Cupboards Well-Stocked With Things To Diminish

Barely adequate.  Bush's speech last night did pull the Administration back from Cheney's "last throes" remark.  That's good, because Cheney's claim was ridiculous given the facts on the ground.  Indeed, in less-partisan times, one might even call it a flat-out lie.

So, at least we're no longer at the brink of a self-inflicted Vietnamization.  Bush also hit the high points, forthrightly stated the difficulty of our task in Iraq, and showed a willingness to stick it out. 

After the say, however, comes the do.  It will be hard to do the right thing in Iraq.  We had cupboards well-stocked of goodwill; reserves of will to win aplenty.  Those cupboards are now nearly bare.  The public is no longer buying Cheney's glib pronouncements of imminent victory or premature claims of "Mission Accomplished".  The worm is turning on Iraq, and we must complete the mission before it does.

With that in mind, Herbert E. Meyer, a former CIA official with the Reagan Administration, offers the following advice:

Get Real with the Generals

First, you need to fight harder in Iraq.  You keep saying that you are giving our generals all the troops they want.  With all respect, sir, this couldn’t possibly be true.  In the history of the world there has never been a general who thought he had enough troops.  If your generals are telling you they have all the troops they want to finish the job in Iraq, either the generals are idiots – or they have gotten the word that asking for more troops will end their careers.  Sit down with your generals privately – just you and them -- and find out how many troops they really think they need.  If they still insist they don’t want more troops on the ground in Iraq, then get yourself a new bunch of generals.  If they tell you they need another 250,000 soldiers and Marines – then fly them over from Korea, Germany or wherever they are stationed just as fast as possible.  If we haven’t got them to send – then order a draft.  One way or another, put enough troops on the ground in Iraq to secure that country -- fast.  And while you’re at it, give the orders to either take out the governments of Syria and Iran or to hit them with so much force that they quit playing footsie with al Queda and the Baathists, because we cannot win in Iraq so long as Syria and Iran are providing support and sanctuary.  In short, do whatever is necessary, and do it now.

Emphasis mine.  As The Belgravia Dispatch notes, "Sit down with your generals privately" means without Rumsfeld, Cheney, or, indeed, anyone else in the room.  Just the President and the Generals; all cards on the table.  (By the way, if The Belgravia Dispatch is not yet a daily stop for you, it should be.)

When public opinion decisively tips against the war (as it, assuredly, soon will), it will be impossible to keep troops in the field.  When public opinion decisively tips against the war, the insurgents won't need to beat us; we will have beaten ourselves.  A very public suicide; a disaster for Iraq, our national security, and the Middle East.

The time to win in Iraq is running out.  No more buck passing.  No more of Rumsfeld's "it's above my pay grade."  No more a strategy of "just enough."  Act.  For the good of your country and your administration, act now.

(Title cite.)

UPDATE:  A few changes for clarity.  Some of the readership point out, rightly, that a draft is a poor way to keep public opinion on your side.  Absolutely conceded; indeed, I originally bolded that section of the letter to highlight where I disagree with Mr. Meyer's advice.  Sadly, I didn't get around to including that discussion in the body of this comment.

But the core of Mr. Meyer's advice is sound.  I don't buy the dance of "we want to send troops, but the Generals won't have them."  The Generals, I'm sure, are very aware that a larger footprint in Iraq will have some negative consequences.  But it seems that all this worrying about "larger footprints" is meaningless if the footprint you have just ain't getting the job done.  It's similar to being on a starvation diet, and yet all you talk about is how fat you could get if you eat more.  A strategic anorexia; not very becoming. 

Yeah, there's a risk (how real?  who knows?  goes the Rumsfeld koan) more troops will enflame the insurgency.  But weigh that risk against the near certainty that the current level of troops cannot defeat the insurgency.  Cost-benefit yo' ass.  Ain't a few more troops -- if we have them to send -- worth the risk of a few months of bad press?  Would enough troops to secure the border with Syria make it more likely that we'll fail?

(That's one reason why I found Neurath's Boat's critique of my last post on the subject less than convincing.)

Cu

Comments

[Katherine]

If your primary concern is public opinion, why on earth do you favor a draft?

[Tim]

I thought I heard last night that more troops was a bad idea because it would interfere with the Iraqis.

[felixrayman]

A draft isn't going to happen, and the military is already having problems keeping troops in the field. Since you think the war is so important to our national security, have you considered enlisting?

[bob mcmanus]

If only the czar knew....

[travis]

"[S]ecure that country -- fast" with American troops is not possible. Securing Iraq through a counterinsurgency campaign would take a long time. Mustering a large amount of additional troops would take a long time, especially if they would have to come from a draft. Meyer's advice is the worst kind of counsel because it is irretrievably unrealistic, materially and politically. This kind of thinking is not going to achieve success at any level in Iraq; it just lets partisans accuse one another of not having the guts to do what it takes.

[Dantheman]

bob,

Agree with you, and with DeLong to whom you owe royalties.

[Tim]

Actuall, DeLong used Sultan instead of Tsar, so it's an homage and not plagiarism.

[Barry]

A few comments:

1) That guy is full of sh*t. Read the linked article; he thinks that Bolton not being nominated, or some judges being fillibustered, is some terrible sign.
As opposed to Bush having almost 100% his way.

2) Having to sit the generals down without Rumsfield in the room is a sign that Rumsfield is a significant problem in the execution of the war, which means that Rumsfield needs to go. IMHO, once one accepts that Rumsfield is a signficant problem in the execution of the war, Bush having retained him this long is a very bad mark on Bush's judgement. In short, a massive and persistant critical fault in a senior executive is a sign that something's wrong with the CEO.

3) A draft? If public opinion is faltering, a draft will just push it into a power dive. In addition, under impossibly good circumstances, a draft would start to provide trained raw privates six months after it started. Privates who would be ready for a few months of unit training before deployment. Meaning that a draft ordered today start to make a difference sometime next spring/summer. Assuming that the NCO's and officers would come from heaven or something; by next spring/summer most units will be on third or fourth (!) rotations, and morale should be 'interesting'.

4) Hitting Iran and Syria?!?!?!?!? At that point, Bush would be making a bet-the-rent-check bet that neither have any significant ability to cause trouble in Iraq at all. If either did, then the war escalates; if both do, then the war escalates quite a bit. We don't have the forces there now to hold things down; if the violence goes up by a factor of 2, and the government dissolves and those trained Iraqi troops attack US positions, then our mission there would turn to a desparate one of extracting forces.

[nous_athanatos]

Barry-- Agree with most everything.

We don't have the forces there now to hold things down; if the violence goes up by a factor of 2, and the government dissolves and those trained Iraqi troops attack US positions, then our mission there would turn to a desparate one of extracting forces.

And that is assuming that anyone would actually engage us in something like conventional warfare. If there is a lesson to be learned out of Iraq, it's that even a corrupt, dictatorial state is better to deal with politically than an amorphous blob of conflicting non-state entities all either self-interested or hostile to our own interests. I hate agreeing with Lind on anything, but...

[Edward_]

I think von's suggestions make sense.

Personally, I think the "wait until they sign the constitution and slowly pull out" approach is moronic.

There are very concrete steps the administration could take. First and foremost, IMHO, is better partroling of the border with Syria. What could that cost, in terms of money, troops, and materials? It has to be less than the billions it's costing not to. Not cutting off this portal for the insurgency is one of the reasons I don't believe they're serious about stopping it.

Secondly, Meyer is totally just in calling Bush's bluff on the "if the generals want more troops" bullsh*t. Clearly they would. Yes, there's the question of too big a footprint, but the urban settings where that footprint would be felt are not where those troops need to be. They could be, again, along the border with Syria. They could be in the Sunni Triangle's extraurban areas. Ready to strike if needed, but leaving the face-to-face business to the Iraqi troops.

Thirdly, the draft is politically tricky, yes, but there are other ways to encourage greater enlistments. The moment I was most happy with Bush during his speech was when he called on the nation to make a special effort to show the troops you support them on the 4th. Having neighbors do something special for military families, for example, could help those who don't think the military's right for them change their minds.

Bottom line for me is that if we bring the troops home now, I"m rather convinced they'll be sent back over in a few years anyway. Might as well do all we can to get the job done now.

[Barry]

Oh, a second comment on a draft - if enough people thought that this war was worthwhile, then they'd have enlisted. I haven't heard of the College Republicans having problems assembling their summer convention, and the Heritage Foundation found a nice pool of intern candidates (just to mention some prominent examples).

Many of the people who voted to re-elect Bush, and approve of the war, want to make sure that they aren't in the line of fire.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Having neighbors do something special for military families, for example, could help those who don't think the military's right for them change their minds.

Seriously? Man, if that's the incentive package that makes a difference, I feel all the worse for people who enlist at this time.

[Charles Bird]

von,
There are two separate "cupboard" posts on the front page, one with the update and one without.

[von]

Yeah, I got rid of one of the "Cupboard" posts. Can't figure out what happened.

[travis]

I guess it bears repeating. Sending more troops to Iraq is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Period. This is not a realistic option. Bush will never send more troops to Iraq. It is not fruitful to debate the advantages and disadvantages of escalation, because it is not happening. Ever. This is a non-option.

[von]

By the bye, I didn't mean to entirely dismiss the notion of a draft in my update. My only point is the one that our readership has made: instituting a draft is unlikely to be popular, and may further erode support for the war.

[Anderson]

At what point will Bush realize he can win more political capital by distancing himself from Rumsfeld & Cheney on the war than by endorsing their every misstep?

[dmbeaster]

The most significant aspect of the speech is that Bush made it very clear that nothing about his Iraq policy is going to change. NOTHING

Which is why the linked article is rather silly -- Bush is not listening to any of these proposals, and now has a two year record of stubbornly rejecting all such advice. It is well past the time for sane people to be wringing their hands and hoping that Bush will come to his senses and implement at least some of their reasonable suggestions.

The admonition to act now is sadly pathetic. What you hope for and demand has no prospect of happening.

Who in the room votes that the current Bush strategy is working and will achieve meaningful policy goals? Is it just simply a matter of taking the time and spending the resources, and everything will be OK? If you find yourself not in accord with this Bush "plan," then the speech was a disaster in which Bush urges us all to hitch our wagons to his submarine -- we are all going down.

[travis]

Granted, the "impossibility" of large-scale escalation is mostly a matter of self-imposed political limitations and not physical limitations (although it is not likely that more troops are available, and getting and sustaining more troops would cost money and time that we don't have). However, just because our economy and population are big enough to support a massively increased effort in Iraq, doesn't mean this is worth considering as a realistic option. Bush has not asked for any real sacrifice on the part of the general public to support this war even at the limited level on which it was engaged, do we really think he has the inclination to start asking now?

I'm concerned that Americans will keep debating the abstract merits of massive escalation versus "staying the course," while the time for making real, feasible changes in our approach to Iraq slips away. The fact that the option that may seem "best" is unavailable does not excuse us from responsibility for the consequences of not doing something else.

[Dantheman]

dmbeaster,

Exactly. While it seems obvious to me, it bears repeating that we are not dealing with a President who will approach this situation dispassionately and choose the wisest course given the current situation. This is one who believes in staying the course long after the futility of such a direction is obvious to everyone else.

[vida]

The bottom line is that a democracy cannot wage war successfully without substantial public support. To have public support, there has to be a perceived threat to the country. Now that the WMD argument has fallen apart, Bush predictably falls back on the 9-11 tie-in to Iraq. Unfortunately for him, half the public now realizes that this is a lie, so war support falls.
A draft will not happen, and with an increasingly unpopular war, it would tear us apart. It would be Vietnam all over.
Bombing Syria and/or Iran may briefly increase popularity with the "patriot" crowd, but will also bring the anti-war movement into the street.
I suspect we are in a very painful holding pattern, possbily for several years. Then, when the Democrats take the Whitehouse back in '08, the Republicans can try to blame the disastrous pullout on them. If they can keep this up for 3 more years.

[Paul]

instituting a draft is unlikely to be popular, and may further erode support for the war

And if the people who begged for this war get tired of it, where will we be then?

By the time I encountered Cory Bray, a towering senior from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, the beer was flowing freely. "The people opposed to the war aren't putting their asses on the line," Bray boomed from beside the bar. Then why isn't he putting his ass on the line? "I'm not putting my ass on the line because I had the opportunity to go to the number-one business school in the country," he declared, his voice rising in defensive anger, "and I wasn't going to pass that up."--" Generation Chickenhawk," Max Blumenthal. The Nation.

I know that sounds impolite. But the question needs to be asked--not snarkily, but seriously--if so many people of service age believe so strongly in the President's policies, why are we even having a discussion about too few troops?

[dmbeaster]

But the question needs to be asked--not snarkily, but seriously--if so many people of service age believe so strongly in the President's policies, why are we even having a discussion about too few troops?

Probably because no one in charge of Iraq policy ever asks for any voluntary sacrafice in order to support the war, including urging enlistment (something else not mentioned by Bush in his speech).

Oh, they believe in forcing people to sacrafice (stop-loss, overuse of National Guard and reserve).

This has been a war fought on the premise that it will cost next to nothing, so why not? That illusion is still in place after multi-billions wasted and thousands of ruined lives.

[abb1]

They (or 'we' if you wish) can depopulate the Sunni areas without any troops, just by carpet bombings and napalm. And then Shia areas, if they protest and raise up, too. Same with Syria and Iran, it'll probably take a few nukes to do Iran. But then they ('we') will probably have to go to Southern Lebanon and, who knows, maybe China, maybe Russia, maybe France - because by that time those guys might be really unhappy; that'll be a bit tricker, but not at all impossible - if we really are ready to stay the course, to sacrifice whatever has to be sacrificed for the eventual peace on earth.

So, what does it have to do with the number of troops?

You don't need any troops, just a few (hundreds?) nukes. Why go thru the motions when the endgame is clear?

[st]

Following on to Barry's comment above, it really is telling the degree to which even those right-leaners who criticize the war seek to insulate Bush from any specific blame. The idea that if Bush just sat down man-to-man with his generals, cutting out those pesky middlemen, he would make the tough calls, is pure fantasy. It is wishful thinking, based on absolutely nothing but a desire to find a hero behind all that blundering and blood. Bush has never given anything that D. Rumsfeld has done anything less than a hearty a-f**king-men, up to (and absolutely including) last night's little show. Where does this faith come from? What evidence can anyone point to that Bush intends to do anything else than what he has done so far - back his lieutenants to the hilt, admit no error whatsoever, and smear his critics as defeatists?

Phew. With that said, Meyer ably debunks the canard that silence from the generals means they don't want more troops. And as for Syria, it's hard to deny that it would be a great thing if we could competently watch that border. Yup, a great and necessary thing.

[etc.]

The real problem here is one that was painfully apparent before the invasion. That is, the USA does not have enough troops and coalition support to successfully occupy Iraq. A back of the envelope series of calculations is that the number of troops in Iraq should be around 500,000, and that they should come from an active duty military establishment of around 1.5 million ground troops, and they will have to spend around a decade in Iraq.

Increasing the US Army to those kind of numbers is a project that would take 3-5 years, and would likely require something like 1 out of every 20 graduating high school seniors to enlist for a period of many years. Given the current recruiting numbers, it would likely mean conscription.

Since no one in the administration seems willing to anything remotely approaching this, the remaining options are to hang on, tread water, and pray for a miracle (which seems to be current policy), or go home.

[CharleyCarp]

You know, I have to say that I'm even more worried about guarding the Syrian border for people leaving Iraq. Not today, but as the counterinsurgency Iraqizes -- and it will, slowly -- eventually foreign fighters are going to decide there's no longer a battle worth fighting in Iraq, and they'll drfit home. Where they can put the advanced seminar in Urban Insurgency we've been offering into practice.

I can't think of any good excuses at all for the failure to completely close the borders. None. If we need more people, they ought to be trying to get them. No one is going to care three years from now how many schools got painted. A winning effort at the border -- the need for which could be seen by a blind man in the summer of 04 -- would have been paying dividends for half a year now.

The way forward seems clear enough to me -- Iraqi-ize protection of cities, even if you think local forces aren't really ready. Move Americans out of cities altogether, and get control of the borders, and the western deserts.

And I'd think maybe, to the extent possible, we stop fighting ex-Baathists and other Iraqis, and go just for the foreigners. We can't really prevent a low level civil war, but if our efforts are properly directed, we might be able to contain it to Iraq.

It's a dark vision, to be sure. But better than the loss that I think is at the end of the President's tunnel.

[CharleyCarp]

von, it's Belgravia. No 'n.'

[abb1]

The way forward seems clear enough to me -- Iraqi-ize protection of cities, even if you think local forces aren't really ready.

They tried it in Fallujah. Then they had to annihilate it. As soon as you Iraqi-ize a city (outside Kurdistan), it immediately becomes 'sanctuary for terrorists'.

[sidereal]

So is it 'Iraqification' or is it spelled 'Iraqization' as per 'Vietnamization'?

Just, you know, for future use.

[xanax]

Considering the dismal result of "Vietnamization," I vote: 'Iraqification.'

[von]

von, it's Belgravia. No 'n.'

Thanks, CharleyCarp. I'll fix it.

[bob mcmanus]

"Bottom line for me is that if we bring the troops home now, I"m rather convinced they'll be sent back over in a few years anyway"

F*** Bush. He is a woefully inadequate man.

Let us think about policy for 2009, and for the next fifty years. We did a pretty decent job of pacifying two major areas of the world after WWII, Europe and the Far East, that had had a history and great potential for conflict. We are still there, maintaining the peace, because the benefits outweigh the costs, because we have interests, because we don't want to wage a major ground war or edge toward a nuclear war.

What happens in the Middle East as the oil runs out? What happens as the economies collapse, and the oligarchies can no longer bribe enough of the populace?
How do the Arab people feel, as they live in third world economies with first world potential unrealized largely for political and cultural reasons, yet watch first world lifestyles on their satellite TV's? What ideologues and religious radicals will emerge?

Do y'all really believe, looking at Egypt, SA, Iran, Pakistan and the other 'stans, maybe even Turkey that you are leaving a more safe, secure world for your children & grandchildren? Or a slow-motion trainwreck, a divebomber heading for civilization?

It is going to be hard to pre-emptively make the move, especially as long as most of America believes that 9/11 was about bin Laden and KSM and maybe 20 other guys. When we decided to remake those other parts of the world, we had 50 million dead as evidence of the need. We have the opportunity to avoid that disaster.

And only America can or would do it. We don't want to wait until Egypt and SA and Pakistan start throwing nukes around to start building. We need a Cold-War size military with a cold war level committment. Of a different shape amd mission, not designed to cross the plains of Germany or do a Leyte Gulf, but to maintain peace in Basra or guard borders or protect and rebuild infrastructure. We need cops and spies and engineers and doctors and lawyers and nationbuilders. We need at least ten million.

Or we will do it in the next generation, after millions have died, including members of your children's families.

[Wally Hartshorn]

"give the orders to either take out the governments of Syria and Iran or to hit them with so much force that they quit playing footsie with al Queda and the Baathists"

I think that gives us all the clues we need about the quality of Mr. Meyer's advice. Next week: Putting out fire with gasoline and getting out of a hole by digging deeper.

[Barry]

bob, nice post. Do you have any facts to support it?

[Tim]

Bottom line for me is that if we bring the troops home now, I'm rather convinced they'll be sent back over in a few years anyway

Just a guess, but if we're into peak oil in the next 1-2 years probably not. Our military is pretty much structurally dependent on cheap oil, and gigs like Iraq are going to be impossible pretty soon.

[st]

tim - I'm not aware of any construction of the peak oil argument that predicts price spikes severe enough to render US military action impossible within the next generation, let alone 1-2 years. Prices go up? Sure. War more expensive? Sure. So expensive that the US gov't will abandon military action as an option rather than bear the cost? Errr.....no.

[st]

p.s. if oil ever does get so expensive as to actually endanger US military capabilities, "gigs like Iraq" (i.e. gigs that put oil wells under the control of US troops) will be more, rather than less, likely, I would imagine. But we ain't there yet, and won't be for a long time, even under the more aggressive peak oil models.

[bob mcmanus]

"bob, nice post. Do you have any facts to support it?"

Do your own googling. For instance on GDP per capita in Arab League Countries, compared with 25 & 50 years ago...down; compared with Far Eastern or South American countries...down.

Exactly what other sorts of facts or analyses are you looking for? The guys in the airplanes weren't from Sao Paolo or Rwanda or Cambodia, tho those are also economic problem areas. They were from Egypt and SA, which are unoccupied countries, which contradicts a newly popular "cause" of terrorism.

[Tim]

st, you could be right. However, I saw this on The Oil Drum today:

http://www.sprott.com/pdf/marketsataglance/06-20-2005.pdf

These guys are calculating an average 8% decline rate on existing wells vs what was thought to be 3-5%. This gives a half life of 9 years for all existing production. If peak oil is right around now and those decline rates are correct, big military expeditions like Iraq will be passe.
I think just the invasion phase of three months took 250 million gallons of gas and kerosene. If oil hits $150/bbl not only will giant military operations be enormously expensive, you might have a problem actually finding enough loose fuel without rationing.

[Gary Farber]

There are various reasons I've been taking time out from threads such as this here. One is that I like von, and that I don't enjoy saying unpleasant things about what he said. One is that I lost vast heart in argument at ObWings when I learned that a smart and fine fellow didn't even have a clue about politics of the Fifties (national and internation, specifically, "who lost China," pretty much the biggest fight of decades); I don't know how to respond to that, absent issuing book reading lists; absent such common ground, what hope?

I can't over-state this. If people don't know history, I don't know how to talk to them about what followed.

But on this thread, I venture this thought, before I moan: Von, Von, Von, Von.

There's just too much here to debate, admidst so much apparently necessary to introduce background info, that the effort seems not well spent.

Possibly I'm just depressed, to be sure.

[Barry]

bob, Africa isn't do so well. So what? You're dreaming up world wars out of nothing more than warblogger fantasies.

[McDuff]

"They were from Egypt and SA, which are unoccupied countries, which contradicts a newly popular "cause" of terrorism."

So... what are you saying here? That the Iraq war hasn't caused terrorism? That because terrorists have come from Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Iran, whch are unnoccupied, that our occupation in Iraq has not inflamed passions further?

Talk about a simplistic view...

[bob mcmanus]

Billmon

Billmon from Whiskey Bar on how best to lose the war. I think I disagree with most of it, but he raises good points and questions.

Lord I am glad he came back.

[hilzoy]

Well, I completely agree with von that it would be a good idea to sit down with the generals privately, assure them that they can speak freely, and ask them what they want. I also think, however, that that's unlikely to work. For one thing, this administration has been notably vindictive towards people who have said things it didn't want to hear. The generals are likely to think of Eric Shinseki and demur; if they don't, it will be sheer love of country, not trust that there will be no reprisals. For another, I agree with everyone who has said: if Rumsfeld has to leave the room for this little talk, he should also leave the Cabinet. But that won't happen. For a third, suppose they ask for more troops: where exactly will we get them? And finally, it's unclear to me that things can be turned around, at least by this administration.

Consider how much of a difference it would have made to seal off the borders at the outset. That would have been immensely important, especially if we had also guarded the weapons depots. But sealing off the borders would have meant two things: first, assuring Syria and Iran, in some credible way, that we were not coming for them next -- since as long as they think we are, they have every reason to keep us bogged down in Iraq for as long as possible. And second, actually negotiating with Iran and Syria, even if we loathe them.

This administration was never willing to do either of these things, because it was never willing to sit down and say to itself: we have to prioritize. Sure, we would like the regimes in Syria and Iran to change, but if we have to choose between that and winning in Iraq, which do we choose? The Bush administration never made that choice, any more than it has been willing to choose between confrontation and engagement with North Korea.

If they are willing to get real at this point, that would be great. But it may be too late. And in any case, I will believe that they are willing to make this kind of hard choice when I see it.

[bob mcmanus]

"They were from Egypt and SA, which are unoccupied countries, which contradicts a newly popular "cause" of terrorism."

"So... what are you saying here?"

A)I was talking about the 9/11 terrorists.

B) There is a meme (recent book?, sorry...check out praktike's site Liberals Against Terrorism, you might find it mentioned there) currently running around the blogosphere that terrorism arises from militarily occupied minority populations. Not only the Palestinians and if you want the Iraqis, butalso Lebanese under Syria, Northern Ireland, Basques, Chechnya, Tamils, etc. The idea of course being that the terrorism in Iraq will stop when we withdraw.

[bob mcmanus]

Oh. And one of the areas in which I disagree with Billmon is his idea of "reinforcing the flanks" after withdrawal. Since I believe the primary reason the insurgents carry on, have any hope at all is their external backing. Basically Arab Sunnis will not accept minority status and Shia control, for the first time in a umpteen years, of Baghdad. After our withdrawal, Syria and Jordan and especially Saudi Arabia will continue to support 4th generation warfare against the Shia majority until it collapses and another Sunni strongman takes charge.

Iran might bring an army across the border and help the Shia in some ethnic cleansing, but I doubt it.

[sidereal]

This is another casualty of the elevation of a tactic (terrorism) to an identifier. Terrorists are people who want to kill other people and don't mind or actively endorse non-combatants being killed. Other than that, they really have nothing in common. All of bob's examples are territorial disputes, and obviously the end of an occupation (or a declaration of independence) is the end of a territorial dispute, thus an end to conflict.

Iraq is obviously a complicated thing, and I'm sure a significant amount of the conflict is a territorial/occupation dispute. However, it's clear that a significant amount of it is not -- Sunni blowback, an influx of al Qaeda and other anti-West groups, revenge, opportunism as law breaks down, etc -- and simply leaving isn't going to end it. No matter bin Laden's pronouncements, even if we pack up the bases in Saudi Arabia, al Qaeda isn't going to turn to gardening.

[Anarch]

One is that I lost vast heart in argument at ObWings when I learned that a smart and fine fellow didn't even have a clue about politics of the Fifties... I can't over-state this. If people don't know history, I don't know how to talk to them about what followed.

Good grief, Gary. Give him the damn reading list (yes, I know who you're talking about -- I was one of the ones who responded) and the opportunity to learn. Give him, in other words, some credit. We're not all born or endowed with an innate knowledge of history; nor, sad to say, are we all endowed with an innate curiosity as to history; but that's no reason to simply throw up your hands in some kind of passive-aggressive snit-fit. It'd be one thing if your interlocutor had said that those things didn't happen or denied their relevance or importance, but he didn't; he admitted his ignorance and asked for some background, which is exactly the correct response and, need I remind you, is exactly the response which you yourself make on almost every occasion.

Bluntly: this "more in sorrow than in anger" shtick is egregiously misplaced, Gary. Lord knows there are plenty of reasons to be irked at ObWi, but this isn't even close to one of them.

[Anarch]

sidereal: This is another casualty of the elevation of a tactic (terrorism) to an identifier.

Amen. Which is another reason for my antipathy towards the name "War On Terrorism"; not merely that it's misnamed, pace von, but that its misnaming -- deliberately, IMO -- encourages this kind of mangled conceptualization.

[Gary Farber]

"Give him the damn reading list...."

Not what I signed up for. My mom and dad both had good security at the NYC Board of Ed (worked for her, but not for him, save for a long while). Yes, this is a cranky first response, and I'll consider a less cranky one later, Anarch.

I'm just like, sheesh, I have to teach a whole course on such-and-such to discuss X, and I can't even give grades? Or get anyone to admit they're in class, and I'm the prof? Not that I'm claiming credentials to be the prof, since I'm just this guy, not an actual academic, or claiming to have remotely the credits required. It's just that this starts to build up to an awful lot of required work stuff to just have a good discussion, not all of which provides clear rewards.

Really, it's a lot easier to expect people to have what I think is a basic grasp of recent history. Really, it's so much easier to give directives, rather than teach, you know?

But, okay, when we've all read Tuchman's Stilwell And The American Experience In China read, I'll get back to starting on that specific topic. I read it when I was 14, and I thought I was ignorant on the topic then. Nor would I recommend it as the best source since. I'd just put it forth as a good start at age 14.

I could otherwise just be cranky and depressed, but I'm trying not to stop there.

That might be a mistake, to be sure. Sometimes one needs to just let it go past. It certainly tends to avoid various arguments.

Hmm, a history reading group certainly attracts me in a way that Ogged's philosophy reading group doesn't in the slightest.

[Gary Farber]

Incidentally, Anarch, much as you are one of the folks I most respect around here, and they are many, "some kind of passive-aggressive snit-fit" and "this 'more in sorrow than in anger' shtick" don't encourage me to participate here. Whether they are my mere fits, or shticks, or yet dumber and passing reactions, or what, they're mine. They are, in fact, real. Actual reflections of my emotional reaction. If they're unwelcome, hey, okay.

[McDuff]

"There is a meme (recent book?, sorry...check out praktike's site Liberals Against Terrorism, you might find it mentioned there) currently running around the blogosphere that terrorism arises from militarily occupied minority populations."

Well, it frequently does. It doesn't mean that it's the only cause, nor that once you've caused it you can go backwards and uncause it again. I appreciate that you're not claiming the latter, but similarly you can't say that just because some terrorists come from non-occupied countries that occupation doesn't cause terrorism. That's just silly.

[Azbob]

Didn't we escalate somewhere else before getting our asses handed to? I forget, I was but a child then, but I still think like a child, and do childish things. When can I grow to be a man?

[Francis/Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

Gary: when you write the words: "I moan: Von, Von, Von, Von", you have to expect some comment from this crowd. I thought Anarch's response was pretty measured considering that what you wrote is dam [sic] insulting. Imagine the abuse you would have gotten had you posted the same comment at Unfogged; i'm pretty sure it would have been far more sexual and far less charitable.

As I read it, Anarch's comment was not intended to encourage you to comment here; it was intended to ensure that the quality of the debate here stays at a more rarified level than "I moan". Some emotional states are best left unshared.

[Gary Farber]

"Some emotional states are best left unshared."

Well, then, as long as people here act on that consistently, I shall be sure to do the same. Consistency might be best written into the posting rules, but regardless, I certainly don't feel I rate any exception.

[sidereal]

"Well, then, as long as people here act on that consistently, I shall be sure to do the same."

Well, you're certainly a better commentor than Saddam.

I kid.

Let's keep the standards high, except when I lapse and stab someone in the eye. Then I deserve your indulgence.

[Jackmormon]

I missed your presence here, Gary. Although from more of a spectator than an interlocutor, this sentiment might not be as, erm, valuable.

Speaking of spectacles, which thread prompted the departure? If everyone would prefer to protect the innocent/guilty, I'll understand...

[liberal japonicus]

I'm just like, sheesh, I have to teach a whole course on such-and-such to discuss X, and I can't even give grades? Or get anyone to admit they're in class, and I'm the prof? Not that I'm claiming credentials to be the prof, since I'm just this guy, not an actual academic, or claiming to have remotely the credits required. It's just that this starts to build up to an awful lot of required work stuff to just have a good discussion, not all of which provides clear rewards.

This is an interesting point. As an "academic", the worst part about the job is giving out grades. I'm a senior deshi at my aikido dojo and I also teach iaido, and that is tons more satisfying because it's not a question what grade I give, it is if you show up, I teach, and usually in the process, I figure out some things myself.

A neat passage from Heidegger that I particularly like.

...genuine learning is therefore an extremely peculiar taking, a taking where he who takes only takes what he basically already has. Teaching corresponds to this learning. Teaching is a giving, an offering; but what is offered in teaching is not the learnable, for the student is merely instructed to take for himself what he already has. If the student only takes over something that is offered he does not learn. He comes to learn only when he experiences what he takes as something he himself really already has. True learning occurs only where the taking of what one already has is a self-giving and is experienced as such. Teaching therefore does not mean anything else than to let the others learn, that is, to bring one another to learning. Teaching is more difficult than learning; for only he who can truly learn-and only as long as he can do it---can truly teach.

The genuine teacher differs from the pupil only in that he can learn better and that he more genuinely wants to learn. In all teaching, the teacher learns the most.

[Gary Farber]

Yes, very wise, but I'd rather refer to "who lost China?" and have people know what I'm talking about. I'm just lazy that way. Simple, even. I'm not claiming this makes me a more interesting contributer than Heidegger, as it happens.

[CaseyL]

Nobody lost China. I just haven't emptied the dishwasher yet.

(Thank you, thank you; I'll be here all week.)

[liberal japonicus]

Whoops. I didn't mean to have my comments taken as referring to anyone in general or you in particular. I did have a paragraph that I cut about how what really gets me mad is people who purposefully ignore information that is presented, in order to try and disambiguate things a bit, but, even though I can think of a few names, I didn't want to call anyone out. btw, I emailed the link to jackmormon because, again, I didn't want to call anyone out. My apologies, Gary.

[ral]

In all teaching, the teacher learns the most.

lj, what are we here for if not to learn? I have had occasion to express the idea (not original with me), "if you really want to learn something, try teaching it to someone else."

Thanks.

[Jesurgislac]

ral: lj, what are we here for if not to learn?

Precisely.

Sometimes when someone makes an obscure reference to some historical point that (probably) anyone who went to an American high school would know about, I google on it. Sometimes I ask. Either way, I learn something.

In another thread someone asked a question that made it clear she had no real notion of the gradual escalation of prison camps under the Nazis - from the earliest makeshift concentration camps to the horrific machinery of the death camps. I responded promptly, because this is an area of history about which I am tolerably well-informed: a quick google to make sure I was giving exactly right dates and to provide a link for further information was all that I needed. And, I have to say, with some pleasure, even given the unpleasant subject matter: it is frankly enjoyable, let's admit, to be able to pose, however briefly, as an expert, however limited the area of expertise. ;-)

Nobody can know everything. But, in a place like Obsidian Wings, I expect people to be able to ask "I don't get that reference, can you explain?" and at least get a link to a website that explains it, if not a brief explanation in the thread.

[Gary Farber]

"Sometimes when someone makes an obscure reference to some historical point that (probably) anyone who went to an American high school would know about, I google on it."

Myself, the last time I noticed someone making a point here about, say, concentration camps in Germany starting in 1933, I would have never expected anyone to learn that in a typical American high school. I could only wish. Not that I expect you had that in mind; since it was, gee, me; it was probably something else. (Although I can't help but think it's possible you were, in fact, precisely making such a point about, well, me; if I'm wrong, feel free to link to that other comment by someone else, Jes, and again pretend you, oh, never mind; this is a boring thing.)

But I do expect everyone here to have access to Google, yes. Just I expect that of me.

"Nobody can know everything. But, in a place like Obsidian Wings, I expect people to be able to ask 'I don't get that reference, can you explain?' and at least get a link to a website that explains it, if not a brief explanation in the thread."

I only expect people to hit Google first, but that's, again, me, and beside any other point. Google is good. I won't even get into how I became a verb.

[Bruce Baugh]

Gary, chill.

Things to remember:

1. There are more things worth knowing than time to learn them in.

1a. There are more important things, that materially affect the judgments we would make about current decisions, than time to learn them in.

2. The quality of teaching varies. Not everybody even learns that there is something to learn about a given subject. One can be taught excellently in some areas and poorly in others.

3. People retain different kinds of data differently. Some folks lose names more easily than others, and numbers, and every other kind of information.

4. There are more demands that we know this or that than there are worthwhile things to know.

Under these conditions, which will prevail as long as the information age does, the only sensible course of action is a courteous refresher and moving on.

[Gary Farber]

Bruce, those are fine things, and I take them terribly well coming from you.

[abb1]

...that terrorism arises from militarily occupied minority populations...

Terrorism arises from minority or majority of populations reaction to perceived gross injustice combined with perceived powerlessness.

Say some Egyptians and Saudis sympathize with, say, Palestinians or Iraqis. They feel there is no rational way to correct gross injustice they perceive as intolerable. They become terrorists. That's all.

Before the Iraq war and after - it's the same phenomenon, only there's much more perceived injustice/powerlessness now and thus more terrorism.

To end anti-American terrorism the US would have to stop providing significant support to Israeli, Saudi, Egyptian and other unpopular and violent governments and groups. That's all.

[hilzoy]

abb1: terrorism arises from a multitude of sources, like most things. Think of the Baader-Meinhof gang: I guess you might say that it arose from the thought that there was something horribly unjust afoot pus the thought that they could do nothing about it, but I think you'd also have to add: their own twisted psyches. If the mere thought, however bizarre and unrelated to reality, of an injustice one can't do anything about is enough to cause terrorism, then no mere change in our Middle East policy will prevent it. If, on the other hand, the thought has to bear some relation to reality, then I think your causal account is false.

[abb1]

Well, that's true and that's why I said 'perceived injustice'. However, I don't think perception that's totally bizarre and unrelated to reality can produce persistent long-lasting and significant wave of terrorism. Isolated incidents - sure, and there's nothing really you'll be able do about it. But I'm sure in most cases there are some very real underlying injusticies that have to be addressed.

[Phil]

Oh, for heaven's sake, Gary, the next time you confess to being uninformed on a topic and ask for more information, will you be fine with someone telling you it isn't his job to educate you and recommend you use Google? If so, fine, I guess I can't call you a hypocrite, but something tells me you'd use it as the opportunity for a lengthy exegesis on how unhelpful the person was being and on how painful it was for you to want to be involved but they weren't helping to meet you halfway and blah blah blah.

[Barry]

"abb1: terrorism arises from a multitude of sources, like most things. Think of the Baader-Meinhof gang: I guess you might say that it arose from the thought that there was something horribly unjust afoot pus the thought that they could do nothing about it, but I think you'd also have to add: their own twisted psyches. If the mere thought, however bizarre and unrelated to reality, of an injustice one can't do anything about is enough to cause terrorism, then no mere change in our Middle East policy will prevent it. If, on the other hand, the thought has to bear some relation to reality, then I think your causal account is false."

Posted by: hilzoy

But how many people did the BM gang plus the Red Brigades kill? Especially compared to, say, the Mafia in Italy? IIRC, those groups were noticeable because they operated in peaceful countries. In present-day Iraq, they'd be punk wannabe's.

[CharleyCarp]

Seems to me you've got two "arising from" questions to consider. First the terrorists themselves, in which case damaged psyches etc will be relevant. More important though, is the mindset of the large number of people who can either assist or thwart terrorism, passively or actively. For T to be anything for than a personal tragedy for its specific victims, you have to look at whether or not the T is part of a popular movement -- the Japanese subway passengers were just as dead as WTC office workers, but their society didn't feel the same kind of existential threat.

And I'll disagree with the notion, expressed above, that Egypt and SA are not occupied. This is the problem -- or one of the problems -- we're having with fundamentalist Islam. Occupation is not just military/civil control. There are people who feel 'occupied,' culturally, by the presence of McDonalds. Or of news about Michael Jackson (or that poor blonde girl in Aruba). I would say that there are a number of people in Egypt and SA who would say that they feel occupied by the West, and want to fight back -- or at the least feel 'secret joy'* when someone else does.

* That's a reference to late 70s/early 80s terrorism in Germany, actually to a specific incident. It doesn't seem to be on Google.

[nous_athanatos]

Charley-- Seems to me you've got two "arising from" questions to consider. First the terrorists themselves, in which case damaged psyches etc will be relevant. More important though, is the mindset of the large number of people who can either assist or thwart terrorism, passively or actively.

Also implicit in this are the downstream effects of trauma and violence. We know that war causes tremendous psychological damage for the civilian population within the war zone, and that these effects are most pronounced with the children. We also know that children who grow up in these sorts of environments are more likely to respond to pressure with violence (see the June 2000 issue of Scientific American). So from Northern Ireland to Algeria to the West Bank to Croatia to Iraq, prolonged violence will produce a second generation of violence.

What's wrong with these people? War and psychological trauma. Our military action, however well intentioned, is damaging an entire civilian population. Not that I blame the US entirely for this--we are only a reluctant half of the violence in Iraq--but the trauma we help cause will make it that much harder for Iraq to rebuild and will help create another generation of Iraqis more likely to seek a violent solution than a peaceful one.

[abb1]

Not just civilians and not just children. See Timothy McVeigh.

[Gary Farber]

"Oh, for heaven's sake, Gary, the next time you confess to being uninformed on a topic and ask for more information, will you be fine with someone telling you it isn't his job to educate you and recommend you use Google?"

Interestingly, or not, yes. But since I've put a few million words out there for Google, say I'm wrong.

The funny thing about having been posting this much for decades is that I can ask that: show me you're right, and I will apologize. It's a simple thing. Just do it. Show me a case, in all these years, when I scolded someone for asking me to look at Google, Phil. (This is actually not a new argument to me, as many others know.)

[Slartibartfast]

My $0.02, adjusted for inflation; not that anyone cares:

1) Gary's normally quite willing to point others to the source of learning, via Google or Amazon.com.

2) That said, things such as "who lost China?" still don't rise above the level of WTF for those lacking proper context, such as myself. Unless the answer is something like China lost China.

Fine, thanks. A bit of sunburn today; I neglected to apply much of the SPF 15 before taking the kids out to the beach to fly kites. I'm almost ready to be home.