Bill at INDCjournal and Kevin Drum are taking a stand that more military force isn't more effective military force. This can indeed be true, but their argument of the case by pointing out recent wars effectively ignores much about reality.
The use of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the US war in Vietnam are also interesting, as they are used as examples where total war failed or were ineffective. I'd state that, in fact, both of those conflicts are indication of where Total war and "more force" were not applied. The Soviets could have overcome the Afghan resistance by using the methods that the British used in South Africa during the Boer war and the US used in Cuba after the Spanish-American war. They could have used a system of concentration camps to control and separate the insurgents from the general populations. Anyone outside those camps are considered the enemy and destroyed. The resources for that type of tactic are huge, but not beyond the ability of the Soviets. As for Vietnam, the US never used Total War. In fact, if you make an honest assessment of the tactics used, you'll note that the military was restrained from the use of effective force by the president. The Political dithering on how to win the war provides solid proof that appropriate force wasn't used.
The western civilizations have come to the point where they choose not to use massive force to fight war. The choice on methods has come from liberal democracies that would prefer to try more subtle and less destructive means. There is some risk to that method, but morally this has been accepted. With fourth-generation warfare upon us, the use of asymmetric warfare has been escalating, both in its use against the west and the use of those methods by the west.
My biggest pain comes from the very clear evidence that the vast majority of the public doesn't understand that they are in fact being used as a part of asymmetric warfare. The MSM, which should know better, doesn't even appear to have an understanding of what asymmetric warfare is, nor that they are in fact a major weapon in the enemy's arsenal. The public, in general, still takes the reports from the MSM as complete truth. They fail to apply even a healthy level of skepticism on reports. The events in Lebanon are a perfect example of what I'm saying. Just google Qana and read any source that doesn't come from Israel. Then stop and think, would Israel just bomb civilians to turn them against Hezbollah, when the counter-effect will be an overwhelmingly negative response from the western countries.
Bill and Drum do have points about the pundits on the right and their discussions of the use of force. I would like to see their analysis on the pundits on the left as well. Not that we will, of course.
Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with Reynolds' post as well, but I think that he's glossing over a rather common sentiment in the right-wing blogosphere with a coat of his own views. As my recent criticism of Ace and dust-up with Bill Quick highlighted, there's a common idea, almost exclusively promoted among right-wing pundits, that more force is necessarily more effective force. It's an instinctive position among those that share the Jacksonian mindset. I should know, as I also instinctively gravitate towards an aggressive default position, and the weight of precedent is on this judgment's side: the vast majority of conflicts throughout human history have been a contest won by those willing and able to apply the maximum amount of force.They do seem to understand that, historically, use of massive force was indeed effective. The arguments that that isn't the case today is false. The difference is that the vast majority of political entities choose not to use massive force. The discussion of Total War is interesting, but not completely accurate. The US could use Total war against the terrorists. The US could in fact pull a Mongol invasion of the middle east and lay waste to the area. The physical means exist, but the moral and political means don't. Thank God.But the global war on terror is a wildly asymmetrical conflict that's only going to grow more frustrating and complex as the ubiquitization of destructive technology erases the easy lines of malicious nation states, and consequently mutes the effect of the kind of total warfare that historically pushes political solutions. As a result, much of the bluster about ditching Queensbury rules and going "Dubya Dubya Too" on our "enemies" as an evident solution to the conflict is simply that: bluster. I'm not saying that it won't happen at some point, in response to a particularly terrible terrorist attack or three on US soil; I'm saying that after a certain tipping point in history, total war probably won't be effective in stopping religious maniacs with custom viruses synthesized in a London basement. And if one could effectively stop said maniacs by irradiating a third of the world's surface, the result would be hopelessly pyrrhic.
The use of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the US war in Vietnam are also interesting, as they are used as examples where total war failed or were ineffective. I'd state that, in fact, both of those conflicts are indication of where Total war and "more force" were not applied. The Soviets could have overcome the Afghan resistance by using the methods that the British used in South Africa during the Boer war and the US used in Cuba after the Spanish-American war. They could have used a system of concentration camps to control and separate the insurgents from the general populations. Anyone outside those camps are considered the enemy and destroyed. The resources for that type of tactic are huge, but not beyond the ability of the Soviets. As for Vietnam, the US never used Total War. In fact, if you make an honest assessment of the tactics used, you'll note that the military was restrained from the use of effective force by the president. The Political dithering on how to win the war provides solid proof that appropriate force wasn't used.
The western civilizations have come to the point where they choose not to use massive force to fight war. The choice on methods has come from liberal democracies that would prefer to try more subtle and less destructive means. There is some risk to that method, but morally this has been accepted. With fourth-generation warfare upon us, the use of asymmetric warfare has been escalating, both in its use against the west and the use of those methods by the west.
My biggest pain comes from the very clear evidence that the vast majority of the public doesn't understand that they are in fact being used as a part of asymmetric warfare. The MSM, which should know better, doesn't even appear to have an understanding of what asymmetric warfare is, nor that they are in fact a major weapon in the enemy's arsenal. The public, in general, still takes the reports from the MSM as complete truth. They fail to apply even a healthy level of skepticism on reports. The events in Lebanon are a perfect example of what I'm saying. Just google Qana and read any source that doesn't come from Israel. Then stop and think, would Israel just bomb civilians to turn them against Hezbollah, when the counter-effect will be an overwhelmingly negative response from the western countries.
Bill and Drum do have points about the pundits on the right and their discussions of the use of force. I would like to see their analysis on the pundits on the left as well. Not that we will, of course.
1 comment:
One of the problems with Viet Nam and Afghanistan is that the war was fought locally, but the conflict was global. To actually defeat North Viet Nam, we could have invaded but didn't, and then continued on to their suppliers & trainers in China & the USSR, but didn't. That pretty much defines that as something less than total war. Same rules apply the other way in Afghanistan.
Post a Comment