Do we require a victory or a Triumph?

[Rob Thornton]

Hey WM, Hey Tom,
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:

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

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:

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.