How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #46 08-14-2006, 09:10 AM

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...lph_peters.htm

*************************************

LESSONS SO FAR

HARD TRUTHS TO LEARN FROM ISRAEL'S
WAR ON HEZBOLLAH

By RALPH PETERS

August 13, 2006 -- ISRAEL'S war against the Middle East's first true terrorist army provides tough military and strategic lessons - old, new, and all too often disheartening. Israel's been winning on the ground. And still losing the war.

This bitter conflict - in which most casualties on both sides of the border are civilians - raises troubling questions, too. Some are identical to those confronting us in Iraq. Many have troubling answers. Others have no real answers at all.

The elementary fact - which far too many in the West deny - is that our civilization has been forced into a defensive war to the death with fanatical strains of Islam - both Shi'a and Sunni. We may be on the offensive militarily, but we did not start this war - and it's all one war, from 9/11's Ground Zero, through Lebanon and Iraq, and on to Afghanistan.

Until that ugly fact gains wide acceptance, we'll continue to make little decisive progress. American or Israeli, our troops are trying. But the truth is that we're really just holding the line.

We have not yet begun to fight. And many among us still dream of avoiding this war altogether.

It can't be done. Because our enemies - Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Islamist militias, regimes in Iran, Syria and elsewhere - are determined to confront us.

We're going to learn the hard way. But we're going to learn.

Meanwhile, here's what the latest battlefield has to say to us:

Lesson 1: You can win every tactical engagement and still lose at the strategic level.

Israel's fought well. But its forces did a polite minuet, while its enemy's danced madly in the streets. The Israeli Defense Forces have done what their government asked of them. But the Olmert government asked them to do the wrong things - and to do too little for too long.

On the ground, in the air and at sea, the IDF or our own forces can't be beaten. But without sound strategic planning, our tactical wins will not add up to victory. We have to re-learn this lesson again and again: Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq - and now Lebanon.

Lesson 2: The global media can overturn the verdict of the battlefield.
Too many politicians and generals still don't get it. This new truth about warslapped us in the face during the First Battle of Fallujah. Now, facing a hostile global media, the Israelis are learning it.

Lesson 3: If you start off on the wrong foot in war, you may never recover your balance.
This old rule never changes. The Israeli government dreamed of fighting a short, clean war on the cheap. Now they're playing incremental catch-up. It's a formula for stalemate, if not defeat. If you must go to war, go with everything you've got. From Day One. In war, the only bargain at any price is victory.

Lesson 4: Technology alone can't win 21st-century wars.
You've heard it before and, sadly, you'll hear it again. These asymmetrical, brutal human conflicts require flesh-and-blood solutions - boots on the ground, not just airpower.

Lesson 5: Never underestimate your enemy.
Another timeless rule. The Israelis did it in 1973, and now they've done it again. They undervalued Hezbollah's preparedness for a serious war, its armaments, its training - and its tenacity. And we ourselves did it after Baghdad fell.

This is one of the worst mistakes any government and military can make.

Lesson 6: In war, take the pain up front, and the overall suffering will be far less.
A policy of casualty aversion - in Israel or in the United States - results in more casualties in the end. Because the IDF wasn't permitted to wage a serious war from the first day (and it remains severely restricted even now), the rockets continued to rain down on Israel - while Hezbollah won the propaganda war.

Lesson 7: Terrorism is no longer a limited, diffuse, disorganized threat.
Hezbollah has an army, if of a new and innovative kind. Iran and Syria supply, support and succor it. It has strategic depth and startling resilience. With Hezbollah on point, Shi'a terror is now better-prepared to wage post-modern war than Sunni organizations such as al Qaeda. We're witnessing the rise of trans-national terrorist armies.

There are many more lessons, especially down at the soldier level. But let's turn to two critical questions:

Can a military that relies heavily on reserve call-ups win this new kind of war? For Israel, it's an existential question. My own conclusion is that the IDF, as currently structured, is living on borrowed time. Having seen our own forces operating in Iraq and the IDF at work along the Lebanese border, my frank assessment is that Israel's brave reserve brigades would crumble in fights such as those in Fallujah or Ramadi. This isn't the West Bank anymore. This is war to the death. The IDF must stop looking backward toward its proud heritage and look honestly at the future of war.

Can we win "Eastern" wars with Western values? I doubt it.

This question is going to eat at our consciences for years to come - even as we learn to do what must be done.

Despite media lies about Israeli "atrocities," the IDF has been doing all it can to spare civilians. For example, the Israelis repeatedly risked commando teams deep in hostile territory to take out Hezbollah command-and-control cells - instead of just leveling the crowded apartment buildings where the terrorists were hiding. But, ultimately, all of the special operations in the world will fall far short of delivering decisive, crushing victories. We are going to have to learn to fight by the enemy's rules. And we aren't going to like it.

The wars of the future will be won by those with the greater strength of will. And boundless determination is one weapon that Islamist extremists unquestionably possess.

Do we?

Ralph Peters' new book is "Never Quit The Fight."

aklim · #47 08-14-2006, 09:31 AM

That sounds like what I have been saying all along. Maybe I should write a book. Of course it will be pretty summarized in a few sentences.

jlomon · #48 08-14-2006, 09:32 AM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The only way to "win" here is to make one of two incredibly difficult choices:

1) Control-Alt-Delete on the entire Middle East. No mercy, no prisoners, no exceptions. Just don't nuke it because we need to get in there and get the oil.

2) Complete and utter disengagement in conjunction with a complete reassessment of the western world's dependence on petroleum. We gotta figure out how to live without that oil, because, to paraphrase Scarface, "first you get the oil, then you get the money, then you get the power".

Neither of these options are ever going to happen because too many powerful people are getting stupendously wealthy with the current status quo. Also because either option forces us to examine who we are and what we stand for at the most fundamental levels. As Mikemover has pointed out, our society feels the need to show mercy/kindness/concern for our enemy. As long as we aren't willing to commit to a radical solution, we'll just get the same problem.

The current war on terror is analagous to watching a dog try to f%$k a football: there's a lot of activity, but nothing of any real consequence is happening.

aklim · #49 08-14-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The only way to "win" here is to make one of two incredibly difficult choices:

1) Control-Alt-Delete on the entire Middle East. No mercy, no prisoners, no exceptions. Just don't nuke it because we need to get in there and get the oil.

2) Complete and utter disengagement in conjunction with a complete reassessment of the western world's dependence on petroleum. We gotta figure out how to live without that oil, because, to paraphrase Scarface, "first you get the oil, then you get the money, then you get the power".

Also because either option forces us to examine who we are and what we stand for at the most fundamental levels. As Mikemover has pointed out, our society feels the need to show mercy/kindness/concern for our enemy. As long as we aren't willing to commit to a radical solution, we'll just get the same problem.

The current war on terror is analagous to watching a dog try to f%$k a football: there's a lot of activity, but nothing of any real consequence is happening.

I'd agree with that.

Don't think it will come to that. The problem is we have been seen to be weak. A show of strength and ruthlessness will suffice. Keep doing the Ctrl-Alt-Delete till they yield and they will probably yield before they all get wiped out. Either way works for me.

It's like dealing with a gangrene wound with band aids. Sometimes you gotta cut out the limb. I don't think it is the people getting wealthy or what. I'm sure they would rather a nice neat solution and make steady profits as opposed to people screaming and yelling whenever they make a few spikes. I don't think the fact that they made 10 bil in a quarter (basically 10% profit to be truthful) would be even a blip on the radar if our oil prices were lower.

pxland · #50 08-14-2006, 09:40 AM

There have always been, and will always be, opposing world forces. Superpowers if you will. Some examples (not that you need them)-

Romans-Moors

English-Spanish

English-French

English-English

English-German

American-Russian

The world lacked a superpower after the collapse of the USSR so radical Islam has risen up to be our opposition. Personally I can see a much worse possible enemy in the future in China.

Who would you rather fight? A handful of worldwide ****heads or a country that outnumbers us 4-1?

Protect us from terrorist strikes but don't wipe out thine enemy because there is no end to opposition. Whose head do we want to rise after we chop off our current foe's?

raymr · #51 08-14-2006, 09:41 AM

I don't agree with everything in the Bricmont article, but he does reach some logical conclusions. It makes me ask why we eventually got so wrapped up with Israel anyway. Does the relationship hurt us more than help us?

Perhaps we should stop playing 'rich uncle', give the UN some more clout, and reach a world-wide agreement for all countries to funnel foreign aid contributions through the UN. That would put us in better standing in the eyes of the world, while also spreading the burden among the other wealthy nations. It would restrict our ability to call the shots but would also in one way, make the Jihadist's enemy stateless, right?

aklim · #52 08-14-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pxland

Protect us from terrorist strikes but don't wipe out thine enemy because there is no end to opposition. Whose head do we want to rise after we chop off our current foe's?

Can't do both. Gotta choose one. Protect us but sooner or later we will slip up and accept the consequences or wipe them out. Worry about the next foe at a later date. Why borrow tomorrow's problems.

pxland · #53 08-14-2006, 09:49 AM

Couple things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

As Mikemover has pointed out, our society feels the need to show mercy/kindness/concern for our enemy. As long as we aren't willing to commit to a radical solution, we'll just get the same problem.

This is supposedly what seperates us from them. The "radical" "evil" head-chopping *********s that we all hate. To become them is (in my opinion) to let them win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

The current war on terror is analagous to watching a dog try to f%$k a football: there's a lot of activity, but nothing of any real consequence is happening.

Isn't that a good thing as far as wars go? Would you rather have thousands of American soldiers dying everyday?

The status quo is working because as long as we are the worlds "superpower" we will be fought. I'll take a few deaths as opposed to hundreds or thousands in this, or any, "war".

aklim · #54 08-14-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I don't agree with everything in the Bricmont article, but he does reach some logical conclusions. It makes me ask why we eventually got so wrapped up with Israel anyway. Does the relationship hurt us more than help us?

Perhaps we should stop playing 'rich uncle', give the UN some more clout, and reach a world-wide agreement for all countries to funnel foreign aid contributions through th UN. That would put us in better standing in the eyes of the world, while also spreading the burden among the other wealthy nations. It would restrict our ability to call the shots but would also in one way, make the Jihadist's enemy stateless, right?

We did in the past because it was strategic. Life is not going to be a video game where you put another quarter and we start it over. At this point, Isreal is still a strategic place. It does keep the bunch of them in check with something else to worry about so it is a good thing. Even if we did stop today, assuming our strategic point doesn't get wiped out, they would still be our enemies so there is no going back.

Probelm is that the way the UN works is that something gets done ONLY if the major powers in it are not in disagreement. All it takes is 1 veto and the measure is done for. Yes, in theory, your answer would work. However, it would be like the story of the little red hen. When it comes down to it, nobody would want to do the work. So, we did the only thing possible which is what we are doing right now with a little more clout. I doubt it would make the jihadist's enemies stateless. They would blame the countries that were contributing and what not so we have the issue still spread out. Also, that might mean we get buffeted to where the others want us irrespective of whether it is good for us or not. Just like Kyoto.

pxland · #55 08-14-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Can't do both. Gotta choose one. Protect us but sooner or later we will slip up and accept the consequences or wipe them out. Worry about the next foe at a later date. Why borrow tomorrow's problems.

I'd say we've done a pretty fair job of it (protecting us from terrorist strikes) so far. Will we slip up and miss a strike? Eventually. But this is a war remember. There are going to be some casualties.

azimuth · #56 08-14-2006, 09:55 AM

Until we are willing to be exponentially more of everything the terrorists are with ruthless execution, we will not win. At best we will contain them and lose hundreds or thousands of innocent countrymen/children/women a year; not to mention limiting/losing our freedom for the sake of general security.

They come after us because we are fat and weak. We pace and bleat every time the topic of viciously defending ourselves arises........meanwhile the wolves are gathering and, as Bot vividly describes, they are red in tooth and claw.

I have no power or influence beyond my family and myself, so I work within those confines.......

jlomon · #57 08-14-2006, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pxland

Isn't that a good thing as far as wars go? Would you rather have thousands of American soldiers dying everyday?

No, not at all. I'd rather have a serious solution so that coalition soldiers don't have to die any more (its not just Americans). And the truth is, in this age of electronic warfare, you don't get "thousands" of soldiers dying in a day, week or even a month. Those kinds of casualties haven't been seen since the Battle of the Somme in 1916. The Americans who landed at Omaha on D-Day didn't even endure those kinds of casualties, and that was one of the worst engagements for US forces in WW2.

The Control-Alt-Delete solution lets us deal with with the problem without having to engage them on the ground. How many Allied soldiers died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

aklim · #58 08-14-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pxland

This is supposedly what seperates us from them. The "radical" "evil" head-chopping *********s that we all hate. To become them is (in my opinion) to let them win.

The status quo is working because as long as we are the worlds "superpower" we will be fought. I'll take a few deaths as opposed to hundreds or thousands in this, or any, "war".

Your point being? Which do you want? To let them win metaphorically and lose in real life or let them win in real life but lose metaphorically? Which is more important to you? Think of a duel in the olden days. We agree to meet at dawn with swords. You see me bringing a gun. Would you keep your word and meet me with a sword and most certainly get killed or would you bring a gun and break your word? Phyrric victories are only good if you get to revel in them and not if you are dead.

That is why hostage sitiations work. Because you are willing to sacrifice a few for a few thousand. Logical stand until you ask if you are willing to sacrifice more in the long run. This is just like owing money. Do you like to owe money? Sure, you are paying it bit by bit. However, look at your interest building up. At the end of the loan, you would have paid more than if you had broken your piggy bank and paid it up. But on a daily basis, you are paying less than you would if you paid the total sum today.

jlomon · #59 08-14-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I don't think it is the people getting wealthy or what. I'm sure they would rather a nice neat solution and make steady profits as opposed to people screaming and yelling whenever they make a few spikes. I don't think the fact that they made 10 bil in a quarter (basically 10% profit to be truthful) would be even a blip on the radar if our oil prices were lower.

Unfortunately, this is a big part of it. A very interesting read on this subject is Robert Baer's "See No Evil". Baer spent over 20 years with the CIA as an operative, and spent the lion's share of his time in the Middle East and Central Asia. He makes a very persuasive argument.

aklim · #60 08-14-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pxland

I'd say we've done a pretty fair job of it (protecting us from terrorist strikes) so far. Will we slip up and miss a strike? Eventually. But this is a war remember. There are going to be some casualties.

I agree. The only question is whether you want to pay it up front or whether you want to pay it bit by bit and pay more in the long run. Jsut like hostages. Yes, you gave in and saved 10 people today. However, it tells the next guy that if he plans better, he might get away with it. So, tomorrow, you endanger 20 and the next day more.

If you could say that 10000 is the number of people we will lose to save 250 mil, that is a cheap price. However, you live in fear of the next strike and you might lose more than 10000 if it nickel and dimes you to death.