On the nightstand

I don't believe popular support is necessary for a succesful revolution. If you merely have a population that is apathetic to any cause, then you can still succeed. The Vietcong in SVN were not popularly supported, but the villagers in the rural areas did not oppose them either. They simply wanted to be left alone to farm and could care less who ran the show in Saigon. It was that apathy (along with our inept handling of the war) that led to our defeat there.

While we have been succesful against AQI in al-Anbar, you have to still analyze what it is that the people support. They don't support the gov't in Baghdad, as evidenced by the Sunni pull-out of the coalition gov't of Maliki. So, while they are pacified now and are actively helping us against AQI, we need to be cautious about what it is they do support and understand what their long-term view is for the country.

Remember, AQI is but a small chunk of what we are up against in Iraq. It is the Shi'ia and al-Sadr's Mahdi Army that, I believe, poses a greater threat to our long-term goals there.

I see Iraq not as an "us against them" but as an "us against them and them (although we were friends last week with them) and them and those guys over there too".

But I will still buy the book.

The book gets better as you go in deeper. He's a bit deep on examples, but no questioning his experience or knowledge of theory. I was annoyed by the lack of endnotes or references. My review of the book here.

Anonymous:

Thx for the book review above. (If you have any comments to the below, would like to hear them)

I've been reading some pre-Iraq War II military books lately with the aim of helping to provide policy recommendations somehow from the perspective of a former soldier (albeit w/no combat experience). I was impressed with Brian Steed's book "Armed Conflict: The Lessons of Modern Warfare" (2002), and his recommendations for the WOT. I started a book review but due to work and family responsibilties i may never finish. Here's what i have:
The author provides a in-depth analysis of battles in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Falkland Islands, Operation Desort Storm, and Operation Restore Hope. His aim is provide the groundwork both succeed militarily and politically in future conflicts. He provides an assessment by analyzing the (1) Geographical Setting: location, terrain, vegetation, and weather (2) Units Involved (3) Key leaders in battle and the (4) Grand and Theater Strategy. The analyzed battles are as follows:
(1) battle of hill 219, Korean war: mass human wave attacks
(2) battle of LZ Albany, Vietnam War: use of intermixed forces to negate firepower advantages.
(3) Battle of Goose Green, Falkland Islands War: long deployment distances
(4) Battle of 73 Easting, Operation Desert Storm: conventional engagement in unrestricted terrain
(5) Battle of Mogadishu, Operation Restore Hope: Use of urban/complex terrain

He appears to be critical of our love affair with technology and stresses the the importance of mastering the basic soldiering skills. He identifies the basics of military success as (1) identification (2) isolation (3) suppression (4) Manuever and (5) Destruction.

The true lesson of war is constantly ignored. If you kill sufficient numbers, you win. History is the polemic of the victor. A bullet or a mushroom cloud provides the same result: death. The only difference is the scale and rapidity. If a Nation is willing to kill hundreds, or thousands, but pales at the thought of hundreds of thousands, it proves that said Nation does not get it. The easiest way to change the will of the enemy and their potential sympathizers is to kill them; all of them.

You said, "If Bin Laden had appointed Fidel Castro to run his Mesopotamian operations, we would have been screwed."

Best line I've heard in awhile. LOL. thanks.

And I agree with Seven. I hope that soon others will begin to understand what he's saying.

The Germans killed six million Jews. They lost.

We wiped out hundreds of thousands of VC and NVA. We lost.

It's a little more complicated than that.

You can't kill enough of a people who embrace death.

Joel, the obvious response is that 'enough' were not killed.

Secondly, how many of those Jews were armed active resisters when they were captured or killed? Compared to the 6 million, very few. So, cherry picking the wrong group to kill does not add to your argument.

Killing, besides removing individual combatants, has an effect on the will of those remaining and may affect the capability to resist of those remaining. When those who remain can not effectively resist, then you have won for a time. In the contest of wills, it is hard to break the other person if you are not willing to overwhelm them with ruthlessness. Failing that, you have to target everyone of them, reach their minds earlier, and or deny them capability.

No doubt I say what you already know, but your short comment seemed... short.

It did... and I think it was a rapid response when I posted it.

I just don't buy into the "if we bombed the hell outta them" or "kill 'em all" line of thinking.

Obviously, logic dictates that, with enough nukes, we can simply make the problem go away. However, it's shortsighted and totally disregards the fact that a glass lake in the Middle East is useless to us. If the region could simply be wasted in that manner, we wouldn't need to be there in the first place.

Even Rome couldn't maintain its empire through violence... and they employed some fairly brutal tactics in their day.

Joel,

Your objections are noted; they were addressed in my initial statement. The underlying tone of your objection is ethical not practical. The issue is not whether it would work. It is about whether we have the temerity to employ it. Its not about can; its about will.

There are weapons that we could deploy that would easily solve the "enough" problem without destroying your desire to leave the physical structure intact. Enhance radiation weapons (think Neutron Bomb) were the ultimate answer to the Soviet armor advantage in the 70's-80's. We declined to field these for political reasons, not because they were impractical.

I have zero problems with sterilizing entire sub-continents. Once one decides to enter into the killing fields, everything else is numbers; how few or how many.

One or 100 million makes no difference to me.
It is no different than a single individual deciding to employ lethal force. Once that decision is made, the number of rounds fired is predicated upon the actions of the opponent, however many it takes.

Well, if killing 'em all is the point of the excercise, then fighting for their freedom is just a line of bullshit.

You can't liberate someone who's dead.

"If killing 'em all is the point of the exercise", then they would be dead.

Joel, go back to my first post. I already said that we lack what it takes to do it. That is why we are still playing the "winning hearts and minds" games.

Hearts and minds that are buried six feet under are permanently won.

Wrong. At the risk of offending, that line of thinking is neanderthal.

This is a counterinsurgency, not a stand-up conventional fight.

If the point of the excercise is to kill 'em all, then we have no reason to be there and our lives lost have been completely in vain.

We are there (ostensibly, though I heartily disagree with the reality of it) to establish a stable and democratic gov't in Iraq... not to destroy the country.

We require a strong ally in the region in our war against terror.

We require the resources Iraq has (namely oil) in order to maintain our socio-economic way of life.

Lethal force plays a vital role in counterinsurgency, but it is not the driving force.

I cannot subscribe to your interpretations. They are not applicable to the current situation.

Your line of logic is like an oncologist putting a bullet in the head of a cancer patient... and then claiming the cancer is cured.

I do not subscribe to "Kill them all and let God sort them out." God I imagine would have some sorting to do with you and me if we went that far.

'Enough' has to do with the right groups. Are civilians in factories producing war supplies a valid target? Is an indiscriminant firestorm acceptable? Does a nuke save a million soldiers from invasion? Reguardless, I'd rather win a heart and mind than have to kill him. But how many of us is it worth losing for that goal? There will always be collateral damage, friendly fire, mistaken targets, but we pay those prices.

What you subscribe to is irrelevant. You are inserting your specific morality into play, of which I do not criticize, but it has no authority in the national debate unless and until a nation subscribes to a particular standard. The U.S. does not; it used to, but the past is another country.

You keep wanting to argue numbers as if the death of 100 million is different than the death of one.

It is no nation's business to win hearts and minds. Its business is to defend itself. I never try to convince my neighbors not to break into my house and murder my family. If they attempt that, I will use whatever force is sufficient to prevent it.
I have zero desire to "win them".

The reason we do not want "them" to have nukes is because we intuitively know that they will do what you "do not subscribe to". They will, and without remorse. That is the nature of the enemy we are dealing with, and your "subscriptions" will not change that reality.

My intended firestorms would not be indiscriminate. They would include any nation that harbor terrorists that have targeted or contributed to the cause of injuring our nation. All sovereign nations would be placed on notice that if they did not immediately and quickly elliminate such, we would, and by whatever means necessary, without questions or diplomacy.

Within 2 weeks of 9/11, I would have sought and obtained (The populous was still sufficiently fervent to guarantee securing it) a declaration of war against all nations even remotely connected to the issue. The most egregious would have been summarily destroyed. Period.

If any other nation protested, I would tell them: "You don't like that? Prevent it or suffer the same."

Brutal? Absolutely

To repeat what I said above: The reason we do not want "them" to have nukes is because we intuitively know that they will do what you "do not subscribe to". They will, and without remorse. That is the nature of the enemy we are dealing with, and your "subscriptions" will not change that reality.

It is not from a moral perspective that I don't subscribe to your opinions. I'm a soldier and have no compulsion against taking a human life. And, having been there, I am fully aware of who we are dealing with.

However, I believe you desire an all-out war with the Arab world. You'd level the entire Middle East, people, oil, and all if given the chance.

Pure rubbish.

The nation of Muslims number one BILLION... that's BILLION with a "B". Is your intent to kill all of them? Logistically speaking, that borders on the impossible.

Your opinion has no basis in fact. If we could dispose of the Middle East in the manner you describe, there'd be no reason for us to be there in the first place.

Unfortunately, there IS a reason to be on the ground.

Your method would create a war in which we would lose... yes, lose. Perhaps, at the end of the day, the Middle East would be a glass lot, but to what end? Without oil, our country would be a throw-back to the early-nineteenth century (not to mention the effects of radioactive fallout).

And I guarantee you there would still be enough Muslims out there to come after us and run another jet into a tall building.

If they could find enough gas to fuel the damn thing.

Oil equals a false dilemma. Again, it is about will.

If our nation had the will, we would not at this juncture be reliant on foreign oil reserves. Check your history; we went to the middle east not because we lacked our own, but because it was the easy button.

If our nation had the will, we would:

1. be producing vast conus, coastal and arctic reserves

2. creating new refineries by the score.

3. producing 100% of our electricity by nuclear means, thereby reducing that entire
subset of petro usage.

4. avoiding as many "foreign entanglements" as possible as the founders of our republic advised

5. be positioned by demonstrated intent that all hostilities will be met by destructive levels of force that create abject horror in the eyes of witnesses.

You ask if "Is your intent to kill all of them?"

It is not my intent, but I am willing. And when a nation demonstrates that resolve, that willingness, and the sure consequences of testing that resolve, it eliminates a significant number of those who will take the gambit.

These are not supermen, that is why they mostly send others to dies in their place.

Would you have vaporized a muslim city of, let's say 5 million, if you were assured of killing the small number that were going to be hijacking the planes on 9/11?

OBL said it himself. They came after us after 40 years of showing that we are not willing.
They will do whatever it takes.

They know that we won't.

Willing is the issue.

Until we will, the only thing that we will do, is lose.

seven, you seem to want to use a large hammer, just to be sure, when several smaller hammers exist. I want to use the smallest hammer that has a high probability of getting the job done, for which I am willing to accept some unintentional collateral damage. I object also to measures that use too small hammers over hyper sensitivity. Call it a numbers game if you wish, but I prefer having some morality left at the end of the day. Kill the killers, but don't out of vengence go for the family, clan, tribe, nation. That is where I think minds can be won, so you don't have to keep having the same fight over and over. You'd not have to fight over and over, because no one would be left after your first strike. The world would rise against your tyrany.

You make chaff over the word subscribe, and miss my point.

I'm all for a level of determination, shock, and ruthlessness IN the fight. You seem to want to expand the definition of the fight, and the resulting ruthlessness, far beyond reasonable bounds. The numbers alone are not the issue, the issue is who is it right to kill? Kill all of them that it is right to kill, without intentionaly doing more.

You have lost the meaning of the word indiscriminant. I rather hope you never have more than a handgun or any position of authority either civilian or militarily. We can survive without you; we must.

Oh, and I'm all for energy independence too. And while we could do more, we are not run by a dictator able to effect such sweeping changes.

"Morality" and "reasonable" are words without meaning in the absence of immutable standards. You want some good vibes left at the end of the day so that you feel better about yourself. Your version of morality is no less selfish than anyone else's; you just want to make sure you sleep better with your decisions. Ho hum.

If the nazi's had beaten the U.S., the world would not have risen up against anything. Most of the "world" had given them the head start they had. Japan and Germany were both actively pursuing nukes and if they had gotten them first, they would have used them. History would now declare that we were the evil ones, and deserved our fate. History is written by those who are left alive. The only complaints one hears from Hiro and Nagasaki are from the living. If we would have followed LeMay's advice in 1963, we would not have had 58,000 names on a wall in 1975.

I have not the slightest anxiety about the rest of the "world" doing anything except wringing their hands and cowering under the next heel that demands submission.

Right to kill, who is it right to kill, right and wrong, etc. Heh! Please spare me.
We live in a nation where perverts are allowed to hold parades crowing about how their pederasty is good and right, while scores of parents with their children on their shoulders line the parade route encouraging them. Right and wrong, and you are going to define it for us. Please don't make me laugh.

And as far as your fears of mil/civ authority, don't waste your worries. I am retired after 12 presidents, two wars, and civilian gov service under arms for 30 years.

In the absence of immutable standards: might makes right, survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw, man reduced to animal, all things are allowable. Lacking those standards, your use of the word pervert is meaningless, so to are the words coward, selfish, morality, good, evil, right, wrong. Argument becomes another weapon of might. There are no bad men. If they kill you or yours first, it is not wrong. You get to live with invalid anger, an impotent sense of injustice, a deserved lack of mercy, a guilt you can not escape. Who are you to complain about the free choice others make to submit if it suits them? It is every man for himself, ultimately alone. Backstabbing is not wrong. Sleep becomes a liability, rest an impossibility, bitterness ever present, life unlivable consistent with such a view. You are a hypocrite not taking the actions you urge others to, up to the extent of your capability. You are dangerous because you might pick anyone as your target for whatever 'reason' occurs to you. You crave order, and advocate anarchy. You are sadly confused.

We disagree on many things; too bad.

I have nothing to complain about; I am extremely thankful for my personal situation. You mistake description for complaint. I have not complained about my, or this nation's situation; I have described them. I used the hilarious idea that this nation (this one is mine, the others are no different) could have any credibility in defining right or wrong by juxtaposing our accepted cultural practices with your assertion of rules of engagement (that on their face are arbitrary and rooted in the winds of popular opinion). How silly it sounds to worry about how many might die in warfare while our culture murders millions by infanticide. Sorry, we abandoned the moral high ground long ago. To invoke it now is too little too late.

Because of that, we are headed into what you described, a "might makes right, survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw" environment both externally and by aggressive domestic balkanization. The butchers bill will come due.

It will arrive, and when it does, the definition of acceptable "collateral" will expand greatly.

Wow. Can't believe I read through all of that.

Money quote from Varifrank.com's article

Do We Deserve To Win? about Britain's Air Vice Marshal Arthur "Bomber" Harris from WWII seems really applicable to this discussion:
"
We are not in an idealogical cultural competition with the Jihadis, we are in a fight for our lives."

I strongly recommend the article for a historical look at the question under discussion.

Cheers!

What is the potential impact on the weather and/or earth when using a neutron bomb?