Yeah I remember that song. It is a fantastic one.
Wait -- "fantastic" was an ill-chosen adjective. Better would have been "extraordinarily moving".
The long-term costs just keep adding up. Let's see: We're still struggling to integrate the Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees from the early '80s, and while the Somalians from the '90s are doing a bit better, the people displaced by the last 10+ years of war in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and elsewhere are still trying to establish stable lives.
I'm sure somebody's been calculating the human capital losses of the Iraq war. When I think about new conflicts, it's not just the people who get killed -- it's the loss of all those years of education, all those businesses that were never founded and roads that were never built (or were destroyed). It's the sheer temporariness of how people are forced to live.
By the way, Ethiopia is fighting Islamic extremists in Somalia who want to impose strict Taliban-style Sharia law over the whole country. But eh, that doesn't matter, right? War is bad.
5: If that was directed at me, I'm not clear what you're talking about. Yes, I think war is bad. Yes, I also think that totalitarianism and fundamentalism are bad. These are not mutually exclusive beliefs.
I don't mean to sound snippy or dismissive -- these are awful situations with no easy solution, and heaven knows I'm no expert. Am I misunderstanding what you were trying to say?
It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just at the general "oh no, not another war" sentiment. As if wars just happened for reasons outside the realm of human affairs, like the weather.
Of course war is bad. But to reflexively avoid war for that reason is to give the upper hand to the bullies of the world — radical Islamists, China, Saddam, etc.) who seek to place powerless people under their rule.
Those folks aren't "causing" war, simply because the people they're subjugating have no means to fight back. But if another nation (the US, Ethiopia, etc.) tries to stop them, all of a sudden — It's a war! Cue the giant papier-mache puppets of protest!
I would like to see any lament of war breaking out placed alongside at least a token assessment of the reasons why the participants are fighting, and whether one side or the other's reasons have merit.
Aww, c'mon. It's been a long time since I considered myself any kind of observant christian, but I don't think you have to be one to regret the start of a(nother) conflict in which innocent people will most assuredly die. For whatever the reason. Even if you think that "being a bully" is sufficient cause.
"I would like to see any lament of war breaking out placed alongside at least a token assessment of the reasons why the participants are fighting, and whether one side or the other's reasons have merit."
I'm pretty sure that's the role that the link to Gary is playing, here... but, you know, cue the papier-mache comments of indignation.
Ah, well, I certainly agree that it does not make sense to talk about wars as if they materialize out of thin air.
On the other hand, I do not think that "avoiding war because it is bad" necessarily means "giving bullies an upper hand." War is bad, as generals and soldiers throughout history have observed more eloquently than I. Bullies are bad too, and sometimes they can be defused, redirected, confined, or imprisoned.
Regardless, we can probably agree that understanding the context can help you to understand the conflict. It's tough to resolve something -- through force or otherwise -- if you don't understand it.
So the news here is just that Ethiopia's copped to having troops in the country? They've been there for months, and the fighting's been going on intermittently for years (not always with the same combatants). I don't see how this is a new war.
Then you should be reading The Head Heeb.
Gaijin Biker: any particular reason you're trying to pick a fight here? Have the Christmas grumpies gotten you down or something?
Nobody here but you mentioned anything about blaming Bush or blaming America or making puppets. Lizardbreath merely expressed sadness at the news, she didn't say anything about opposing all war reflexively, nor is that implied by such an expression.
If you'd like to start a discussion here about assessing the reasons why the participants are fighting, and whether one side or the other's reasons have merit, I suggest you try using a reasonable tone, instead of starting off immediately with the fullbore snark.
I should be. I should be more well-informed. But can YOU recite The Humpty Dance on cue?
No, I cannot. You win this round, SnackyCakes.
I don't see how this is a new war.
I think this gets to GB's point above -- in one sense it's not a new war; it's been simmering for months if not years. In another sense, there is a tipping point where all of a sudden the Western media is writing about it, drawing attention to it, and naming it a war.
Perhaps this has to do with diplomatic traditions, and what it means that Ethiopia is now publicly admitting to its presence/escalation. Or perhaps the benefits (to somebody, somewhere) of calling this a war now outweigh the costs.
You concede so easily? Bring out the latent talents, T.O. Phee Lo.
17: That makes sense. I did notice a surprising uptick in the amount of coverage of Somalia in the past couple days (particularly in the NYT).
I can sing some American folk songs, but I fear the effect is lost in written format.
Of course war is bad. But to reflexively avoid war for that reason is to give the upper hand to the bullies of the world
This seems to be a pretty bad misreading. Noting that there is another war, and that sucks, is not equivalent to a desire that that people let themselves be oppressed. It seems that you're wanting to read that desire into Lizardbraths post, but I'm confident it's not actually there.
I've never heard the Simon and Garfunkel song but the concept makes me think of that horrible version of Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA interspersed with letters from soldiers in the Middle East that used to play all the time during Gulf War I.
On the other hand, I do not think that "avoiding war because it is bad" necessarily means "giving bullies an upper hand." War is bad, as generals and soldiers throughout history have observed more eloquently than I.
The question is not, "Is war bad"? The question is, given that one believes war is bad, should one try to avoid it? That question has two parts, as I see it.
1) Does avoiding war lead to consequences that are as bad as war itself?
2) Does avoiding war lead to less war?
Question 1 is fairly simple and most of us agree that even though war is bad, sometimes not going to war is doubly bad.
On question 2, you must first accept that some leaders do not believe war is bad. Some leaders believe war is the most exalted activity humans can undertake. Reflexively avoiding war enables these people. I think that is the point being made about bullies. A bully - say a Mussolini - wants war. He will bargain with you on ways to avoid war, but you are making a fool's bargain. You are going to get war eventually, and by bargaining you guarantee that when war comes, it will be on the bully's terms.
You don't bargain with bullies. You go to war with them, and the sooner the better. To do otherwise does, indeed, give them the upper hand. Bullies want war, but they prefer a war they can win to one they can't. Sometimes hating war means that you must convince everyone that you are eager for it.
On the specific issue of Ethiopia...there's nothing new here. The country is perennially at war. Saying "Ethiopia is at war" is all too close to announcing that, ""Generalísimo Francisco Franco is still dead"!
7: I would like to see any lament of war breaking out placed alongside at least a token assessment of the reasons why the participants are fighting, and whether one side or the other's reasons have merit.
I would like to see at least a token recognition that people are well within their rights to feel that war is shitty and to be lamented without having to provide you with a frickin' homework essay. Really, now. That's just bizarre.
If the sentiment smacks of hippie-dom and pacifism to you, then it's probably also a good idea to remember that a thing can be true (and often is) even if somehow holding a papier-mache puppet believes it.
Tim Burke also posted about the conflict between Ethiopia and the Somali Islamists... and even addressed GB's comments before they were made.
I don't know the song, but would appreciate a link. Anyone?
I searched for the song (which is titled "Silent Night/6:00 News") but could not find it on the web anywhere. It is on the record "Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme" (along with almost all of Simon and Garfunkel's very best songs). It is a group of Xmas carollers singing "Silent Night", which I assume you are familiar with, and a radio playing the news alongside -- the top stories IIRC are soldiers being killed in Vietnam, protestors being arrested and possibly injured by police, and a hearing of the HUAC. As the carollers sing the final "sleep in heavenly peace", the anchor says "this is the 6:00 news; goodnight."
Oh boy! Look where overweening confidence in one's memory can get one! The song is called "7 O'clock News/Silent Night", and here are lyrics.
(And I was not even accurately remembering the topics of the news broadcast. So there you go.)
"So the news here is just that Ethiopia's copped to having troops in the country?"
Well, no, not remotely. I'm a little unclear how you could read the articles and come to that conclusion.
17: "Perhaps this has to do with diplomatic traditions, and what it means that Ethiopia is now publicly admitting to its presence/escalation."
Or perhaps this has to do with the use of their full air force, as large a bombing campaign as they can manage, a full tank invasion, and the prime minister of Ethiopia going on national tv to announce all-out war, which isn't remotely like the denied minor troop support that has gone on up to now.
The change of scale is overwhelming. A declared full war is quite different from covert minor infiltration.
This is also the view from the other side, as I linked. No, I did not write a full backgrounder to Somalia/Ethiopia, though I did provide links that give the basic outline, I think. We could certainly talk about the details, if anyone is actually interested.
In other major news, war is always bad, and yes sometimes it's still necessary, and no, one should neither assume it's never necessary nor that any given war is indeed necessary. Assuming bad.
I hope I've cleared that up for everyone.
As to what, exactly, we should and shouldn't do about this particularly war, I'm not 100% clear, but am certainly interested in educated and informed opinions, myself. My leaning is that there's a downside for us no matter uninvolved or involved we make ourselves, but, of course, how exactly we don't and do stay involved, well, file that under devil and details and all that shit.
Faintly interesting generation gap: there was a time absolutely no one under 50 wouldn't have recognized everything on that S&G album, but it's not exactly a crime that time passes, and that's no longer true.
I'm a little unclear how you could read the articles and come to that conclusion.
I made that comment before I had read the articles; I hope that clears that up. And having read them (or at least the NYT one) I now see that this is indeed a big deal, as you say. Also, Merry Christmas.
33: I wasn''t gonna wax nostalgic, but understanding PSRaT in its context, and maybe other contexts.... Looked it up and PSRaT was released in Sept 66, and Bookends in Mar 68. But PSRaT was more part of the soundtrack to 68-69. Bookends was sad, somber, despairing. PSRaT had a hopeful introspection, that for, instance, fit the "Clean for Gene" crowd. Music for the dawn burnouts, after tripping all night you wanted to ease out gentle with PSRaT, Judy and Joni, CSN.
(Yeah Yeah "Mrs Robinson" & "America" were huge radio hits, but we listened to albums, man.
First generation of hip shrooms, sitting on the floor, passing the funny cigarettes, staring at the lights on the stereo. Albums were our identity & our internet.)
Bookends was sad, somber, despairing
The album with "Punky's Dilemma" and "At the Zoo" on it? And that execrable song about the dead baseball team? I would have chosen an adjective more in the family of "lame" or "corny" myself. But maybe there is something to "Bookends" that I just never got -- it seems totally ephemeral to me.
Oops sorry, "Night Game" is apparently a solo effort by Simon, off of "Still Crazy After All These Years". My point stands.
"Albums were our identity & our internet.)"
One old friend of mine, and myself, had a memorably unnerving experience when we were doing acid one day in the winter of '77, and were talking about the peanut butter sandwich split album that the Jefferson Airplane had done, and went to open the album to show someone, and the sandwich wasn't there: it was just an ordinary single album.
That it was a reissue version done by then, cheaper, eliminating the doubled album container, and thus the peanut butter sandwich, wasn't an idea that immediately came to mind while tripping, and thus the unnerving part....
Here is what Thom Jurek says at AMG:
"and the album's final track, "At the Zoo," offer as tremblingly bleak a vision for the future as any thing done by the Velvet Underground, but rooted in the lives of everyday people, not in the decadent underground personages of New York's Factory studio."
It is like an ironical metaphor, intended very seriously by Simon. All politics, in like the middle of a war and racial unrest and Nixon, is a ridiculous fucking joke. He meant it, and not long after the election, a lot of other 60s idealists headed for the hills, literally and metaphorically.
Paul Simon was never as profound as he thought he was, and you can knock him for the sentimentality of his despair. I picture him with a Vanitas painting on his wall, a copy of "Sorrows of Young Werther" on his hand, and probably a beret. His only endearing quality is a cuteness to his pose, an innocence in his affectation. Remember Winona in Beetlejuice? I am alone, no, I am utterly alone. And a rock never cries. Too bad Simon was also a mean SOB.
But he spoke for a whole generation that thought you stop wars with flowers and good intentions.
My leaning is that there's a downside for us no matter uninvolved or involved we make ourselves, but, of course, how exactly we don't and do stay involved, well, file that under devil and details and all that shit.
My leaning is that we don't have a choice whether to be uninvolved or not. This is part of a global war against Islamists, and we can choose to fight them, or choose to surrender ground to them, but we can't choose not to be involved.
That's why summing the whole thing up as, "War is bad", is so irksome to me. If Clinton hadn't cut and ran in Mogadishu, we wouldn't be talking about war in Somalia today. War now, or war on worse terms later. Those are our choices.
40:Where do I surrender? I want me some dhimmitude.
(And there is your war, folks, the real war, the hard war. How do we rid ourselves of "Sire?")
PSRaT and Bookends and BOTW sold millions, and Simon screwed Hollywood royalty and made a movie about himself. "Pleasures of the Harbour" and "Tape from California" never charted and whoever he was went crazy and hanged himself. 40 years later, here we are again, same as it ever was.
Where's my beret?
Sire, it's just not the case that there is one unified group of islamists against whom we can fight a global war. There are many such groups, and for any given group it's important to ask what its ambitions are. Imagine that Council of Islamic Courts or whomever it is currently running Somalia has, as the limits of their goals, running Somalia. This is possibly a bad thing, but that doesn't mean it's something we should go to war over. Now, perhaps, on the contrary, their goals are to kill U.S. citizens wherever they can find them. That would be a very different thing, and worth opposing in whatever way is needed. The bare fact that they're Islamic fundamentalists just doesn't entail that we should be taking any side in a war they're in.
Tangentially on topic, an excerpt from a recent interview with Reza Aslan:*
The Pentagon says that Iran is training the insurgents in Iraq, but any talk about a connection between Iran and al-Qaeda is just absurd. They are mortal enemies. Thomas Turner, the brigadier general in charge of Baghdad, says he has seen absolutely no evidence that the Iranians are trining or funding or supplying the insurgents. Iran wants stability in Iraq. Iranians are far more threatened by a chaotic Iraq than we are in the U.S. If we wanted to, we could just wash our hands of Iraq and walk away. Iran cannot, and the idea that it could have a terrorist refuge occcupied by its worst enemy, al-Qaeda, on its borders keeps the Iranian government up at night.
(The interview is only excerpted (pdf) online.)
*N.b. I'd never heard of him before this interview, and was only somewhat impressed -- it's both sprawling and oversimplified, thought it's hard to see how much of that is the editor's fault.
25, 40: Interesting that you bring up Franco in the context of war in Ethiopia, not to mention the reference to Mussolini. It's exactly the same political tendency that whines about "appeasement" that let the Spanish Republic fall to the Falange. Not to mention that this same political tendency successfully opposed US participation in the League of Nations (and as we all know, a weak LoN was a contributing factor in Mussolini's temporarily successful attacks on Ethiopia).
One of the most revolting aspects of our contemporary media culture is that the people who argue for a "global war on Islam(ists)" are exactly the same people who never want to see any positive preventative action taken to provide that other countries not fall under the control of regimes like those of the Ethiopian junta or Pinochet or Siad Barre. Of course, this political tendency often encourages intervention to impose a new dictatorship or prop up an existing one. Nope, instead of doing useful things for other countries, we are advised to sit on our hands until the situation is completely out of control, and then, when the potential for non-violent solutions is long past, only then do the Fascist-sympathizers take an interest in the affairs of other countries, that interest being characterized mostly by jingoistic propaganda of the sort referenced above.
Here's a question, if what the US is fighting is, in fact, a "war on Islamic extremists" or whatever, why are the Islamic extremists in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait allowed to go about their hand-chopping business unopposed and even uncriticized? Do you think it could perhaps be that "Islamic extremism" suits the ruling class just fine, so long as it is deployed in the service of maximizing profits for multinational corporations? Like Bechtel and Halliburton and Shell? Or is that just some kind of crazy conspiracy theory?
Dumbasses.
Yes, of course war in Ethiopia is nothing new, nor is war in Babylon. The questions to ask are why that is the case, and what can be done to prevent it in the future? Allow me to be a mite dismissive of the claim that merely engaging in "more of the same" (i.e. flood the area with weapons, support some one-party state because it's more friendly to corporate interests, and as soon as some measure of stability is in place, no matter how tenuous or oppressive, ignore the region for another decade or two) is going to work.
It's really scary to think how many people just don't get it at this late date.
41: Phil Ochs shouldna oughta beat his wife, and he did seem a bit obsessive about his competition with Dylan to be the voice of a generation. Yet and still, "Love Me, I'm A Liberal" sadly remains as trenchant today as it was then. See also CRASS's "Nineteen Eighty-Bore"
Sire, it's just not the case that there is one unified group of islamists against whom we can fight a global war. There are many such groups, and for any given group it's important to ask what its ambitions are. Imagine that Council of Islamic Courts or whomever it is currently running Somalia has, as the limits of their goals, running Somalia.
washerdyrer, From the NY Times article:
What complicates the issue is the presence of other foreign troops inside Somalia and the rising potential for Somalia's neighbors to be dragged in. United Nations officials estimate that there are several thousand soldiers from Eritrea, Ethiopia's arch-enemy, fighting for the Islamists, along with a growing number of Muslim mercenaries from Yemen, Egypt, Syria and Libya who want to turn Somalia into the third front of jihad, after Iraq and Afghanistan. On Friday, residents of Mogadishu said they saw boatloads of armed men landing on the city's beaches.
To me that sounds precisely like there is one group of Islamists against whom we can (must) fight a global war.
The bare fact that they're Islamic fundamentalists just doesn't entail that we should be taking any side in a war they're in.
No, the fact they are Islamists does. Note the difference. I don't know anybody who has a problem with Islamic fundamentalists per se.
One of the most revolting aspects of our contemporary media culture is that the people who argue for a "global war on Islam(ists)" are exactly the same people who never want to see any positive preventative action taken to provide that other countries not fall under the control of regimes like those of the Ethiopian junta or Pinochet or Siad Barre
minneapolitan, why would we have opposed Pinochet? Islamists fight against US interests in the Middle East, Africa, SE Asia, etc. Pinochet fought for US interests. Sure, he abused human rights. But, "war is bad", remember? I do not understand how anyone can criticize the decision to support Pinochet, who was a friend of the US, when they won't even agree with fighting worldwide organizations dedicated to destroying the US. How is this consistent? When we have a choice between a dictator who consistently supports US interests but violates human rights and a stable elected government that consistently supports both the US and human rights, the latter is certainly preferable. We don't always face choices that simple.
if what the US is fighting is, in fact, a "war on Islamic extremists" or whatever, why are the Islamic extremists in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait allowed to go about their hand-chopping business unopposed and even uncriticized?
You do notice, don't you, that the US has pulled most of its bases from Saudi Arabia? Why do you think that happened?
"This is part of a global war against Islamists, and we can choose to fight them, or choose to surrender ground to them, but we can't choose not to be involved."
It's possible, as Packer's article about David Kilcullen, among many other articles and studies on approaches to Islamists have discussed, that choosing to regard it all as One Big Global War, in which we lump everyone in together, and generalize, rather than discussing individual situations and approaches individually, is a deeply ignorant and counterproductive approach. Not to mention that it fulfills the dreams and desires of the al Qaeda types.
So possibly the relevant question is how, precisely, we should "be involved," rather than rumbling about The Islamist Threat In General.
"War now, or war on worse terms later. Those are our choices."
Yes, reducing the debate to bumper-stickers usually gets one closer to a correct analysis and solution. And "war" as an answer is just -- only a bit! -- vague. As people of a variety of political views have noted for years, there's no Grand War in which a surrender will be taken on the deck of a warship. (In other words, the idea of a "War On Terrorism" is an immensely counter-productive and misleading concept, and it defines a policy approach that definitionally can't "win." "Terrorism" won't ever surrender, can't be defeated on a field of battle, and won't ever be eliminated -- not in the next hundred years, anyway; talk about yer "long wars.")
That there are certain circumstances in which military responses play a necessary role is another matter, and being "pro-war" or "anti-war" aren't useful approaches, save perhaps for six-year-olds.
42: stop asking questions -- that might get us somewhere.
"To me that sounds precisely like there is one group of Islamists against whom we can (must) fight a global war."
Good to know that you buy into al Qaeda's propaganda. How useful for them.
choosing to regard it all as One Big Global War, in which we lump everyone in together, and generalize, rather than discussing individual situations and approaches individually, is a deeply ignorant and counterproductive approach
Worked great in the Cold War. We won. Now we're the only superpower on the planet. I say we stick with a winning strategy.
In other words, the idea of a "War On Terrorism" is an immensely counter-productive and misleading concept, and it defines a policy approach that definitionally can't "win." "Terrorism" won't ever surrender, can't be defeated on a field of battle, and won't ever be eliminated
Did I say anything about a "War On Terrorism"? This is a war on a group of people and organizations with many aims, some of them diametrically opposed to US interests.
Yes, I agree. Those who speak of a "War On Terrorism" as if we were going to eradicate a military tactic are either stupid, or are making speeches for broad public consumption.
I consider pretending that Islamist organizations do not have global reach and global aims to be similarly misguided.
I would like to know what you consider the ideal US approach to Islamist attacks against Ethiopia to be, although I despair of getting a straight answer as in the past you have deflected such questions much like a 3-handed economist.
"Worked great in the Cold War."
If you think that the Cold War -- a "war" in which we made a heck of a lot of mistakes, leading to the death of millions who didn't need to to die, in Vietnam and elsewhere, and in which our mistakes included ignoring the Sino-Soviet split for many years, over the notion that either it was a hoax or didn't matter, and our even larger mistake was treating situations in individual countries as if they were All The Same Communist Conflict, all directed primarily by Moscow -- is identical -- or even vaguely resembles -- the problems we do face with militant Islam in the world, I'm a tad dubious that your further analysis will be useful.
"Yes, I agree. Those who speak of a 'War On Terrorism' as if we were going to eradicate a military tactic are either stupid, or are making speeches for broad public consumption.
Finding some starting points for agreement is always useful in a discussion, so good.
"I consider pretending that Islamist organizations do not have global reach and global aims to be similarly misguided."
The point is that Not All Islamist Organizations Are Identical. Does Mr. Zawahiri have global aims? Yes. Do some who sympathise with him? Sure.
But plenty of relevant parties don't. Not everyone in the West Bank is excited about Somalia. Neither is every tribesman in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Divide and conquer is a quite ancient and basic conflict. It's particularly easy to do this when there are, in most cases, different aims and cultures amongst the people who trouble us, anyway.
The first step is actually knowing, or learning, a lot about the people in each situation, and discerning their actual interests. Do the Islamic Courts' leaders and followers all have as their primary interest, say, fighting Crusaders? Or coming to the U.S. (or to Iraq of Afghanistan) to be terrorists/fighters? Do they value the fight over Palestine more or less than that over Mogadishu?
My own impression is that the answer to these questions is mostly "no," but I'm no expert.
"I would like to know what you consider the ideal US approach to Islamist attacks against Ethiopia to be"
I don't know. I wrote this in comments on my own blog:
As regards what the precise best policy mix/approach is in Somalia, well, the specifics beat me. I think it should be minimalist and tailored to Somalia, and beyond that, I'm not expert enough to be the right person to ask.
What I'm sure of is that approaching with a One Solution Fits All Islamists And Countries plan is bound to be the wrong way to go.To put it another way, while I'm not sufficiently expert to what the best precise mix is -- and certainly no one has been leaking good ideas to the press in the past couple of years, so far as I've noticed -- I'm sure that grunting back and forth about being pro and anti "war" isn't enlightening.
I'd also say that it seems obvious that whatever we should be doing in Somalia will involve much more than a purely military approach. As Kilcullen noted, there are uses to generally approaching the overall Islamist problem as a "worldwide counter-insurgency," and counter-insurgency fights never win without an overwhelming political component. It's never about slaughtered as many of the enemy as possible, and indeed that's the very approach that guarantees failure.
Presumably you're familiar to at least some extent with COIN theory, and I needn't elaborate at present.
So what do you think our approach should be?
"Divide and conquer is a quite ancient and basic conflict."
Should have read "quite ancient and basic approach to conflict." Sorry.
and in which our mistakes included ignoring the Sino-Soviet split for many years, over the notion that either it was a hoax or didn't matter
We didn't ignore it or think it was a hoax, we knew that we would need to fight China at some point. We still know that. There will be a war between the US and China in the relatively near-term future. The imbalance between China's economy and China's political position in the world is just too large. Yes, we tried to get 2 for 1 and fight them both at the same time, but it didn't work out. There is work still to be done.
Anti-war sentiment forced Nixon to compromise, and push the fighting off to a future generation. Anti-war sentiment often does that.
Do the Islamic Courts' leaders and followers all have as their primary interest, say, fighting Crusaders? Or coming to the U.S. (or to Iraq of Afghanistan) to be terrorists/fighters? Do they value the fight over Palestine more or less than that over Mogadishu?
The original Afghani rebels' primary interests are not what we should consider when assessing whether equipping Islamists in Afghanistan with weapons and training was a good idea. Nor are the Somali rebels' primary interests what we should consider when we assess whether or not to allow an Islamist rebellion to gather strength in that country.
counter-insurgency fights never win without an overwhelming political component
I don't think the record support this assertion. The political component of the US suppression of the Phillipine insurgency can hardly be described as overwhelming. (And yes, we were tougher then, as a nation).
So what do you think our approach should be?
We need to restore a government in Somalia that is stable and friendly to US interests. That would be easier if we hadn't bugged out 13 years ago, but so be it.
In the short term, that means nothing should move in or out of Somalia, by sea, air, or land, without US approval, and that decision should be backed up by force. Anything else is just pushing the war off onto someone else who will fight it with even worse odds.
Those folks aren't "causing" war, simply because the people they're subjugating have no means to fight back. But if another nation (the US, Ethiopia, etc.) tries to stop them, all of a sudden -- It's a war! Cue the giant papier-mache puppets of protest!
Gee, if'n I remember, there was the big dealie in '85 with the Ethiopians starving, so we sent 'em a bunch of grain, and whaddya know, they used it to feed themselves while denying any to the actual famine victims: the Eritreans. Eritrea managed to break away anyways. Somalia, on the other hand, is an ex-Italian possession that was even less of a country than the Sudan, and they've been fighting it out (with Ethiopian, communist, Kenyan and whatnot assistance) since ever. For some reason, the UN and the Elder Bush decided this was a bad plan, so we went into rescue people and wound up deciding to rescue some some people from some semi-Islamicist warlord by killing a bunch of guys, but like we were outnumbered and shit and that didn't work out too well.
Also, of course, who can forget the southern Sudan on the greatest Ethiopian hit list? Since they funnel weapons to the Christians and animists of the south. Of course, in that instance, we don't like that, because we LIKE the Sudan being a stapled together non-country remnant of the British empire because the Egyptians like it! And the Egyptians have the Suez and they're like friends with the Israelis, so realpolitick is ok, never mind that the regime in Khartoum generally consists of a bunch of murderous bastards. But hey! They aren't Islamicists!
Actually, upon further review, one notes that for some reason, those Washingtoon dudes, have really had a hardon for anybody who wasn't a murderous secular dictator since 1979, so they've been running around picking fights with those guys for more than 25 years and lookie, they fuckin' hate us. Gee. Of course, if the Washingtoon fuckwits didn't have a policy that resembled some kind of poisonous trianary chemical warhead (equal parts murderous Imperial realpolitick, some kind of weird anti-religious thing, and self-serving UN-friendly bullshit about democracy and stability) maybe we wouldn't have so many ex-imperial dominions in chaos, ripe for takeover by local religious nuts who may suck, but can at least provide stability. Perhaps if we stopped fucking with things, maybe those former imperial dominions would either break up into smaller countries where stability would be possible, or they'd be taken over by Islamicist radicals who would inevitably settle down to a life of good old law enforcing corruption.
Did I mention we often do this at the behest of the fascist religious nuts in charge of Saudi Arabia?
m, ah, yes, we're the good guys
49 (Sire): "choosing to regard it all as One Big Global War, in which we lump everyone in together, and generalize, rather than discussing individual situations and approaches individually, is a deeply ignorant and counterproductive approach
Worked great in the Cold War. We won. Now we're the only superpower on the planet. I say we stick with a winning strategy.
Where does Unfogged get these people? Isn't there be a rule that Unfogged posters shouldn't sound like frat boys from the debate team?
Problems:
1. That wasn't the Cold War strategy. The US targeted one enemy which was an actual political entity, the USSR and its satellite nations. We came to agreements with a diverse array of nations ranging from allies to neutrals, and eventually cut a deal with Communist China which is still more or less in place.
2. Even if the Cold War strategy had not been misrepresented by Sire, it's just plain stupid to say that what worked last time will work this time. w're obviously dealing with a completely different situation.
Haven't had time to do the whole thread (Marry Xmas, all!), but Sire's zinger stuck out like a sore thumb.
Isn't there be a rule that Unfogged posters shouldn't sound like frat boys from the debate team?
John, I know it's Christmas and we're all extremely bored, but really, surely you know better than to hang out in a thread lke this on Xmas. Of *course* the only people around are gonna be you, me, Max, Farber, and some troll.
Hi, guys! Happy Xmas! I've kept my temper with my father all day even though I smoked my last cig by noon and no place is open!
I've had Christmas up to the gills already, and there's one more day to go. I'm ready to return to the blog world.
We came to agreements with a diverse array of nations ranging from allies to neutrals
We fought communist nations even when they were not yet in the Soviet orbit, even when it meant driving them into that orbit. Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile. And, again, it worked. We won. I know, I know, to you, saying you won something is frat boy talk. Whatever. We won.
The US targeted one enemy which was an actual political entity, the USSR and its satellite nations. We came to agreements with a diverse array of nations ranging from allies to neutrals, and eventually cut a deal with Communist China which is still more or less in place.
There's no "deal" with China. We're still going to have to fight them. We put it off because we knew that, politically, China considered (and may or may not still consider) nuclear strikes as acceptable damage, and we didn't.
I would argue that was a mistake. I've been arguing that this whole thread. You can fight a war, or you can put it off and fight it later with a greater disadvantage. We should have fought China during the Vietnam war rather than putting it off. We, as a nation, will regret the mistake. We will fight a war with China in the future, and we will do so with much poorer odds than in, say, 1970.
As always, I pray that the peaceniks are right, and that I am wrong.
There's no "deal" with China.
That's loony. There was a deal. It still holds. Making such a deal stands in contrast to the strategy you're proposing. Please correct your arguments for plausibility. (What was the "mistake"? Certainly not the deal we didn't cut. Not waging preemptive nuclear warfare?)
You can fight a war, or you can put it off and fight it later with a greater disadvantage.
In other words, every imaginable war will certainly take place eventually, and preferably should take place right now. Do you have any idea how that sounds?
As always, I pray that the peaceniks are right, and that I am wrong.
The people disagreeing with you are not necessarily peaceniks. Most of them are just sane. You're stacking the cards in favor of the most extreme of all paranoid alternatives: "Every War Right Now" vs. "No War Ever".
I really think that you should absent yourself from the discussion. You're just too desperate and fanatical to be able to contribute anything. I don't believe that you really pray that the peaceniks are eight; that seems like just another cheap, ineffective debater's trick.
What you should be praying is that you gain the ability to understand that there are more alternatives than the two which you insanely believe are the only ones.
That's loony. There was a deal. It still holds.
That's just nonsense. If you'll read what your Congressmen say, you'll find them saying something like, "It's unthinkable that the United States will lose its preeminence as the world's only superpower".
Has China signed off on that? They're the #2 economy in the world. Does their political influence match that? Will they be happy with that state of affairs going forward, when they become the #1 economy in the world?
We will have to fight them. We can fight them when we have the advantage, or when they do. Nixon passed the buck, and no one has picked it up.
No that isn't fighting every possible war just because someone imagined it. That is fighting the wars that need to be fought when they are most winnable.
To try and get back on topic...we have been passing the buck of a war in Somalia for 13 years now. 18 deaths was too many for us back then, so we gave the Islamists a free pass. That's not working out for us, is it?
Sire, what I'm saying is that a deal was cut by Nixon. I didn't say what the deal was. You seem to be saying that since the deal won't last forever and wasn't competely clear in ever detail, that there was no deal at all. But guess what? No deal lasts forever, and they are all deliberately unclear about some of the details.
WHo cares what Congressmen say or think? Congressmen don't make foreign policy.
I would suggest that we have our hands full at the moment in Iraq. I have no idea what we hope to do in Somalia, but Somalia seems to be a particularly intractable problem, and not a very important one compared to others we face.
I nominate you to replace Doug Feith as "the stupidest man on the face of the earth". You justified present foreign policy on the basis of its similarity to our successful Cold War policy, and almost immediately denounced our Cold War policy because Nixon failed to nuke China.
I have no idea what we hope to do in Somalia, but Somalia seems to be a particularly intractable problem
Many problems seem intractable if the loss of 18 soldiers is enough to make you turn tail and run on home.
I would suggest that we have our hands full at the moment in Iraq
If we can only handle a single war with a barely developed nation that has been bombed and under an embargo for 15 years, we are in real trouble. Seriously.
and almost immediately denounced our Cold War policy because Nixon failed to nuke China.
So, tell me, when do you think the best time to fight China is? In 1970 when they are a 3rd world nation, today, when they manufacture the majority of the world's computers, or in the future, when they are the world's #1 economy?
Pick your time.
Either that or explain to me how you are going to live in peace and harmony with the butchers of Tiananmen square. I won't live in peace and harmony with them. Tell me, please, how you will.
Sire, I think that you should shoot yourself. Nothing you say makes sense, and you seem to find the present state of the world unbearable.
There's no chance that it will get better from your point of view, or that you will ever live in peace and harmony with anyone.
John! It's the anniversary of the birth of Our Lord and Savior, and you're recommending that trolls commit suicide?!? What is this, some dark version of "It's a Wonderful Life!" or something?
OK John, when asked when, precisely, you wish to fight the butchers of Tiananmen square, your answer is never. My answer is, "sometime sooner than never, and at a time that minimizes the cost of the struggle".
I think my answer is more reasonable. That, of course marks me as a troll. We will have to agree to disagree on that one.
Other than that, Merry Christmas, and God bless you.
No, what I said was "Probably not during the Vietnam War", and not necessarily ever. But I thought this thread was about whether we wanted to involve ourselves in Somalia in the middle of an disastrous Iraq war. Your tlk about "minimizing costs" is ridiculous; you want to fight every war (Somalia, Iraq, China, Vietnam) all at once. (I never called you a troll -- that was B. I called you incurably insane.)
And may the Baby Jesus bless your genocidal heart during this Christmas season! I, too, am overflowing with the milk of human kindness.
B., that was the only helpful advice I could think of to give the poor guy. I'm all heart, believe me.
But I thought this thread was about whether we wanted to involve ourselves in Somalia in the middle of an disastrous Iraq war.
Disastrous? We've sacrificed a few thousand troops for control of Iraq. I don't like it when even one US soldier dies, but...disastrous? Come on now.
you want to fight every war (Somalia, Iraq, China, Vietnam) all at once
I don't necessarily want to fight them all at once, if we can play them off against each other, that's great.
But it would be nice if you would at least realize these nations are (all) our enemies.
Yes, but control of Iraq is not in sight. That's the same problem as Somalia -- by now we have no idea what the objective is, or how to attain it. We easily won the war, but we're worse off than before.
In Somalia, once the original intention of quickly pacifying the country became impossible, we had no idea of what we were trying to do.
In a sense, life is simpler for insane people who believe that the whole world is our enemy and that the only decision we have to make is the order in which we should destroy them. But alas, we did destroy Saddam, and gained nothing by that.
we did destroy Saddam, and gained nothing by that.
We gained nothing by that? OK, that is another statement with which I disagree.
OK, what was gained? Iraq is in the midst of civil war, Iran, Turkey, and other countries may be drawn into the war, and at the present moment we are not able to realistically imagine a positive outcome. The negative possibility (a larger, more costly war whose outcome is unforseeable) is much more likely than any positive one.
I might mention that while we're tied down in Iraq, Russia, China, and other countries are pursuing their own agendas, confident that we are not going to be able to respond effectively. That's why we shouldn't try to do everything at once.
Iran, Turkey, and other countries may be drawn into the war
John, I think you're not getting sire's point -- these countries are not being drawn into this war, they were already involved in this war, though in a probabilistic sense. Our invasion of Iraq was equivalent to opening the box to reveal that Schrœdinger's emperor was naked (his clothing having been destroyed by the uncertain decay of an atom). We did not "start" this war, we simply revealed an essential aspect of reality.
Schrœdinger's emperor
Wait, or I might be getting that one mixed up with Pandora's cat...
German doesn't have an "œ" ligature.
Wow, this thread got annoying and depressing real fast.
"OK John, when asked when, precisely, you wish to fight the butchers of Tiananmen square, your answer is never. My answer is, 'sometime sooner than never, and at a time that minimizes the cost of the struggle'."
What would you define our war aims to be in our war with China, Sire?
"What would you define our war aims to be in our war with China, Sire?"
A buffer zone, seeing that the Pacific Ocean isn't wide enough?
A re-establishment of American domination of the strategic Happy Meal toy reserves.
The ejection of Mulan from the Council of Disney Princesses!
The ejection of Mulan from the Council of Disney Princesses!
sire: If Clinton hadn't cut and ran in Mogadishu, we wouldn't be talking about war in Somalia today.
OK, enough. Clinton "cut and run" for the same reason that Nixon and Ford pulled out of Vietnam; the same reason that Carter failed to get the hostages out; the same reason that Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon; the same reason that Powell was terrified of intervening in Bosnia; the same reason that, sooner or later, Bush or his successor will withdraw from Iraq. The reason is this: the US military is not competent enough to fight and win modern wars.
It can fight and win a rerun of the Western Desert Campaign or the breakout from the Normandy beach-head, and do it very well indeed. It did so in the Gulf in 1991. But in most modern battlefields, US soldiers are, quite simply, not up to the job.
Any discussion on US foreign policy, or the state of the Middle East, or the rise and fall of Islamic extremism has to take that into account: the United States can no longer field an effective army on a modern battlefield. It has not been able to do so for a generation. Ignoring this is pony reasoning. It's like an mouse saying "I know how to sort that cat out. I'll pick up that dining table and beat the bastard to death with it".
"But in most modern battlefields, US soldiers are, quite simply, not up to the job."
?
What Gary said in 81.
Ajay, since you seem to view US soldiers as incompetent, let us have your definition of competent by identifying the militaries which are up to the job. Because if you can't do that; indeed if it turns out that the US military is as good at it as anyone else and better than most (which is what I believe to be the truth), then you have said nothing more than counterinsurgency and peacekeeping operations are hard. This is certainly true, but it is not particularly novel or helpful.
Idealist, "competent" doesn't mean just "better than other contenders".
I specifically didn't list militaries which I think are better, because I don't want this to devolve into a "my team ROOLZ! your team SUCKZ!!!" conversation.
My point is this: over the last thirty years, the US military has been generally unable to win wars. (Exception: 1991, as noted already.) And therefore, people who look at foreign policy in the Middle East, for example, in terms of "which countries should we go to war with now, and which ones should we save for later" - like some of the commenters here - are not discussing things in a realistic way.
It is not that counterinsurgency is "hard"; if you are the US military, counterinsurgency is impossible, in the same way that algebra is impossible if you are a duck. I am not saying that other militaries shine at counterinsurgency; but then few other countries seem to have foreign policies which involve quite so many occupations.
82: you have said nothing more than counterinsurgency and peacekeeping operations are hard
I think calling the US Army "incompetent" is over-harsh, but Ajay's quite right that the US army specifically and the modern Western mechanized military more generally is built basically with the model of WWII in mind. I think a pretty strong case can be made, at this point, that that model is seriously lacking if not outright obsolete for most cases where these militaries are likely to find themselves deployed.
I'm not much interested in Sire, who seems mainly to be obsessed with sloganeering, but I will note that this is misleading:
Disastrous? We've sacrificed a few thousand troops for control of Iraq.
In fact the US military has suffered a few thousand KIAs in attaining non-control of Iraq, but the wounded (often badly-wounded) are far more numerous: twenty thousand at a minimum, probably more. So I think it's reasonably safe to assume that "disastrous" is not an exaggeration, and that the active-duty members of the US Army who have started calling for withdrawal are not doing so idly.
"But in most modern battlefields, US soldiers are, quite simply, not up to the job."
"It is not that counterinsurgency is 'hard'; if you are the US military, counterinsurgency is impossible, in the same way that algebra is impossible if you are a duck. "
You're supporting your assertion with another assertion. Do you have an actual argument? I'd be interested to read it.
"My point is this: over the last thirty years, the US military has been generally unable to win wars. (Exception: 1991, as noted already.)"
Which wars didn't they win, and why? If they won in 1991 -- which they did it obviously wasn't impossible, and they obviously weren't incompetent.
Beyond that, there weren't any major wars, although they cake-walked through the minor ones (Panama, Grenada). What support there is for your assertions is otherwise not visible to me. Saying something doesn't make it true. What's your argument and evidence?
You're supporting your assertion with another assertion. Do you have an actual argument? I'd be interested to read it.
Yes, I do: my hypothesis is that the US army is incapable of successful counterinsurgency. My evidence is the four recent failed counterinsurgency campaigns undertaken by the US (Vietnam; Lebanon; Afghanistan; Iraq). I can't think of any way of measuring how well someone can do something other than looking at how well they've done it. If there are some big successes in counterinsurgency that the US has had and I've missed, then that would be evidence against my hypothesis.
I think this is important because I believe that counterinsurgency, much more than air-land battle, is the way that a lot of wars will be fought in the future. It's the way a lot of wars are fought now. And the apparent fact that the US military just isn't very good at fighting that sort of war should be taken into account in any discussion of US foreign policy.
As Dr Slack says, this isn't to say that other Western militaries don't suffer from the same problem. (Or non-Western; Kashmir or the NWFP for example.)
"Yes, I do: my hypothesis is that the US army is incapable of successful counterinsurgency."
Ah. I thought it was possible that that might be your argument, but it wasn't remotely clear. It's at least an understandable and debatable proposition.
My observation re Vietnam and the U.S. military's ability to do COIN is that the original Green Berets knew something about it, but when Johnson took the war massively conventional, he went tragically wrong; by the time valid counter-insurgency techniques were being used again, the war was lost, because no COIN strategy and tactics, no matter how competently applied, can be successfully applied by a foreign power when their local puppet/surrogate is hopelessly corrupt, incompetent, and widely seen as illegitimate by most of the populace.
So I tend to lean against your assertion as an absolute, while agreeing -- it's a commonplace, and accurate cliche, after all -- that after Vietnam, the U.S. Army ran as fast as possible away from COIN, and (stupidly) tried to forget as much as possible.
But I don't see much reason to conclude that that's some sort of inherent condition of the U.S. military; such competence is merely, as I said, not necessarily sufficient to "winning" a COIN in every and any circumstance.
I think the recent manual, and training, goes some ways towards making the argument against incompetence.
I should have also noted that this is certainly true:
I think this is important because I believe that counterinsurgency, much more than air-land battle, is the way that a lot of wars will be fought in the future. It's the way a lot of wars are fought now.
My guess is that Ajay is a Creveld buff. I haven't read Creveld's book yet, though, so I could be far wrong.
Incompetent is sort of a scattershot non-specific charge. Lumping Vietnam and the others is misleading, because the military has been transformed since. Lebanon was seemingly a mistake at the high (civilian) leadership level and was also quite far back, so Ajay's dataset is 2.
Ajay doesn't seem to distinguish civil war counterinsurgency and invasion counterinsurgency. Post-invasion counterinsurgency is a puzzle no one has solved, not that I wish that they had. Indonesia in Irian maybe, but that kind of example is not to be followed. Israel, India, or Algeria is allowed methods which we aren't, and Israel and Algeria have their backs to the wall, so they don't have to explain why they're doing what they're doing.
it's a commonplace, and accurate cliche, after all -- that after Vietnam, the U.S. Army ran as fast as possible away from COIN, and (stupidly) tried to forget as much as possible.
Having served on active duty from 1974 to 1994, I have to say that this assertion does not accord with my experience. To be sure, after Vietnam, the military focused on its primary strategic threat--the Soviet Union--but it did not completely ignore or run away from preparing to fight on other battlefields. The creation of light infantry divisions and the expansion of special operations forces occurred beginning in the mid-1980's. The Joint Readiness Training Center--which particularly in its earlier days was a light infantry, low intensity combat analog to the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin was conceived in the 1980's. When I worked briefly at the Field Artiller School in the early 1980's, one focus of doctrinal development at all the service schools was urban combat.
Now, none of this goes to say that the military could not be better at counterinsurgency and peacekeeping operations. But it simply is a myth to say that the Cold War military ran away from or ignored preparing for other types of combat.
I would add that I believe that history has shown that ultimately the problem is not the military ability for fight counterinsurgency warfare, it is the political will to do so. This is as it should be, because the decision to fight, and whether to keep fighting, must be a political one, not a military one.
The battle depicted in Blackhawk Down was a significant feat of arms for the U.S. Their attackers suffered many hundreds of casualties. In Viet Nam, the Tet Offensive, which was a huge strategic victory for the North Vietnamese, breaking the will of the U.S.'s political leaders to fight, we now know was a crushing tactical defeat for the Viet Cong. There is more to warfighting than force of arms alone.
"To be sure, after Vietnam, the military focused on its primary strategic threat--the Soviet Union--but it did not completely ignore or run away from preparing to fight on other battlefields."
I think you're over-reading, Idealist. No one was saying that the Army literally trained no one whatever in COIN warfare, or literally forgot everything. The point was that counter-insurgency wasn't the main threat the entire armed forces, or even Army, trained for, but rather was relegated to smaller and less mainstream outfits, and was only glancingly touched upon, if at all, if you were, say, in the artillery, or an armored force, or general infantry.
The NCTs focused on combined arms/armored thrusts; now there's more focus on counter-insurgency.
"light infantry, low intensity combat" isn't the same as counter-insurgency training at all, of course. Neither is urban combat COIN training. The doctrine for COIN is quite different from just going in and killing, as I'm sure you know. Ditto that most special ops is not COIN.
I've not read any of Martin van Crevald's books, either, John.
The point was that counter-insurgency wasn't the main threat the entire armed forces, or even Army, trained for
Obviously. And justifiably so.
"light infantry, low intensity combat" isn't the same as counter-insurgency training at all, of course.
Well sure, not exactly the same. But many of the skills are common.
Ditto that most special ops is not COIN.
Not sure I agree with you here.
"But many of the skills are common."
Sure, but the political context, and strategy, isn't. Ditto "winning hearts and minds" and "clearing and holding." It's just... low-intensity conflict with no larger context.
"Not sure I agree with you here."
A lot of special ops are just door-kicking, and grabbing, and killing, as well; "special ops" doesn't define specifically working to accomplish political tasks, or building things people will support. They might, but they don't necessarily.
It's the difference between one part of what Green Berets classically did, and the other part (killing). Or that SEALs and Delta Force don't go around building hospitals, or working much with tribal councils, say, so far as I know.
When Delta Force and the Rangers went into Mog to try to pick up Aidid, that was special ops, but it wasn't counter-insurgency warfare. For instance.
Reckless proxy war? I'm betting yes.