So, how did we manage to eventually win, in spite of this string of military defeats?
Leaving aside the dubious example of the Nazi WW2 attack on Russia as part of "our" fight against the Communists - the Russians were our allies at the time and we armed them and fought the nazis on a Western front - and leaving aside the equally dubious characterization of the Communist defeat in Greece and Malaya as "minor," and the non-mention of large numbers of Ukranians and others who joined the Nazi armies to fight the Bolsheviks who had enslaved them, in fact, the West had quite a number of military gains in proxy wars against the Soviets throughout S America and Africa. Quite a lot of communists who "wrapped themselves in the flag of nationalism" were defeated.
The U.S. poured vast amounts of money and weapons into the Nationalist Chinese cause, but they too lost, and another large territory went Communist.
Unfortunately the the anti-communists lost the civil war but not because they were not also wrapped in the flag of nationalism. To say otherwise is absurd. In any case, it would have been unconscionable not to support Chiang Kai-shek. He was, after all, on the right side and he might have won.
The hasty characterization of the US's Vietnam involvement as an utter failure doesn't stand up to a strategic view. It certainly was seen as beneficial by the governments of Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Australia. In fact the US's Vietnam activity did stop the southern spread of Communism because it gave the first three countries time to kill an awful lot Commnunists and create alternatives to Communism.
The Korean war was not a huge success but neither was it just a stalemate, the N Korean invaders and their Chinese allies were thrown out of the South. The N Korean example, by the way, contradicts your argument - despite the the great success and modernization of S Korea, the North remains captive to a second generation dictator who despite the parlous state of his country and citizens, may well remain in power for many years and remain a great threat to the freedom and security of S Korea. By the way, N Korean communists may have wrapped themselves in Nationalism but this did not cause the southerners to turn on the US and other forces there.
The Communist empire was not defeated only by its economic and political incompetence but also by aggressive military activity in addition to the static but aggressive military posture around its periphery.
The Russians actually weren't doing badly in Afghanistan until they allowed their ideological propensities to get the better of pragmatism. Once this happened the US and its Pakistani and Saudi allies could enter on the side of Nationalism.
Islamism is badly equated with communism. It has much greater affinities with Facism and Naziism, which were defeated by miltary battle. Its utter rejection of modernity, and mystical approach to politics stands in some contrast to communism which claimed to be a scientific replacement of the society which arose out of the enlightenment. Like those of fascists and nazis, the leaders of islamism are far more heedless of reality.
We created societies with much more wealth and freedom than what the Communists could achieve. That's all we had to do, to achieve total victory.
The communist ideology was materialist (they claimed) and communist leaders lied constantly to their subjects about how far ahead of the West they were. In contrast, islamist extremists have contempt for our wealth and freedom - they say we are soft, jew loving sodomites that need converting or exterminating - they aren't interested in competing with us in the standard of living sweepstakes. Their nostalgic goal is to return the world to the state it was in 1400 years ago.
Communism was destroyed from within, by reform and non-violent protest, because the capitalist democracies provided a better example than Stalin and Mao
You persist in saying this despite all evidence the Soviet and Chinese communists lost out due to their utter incompetence - it's not possible to direct modern societies and economies, the're too complex - but, nonetheless, their orders were obeyed and their reforms were disastrous and non-violent protest had little or nothing to do with their failure (which was accelerated at the end by corruption and cynicism - although I suppose that could count as non-violent protest).
The changes and successful protest in the Soviet bloc came after the collapse and the outrageous failure of the Chinese reforms led the Party to abandon the old ideology for fear of violent uprising.
What the Western democracies provided was the only successful examples for running modern societies but, even so, there is great reluctance on the part of the rulers of Russia and China to adopt it completely.
Our good example convinced the E. German and Soviet armies to disobey orders to fire on the pro-democracy demonstrators in 1989-1991.
The two cases aren't at all similar. The Russian army did not want to participate in a communist coup. The government had disowned the Party and the army certainly was not going to return to the Party's hated captivity. The collapse of the Russian Soviet removed the guarantee of super power support for the East German satrapy - no Soviet tanks were going to move in Berlin to support of the Stasi-state which had previously been bailed out by Moscow.
This is how we are going to defeat Islamism, as well.
Before or after - following the Afghan and Iranian model - they make how many more failed states even less inhabitable and export even more terrorism?
The winning strategy is:
1. provide a good example
2. a purely defensive military posture
3. don't get on the wrong side of nationalist wars
4. a global Marshall Plan and HeartsAndMinds campaign.
1.We are what we are, and because we're modern, we are a good example. This is exactly what the islamists object to. They don't want us going about the world being modern, that's why they violently attack us and kill modern people wherever they can get away with it. Same as the commies did, and we killed lots of them - first - which brings up your next point:
2.A purely defensive military posture is absurd and flys in the face of all successful military doctrine. The West's and particularly the US's military posture during the Cold War - which is your successful example of defeating ideological powers, but not the only one - was far from purely defensive: the proxy wars were not; star wars project was not; the continued new weapons programs were/are not. Our rivals and enemies certainly didn't regard them as defensive.
3.The "wrong side of nationalist wars." I'm assuming here you mean Vietnam and Iraq. Vietnam was a tactical defeat both there and in the US, and a strategic win as mentioned above - communism did not spread further South. It's not yet clear, despite all that's been said here and elsewhere that the US has stepped into a nationalist war - it has stepped into die hard resistance by people who, if the US is successful, will stand in a gibbet for their crimes against the Iraq citizens - such resistance is highly motivated. That you say it's a nationalist war don't make it so. That you say such people are patriots don't make them so in the eyes of the vast majority of Shiites and Kurds.
4. A "Global Marshall Plan" The Marshall Plan was conceived and applied to rebuild the industry of post war Europe much of which, particularly Germany, had been devastated by war with totalitarian powers that had been utterly defeated. The US dictated the terms for receiving such aid to the defeated and the terms to them did not include "social programs". Most of the world's countries which have lately been devastated were laid waste by the very people who still control them, as, for instance, in most of the Middle East and Africa. These people are kleptocrats, if not dictatorial creepoids. In what manner would such a plan as you propose be any better than the present aid programs subject to adoption of democratic forms and free markets, such as the US is now offering?
A "Hearts and Minds" campaign. If such a campaign goes beyond mere talk and actually has useful, helpful components for the recipents, do you expect to see those who deliver it remain unmolested and unmurdered by the Islamists? They certainly are driving away and murdering such folk right now.
Your historical description does not support your theory.
It's obvious that success combatting Islamist extremists can not rest entirely on military activity. But it's also very clear, given their policy of murdering modern folk every place they can get away with it, that a "purely defensive posture" towards them is not going to work. |
