The Israeli Option in Strategy

[walrus]

Steve, you wrote:

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.

This is where I run the risk of being booted off this board under the "America Hater" label.

It's the Bush Administration and the directions he and his supporters are taking America that the rest of the world doesn't like, and I absolutely agree with the rest of the world.

America's reputation stinks, period, it stinks with your friends as well as your real enemies, but because you happen to have the worlds biggest economy, we hold our nose and still deal with you.

I will not catalogue the various sins and practices that have led to this, it would take too long, suffice to say that we have reached the point where a Brigadier General, legal advisor to Guantanamo, refuses to answer a hypothetical question from the Senate Judiciary Committee, about whether Iranians waterboarding a downed American airman would be torture.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/11/...boarding-iran/

Now this situation is recoverable, lower your blood pressure and please don't switch off yet.

1. First understand why your friends are deserting you. It has a lot to do with your non-observance of the golden rule. And the "my way or the highway" attitude. People in the rest of the world have other ways of organising and doing things that are just as good, if not better, than yours. Get some humility and follow the golden rule.

2. Understand that you cannot be the world's policeman, the world won't tolerate it, nor the robber baron economic attitude that goes with it. You will simply drive people into the arms of the next rising power, the Chinese, or the Indians or the Russians. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others, empire is expensive. You think Iraq and Afghanistan is bad? Consider the entire world rebelling against you. If you start doing as you would be done by (Step #1) you can instead build alliances and enhance security that way.

3. That gets your friends back onside, now lets talk about the real enemies.In confronting your real enemies the first thing you have to do is understand whats bugging them. In the Middle East, they don't just "hate our freedoms". There has been a battle between western civilisation and the ancient religious power structures of Islam for the hearts and minds of muslims going on for at least four generations, and until George W. Bush came along, the West was winning - and it doesn't take an anthropologist to say it.

Stop doing things that alienate Muslims. Start doing the same things we did during the cold war - and here I am going back to the Fifties. These things include a massive campaign to prove to the world that we really are the good guys and start walking the talk, just like we did with the Communists. These were massive efforts (Not just IO and Psyops) to educate, demonstrate and convince wavering populations the world over that the American/ European model of free market capitalism and secular democracy was much better at creating human happiness than Communism.

Ask yourself this; If Muslims "hate our freedoms" why the heck do you think that many of them will do almost anything (legal and illegal) to migrate to Europe or North America, or Australia? They don't want to live under an oppressive theocracy, but of course if you invade, kill, bomb, jail and and torture people they will rally to their religion and stand up for their country like people anywhere would.

Then of course there is Putin's Russia, but how do we confront his rigged elections when the last but one American Presidential Election was a mess?

How do we confront Dictators around the world over human rights when America has trashed its own record in this area?

I could go on. America has done some hateful things and until you recognise it, give the Government a kick in the backside and tell it to start living up to the reputation America HAD as a beacon of hope then nothing will change, and you will keep wondering why.

[Ken White]

. . .
America's reputation stinks, period, it stinks with your friends as well as your real enemies, but because you happen to have the worlds biggest economy, we hold our nose and still deal with you.

Been true of many for many years. The fact that we're unduly arrogant, a bit insensitive and a trifle xenophobic doesn't help.
. . .

Now this situation is recoverable, lower your blood pressure and please don't switch off yet.

1. First understand why your friends are deserting you. It has a lot to do with your non-observance of the golden rule. And the "my way or the highway" attitude. People in the rest of the world have other ways of organising and doing things that are just as good, if not better, than yours. Get some humility and follow the golden rule.

True, the first four years of this Administration were a cluster of diplomatic blunders of some magnitude. In fairness, they've done much better the past three. The damage will heal but it will take time. Not as bad as it was during Viet Nam.

2. Understand that you cannot be the world's policeman, the world won't tolerate it, nor the robber baron economic attitude that goes with it. You will simply drive people into the arms of the next rising power, the Chinese, or the Indians or the Russians. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others, empire is expensive. You think Iraq and Afghanistan is bad? Consider the entire world rebelling against you. If you start doing as you would be done by (Step #1) you can instead build alliances and enhance security that way.

We'd really rather not be the world's policeman. Honest. Read Bush's early speeches; we disavowed the job and Rumsfeld backed him up. Then they got caught in the crossfire; all the earlier placatory efforts with ME were for naught, it appeared.

Unfortunately, the UN seems to be marginal at the job and other then the Poms and you Strynes, no one else seems to want to help much. That's been true since WW II and it's a long standing problem; everyone is just more aware of it now because we communicate better.

3. That gets your friends back onside, now lets talk about the real enemies.In confronting your real enemies the first thing you have to do is understand whats bugging them. In the Middle East, they don't just "hate our freedoms". There has been a battle between western civilisation and the ancient religious power structures of Islam for the hearts and minds of muslims going on for at least four generations, and until George W. Bush came along, the West was winning - and it doesn't take an anthropologist to say it.

True -- but George is apparently an impatient guy and decided to take a calculated risk and see if he could accelerate a probable four to six generation movement into a two generation movement. Many do not agree with that. It may or may not work. Probably will but some will never forgive him for doing it -- even those that benefit if it does work. Old world's funny that way...

Stop doing things that alienate Muslims. Start doing the same things we did during the cold war - and here I am going back to the Fifties. These things include a massive campaign to prove to the world that we really are the good guys and start walking the talk, just like we did with the Communists. These were massive efforts (Not just IO and Psyops) to educate, demonstrate and convince wavering populations the world over that the American/ European model of free market capitalism and secular democracy was much better at creating human happiness than Communism.

Different time and different antagonists. Fractures in Society and excessive ideological divides in most western nations make the world a different place. Hard to orchestrate a bunch of hostile cats -- that means we have difficulty getting our act together to do what you suggest. the other side has their own cat herding problem as well. Neither they nor we are as monolithic as was the case in the 50s.

Ask yourself this; If Muslims "hate our freedoms" why the heck do you think that many of them will do almost anything (legal and illegal) to migrate to Europe or North America, or Australia? They don't want to live under an oppressive theocracy, but of course if you invade, kill, bomb, jail and and torture people they will rally to their religion and stand up for their country like people anywhere would.

The average Muslim is not the problem, it's those who pervert the religion. However, the degree of solidarity between members of the religion males disavowal of those with ill intentions difficult. There's more -- but you know all that...

Then of course there is Putin's Russia, but how do we confront his rigged elections when the last but one American Presidential Election was a mess?

Same way the Commonwealth confronts Mugabe's? Or Fiji's...

How do we confront Dictators around the world over human rights when America has trashed its own record in this area?

In the eyes of some; haven't noticed any real problems in that regard to US Citizens other than the occasional odd wad. There's that xenophobia again. There also is that fragmentation and divided electorate I mentioned.

I could go on. America has done some hateful things and until you recognise it, give the Government a kick in the backside and tell it to start living up to the reputation America HAD as a beacon of hope then nothing will change, and you will keep wondering why.

We've been doing hateful things for over 220 years in the eyes of a great many; no news there.

It'll change, everything goes in cycles. Ours last either four or eight years. Current one ends mid-January 2008. Not much will change but some people will be happier, some less happy.

Most of us don't wonder why at all, by the way...

[walrus]

Thank you for your well thought out and measured response to my post Ken. I apologise if I've offended anyone and my post is a bit over the top.

But from where I sit, the problem and the solution appear obvious and I get hot under the collar thinking about the years and lives we've wasted barking up the wrong tree.

We built a perfectly good strategy to confront and contain Communism while we whittled away at its economic and social credentials for thirty years until that tree fell down.

We need to dust off those old strategies and do exactly the same to radical Islam in my opinion, starting with building good relations with those countries that want to be our friends.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am coming in late to this thread. I just wanted to throw something out for consideration.

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. But until we reach utopia, there will always be the haves and the have nots.

That doesn't mean that we have to remake the world in our image, which seems to be the current purpose of our foriegn policy. I understand the argument that democracies don't fight other democracies, but not every country is ready for democracy. We labor under the delution that every person in the world wants what we have. Many people in the world just want to eat tomorrow.

Are we always going to be right, NO. We are just as feable as any other person. Will someone be able to find flaw in the way we handled a particular situation, YES. Comes with the territory. learn from your mistakes and move on. Don't whine that I am being nice and everyone should love me for it.

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.

We could have a world of near-peer competetor militaries. Worked real well for Europe in the ninetenth and twentieth centruries. Or, we could be the Leviathan. Accept that roll. Keep the world from imploding on itself. and let the other regions of the world develop in thier own good time. Radical islam might be a threat, but it could be contained.

Once you determine this is what you are then you can start to determine what your foriegn policy ought to be.

[Rank amateur]

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 agree, but we need to recognize that we only slap one neighbor and never the other. The one getting slapped is going to feel different than the one never getting slapped. The one getting slapped is never going to think that we are fair. Like Steve says, it's not because they don't understand us. It's because they don't like being the only one getting slapped.

[Tacitus]

...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.

[walrus]

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?

[Tacitus]

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."

[Ron Humphrey]

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.

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)

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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Curmudgeon:




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.

First off, we won the "invasion" of Iraq hands down. Where we are failed, and are still failing, is in our policy of trying to overlay our social structure and form of government onto a culture that does not see it as correct. The same problem the soviets had in Afghanistan. So I disagree with you that we do not have the power to smite a wayward nation-state should we feel it is appropriate. I agree that a broad base of international support for any action is better, but I don't agree that a broad base is necessary.

Second, what is "fair" is rarely a matter of true debate. For America, or for that matter any other country, "fair" equates directly into "what is in MY best interest". To claim anything else is self delusion.

Lately, what we feel is in our best interest is to install democracy everywhere regardless of whether the society wants, or I would argue, is in a position to benefit from it. It has the sound of being "fair". Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling that we are helping the repressed nations of the world gain their freedom. Everyone really wants to be "free" like us so we will help everyone get there. But the democracy drive is strictly in our best interest based on the concept that democracies have open trade policies and rarely go to war with each other. In Iraq, in my opinion, we were hoping for a domino effect. That once the other nations around Iraq saw how good things were there they would take a dip in the democracy pool. But ultimately it was still in our best interest to take that action.

I am siding with the idea that we stay out of another country's affairs until they pose a threat to "our" security interests. At that point, once we determine that Diplomatic, Informational, or Economic actions will not be sufficient to reduce the threat, we take limited military action to REDUCE the threat. That does not mean that you embrace "regime change" which was a euphemism for "replacing a dictatorship with a democracy". Depending on the culture of the country you are intervening in, that can be an intergenerational commitment that is primarily a Informational and Economic effort with the military playing only a very minimal roll. The decision to involve ourselves in that kind of action must take into account the society that we are attempting to re-engineer.

From a policy prospective, we need to decide whether sovereignty or human rights are more important. Is a stable government more beneficial to us than one that is democratic. If your choice is democracy, then you better be prepared for that type of commitment. I would submit that, as far as use of the Military form of national power is concerned, our choice should be sovereignty. This is what we did in Desert Storm. We made no attempt to replace the Emir of Kuwait with a democracy. What they had worked for them even though their women did not have the right to vote.

Realize also that, no matter which one of these choices we make, someone will be able to argue that you were wrong. If you try to install a democracy and an insurgency results, you were wrong. If you leave a dictator in charge, you were wrong.

This also does not mean that we abandon joint actions through the UN to stop genocide or to provide disaster relief. It means that 1) unilateral actions to reduce a threat should be taken regardless of international support; 2) these actions should be limited to reducing the threat to an acceptable level, not eliminating it unless absolutely necessary (containment); 3) where elimination of the threat is required or where there is a failed state, limit your intervention to what is required to restore a functioning, stabile government; and 4) if you determine that installing a democracy is absolutely necessary, plan on a twenty to fifty year commitment.