The 4GW Festival of Fabius Maximus

[SWJED]

Council member Zenpundit at his blog by the same name - The 4GW Festival of Fabius Maximus.

For some time now, an author whose nom de guerre is "Fabius Maximus", after the ancient Roman general of the Punic wars, has been a regular and at times, prolific, contributor to the Boydian and 4GW school oriented Defense & the National Interest. Fabius, who comments here at Zenpundit on occasion, also set off one of the most popular, if heated and controversial, threads at The Small Wars Council, catching the attention of noted COIN strategist Col. David Kilcullen. Kilcullen's theories later became a subject of frequent critique from Fabius in his DNI articles.

While I had hoped to meet Fabius in person at Boyd 2007, he did not attend and I am not privy to his identity or professional background. Fabius' arguments must rise or fall entirely on their own merit and he has been content to engage his critics on this basis at the SWC and elsewhere. Clearly he is a member of the 4GW school and is an admirer of Col. John Boyd, William Lind, Dr. Martin van Creveld and Dr. Chet Richards but has not shrunk from advancing his own ideas or original criticisms...

Much more at the link...

[Stan]

To quote one of our distinguished members who said it best...

It is what it is; why call it an article and not call it an OP-ED? You don't site resources, other than for filler quotes. It's a mixture rich in opinion and bubbling with exaggeration.

After 4 months of reading this stuff I still don't know where you get your "fact."

Thanks, RTK !

[zenpundit]

The link is much appreciated Dave!

"A pain in the Alpha"

Hi Stan,

After I posted FM, a friend who is a defense analyst and finds Fabius to be a highly aggravating internet personality, emailed me to ask, in essence, why the hell I was bothering ? There are a number of reasons.

I don't agree with the thrust of FM's grand strategy. I think it would, if implemented, vastly accelerate the rise of regional market-security blocs, encourage wars of local hegemony and derail globalization (the latter might be viewed as a positive outcome by FM). OTOH, he is an effective goad to discussion by discomforting ppl with more mainstream views, forcing them to reexamine their premises. This is a good thing. It's easy to get too comfortable with our intellectual assumptions.

Secondly, I think it's easy to underestimate how many Americans share less articulate or well-considered versions of the foreign policy assumptions of a Fabius Maximus or William Lind. The MSM does not give them the time of day but they are out there, certainly in the Midwest at least and that factors into public opinion.

[Stan]

Hi Stan,

OTOH, he is an effective goad to discussion by discomforting ppl with more mainstream views, forcing them to reexamine their premises. This is a good thing. It's easy to get too comfortable with our intellectual assumptions.

Secondly, I think it's easy to underestimate how many Americans share less articulate or well-considered versions of the foreign policy assumptions of a Fabius Maximus or William Lind. The MSM does not give them the time of day but they are out there, certainly in the Midwest at least and that factors into public opinion.

I know of only one other person (MarcT) who could so eloquintly define the otherwise simple military term, Pain in the Alpha With that, I grudgingly acknowledge that FM did indeed steer some of us into rethinking (albeit for only a few minutes) !

We wondered where he'd gone

Regards, Stan

[RTK]

To quote one of our distinguished members who said it best...



Thanks, RTK !

After however long it's been since I typed that, I still haven't figured it out. It's my own mental rubix cube. And I haven't figured out how to pull the stickers off yet.

[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…