Ok, so where do Republicans get their power? Bad jokeOriginally Posted by Marc
I am starting to understand the confusion now. I probably should have said this or asked this. What laws or constraints was UBL acting under when he attacked America? I don't see any, he simply wanted to achieve a desired effect by any means at his disposal. There were no rules or laws or constraints that I could see or understand.
On the contrary.
slapout9,
On the contrary. ALL power systems have political restrictions to worry about. Islamists, like UBL, derive their power from the obedience of the faithful. Therefore, UBL's strategies, operations and tactics have to be (perceived to be) consistent with Islam. For instance, UBL has conducted terrorist attacks in Saoudi Arabia (the Khobar Towers bombing). This attack was possible because it was directed against foreigners. However, it would be impossible for UBL to conduct a terrorist attack in Mecca during the Hajj, even if this would result into a much higher number of victims.
Marc
I insist that there is no confusion. Warden already stressed the fact that "All military operations, including air operations, should be consonant with the prevailing political and physical environment." I hope we can agree that this statement is correct and valid for any strategist. All power systems have political restrictions to worry about and it is the strategist's job to come up with a strategy within the bounderies of these restrictions. It is NOT the politician's job to change the political and physical environment to suit the strategy.
slapout9,
On the contrary. ALL power systems have political restrictions to worry about. Islamists, like UBL, derive their power from the obedience of the faithful. Therefore, UBL's strategies, operations and tactics have to be (perceived to be) consistent with Islam. For instance, UBL has conducted terrorist attacks in Saoudi Arabia (the Khobar Towers bombing). This attack was possible because it was directed against foreigners. However, it would be impossible for UBL to conduct a terrorist attack in Mecca during the Hajj, even if this would result into a much higher number of victims.
I insist that there is no confusion. Warden already stressed the fact that "All military operations, including air operations, should be consonant with the prevailing political and physical environment." I hope we can agree that this statement is correct and valid for any strategist. All power systems have political restrictions to worry about and it is the strategist's job to come up with a strategy within the bounderies of these restrictions. It is NOT the politician's job to change the political and physical environment to suit the strategy.
Marc
I agree that he said it and I am sure he meant it but Is that quote from the most recent article? I don't seem to be able to find it in there. Within the context of Muslims attacking Muslims yes UBL has restraints but within the context of Muslims attacking infidels what restraints does he have? So because of that I don't see how a Strategist could come up with a solution.
Your enemy's restraint is your strength.
http://books.google.be/books?id=uTHj...ed=0CCkQ6AEwAA
Warden's original article starts at page 351. You can find the quote on page 353.
The answer to that one is simple: if UBL only has restraints within the context of Muslims, you have to find a way to alienate Muslims from UBL and make them do the fighting for you. That was the whole rationale behind the "Sons of Iraq" strategy against Al Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Got it thanks I will re-read it tonight. I have a copy of a letter to the editor of our newspaper that Warden wrote in 2003 about what a mistake it was to disband the Iraqi Army because they would be needed for security on the ground.
You assume UBL actually cares what the people think. I would argue that the actions of AQI are a good example of AQ being perfectly willing to break some eggs making their caliphate omlette.
You assume that the strategist and the politician are different. Again, this is not the case in our system. Politicians are the strategists. Our system intentionally separates the military from the other levers of national power, unifying them only within civilians that control the executive branch. This means that strategy is ultimately decided by politicians and their close advisors. This does mean, however, that our strategists have to adhere to political restrictions - because they are usually running for re-election.I insist that there is no confusion. Warden already stressed the fact that "All military operations, including air operations, should be consonant with the prevailing political and physical environment." I hope we can agree that this statement is correct and valid for any strategist. All power systems have political restrictions to worry about and it is the strategist's job to come up with a strategy within the bounderies of these restrictions. It is NOT the politician's job to change the political and physical environment to suit the strategy.
Marc
Not all systems are constrained - again, restraint assumes a rational actor, and as pvebber has pointed out, people are not always rational.
V/R,
Cliff
Cliff,
I do not assume anything. I say that ALL power systems have political restraints to worry about. I think that I can state as a fact (not an assumption) that Islamists, like UBL, derive their power from the obedience of the faithful and that therefore they have to worry about the political restraint not to act in an unislamic manner (like indiscriminately attacking Muslims). Whether UBL is rational enough to take this restraint into acount or not is a totally different matter. Restraint does NOT assume a rational actor. A rational strategist will take restraints and constraints into account and have a good chance to be successful. A strategist that is not rational will probably not take restraints into account and will probably be unsuccessful. In Iraq, Al Zarqawi did not take restraints into account, attacked Muslims indiscriminately, and suffered the consequences. Iraqi Sunnis turned against him and the Jordanian intelligence services did whatever they could to help the Americans find him.
Politicians decide about stategy, but they are not strategists. I think it would be an insult to General Petraeus' doctrinal and strategic efforts to say that the American strategy in Iraq after 2007 was developed by politicians. Because strategists develop strategy and politicians decide about strategy, it is necessary to organize an open and fruitful discourse between politicians and strategists. Examples of good discourses are Powell-Bush Sr and Petraeus-Bush Jr. There is plenty of literature about bad discourses. I've got two excellent examples if you're interested.
Marc,
I re-read the paper last night and yes I agree with you. But he is talking about our (US) system not the enemies. In fact all his writings have consistently said that you must focus on the physical side (physical restraints) because that is the only thing you can actually have some predictable effect on. Mental concepts such as laws,rules,ethics are subject to change and usually will (the holy man will receive a vision from God to change things) once the physical threat of destruction is brought into play. But just to be safe I am going to ask him. May not be this week and it will depend on his schedule but I am pretty sure what he is going to say, he even teaches it this way in his SMART Wars/SMART Strategies class.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks