Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 102

Thread: The Israeli Option in Strategy

  1. #61
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default No argumento from me on that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    ... Coalitions of interests--fleeting or semi-permanent--have their own costs but at the end of the day prove their worth. If you routienly act alone you will be alone.
    Bush and Co. have done some good things and some bad ones, some smart things and some dumb ones -- and IMO, one of the dumbest was to thumb his / our nose at most of the world his first couple of years. That did more damage than invading Iraq...

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

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

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

    Regards,
    Ken

  2. #62
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

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

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

    Best

    Tom

  3. #63
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Absolutely concur.

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

    Best

    Tom
    Easier said than done.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  4. #64
    Council Member Stu-6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Occupied Virginia
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I wonder how this thread would have run had Steve not titled it "The Israeli option on Strategy" and had not even mentioned Israel?

    I generally agree with his prescription but would instead have called it the TR strategy, walk softly and carry a big stick.
    It seems that would be something different, since Israel doesn't really walk softly.

  5. #65
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I thought that's what I said...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stu-6 View Post
    It seems that would be something different, since Israel doesn't really walk softly.
    if not in so many words.

  6. #66
    Council Member Tacitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    146

    Default

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

    Once you determine this is what you are then you can start to determine what your foriegn policy ought to be.
    Hey Curmudgeon: That's one route we could take. Accept the fact that the US is an empire, and let that determine our foreign policy? That sounds like what I read in Niall Ferguson’s book "Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire".
    http://www.amazon.com/Colossus-Ameri.../dp/1594200130

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Some countries were born empires, some aspired to empired status, and still others had it thrust upon them. The U.S. is very much in the latter category.
    No signature required, my handshake is good enough.

  7. #67
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Curmudgeon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Tacitus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    I'm moving toward the conclusion that our problem is NOT that people don't understand us (and hence the problem is NOT poor strategic communications or information operations). Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for.
    I agree 100%.

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

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

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

  9. #69
    Council Member Tacitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    146

    Default

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

    It's doable and it's feasible. Here is a hint; google "Arab Drifters" and watch the video on you tube. How easy is it to build a program to ensure that none of these guys and other rev heads never get radicalised?
    Hey walrus,
    Well, that's worth a try. It has the advantage of the prospect of holding together a coalition to oppose the Islamists. It sounds like an adaptation of the containment strategy used against the USSR in the cold war.

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

    Perhaps there is so much bad blood politically between Western nations as a result of this Iraq invasion, that things just can't be patched up at the highest level until all the previous leaders leave the scene. Come November 4, 2008, the slate will be wiped clean. Bush is probably radioactive for any foreign leader--not exactly a good thing when trying to wage coalition "small warfare."
    No signature required, my handshake is good enough.

  10. #70
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default

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

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

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

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

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

    As to solving the Islamist problem I suggest we would not have one if Britain had not sided with the Zionists at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians (thanks Balfour). While most Arabs would prefer a one state solution, a two state solution might be acceptable if the US withdraws unconditional support for Israel. As it is they have the land, wealth & might and the Palestinians are a little light on bargaining chips, beyond the 'we was wronged' argument. Unfortunately this requires a change in US policy to Israel which is not likely to happen so the 'we would be happy if you have a solution' is really 'we are happy if you have a solution that fits in with what we wanted to happen'.
    Last edited by JJackson; 12-15-2007 at 02:55 AM.

  11. #71
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default No No No

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

  12. #72
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Post Analogy

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

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

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

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


    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post

    This is a rather narcissistic worldview that is embodied in the PNAC and it overstates America's military might, as events in one very small and backward corner of the Globe (Iraq) have demonstrated.
    As with anything else in life would you actually expect any populous to automatically jump on board with something they don't perceive yet.

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

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

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

    It's doable and it's feasible. Here is a hint; google "Arab Drifters" and watch the video on you tube. How easy is it to build a program to ensure that none of these guys and other rev heads never get radicalised?
    I think you would find that if we focus on some of what you said the ism's tend to sort themselves out.

  13. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJackson View Post
    As to solving the Islamist problem I suggest we would not have one if Britain had not sided with the Zionists at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians (thanks Balfour).
    JJackson, I find your suggestion that world would not have a “a problem” with Islamists because Britain “sided with” Zionists at the expense of “indigenous Palestinians” to be an over simplification of historical fact and which might be based-upon a pro-“Palestinian” bias at the expense of the Jewish Diaspora which originated in the Holy Land.

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

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

    The core text reads:

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

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

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

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

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


    While most Arabs would prefer a one state solution, a two state solution might be acceptable if the US withdraws unconditional support for Israel.
    This has the proverbial "snowballs chance" of happening anytime soon. American support for Israel comes directly from America's Judeo-Christian heritage. This is the cornerstone of the American policy. Moreover, at this point in time America would no more withdraw unconditional support from Israel than Great Britain would withdraw unconditional support of its immigrants to Australia. Condi Rice is trying like hell, but she is being vehemently opposed at every turn by a fairly large majority of We The People.
    Last edited by Sean Osborne; 12-15-2007 at 02:02 PM.

  14. #74
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default Soverignty?

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

    I think there is a problem of Sovereignty (I am not sure that that is quite the right word). What I mean is as individuals we are willing to accept a dilution of our personal will to other groups to achieve group benefits. For me allegiance probably runs family>friends>town>region>UK>EU>Homo sapiens>Planet Earth, or something like that for Osama BL or GWB I suspect it would be a bit different (note I have no religious component). In a zero sum game how much fealty I give at each level is personal and fluid. In a basically capitalist society with ‘no taxation without representation’ in mind a crude measure might be how much we are willing to contribute at each tier. The argument I was beginning to articulate in my previous post is that too much power currently resides at the country level and states should be more willing to divest some sovereignty up, or down, the chain to solve problems at the appropriate level.
    Last edited by JJackson; 12-15-2007 at 03:17 PM.

  15. #75
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

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

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

  16. #76
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

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


    http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/saas_T...Fahrenkrug.pdf

  17. #77
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    I think the assumption is not that people like us, but rather that there is a universal yearning for freedom. Sorry if that sounds like administration propaganda, but that seems to be the assumption.
    That's the way the Bush administration phrased it, but I don't think that's really the assumption. The assumption is that everyone yearns for freedom AND believes that liberal democracy and market economies are the best way to attain it.

    I think there are two flaws in the assumption:

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

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

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

  18. #78
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default

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

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

  19. #79
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

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

    As to the “Snowball in hell” bit that is pretty much the point I was trying to make. The idea that the US is having to shoulder the burden as others wont step up, and would be happy to step back if they would, is just not true. Others might try and broker a peace but any solution that the majority of nations might view as equitable will not get out of committee as it is not what the US/Israel want.
    Wearing a moderator hat, JJ that was a very measured response and I for one appreciate it. This thread is not about debating the Arab-Isareli question. There are threads on here where we have discussed those issues.

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

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

    Tom

  20. #80
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    57

    Default

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •