Posted on 09/21/2001 1:17:32 PM PDT by NovemberCharlie
What Happens Next? By Jesse Walker When the military prepares for action, the public debate is usually a simple either/or: Will there be peace, or will there be war? Not so now. Fresh from the bloody assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there are at least six choices before us, each with its own subgenres and mutant variations. None is perfect, and one is actually insane. But each is worth examining, if only to understand what people actually mean when they call for war, peace, or some other path they can't quite articulate. Here, then, are our choices, beginning with the least violent and ending with the most: 1. The Gandhi Option Some favor no military response to the attacks at all. In its flaky form, this position involves wishing really hard, perhaps while holding someone's hand, that hatred and violence will disappear from the world. Not every pacifist is so naive, though, and there is a more sophisticated case for military inaction. This argument points out that terrorists do not come from nowhere. They respond to particular policies of the country under attack. If, as the evidence suggests, the assault was masterminded by Osama bin Laden or his allies, then it may well be easier to adjust our foreign policy than to hunt down every terrorist in the Middle East, especially since that hunt might inspire yet more Middle Easterners to turn to terrorism. Wouldn't it make more sense just to stop these clumsy interventions into other people's battles? Why make ourselves a target for every tin-pot maniac in the Third World? A variation on this argument notes that many of our present foes--including Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein--were originally built up by the United States to fight the enemies of an earlier day. One can only wonder what our allies in a new war might do to us several years later. There are two problems with the Gandhi option. The first relates not so much to the position itself as to some of the people who have been advancing it. Obsessed with finding what "we" might have done to "deserve" this--as though anyone deserves to die this way--the hairshirt faction has conjured a list of sins far removed from anything that could have inspired the attacks. When the filmmaker Michael Moore speculated about the terrorists' motives, for example, his rambling ruminations touched on missile defense, America's withdrawal from the Durban conference on racism, and even our rejection of the Kyoto accords on global warming. Evidently, Moore believes that we are being attacked by European diplomats. In the real world, we are being attacked by a group that--judging from the fatwah issued by Osama bin Laden in 1998--objects to America's military presence in Saudi Arabia, to its sanctions against Iraq, and to its support for Israel. The point of reexamining U.S. foreign policy in the wake of the attacks is not to find everything about it that you might want to change, from Star Wars to Kyoto. It is to find the parts that might be putting us in danger, even if you've supported them until now. In the next few months, a lot of Israel's American supporters will be wrestling with a difficult choice: Israel's security, or their own? Many will choose the latter. The other problem with Gandhianism goes deeper. Watching the World Trade Center towers collapse last week, desperately aware that thousands of people were inside them, most Americans did not merely crave greater security. They wanted justice. If nothing is done to capture the people responsible for that atrocity, it will be hard to claim that justice has been done. 2. The Kojak Option And so we come to option two. A terrible crime has been committed. The immediate perps are now dead, but the conspirators behind them are alive and free. They may be plotting further, even worse assaults. We still aren't sure who they are or where they are, but we have some significant leads. So it's time for some expert policework, to track down and capture the people who did this. The advantage to this approach is that it meets the demand for a response while keeping that response targeted at the criminals. As such, it upholds justice in two ways: by meting it out to the murderers who killed 5,000 people in one day, and by refusing to replicate their crime by killing anyone unfortunate enough to live in the same country as the terrorists. There are two disadvantages. One of them I'll describe later, as it undermines the next two alternatives as well. The other is that, in tracking terrorists through the mountains of central Asia, it won't be easy to stick to all the legal niceties that policemen are supposed to observe. And if it comes down to letting the likely culprits escape or abandoning due process, most Americans will choose the latter. At the very least, they will say, let us consider response three: 3. The Bronson Option If we cannot be policemen, let us be vigilantes. We could still limit ourselves to hunting the perpetrators, taking care to leave innocent civilians out of the fight. But we won't have to prove their guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, we could combine the goals of a policeman with rules more akin to those of war. (Some If a foreign government turns out to be involved in plotting the attack, then it isn't merely the rules of war that might be invoked. A violent attack on the U.S. by another state would land us in response four: 4. The Bugs Bunny Option This one's named for the great American who, when attacked, routinely remarks, "Of course you realize this means war." This would be a limited war, aimed not at "rooting out terrorism" but at treating those terrorists who are affiliated with foreign governments the same as those who are independent agents. As with Bronsonism and Kojakism, it limits its fire to the conspirators and their henchmen, leaving civilians spared. If you're looking to bomb cities or occupy Afghanistan, you'll have to go well beyond Bugs. These last three responses share a problem. If the Gandhi option addresses the question of security while leaving justice undone, the others aim for justice but leave us insecure. Arrest or kill Osama bin Laden, and his lieutenants will take over his war. Capture them, and other branches of his very loose network will step into the breach. Bring down a government, and heaven knows what might take its place. And that brings us to the biggest decision. Do we defend ourselves against this attack, whatever that entails, and then withdraw from the Middle East, fusing a rigorous and vigorous self-defense with non-intervention in other nations' affairs? Or do we dig in for a long fight against the social landscape of the Mideast? Do we, in the words of The New York Times' 5. The Caesar Option If you prefer this alternative--if you favor a • The war will not merely be long. It will be perpetual. We will not be fighting an army, after all, but a tactic--terrorism--that can be adopted by small cells anywhere in the world. More: We will be fighting a mindset, one which will probably be inflamed still further by the battle against it. We will never know when the war is over, or when we're finally safe. Innocent civilians will die--not just abroad, but here (as if we needed to be reminded) in America. • The U.S. will become a garrison state. When you're fighting a perpetual war against an enemy that operates without borders, citizens will become suspects. Privacy, due process, freedom of association, and freedom of movement will be curtailed. Given politicians' predilections, the same fate will likely befall free speech and the right to bear arms. • Whatever authoritarian measures afflict us domestically will be meted out several times over to states abroad, since that will be where most of the actual terrorists live. Dictatorship, of course, is nothing new in the Middle East. But now the governments will be answering to the United States, which can scarcely trust the Taliban to do its terrorist-hunting for it. America will have to act forthrightly as an empire. In short, the Caesar option will probably fail to bring us security or justice. The only way around this would be not just to dominate the potential terrorists of the Middle East, but to wipe them out. Incredibly, there are those who are proposing just this. 6. The Strangelove Option Not long after the attacks, Sam Donaldson asked the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, whether we can "rule out" the use of nuclear weapons. He received this "We have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since, what, 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible." "I'll have to think about your answer," said Donaldson. "I don't think the answer was no." "The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years," replied Rumsfeld. "And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism." Where Rumsfeld weasels, others step boldly. "At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilities should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan," Maybe they're just bluffing. Maybe they're just trying to convince the world that Americans are batshit crazy when we're mad, and that the terrorists damn well better be scared. The trouble is, they're scaring me too. * * * So which path do we take? I've long opposed American intervention abroad. Self-defense, however, is an entirely different matter. Obviously, the Kojak model is ideal, but I can live with Bronson or Bugs. The important point is to aim our fire at the murderers, not at civilians or at anyone who merely happens to be a usual suspect--and to limit ourselves to a well-defined mission, rather than a vague, all-encompassing "war on terrorism." The Caesar option would lead to further tragedy; the Strangelove path, to utter disaster. At the same time, we will have to take a hard look at what the pacifists are saying, even if we reject absolute nonviolence. Do we really want to defend a fundamentalist dictatorship in Saudi Arabia? Do we really need to maintain Never before has America's involvement in the Mideast's tribal politics seemed more foolhardy. Now that we're stuck in this tarbaby, we're going to have to fight our way out. But we should think twice before punching any more tarbabies down the road. Jesse Walker (jwalker@reason.com) is an associate editor of REASON and the author of Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America (NYU Press) |
I think this rather well sums it up....no matter which option we choose, the batshit crazy when mad analogy is apt. I sure as hell fit into that niche. One thing we should do is to curtail foreign aid to the Middle East. We have bought nothing but trouble for the last 50 years; no one in the region "likes" us, and the money has never ended up in the hands of people who needed it. Might as well keep it in our own pockets.
I don't doubt that our support for their sworn enemy, Israel, provides a final spark, but this strikes me as a clash of cultures first, and a policy position second.
Oh yeah, I meant to repeat that - GREAT LINE!!
Besides, I had to reply to a "45Auto", y'know.
Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a different perspective and I think you should hear it. This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers. Let me briefly explain.
In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the formidable Japanese in the years following WW II.
These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated "the moral is to the physical as three is to one." Patton thought the Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing - better said anxious -- to give their lives for their cause. How committed are we America? And for how long? In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in the good ol' U.S.of A. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must not fear them.
In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only "superpower" (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent"counter-terrorist" organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional "body snatch," (which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the lives of everyday citizens. Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mission on multiple f! oreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out.
For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear "centers of gravity" to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves board the hijacked aircraft -- this will be a knife fight, and it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs. We must also be patient with our military leaders.
Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned. Although we hope that Osama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks, but also less audacious "sand in the gears" tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities. These attacks are designed to hit us in our "comfort zone" forcing the average American to "pay more and play less" and eventually eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let it.
It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order. Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our mistakes, improvise, and adapt.! If we can do that, we will eventually prevail.
Everyone I've talked to In the past few days has shared a common frustration, saying in one form or another "I just wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your President and military, and the outcome is certain. If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain.
God Bless America!
Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret) Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy
Ha, Ha: so don't fight terrorism!
This is an idiot beyond exception.
His thesis is that terrorists are the masters of civilization, they own our lives and the lives of our children.
And from that starting point he "analyzes" options.
His sneering charcterization of the "Caesar option" is yet, in his own essay, proven the only sensible one.
This so-called "Caesar option" forces every other nation to support us - or not. The terrorists will no longer be able to threaten other countries for assistance, those countries will have to set the threats of the terrorists against ours.
Blackmail and assassination are the powers of the terrorists- not ideology.
It also, by the way, gives a very clear guide to future foriegn policy, and enforces upon us less options for causing trouble to others in affairs not connected to terrorism (which is most foreign policy).
The bugs option is a good one and the one GW Bush explicitly has stated. Tactical nukes may be necessary in some cases, (although fuel air bombs sound like a good substitute). Such heavy weapons would only be necessary against hardened targets in isolated areas. I see the scenario being more likely special ops attacks on camps here and there, coordinated with air strikes.
The "nuke 'em till they glow" advocates do have a point--such an action, even a single nuke or fuel air bomb, would strike fear into the hearts of all nations that harbor terrorists. They would see that we REALLY mean business.
The moral aspect of any war is what troubles me. I have been speaking of what works in a godless world. However God, in Jesus Christ, explicitly says "love your enemy, do good to those who hate you". Matthew 5 Later, Paul says in Romans, "Do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good." There is a natural desire for vengeance, but God says, "Vengeance is mine--I will repay."
I have been wrestling with "What would Jesus do?" He would help the sick and injured. He would be with the grieving. I am certain a Christian nation would trust God to fight their battles, rather than chance killing an innocent person. But this is not, generally speaking, a Christian nation. It does not, as a policy, trust God and seek His counsel.
I know there are good Christians who disagree with me. C.S. Lewis felt it was just to fight against evil nations. Certainly these terrorist qualify as evil. I, a conscientious objector, would be willing to execute those responsible for the NYC and Pentagon crashes. But their evil and these arguments do not override Jesus' words--"Love your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you."
While we would be foolish to assume that we won't continue to receive more of the same type of assault we've already received, it would likewise be folly to anticipate nothing but "more of the same." That would be tantamount to a Civil War syle "line of fire" direct frontal assault, and out of character for the type of enemy we've got.
So, what do we know?
Well, in the broadest sense, we know that the enemy wants to destroy us. And, we know that they favor assymetrical warfare tactics. That means "different" tactics that leverage their weakness against our strength.
So, instead of "bigger and badder" airplane attacks, we should be on the lookout for attacks against our water supplies, transportation infrastructure (rail, tunnels, bridges, etc.) and so forth.
But those are still "mere" tactics. Let's speculate for a moment on some potential strategy scenarios.
GWB has become a statesman overnight, and a grand statesman at that, made of the same stuff as Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.
Thus, the enemy can be expected to do anything and everything to humiliate the President, in order to demoralize the nation's will to fight.
Is this possible? Are there any factors that would give them the ability to humiliate the man who has united the nation like no one in its history has ever united us?
Yes. And its frighteningly realizable for them, and as obvious as it should be to us, it's even more obvious to them -- and I believe they've had this strategy up their sleeve since prior to the events of last week.
One of the key points of Bush's speech is the loyalty and friendship of Arabs and Muslims living in the US, and in other countries. I'm going to focus my analysis on those living in this country, because I believe that's what the enemy will be focusing on too.
To paraphrase the administration's position, we are not to indulge in any fear, distrust, or suspicion of our "friends and neigbors" of Arabic extraction or the Muslim religion.
The basis for this sentiment is the idea that the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims living in the US are patriotic, loyal Americans, no different from any other American.
The problem is that no matter how many Arab/Muslim people pose no threat whatsoever, the government has already uncovered the existence of a fifth column.
It's one thing to walk down a crowded street of strangers. It's something entirely different to walk down a crowded street of strangers, and know that among the thousands of people minding their business, peacefully going about their lives, there is one individual in the crowd -- indistinguishable from any other person on the street -- who will kill you if he can get the drop on you, and then quickly blend back in with the crowd.
This is not racism, this is not bigotry, this is not paranoia. This is how wars are fought.
The enemy knows that the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims in America are not his friends, and would do nothing to further his cause.
So, what can we expect?
If the enemy is planning on this strategy -- which I fully believe he has been from the start -- we can expect him to do things that will create a situation in which it becomes impossible to trust our "friends and neighbors."
All the enemy has to do is begin an overt "call up" of fifth column sleepers. And I'm not talking about "those folks who moved in last year, but kept to themselves."
I'm talking about sleeper agents who were actively engaged in social and commercial activities with the non-Arab/non-Muslim world.
When that happens, instead of hearing stuff like, "they seemed kinda strange, always kept to themselves, I always wondered about them," we'll be hearing words blurted out in abject terror. Words like, "My God, I thought he was my best friend! We worked together, played together, had each other over for dinner, he was the last one I'd ever suspect of anything like that!"
When that happens, the President's request will ring hollow. Those who accepted it, who took it to heart, will feel not just disappointed, confused, and wounded -- they'll feel betrayed.
And once that feeling of betrayal takes root, it will become difficult, if not impossible for Bush to lead the nation where it must be lead in time of war.
This, I fear, is what's being planned as we speak. I hope and pray that GW and his advisors are ahead of us on this, and have anticipated it from the start, and have a "Plan B" to roll out when it happens.
And by the same token, I hope that it is something other than a domestic "iron fist", which is something that we can realistically expect to happen in any other country under similar circumstances.
These really are the times that try mens souls.
It is not.
There are Arab countries where we have virtually no influence whatsoever and they are the ones which are the major source of terrorism. If American foreign policy were to blame, then places like Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria would be Islamic paradise. Instead, they are hellholes where individual human rights are completely crushed.
It is not our foreign policy. It is our very existence which is objected to by these Islamic fundamentalists.
There is nothing we could do to appease them short of voluntarily killing ourselves.
We have only one option. We must kill or crush those who teach this hateful ideology. The tactics of how to accomplish that are very much subject for debate. But the reason for the mission has to be understood. The left, with their typical "hate America first" mentality, is wrong again, as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.