Shrunk

by Eric Martin

As a general rule, when there's war, check in with the War Nerd.  He rarely disappoints for the simple reason that he loves his work.  Perhaps a bit too much.  I don't consult Brecher to find my moral bearings, for example. But you read up on wars with the War Nerds you have, and his lack of sentimentality has its advantages considering the subject matter:

...Most likely the Georgians just thought the Russians wouldn’t react. They were doing something they learned from Bush and Cheney: sticking to best-case scenarios, positive thinking. The Georgian plan was classic shock’n’awe with no hard, grown-up thinking about the long term. Their shiny new army would go in, zap the South Ossetians while they were on a peace hangover (the worst kind), and then…uh, they’d be welcomed as liberators? Sure, just like we were in Iraq. Man, you pay a price for believing in Bush. The Georgians did. They thought he’d help. And I just saw the little creep on TV, sitting in the stands watching the US-China basketball game. (Weird game—the Chinese were taller, muscled the boards inside but couldn’t shoot from outside. Not what you expect from foreign b-ball teams at all.) I didn’t even recognize Bush at first, just wondered why they kept doing close-ups of this guy who looked like Hank Hill’s legless dad up in the stands. Then they said it was the Prez. They talk about people “growing in office”; well, he shrunk.

And the more he shrinks, the more you pay for believing in him. The Georgians were naïve because they were so happy to get out from the Soviets [that they thought] the Russians’ old enemy, the US, must be paradise. So they did their apple-polishing best to be the perfect obedient little ally. Then we’d let them into NATO and carpet-bomb them with SUVs and ipods.

Their part of the deal was simple: they sent troops to Iraq. First a contingent of 850, then a surprisingly huge 2000 men. When you consider the population of Georgia is less than five million, that’s a lot of troops. In fact,  Georgia is the third-biggest contributor to the “Coalition of the Willing,” after the US and Britain.

You might be thinking, Wow, not a good time to have so many of your best troops in Iraq, huh? Well, that’s true and it goes for a lot of countries—like us, for instance—but at least we’re not facing a Russian invasion. The Georgians are so panicked they just announced they’re sending half their Iraqi force home, and could the USAF please give’em a lift?

We’ll probably give them a ride, but that’s about all we can do. We’ve already done plenty, not because we love Georgians but to counterbalance the Russian influence down where the new oil pipeline’s staked out. The biggest American aid project was the GTEP, “Georgia Train and Equip” project ($64 million). It featured 200 Special Forces instructors teaching fine Georgia boys all the lessons the US Army’s learned recently. Now here’s the joke—and military history is just one long series of mean jokes. We were stressing counterinsurgency skills: small-unit cohesion, marksmanship, intelligence. The idea was to keep Georgia safe from Chechens or other Muslim loonies infiltrating through the Pankisi Gorge in NE Georgia. And we did a good job. The Georgian Army pacified the Pankisi in classic Green-Beret style. The punch line is, the Georgians got so cocky from that success, and from their lovefest with the Bushies in DC, that they thought they could take on anybody. What they’re in the process of finding out is that a light-infantry CI force like the one we gave them isn’t much use when a gigantic Russian armored force has just rolled across your border.

The American military’s response so far has been all talk, and pretty damn stupid talk at that. A Pentagon spokes-thingy called Russia’s response “disproportionate.” What the Hell are they talking about? They’ve been watching too many cop shows. Cops have this doctrine of “minimum necessary force,” not that they actually operate that way unless there are video cameras around. Armies never, ever had that policy, because it’s a good way to get your troops killed needlessly. The whole idea in war is to fight as unfairly and disproportionately as possible. If you’ve got it, you use it...

If you want a translation, luckily I speak fluent Pentagon. So what “disproportionate” means is—well, imagine that you’re watching some little hanger-on who tags along with you get his ass whipped by a bully, and you say, “That’s inappropriate!” I mean, instead of actually helping him. That’s what “disproportionate” means from the Pentagon: “We’re not going to lift a finger to help you, but hey, we’re with you in spirit, little buddy!” [...]

The fretting and fussing and sky-is-falling crap about this war is going to die down fast, and the bottom line will be simple: the Georgians overplayed their hand and got slapped, and we caught a little of the follow-through, which is what happens when you waste your best troops—and Georgia’s, for that matter—on a dumb war in the wrong place. We detatched Kosovo from a Russian ally; they detached South Ossetia from an American ally. It’s a pawn exchange, if that. If it signals anything bigger, it’s the fact that the US is weaker than it was ten years ago and Russia is much, much stronger than it was in Yeltsin’s time. But anybody with sense knew all that already.

That would be everyone except John McCain, William Kristol, Ralph Peters, Robert Kagan, et al, who think that we're appeasing the once and former Stalin von Hitlerburg by not going to war with Russia in our present distracted and weakened state.  In other words, like Brecher said, anybody with sense.

Comments

[MeDrewNotYou]

What they’re in the process of finding out is that a light-infantry CI force like the one we gave them isn’t much use when a gigantic Russian armored force has just rolled across your border.

That statement concerns me. Am I mistaken in thinking that our current military is only trained in counter-insurgency? That is, if the Ruskies come storming over (and our troops weren't deployed every which way) would we be screwed? Its not that I'm worried about Russian tanks rolling through Iowa, but I certainly want a military that can stop giant army as well as fight insurgents.

Stalin von Hitlerburg

Worst. Dictator. Ever.

[John]

I find it difficult to respect anyone who would open a post in the following way:

There are three basic facts to keep in mind about the smokin’ little war in Ossetia:

1. The Georgians started it.
2. They lost.
3. What a beautiful little war!

For me, the most important is #3, the sheer beauty of the video clips that have already come out of this war. I’m in heaven right now.

That's just totally horrifying, if nothing else, for its total lack of self-awareness. Yuck, and no thanks.

[John]

Am I mistaken in thinking that our current military is only trained in counter-insurgency?

I believe you are mistaken in thinking that.

[Ugh]

Wait, wait, wait. You mean if I vote for Senator McCain, I'm not only guaranteed at least another few seasons of the hit t.v. show Dead Iraqis, but he promises produce a spinoff called Dead Russkies with an even bigger budget and more spectacular visual effects?

Sold!

[byrningman]

Stalin von Hitlerburg - classic.

It's probably very embarrassing for the Pentagon -- and had alarming implications for US-trained forces in Iraq -- that the Georgians seemed well up for it when all the expected to do was drive the rest of the Ossetians north of the border, but faced with a proper fight, turned tail ASAP. Not just that, they abandoned Gori (I've yet to see any evidence that Russian ground troops did advance on that city at all) and high-tailed it all the way back to Tbilisi, leaving thousands of their own citizens in their wake, who would have been defenseless in the face of the rapacious Russian army. Luckily for the Georgian people, the Russian army turned out to be not so nearly rapacious or aggressive as their own government claimed.

[KCinDC]

John, it goes along with his reaction to the word "disproportionate", which indicates he's not in favor of "just wars" but apparently just any wars.

[byrningman]

Really, if you parse the US government's statements over the past few days, "disproportionate", "no regime change" etc., it sorta translates to "for the love of God don't humiliate us too much, because then we'll have to strut and bluster to save some face, but in reality we really don't want to have worse relations with you."

[Eric Martin]

That's just totally horrifying, if nothing else, for its total lack of self-awareness. Yuck, and no thanks.

John, I can totally understand that. I read him because, for lack of better phrasing, he knows his sh*t. He is not partisan, he is not nationalistic, he does not choose sides. He is detached from any sentimental shading in that respect, so his analysis is, at times, quite insightful (he pinned the outcome of the Israeli/Hez conflict the moment it started. Ditto Somalia/Ethiopia).

But yeah, the War Nerd loves to read, write and observe wars. It's right their in the chosen moniker

He is also, sadly, not alone. There is a part of the human psyche that responds this way to war, and it has been a part of our psyche since we were first formed.

In that sense, his honesty reminds me of what many people are feeling but either won't admit it or recognize it. Which are important steps in breaking our addiction to, and unseemly affection for, war.

[Eric Martin]

John, it goes along with his reaction to the word "disproportionate", which indicates he's not in favor of "just wars" but apparently just any wars.

That, or he doesn't care to sugarcoat sh*t (pardon the double profanity in this thread).

If people were as honest about war as Brecher, we'd have a harder time selling it.

[American Public]

Which are important steps in breaking our addiction to, and unseemly affection for, war.
...
If people were as honest about war as Brecher, we'd have a harder time selling it.

You are NOT taking away my teevee shows.

[KCinDC]

I'm not sure that "honesty" of the "war is cool" variety is likely to lead to fewer wars than the "dishonesty" of saying that some wars might be necessary and trying to come up with criteria for when that might be true.

[Eric Martin]

I think by "honesty" I meant that Brecher is honest enough to point out that even in "just" wars, the combatants' purpose is to employ disproportionate force. That's what war is: seeking to use more, and better, force than your adversary.

History bears this out.

And yes, even more honest discussion about the fact that many people do find war cool would be a good thing (CNN's ratings sure go through the roof - though there is a point when war fatigue sets in).

Instead, we get all this preening and posturing about "last resorts" and "solemn decisions" when, in reality, for many it is no more sublime than "Suck. On. This."

I mean, Friedman was channeling a large faction of Americans with that.

But if people are confronted with this, and are made to recognize the inclinations, then we can have a more informed outlook. That's a plus in my book.

[Jason Williams]

Wait wait, are you saying John McCain, William Kristol et al have sense?

[KCinDC]

Possibly, but that reminds me of the idea that we could reduce support for the death penalty by televising executions. And you're right that we get plenty of "war is cool" on CNN and elsewhere.

[BrianA]

The War Nerd is a (hilarious) character used as a hook for an alt-weekly column. If the jokes aren't to your taste, don't let them get in the way of the analysis.

[John]

Not sugar-coating, and so forth, I'm all for. And I will admit to a certain interest in war as such, and in strategy and tactics, and so forth. I'd say there's nothing wrong with any of that. That being said, I think fascination with war ought to be tempered with realization that it's an awful thing, and at least with avoiding this kind of morally disgusting talk about how awesome it is that thousands of people are being killed.

I'll take your word for it that he knows what he's talking about (I haven't read much). But he's still distasteful, and distasteful in a way that really adds nothing to the post. What do the gratuitous comments about how "beautiful" this "little war" is add to anything? It just makes him look like a callous sociopath. Which, I suppose, he is.

[Eric Martin]

Possibly, but that reminds me of the idea that we could reduce support for the death penalty by televising executions

Well, there's a reason the Pentagon fights so hard to keep images of the war (the up-close kind) off the air.

I mean, they tried to censor a valuable surgery manual because it contained images of injured US soldiers. A manual that would have greatly helped the public by its release to emergency rooms and doctors throughout the country.

But, yeah, it depends on how its done and where.

And as BrianA pointed out, part of Brecher's schtick is just that...schtick.

[Eric Martin]

John, I would never say that you are wrong to have this reaction. More likely it is the right reaction.

It's a classic YMMV.

[Eric Martin]

Wait wait, are you saying John McCain, William Kristol et al have sense

No.

[KCinDC]

Fair enough, but I guess I'm just not seeing how the War Nerd is making people more sensitive to the amount of suffering war causes.

A problem with much of today's right wing is that it's indistinguishable from parody. That means things like the recent New Yorker cover, "Team America: World Police", and the War Nerd can be appreciated in very different ways by different audiences.

[Eric Martin]

Fair enough, but I guess I'm just not seeing how the War Nerd is making people more sensitive to the amount of suffering war causes.

That's not exactly what I meant. What I'm saying is that he reveals a side of our humanity that needs more honest expose. Once we can acknowledge our tendencies ala Teh Nerd, then we can begin to address war in a more honest way.

That is, let's not pretend that war is viewed as a negative by everybody. Even those that are not warmongers or profiteers.

It is not. It's the same way that "Suck. On. This." can be made into a constructive moment.

[Mrs. Holden McGroyen]

I never thought I'd live to see the day that the Russians invaded Georgia and we stood by and did nothing about it. Shame on all of us. The city of Savannah (not to mention Atlanta) is a national treasure AND it is certainly worthy of fighting for. I don't want to see a 3rd World War or anything, but as Americans I think it may be time to think about a strong reaction to this aggression. Putin is obviously still in charge in the politics of Moscow whether he has the title of President or not.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

The War Nerd says "the fretting and fussing and sky-is-falling crap about this war is going to die down fast."

I wonder if the War Nerd consulted the Ukraine, which may fear it is next on Putin's hit list.

Without taking pot shots at President Bush -- and, really, what does that accomplish at this point? -- Gerald Sieb observes in today's Wall Street Journal that this is more than "a beautiful little war."

Not when Putin heads up an oil-rich Russia in today's

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Not when Putin heads up an oil-rich Russia in today's New World Order.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Mrs. Holden McGroyen, I think Putin has just enervated Georgia -- and, to some degree, the United States.

[Eric Martin]

I wonder if the War Nerd consulted the Ukraine, which may fear it is next on Putin's hit list.

Put me squarely in the "Russia is not going to invade the Ukraine" camp. I'll go one further, other than maintaining its enclave of influence in South Ossetia, Russia will not look to occupy Georgia.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Eric, you have more faith in Putin than I.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"I'll go one further, other than maintaining its enclave of infuluence in South Ossetia, Russia will not look to occupy Georgia."

The same way we did not look to occupy Iraq, my friends.

[KCinDC]

Bedtime, Putin is smarter than Bush.

[Jeff]

Eric, you have more faith in Putin than I.

He looked into Putin's soul.

wrt Ukraine (no "The", right?), NATO, the UN, the EU etc need to start working on resolving the tension between East Ukraine and West Ukraine now. I don't think Russia will intercede militarilly, but that tension is likely to boil over, and soon, if something isn't done about it.

I'm not sure what needs to be done -- getting all parties to a conference to talk is an obvious starting point, just know that the time to act is now, while Georgia gives impetus to working out a solution.

[Turbulence]

The same way we did not look to occupy Iraq, my friends.

It seems that Putin's behavior demonstrate that he's significantly sharper than Bush. If Russia was planning to occupy Georgia, I'd expect them to advance to Tblisi and maybe hold it, which they don't seem to have done.

As I mentioned in the other thread, Ukraine has ten times the population of Georgia, ten times the land area, and twenty times the cash. And it is still not clear to me what Russia would gain from a rather costly assault on the Ukraine: Georgia at least had a pipeline of some significance. When Ukraine split, it had thousands of nukes in its possession. It voluntarily gave those back to Russia. Giving up a vast nuclear arsenal isn't the sort of thing one does without being very confident that a superpower invasion doesn't make sense.

[tomeck]

I'm still waiting for McCain to announce that we can't allow the Russian Army to stand on the Georgia-Florida boundary.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"He looked into Putin's soul."

Good one.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"Putin is smarter than Bush."

Can't argue that one.

At least when Bush looked into Putin's eyes he saw something.

Putin, one the other hand, saw . . . nothing.

[Eric Martin]

What turbo said.

[Anderson]

Thanks for the link -- I've bookmarked the guy.

But yeah, the War Nerd loves to read, write and observe wars.

Some people are hooked on war; many of them are soldiers, but not all. So long as we find military forces necessary, we should be grateful for this quality. (See Max Hastings, Warriors, passim.)

[rea]

even in "just" wars, the combatants' purpose is to employ disproportionate force.

We used to call this the Powell Doctrine, before Colin Powell made that too ironic.

[shah8]

I find john's attitude sanctimonious.

Every whitebread comfty white upper-class Westerner should read his "Massacres Paid Your Mortgage, Dude" essay...

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7819&IBLOCK_ID=35

He has also written a hell of a lot on just how freakin' FUBAR the people and the country who engage in war, everything from the "Well, *EVERY* European country was a fascist, militarist entity in both World War. That kind of "there are no good guys" analysis has a nasty tendency to be missing in reporting and analysis.

One of the thing that he *truly* does well, is to get you to sympathise with war participants, despite their violent attitude. He has most certainly written on the role of noncombatants in war as well--my favorite being the column about the Eastern Front in WWII.

[Donald Johnson]

Leaving aside the criticism of John, I tend to agree with shah8 at 7:29. (Right above me unless someone else is posting as I type.) Brecher may be offensive in some ways, but I much prefer reading his totally unsentimental columns over the smarmy hypocritical stuff one finds in most of the mainstream press, where one side is generally romanticized and the other demonized.

I also read the piece about the Sioux that shah8 linked and that was refreshing as well, not that I can vouch for the accuracy (I don't know enough about the Sioux or the Crow). But he's right--Americans used to demonize the Plains Indians and now the tendency is to romanticize them. I had a bad reaction myself to Dee Brown when I read other accounts of the Plains Wars. From a lefty viewpoint it does nobody any good to romanticize any side in any war, even if one does think one side is less guilty than the other.

[Gary Farber]

"Am I mistaken in thinking that our current military is only trained in counter-insurgency?"

Quite mistaken.

[Fledermaus]

but I much prefer reading his totally unsentimental columns over the smarmy hypocritical stuff one finds in most of the mainstream press, where one side is generally romanticized and the other demonized.

I do as well. The War Nerd may be an aquired taste like George Carlin or Bill Hicks - but his columns have always been enlightening. He really seems to have a solid grasp of the social causes and consequences of war. Indeed he has a better understanding of that than most of our foreign policy elities who dress up their war mongering with happy sounding platitudes.

Also his takedown of Victor Davis Hansen is a must read.

[liberal japonicus]

My personal War Nerd fave is Mr Big Unplugged