In a detailed response with some non-sequiturs and remarkable
generalizations on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:21:13 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

As for the question of war, the single greatest factor that most
commentators are overlooking is that the paradigm of war has changed
dramatically.

Has it? It is easy to claim a "paradigm shift" and use it as
an excuse to throw the rules overboard, but irregular warfare
and terrorism are nothing fundamentally new, and even the
idea of a network across national boundaries can be traced
back at least to the religious wars of the 16th century.

Correct, but the magnitude of the change creates the shift. Since the
Treaty of Westphalia, the emphasis of late nineteenth and all of
twentieth century political interaction has been nation-state actors.
With the late '80s, the seminal work of Samuel P. Huntington, "Clash
of Civilizations" pinpointed the shift to regional and ideological
bases for future conflicts. The current situation seems to support
Huntington's conclusions.

Besides, there was little about the conflict with Iraq that
can be put in such a cadre. This was essentially a traditional
conflict between two governments. The Iraqi regime aimed to
remain in power; the US government aimed to overthrow the
Iraqi regime and convert the country in an US-held stronghold
in the oil-rich Middle East. There is nothing about the political
aspects of such a conflict that is particularly novel.

The novelty of the conflict is the inter-meshing of the Muslim
fundamentalist across national boundaries (reflecting in the process a
rejection of the artificially impossed "states" created in the
post-colonial period. Certainly Iraq as a nation despite the three
principal tribal entities demonstrates this as well as the warlords of
Afghanistan.

And the invasion of Iraq itself amounted to a fairly traditional
form of warfare, on both sides. The USA used conventional
tactics of mobile warfare with some modern refinements of
intelligence gathering and targeting thrown in. And, strangely
enough, Iraq also tried to fight a conventional war, avoiding
the urban guerilla warfare that had been feared by commentators,
and of course failing to use WMD. Despite the buzzword-speak
of Pentagon press briefings, this was a conventional war between
traditional armies; the biggest question about it is whether it will
be the last of its kind.

It most assuredly will not be the last of its kind unless the
industrialized and developed world capitulates to the jihadist thugs.
(Just to take this opportunity for a cheap shot--let's liken it to
France/Belgium and the rise of Hitler's Germany.)

The post-invasion occupation phase was again traditional enough,
and predictable. It may look strange in the eyes of the US public
because the nation has little experience in conquering and occupying
foreign countries, but there are enough precedents, for example the
US occupation of the Philippines. Politicians have been fooling
themselves by invoking the misguided and misleading precedent
of the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII, but these
were the exceptions, not the rule.

Thank you for acknowledging our lack of experience in conquering and
occupying. We most certainly did not "conquer" the Phillipines which
were simply ceded to the US by Spain after the 1898 unpleasantness.
But, we have provided a presence to rebuild, stabilize, industrialize
and defend the result in a number of countries around the world,
effectively debunking any assertions of colonial intent. (Nuther cheap
shot--did so in your country as well. And, didn't leave such disasters
as the Congo behind us either.)

The enemy is not a traditional national actor any more,
but rather a far-reaching network of terrorist agencies that don't
wear uniforms, muster under a national flag or operate within the
constraints of international law or conventional diplomacy. Once that
fact is appreciated, then it becomes a bit more difficult to apply the
conventional rules of justification for war and definition of combat
areas.

As for "far-reaching networks", let us be realistic. In a situation
like this people usually imagine one big conspiracy to be their
enemy, but the reality is always far more diffuse. This enemy is
less a network than a scattering of radical groups, each with their
own purposes, methods and presumably theology, who maintain
informal contact; they may cooperate but they may also be hostile
to one another. Specialists in conventional warfare always tend
to think that if they can destroy the enemy's command-and-control
structure, the war is half won; but this enemy shows few indications
of having such a structure, and even less of actually needing one.
The fight against it will require numerous small-scale operations,
more on the pattern of a fight against organized crime (which often
is organized in parallel to gather funds -- remember that the mafia
started out as a resistance organisation, and drugs money from
Afghanistan supported this generation of radicals) than of
large-scale warfare.

It seems that you've bought into the Kerry/Clinton "lib-speak"
solution that the terrorist war is a law enforcement issue rather than
a military one. That works for small subversive groups like
Bader-Meinhoff or Red Army Faction, but not apparently as well for
larger, better financed, ideologically/theologically motivated
movements like the jihadists.

Anyway, giving support to terrorist groups, or using them
for your own purposes, is traditionally accepted as a good
/casus belli/. (Remember Sarajevo, 1914.) There is no need
to invent any new rules. In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse. Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control -- and under US air cover. To use such presence
as excuse for an invasion of Iraq is cynical.

That's the argument from that side. However, the deep infiltration of
the Shi'a by the likes of Al-zawahiri and his thugs, the tight
alliance with the Iranian theocracy, the relationship with Syria, and
the unifying aspects of anti-Americanism which supercede the more
basic Shi'a/Sunni conflicts would give some credence to the other side
of the argument.

And, you certainly aren't extending your anti-war fervor to a defense
of the Sadaam regime for the benefit of the Iraqi people, are you?

The reality, even in the Middle East, is that primary goal
of the radical islamist groups is to grab power in their own
country, and for this reason they are usually being (brutally)
suppressed by their own governments. Iraq was no exception.
This US government has managed to play in the hands of both
Arab dictatorships and islamist radicals by uniting them both
against itself --- no mean achievement, but its heavy-handed
approach is also succeeding in alienating even those
governments that did maintain good relations with the USA.
If the purpose was to create an ideal breeding ground for new
terrorist organizations, George W. Bush could hardly do any
better.

"Heavy-handed"????? You know full well, that the heaviness of our hand
could be considerably greater. We could easily have leveled Basra,
Fallujah, Najaf, Tikrit and any strong-hold of resistance which we
chose to. We have suffered unnecessary casualties and worked extremely
diligently to rebuild the deteriorated and damaged infrastructure
while attempting as rapidly as possible to turn over control to the
people themselves. The progress has been several factors faster than
it was following WW II in Germany/Japan.

The fundamental dishonesty of this US government is in its
refusal to discuss means. It identifies itself with the end goal
of defeating terrorism; and it implies that this end will justify
whatever means it chooses to use, while denying that there are
any alternatives. But in fact, so far the methods it has adopted
have been counterproductive; even the state department had to
admit that terrorist activities are on the increase. Meanwhile
the USA is losing its allies and its credibility and running out
of the resources it needs to fight this war with.

There are only two "allies" making noise and each squeals quite loudly
when their economic ox gets gored.

We most assuredly have not used ends to justify means. The means have
been very tempered and the ends have been clearly
established--principally stability in the Middle East. Since most of
Europe is dependent (far more so than the US) on ME oil, you should
begin to recognize your national self-interest.

Terrorist activities are most assuredly not on the increase. There is
potential certainly. And, increased awareness. But, the world at large
has been quite calm. Exceptions have been extremely unfortunate (as
well as unfortunately effective in the case of Spain, the Phillipines,
and no Russia), but we haven't had an increase in high casualty
attacks. Talking about hating us isn't much more than propaganda.

Add to the changed paradigm the incredible potential for destruction
of WMD and the removal of the foundation of one of the basic
principles of deterrence, that of rational leadership on both sides of
the deterrent equation, and you've provided a strong justification for
a policy of pre-emption.

The potential for destruction of WMD is routinely overrated,
especially for biological and chemical weapons, by people
who ignore the problem of distributing such agents over the
intended victims. Wolfowitz probably did so intentionally, others
may have done so out of simple ignorance. The same applies
for 'dirty bombs'. Nevertheless, I agree that there is a very serious
threat.

I spent a lot of years of my life in the business of planned delivery
of WMD and prepped for the defense against them. The "overrating" is
quite realistic. You don't want to experience them.

However, I do not see how a policy of 'pre-emption' by attacking
countries that do not actually have WMD, while carefully avoiding
a conflict with those that do, will help. To the terrorist groups
themselves it makes very little difference: If they want chemical
or biological weapons they can make them themselves, and any
sensible terrorist group will produce them in the targeted country
itself anyway, to avoid the problem of bringing them across the
border. Aung San has already demonstrated that this is perfectly
feasible. To the governments of "rogue states" the message is that
they need to develop WMD urgently if they want to avoid an US
invasion, and the two other nominees for the "axis of evil" have
already geared up their efforts. The result of the Bushiite policy
will be a further proliferation of WMD, in areas with unstable
governments.

It's a basic principle of international relations. You choose policy
based on the efficacy. If diplomacy works, fine. If deterrence works,
fine. If trade works, fine. If military force is the answer, then
don't be reluctant to choose it. But, don't depend upon unlikely
solutions to make your problems go away. Maginot anyone?

So, please Messr. Gustin, avoid making broad generalizations regarding
the quality of the USA's elected government.

I don't remember who it was that, at the time of the US
independence, expressed his amazement that the British
government of the time had never done anything right --
not even by mistake.

That is about how I feel about the elected (well, more or
less) US government. How do these people manage to
squeeze an inept foreign policy, a foolish economic policy,
a dangerous environmental policy, and an immoral judicial
policy, to mention the most obvious elements, all in one
term and one team? You would expect an elected government
to have at least some areas of competence.

Here, you don't have a clue. Foolish economic policy is socialist
redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-productive.
Environmental policy that protects at the expense of jobs, quality of
life, long-term impact is emotional and not practical. (Note the costs
of Kyoto and the number of non-signatories that have followed US
leadership!) "Immoral" judicial policy?

As for the "more or less" comment about elected government, you quite
clearly are unfamiliar with our Constitution process for choosing a
chief executive. The process took place exactly as described and the
disagreements were resolved exactly in accordance with the law. We
don't have national popular elections. The participants all know that
going into the process. It has worked for 215 years now.

Our government has considerable competence. Simply because the leftist
Euro press doesn't like it doesn't make it incompetent.

Believe me, if it turns out in November that somehow we will
have to survive another four years of Bush, I will be deeply
depressed and despairing indeed.

And, I'll be paying lower taxes, living more securely, not having my
property confiscated, and enjoying life.

And, I won't have to resort to discussing the pros and cons
of Belgium's contributions to the modern world.

Last time I checked, Guy Verhofstadt had somewhat less impact
on world affairs to George Bush. In fact Guy Verhofstadt
probably has less impact on events in Belgium than George
Bush, but that's not entirely Bush's fault. Anyway, there is no
need to suspect me of excessive sympathy for our PM; he is
so full of hot air that you would expect him to fly.

So, you begin to express some form of desire for anarchy.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org