The 4GW Festival of Fabius Maximus

[Fabius Maximus]

Thanks for posting the link to this. Since Labor Day I’ve adopted the Lind publishing schedule: weekly short articles. So I have not been reading much at SWC.

The folks at SWC have been my most vociferous critics on the web, and hence those that helped me the most. However, someone reading the above posts might get the wrong idea about my articles.

I’ve written 28 articles about Iraq since Sept 2003. I have given many specific forecasts and observations. They stand up quite well, in my opinion. Many forecasts which received a hot reception (esp at SWC) are now consensus wisdom. That should not surprise people of the SWC! I’m standing on the accumulated work of experts like van Creveld, Lind, Richards, and Vandergriff. (The view from up here is terrific. I wish more of you would join me.)

Just for fun, here are 2 old and 3 recent specifics. As for the last, only time will tell – but it looks accurate so far. Probably none of these are original (that’s too high a goal). This ignores the wrong ones, such as guessing that Bush would sacrifice the Iraq project to save the Republican Party’s majority in Congress.

Oct 31, 2003: We fight insurgents who learn rapidly (the Darwinian ratchet) and have gained the initiative from us. The Coalition has lost a connection between its strategy and tactics.

Nov 22, 2003: The current project to rapidly recruit locals for Iraq security forces is certain to fail, as we’re unable to screen out insurgents. Also, this is too fast for adequate training.

Nov 12, 2006: Iraq is undergoing massive ethnic cleansing, perhaps the only thing that can bring peace.

Dec 19, 2006: The Iraq national government is a shell, lacking most of the key attributes of a functioning government. This was vehemently disputed at SWC.

March 17, 2007: Iraq continues to fragment, and the pieces are developing viable governments (ditto, as above). This is probably the only path to peace for Iraq.

Also – I too like RTK’s comment “You don't site resources, other than for filler quotes.” This is what comes to mind when I think of SWC, unfairly slighting the many brilliant & well-informed posts. One can dislike my choice of sources, object to my use of sources, and disagree with my conclusions. But RTK’s quote isn’t even interestingly wrong, just bizarrely so. I cite sources frequently in my articles, perhaps obsessively so – and in SWC threads more than most.

[Mark O'Neill]

March 17, 2007: Iraq continues to fragment, and the pieces are developing viable governments (ditto, as above). This is probably the only path to peace for Iraq.

FM,

I would welcome expansion on how you have derived this view. As a counterview to its assertion, I would offer the following points as obstacles to its occurrence:

1) The difficulties that such a development would generate for Iraq's neighbours, and their likely 'vote' on such developments occuring. Specifically:

a) Turkey (and to a lesser extent, Iran) finding the development of a fully autonomous Kurdish state unacceptable.
b) Arab Sunni States finding the development of an autonomous Shia state problematic.
c) Concern throughout the region of increasing Iranian influence in any nascent 'Shiastan' in Iraq; and
d) Israel finding it all problematic.

2) Agreement on the division of resources (oil revenues) being highly problematic.

3) Agreement within the Sunni over what a Sunni 'Bantustan" would look like and who would control it.

4) The issue of Kirkuk.

5) The current trajectory of US Foreign Policy in the region is against such a development.

6) Recent opinion polls show that most Iraqis, (except the approx. 20% Kurd minority), still identify in some way with the concept of a national, unitary "Iraq".

Regards,

Mark

[Fabius Maximus]

Mark, I fully agree with the point of your post. The road to peace for Iraq -- thru partition or another path -- will not be easy. Hence I said "fragmenting" and "developing." Nobody can tell how it will end.

My two articles on this topic (March 13 & Sept 27) analyze the same potholes as those you list:
http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/fabius_insurgency_ended.htm
http://www.defense-and-society.org/fabius/long_war_IV.htm

There are complex dynamics at work, beyond the scope of a post (hence the articles). Here is a summary of some relevant themes I (and others) have written about for the past year:

1. The mutual slaughter to date, and potential for much more -- perhaps spreading through the region -- provides powerful incentives for everyone involved to pull things together.

2. The development of local ruling elites provides a mechanism for this to happen. Ethnic cleansing makes it possible.

3. Peace is a relative state, esp in Iraq. There could be long-term border wars amongst the new Iraq mini-states, and between them and their neighbors. This is the most common scenario, historically.

4. The oil revenue is both a cause of tension and a solution. Money can be divided. Wars over ideology and religion are more difficult to settle.

5. The US is more of a passenger in Iraq than a driver.

6. Public opinion polls express people’s dreams and aspirations. For example, polls in American show broad support for both lower taxes and more public services of improved quality. These yearnings are a factor, but seldom a decisive one.

[goesh]

I seldom advocate fragging people these days but then none of us are in the bush here, well, the vast majority of us aren't anyway

[Fabius Maximus]

That is a sincere post, illustrating an important aspect of today’s America.

The American ideal has always been one of open debate. The clashing of opposing viewpoints so that a stronger synthesis emerges, as a medieval smith hammers crude iron into a fine sword. Like the fierce arguments in President Washington’s cabinet. Or the Lincoln-Douglas debates. From this comes a unified spirit so that America can best face the many dangers that surround us. (This did not work for slavery, and the cost of this failure was high) (It is also a formula for a great web site)

I believe we have too little of that today, esp on the web. The large web communities, such as Little Green Footballs and The Daily Kos, mostly hurl insults at one another. Great issues are debated on two or more tracks, seldom intersecting.

Why is this? Have we become spiritually timid, afraid to debate? Or coarse intellectually, unable to respond to challenges of our basic assumptions?

Just a thought…

[goesh]

You don't mind if I call you Boscoe, do you? We are not spiritually timid, we are afraid to die because we have no guarentee of a good afterlife promised, the bane of Liberality if you will . The American ideal has always been one of material acquistion, not open debate, and as such, it is simply pragmatic to polarize the small fry and big fish. Since you have been confined to a couple of threads in this forum, it appears you have no choice but to debate with me for the most part. You can take the large fish end of the dichotomy if you want.

[Fabius Maximus]

The American ideal has always been one of material acquistion, not open debate, and as such, it is simply pragmatic to polarize the small fry and big fish.

Some people say I am pessimistic, but your comment is one of the most depressing sentiments I have heard about America in a while. Cheer up, man – we’re not that bad.

You have only raised one issue, seemingly trivial, but one you must feel deserving of attention. It is not accurate to say I “have no choice but to debate with you” and I’ve “been confined to a couple of threads on this forum.” From a quick glance at the stats -- I’ve started 8 threads in the past 12 months, with an average volume of almost 3,500 views – far above the SWC average. Three have over 5,000 views, probably putting them in the top 50 most-viewed threads during that period (just guessing, looking at the menu). I seldom post on others’ threads unless, like the worthy Zenpundit’s here, it mentions me.

On a broader note, you obviously disagree with my views about the Iraq War and perhaps related issues. My views are shared by retired generals, former high officials of the US government, eminent academics, and tens of millions of Americans. That does not make me right. On the other hand, you are not debating the Flat Earth Society.

You’re obviously well-educated, as such typical of the posters I’ve seen at SWC. Yet you dismiss these views with a wave of your hand, as if you were Merlin. What do you expect those who disagree with you to do, applaud or genuflect?

Your comments illustrate the point I made below. How do your comments differ from those of liberals on blogs like Matthew Yglesias’, who dismiss conservative views by calling them racist, sexist, or homophobic? I believe that these strategic issues, and the widely-held opinions about them which I share, deserve more respect.

You may call me “Boscoe”. That’s strange and rude, but if it makes you happy…