Do we require a victory or a Triumph?

I think we need to ask ourselves do we need a victory or a triumph in Iraq? What is the difference? A victory is short term and solves some immediate problems, but a triumph is final. I believe we are in a war of ideas. We are in fact telling all those states, all the people of those states to follow our political philosophy to some degree because ours (or something close) is the best. We are saying the ideas and philosophy of Osama and people like him are ruinous and counter-productive. A narrow, drawn out victory in Iraq does not prove that ours is better, only that we that we can hang on a little longer. Iraq is much more then just battleground against insurgents, it is the battlefield of ideas – and it is one where the whole world is watching.

To bring forward a triumph requires scale, triumphs are not subtle, they are like a Tsunami. Nobody doubts the winner or how the winner won. There is no recount. No propaganda can lessen it. It speaks for itself.

I do believe our military is doing all that it can. We have sent our best soldier. I think we can do no more, the military already shoulders the greater burden. I also believe the nation and the world is not doing all that it can. Maybe it can’t. Maybe it dismantled the apparatus’ required to do more during the Cold War in favor of something else. Maybe we don’t understand the stakes – we think Iraq is just an adventure. We think the Iraqis should do more. But I’d question the last. If we are the ones saying our system is better; if we are the ones who are telling the world to follow our lead; who has more to lose? Who really requires a triumph? Iraq and the United States are linked. We both require a triumph. To not Triumph in Iraq is a win for those like Osama who say tolerance, liberty, pluralism, justice and freedom are a sham. They wish to empower themselves through the subservience of the masses. They will not stop until the world stops them.

I also find it interesting that about two years ago people asked questions like, “Where are the “Marshall Plans”? When they got no answer people started wondering, “Well, where are the Marshalls?” That generation understood sacrifice better then ours – yes our military understands sacrifice, but not our generation as a whole. That generation understood what was at stake, what hung in the balance. I’d argue ours does not. We have not done a very good job of telling them.

Without scale there can be no triumph. Maybe all we will achieve is a narrow victory. The military can hold its head high – we have sacrificed and done all we can do. I think a victory will only lead to other contests – other Iraqs. It is inevitable in my opinion. To achieve a triumph is to declare a clear leader - It is to leave no doubt. Success on that scale influences the world – it says look what we have done, we have done the impossible.

Is a "Triumph" even possible in a small war? How does one win a war of ideas when the enemy's idea does not have a genuine physical manifestation and is not bound by a nation or a single person, a la the Soviet Union or Osama bin Laden?

I question whether "the world" as a whole can stop the ideas of radical Islam. I would submit that this is principally an intra-Muslim struggle which is bound up in the Arab Muslim world's demographic and political struggle between the forces of reform and tradition. Solutions imposed from outside will be rejected in the long run, but ideas from the outside filtered and interpreted by Muslims themselves can be decisive.

This process will be ongoing for decades.

Quote:

---

We have not done a very good job of telling them.

---

I think you hit the nail on the head here. This is a much more confusing situation than ww2. The West and the MSM seem to want to make themselves the bad people. People are confused and the governments have not done a great job explaining why we are doing what we are doing.

To be fair whenever I have talked to a Canadian ww2 vet and asked why they fought its always been something like
"well we got it in our heads that there was a bad guy named hitler in Europe and someone had to stop him"

the world was a lot simpler back then :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

I think we need to ask ourselves do we need a victory or a triumph in Iraq?

---

Rob,
A fundamental consideration raised by your question is what is the antecedent to the pronoun in your question. That is, to whom does the "we" that is the subject of your question apply? Is it we Americans; we, the western, "civilized" world: we, the human race on earth; we the moderate Islamic denizens of the Middle East and Southwest Asia; etc.; etc. ?

I do not think one can answer your question until that "we" is further clarified. I would wager a great deal that the need for victory or triumph (and the criteria by which one would decide whether either had been attained) will vary quite a lot depending on who gets plugged in as the antecedent for that all important "we" in your question.

I don't want to pose the question without also proposing an answer. As an adjunct to my earlier post on the COG thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&postcount=22)) that we are really looking at a different customer for the business we provide in a COIN campaign, the right answer for the "we" ought to be the customer we are seeking to serve.

It isn't about what we Americans or we the Coalition forces need--it is about what those we are serving need. The sooner we get that through our thick heads, the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

Rob,
A fundamental consideration raised by your question is what is the antecedent to the pronoun in your question. That is, to whom does the "we" that is the subject of your question apply? Is it we Americans; we, the western, "civilized" world: we, the human race on earth; we the moderate Islamic denizens of the Middle East and Southwest Asia; etc.; etc. ?

I do not think one can answer your question until that "we" is further clarified. I would wager a great deal that the need for victory or triumph (and the criteria by which one would decide whether either had been attained) will vary quite a lot depending on who gets plugged in as the antecedent for that all important "we" in your question.

I don't want to pose the question without also proposing an answer. As an adjunct to my earlier post on the COG thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&postcount=22)) that we are really looking at a different customer for the business we provide in a COIN campaign, the right answer for the "we" ought to be the customer we are seeking to serve.

It isn't about what we Americans or we the Coalition forces need--it is about what those we are serving need. The sooner we get that through our thick heads, the better.

---

WM

All good points and all relevant. I tried getting at this idea a couple of years ago when the SecDef was continuing to debate whether the insurgents were really insurgents according tothe DoD defintion. At the time I commented the definition had to come from the Iraqis because if they saw the insurgents as just that, then they were insurgents.

In this case, asking, "What do you mean by we, Paleface?" is probably more important than the triumph or victory issue.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

WM

All good points and all relevant. I tried getting at this idea a couple of years ago when the SecDef was continuing to debate whether the insurgents were really insurgents according tothe DoD defintion. At the time I commented the definition had to come from the Iraqis because if they saw the insurgents as just that, then they were insurgents.

In this case, asking, "What do you mean by we, Paleface?" is probably more important than the triumph or victory issue.

Tom

---

Tom,
Greetings from Munchkinland and thanks for the vote of confidence. Now , how do we get "the man behind the curtain" (to whom we are supposed to pay no attention) to pay attention to us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

Tom,
Greetings from Munchkinland and thanks for the vote of confidence. Now , how do we get "the man behind the curtain" (to whom we are supposed to pay no attention) to pay attention to us?

---

Send a little dog named "Toto" to bite him on the butt? Wait for Dorothy to wake up and say, "I'm home!?!" Toss water in his face and see if he melts?

Hey WM, Hey Tom,
Quote:

Quote:

---

It isn't about what we Americans or we the Coalition forces need--it is about what those we are serving need. The sooner we get that through our thick heads, the better.

---

Quote:

Quote:

---

What do you mean by we, Paleface?" is probably more important than the triumph or victory issue.

---

Well, I guess your both right, because if we don't decide that it is more then a war on a tactic, then we will not see it for more then that, and we will continue to misinterpret the nature of the war and try to get to an unlimited objective through limited means, and we will start hanging out with Pete and Repeat. Policy and Strategy mismatches have not historically went well.

I just read an essay by Michael Howard called "When are Wars Decisive?" Its from 1998, but hits the mark.

an excerpt,
Q

Quote:

---

uote:
"Few wars, in fact, are any longr decided on the battlefield (if indeed they ever were). They are decided at the peace table. Military victories do not themselves determine the outcome in wars; they only provide the political opportunities for the victors - and even those are likely to be limited by circumstances beyond their control. In his excellent study The Pursuit of Victory Professor Brian Bond reminded us that at least two other considerations have to be added to to success on the battlefield: namely, firm resalistic statecraft with specific aims, and the willingness of the vanquished to accept the verdict of the battle' (p 61). To study a war without taking into account the circumstnces in which it is fought and the peace to which it led is a kind of historical pornography; like the study of sexual intercourse in isolation from the relationship within which it takes place and the consequences that flow from it. It is certainly an inadequate approach to thinking about the war of the future

---

.

Hey Tequilla,
Quote:

Quote:

---

Is a "Triumph" even possible in a small war? How does one win a war of ideas when the enemy's idea does not have a genuine physical manifestation and is not bound by a nation or a single person, a la the Soviet Union or Osama bin Laden?

---

I think this ties in with what Tom and WM were talking about. I believe Iraq is the most important front in a larger war - so although Iraq may qualify for the title "small war" - since I'd say we are tackling it with limited means (diMe), I'd also say its part of a much larger war - that has unlimited ends - we (there is that darn pro-noun again) want to end (or at least minimize) the conditions which lead to terror as a tactic, and the pursuit of instability by groups and states which (we) believe to be incompatable with the right vision of the future.

To realize that objective, it will take more then a military victory, it will take a triumph. The military can't achieve a triumph independent of political accommodation. You can't have that until you share enough common values to want to stop killing each other. You can't do that until you have something worth losing.

Its the means by which the Bin Ladens get their power and foot soldiers that has to change - since targeting them is so difficult. Yes they need to be brought to justice, but first they need to be neutralized. They peddle and economy of hate - because that is all they need to in order to influence people who have nothing to lose. They point to the successful states and declare them apostates and satans because they are a viable explanation to why their target audience has nothing - no dignity, respect, money, future and hope. They are using the most base expression of human nature - the sin of jealousy to inspire hatred - because it is always more convenient to blame others then look inward and find the courage to overcome what life has handed you.

A Triumph is when we address and set the course to overcome the root causes of this hatred. When we do that it makes it harder for a Bin Laden to come to power.

One proviso to the fact that AQ/Jihadism plays off poverty and those who have nothing is the fact that they also align themselves with elements that play off people's greed and vice, namely drugs. This silent but powerful ally of terrorism is the counterpart to insurgency, that out of desperation, poverty and political despondency, many turn to drugs rather than acts of insurgency, i.e. violence. I don't think many proactively connect the two because drugs are not the sole domain of the impoverished, the disenfranchised and politically hopeless. There is alot of cash and control associated with drugs and we sometimes in our haste to address and assess the ideology and ramifications of religious fanatacism ignore the obvious, that said fanatacism is not the sole culprit we are dealing with. I find it odd that in the absence of Public information about drugs in Iraq, the perception then exists that somehow drugs are not a relevant factor. This then would leave the purview of the drug market solely connected to the Taliban, a problem unique to the other front we are engaged in and not Iraq. I rather doubt this is the reality of the situation. Anway, that's my .02 worth on the subject.

goesh, you said a mouthfull there. Drug dealing is as much about power and control as it is about making money.

Quote:

---

I find it odd that in the absence of Public information about drugs in Iraq, the perception then exists that somehow drugs are not a relevant factor.

---

Goesh, ask and ye shall receive.

Opium: Iraq's new deadly export. Patrick Cockburn, The Independent. 23 May.

Quote:

---

Farmers in southern Iraq have started to grow opium poppies in their fields for the first time, sparking fears that Iraq might become a serious drugs producer along the lines of Afghanistan.

Rice farmers along the Euphrates, to the west of the city of Diwaniya, south of Baghdad, have stopped cultivating rice, for which the area is famous, and are instead planting poppies, Iraqi sources familiar with the area have told The Independent.

The shift to opium cultivation is still in its early stages but there is little the Iraqi government can do about it because rival Shia militias and their surrogates in the security forces control Diwaniya and its neighbourhood. There have been bloody clashes between militiamen, police, Iraqi army and US forces in the city over the past two months.

The shift to opium production is taking place in the well-irrigated land west and south of Diwaniya around the towns of Ash Shamiyah, al Ghammas and Ash Shinafiyah. The farmers are said to be having problems in growing the poppies because of the intense heat and high humidity. It is too dangerous for foreign journalists to visit Diwaniya but the start of opium poppy cultivation is attested by two students from there and a source in Basra familiar with the Iraqi drugs trade.

Drug smugglers have for long used Iraq as a transit point for heroin, produced from opium in laboratories in Afghanistan, being sent through Iran to rich markets in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Saddam Hussein's security apparatus in Basra was reportedly heavily involved in the illicit trade. Opium poppies have hitherto not been grown in Iraq and the fact that they are being planted is a measure of the violence in southern Iraq. It is unlikely that the farmers' decision was spontaneous and the gangs financing them are said to be "well-equipped with good vehicles and weapons and are well-organised" ...

---

Rob, I'm still a bit of focus with the below:

Quote:

---

To realize that objective, it will take more then a military victory, it will take a triumph. The military can't achieve a triumph independent of political accommodation. You can't have that until you share enough common values to want to stop killing each other. You can't do that until you have something worth losing.

Its the means by which the Bin Ladens get their power and foot soldiers that has to change - since targeting them is so difficult. Yes they need to be brought to justice, but first they need to be neutralized. They peddle and economy of hate - because that is all they need to in order to influence people who have nothing to lose. They point to the successful states and declare them apostates and satans because they are a viable explanation to why their target audience has nothing - no dignity, respect, money, future and hope. They are using the most base expression of human nature - the sin of jealousy to inspire hatred - because it is always more convenient to blame others then look inward and find the courage to overcome what life has handed you.

A Triumph is when we address and set the course to overcome the root causes of this hatred. When we do that it makes it harder for a Bin Laden to come to power.

---

Are you saying that we need to fundamentally transform the conditions that lead to terrorism? Isn't this a tad utopian, maybe even a bit neoconnish? We're having more than enough problems just securing Baghdad.

What is the road to this Triumph, the proper course to overcome the root causes of hatred? Democracy? Capitalism? How are we going to bring it to MENA or Central Asia?

-then AQ/jihadists as dealers and pushers needs to be better exploited on the propoganda, informational end of things. Didn't there used to be a war on drugs? Maybe some of the Public apathy can be prodded a bit by foisting the personna of AQ/Jihadism not only as vicious fundamentalists harming Islam and killing innocents but also as dope running thugs. If I had some graphic skills, I would make a big color poster of OBL holding that little Klashnikov he favors in one hand and a brick of opium in the other hand, the caption to read: "liberation by death". That's my artistic .02 worth for the day.

When I hear the word "triumph" in a military connection, I get these mental images of the Roman forum crowded with a cheering mob. The Emperor, wearing a crown of gold laurel leaves, rides up in a chariot. Behind him is a line of defeated enemy chained together as slaves, about to be fed to the lions in the Colisseum. In the background I hear a bunch of trumpets and kettle drums blaring out heroic music like the "March of the Charioteers" from the "Ben-Hur" movie soundtrack. I really would prefer to have a different image about the outcome of our efforts in Southwest Asia or any other GWOT operation.

I do not think that triumphs tend to produce a better state of peace. And as as others have noted, that is what the real issue encompasses--getting to a better state of peace in the future. What is needed is a way to finish up so that the combantants don't have to go back and do it again all over again in another 25-30 years (or sooner). (Think about the end of WWI and its connection to the start of WWII here.)

How about Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in chariots with Wagner's Ride of the Valkyres blaring full tilt?:p

The camera pans to them thundering down a runway in golden chariots at Baghdad International and throngs of Iraqis are prostrating on the sides of the runways and maidens are throwing flowers onto the runway?? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

How about Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in chariots with Wagner's Ride of the Valkyres blaring full tilt?:p

The camera pans to them thundering down a runway in golden chariots at Baghdad International and throngs of Iraqis are prostrating on the sides of the runways and maidens are throwing flowers onto the runway?? :D

---

I think they had that bit of theater in mind...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

How about Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in chariots with Wagner's Ride of the Valkyres blaring full tilt?:p

The camera pans to them thundering down a runway in golden chariots at Baghdad International and throngs of Iraqis are prostrating on the sides of the runways and maidens are throwing flowers onto the runway?? :D

---

I find that image compelling, but with that foursome, I think that a better scene would be something out of the War Room in "Doctor Strangelove." :D I'm thinking of something along the lines of the fight scene with the Russian ambassador.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

I find that image compelling, but with that foursome, I think that a better scene would be something out of the War Room in "Doctor Strangelove." :D I'm thinking of something along the lines of the fight scene with the Russian ambassador.:p

---

never forget Slim Pickens as Maj. T.J. "King" Kong ridin the bomb in!:wry:

Stay on the bomb run, boys. I'm gonna get them doors open if it hare lips everybody on Bear Creek.

Shock and Aw Circa 1964! YAAAAAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Tom, thats right and he was from Alabama!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Tom, thats right and he was from Alabama!

---

Like the new avatar, slapout!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Like the new avatar, slapout!

---

Steve, thanks...took me forever to find that one and figure which keys to push to make it work. My keyboard has all these extra keys on it does your?:D

- now if I could just get my hillbilly woman with her sawed off shotgun convereted into an avatar, I mean we haven't addressed the aesthetics of triumph so far....... triumph often aint pretty after all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Steve, thanks...took me forever to find that one and figure which keys to push to make it work. My keyboard has all these extra keys on it does your?:D

---

Sometimes, yeah. Now maybe I'll have to find a Castillo or Captain Real Estate (Maynard) to go with Crockett...or Stan and Larry...:D

Steve, I tried Capt. real estate......video.... but no stills.

goesh, I don't think you can shrink hillbilly women small enough to fit in that little box.

Hey Tequilla,

Quote:

---

Are you saying that we need to fundamentally transform the conditions that lead to terrorism? Isn't this a tad utopian, maybe even a bit neoconnish? We're having more than enough problems just securing Baghdad.

What is the road to this Triumph, the proper course to overcome the root causes of hatred? Democracy? Capitalism? How are we going to bring it to MENA or Central Asia?

---

Yes. That is what I'm saying. Yes it is utopian if you believe it rectifies all human differences - but I think t only provides the opportunity to work differecnces through without competing with the clutter of isolating individuals and groups found in dictatorships (Saddam, Tito, Stalin, Kim, Fidel, Hugo). Although I don't think its Neo-Conservative. However, let me qualify it. This goes to goesh's and Steve's observation that this is about the pursuit of power by illegitimate means (at least I think so) - no matter if we are talking political, or criminal.

Until you address the root causes of why men like Bin Laden, and dictators are able to assume the role of leadership, you will not get rid of terrorism. It is a tactic to achieve political purpose through coercion by folks who cannot go state on state. It is also a way to recruit people who have a multitude of folks with grievances to pin the source of their troubles on something identifiable other then themselves and through such things as perversion of religion, to justify hate and violence. Once you go down the road of terrorism you find that you need money to pull it off since you are off the grid - you work hand in hand with drug traffickers, slavers, money launderers etc - you justify your actions to the world by saying the political/ religious values you are killing people for has forced you into acting contrary to them - but only until you get your way, then the world will right, and you can wipe out all those folks you were sleeping with during your rise to the top.

While I believe you have to kill men like Bin Laden (some people just need to be killed - they are just that bad), I also believe you can't win this fight by just killing everybody who puts in an IED - unless you are willing to start killing anybody who might (or might be) put in an IED. I've seen that approach and the effects of it. You have to ask why these folks are willing to risk everything (death) in order to do it & you have to address that problem. There is no mono-causal explanation for terrorism - but there are some candidates that are stronger then others. I think terrorism is a problem, but it is also a symptom of a larger problem. No, we can't do it alone - we can't force a solution, but we can be a part of it - but not until we understand the problem and apply our resources in that direction. This is far bigger then Iraq, with globalization will only get worse as some people will find more reasons to turn to terrorism or to follow those who do in order to have some value. I'm not a sociologist, but I've been around enough people and enough places to form an opinion.

I think the answer does lie in some form of government that offers individuals hope & opportunity. The world has changed - the tools of terror are cheap and available to most in the world - cell phones, some chemicals for explosives and pissed off people. The tools were not as available 50 or even 20 years ago, the means for people to communicate and coordinate are growing, they allow people to find out who has what and who does not. They also allow for allot of good and neutral things, but if they live in a government that cannot or will not keep up then they seek redress. After awhile some get more frustrated and get violent. Violence has quality that either causes society to react to contain and punish it (if they can), or causes society to endorse it - remember the LA Riots - it just runs away - a force of nature - like in Baghdad. So yea, I think capitalism in today's Information powered world can offer a person to have hope and be content - to find value in their life that is too important to risk by participation towards, apathy towards terrorism, to produce and consume and participate. I also think some form of democracy is good - yes it must match the cultural environment to those that are governed - but fundamentally it provides a "voice" to the individual. All the various democratic states (and even organizations) do that. I don't know of one dictatorship that empowers any individual other then the dictator. Even China is trying to adopt its form of government to recognize the role the individual plays in progress while preserving those things that make it Chinese.

Extending Democracy as a key part of U.S. Policy has been along allot longer then the Neo-Cons. It makes you wonder why? What is attractive about a democracy? Why do so many want to come to the U.S.? Why is freedom and the chance to succeed so important to people around the world? Why do Cubans float on tire tubes and risk sharks and drowning? Why do Mexican immigrants risk death in a van crossing the desert? Why do so many Chinese risk being locked up in a container ship on a trans-Pacific voyage? Anyone else beside Johnny Depp immigrate from the U.S. to France? Anybody beating down the doors to move from L.A. or D.C. to say Kazakhstan - unless your a PMC getting paid?

Are we having trouble securing Baghdad - yep. How have we tried to do it? Where did we miss some opportunties and have to learn the hard way? I am not justifying regime change as a preferred way to achieve policy. I am saying that there are other ways to promote democratic values that we may not have tried yet, or are just beginning to understand the value of - through re-examining how we think about foreign policy and foreign relations - maybe Iraq was the catalyst, or maybe its the realization of how the world is shrinking and what that means. maybe there are other reasons why states should work together. Yep - little di - e and big M has caused us to consider all sorts of things such as short term success does not equal a long term solution. Consider how AFRICOM is being organized and why it is looking different then the other COCOMS?

So yes, I beleive the best expression of political freedom to be in some form of democracy - and I beleive free market capitalism to be one of the benefits of an open political systemthat offers the opportunity to succeed.

WM & Tom - I get you, but I had to use two words that were different enough and not played out (unless you were Roman). Triumph does not get much use, and signifies something larger then just victory - we've seen and heard victory so much on Fox & in the Post we associate with the status quo - we have watered it down.

Slapout - do you have an alligator on your boat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Sometimes, yeah. Now maybe I'll have to find a Castillo or Captain Real Estate (Maynard) to go with Crockett...or Stan and Larry...:D

---

It ain't Stan and Larry without their "bug mobile" Van.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

WM & Tom - I get you, but I had to use two words that were different enough and not played out (unless you were Roman). Triumph does not get much use, and signifies something larger then just victory - we've seen and heard victory so much on Fox & in the Post we associate with the status quo - we have watered it down.

---

Rob,

Maybe we ought to go with something more like "winning militarily" and "winning the peace". Or maybe "short term win" vs. "long term win."

It is Friday afternoon and I'm about out of bright ideas for this week--just straw left between the old burlap ears.

WM,
Your right, its allot easier to talk about it that way. It also sounds neutral - not just a U.S. benefits sort of thing.Thanks, regards, Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

Rob,

Maybe we ought to go with something more like "winning militarily" and "winning the peace". Or maybe "short term win" vs. "long term win."

It is Friday afternoon and I'm about out of bright ideas for this week--just straw left between the old burlap ears.

---

I'd go with these terms as well. They tend, at least to me, to be more descriptive and quantifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

Slapout - do you have an alligator on your boat?

---

Nope.........

I think the idea of Neo-Conservatism might be worth talking about, its arguable that it is the political philosophy we rode to Baghdad (although lots of folks voted on both sides of the aisle).

We decided there was a worthy political objective in preventing Saddam Hussein from obtaining WMD. We decided Saddam Hussein was the Center of Gravity and that regime change was all that we required. We (with the exception of a few folks who looked beyond) believed that winning militarily would guarentee a regime change that would solve all of our problems.

What was the public expectations about Iraq? They bought into it, got behind it, and then got (and remain) frustrated about the costs. What were the military expectations about Iraq? How many of us thought we'd still be in this stage of the fight after watching Afghanistan? What were the political expectations about Iraq? Did the President and his administration envision the cost? Remember the President ran on a pretty domestic platform in 2000.

Since then the political objectives have been redefined (or you can also say refined). We have a different understanding of global terrorism and the threat it poses. Iraq has caused us to consider the world differently. Our policy went from only considering those who were with us and those who are against us in the wake of 9/11 to questioning our own motives for using military force and begining to understand how important preparation for winning the peace is.

I think with Iraq we look out now and see just how much instability in the world there is - it has always been there and anybody who has went to the 3rd world will tell you about human suffering - but we declined to deal with it nationally because it did not meet the criteria. We have started to seriously look at Pandemics and Global Warming as more then just someting the Europeans and Africans should worry about. We're looking at refugges and migrations, drought and famine. We are starting to connect the dots. We've started to consider if the military structure we've used with success is the right one for the challenges ahead. We have had to look at how General Officers are made, how the Internet can give you a black eye when compromising photos show up, and if MILBLOGs are important. We've had to consider if the range of insturments for foreign policy are proportional, and what that means. We've had to look at our energy needs and our participation in foreign markets and what that means for shor and long term consequences.

I think we are in it for the long haul. I don't think we have much choice but to engage the world in an effort to solve problems. I think we have a choice what tools to use to solve those problems, and I think we have an obligation to ensure that first there is a problem before we try and solve it, and that the solution is beneficial to those who have to live with it, and that for as well as it can, we form a consensus and obtain the types of support international consensus brings. I also beleive that to do that we may need to be more cautious about how we approach problems - starting with understanding that while the short term military fix may be faster, it may not be the right one at all, and if it cannot be applied without the expectation that political accomodation must follow.

I guess that was why I started the thread. victory and triumph sort of jumped out as qualifications for political military success in the pre-OIF lexicon. It seemed like a good place to start. The word triumph also seemed like something big enough to describe what it would mean to have a turning point in how we choose to use our power. That may seem unrealistic, but in light of the many common threats that really don't care where you live, and the fact that our economic interests and livelyhoods are so entwined, it seem to make sense. Winning the Peace is a fantastic way to describe it, to get your arms around it, to work towards it. It probably allows us to get at the mechanics needed to make it happen and to consider at least when use of military force is appropriate. I still like the word though - winning the peace to me would be a triumph. I'm an optimist, its probably the reason I still do this job - it sure ain't the dinero:D

Rob,
This is kinda starting to bleed into a discussion here about the Powell-Weinberger Doctrine. They're not quite the same, but you might find some interesting stuff or have some ideas for that thread as well.

Hey Rob,

You've posted a lot of interesting things and you've got my brain cooking away. Since I just came back from a PT run I will try and not fumble this response too badly.

I agree w/you 100% about the benefits of liberal democracy (in whatever culturally appropriate form, Japanese and German democracies are just as different from American as Indian or Taiwanese or British versions) and free-market capitalism. I'm no Fukuyama booster, but it does strike me that some varied mix of these two elements make for the most stable, prosperous, and politically inclusive systems that humanity has invented yet.

But what does this have to do with terrorism?

Iraq is undoubtedly freer and more democratic than it was in Saddam's day, but violence and terrorism is far more prevalent. Terrorism can emerge as easily in wealthy, liberal democracies --- Timothy McVeigh, Japanese Red Army Faction, the 7/7 London bombers --- as in poverty-stricken dictatorships.

Spreading democracy and capitalism is a worthy goal in itself, but it is not going to be a panacea for terrorism or political violence. Indeed, it may even spark it. System transition in even the best of circumstances is absolutely wrenching for much of the population. Former elites are thrown out of power with no guarantees. New elites often may lack skills and good judgement. No economy does well in an atmosphere of uncertainty. This is especially the case for those countries whose populations, while perhaps nationalistic, often have very weak attachments to the state --- Iraq is a prime example. Nigeria is another. In both places, democratic transition has spawned massive political/religious/ethnic violence and terrorism, as well as acceleration towards chaos.

I think it is also necessary to decouple democracy and capitalism/development/economic growth. They do not necessarily go together, as the example of China shows well. Most of the East Asian First World economies became such under dictatorships or one-party states. Meanwhile free and democratic India languished for decades in slow-growth poverty; both Indians and Filipinos are far freer than mainland Chinese but are poorer and growing far less rapidly.

My main point is that terrorism and political violence do not necessarily occur due to poverty or lack of freedom/democracy. Spreading both is a worthy cause, but it will not solve our terrorism problem and may, in the short term, make it far worse -- and since I'm something of a Keynesian, we're all dead in the long term.

I tend to think there are certain types of terrorism that form because of wealth and comfort. I'm thinking here of the various West German groups that came into being during the 1970s and 1980s. Most of the hard-core members came from middle-class backgrounds at least. In some cases there was an element of social guilt at play (why are we so well off while these other people suffer?) but there were other dynamics as well.

It's an interesting question, though. Look at the environmental and anti-G8 activists. Many of them are wealthy, or at least come from comfortable backgrounds. Yet they are one of the prototype trans-national insurgencies (in my view) and have spawned a number of violent terrorist groups. All of them run off pretty brilliant decentralized networks with "group action" mentality and little in the way of an overt chain of command. Again, interesting stuff.

Hey Tequila, Hey Steve,

Great points and a great discussion. I think one key difference in a democracy may be the pressures put on those groups from within - they are seen as criminals. A dictatorship at this point is subject to its own pressures-look at the pressures building in Pakistan, and Venezuela. A democracy of some flavor though is more likely to condemn the terrorist who operate within it or against it, and recognize the danger to the government which the people have invested for their benefit - unless that govt is no longer upholding its end of the bargain and is attempting to move toward dictatorship - at which point is it really a democracy anymore? If those people can't correct it through non-violent pressure, outside pressure, or a coup then they might turn toward terrorism or adopt insurgency themselves. For a democracy to take hold I think requires a commitment to resist, usually that is laid out in some form of balance of power in the government.

While wealthy states have had their terrorist groups, did they have the resources to go global on a large scale? Did they really want to? How many ETA bubbas made it to D.C. to conduct operations? Because of either their goals or their resources they were more contained. How much support did they actually receive outside of states such as the Soviet Union and Libya? I agree there will always be some who feel that violence is their only option - even if they are born with privilege, and the economy and other opportunities in their country are among the best, but they are the exception I think, and they are not as viral as those which arise where there is no hope. How many McVeighs are there in the U.S. - more then we'd like, but how much instability are they likely to cause? How many McVeighs are inside the govt and law enforcement? Why are there not more? Will they ever topple the U.S. government, a state or even a local govt? Even though they will plan and execute heinous acts, will their political objectives ever be fulfilled? There will also be Columbine, and VA. tech like mass murders - but we also believe those are the aberrations of psychopathic individuals or small groups.

I agree about being willing to pursue one thing and not the other. Freedom sort of leads you to wanting more freedom. China is an interesting example. I suspect that however it turns out it will not be how anybody thought it would - did you know that in sections of Beijing they are building Victorian Style mansions - it was in a National Geographic I think - it was so odd to look at this neighborhood that looked like it belonged in New England - that they can do that is a type of freedom of expression. I'm not saying the Chinese leadership is breaking out the Federalist Papers, but I am saying they are acknowledging that people must have a certain degree of freedom if you want a robust economy and to make use of their greatest resource - the Chinese Population. So absolutely - if a country is willing to involve itself in liberal trade, but is unsure about changing jerseys - I say we help them - as long as they are not simultaneously working to intimidate their neighbors.

I think we all wish we'd done things a little different in Iraq, but nobody likes to admit that it might not have mattered if we'd done it perfect (or whatever we think perfect might be). It might just be that the violence they incurred during Saddam's reign is going to take years to shake out. Why is it that it took 4 years of incredible violence in the American Civil War before it was over? Inept Union Generalship? Took that long to grind them down? Or were the passions and causes (real and perceived) so strong and they just had to get tired of killing each other? Maybe all of them. It was the defining moment though in U.S. History - because we just had to know.

The pressures in Iraq that were kept under the lid of the Saddam Ba'athism finally blew up. AQ sparked it sooner rather then later, but it may have went down anyway - but maybe different. Because Saddam liked Iraqis divided Iraq was denied the means to work its problems through political progression, then when he was gone suddenly (we fired him), it left a gaping hole - nobody filled it, maybe nobody could. Syria, Iran and AQ are certainly not helping as they pursue their own interests and further prevent the Iraqis from dealing with their own problems as Iraqis. Until a strong enough figure emerges to both pick up the leadership, but be able to hand it over to the next guy, Iraq will continue to be divided land and/or a dictatorship.

I'm a long term guy - its just the way I think. Growth and transition are painful so if you are going to go to the trouble then it should be worth your resources. I don't think there are too many options - you can't contain it as is - it will leak out and come to visit you at home. We are not going to stay home either, so we will present ourselves abroad.

Some places may not be ready, and as long as they are not imposing on others or conducting some form of resource blackmail which causes conflict (Michael Howard wrote the 3 main reasons states go to war are Interests, Fear and Honor/Prestige) maybe the best course is to just let them progress and to help their peoples in other ways - if they will allow it. If those states do use violence against a neighbor then somebody must decide what the fallout is and if its worth taking action - if someone does then you still have to deal with how to win the peace. Eventually though, those people of that state will assert themselves through some form of redress - you cannot keep the world out anymore, it is invasive and growing more so everyday. The world is growing smaller – kind of an oxymoron, but I think it describes the situation as one of inevitable pain – but how do we try and make it a smoother transition, or do we just hang on and ride?

Rob, I guess that is a picture of you. Either way it is a lot better than the 2 naked guys.

Hey Slapout,
I thought the 2 greek wrestlers would appeal to Crocket's pastel side and sockless loafers:D - My wife asked why I did not put a photo up of myself - the reason I had not before was we're an open community, it was pretty obvious where I was at and I did not want to provide a mug shot. The moustache is now gone - a victim of having 3 daughters who did not like it:wry:
Its interesting - we talked about this once - how avatars and photos and such are symbols and influence perception. Its also interesting that the user can see it one way, but the audience can see it another way.

Hi Rob, yea I know what you mean about perceptions. I told my wife I was getting a realy cool t-shirt from this guy I talk to on the computer. She looked over my shoulder and saw the avatar and then looked me rather strange for some reason:confused: I was looking for a cool picture of Steve McQeen from his Wanted Dead or Alive days as bounty hunter Josh Randall. I couldn't find one until after I put up Crockett. I found several all Black and White photos but they don't really show up that well so I went with Crockett. My wife chose a cartoon of a Tazmainian devil dressed as a police officer with his nightstick in one hand and a pair of handcuffs in the other(no I want be using that one)

Send your shirt size for your Slapout CSI t-shirt. Later

Here is a link to an article on the Mares leg sawed off winchester 92 he carried.
http://www.mcqueenonline.com/gunsquarterlyarticle.htm

I am not in favor of trying to bring liberal democracy to the rest of the world. Forcing any kind of political system on another state will never work in my limited opinion. Legitimate political change in 95% of the cases must come from bottom up, intra state efforts, not from top down, external efforts. There are exceptions such as Nazi Germany and Imperial Nippon, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Rob - your last paragraph is the crux of the matter:

"Some places may not be ready, and as long as they are not imposing on others or conducting some form of resource blackmail which causes conflict (Michael Howard wrote the 3 main reasons states go to war are Interests, Fear and Honor/Prestige) maybe the best course is to just let them progress and to help their peoples in other ways - if they will allow it. If those states do use violence against a neighbor then somebody must decide what the fallout is and if its worth taking action - if someone does then you still have to deal with how to win the peace. Eventually though, those people of that state will assert themselves through some form of redress - you cannot keep the world out anymore, it is invasive and growing more so everyday. The world is growing smaller – kind of an oxymoron, but I think it describes the situation as one of inevitable pain – but how do we try and make it a smoother transition, or do we just hang on and ride?"

Who are we to become the arbitrator of violence in the world? This is Wilsonian at best and Jacobin at worst.

The world might be getting smaller, but it's also becoming more fragmented. The 2006 Failed States Index is an excellent look at how this phenomena is occuring. Also ask yourself if the US Military is involved in some way in the worst of these countries..you'll see a trend develop here. It's Barnett's Gap theory being instituted, which I think is a recipe for disaster in the long run.

One thing will bring our aggressive foreign policy (which is both a hallmark of the last 30 years of both Republican and Democratic leadership in this country - they just differentiate between causes) to a grinding halt: the economy. If the economy ever tanks, like a mid-70's stagflation tank, then it will be impossible to support our military budget. One can easily make a case that we cannot support our military budget now considering the levels of foreign owned debt in the US.

This is a tranistional period for the world. In the last 100 years, we've seen the death of two major politcal factions in the world - Communism and Imperialism/Colonialism - that have had huge geo-political impacts upon the planet. The map lines are literally being redrawn on an annual basis, and it's because of the deaths of Marxism and Imperialism that we are involved in most of the failed states in one form or another. We are trying to develop democracies and republics, which is noble, but it is expensive, demanding, and overall, will have a success/failure rate to be determined. We cannot state whether this will be worthwhile or not, but my gut tells me that the American people will only support this internationalist foreign policy when the country is either successful at war (perceptions drive the train here) or if the economy stays afloat.

If wars go bad, or if the economy sours, all bets are off. We return to the days of inner reflection and internal demand. We take care of ourselves first. We have not experienced a really bad sustained economy since the late 80's, and we are past due on that cycle coming back around. Perhaps we are in a new world where we can temper or even avoid major economic downturns, but it would take some economist to explain why that is.

Not to switch gears too much in the thread, but I think its kind of an evolution. Is the way we have largely thought about the use of National Power in the past appropriate for today? We'll define Power as the elements of national power DIME and its ability to influence and shape events. Slapout or Steve (1st cup of coffee) had proposed on another thread changing the way we think of using force as necessary as well. Force has largely a kinetic connotation. Is the way we have thought of security appropriate, or does that need to change in light of globalization and its many issues?

In my mind more and more issues are linked, and you can exhaust yourself stamping on the effects of the causes. How much effort should we reserve toward neutralizing or containing effects (conflict), and how much toward treating the causes (conflict prevention)?

You see all sort of great threads, blogs and print about topics like force structure, Inter-Agency fixes etc, but you really cannot (or maybe should not) proceed to far down that line until you've decided why you are changing it and what you are going to do with it.

9/11, Iraq, GWOT, Tsunamis, Pandemics, Global Warming, etc. - have all shaped this debate. It was not one in and of itself, it was the recognition that all these are related. I'm going to stray for a moment - Consider this site, with its accessibility to the International public. Look at who participates - we have a regular contributor who is a professor of anthropology ( Marc - you're citizenship and profession are what I'm looking for - when I tell folks I know this Canadian antrhopologist who had a great online idea - I get some interesting looks). I think open, decentralized organizations like the SWC are way out in front - they are cost free for most - you can assume an avatar and pseudonym if you like and discuss things in an open forum - I think this is useful and popular is also a reflection of the changing world - people are somewhat evaluated on their arguments and how they argue. It is a more neutral field - people can step outside the confines of their other responsibilities somewhat. It is the proliferation of ideas, made better by discourse and the ability to reach a sort of consensus, or at least acknowledgement.

Why is that important? I think by showing the many different perspectives we can get our solutions to big problems (in our case about Power, Force, National Security, etc.) less wrong or more right. The problems facing us are so complex, and have so many side effects, that are accentuated by outside forces that we are recognizing the need to discuss them outside of our immediate circles.

OK - back to the topic - I think this is an extension of the changing world. Unilateral solutions are fewer and farther between. The difference between the "justifiable Interest" rationale and the "morally defining" rationale for involvement are increasingly blurred since all of these problems are connected through globalization - Terror groups have global reach to an extent - they finance, communicate, plan, compare over the vast communication networks that fuel global economies. The identify, analyze and target remote populations of states that unable or unwilling to meet those populations needs, then they find similiar interests from all segments of those populations and work to destabilize them. It is in their interests to do so because it provides the conditions for furthering their own agendas - more crime and instability provides more revenue and forces states in favor of stabilty to exhaust resources. The enemy is pursuing a strategy of exhaustion. I think we can do a better job of making the forces of instability less relevant to the populations they target by going after the conditions which instability takes root.

This is hard, hard work I think. I'm not sure we are organized for it optimally, but like many others I'm not sure we can get there with out sacrificing some abilities and interests either - there are no easy fixes. Everybody wants total certainty that a commitment to one course or the other is a way to go - but the only certainty available I'm aware of it the historical past - and after something passes into history it is done - all you can do is either toast it or lament it.

Hey Ski, glad you are on the thread

Quote:

---

If wars go bad, or if the economy sours, all bets are off. We return to the days of inner reflection and internal demand. We take care of ourselves first. We have not experienced a really bad sustained economy since the late 80's, and we are past due on that cycle coming back around. Perhaps we are in a new world where we can temper or even avoid major economic downturns, but it would take some economist to explain why that is.

---

Man, I don't know - I think our economy is global. We sell, we consume, we provide services to a global audience. We have goods made all over the world, and many foreign companies make goods here to sell both here and abroad. We have trade agreements, partnerships, insourcing, out sourcing, off shoring arrangements, etc. that fuel our economy. We do research and development both at home and abroad. We are global.

Why haven't we recruited and economist yet to SWC?:) Hey Marc - any Canadian economist you know who might want to contribute?

Rob

I would have been here earlier, but my wife gave birth to our first child late Wednesday night, and I've been just about as drained as I can be...or as a buddy of mine said, "Dude, the first few weeks are like Ranger School without the fun of jumping out of planes or carrying weapons."

Back to the topic - I'd offer that global economics is inhernetly more unstable, simply because of the complexities involved. There are limits built in to economic systems that can reduce the possibilities of downturns or loss, but none the less, the sheer complexity and size of the global economy means that a small problem can ripple into a larger problem.

Think back to 9/11, and the problems the airline industry had. What happens if the Federal Government doesn't bail out the airline industry? How often can the Federal Government actually do this - I've seen it twice in the past two Presidencies - the airline and steel industries bailout under Bush, and the bailout of the Mexican economy under Clinton. At some point, there are going to be diminishing returns, and all of that money is coming out of our taxpayers pockets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ski

Who are we to become the arbitrator of violence in the world? This is Wilsonian at best and Jacobin at worst.

This is a tranistional period for the world. In the last 100 years, we've seen the death of two major politcal factions in the world - Communism and Imperialism/Colonialism - that have had huge geo-political impacts upon the planet. The map lines are literally being redrawn on an annual basis, and it's because of the deaths of Marxism and Imperialism that we are involved in most of the failed states in one form or another.

---

Outstanding post, Ski.

If a Kurd in the North or Shi'ite in the South gets at the head of a mass movement to create their own country as a response to the chaos there, what should be our response? What we call a failed state needing democracy to become healed, he might call an illegitimate artificial state imposed on them after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire by British imperialists. It never had any legitimacy and was only maintained by Saddam's Sunni dominated dictatorship.

If he is really clever he would write a document that echoed our own Declaration of Independence. It would take some nerve to try to tell them they couldn't do it. I can just see him selectively quoting our Founding Fathers in response to justify their bid for independence.

Unlikely as it seems, a George Washington might emerge to unify the country. He'll have no credibility if we appoint him, or arrange for his selection, that's for sure.

Or they just might really need to go their separate ways. If so, I do not see what moral authority we would have to deny them that course. We are just going to have to get used to the idea that the waxing of states has ended and the waning of states is in motion. Sending a bunch of troops around the world to prop up disintegrating unions is just a losing proposition, whether they are sitting on petroleum or not.

I have no idea what the future holds, but it just seems like we are hoping to preserve an old order in the Middle East and elsewhere, that is disappearing due to forces beyond our control. Better to stand aside, set the best example we can as a nation, and deal with whoever is sitting across the poker table from us than try to engineer who the new poker players will be. It just isn't our bailiwick.

Quote:

---

I would have been here earlier, but my wife gave birth to our first child late Wednesday night, and I've been just about as drained as I can be...or as a buddy of mine said, "Dude, the first few weeks are like Ranger School without the fun of jumping out of planes or carrying weapons."

---

We've got 4 now - I'd like to tell you it gets easier, but its just a different set of problems:D However, I will tell you they are worth every ounce of effort, and then some - Congratulations

Hey Tacitus,

Quote:

---

I have no idea what the future holds, but it just seems like we are hoping to preserve an old order in the Middle East and elsewhere, that is disappearing due to forces beyond our control. Better to stand aside, set the best example we can as a nation, and deal with whoever is sitting across the poker table from us than try to engineer who the new poker players will be. It just isn't our bailiwick.

---

So are saying just take a step back, figure out who the winner is going to be and when the dust settles deal with them. I'm not trying to be flippant about your response, only that I'm not sure where you are going with it. When you say setting the best example we can as a nation - what do you mean? However, "dealing with whoever is sitting across the table" is pretty explanatory. How far do you go though? If Hugo Chavez decides he really likes selling us oil so he can buy more weapons - what does that do to us - why should we care? Aside from the fact that his geography puts him in a unique position? Maybe we deal with some and not others - the standard is set the old way - based on how much media coverage it will get?

Quote:

---

Unlikely as it seems, a George Washington might emerge to unify the country. He'll have no credibility if we appoint him, or arrange for his selection, that's for sure.

Or they just might really need to go their separate ways. If so, I do not see what moral authority we would have to deny them that course. We are just going to have to get used to the idea that the waxing of states has ended and the waning of states is in motion. Sending a bunch of troops around the world to prop up disintegrating unions is just a losing proposition, whether they are sitting on petroleum or not.

---

I do agree here to an extent. A george Washington might emerge, and we could not appoint him without possibly sacrificing his credibility. But what does it take to build a Washington? How would he best get his hands on parts of a political philosophy that he could build on and make work based on his culture? How do strong leaders and emerge and take root? How many potential candidates never quite make it? How can we help without hand selecting somebody that we like because he looks most like us? The founding fathers were not average - they were all educated and articulate - they were also experienced and had qualities that our own professional politicians lack.

I also agree that some states probably will not make it - but what happens after that, and why did they not make it? Is it a sort of natural selection? We were fairly close to not making it a couple of times. Would the world be better off without us? What is worth fighting for then? What is worth saving? Without some form of government I think we'd devolve into anarchy - chaos. I think that is what Osama is after - a plowed field upon which to build his caliphate. The thought of weathering the storm without trying to do something - be it humanitarian aid, economic assistance, or security goes against what I signed up for - its too much like a PMC - a business transaction.

This is a tough question. It has allot of us looking both ways. Its why I thought it important to raise it. Personally I see more of the same strife and suffering we've seen , but there would be much more were we to sit back and wait it out. Politically (in the big broad world sense) who would trust us? Why should they anyway? We may not be perfect, but would you rather be Putin? What did the English PM Tony Blair say about a year ago - something like "you can judge the greatness of a country by the number of people wishing to come to it." The United States is great not because of its ability to conserve resources for ourselves, but for our generosity and compassion. These are national values. They may be a tragic flaw, but the are also a strength in that they unify and call for self sacrifice of the individual for something better - where would we be wthout them -individually richer, but collectively poore I guess. A nation of individuals - I'd argue that before we go and change our values with regard to those outside of the U.S. - we take a look at how it would change ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tacitus

If he is really clever he would write a document that echoed our own Declaration of Independence. It would take some nerve to try to tell them they couldn't do it. I can just see him selectively quoting our Founding Fathers in response to justify their bid for independence.

Unlikely as it seems, a George Washington might emerge to unify the country. He'll have no credibility if we appoint him, or arrange for his selection, that's for sure.

---

Iraq doesn't need a Ho Chi Minh.

Quote:

---

Ho Chi Minh's Speech, Ba Dinh Square, September 2, 1945



"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights."

These are undeniable truths.

Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.

In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.

They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center, and the South of Viet-Nam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.

They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood.

They have fettered public opinion; they have practiced obscurantism against our people.

To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.

In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people and devastated our land.

They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of bank notes and the export trade.

They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty.

They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers.

In the autumn of 1940, when the Japanese fascists violated Indochina's territory to establish new bases in their fight against the Allies, the French imperialists went down on their bended knees and handed over our country to them.

Thus, from that date, our people were subjected to the double yoke of the French and the Japanese. Their sufferings and miseries increased. The result was that, from the end of last year to the beginning of this year, from Quang Tri Province to the North of Viet-Nam, more than two million of our fellow citizens died from starvation. On March 9 [1945], the French troops were disarmed by the Japanese. The French colonialists either fled or surrendered, showing that not only were they incapable of "protecting" us, but that, in the span of five years, they had twice sold our country to the Japanese.

On several occasions before March 9, the Viet Minh League urged the French to ally themselves with it against the Japanese. Instead of agreeing to this proposal, the French colonialists so intensified their terrorist activities against the Viet Minh members, that before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners detained at Yen Bay and Cao Bang.

Notwithstanding all this, our fellow citizens have always manifested toward the French a tolerant and humane attitude. Even after the Japanese Putsch of March, 1945, the Viet Minh League helped many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued some of them from Japanese jails, and protected French lives and property.

From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to be a French colony and had become a Japanese possession.

After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam.

The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French.

The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bao Dai has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the Fatherland. Our people at the same time have overthrown the monarchic regime that has reigned supreme for dozens of centuries. In its place has been established the present Democratic Republic.

For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government, representing the whole Vietnamese people, declare that from now on we break off all relations of a colonial character with France; we repeal all the international obligations that France has so far subscribed to on behalf of Viet-Nam, and we abolish all the special rights the French have unlawfully acquired in our Fatherland.

The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer their country.

We are convinced that the Allied nations, which at Teheran and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge the independence of Viet-Nam.

A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent.

For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, solemnly declare to the world that Viet-Nam has the right to be a free and independent country - and in fact it is so already. The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safe guard their independence and liberty.

---

Greetings Mr. Thornton,

First of all, you write interesting posts. And lots of them. Just how many words a minute can you type, anyway?:)

So are saying just take a step back, figure out who the winner is going to be and when the dust settles deal with them. I'm not trying to be flippant about your response, only that I'm not sure where you are going with it.


Other choices offered being overthrowing foreign governments, assassination of heads of state, and invasion by American armed forces to facilitate "regime change", if they haven't committed an act of war against us, then yes. I suggest making the best of a less than ideal situation and trying to wait them out.

If they are willingly hosting Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda gang, like The Taleban, then they (like Carthage) must be destroyed.

When you say setting the best example we can as a nation - what do you mean? How far do you go though? If Hugo Chavez...


I've sensed a return by some of the nations of South and Latin America to left-wing policies, Hugo Chavez being merely the most publicized. Now I am not the most informed man on this forum about that part of the world, I'll concede right off the bat. Although today's headlines wouldn't indicate it, there was a time when we had pretty good relations with South America and Latin America. What do our allies down there, such as they are, think about it? Do they consider Hugo just a publicity hound, full of sound and fury signifying nothing beyond his borders, or not? I don't get the impression that they see him yet as a threat to the region. Correct me if I'm wrong.

By setting an example, I guess I just mean updating what was once called "The Good Neighbor Policy" by FDR. At the Conference for the Maintenance of Peace in Buenos Aires in 1936, the American nations agreed to mutual consultation if there was a security threat to any of the nations within the hemisphere. At the Eighth Pan-American Conference, held in Lima, Peru, Cordell Hull managed to obtain a resolution reasserting a united front against possible Axis aggression against American nations during the war, even though most Latin American countries at the time were ruled by generals who admired European facism. Pretty good job there by Hull. So it is possible to have good relations with these countries.

If Hugo Chavez is dangerous enough that his neighbors in the region want to voluntarily work with us to build a regional coalition to deter him, then they eventually will out of self-preservation, won't they?

The absence of an Iraqi George Washington (heck, I'm not greedy, we'd be thrilled to get a John Adams or a James Madison) merely points to the unique nature of the founding of our own country. You might even date the beginning of our march to democracy to the Magna Carta in 1215. I have no idea how to transplant this system of government to Iraq. Actually, I don't even think it is possible given the kind of current divisions in the society in that land. Perhaps they could benefit from some kind of South African styled Truth and Reconciliation Commission to get going on the road? But given the religious nature of this Sunni vs. Shi'ite conflict, I wouldn't count on it.

Firestaller: Thanks for retrieving that Ho Chi Minh speech. I'd forgotten about it. I hadn't read that in 20 years, and certainly didn't know where to find it. Yeah, that's exactly what I could see being thrown back at us eventually--our founding father's own stirring rhetoric!

Hello to all,
First I wanted to say thanks to everyone who participated in the thread - it shows how many diverse, and well articulated thoughts there are on a relevant and complex subject. I have greatly benefitted from the discussion - of course I always say that is what is great about the site. I'm not saying the discussion should end here, but I have to swap over to the review of the John Robb book thread - I suspect some of the themes mentioned here will come up there as well, but mainly we'll discuss the book. I wish I had time for both - but between trying to balance Army and family and get my arms around the new job, I just can't. However, that should not stop anybody from still talking about this - I feel like the discussion helps to show that there is more to this then meets the eye, and folks should investigate this to see where they stand.

Best Regards, and many Thanks to all,
Rob

On the issue of who is 'we' in Iraq. I presume it is only the Coalition of the Willing (COW).

The remainder of the world remain mere bystanders because they feel that the cause was trumped up to serve self interests and I am not talking about Oil alone!

While Afghanistan was totally justified since it was incumbent of ObL to stand trial for 9/11, the then Afghan govt failed to hand over the terrorist on the flimsy ground of his being a guest! Therefore, one had to get the fugitive and US was doing so.

Given the US history of cozying up with tyrants, despots, illegal govts, military dictatorships, repressive govts, this sudden moral rearmament in the the form of bringing Freedom and Democracy to the oppressed appeared too much of a sham and totally hollow.

The unholy haste in which the US rough rode the UN and entered Iraq left one aghast especially not allowing the UN inspectors their time to inspect. The fact that it was later discovered that Iraq had no WMD and the fact that the US took longer to discover that there was no WMD than the time the UN inspectors wanted convinced all that it was but a ploy for US to make its presence in Iraq for whatever be the reason. Some said Oil, but then that is debatable, though if indeed the Oil come under the US directions, the back of the OPEC can be broken so that they cannot manipulate the production and price which was proving detrimental to US interests apart from the rumblings that some were contemplating of changing the payment mode from the Dollar to the Euro. Iraq and Iran had done so.

The US must have got an indication of how the Middle East was shaping up as we see what is current. Therefore, it must have been imperative on the US to put into place the Cheney Defence Policy Guidelines which called for ready and quick US response to trouble areas of the world by having a base in such areas. Iraq was ideal since it sat squat in the middle of the troubled Middle East!

It is worth wondering as to if the US would be so muddle headed as to prop up the Shias in Iraq when it is hostile towards the Shias of Iran and knowing fully well of the natural affinity of both! Or that promoting an independent Kurdistan would mean losing Turkey and the control of the strategic Bosporus!

It is unbelievable that the US, a country which has the best brains in the world, could repeatedly pursue policies that ties itself in knots and makes the withdrawal from Iraq an impossibility.

Therefore, it is a cynical manner in which Cheney is implementing his Defence Policy that he wrote when he was the Defence Secretary?

Could be.