More Warfare Analysis From the Clueless

WaPo OpEd from the clueless William M. Arkin. Let's just procede with the article.

Israel, Sen. Clinton, and Secretary Rumsfeld all are captive to a different and rather conventional approach: The three are all stuck in their belief that there is still some decisive action -- military action -- that can bring victory.

The dynamic is quite simple: A crisis occurs, a threat looms, a challenge awaits and the President or Prime Minister gazes out over their respective Cabinets looking for "options." Time and again, it is only the military that is able to offer anything tangible -- forget how many divisions the Pope has, Condi has nary a one, and even when she suggests action, she has to borrow from the Pentagon.

By default, we wage war.

Yes, because talking to the bastard that wants to see you dead and is actively trying to kill you gets you where? Dead maybe? Or has Arkin missed what a terrorist is? As for the Pope, I haven't seen the Vatican having much by way of influence over the Islamic Salafists.

"We can help the Lebanese armed forces exercise control and sovereignty over all of Lebanese territory," the State Department spokesmen said.

The Lebanese army needs to be stronger than Hezbollah, Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), told the Senate Armed Services Committee. For Gen. Abizaid that means that the Lebanese military needs some "spare parts."

Spare parts?

Are we so entranced with everything military that we can not see that no amount of spare parts is going to make a difference here, that there is no conventional military solution of training and equipping, that as long as the insurgents hide amid a sympathetic population there is no prospect of anything approximating victory?

By this standard, we should disband all law enforcement agencies in the US. Crime isn't going to go away, so why bother fighting the criminals? They'll still be out among the public, and some of the public will even be sympathetic. I don't know anything about Abizaid's remark on spare parts, but seeing the slant of this piece, I'm going to guess that context isn't a great concern for Arkin.

Arkin's conclusion:

Rumsfeld has a folksy answer: that of course we "need" to reach that population with better services, we need to strengthen the central government, and we need to practice better "strategic communications." The "we" here is, of course, Rumsfeld's divisions, the dominant actor and the continuing inappropriate force behind America.

Israel and the United States continue to wage their wars against Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda as if they believed that those "forces" can be defeated. Armed with his ever changing metrics of success, Rumsfeld argues that damaging those organizations brings us closer to victory. He pays lip service to the need for other actions to supplement the conventional military effort knowing full well that there are no other divisions out there, nothing being waged but an attrition campaign.

If history is any guide, Rumsfeld's head, like that of Nasrallah, is probably safe.

The difference though is that Grandpa Rumsfeld will likely slither off into wealthy retirement while Nasrallah, dead or alive, will be the leader who stood up to power. It will be a long war indeed.

So in good Editorial standards, Arkin just throws stones, but suggests nothing for reasonable alternative action. This article almost reads like a complete condemnation of the use of military forces to fight terrorists. I'm not sure who he would suggest should be stopping them from murdering innocents, but his silence suggests that he hasn't thought that far into the topic.

Maybe he's suggesting that the western world should fall off the planet and the Israelis just drop dead. That would certainly solve this conflict, though I don't think I'd like the result. Can anyone suggest what the purpose of this scriptual masturbation was?

Arkin clearly thinks the military solution is just a war of attrition that I'm guessing he believes we can't win. I'd say that is pretty short sighted. The war on terror is indeed going to be long and different. But his understanding of the causation of the conflict seems to also be lacking. The radical Islamists aren't just inciting terrorist jihad to get the western powers out of their countries. They are in fact trying to move the world to the Islamic ideal. The middle-eastern peoples could be profiting handsomely from their oil, except that their elites are hoarding it all to themselves. Their governments are nearly unanimously authoritarian and repressive. So who do they blame for the problems, why the west of course. But then, can anyone believe that if there were a popular revolution in the middle-east, the Islamic Sharia law that was put in place wouldn't be just as oppressive, if not worse? Just look at the Taliban in Afghanistan if you need to see the shining example.
Some times I really get tired of stone throwers like Arkin. His writing is put forth, but his mind was never engaged.