy nor the platforms of either of its main political parties would be acceptable anywhere in Europe. The US’s position on a wide range of issues like the pre-emptive use of force, extraordinary renditions, Gitmo and torture have stunned the rest of us and left us with the view it is not safe to be anything other than a US passport holder, even if you never go anywhere near the USA.

Woe betide any state that is not on the US’s Christmas card list. A state like Iraq or Iran can be portrayed as so wicked they must be militarily rescued for democracy while Saudi Arabia can be a close ally and buy all kinds of high tech weaponry. The CIA has been instrumental in implementing – or trying to implement – regime change all over the world for decades but until recently this has not been openly declared policy and seems domestically to be viewed as perfectly acceptable behaviour, but I suspect it would be less acceptable if Iranian agents were trying to facilitate it in the US, certainly Bin Laden’s efforts were not well received.

I like Rawl’s application of the veil of ignorance as test of prima facia fairness and often apply when considering these kinds of questions. Put the boot on the other foot. Fast-forward 50 years China has used its GDP to out strip the US military, as the US did to the USSR. Your American grandchild is walking down the road in Paris, is bundled into a car, whisked off to a little jungle base in Laos for a bit of water-boarding, then to a converted bulk carrier detention centre anchored in international water off China. Several years later, after a lot of enhance interrogation, your grandchild is released. Never charged, tried or convicted. But hey, they were Chinese, what can you do.

Fair or was I a little harsh?

[John T. Fishel]

Steve, Tequila, and Stu--

This is an interesting discussion, however, the premises on which it is based are empirical questions. How do people see the US? The Pew Global Attitudes project (reported with data as of 2005) in America Against the World by Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes is a good place to start. But State Department commissions plenty of current surveys the results of which can be accessed. Another source is Zogby.

The Pew data are mixed. They give a nuanced picture of attitudes in a sample of countries toward US policy and the American people. the problem is that the survey data reported does not cover a lot of the places we are interested in. But there are regional survey research firms that do, such as Latinobarometro in Latin America.

Based on the data I've seen (which is only up to 2005), I would argue that a case can be made for either assumption but not one that would be fully convincing. Nor do I really think that the choice is a dichotomous one.

Cheers

JohnT

[SteveMetz]

Steve, Tequila, and Stu--

This is an interesting discussion, however, the premises on which it is based are empirical questions. How do people see the US? The Pew Global Attitudes project (reported with data as of 2005) in America Against the World by Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes is a good place to start. But State Department commissions plenty of current surveys the results of which can be accessed. Another source is Zogby.

The Pew data are mixed. They give a nuanced picture of attitudes in a sample of countries toward US policy and the American people. the problem is that the survey data reported does not cover a lot of the places we are interested in. But there are regional survey research firms that do, such as Latinobarometro in Latin America.

Based on the data I've seen (which is only up to 2005), I would argue that a case can be made for either assumption but not one that would be fully convincing. Nor do I really think that the choice is a dichotomous one.

Cheers

JohnT


I think what I'm struggling with it deeper than that. Polling data is a snapshot at a moment in time. It can vascillate dramatically. The bigger issue is almost philosophical: Americans assume that conflict occurs because of the confluence of two things: 1) evil people; and 2) misperception (which evil people encourage and exploit). Thus the solution is to get rid of the evil people and ameliorate the misperceptions.

I'm not just sure this is accurate. If conflict is structural, then it is likely to be persistent. I think the Bush strategy kind of attempted to get at this, but it grossly overestimated the ability of the United States to adjust the basic structure of the world.

[John T. Fishel]

would would have been predictable from a close look at the data in the Kohut book but there are many in the UK who would take a different tack.:wry:

[Stu-6]

True, but that raises another question: is the traditional American conceptualization of war that sees it as a discrete event with a clear beginning and end applicable in today's world? Or have we entered an age of perpetual war whether we like it or not?

Phrased differently, are we trying to operate in an age of perpetual war with a strategy based on episodic war?

War is a constant of human society however this is not the same a perpetual war. Even wars that appear perpetual can, often with the hindsight of history, be seen more correctly as epochal (such as best articulated in of Philip Bobbitt's The Shield of Achilles). Therefore while just accepting war is perpetual may seem like a realist solution, it actuality represents a failure in grad strategy.

[tequila]

The "basic structure" of the world is, I would submit, malleable to change, but not to control. Policymakers by their very nature are inclined to forget this. The Iraq War, for instance, has irrevocably altered the social structure and culture of Iraq and the broader Middle East in ways that would never have occurred without it --- but certainly not in ways that the United States, Iran, Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Qaeda, or the Sunni tribes could really imagine or control.

Perpetual war conjures an image of armies clashing and existential crisis - was the Cold War, by definition then, "perpetual warfare" as well? The world was certainly far bloodier and in far greater danger of destruction back then. We in the U.S. seem to have weathered it fairly well, being the ultimate victors if not necessarily in the usual Roman triumph sense of the word.

[slapout9]

I am British and not a fan of US foreign policy. I would fall into the group that believes the some within the administration are labouring under the impression that much of the anti-American feeling globally is just because ‘they’ don’t get what we are trying to do for them. I think we get it, we just don’t want it.

Tony Blair’s willingness to bend over backwards (or was that forwards?) to align the UK with US policy on a number of issues killed him with the electorate.

What is it that is so unpopular? The US is just trying to make the world safe for democracy and freedom, who could object to that. May be, but that is not what it looks like to the rest of us. A military that is so far in excess of anything any other country would view as necessary to protect itself would be a matter of concern in any age. Changes – mainly post 9/11 – have led more people in countries that would traditionally be neutral or friendly to question the basis for this closeness. The British particularly have had a traditional view that ‘Americans are just like us but with a few bad habits, they ice their beer and put it in whisky’ while the continentals have been the badies in our history books for generations and ‘don’t even speak English’. On closer examination the US is a radically different society; neither its flavour of democracy nor the platforms of either of its main political parties would be acceptable anywhere in Europe. The US’s position on a wide range of issues like the pre-emptive use of force, extraordinary renditions, Gitmo and torture have stunned the rest of us and left us with the view it is not safe to be anything other than a US passport holder, even if you never go anywhere near the USA.

Woe betide any state that is not on the US’s Christmas card list. A state like Iraq or Iran can be portrayed as so wicked they must be militarily rescued for democracy while Saudi Arabia can be a close ally and buy all kinds of high tech weaponry. The CIA has been instrumental in implementing – or trying to implement – regime change all over the world for decades but until recently this has not been openly declared policy and seems domestically to be viewed as perfectly acceptable behaviour, but I suspect it would be less acceptable if Iranian agents were trying to facilitate it in the US, certainly Bin Laden’s efforts were not well received.

I like Rawl’s application of the veil of ignorance as test of prima facia fairness and often apply when considering these kinds of questions. Put the boot on the other foot. Fast-forward 50 years China has used its GDP to out strip the US military, as the US did to the USSR. Your American grandchild is walking down the road in Paris, is bundled into a car, whisked off to a little jungle base in Laos for a bit of water-boarding, then to a converted bulk carrier detention centre anchored in international water off China. Several years later, after a lot of enhance interrogation, your grandchild is released. Never charged, tried or convicted. But hey, they were Chinese, what can you do.

Fair or was I a little harsh?


I think there is something to this . When I read that we are the world's only super power so we get to tell everybody what to do that is just a little bit provovative:wry:. I guess I missed the World Election that put is in charge.

[Gian P Gentile]

...I'm moving toward the conclusion that our problem is NOT that people don't understand us (and hence the problem is NOT poor strategic communications or information operations). Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for.

This makes sense to me. In fact it clarified some things that I remember about Info Ops while in command in Baghdad in 2006. I always seemed to be put off by IO in that it seemed like it was just additional fluff, something extra to do and not really necessary. Of course the IO proponents of the world are retching as they read my words. But I did usually believe that it should be our actions that were our information ops and not some elaborate system of conveying those actions to others since it did not seem to me at least on the local level to be necessary. Which i think Steve is in line with this specific point you make about IO and stratcoms.

gian

[Tom Odom]

Steve,

The problem I have with this theory is its primary underlying assumption: That the "Israeli" option works in stand alone fashion. That is not the case and has not been the case since the October 1973 War. Israeli strategy, military, and economics are very much tied to the assumption that the US will back up their use of a thunderbolt strategy.

I see your strategy here as a twist on preemption theory, something else that has been borrowed in large degree from the Israelis.

Bad theory and worse results.

Tom

[Rank amateur]

I think what I'm struggling with it deeper than that.
I'm not just sure this is accurate. If conflict is structural, then it is likely to be persistent. I think the Bush strategy kind of attempted to get at this, but it grossly overestimated the ability of the United States to adjust the basic structure of the world.

How about this? Conflict in the Middle East is structural. Bush wasn't trying to change the world, just the Middle East. We see ourselves as "the good guys" and we are in most of the world, but in the Middle East we are not "fair brokers." We are completely and unabashedly on one side of the conflict. The opposite side of the people with all the oil. (Like Gian says, our actions prove this and we can't convince the people with the oil that we're not with IO.)

We need a different way of dealing with structural Middle Eastern conflict than let's say Somalia or Kosovo, which are discrete events.

[SteveMetz]

Steve,

The problem I have with this theory is its primary underlying assumption: That the "Israeli" option works in stand alone fashion. That is not the case and has not been the case since the October 1973 War. Israeli strategy, military, and economics are very much tied to the assumption that the US will back up their use of a thunderbolt strategy.

I see your strategy here as a twist on preemption theory, something else that has been borrowed in large degree from the Israelis.

Bad theory and worse results.

Tom

I take your first point but on the second there still seems to be an underlying assumption that Israeli strategy has failed. Given the challenges and threats they face, I think you can make a case that it has made them remarkably secure at an acceptable price.

[Tom Odom]

I take your first point but on the second there still seems to be an underlying assumption that Israeli strategy has failed. Given the challenges and threats they face, I think you can make a case that it has made them remarkably secure at an acceptable price.

As long as they have someone--US--to back them up--a strategy of continued existence has succeeded. At heart, that is a colonial strategy and requires continuous backing.

Defining who pays the price is an interesting question as well, one I will leave for now. But in trying to apply this to the US, whom do you see as our backers?

Tom

[Rank amateur]

Steve,

The problem I have with this theory is its primary underlying assumption: That the "Israeli" option works in stand alone fashion. That is not the case and has not been the case since the October 1973 War. Israeli strategy, military, and economics are very much tied to the assumption that the US will back up their use of a thunderbolt strategy.

I see your strategy here as a twist on preemption theory, something else that has been borrowed in large degree from the Israelis.

Bad theory and worse results.

Tom

Yet we are completely and unabashedly supportive of Israeli strategy. To me that's the issue. How do we minimize the costs of wedding ourselves to an unsuccessful strategy that produces perpetual conflict?. (Now that resolving the conflict by spreading democracy on the Arab side has proven to be an unrealistic pipe dream.)

[Tom Odom]

Yet we are completely and unabashedly supportive of Israeli strategy. To me that's the issue. How do we minimize the costs of wedding ourselves to an unsuccessful strategy that produces perpetual conflict?. (Now that resolving the conflict by spreading democracy on the Arab side has proven to be an unrealistic pipe dream.)

That has been an overarching question that this Adminstration ignored altogether for the past 7 yearrs, partially at least in the belief that one could transpose democracy elswhere in the region and solve this issue. That is not to say that all problems in the region are monocausal. They certainly are not. But as you question above, I do not buy a strategy built on the assumption that we are hated so we will convert that hate into fear.

It is a negative image of the those who want everyone to love us. That does not work either because the world is much too complex.

Tom

[Rank amateur]

That has been an overarching question that this Adminstration ignored altogether for the past 7 yearrs, partially at least in the belief that one could transpose democracy elswhere in the region and solve this issue. That is not to say that all problems in the region are monocausal. They certainly are not. But as you question above, I do not buy a strategy built on the assumption that we are hated so we will convert that hate into fear.

It is a negative image of the those who want everyone to love us. That does not work either because the world is much too complex.

Tom

A) I do believe that the Middle East is different, so the issue really isn't a world wide one.

B) It isn't hate/love. It's who gets to live where: an issue that's been unresolved for at least 1,600 years, admitting that we're firmly on one side and admitting that we can't convince people that we aren't firmly on one side with spin or democracy or another else.

C) It doesn't have to be fear. But instead of pretending to be a honest broker, we behave like a police man. (A police man who's only real concern is protecting one piece of turf.) To combine you and Steve, "If Arab leader does X,Y and Z, lightening will strike. If not, we'll buy your oil."

[Stu-6]

Steve,

The problem I have with this theory is its primary underlying assumption: That the "Israeli" option works in stand alone fashion. That is not the case and has not been the case since the October 1973 War. Israeli strategy, military, and economics are very much tied to the assumption that the US will back up their use of a thunderbolt strategy.


This is part of what I was thinking about when saying that Israel couldn’t keep it up forever. Their overall strategy has become progressively more dependant on factors they can not control.

[Norfolk]

This is part of what I was thinking about when saying that Israel couldn’t keep it up forever. Their overall strategy has become progressively more dependant on factors they can not control.

Indeed. The Romans resorted to a more or less similar series of strategies to deal with external threats. But for the Western part of the Empire (and with serious but not fatal consequences for the Eastern part), that all failed in the end as the Roman economy started a long decline beginning in the 3rd Centruy (although Constantine did stabilize the situation for a time). Coupled to the collapse of the Roman birthrate, also occurring by the 3rd Century, and the large influx of immigration in general and barbarians in particular, and reliance upon units of Foederati became necessary from the late 4th century in order to make up for the lack of Roman manpower for the Legions.

Subsequently, the Roman preference for striking the enemy first in his own territory and then withdrawing, increasingly had to give way because of growing military weakness to allowing the enemy to actually penetrate and occupy portions of the Empire itself (not unlike much of Chinese practice over the millenia vis a vis the barbarians) before attempting the destruction of the invading forces. This of course resulted in progressive destruction of population, tax-base, and above all, the loyalty of the population to the Roman state. The Roman state proved increasingly incapable of protecting their lives and property, so local loyalties increasingly passed into acquiescence to the barbarians.

In sum, the Israeli Option is a short-term fix at best, and if the birthrate is low and the economy is unsound, it is unsustainable and has served only to aggravate the animosity of the enemy.

An alternative, that has already been suggested on another thread, is the resort to a strategy of engaging client-states. Preserve your own treasure and your own freedom to use military force by engaging local powers on your behalf. Subsidy (within reason) is a great deal cheaper and more efficient than bearing the burden entirely oneself. It also tends to enlist local expertise as a matter of course - though it may also engage local animosities as well. The client-state system has its dangers also - Iran being one example of this.

A key to successful resort to client states is being in a position of strength to begin with, vis-a-vis the actual or prospective client states. It is also important to be careful about whom you support, and how. If you are intent on engaging a prospective ally to be a client state, you have to be choosy. Much easier said than done in reality. There must also be a reasonable prospect for engaging the Government of a prospective client-state in internal self-reform to the extent that it is possible. This may requires decades of patience and stable policy on the part of the "Great Power" concerned. It may not work, but even attempting such is preferable to standing by more or less helplessly and watching a client-state sliding into implosion.

For the US to establish a worthwhile system of client-states, and within a strategy with emphasis on the resort to said, would take many years, and would require the US to recoup the military strength and the freedom to use its forces that it has lost through war in Iraq. Use of force results in loss of force; conservation of force results in ability to use force. Otherwise, operating from a relative position of weakness, the US may find any client-states that it may engage able to exploit that weakness, and the political concessions and cost of subsidies may become self-defeating.

The Israeli Option, while it is tempting and appears to offer benefits and efficiencies in the short term, is unsustainable and self-defeating in the long-term. Especially if you have a low birthrate and an unsound economic basis.

[SteveMetz]

Indeed. The Romans resorted to a more or less similar series of strategies to deal with external threats. But for the Western part of the Empire (and with serious but not fatal consequences for the Eastern part), that all failed in the end as the Roman economy started a long decline beginning in the 3rd Centruy (although Constantine did stabilize the situation for a time). Coupled to the collapse of the Roman birthrate, also occurring by the 3rd Century, and the large influx of immigration in general and barbarians in particular, and reliance upon units of Foederati became necessary from the late 4th century in order to make up for the lack of Roman manpower for the Legions.

Subsequently, the Roman preference for striking the enemy first in his own territory and then withdrawing, increasingly had to give way because of growing military weakness to allowing the enemy to actually penetrate and occupy portions of the Empire itself (not unlike much of Chinese practice over the millenia vis a vis the barbarians) before attempting the destruction of the invading forces. This of course resulted in progressive destruction of population, tax-base, and above all, the loyalty of the population to the Roman state. The Roman state proved increasingly incapable of protecting their lives and property, so local loyalties increasingly passed into acquiescence to the barbarians.

In sum, the Israeli Option is a short-term fix at best, and if the birthrate is low and the economy is unsound, it is unsustainable and has served only to aggravate the animosity of the enemy.

An alternative, that has already been suggested on another thread, is the resort to a strategy of engaging client-states. Preserve your own treasure and your own freedom to use military force by engaging local powers on your behalf. Subsidy (within reason) is a great deal cheaper and more efficient than bearing the burden entirely oneself. It also tends to enlist local expertise as a matter of course - though it may also engage local animosities as well. The client-state system has its dangers also - Iran being one example of this.

A key to successful resort to client states is being in a position of strength to begin with, vis-a-vis the actual or prospective client states. It is also important to be careful about whom you support, and how. If you are intent on engaging a prospective ally to be a client state, you have to be choosy. Much easier said than done in reality. There must also be a reasonable prospect for engaging the Government of a prospective client-state in internal self-reform to the extent that it is possible. This may requires decades of patience and stable policy on the part of the "Great Power" concerned. It may not work, but even attempting such is preferable to standing by more or less helplessly and watching a client-state sliding into implosion.

For the US to establish a worthwhile system of client-states, and within a strategy with emphasis on the resort to said, would take many years, and would require the US to recoup the military strength and the freedom to use its forces that it has lost through war in Iraq. Use of force results in loss of force; conservation of force results in ability to use force. Otherwise, operating from a relative position of weakness, the US may find any client-states that it may engage able to exploit that weakness, and the political concessions and cost of subsidies may become self-defeating.

The Israeli Option, while it is tempting and appears to offer benefits and efficiencies in the short term, is unsustainable and self-defeating in the long-term. Especially if you have a low birthrate and an unsound economic basis.

Geez, the Romans got a 300 year run out of it. I'd take that.

[Norfolk]

Geez, the Romans got a 300 year run out of it. I'd take that.

With our low birth rates and, in the Israeli case - and in our case, we'll see -, an unsound economic basis, we may not have 300 years.

[John T. Fishel]

Steve--

You are right that any survey is a snapshot in time. But string them together over time and it is more like a moving picture. That said, I do not disagree with the philosophical point but I think that the application of available survey research data would provide a more nuanced starting point. As I said before, I don't think that the 2 approaches are necessarily mutually exclusive although they probably are so in any particular country at any given point in time. Which leads me to my second point:

Gian--

You are correct to point out that IO - or better stated, PSYOP - depends on performance on the ground. Unlike commercial advertising where the problem is to convince people that your aspirin works better than the other guy's, the PSYOP problem is to convince people that "aspirin" works at all. If that can be demonstrated then sophisticated and simple techniques for getting the message out will work. If not, then no technique will work over the long haul to sell the "snake oil."

Cheers

JohnT

[Penta]

Maybe this is my depressive nature manifesting itself, but...

Why bother?

In my young life, it's basically been a constant that:

1. The world hates us. (Us being America, Americans, so forth) This is unlikely to ever change, because even if we did accede to some demands, what is being demanded is, in a lot of cases, changes to the way the American people think and believe - seemingly to be imposed from Washington. (One sees this in the way Europeans deal with the US, in the way Middle Easterners deal with the US...In the way everybody deals with the US.)

2. The world would like nothing better than for us to pull back. Except that when we do, they freak out.

3. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. In all cases.

So, maybe it's just me, maybe it's a generational thing, but...Why bother?

Europeans or Arabs think we're some bullying superpower?

Hell, they hardly know what one looks like. If we're going to be prejudged, may as well actually be the bully.

Y'think we're in a war to (destroy your religion/steal your resources/steal your markets/dominate the planet/impose Christian fundamentalism everywhere)?

No, we're not...But if you insist, we can certainly do that.

Way I see it, we're screwed already, so what have we got to lose in making the world be careful what they wish for?
--

And after that venting, I will note: I don't believe that. Not completely.

I'd be saddened to see the US actually follow that path, of "You have absolutely no idea what fear is".

But when I put a finger to the pulse of American opinion, I do sense that sort of hopelessness, of "Oh, screw it".

And I've not seen anybody here address that - that we're feeling even more hopeless and gloomy than even an Israeli strategy, hopeless and gloomy enough to have a strategy of "To hell with the world, you can all go FOAD."

Maybe it's the weather lately...But I see no point in even a hint of optimism.

Yeah, the world hates us. Yeah, they want us to go away.

But we're assailed if we actually ponder doing so.

And we're screwed no matter what we do, so why care anymore?

John
Sitting off in the corner, hugging himself and rocking, wishing he was as blissfully ignorant as his peers.

[SteveMetz]

With our low birth rates and, in the Israeli case - and in our case, we'll see -, an unsound economic basis, we may not have 300 years.

In my own defense, the Mitchell Report is going to reveal that I was juiced when I made the post that started this thred.

[tequila]

Penta - My recommendation: stop watching Fox News, and actually visit some foreign countries. Really, it's not that bad out there.

Norfolk - Both economic and population statistics even for the late Empire (especially the former) are far too unreliable to really make those kind of sweeping judgments as to what caused the decline of the Western Empire. I notice that there is no discussion of the role of political breakdown amongst the Roman political elite in your thesis, or the general inability of a preindustrial bureaucracy to efficiently manage such a farflung and infrastructurally challenged empire. Also, really, where's the evidence for imminent or even approaching civilizational collapse, unless you're one of those modern T. Lothrop Stoddard types?

[SteveMetz]

Penta - My recommendation...actually visit some foreign countries.

Except not France. That would simply reinforce the attitude described.

[Rank amateur]

Actually, I see the world moving to a form of détente. Cheap, effective, easily imitated asymmetric tactics like IEDs make it difficult and expensive for us to invade other countries. Our conventional superiority makes it cheap and easy for us to break stuff they need: bridges, parliament buildings, generating stations, airports, the leader's family, etc.

The two main problems are that some of the bad guys have no interest in self preservation and a lot of people on our side want destruction instead of being content with containment.

[Norfolk]

Penta - My recommendation: stop watching Fox News, and actually visit some foreign countries. Really, it's not that bad out there.

Norfolk - Both economic and population statistics even for the late Empire (especially the former) are far too unreliable to really make those kind of sweeping judgments as to what caused the decline of the Western Empire. I notice that there is no discussion of the role of political breakdown amongst the Roman political elite in your thesis, or the general inability of a preindustrial bureaucracy to efficiently manage such a farflung and infrastructurally challenged empire. Also, really, where's the evidence for imminent or even approaching civilizational collapse, unless you're one of those modern T. Lothrop Stoddard types?

Some good points Tequila, but I was not intending to present a comprehensive thesis for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (at least its Western portion). I was limiting myself to alternative strategic approaches and the causes that many historians have identified as contributing to the disintegration of Roman military power over the course of the 3rd to 6th centuries AD. You are quite right that economic and population statistics are unreliable, but we have nothing better in their place. We have to work with what we have.

As to the role of political breakdown, political breakdown had occurred during the 3rd century, resulting in the Empire's collapse in 284 AD and subsequent reconstruction by Diocletian. But the failure of his constitutional mechanism, the Tetrarchy, and the rise of Constantine, civil wars that occurred in the late 4th century, Theodosius' reign as the last sole Emperor, and the splitting of the Roman polity into factions allied with particular barbarians (such as the party that opened one of the gates to Rome to Alaric's Visigoth Army in 410), were not necessarily all that much worse than the factionalization of the Roman elite both before, and in the decades shortly after, Augustus. Those factions opened the gates, figuratively speaking, to competing Roman generals and their armies.

The events of the 3rd century stand out because of the nearly century-long state of an-and off civil war and the rise of the Gallic Empire for a time as a rival in the West, in addition to the deflation of the buying power of the currency (denarrii), and what appears to be a noticeable decline in the birth rate. What occurred during the civil wars leading up to the accession of Augustus, and the civil wars that occurred only a few decades afterwards in the time leading up to the accession of the Flavians and the "Five Good Emperors", was not greatly less dangerous than what occurred in the late 4th and early 5th centuries until 410.

A major difference between the 1st Centuries BC and AD on the one hand, and the 4th and 5th on the other, as any number of historians tell us (I prefer Palmer and Toynbee, amongst others), tell us, was the apparent drop in birth rate, and the weakening of the economy (leading to Diocletian's system of compelling the son to follow in his father's occupation, and binding most people to the locality in which they lived and no longer permitting most people to move about within the Empire). The late years of the Republic and the early years of the Empire did not appear to face these limitations, and indeed resorted to the use of client-states and kingdoms, such as Commogene, Palestine, and Armenia in the East, and certain "kingdoms" and tribes in what later became the province of Germania. Once these had been disposed of, Rome had to bear the burden alone for both defending them from external threats, and from internal rebellion and disorder.

I was not intending to suggest anything like "imminent civilizational collapse"; that is taking my points much too far. My object was to point out that our strategic options, like those of the Romans, become increasingly limited in time by such factors as economic weakness or unsound fundamentals and low birth-rates. The Israeli Option is vulnerable to those factors.

[Ron Humphrey]

Steve--


Gian--

You are correct to point out that IO - or better stated, PSYOP - depends on performance on the ground. Unlike commercial advertising where the problem is to convince people that your aspirin works better than the other guy's, the PSYOP problem is to convince people that "aspirin" works at all. If that can be demonstrated then sophisticated and simple techniques for getting the message out will work. If not, then no technique will work over the long haul to sell the "snake oil."

Cheers

JohnT


I have to disagree with you on the Better-stated bit.
Information Operations is far from Psyops, sometimes they coincide, sometimes they conflict, but never one in the same. This has been one of the most frustrating things for me throughout my service, in one form or another.

To illustrate as simply as possible ,since I currently have to get back to work;

Information is every single aspect of your reality which may bring influence to one area or another of your operation. History, Psychology, Sociology, Cyber, Physical description ( If I am the bad guy I look at you and your capability and see if I think I can take you).

Anthropology (What each and every entity in the AO thinks and feels from their historical perspective to what they currently percieve)

Empathy ( Understanding what factors or circumstances have brought you, or your enemy, or the populous to where they are at this moment.

Etc, Etc,
What I'm trying to say is that when those who are in the decision making roles rely on precedentiary understanding of "tools" of the trade (PSYOPS)
There is often a over reliance on check the block, unbudging ops which lend not only to possible mis application but many times to mis diagnosis of the effects provided, or not provided.

PSYOPS have a well established programs with immense understanding of what they do but it is not, i repeat not real overarching IO.

If someone could show me how any IO operation worth it's salt could be truly as effective as it should be without going outside of that which PSYOPS encompasses then I might be prompted to reconsider,

OR I would probably just look harder to find facts to support my hypothesis:rolleyes:

[Tom Odom]

Information Operations is far from Psyops, sometimes they coincide, sometimes they conflict, but never one in the same. This has been one of the most frustrating things for me throughout my service, in one form or another.

Ron,

The Joint Definition of IO (http://www.au.af.mil/info-ops/what.htm) and everything I have seen in the past 8 years puts PSYOP as an operational component of IO.

Most folks assume right away that any discussion of IO is speaking to non-lethal operations. Some understand that IO can be kinetic in that it seeks to destroy information technology by various means. Most do not grasp that IO using PSYOP can be lethal, the Rwandan genocide offering a particularly stark example.

Best

Tom

[Penta]

Penta - My recommendation: stop watching Fox News, and actually visit some foreign countries. Really, it's not that bad out there.

Amusingly, I don't even watch Fox News. Ever.:)

[Ken White]

I wonder how this thread would have run had Steve not titled it "The Israeli option on Strategy" and had not even mentioned Israel?

I generally agree with his prescription but would instead have called it the TR strategy, walk softly and carry a big stick.

Let's dump the 'Israeli' -- we are admittedly in an entirely different situation and any comparison is bound to be skewed. Our excessive (IMO) support for the Israelis is part of the problem but the strategic issue is far larger and it is also not restricted to the ME. We, like it or not, have a worldwide remit. One that is, at this time, irrevocable. In thirty to fifty years that may change but it'll be with us through the life of many on this board.

We should also discard any major discussion about 'premption.' That has been a facet of US policy for over 200 years, it is a worldwide military option and it will remain one. As for claims it is not nice; war's not nice.

One of the first respondents, Tequila, titled the strategy "Zeus thunderbolt." True in a sense but that does not mean that it is the only approach -- after all, any strategy HAS to be tailored to the situation and to be able to react to events. The stick, if used properly would rarely if ever be actually used. Tequila also said -- correctly IMO -- that:
"Also this idea seems to require foreign policy consistency across decades. I submit that this is pretty much impossible in any country and perhaps least of all with American democracy."While there is much truth in that statement, there is also the fact that American foreign policy over a couple of centuries has been to strike at potential threats and that for the 45 years of the Cold War, we were pretty consistent. The only true exception being really, the Carter years. Which brings up an interesting point.

Had the strategy Steve espouses been in effect -- more correctly, the strategic policy -- I submit that after the hostages were seized had James Earl Carter gone to the UN, made a speech and said "Iran has invaded soveriegn US territory. When I return to Washington, I will active our Reserve forces and ask the Congress for a declaration of war and unless the hostage are released to US control by the 10th on November 1979 we will, unfortunately, have to invade Iran." I believe the bulk of the UN would have supported that because much as we were (and are) disliked in much of the world, and Embassy is an Embassy. I also believe that Khomeini would have folded in less than a day. Our army then was almost twice the size it is now and Iran was, as a nation, a basket case; they had no means to resist. Khomeini had essentially just taken over and had yet to consolidate his power. Other than moving carriers and some aircraft, little effort would have been required

Instead, he let Khomeini know that we would effectively do nothing, a sign in the Ayatollah's mind that we were weak -- and it is very unwise in the ME to show any weakness for it will certainly be exploited. That effective capitulation by us set the stage for many later attacks emanating from the ME.

Carry that forward using the policy. Lebanon was not a major concern to US interests so there would have been no intervention. Same for Somalia. There would have been no Khobar Towers bombing. Let's say the USS Cole attack may have occurred regardless. Do we take out Yemen? No, we spend scads of money to find out who did it and we get them (and we apparently did that...).

Alternative history is irrelevant, really. What matters is the here and now. Where we are is with a divided polity that is terribly indecisive but that is not likely to be willing to support any interventions in the near term. If we are not going to support interventions and go the COIN route -- which as we all know is fraught with pitfalls -- then we better have Plan B.

Many will recall that when Bush entered office he and Rumsfeld both frequently used the old TR phrase initially. Regrettably, their plans -- with which I agreed -- to draw back to CONUS and avoid nation building were overcome by events that unarguably had started with that Embassy seizure. Any attempt now to return to the Bush / Rumsfeld model is going to generate much heat and little light and a lot of that will be nothing but political theater. Yet, we have to have a policy of some sort; when you're the big guy on the block, you become a target and if the little bullies repeatedly kick you in the shins and you do nothing, eventually, you embolden them and they gang up on you.

The key to the strategic policy Steve recommends is, of course, distinguishing real threats from minor posturing. The latter can be dissuaded by a combination of diplomacy, bribes and minor efforts of force. The former require more drastic action and, if a long and costly intervention is not desirable -- and I submit it will not be to many -- than an alternative must be found.

Any alternative will have to be applied differently in differing situations and should be tailored to the degree of threat or response required. Proportionality, Balance and full spectrum capability. That's all we're talking about.

Penta then posits some good points and a question:
"1. The world hates us. (Us being America, Americans, so forth) This is unlikely to ever change, because even if we did accede to some demands, what is being demanded is, in a lot of cases, changes to the way the American people think and believe - seemingly to be imposed from Washington. (One sees this in the way Europeans deal with the US, in the way Middle Easterners deal with the US...In the way everybody deals with the US.)

2. The world would like nothing better than for us to pull back. Except that when we do, they freak out.

3. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. In all cases.

So, maybe it's just me, maybe it's a generational thing, but...Why bother?"

The three points are all totally valid; the answer to his question is -- because we have to. Ignore the kids who have tantrums and they'll just keep having them...

I'd also suggest that his reading of American opinion and hopelessness differs markedly from mine and I just returned from a two week swing through much of the east coast. I talked to a lot of people, I'd estimate the down in the dumps contingent at no more than 10% -- interestinlgy, the further north I went, the more of them there were. Maybe it's the weather and gray skies. :)

Then Rank Amatuer hits a nail:
"Actually, I see the world moving to a form of détente. Cheap, effective, easily imitated asymmetric tactics like IEDs make it difficult and expensive for us to invade other countries. Our conventional superiority makes it cheap and easy for us to break stuff they need: bridges, parliament buildings, generating stations, airports, the leader's family, etc."Totally true -- that's why the strategic policy is important, it will maintain that détente.

Then he misses one:
"The two main problems are that some of the bad guys have no interest in self preservation and a lot of people on our side want destruction instead of being content with containment."Only partly true; there are some of those folks here but not many and those go-getters can generally be and almost always are contained. The more important point is that non-state actors cannot be contained...

And the attack on Iraq had nothing to do with WMD, Saddam, preemption or containment. It was to establish presence; all that other stuff was just minor synergy. Why presence? Check the latest Unclas NIE...

Is that presence a target? More importantly in terms of this discussion, will it remain a target? I think the answer to both questions is yes, YMMV.

Yet, if they were not there, they would unquestionably not be targets...

[Steve Blair]

I'd also suggest that his reading of American opinion and hopelessness differs markedly from mine and I just returned from a two week swing through much of the east coast. I talked to a lot of people, I'd estimate the down in the dumps contingent at no more than 10% -- interestinlgy, the further north I went, the more of them there were. Maybe it's the weather and gray skies. :)

The northeast has historically been a "hotbed" (if you will) of rather isolationist and pacifist tendencies from almost the beginning of the US. Much of the opposition to the Mexican-American War centered there, and that section was also one that was closely watched by Lincoln during the Civil War. Interestingly enough it was also the birthplace for many of the more rabid abolitionists. If memory serves they were also reluctant about the Spanish American War and World War I.

The world always has to hate someone. Prior to us it was the British, who didn't bother to notice. Our problem is that we do...we want everyone to like us.

[Tacitus]

Fair or was I a little harsh?

Hey JJackson: You want a thought? I'll give you a thought.:wry:

Looking back through the pages of the history of empires, I'd say the US is pretty mild, by comparison. America has been the world's leading imperial power for only three or four generations. It took over from the British in WWI. Since then, American military and commercial power have dominated the planet.

But the empire business, like any business, has its good points and its bad points. On the good side, you get to boss people around and feel important. On the bad side, it can be costly - especially if you don't know what you are doing. And on the really bad side, it almost always ends in bankruptcy and military disaster. Empires - like other grand public spectacles - make the news twice, coming and going. Whether U.S. empire is on the coming or going side, you make your own call.

The empire business is fundamentally a protection racket. The imperial power provides political stability and military protection. In return, the tributary or vassal states pay. But that is the fly in America's imperial ointment. No one pays. The United States invaded Iraq. Cynics say it did so to get Iraq's oil. At least, that would have made sense from an imperial finance point of view. But no, this whole thing is deep in red ink up to your neck.

How to pay the expenses? Typically, an imperial power either forces subject nations to render up some form of tribute - gold, slaves, wheat - or, in the more modern variety, it insists on certain favorable trading terms. But America never got the hang of empire; it invades countries but forgets to steal the treasure. It is so impressed with its own claptrap - "making the world safe for democracy"…"fighting terrorists" - that it forgets it has to pay the bills.

We could unilaterally disarm tomorrow, or the whole continent of North America could sink into the ocean like the island of Atlantis. I doubt you would see a universal era of peace and prosperity in the wake of that move, though. I suspect you would see quite a few wars break out in short order.

[slapout9]

Tacitus,that's right what happen to the good old days of plunder and pillage and the women don't forget the women ARRRGGGHHH!

[SteveMetz]

I wonder how this thread would have run had Steve not titled it "The Israeli option on Strategy" and had not even mentioned Israel?

I generally agree with his prescription but would instead have called it the TR strategy, walk softly and carry a big stick.

Let's dump the 'Israeli'

Lesson learned

[Tom Odom]

Ken: I wonder how this thread would have run had Steve not titled it "The Israeli option on Strategy" and had not even mentioned Israel?

The short answer is the same if it had incorporated the same material. regardless of title, the strategy at least as I read it said we--the US--are the stand alone imperial power in the world. I think anyone would have much trouble selling that inside the US and we got a pretty good slice of what the world reaction would be from JJ.

It would I suspect be somewhat different if it had incorporated more of what you put into it. A measured response is essentially a middle of the road strategy and one we are fairly comfortable with although we have had aberrations.

I do not, however, agree with the blanket assessment that everyone hates us and always will. That is a simplistic and flawed assessment. Everyone one does not hate us. Steve Blair is correct that we often want them all to love us. There have been periods where anti-American sentiments have run high. We are in one now. We have had periods where pro-American sentiments were strong. What really counts is when and where our interests and our pursuit of those interests are acceptable or in favor with other players on the strategic stage and where and when they are not.

Best

Tom

[Ken White]

cue in on one, to them, hot button word and then allow that to skew or even derail their comprehension of the actual point of a written piece.

Sigh. As they say, the internet is not a perfect medium...

[SteveMetz]

The short answer is the same if it had incorporated the same material. regardless of title, the strategy at least as I read it said we--the US--are the stand alone imperial power in the world.

Not really. All I said was that when we believe there is an extant threat, we disrupt the threat (with partners whenever possible) then leave rather than trying to transform the place from which the threat emerged into something it is not.

[Ken White]

The short answer is the same if it had incorporated the same material. regardless of title...

Where's Harry Turtledove when we need him... :D


...the strategy at least as I read it said we--the US--are the stand alone imperial power in the world. I think anyone would have much trouble selling that inside the US and we got a pretty good slice of what the world reaction would be from JJ.

Interesting. I read JJs comment with interest also. FWIW, I didn't take Steve's premise that way -- perhaps because I'm in broad agreement. In any event, I have no doubt many could and some would desire to take it that way as the Great American Empire, Act II. I just don't see that happening nor do I believe that most in the world, given a little reflection time would.

The British -- like most in Europe -- after all are basically Arab centric and goodness knows we've given them enough provocation to dislike us intensely so JJs reaction was unsurprising . It was also essentially fair; I could quibble a bit about events and interpretations but on balance, I understand where he's coming from.


It would I suspect be somewhat different if it had incorporated more of what you put into it. A measured response is essentially a middle of the road strategy and one we are fairly comfortable with although we have had aberrations.

Possibly my error as I assumed given what I know of Steve's background and his writing, it was sort of implied...

As for middle of the road, yep -- and most Americans are essentially moderates; that's why it's acceptable...


I do not, however, agree with the blanket assessment that everyone hates us and always will. That is a simplistic and flawed assessment. Everyone one does not hate us. Steve Blair is correct that we often want them all to love us. There have been periods where anti-American sentiments have run high. We are in one now. We have had periods where pro-American sentiments were strong. What really counts is when and where our interests and our pursuit of those interests are acceptable or in favor with other players on the strategic stage and where and when they are not.

Hate is a bad word, Penta used it and I did not. However, I didn't correct his over statement to a more accurate "while a very few hate us, many more are in a state of mild dislike, distrust or envy and the majority of the world doesn't care much unless we do something that effects them personally. the bad news is that due to our size, sometimes our minor efforts create a ripple effect that can exacerbate their perception into a state of active dislike..." or words to that effect. I'm wordy enough without over editing someone else's basically correct comment. :o

You are, of course, correct in saying that we are not resoundingly hated -- I've said here and elsewhere that dislike of the US today is not nearly as bad as it was during and directly after Viet Nam -- and there are some American who want "them to like us" (though not many IMO, most could care less). Still, other than that, Penta's points were valid, I thought.


Best

Tom

To you too -- do you have an alternative?

[Penta]

Ken brought up a point I've been chewing on since I read it, about how the negativity seems focused in the North.

I live and work in New Jersey; my extended family is almost all in Boston or the near suburbs of Boston; my GF lives out in Chicagoland. Contrary to what Tequila says, I don't watch Fox News, haven't in years and years.

And the feeling I get among those I talk to is one of...Not Carteresque malaise. Worse. One of "The world seriously hates us now, but there is nothing remotely practical that will change that fact." Add to that a fair helping of "We. Are. Totally. Screwed." Economically, in foreign affairs, and just generally.

It cuts across party/generational/social lines, too. Hawk, dove, Republican, Democrat, old, young...It's a constant. This broad sense of, if not "We're doomed", then one of "We'll never recover."

But it doesn't seem to have penetrated the South; it's a Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest thing (and I can't say much about farther west than that).

I can't figure out -why-, but it feels like what Ken says has something to it - not because of the weather, but for some reason I can't grasp.

What's the difference? What has the Northern part of the country seemingly in need of mass prescriptions of Prozac, while the South (and maybe the West) doesn't have the same gloomy feelings about the world?

[Norfolk]

Ken brought up a point I've been chewing on since I read it, about how the negativity seems focused in the North.[]

I can't figure out -why-, but it feels like what Ken says has something to it - not because of the weather, but for some reason I can't grasp.

What's the difference? What has the Northern part of the country seemingly in need of mass prescriptions of Prozac, while the South (and maybe the West) doesn't have the same gloomy feelings about the world?

Warmth, sunshine, and happy hunting grounds (up here, they ain't so happy anymore). That, and not quite as much of the population is crammed into tense, dreary, big cities, like most people in North-East US and Canada are.

[SteveMetz]

What has the Northern part of the country seemingly in need of mass prescriptions of Prozac..

If you're like us, you're also in need of a big, honkin bag of rock salt about now.

http://pictures-i-like.com/Albums/Album8/Large/Ice_Storm.jpg

(From Pictures-I-Like.com (http://pictures-i-like.com/))

[Steve Blair]

Ken brought up a point I've been chewing on since I read it, about how the negativity seems focused in the North.

I live and work in New Jersey; my extended family is almost all in Boston or the near suburbs of Boston; my GF lives out in Chicagoland. Contrary to what Tequila says, I don't watch Fox News, haven't in years and years.

And the feeling I get among those I talk to is one of...Not Carteresque malaise. Worse. One of "The world seriously hates us now, but there is nothing remotely practical that will change that fact." Add to that a fair helping of "We. Are. Totally. Screwed." Economically, in foreign affairs, and just generally.

It cuts across party/generational/social lines, too. Hawk, dove, Republican, Democrat, old, young...It's a constant. This broad sense of, if not "We're doomed", then one of "We'll never recover."

But it doesn't seem to have penetrated the South; it's a Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest thing (and I can't say much about farther west than that).

I can't figure out -why-, but it feels like what Ken says has something to it - not because of the weather, but for some reason I can't grasp.

What's the difference? What has the Northern part of the country seemingly in need of mass prescriptions of Prozac, while the South (and maybe the West) doesn't have the same gloomy feelings about the world?

Take a look at the original settlers of both sections and you'll get an idea.

By the way, once you get clear of the midwest folks don't tend to be as gloom and doom. Until you hit the West Coast, of course.

[JJackson]

This thread has moved on apace.
I have an admission to make. I opened the thread just after steve started it, got distracted and then read the initial post without looking at the title, I then wrote my post. Net result I missed the Israel bit in the title and, despite being post #6, had only seen the opening post.
My second confession is that my previous anti-American rant comes from a place of love. I have always been a fan particularly of the founding fathers and the constitution and the idea of America they embody. I think this leads me to feel more let down by the direction of more recent trends: being let down by a friend being worse than betrayal by a stranger.

On a more Utopian note what do you think would be the effect of the US reducing its military expenditure to a point where its forces were only equal to Western Europe (as a block with similar GDP and population), any savings to be diverted into an enormous hearts and minds operation. What could you do with that kind of budget?
Reduce subsidies to US producers of cotton and rice which would kick start agriculture in some of the world’s poorest countries and shame Europe and Japan into following.
A foreign aid budget that would make friends for the US all over the world.
The US provides Israel with a subsidy of about $500/cap/year that kind of money extended to the Palestinians’ along with real pressure on Israel to give up enough land to make a viable state would do more to reduce the risk of Islamic terrorism than any size of military.
Is a stockade always the best way of protecting your population? Might making friends with them ‘injuns not be a better bet in the long run?

[John T. Fishel]

imply that all IO is PSYOP. Rather, what I thought Gian was talking about was PSYOP. As Tom says, PSYOP is A component of IO. My comment then was directed at that part tof the equation. And, I would reiterate that you can't keep on selling snake oil if it doesn't work. If it does work, then it is much easier and legitimate to sell and we call it aspirin.

Cheers

JohnT

[Norfolk]

Not really. All I said was that when we believe there is an extant threat, we disrupt the threat (with partners whenever possible) then leave rather than trying to transform the place from which the threat emerged into something it is not.

That makes sense. Just so long as the threat is certain and the damage to be done, grave - otherwise you may end up doing more harm than good. There is certainly a place for striking an enemy - such as Al Qaida and the Taleban in Afghanistan, but it just has to be one of a number of strategic possibilities. If it were the preferred one though, or even formed the basis of a strategy based upon pre-emption, removing what are perceived to be potential threats before they become actual ones, that's looking for trouble - even if it seems to work in the short-term.


JJackson:




On a more Utopian note what do you think would be the effect of the US reducing its military expenditure to a point where its forces were only equal to Western Europe (as a block with similar GDP and population), any savings to be diverted into an enormous hearts and minds operation. What could you do with that kind of budget? Reduce subsidies to US producers of cotton and rice which would kick start agriculture in some of the world’s poorest countries and shame Europe and Japan into following. A foreign aid budget that would make friends for the US all over the world. The US provides Israel with a subsidy of about $500/cap/year that kind of money extended to the Palestinians’ along with real pressure on Israel to give up enough land to make a viable state would do more to reduce the risk of Islamic terrorism than any size of military. Is a stockade always the best way of protecting your population? Might making friends with them ‘injuns not be a better bet in the long run?

If the US Armed Forces were not engaged in Iraq, the military budget could not be reduced by much, if any, in order to be diverted to other projects. Contrary to much popular opinion, the US military has never really recovered from the budget cuts of the 1990's, and much of the new equipment that has been acquired in recent years, along with equipment procured much earlier, is either worn-out, is wearing out sooner than planned, or just plain needed to be replaced even before the present set of wars. And that does not take into consideration the fact that pay and benefits (and housing, etc.) for many American troops has actually been cut-back in places in recent years - for which the troops themselves suffer.

The size of the US defence budget is admittedly enormous, and much of its is gobbled up by bureaucracy, interminable development contracts that fail to pan out, etc., - but that is money that properly needs to be spent elsewhere within the military. Hundreds of old F-15s that still form the Air Force's background are grounded because of age-related issues, and very few F-22 are likely to ever be bought to replace them; the Army has not bought a new tank since 1992; and the Navy can't even keep many of the ships it has in service, having to decommission its minehunters built in the 80's and 90's (useful in a place like the Gulf), and not even being able to afford reaching a fleet size half that of the 600-Ship Navy that was sought in the 80's. And none of this even goes into spare parts, facilities and infrastructure, various (but vital) odds and ends, and above all, training. Many US troops do not get as much training as many of their Commonwealth counterparts. Basically, much of the US defence budget would already have been spoken for even if much of the waste was cut out.

NATO countries would have to make up for a large reduction in US military capabilities, and take on major missions with at most modest US support in lots of dangerous places - like the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, parts of Africa, etc., - if the US military were to be brought down to EU-level proportions.

You have a point about the Israel v. Palestine subsidy issue.

As a de facto Imperial Power, the US may lack some of Britain's strategic acumen when the latter was at the top of its game, but for all its faults, some serious, it is perhaps the mildest and most constructive such Great Power we could have.

[slapout9]

Ken brought up a point I've been chewing on since I read it, about how the negativity seems focused in the North.

I live and work in New Jersey; my extended family is almost all in Boston or the near suburbs of Boston; my GF lives out in Chicagoland. Contrary to what Tequila says, I don't watch Fox News, haven't in years and years.

And the feeling I get among those I talk to is one of...Not Carteresque malaise. Worse. One of "The world seriously hates us now, but there is nothing remotely practical that will change that fact." Add to that a fair helping of "We. Are. Totally. Screwed." Economically, in foreign affairs, and just generally.

It cuts across party/generational/social lines, too. Hawk, dove, Republican, Democrat, old, young...It's a constant. This broad sense of, if not "We're doomed", then one of "We'll never recover."

But it doesn't seem to have penetrated the South; it's a Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest thing (and I can't say much about farther west than that).

I can't figure out -why-, but it feels like what Ken says has something to it - not because of the weather, but for some reason I can't grasp.

What's the difference? What has the Northern part of the country seemingly in need of mass prescriptions of Prozac, while the South (and maybe the West) doesn't have the same gloomy feelings about the world?

Hi Penta, for the answer to your question just listen to Bocephus explain it:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4s0nzsU1Wg&feature=related

[walrus]

Steve, you wrote:


I'm moving toward the conclusion that our problem is NOT that people don't understand us (and hence the problem is NOT poor strategic communications or information operations). Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for.

This is where I run the risk of being booted off this board under the "America Hater" label.

It's the Bush Administration and the directions he and his supporters are taking America that the rest of the world doesn't like, and I absolutely agree with the rest of the world.

America's reputation stinks, period, it stinks with your friends as well as your real enemies, but because you happen to have the worlds biggest economy, we hold our nose and still deal with you.

I will not catalogue the various sins and practices that have led to this, it would take too long, suffice to say that we have reached the point where a Brigadier General, legal advisor to Guantanamo, refuses to answer a hypothetical question from the Senate Judiciary Committee, about whether Iranians waterboarding a downed American airman would be torture.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/11/graham-waterboarding-iran/

Now this situation is recoverable, lower your blood pressure and please don't switch off yet.

1. First understand why your friends are deserting you. It has a lot to do with your non-observance of the golden rule. And the "my way or the highway" attitude. People in the rest of the world have other ways of organising and doing things that are just as good, if not better, than yours. Get some humility and follow the golden rule.

2. Understand that you cannot be the world's policeman, the world won't tolerate it, nor the robber baron economic attitude that goes with it. You will simply drive people into the arms of the next rising power, the Chinese, or the Indians or the Russians. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others, empire is expensive. You think Iraq and Afghanistan is bad? Consider the entire world rebelling against you. If you start doing as you would be done by (Step #1) you can instead build alliances and enhance security that way.

3. That gets your friends back onside, now lets talk about the real enemies.In confronting your real enemies the first thing you have to do is understand whats bugging them. In the Middle East, they don't just "hate our freedoms". There has been a battle between western civilisation and the ancient religious power structures of Islam for the hearts and minds of muslims going on for at least four generations, and until George W. Bush came along, the West was winning - and it doesn't take an anthropologist to say it.

Stop doing things that alienate Muslims. Start doing the same things we did during the cold war - and here I am going back to the Fifties. These things include a massive campaign to prove to the world that we really are the good guys and start walking the talk, just like we did with the Communists. These were massive efforts (Not just IO and Psyops) to educate, demonstrate and convince wavering populations the world over that the American/ European model of free market capitalism and secular democracy was much better at creating human happiness than Communism.

Ask yourself this; If Muslims "hate our freedoms" why the heck do you think that many of them will do almost anything (legal and illegal) to migrate to Europe or North America, or Australia? They don't want to live under an oppressive theocracy, but of course if you invade, kill, bomb, jail and and torture people they will rally to their religion and stand up for their country like people anywhere would.

Then of course there is Putin's Russia, but how do we confront his rigged elections when the last but one American Presidential Election was a mess?

How do we confront Dictators around the world over human rights when America has trashed its own record in this area?

I could go on. America has done some hateful things and until you recognise it, give the Government a kick in the backside and tell it to start living up to the reputation America HAD as a beacon of hope then nothing will change, and you will keep wondering why.

[Ron Humphrey]

imply that all IO is PSYOP. Rather, what I thought Gian was talking about was PSYOP. As Tom says, PSYOP is A component of IO. My comment then was directed at that part tof the equation. And, I would reiterate that you can't keep on selling snake oil if it doesn't work. If it does work, then it is much easier and legitimate to sell and we call it aspirin.

Cheers

JohnT

I probably came off a little strong, but as I'm sure you can tell this has been a "hot-button" fo me for a while. It's not so much that it's not understood but that as Tom pointed out it's in the Joint Manual and I'm afraid for a lot of folks thats where it stays and the context in which it's taken.
Honestly I think this last post by walrus did more to point out why and how important it is for us to have our heads around it.

It's not that we may not disagree with what others from around the world say or that they are necessarily right, but in the end their perceptions are our reality when it comes to interacting with them. I think Ken brought this out in mentioning how often we ended up in fights do to lack of others truly
knowing what we're about(generalization)

We must focus on a greater understanding of the globe and it's peoples in order for either Full scale warfare, COIN, or inbetween to be effective.

Yes a soldiers job is a soldiers job, but work smarter not harder training never hurts.

[Ken White]

. . .
America's reputation stinks, period, it stinks with your friends as well as your real enemies, but because you happen to have the worlds biggest economy, we hold our nose and still deal with you.

Been true of many for many years. The fact that we're unduly arrogant, a bit insensitive and a trifle xenophobic doesn't help.
. . .

Now this situation is recoverable, lower your blood pressure and please don't switch off yet.

1. First understand why your friends are deserting you. It has a lot to do with your non-observance of the golden rule. And the "my way or the highway" attitude. People in the rest of the world have other ways of organising and doing things that are just as good, if not better, than yours. Get some humility and follow the golden rule.

True, the first four years of this Administration were a cluster of diplomatic blunders of some magnitude. In fairness, they've done much better the past three. The damage will heal but it will take time. Not as bad as it was during Viet Nam.


2. Understand that you cannot be the world's policeman, the world won't tolerate it, nor the robber baron economic attitude that goes with it. You will simply drive people into the arms of the next rising power, the Chinese, or the Indians or the Russians. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others, empire is expensive. You think Iraq and Afghanistan is bad? Consider the entire world rebelling against you. If you start doing as you would be done by (Step #1) you can instead build alliances and enhance security that way.

We'd really rather not be the world's policeman. Honest. Read Bush's early speeches; we disavowed the job and Rumsfeld backed him up. Then they got caught in the crossfire; all the earlier placatory efforts with ME were for naught, it appeared.

Unfortunately, the UN seems to be marginal at the job and other then the Poms and you Strynes, no one else seems to want to help much. That's been true since WW II and it's a long standing problem; everyone is just more aware of it now because we communicate better.


3. That gets your friends back onside, now lets talk about the real enemies.In confronting your real enemies the first thing you have to do is understand whats bugging them. In the Middle East, they don't just "hate our freedoms". There has been a battle between western civilisation and the ancient religious power structures of Islam for the hearts and minds of muslims going on for at least four generations, and until George W. Bush came along, the West was winning - and it doesn't take an anthropologist to say it.

True -- but George is apparently an impatient guy and decided to take a calculated risk and see if he could accelerate a probable four to six generation movement into a two generation movement. Many do not agree with that. It may or may not work. Probably will but some will never forgive him for doing it -- even those that benefit if it does work. Old world's funny that way...


Stop doing things that alienate Muslims. Start doing the same things we did during the cold war - and here I am going back to the Fifties. These things include a massive campaign to prove to the world that we really are the good guys and start walking the talk, just like we did with the Communists. These were massive efforts (Not just IO and Psyops) to educate, demonstrate and convince wavering populations the world over that the American/ European model of free market capitalism and secular democracy was much better at creating human happiness than Communism.

Different time and different antagonists. Fractures in Society and excessive ideological divides in most western nations make the world a different place. Hard to orchestrate a bunch of hostile cats -- that means we have difficulty getting our act together to do what you suggest. the other side has their own cat herding problem as well. Neither they nor we are as monolithic as was the case in the 50s.


Ask yourself this; If Muslims "hate our freedoms" why the heck do you think that many of them will do almost anything (legal and illegal) to migrate to Europe or North America, or Australia? They don't want to live under an oppressive theocracy, but of course if you invade, kill, bomb, jail and and torture people they will rally to their religion and stand up for their country like people anywhere would.

The average Muslim is not the problem, it's those who pervert the religion. However, the degree of solidarity between members of the religion males disavowal of those with ill intentions difficult. There's more -- but you know all that...


Then of course there is Putin's Russia, but how do we confront his rigged elections when the last but one American Presidential Election was a mess?

Same way the Commonwealth confronts Mugabe's? Or Fiji's...


How do we confront Dictators around the world over human rights when America has trashed its own record in this area?

In the eyes of some; haven't noticed any real problems in that regard to US Citizens other than the occasional odd wad. There's that xenophobia again. There also is that fragmentation and divided electorate I mentioned.


I could go on. America has done some hateful things and until you recognise it, give the Government a kick in the backside and tell it to start living up to the reputation America HAD as a beacon of hope then nothing will change, and you will keep wondering why.

We've been doing hateful things for over 220 years in the eyes of a great many; no news there.

It'll change, everything goes in cycles. Ours last either four or eight years. Current one ends mid-January 2008. Not much will change but some people will be happier, some less happy.

Most of us don't wonder why at all, by the way...

[walrus]

Thank you for your well thought out and measured response to my post Ken. I apologise if I've offended anyone and my post is a bit over the top.

But from where I sit, the problem and the solution appear obvious and I get hot under the collar thinking about the years and lives we've wasted barking up the wrong tree.

We built a perfectly good strategy to confront and contain Communism while we whittled away at its economic and social credentials for thirty years until that tree fell down.

We need to dust off those old strategies and do exactly the same to radical Islam in my opinion, starting with building good relations with those countries that want to be our friends.

[Ron Humphrey]

Ken brought up a point I've been chewing on since I read it, about how the negativity seems focused in the North.

I live and work in New Jersey; my extended family is almost all in Boston or the near suburbs of Boston; my GF lives out in Chicagoland. Contrary to what Tequila says, I don't watch Fox News, haven't in years and years.

And the feeling I get among those I talk to is one of...Not Carteresque malaise. Worse. One of "The world seriously hates us now, but there is nothing remotely practical that will change that fact." Add to that a fair helping of "We. Are. Totally. Screwed." Economically, in foreign affairs, and just generally.

It cuts across party/generational/social lines, too. Hawk, dove, Republican, Democrat, old, young...It's a constant. This broad sense of, if not "We're doomed", then one of "We'll never recover."

But it doesn't seem to have penetrated the South; it's a Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest thing (and I can't say much about farther west than that).

I can't figure out -why-, but it feels like what Ken says has something to it - not because of the weather, but for some reason I can't grasp.

What's the difference? What has the Northern part of the country seemingly in need of mass prescriptions of Prozac, while the South (and maybe the West) doesn't have the same gloomy feelings about the world?

and throughout that time I've seen very little really bring the spirits down.

We had floods, ice, economic stress, but we just keep on smiling. I actually think it has more to do with the fact that most southerners and midwest don't really pay too much attention to what is said by who, when, and how. We just tend to take one day at a time and pretty much expect life to suck sometimes so we're never really surprised when it does.:D

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am coming in late to this thread. I just wanted to throw something out for consideration.

I had a Spanish friend tell me that Americans are too hard on ourselves. That we are the greatest power on the earth and that we better get used to it instead of crying all the time that nobody likes us. That we need to embrace the responsibility that comes with the postion as the worlds greatest power instead of trying to deny what we are.

Becuase of our roots we are uncomfortable in the roll of the last great colonial power. But until we reach utopia, there will always be the haves and the have nots.

That doesn't mean that we have to remake the world in our image, which seems to be the current purpose of our foriegn policy. I understand the argument that democracies don't fight other democracies, but not every country is ready for democracy. We labor under the delution that every person in the world wants what we have. Many people in the world just want to eat tomorrow.

Are we always going to be right, NO. We are just as feable as any other person. Will someone be able to find flaw in the way we handled a particular situation, YES. Comes with the territory. learn from your mistakes and move on. Don't whine that I am being nice and everyone should love me for it.

In a vast oversimplification, you never love the guy in charge, but if he is fair, leaves you alone as long as you play well in the playpen but slaps you (or your neighbor) if you screw up, then you will come to respect and admire him.

We could have a world of near-peer competetor militaries. Worked real well for Europe in the ninetenth and twentieth centruries. Or, we could be the Leviathan. Accept that roll. Keep the world from imploding on itself. and let the other regions of the world develop in thier own good time. Radical islam might be a threat, but it could be contained.

Once you determine this is what you are then you can start to determine what your foriegn policy ought to be.

[Rank amateur]

In a vast oversimplification, you never love the guy in charge, but if he is fair, leaves you alone as long as you play well in the playpen but slaps you (or your neighbor) if you screw up, then you will come to respect and admire him.

I agree, but we need to recognize that we only slap one neighbor and never the other. The one getting slapped is going to feel different than the one never getting slapped. The one getting slapped is never going to think that we are fair. Like Steve says, it's not because they don't understand us. It's because they don't like being the only one getting slapped.

[Tom Odom]

Where's Harry Turtledove when we need him... :D



Interesting. I read JJs comment with interest also. FWIW, I didn't take Steve's premise that way -- perhaps because I'm in broad agreement. In any event, I have no doubt many could and some would desire to take it that way as the Great American Empire, Act II. I just don't see that happening nor do I believe that most in the world, given a little reflection time would.

The British -- like most in Europe -- after all are basically Arab centric and goodness knows we've given them enough provocation to dislike us intensely so JJs reaction was unsurprising . It was also essentially fair; I could quibble a bit about events and interpretations but on balance, I understand where he's coming from.



Possibly my error as I assumed given what I know of Steve's background and his writing, it was sort of implied...

As for middle of the road, yep -- and most Americans are essentially moderates; that's why it's acceptable...



Hate is a bad word, Penta used it and I did not. However, I didn't correct his over statement to a more accurate "while a very few hate us, many more are in a state of mild dislike, distrust or envy and the majority of the world doesn't care much unless we do something that effects them personally. the bad news is that due to our size, sometimes our minor efforts create a ripple effect that can exacerbate their perception into a state of active dislike..." or words to that effect. I'm wordy enough without over editing someone else's basically correct comment. :o

You are, of course, correct in saying that we are not resoundingly hated -- I've said here and elsewhere that dislike of the US today is not nearly as bad as it was during and directly after Viet Nam -- and there are some American who want "them to like us" (though not many IMO, most could care less). Still, other than that, Penta's points were valid, I thought.



To you too -- do you have an alternative?


My alternative is very much like what you described, Ken. The things I would add to it all fall into the realm of balancing strategy with other elements of power including economics, political/IO, and soft power as described by Joe Nye. Finally I would also add that I firmly believe that unilateral action in any but the most dire or most immediate circumstances is laden with costs. Coalitions of interests--fleeting or semi-permanent--have their own costs but at the end of the day prove their worth. If you routienly act alone you will be alone.

Steve,

With what you said in clarification I am more at ease with the concept. As Ken is wont to say when someone uses the word "victory" in reference to briush fire wars or COIN, words are important. In this case, taging Israeli to it--yes Ken I am somewhat conceding your point--is not merely distracting. Israeli security strategy is not a rehash of TR's famous big stick. Again however I believe that discussing strategy in purely military terms is inherently limiting in the choices one can make.

Best to both of you. As usual, good discussion.

Tom

[Ken White]

... Coalitions of interests--fleeting or semi-permanent--have their own costs but at the end of the day prove their worth. If you routienly act alone you will be alone.

Bush and Co. have done some good things and some bad ones, some smart things and some dumb ones -- and IMO, one of the dumbest was to thumb his / our nose at most of the world his first couple of years. That did more damage than invading Iraq...

The sad thing is that most of it was totally unnecessary, the Senate would never have ratified Kyoto as it stood -- or the ICC. Those two actions set a whole lot of people into opposition. Spilt milk but hopefully we won't go down the unilateral road barring a major necessity in the future.

Having said that I still see a place for minor unilateral actions with a better trained and better supported SOF and for a hopefully rare if ever (but not to be denied as a matter of course) effort that will require unilateral action and thus, Steve's approach could be applicable. The old METT-T applies as always (I'm old but others can add the C if they wish :) ).

Hopefully, if that were to occur, the Admin of the day would do a far better job of getting their message out...

Regards,
Ken

[Tom Odom]

Having said that I still see a place for minor unilateral actions with a better trained and better supported SOF and for a hopefully rare if ever (but not to be denied as a matter of course) effort that will require unilateral action and thus, Steve's approach could be applicable. The old METT-T applies as always (I'm old but others can add the C if they wish ).

Absolutely concur.

I always believed in thinking before I stuck my head (or any other part) into dark, unknown places. :D

Best

Tom

[Rank amateur]

Absolutely concur.

I always believed in thinking before I stuck my head (or any other part) into dark, unknown places. :D

Best

Tom

Easier said than done.

[Stu-6]

I wonder how this thread would have run had Steve not titled it "The Israeli option on Strategy" and had not even mentioned Israel?

I generally agree with his prescription but would instead have called it the TR strategy, walk softly and carry a big stick.



It seems that would be something different, since Israel doesn't really walk softly.

[Ken White]

It seems that would be something different, since Israel doesn't really walk softly.

if not in so many words.

[Tacitus]

...we are the greatest power on the earth and that we better get used to it instead of crying all the time that nobody likes us. That we need to embrace the responsibility that comes with the postion as the worlds greatest power instead of trying to deny what we are.

Once you determine this is what you are then you can start to determine what your foriegn policy ought to be.

Hey Curmudgeon: That's one route we could take. Accept the fact that the US is an empire, and let that determine our foreign policy? That sounds like what I read in Niall Ferguson’s book "Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire".
http://www.amazon.com/Colossus-Americas-Empire-Niall-Ferguson/dp/1594200130

This kind of approach would require the US government placing attention and the interests of imperial possessions on a higher plane than currently is the case. Some sacrifices for the possessions might be in order. However, all that matters to my representative is the 1st District of Tennessee, as near as I can tell. We're talking a serious attitude change.

The only "empire" that really counts in the minds of our government is the parochial world of Washington, DC, with its lobbyists, bureaucrats, politicians, and assorted supporting think-tankers, all absorbed in their petty turf-wars about who among them would get government money for their minions and projects, overseas or at home. Developments outside the U.S. matter only to the extent that they help in the aggrandizement of their own power, their fiefdoms, and those of their cronies, on the banks of the Potomac. It is the imperial capital, not the empire itself, which really matters.

What really gets attention of the participants is the sleazy, vindictive inside-the-Beltway world of Washington, DC. You could argue that the Administration’s inability to focus on post-invasion planning in Iraq was in itself strong evidence that what actually happens in Mesopotamia is of secondary concern to who’s on top in the shifting power games in DC.

One hundred years ago, a predecessor regime to the modern Turkish regime (the Ottoman Empire), committed genocide. The Congress has recently decided that now - as we depend more than ever on Turkish assistance in the war in Iraq and are trying to dissuade the Turkish government from incursions in Kurdish Iraq - is the perfect time to condemn a regime five generations away from the original events for this horrendous but ancient tragedy. Apparently some Congressmen with some pull had some big Armenian donors in their districts. Presumably the situation in the Middle East in 2007 takes a back seat to the big money men back in their home district.

The United States remains a hegemonic global superpower sporting the narrow outlook of mini-states like Monaco and Liechtenstein. That is, it basically reflects the average man who couldn’t care less about foreign affairs…as long as some Islamists aren’t flying planes into our skyscrapers.

To our foreign critics on this thread: I don't have any particular dislike for foreigners. I don't detect any xenophobia on this board. For all I know your own elected representatives combine the wisdom of Solomon, the character of George Washington, and common sense of Abraham Lincoln. And if they were taking the lead in world affairs, it would all be sweetness and light. Perhaps you can even point to a past record bearing out this ability. Feel free to solve this little Al Qaeda / Islamists problem any time it is convenient for you. Really, we wouldn't mind!

Some countries were born empires, some aspired to empired status, and still others had it thrust upon them. The U.S. is very much in the latter category.

[walrus]

Curmudgeon:


I had a Spanish friend tell me that Americans are too hard on ourselves. That we are the greatest power on the earth and that we better get used to it instead of crying all the time that nobody likes us. That we need to embrace the responsibility that comes with the postion as the worlds greatest power instead of trying to deny what we are.

Becuase of our roots we are uncomfortable in the roll of the last great colonial power............................................. .....................................

.................................................. .......

In a vast oversimplification, you never love the guy in charge, but if he is fair, leaves you alone as long as you play well in the playpen but slaps you (or your neighbor) if you screw up, then you will come to respect and admire him.


This is a rather narcissistic worldview that is embodied in the PNAC and it overstates America's military might, as events in one very small and backward corner of the Globe (Iraq) have demonstrated.

I also have difficulty with the playpen analogy since what is "Fair" is a matter of opinion and America's "fairness" is a matter of some debate, particularly in the Islamic world.

If such a course was adopted, I believe other nations will gang up, under the leadership of Russia, China or India or all three and do to America and it's interests exactly what we did to Soviet Russia.


Tacitus:


To our foreign critics on this thread: I don't have any particular dislike for foreigners. I don't detect any xenophobia on this board. For all I know your own elected representatives combine the wisdom of Solomon, the character of George Washington, and common sense of Abraham Lincoln. And if they were taking the lead in world affairs, it would all be sweetness and light. Perhaps you can even point to a past record bearing out this ability. Feel free to solve this little Al Qaeda / Islamists problem any time it is convenient for you. Really, we wouldn't mind!


I remind you that JJackson (not that he needs defending) and myself come from countries that currently have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so we have a vested interest in the outcome of some of these discussions. We are also identified (for better or worse) as your natural allies, and as nations, have experience in successful counterinsurgency campaigns that we believe it is useful to contribute.

It has also been said that your friends can always be counted on to tell you things you don't want to hear - in your best interest of course.

My advice is quite serious, please consider the tactics and strategies used from approximately 1952 to 1990 that broke the USSR, first detaching its satellites (Poland, Czeckoslovakia, Roumania, East Germany, etc.) through the use of "Soft" power then by causing an economic implosion in Russia itself as it tried to keep up with American Defence spending.

The architects of this set of strategies are now mainly dead, but the history books contain many of the details. Most of the institutions that were part of it are long gone, the only exception I can think of being the Peace Corps.

In action, my proposed solution would mean using Diplomatic, Social, humanitarian and economic measures to detach countries from Iran, starting with Syria, supporting moderate opinion leaders everywhere among the Islamic community and providing them with the philosophical tools to confront Wahabism, the objective being to detach populations (especially the young and easily led) from Wahabism.

It's doable and it's feasible. Here is a hint; google "Arab Drifters" and watch the video on you tube. How easy is it to build a program to ensure that none of these guys and other rev heads never get radicalised?

[Sean Osborne]

I'm moving toward the conclusion that our problem is NOT that people don't understand us (and hence the problem is NOT poor strategic communications or information operations). Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for.

I agree 100%.

I also agree with what tequila labeled as the "Zeus' thunderbolt." Unless I'm mistaken "Zeus' thunderbolt" is exactly what CONPLAN 8022 is with respect to US policy - a global, preemptive military strike capability against an identified National Security threat.

As we all know we're not the only nation on earth that has a "Zeus' thunderbolt" doctrine with which to respond to NatSec 101 threats. Russia got a plan. So does Israel.

We may see one of these days how Israel's "Zeus' thunderbolt" doctrine applies to Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions.

[Tacitus]

In action, my proposed solution would mean using Diplomatic, Social, humanitarian and economic measures to detach countries from Iran, starting with Syria, supporting moderate opinion leaders everywhere among the Islamic community and providing them with the philosophical tools to confront Wahabism, the objective being to detach populations (especially the young and easily led) from Wahabism.

It's doable and it's feasible. Here is a hint; google "Arab Drifters" and watch the video on you tube. How easy is it to build a program to ensure that none of these guys and other rev heads never get radicalised?

Hey walrus,
Well, that's worth a try. It has the advantage of the prospect of holding together a coalition to oppose the Islamists. It sounds like an adaptation of the containment strategy used against the USSR in the cold war.

I feel like this will be a long, drawn out affair, like the cold war was. It doesn't seem very realistic to me from a political and financial standpoint (here or abroad) to maintain large conventional forces in places like Iraq. There just isn't support here or abroad for that kind of thing. Better to keep these "small wars" as small as possible, resisting the urge to escalate. Maybe sort of like what is going on in the Horn of Africa.

Perhaps there is so much bad blood politically between Western nations as a result of this Iraq invasion, that things just can't be patched up at the highest level until all the previous leaders leave the scene. Come November 4, 2008, the slate will be wiped clean. Bush is probably radioactive for any foreign leader--not exactly a good thing when trying to wage coalition "small warfare."

[JJackson]

Catching up on this thread this evening I had picked out a couple of extracts I was going to comment on and see that Walrus has noticed the same bits, so I will refer you to his quote boxes rather than paste them in again.

I would have to disagree with Curmudgeon’s Spanish friend. You are not hard enough on yourselves, with great power comes great responsibility. And you have taken onto yourselves great military power; it is a conscious choice your representatives have made over a long period of time to build up a force for power projection. I will take some convincing that US force levels are only enough to protect the territorial integrity of the US of A. One carrier group would put paid to most continents’ – let alone country’s – navies. You have this power but do you use it with the Wisdom of Solomon? I think not. For each country vilified and threatened by the US there is usually an equally nasty counterpart that is brushed under the carpet due to ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ or some similarly flawed logic.

Again with the play pit. If I was playing in the sandpit with some other kids and one of the big boys kept pushing around the kids who were doing things he did not like I would
A] Take an immediate dislike to the bully.
B] Try and organise the others to kick the #### out of him.

In response to the extract from Tacitus:
My elected representatives have let me down badly by aligning the UK with US foreign policy. I am ashamed that my country invaded another country with no hard evidence, what it transpires they did have was far from enough to justify a war of aggression. The delay in calling the UN for a halt to Israel’s bombing of Lebanon was even worse. So I would certainly not wish to substitute us as the bully in the play pit. My preferred solution is not to have any one country have the ability to impose its will; if your case is not strong enough to persuade the others that one of your number needs disciplining then you do not have the authority to discipline them. I seem to recall we all signed up to something like wasn’t it called the UN?

Having dumped on the US for its more recent destabilizations of the system I reserve most of the blame for our inability to correct problems, and the number of problems that need correcting, for the colonial European powers. This is a longer argument, and not very relevant to this thread, but basically they created the fixed bordered Westphalian Nation State and imposed it on the rest of the world. The cartographer’s lines on the map - for the purpose of demarcation of administrative regions - have been inherited as national boundaries. Irredentist disputes abound as the enclosed populations try to redefine these lines to better reflect who they wish to be grouped with. This system is not well adapted to global problems like communicable diseases or environmental change.

As to solving the Islamist problem I suggest we would not have one if Britain had not sided with the Zionists at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians (thanks Balfour). While most Arabs would prefer a one state solution, a two state solution might be acceptable if the US withdraws unconditional support for Israel. As it is they have the land, wealth & might and the Palestinians are a little light on bargaining chips, beyond the 'we was wronged' argument. Unfortunately this requires a change in US policy to Israel which is not likely to happen so the 'we would be happy if you have a solution' is really 'we are happy if you have a solution that fits in with what we wanted to happen'.

[JJackson]

Maybe sort of like what is going on in the Horn of Africa.


I will have to come back to this one (I need sleep) and I know it is covered in other threads but this is a prime example of why I am so scared of what I view as US medalling. The stability that was spreading with the expansion of UIC control was improving the living conditions of the Somalis. The US's prints are all over the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. The legitimacy of the imposed puppet regieme is laughable as is any attempt to justify it as being what the Somalis wanted. It is what America and Ethiopia wanted. Ethiopia thought it might work to their advantage if they could install a friendly regieme and then leave the UN or AU to prop them up and America just had a paranoid fear of Islamic terrorists. The big problem is you lit a match and you dont know how the fire will spread. Somalia could quickly become Somalia, Ethiopia (Ogoden and other factions) and Eritrea. That block in conjunction with either Sudan (North, South and Dafur) plus Chad or Uganda/Congo/Rwanda/Kenya is a recipe for anything but a small war. None of the players may be in a position to pose Americans at home much of a problem but the untold misery a war rageing across this area could cause for the impoverished inhabitants does not bear thinking about.

[Ron Humphrey]

Curmudgeon

In a vast oversimplification, you never love the guy in charge, but if he is fair, leaves you alone as long as you play well in the playpen but slaps you (or your neighbor) if you screw up, then you will come to respect and admire him.

I would agree with this in a large sense and I will explain why

In corrections individuals are given the responsibility of maintaining order and enforcing restrictions on others over whom they truly have no power (reference number of officers to detainee or inmate ratio) yet because of that responsibility they must do their job. Society as a whole may agree or disagree with the how's, why's, when's etc but as a whole they have a system which has been given the task of determining that

This being said, although the officers job is neither fun nor altogether rewarding besides the serving society aspect they must and do fufill that responsibility. This more often than not makes them very unpopular amongst the population wherein they are big brother. Anyone who has done this for a period should be able to tell you how the respect given to those who perform their mission dutifully and justly is not at all proportionate to praise recieved ( as would be expected) but in the end that respect is what keeps things quiet or allows the settling of issues through somewhat more soft techniques many a time.

I posit that if one takes this and expands it to a global scale there are enough commonalities to make it a viable example.





This is a rather narcissistic worldview that is embodied in the PNAC and it overstates America's military might, as events in one very small and backward corner of the Globe (Iraq) have demonstrated.

As with anything else in life would you actually expect any populous to automatically jump on board with something they don't perceive yet.

I think we have to ask if the Iraqis perceived us as coming to do our job as big brother or if they expected similar events to that which they have known throughout history. If you look at it; kicking the Iraqi army out of Kuwait and then leaving those who tried to stand up against Sadam to hang in his gallows, or to suffer horrific deaths due to his WMD's probably did not set the stage for them to expect us to really care about the long term this time.

I really don't think it's narcissism so much as maybe the result of some select willful ignorance at the wrong places, in the wrong time.
(said thus in order for others to fill in the blanks as they see fit:wry:)



In action, my proposed solution would mean using Diplomatic, Social, humanitarian and economic measures to detach countries from Iran, starting with Syria, supporting moderate opinion leaders everywhere among the Islamic community and providing them with the philosophical tools to confront Wahabism, the objective being to detach populations (especially the young and easily led) from Wahabism.

It's doable and it's feasible. Here is a hint; google "Arab Drifters" and watch the video on you tube. How easy is it to build a program to ensure that none of these guys and other rev heads never get radicalised?

I think you would find that if we focus on some of what you said the ism's tend to sort themselves out.

[Sean Osborne]

As to solving the Islamist problem I suggest we would not have one if Britain had not sided with the Zionists at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians (thanks Balfour).

JJackson, I find your suggestion that world would not have a “a problem” with Islamists because Britain “sided with” Zionists at the expense of “indigenous Palestinians” to be an over simplification of historical fact and which might be based-upon a pro-“Palestinian” bias at the expense of the Jewish Diaspora which originated in the Holy Land.

What rights were stripped from the Israelite’s by imperial Rome, the European superpower of the first century AD, which a subsequent generation of Europeans sought to rectify through the good offices of Great Britain, France and Italy?

The British government, as a global superpower power in its own right, approved the classified statement of policy (The Balfour Declaration), which subsequently became a component of the Treaty of Sevres with Islamic Turkey (a successor Middle Eastern empire to that of the Romans and Byzantines). The Balfour Declaration included provisions agreed to by all parties which awarded territorial concessions to many indigenous peoples – not just “Palestinians.”

The core text reads:


"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

The critically important statement in bold above includes at lot more than Arabs of the Islamic faith.

Maybe even more important was the 1915 exchange of letters between Henry McMahon and Hussein bin Ali in Mecca which defined an Arab state or states exclusive of the Mediterranean coast. The extent of the Mediterranean coastal exclusion was never clarified.

I would vigorously suggest that the “Islamist problem” arises explicitly from Islamic ideology, and therefore Islam is on the hook to solve this problem. Neither Balfour nor any other non-Islamic individual is the sole source of any “problem.”

The 1922 Churchill White Paper figures very prominently as a clarifier of the Balfour Declaration. It acknowledges both Arab and Jewish indigenous populations in Palestine; that Palestine as a whole should not be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine; that “during the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000;” and that “the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.”

Finally, the “indigenous Palestinians” you cite were not all Arabs. There were counted among them, as can be recovered from many sources, an ethnology of indigenous Palestinians that included Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, and Tartars.



While most Arabs would prefer a one state solution, a two state solution might be acceptable if the US withdraws unconditional support for Israel.

This has the proverbial "snowballs chance" of happening anytime soon. American support for Israel comes directly from America's Judeo-Christian heritage. This is the cornerstone of the American policy. Moreover, at this point in time America would no more withdraw unconditional support from Israel than Great Britain would withdraw unconditional support of its immigrants to Australia. Condi Rice is trying like hell, but she is being vehemently opposed at every turn by a fairly large majority of We The People.

[JJackson]

I think Ron’s prison analogy exposes the fundamental difference at the heart of the problem. I view the kid in the sand pit as a bully because all the kids in the pit did not agree a set of rules and ask the big boy to enforce them. The big boy just disciplined who ever he felt like. In the prison example; society (what ever that is) decide a set of rules and employed one group to enforce them (police), another group to decide what should happen to those who did not play by them (judiciary) and a third group to incarcerate those who could not be trusted in the play pit (warders). There is of course a fourth group (military) who’s job is to stop the kids from other playpits from taking over ours and imposing their rules. The question is when the US invades Iraq, or threatens Iran, are they doing it as the bully or because they have been asked to by the society of nation states? I fear Ron’s example leads me to think he views their actions benignly where I would view them more as kids from another pit who are convinced their way is better and have come to impose it on us – with the best of intentions off course (benevolent dictatorship?).

I think there is a problem of Sovereignty (I am not sure that that is quite the right word). What I mean is as individuals we are willing to accept a dilution of our personal will to other groups to achieve group benefits. For me allegiance probably runs family>friends>town>region>UK>EU>Homo sapiens>Planet Earth, or something like that for Osama BL or GWB I suspect it would be a bit different (note I have no religious component). In a zero sum game how much fealty I give at each level is personal and fluid. In a basically capitalist society with ‘no taxation without representation’ in mind a crude measure might be how much we are willing to contribute at each tier. The argument I was beginning to articulate in my previous post is that too much power currently resides at the country level and states should be more willing to divest some sovereignty up, or down, the chain to solve problems at the appropriate level.

[Schmedlap]

"Here's the gist: one of the foundation assumptions of current American strategy is that most people around the world like us hence we can and should work through local partners to win 'hearts and minds.'"
I think the assumption is not that people like us, but rather that there is a universal yearning for freedom. Sorry if that sounds like administration propaganda, but that seems to be the assumption.


"Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for."
I realize that your scope is larger than just Iraq, but for what this is worth, I would disagree that people in Iraq have a good understanding of us. Far from it. Iraqis can be very intelligent, very savvy, and have much better interpersonal skills than most Americans. However, when it comes to gathering information about the world outside of their immediate vicinity that they can see with their own eyes, they are horrible. They are so susceptible to conspiracy theories, wild exaggerations, unfounded fears, and just flat out confusion that it is ridiculous. This has been exacerbated by years of state-run propaganda used to prop up corrupt tyrants. More often than not, they cannot make sense of what is occuring in the adjacent province, let alone half a world away. I met Iraqis in 2005 who didn't realize that we re-invaded in 2003 and their first question of us was to ask if the Israelis had moved into Iraq.

[slapout9]

As far as the Lightning Bolt from the sky goes here is an interesting paper on how to do it perhaps with the effect that Steve Metz is talking about.


http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/saas_Theses/Fahrenkrug/SAASS%20-%20Fahrenkrug.pdf

[SteveMetz]

I think the assumption is not that people like us, but rather that there is a universal yearning for freedom. Sorry if that sounds like administration propaganda, but that seems to be the assumption.


That's the way the Bush administration phrased it, but I don't think that's really the assumption. The assumption is that everyone yearns for freedom AND believes that liberal democracy and market economies are the best way to attain it.

I think there are two flaws in the assumption:

1. It assumes that because Americans value INDIVIDUAL freedom above all else, everyone else does. In reality, for many cultures GROUP rights and justice/honor are more important than individual freedom.

2. It assumes that a yearning for freedom is enough to make a democracy function. In reality, the hard part isn't everyone wanting freedom for themselves. It's everyone being willing to tolerate the freedom of OTHER people. That doesn't exist in sufficient quantities in some cultures.

In my book, one of my main lines of criticism of the Bush strategy is that it ignored the role of culture and simply mirror imaged American preferences and desires on the rest of the world. I believe this was because the administration and its supporters mis-read the "lessons" of the Reagan administration. They believed that because once repressive regimes collapsed in Eastern Europe, democracies of one sort of the other blossomed, that would happen everywhere. They overlooked the fact that it tends to happen in certain cultures but not others.

[JJackson]

Sean:
Not real arguments here; I knew when I was writing it that it was a gross over simplification of the positions on all sides. Global Jewry were poorly treated globally for centuries by all, the holocaust was just one more injustice in a very long line. The British made mutually exclusive promises to various parties and, principally due to our rulers of that era having a Sunday School Christian background, seem to have been more inclined to side with the Isaac rather than the Ishmael branch of the Abrahamic religions. Having been British public school educated I remember all the compulsory church attendance and religious studies classes well.

As to the “Snowball in hell” bit that is pretty much the point I was trying to make. The idea that the US is having to shoulder the burden as others wont step up, and would be happy to step back if they would, is just not true. Others might try and broker a peace but any solution that the majority of nations might view as equitable will not get out of committee as it is not what the US/Israel want.

[Tom Odom]

Sean:
Not real arguments here; I knew when I was writing it that it was a gross over simplification of the positions on all sides. Global Jewry were poorly treated globally for centuries by all, the holocaust was just one more injustice in a very long line. The British made mutually exclusive promises to various parties and, principally due to our rulers of that era having a Sunday School Christian background, seem to have been more inclined to side with the Isaac rather than the Ishmael branch of the Abrahamic religions. Having been British public school educated I remember all the compulsory church attendance and religious studies classes well.

As to the “Snowball in hell” bit that is pretty much the point I was trying to make. The idea that the US is having to shoulder the burden as others wont step up, and would be happy to step back if they would, is just not true. Others might try and broker a peace but any solution that the majority of nations might view as equitable will not get out of committee as it is not what the US/Israel want.

Wearing a moderator hat, JJ that was a very measured response and I for one appreciate it. This thread is not about debating the Arab-Isareli question. There are threads on here where we have discussed those issues.

Sean try not climbing on the bully pulpit with phrases like "Snow ball in Hell" and "We the People". Your views are your views. Similiarly, do not assign or imply "pro" labels to others. What you label yourself is your business; what you label others on here is moderator business.

Thank you both for your time, Carry on with the purpose of the thread,

Tom

[tulanealum]

As a first time poster, I thought I would throw a few random thoughts out, but I claim only to be a novice.

First, is strategic communications being utilized effectively in our efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the broader international arena? I would argue that STRATCOMM is the fourth leg of the COIN stool and that it does not necessarily receive the attention it should. Sure, people TALK about it, but what is really done? Karen Hughes did a bad job...she was more about opening breast cancer clinics in Bahrain than getting reporters out in Iraq. There is no doubt that this administration believes "if we just show them how good we are..." that they will come. Well, I've tried that with enough women and it just doesn't always work.

We need to focus on our audience and we are not doing this. Quick points here using my experience in Iraq as an example. The STRATCOMM side of the house there, which is divided between the military and State and multiple groups within both organizations, has been primarily focused on US domestic opinion, believing the lessons from the Vietnam were "don't lose your domestic support or you're screwed." Fair enough, but the US and international media are constantly reacting to the stories in Iraq and the Arab media has much influence there. But our reach out to the Arab media and the Iraqi media has been awful. During the 2004 Fallujah and Sadr uprisings in April, the Green Room at the CPA had 65 people on the STRATCOMM issue...only seven focused on the Arab media and only one could speak to the Arabic media in Arabic...it doesn't matter how much time you spend on the US media...the Iraqi population is the center of gravity, not the US one.

Next, it took General Casey over two years to conduct a roundtable with the Iraqi media...over two years for the most powerful man in the country to reach out to the Iraqi media.

Where was STRATCOMM efforts before, during, and after the Iraqi victory in the Asian Cup? The biggest uniting incident that has occurred since we came to the country and we issued a small press release that nobody read...Iraqis were left wondering why the US and its allies don't care about something so important to them or offer any help? The Emir of Dubai gave the team $5.5 million...he got a lot of media coverage and was seen as a helper.

I guess my point is that STRATCOMM is not a lot of fluff and has a role, but it should be done correctly and resourced appropriately...that is not happeninng right now.

As for how the world sees us, I would argue that the world has a better idea of America than America has of the world. But, my travels around the world have taught me that the knowledge of America in the rest of the world is more about New York and Hollywood and not Alabama and Wisconsin. A lot of people also have ideas of America that are not necessarily accurate. I'm not saying we need to educate them, just that the world doesn't know us like they think they do.

That said, we are an ignorant society for the most part...I do not mean stupid by that...we have lots of smart people, but they have no idea about the rest of the world and just don't care about it. That is what happens when all of your media, television, and movie influences are American. Heck, we really don't have much of a clue about our neighbors in Canada and Mexico.

Last, I think Steve is right on with what he says about how Americans see war...and a lot of that has been pushed during our previous wars...just look at WW 1, WW 2, and the Cold War...us against evil.

Perhaps a new administration will help...we certainly could use some more pragmatic thought that takes into account not just our interests, but the international audience as well and the complexities and differences that encompass it.

[Sean Osborne]

Sean try not climbing on the bully pulpit with phrases like "Snow ball in Hell" and "We the People".

Tom,

I did not say "Snowball in Hell". JJackson did. I said "snowballs chance" --meaning that a snowball has as much longterm viability in spring in summer on earth as they would have in that other place. But as you note, I was expressing my opinion and am entitled to use any common phraseology I deem necessary to make my point clear.

To be clear, I also used the phrase "We The People" as an American citizen with respect to both JJackson as a citizen of the UK and the significant majority of American public opinion I was referencing.


Similiarly, do not assign or imply "pro" labels to others. What you label yourself is your business; what you label others on here is moderator business.

I agree. As has occurred elsewhere on this forum, I did not see a problem in noting how another labeled himself in the context of his comments. It appeared to my comprehension that JJ was making manifest an anti-Zionist versus pro-Palestinian opinion. It was nothing personal, just an observation on the point-of-origin of the comment made. I'll be more careful in this regard.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Curmudgeon:




This is a rather narcissistic worldview that is embodied in the PNAC and it overstates America's military might, as events in one very small and backward corner of the Globe (Iraq) have demonstrated.

I also have difficulty with the playpen analogy since what is "Fair" is a matter of opinion and America's "fairness" is a matter of some debate, particularly in the Islamic world.


First off, we won the "invasion" of Iraq hands down. Where we are failed, and are still failing, is in our policy of trying to overlay our social structure and form of government onto a culture that does not see it as correct. The same problem the soviets had in Afghanistan. So I disagree with you that we do not have the power to smite a wayward nation-state should we feel it is appropriate. I agree that a broad base of international support for any action is better, but I don't agree that a broad base is necessary.

Second, what is "fair" is rarely a matter of true debate. For America, or for that matter any other country, "fair" equates directly into "what is in MY best interest". To claim anything else is self delusion.

Lately, what we feel is in our best interest is to install democracy everywhere regardless of whether the society wants, or I would argue, is in a position to benefit from it. It has the sound of being "fair". Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling that we are helping the repressed nations of the world gain their freedom. Everyone really wants to be "free" like us so we will help everyone get there. But the democracy drive is strictly in our best interest based on the concept that democracies have open trade policies and rarely go to war with each other. In Iraq, in my opinion, we were hoping for a domino effect. That once the other nations around Iraq saw how good things were there they would take a dip in the democracy pool. But ultimately it was still in our best interest to take that action.

I am siding with the idea that we stay out of another country's affairs until they pose a threat to "our" security interests. At that point, once we determine that Diplomatic, Informational, or Economic actions will not be sufficient to reduce the threat, we take limited military action to REDUCE the threat. That does not mean that you embrace "regime change" which was a euphemism for "replacing a dictatorship with a democracy". Depending on the culture of the country you are intervening in, that can be an intergenerational commitment that is primarily a Informational and Economic effort with the military playing only a very minimal roll. The decision to involve ourselves in that kind of action must take into account the society that we are attempting to re-engineer.

From a policy prospective, we need to decide whether sovereignty or human rights are more important. Is a stable government more beneficial to us than one that is democratic. If your choice is democracy, then you better be prepared for that type of commitment. I would submit that, as far as use of the Military form of national power is concerned, our choice should be sovereignty. This is what we did in Desert Storm. We made no attempt to replace the Emir of Kuwait with a democracy. What they had worked for them even though their women did not have the right to vote.

Realize also that, no matter which one of these choices we make, someone will be able to argue that you were wrong. If you try to install a democracy and an insurgency results, you were wrong. If you leave a dictator in charge, you were wrong.

This also does not mean that we abandon joint actions through the UN to stop genocide or to provide disaster relief. It means that 1) unilateral actions to reduce a threat should be taken regardless of international support; 2) these actions should be limited to reducing the threat to an acceptable level, not eliminating it unless absolutely necessary (containment); 3) where elimination of the threat is required or where there is a failed state, limit your intervention to what is required to restore a functioning, stabile government; and 4) if you determine that installing a democracy is absolutely necessary, plan on a twenty to fifty year commitment.

[Sean Osborne]

First off, we won the "invasion" of Iraq hands down.

Yeah, roger that. Given the size and sophistication of the forces involved the American, British, Australian, Kuwaiti and Coalition victory was unprecented in modern warfare.



Where we are failed, and are still failing, is in our policy of trying to overlay our social structure and form of government onto a culture that does not see it as correct.

Are we really attempting to overlay Judeo-Christian social structure on a predominantly Islamic (Sunni and Shiite) society? Is not the social fabric of Iraq an artifical construct of the British after WWI?

Seems to me a sizeable portion of the Iraqi people made death-defying choices to express their will and return home on election days with a purple stained finger. It also seems to me that its not Iraqi society as a whole which opposes democratization but Islamists and remnant totalitarian Ba'athists who violently oppose this.


Second, what is "fair" is rarely a matter of true debate. For America, or for that matter any other country, "fair" equates directly into "what is in MY best interest". To claim anything else is self delusion.

I agree. "Fair" is a keyword most over used by the political left.

[marct]

Hi Curmudgeon,


First off, we won the "invasion" of Iraq hands down. Where we are failed, and are still failing, is in our policy of trying to overlay our social structure and form of government onto a culture that does not see it as correct. The same problem the soviets had in Afghanistan. So I disagree with you that we do not have the power to smite a wayward nation-state should we feel it is appropriate. I agree that a broad base of international support for any action is better, but I don't agree that a broad base is necessary.

I am going to disagree with you on this - you won the Battle for Iraq, Phase 1-3, but the war is still up in the air. The invasion, which was a resounding victory, may well end up classified along with Pyrrhus' victories at Heraclea and Asculum. Yes, your attempt to impose a foreign social and political structure on Iraq are, in some ways, a failure but not so much because they are viewed as "incorrect". Rather, the administrations' assumptions of republican "democracy" as an evolutionary ideal that all societies strive for and people "really" (innately) want forgot that any form of democracy require an internal revolution and cannot be imposed by a foreign power.

In general, I certainly agree that the US has the power to "smite" any other nation state. So what? So did Pyrrhus. Beating the snot out of someone doesn't turn them into bosom buddies and automatically convert them to "right thinking" (however that may be defined). If you want to engage in cultural and social engineering, which is how the victory conditions for OIF were defined, you need a lot more than overt military power.


Second, what is "fair" is rarely a matter of true debate. For America, or for that matter any other country, "fair" equates directly into "what is in MY best interest". To claim anything else is self delusion.

I do agree that "fair" is rarely a matter of true debate :wry:. However, let me remind you that nations are not actors in and of themselves; they are collections of people. JJ's levels of moral obligation is a much more accurate way to look at self interest (I think he took it from Heinlein ;)).


Lately, what we feel is in our best interest is to install democracy everywhere regardless of whether the society wants, or I would argue, is in a position to benefit from it. It has the sound of being "fair". Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling that we are helping the repressed nations of the world gain their freedom. Everyone really wants to be "free" like us so we will help everyone get there. But the democracy drive is strictly in our best interest based on the concept that democracies have open trade policies and rarely go to war with each other. In Iraq, in my opinion, we were hoping for a domino effect. That once the other nations around Iraq saw how good things were there they would take a dip in the democracy pool. But ultimately it was still in our best interest to take that action.

Hmmph! I hadn't realized that the Catholic doctrine of Salvation through Good Works was so prominent in US culture :cool:. Well, we should probably add in another naive assumption to go with the rest: the idea that democracies have open trade policies.


I am siding with the idea that we stay out of another country's affairs until they pose a threat to "our" security interests. At that point, once we determine that Diplomatic, Informational, or Economic actions will not be sufficient to reduce the threat, we take limited military action to REDUCE the threat. That does not mean that you embrace "regime change" which was a euphemism for "replacing a dictatorship with a democracy". Depending on the culture of the country you are intervening in, that can be an intergenerational commitment that is primarily a Informational and Economic effort with the military playing only a very minimal roll. The decision to involve ourselves in that kind of action must take into account the society that we are attempting to re-engineer.

Absolutely agree!


This also does not mean that we abandon joint actions through the UN to stop genocide or to provide disaster relief. It means that 1) unilateral actions to reduce a threat should be taken regardless of international support; 2) these actions should be limited to reducing the threat to an acceptable level, not eliminating it unless absolutely necessary (containment); 3) where elimination of the threat is required or where there is a failed state, limit your intervention to what is required to restore a functioning, stabile government; and 4) if you determine that installing a democracy is absolutely necessary, plan on a twenty to fifty year commitment.

Totally agree with this as well. For 3 and 4 I would also add in that specific UN approval is also a pre-requisite unless there is a clear and present danger.

Marc

[JJackson]

TheCurmudgeon:

Lately, what we feel is in our best interest is to install democracy everywhere regardless of whether the society wants, or I would argue, is in a position to benefit from it. It has the sound of being "fair". Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling that we are helping the repressed nations of the world gain their freedom. Everyone really wants to be "free" like us so we will help everyone get there. But the democracy drive is strictly in our best interest based on the concept that democracies have open trade policies and rarely go to war with each other. In Iraq, in my opinion, we were hoping for a domino effect. That once the other nations around Iraq saw how good things were there they would take a dip in the democracy pool. But ultimately it was still in our best interest to take that action.

Is the democracy policy still being pushed? I thought it had been quietly dropped as a bad idea.
Democracy is only a method of electing representatives and should not be confused with the type of policies the elected entity might espouse. A communist party can be elected or the US republican party or Ahmadinejad or Hitler or Hamas. Unfettered democracy in the muslim world could have some very regretable consequences – from a US point of view. Gaza picked Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood may well take Egypt (and other ‘friendly’ states) and even I am not keen on the idea of democratically elected Whabist Saudi Euro-fighter pilots roaming the gulf looking for infadels. Repression has been an important tool for many of America’s friends and not just in the ME.

Fair?
I am happy to accept that fair is very much in the eye of the beholder but not that it is "what is in MY best interest". If we can not see both sides of the argument and at least try and think what a third party might view as fair – and accept it - we really are in big trouble.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Are we really attempting to overlay Judeo-Christian social structure on a predominantly Islamic (Sunni and Shiite) society? Is not the social fabric of Iraq an artifical construct of the British after WWI?

Seems to me a sizeable portion of the Iraqi people made death-defying choices to express their will and return home on election days with a purple stained finger. It also seems to me that its not Iraqi society as a whole which opposes democratization but Islamists and remnant totalitarian Ba'athists who violently oppose this.



An election does not make a democracy. The Soviet Union, China, and other single party states hold regular elections an no one accuses them of being democracies. What we in the west normally equate with a “liberal democracy” is one where the individual reigns supreme and the government serves the individual.

First, I would argue that the tribal society that underpins the social structure in most of Iraq holds the tribe supreme. This cultural norm is what is keeping the leaders of the country from being able to put the needs of the whole of the people ahead of needs of their tribe, even if their tribe is not the ones who elected them.

Second, because of the tribal/religious nature of the society, there is no history of free and open debate, of decision making at intermediate levels, of not taking bribes as a normal trapping of authority, or of the rule of law. These are integral to a democracy. They have to be embraced as a social norm. That type of social re-engineering takes time.

As an aside, having the national election so early may have even been detrimental. In Against all Odds, Against All Odds?Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq & Afghanistan, (www.psci.unt.edu/enterline/aje_jmg_wheredemocracies_v48singleb.pdf ) Andrew J. Enterline and J. Michael Greig argued that when an attempt at a democracy fails it becomes harder to install another democracy in the same country in the future. They speculate that where the promise of democracy fails to deliver, the society becomes less apt to want to try that failed experiment again. They also contend that, based on historical evidence, it takes a minimum of twenty years of military intervention to form a stable democracy. I see this as being an generational shift. The young embrace those ideals needed to make a democracy function and then you are on autopilot. But until that happens, you better be prepared to hold the hands of the country's leadership until that fundamental change occurs.

[Sean Osborne]

I would also add in that specific UN approval is also a pre-requisite unless there is a clear and present danger.


There will always be a lack of consensus on whether specific UN approval is a pre-requiste, among individuals and nations. As you note there is the 'clear and present danger' caveat in which the National Security of a state is deemed at risk.

It is that National Security 101 definition of what is a threat that will be the ultimate definer -- Capability plus Intent plus Opportunity = The Treat.

[TheCurmudgeon]

TheCurmudgeon:


Is the democracy policy still being pushed? I thought it had been quietly dropped as a bad idea.
Democracy is only a method of electing representatives and should not be confused with the type of policies the elected entity might espouse. A communist party can be elected or the US republican party or Ahmadinejad or Hitler or Hamas. Unfettered democracy in the muslim world could have some very regretable consequences – from a US point of view. Gaza picked Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood may well take Egypt (and other ‘friendly’ states) and even I am not keen on the idea of democratically elected Whabist Saudi Euro-fighter pilots roaming the gulf looking for infadels. Repression has been an important tool for many of America’s friends and not just in the ME. .

I agree that a vote is not a democracy. I do not know if democracy as a policy is being dropped. Last time I read a National Strategy paper it was still a big deal.


TheCurmudgeon:
Fair?
I am happy to accept that fair is very much in the eye of the beholder but not that it is "what is in MY best interest". If we can not see both sides of the argument and at least try and think what a third party might view as fair – and accept it - we really are in big trouble.

We do consider what others think. The common term however is "second and third order effects". Ultimately, we make the decision to act or not to act based on what is good for us. I am not saying that is a good or a bad thing. I am just saying it is reality.

[Rex Brynen]

It also seems to me that its not Iraqi society as a whole which opposes democratization but Islamists and remnant totalitarian Ba'athists who violently oppose this.

I agree that a great many Iraqis want some sort of democratization (although they may understand the details in very different ways, and they also want other things, such as security and a decent standard of living). I would somewhat modify your statement, however, to read "(some, predominately Sunni) Islamists..." given that among the most enthusiastic proponents and beneficiaries of formal electoral democracy in Iraq are the strongly Islamist (Shi'ite) Supreme Council, al-Dawa, and even Sadr...

(I'll leave aside their degree of commitment to other aspects of democratic values.)

[TheCurmudgeon]

I agree that a great many Iraqis want some sort of democratization (although they may understand the details in very different ways, and they also want other things, such as security and a decent standard of living). I would somewhat modify your statement, however, to read "(some, predominately Sunni) Islamists..." given that among the most enthusiastic proponents and beneficiaries of formal electoral democracy in Iraq are the strongly Islamist (Shi'ite) Supreme Council, al-Dawa, and even Sadr...

(I'll leave aside their degree of commitment to other aspects of democratic values.)

Rex,

you are dead on the money. Democracy means different things to different people. It is a term that is overused and misunderstood. What many people really what are security and a decent standard of living, regardless of what form of government provides them with that.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am going to disagree with you on this - you won the Battle for Iraq, Phase 1-3, but the war is still up in the air. The invasion, which was a resounding victory, may well end up classified along with Pyrrhus' victories at Heraclea and Asculum. Yes, your attempt to impose a foreign social and political structure on Iraq are, in some ways, a failure but not so much because they are viewed as "incorrect". Rather, the administrations' assumptions of republican "democracy" as an evolutionary ideal that all societies strive for and people "really" (innately) want forgot that any form of democracy require an internal revolution and cannot be imposed by a foreign power.

In general, I certainly agree that the US has the power to "smite" any other nation state. So what? So did Pyrrhus. Beating the snot out of someone doesn't turn them into bosom buddies and automatically convert them to "right thinking" (however that may be defined). If you want to engage in cultural and social engineering, which is how the victory conditions for OIF were defined, you need a lot more than overt military power.



I agree with you. My point was simply that the US still has the ability to project power to most places in the world in sufficient quantity to ruin another country's day. Most other countries lack that ability except through air/missles.

The decision of when and how to use that force is a different matter.



Well, we should probably add in another naive assumption to go with the rest: the idea that democracies have open trade policies.


Perhaps "open trade policies" was not the right term. Replace “open trade policies” with “capitalism” and you get my meaning.

[Ken White]

some minor quibble points but only a couple I'd state for your consideration:


Hi Curmudgeon,
. . .
Hmmph! I hadn't realized that the Catholic doctrine of Salvation through Good Works was so prominent in US culture :cool:. Well, we should probably add in another naive assumption to go with the rest: the idea that democracies have open trade policies.

Really? Been around for a long time -- generally coupled with self interest, to be sure but there are a good many US graves in places where we had no overwhelming interest...


Totally agree with this as well. For 3 and 4 I would also add in that specific UN approval is also a pre-requisite unless there is a clear and present danger.

Marc

While I generally agree with that, I'd also suggest that mild dislike and distrust of the US -- some merited, some not, most understandable -- make that a very arguable and situation dependent restriction.

I'll also note that my prediction on Iraq going in was a 60:40 chance of reasonable success. Over the last 18 months, I've upped that to a 75:25 probability -- though, of course, our definitions of what is therein constituted may differ... ;)

[SteveMetz]

I'll also note that my prediction on Iraq going in was a 60:40 chance of reasonable success. Over the last 18 months, I've upped that to a 75:25 probability -- though, of course, our definitions of what is therein constituted may differ... ;)

Interesting. I'm sitting here at this minute writing up the events of the past six months I remain pessimistic. We gave them a window of opportunity but the best I can see, the various sides used it to train and re-arm and have decided to just wait until we're out of the way. Lamentably, I think the Vietnam analogy still holds--there will be a "decent interval" and then it will fall apart.

[Ken White]

Interesting. I'm sitting here at this minute writing up the events of the past six months I remain pessimistic. We gave them a window of opportunity but the best I can see, the various sides used it to train and re-arm and have decided to just wait until we're out of the way. Lamentably, I think the Vietnam analogy still holds--there will be a "decent interval" and then it will fall apart.

outcome, I think. There was always going to be a Sunni-Shia trauma, the degree remains to be seen -- as does the timing and the end result. In my view the majority of what I believe (but obviously do not know) were the real as opposed to stated strategic aims have been accomplished, the few remaining are of no major consequence though they would be nice.

My belief is that it may "fall apart" however that is somewhat unlikely and the probability is that we'll be there in relative peace for quite some time. I do think that fall, if it occurred, would be quite different than the Viet Nam analogy.

There was never going to be a US friendly Republic and I'm not at all sure anyone of any consequence ever really believed that would happen, just that some though it was worth a try. The entire operation was always a calculated risk and if it succeeded the world would be better off -- and the international oil supply would not be significantly disrupted at any point -- and if it did not succeed, only the US would suffer much harm. Not total altruism but not totally devoid of it either.

Politics in the ME are always factional and fractured, and the various sides in every nation there are always jockeying for power and firearms are frequently involved. Been that way for a long time -- I'm still touting 2018 for the approximate rule of law and 2033 for a functional nation IAW world (not western) norms... :cool:

While it failed as a "shock and awe" (really dumb phrase and idea) event it did catch AQ off balance and though they are flexible and recovered to a degree, it has dispelled the belief that the US would cut and run -- that means little to most westerners; it means a great deal in the ME. What will cause a falling apart sooner rather than later and of great instead of small magnitude is to leave precipitously. Obviously had the intel and the planning (and our doctrine and training 1980-2000) been better, it would have had a greater future deterrent effect but the effect actually achieved hasn't been that bad.

I think the adverse situations can be avoided unless we leave too soon, not least because, appropos of Viet Nam, it would again show that the US is not to be trusted as an ally, a factor that arguably contributed to our inability to build a better coalition to go to Iraq this time (Desert Storm is not a valid comparison). Hard to build coalitions when you're suspect. That and a really poor job of making and stating the case on the part of the Administration...

We'll see how it goes; I think the glass is more than half full... ;)

[Ron Humphrey]

I think Ron’s prison analogy exposes the fundamental difference at the heart of the problem. I view the kid in the sand pit as a bully because all the kids in the pit did not agree a set of rules and ask the big boy to enforce them. The big boy just disciplined who ever he felt like.

I might agree with the difference in perception between parties but that said in order to accept that wholeheartedly one would need to show that the US has not been defacto expected to be big brother in the world.
For me the problem with this thinking is that in WW1, WW2, and various other conflicts we were basically expected to be exactly that. Now have we perhaps been too eager to jump in without testing the water in other situations from time to time, of course, but I seriously doubt anyone truly expects us to never make mistakes.



In the prison example; society (what ever that is) decide a set of rules and employed one group to enforce them (police), another group to decide what should happen to those who did not play by them (judiciary) and a third group to incarcerate those who could not be trusted in the play pit (warders). There is of course a fourth group (military) who’s job is to stop the kids from other playpits from taking over ours and imposing their rules. The question is when the US invades Iraq, or threatens Iran, are they doing it as the bully or because they have been asked to by the society of nation states? I fear Ron’s example leads me to think he views their actions benignly where I would view them more as kids from another pit who are convinced their way is better and have come to impose it on us – with the best of intentions off course (benevolent dictatorship?).

Perceptions vs Ground Truth
Did we install another dictator or did we work to allow the citizens of Iraq not America to vote for a representative government(of sorts) there.
Are there those within the population who feel dis-enfranchised, yes
Do they now and will they still have an opportunity to become more involved in that new government?

From a warfighting perspective, Do we do what would be simple and protect ourselves while they fight amongst themselves, or do our soldiers go out everyday putting their lives on the line in efforts to try and help them find ways and means not to fight.

I think to view us as the bullies in the matter one must truly believe that our actions and deeds are other than what they are.


I think there is a problem of Sovereignty (I am not sure that that is quite the right word). What I mean is as individuals we are willing to accept a dilution of our personal will to other groups to achieve group benefits. For me allegiance probably runs family>friends>town>region>UK>EU>Homo sapiens>Planet Earth, or something like that for Osama BL or GWB I suspect it would be a bit different (note I have no religious component). In a zero sum game how much fealty I give at each level is personal and fluid. In a basically capitalist society with ‘no taxation without representation’ in mind a crude measure might be how much we are willing to contribute at each tier. The argument I was beginning to articulate in my previous post is that too much power currently resides at the country level and states should be more willing to divest some sovereignty up, or down, the chain to solve problems at the appropriate level.

In this I would agree that for most people this is close to their thinking in regards to loyalty and and how they perceive their leaders, thus I would think that the efforts by Coalition forces and civilians to teach those leaders how to work together at each level without having to be directed by on high, would be seen as a good thing not the opposite.

[Sean Osborne]

An election does not make a democracy.

I agree, and I didn't imply that a couple of elections indicated a democracy had been established in Iraq. My point is that the process of democratization had been begun, as we all know, where none had existed before.


What we in the west normally equate with a “liberal democracy” is one where the individual reigns supreme and the government serves the individual.

Well, actually I believe it safe to say that in true a democracy, such as we're supposed to have, the government rules by the consent of the governed. We're trying to instill this among the Iraqi's from the basic family level on up. I'd say that we have been successful in the endeaor since as I noted so many of them "made death-defying choices to express their will and return home on election days with a purple stained finger."


First, I would argue that the tribal society that underpins the social structure in most of Iraq holds the tribe supreme.

No doubt about this. Moreover, I've learned that the loyalty of the individual Iraqi citizen is a level or two deeper than the tribal level. Family is the rock-bottom basic level. And that's where US/Coalition efforts began - at the basic level of Iraqi society and upwards/outwards from there.

[JeffC]

Well, actually I believe it safe to say that in true a democracy, such as we're supposed to have, the government rules by the consent of the governed. We're trying to instill this among the Iraqi's from the basic family level on up.


If by "we", you mean the United States, then what you're referring to as a "democracy" is technically not a democracy but a republic, or more precisely, a republic with representation. There's an important difference between the two terms which you can read about here (http://http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdemocracy.html).

And I'm not sure if I've read you correctly, but your quoted sentence above implies that we're trying to instill democracy at the family level. Now I don't know about you, but I've never seen a family structure work that isn't a benevolent dictatorship, and depending on the family's religious beliefs, that dictatorship may only extend to the male parent. Of course, it's probably better to not even try to use a political model to describe family dynamics. In my opinion, the two aren't compatible in any way.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I would have to disagree with Curmudgeon’s Spanish friend. You are not hard enough on yourselves, with great power comes great responsibility. And you have taken onto yourselves great military power; it is a conscious choice your representatives have made over a long period of time to build up a force for power projection. I will take some convincing that US force levels are only enough to protect the territorial integrity of the US of A.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, or I was just inept at saying it.

First, I agree with the spiderman "with great power comes great responsibility". My point was that we are traditionally hesitant to employ that power. Oh we talk a good game, protector of the free world and all that, but we are not accustomed to being an "imperial power" like the Brits or the Spanish. We WERE the ingsergents. As a result, we often make mistakes either by acting at the wrong time or not acting at all. We were OK during the cold war when the enemy was clearly defined, but we are floundering now. We have this power, what do we do with it?

Second, I really am not a fan of militaries that are only capable of self defense. That leads to parity and parity played a big part in two world wars. If Britain had been an overwhelming power in 1912 or 1936 with the ability to invade Germany at its leisure, then I submit that Germany would have done things differently. Not a perfect example but I think you get my drift.

At this point how we ended up here, with the ability to project overwelming power worlwide is not important. Now that we have this power, what do we do with it? I am in favor of using it sparingly but using it none the less.

I am a realist. I would like to believe that we will always use our great power for the benefit of the globe. Since I don’t believe that, then you must come up with some parameters on when and how to use it.

[Sean Osborne]

If by "we", you mean the United States, then what you're referring to as a "democracy" is technically not a democracy but a republic, or more precisely, a republic with representation.

Check this (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy) Jeff:



de·moc·ra·cy

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

As stated previously, "government rules by the consent of the governed."

This or something quite similar is what we are attempting to have take root in Iraq where it has never before existed.



And I'm not sure if I've read you correctly, but your quoted sentence above implies that we're trying to instill democracy at the family level.

Jeff, it's called grass roots. Getting the basic unit of any nation to understand why it would be to their benefit to get together with other basic units to establish a government by enfranchising themselves to elect their government and establish their laws for the common good.

Doing this within a framework of longstanding Islamic traditions and ideology may well be the most daunting task is 'selling' western democratic principles.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Jeff, it's called grass roots. Getting the basic unit of any nation to understand why it would be to their benefit to get together with other basic units to establish a government by enfranchising themselves to elect their government and establish their laws for the common good.

Doing this within a framework of longstanding Islamic traditions and ideology may well be the most daunting task is 'selling' western democratic principles.


Sean,

You have the right idea. Someone once said "all politics is local". If you can get the Iraqis to understand and accept it at that level, the rest will fall into place.

[JeffC]

Check this (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy) Jeff:

As stated previously, "government rules by the consent of the governed."

A true Democracy, in the sense that the original Greeks used it, would not have representatives as modern so-called Democracies do. Every citizen would vote on every law, rather than electing a representative and trusting him or her to vote on their behalf.


Jeff, it's called grass roots. Getting the basic unit of any nation to understand why it would be to their benefit to get together with other basic units to establish a government by enfranchising themselves to elect their government and establish their laws for the common good.

Doing this within a framework of longstanding Islamic traditions and ideology may well be the most daunting task is 'selling' western democratic principles.

At the grass roots level, I don't think anyone cares about the political structure of their government as long as it provides them with a better day to day existence, hope for the future, etc. "Selling" democracy reminds me of church-run Soup Kitchens in poor urban areas that sell food and religion in equal portions.

[Sean Osborne]

Sean,

You have the right idea. Someone once said "all politics is local". If you can get the Iraqis to understand and accept it at that level, the rest will fall into place.

TheCurmudgeon,

Roger. It's not something made up but has been policy in OEF/OIF for some time now. I've heard senior Army leaders and IC folks talk about this at length. The Coalition went into Iraq as liberators, not conquerors. And contrary to most pundits in the media, there was talk about what to do in Iraq after Saddam well before we killed Uday and Qusay, or captured ol' 'Aqualung" in his spidey hole. We kept track of progress by posting the playing cards on a cork bulletin board as the Ba'athist regime was decimated. I personally heard this talk while at CFLCC/CJTF-7 in Camp Doha, KU in May 2003.