<"There is only a finite number of people fanatical enough to persist with suicidal tactics, and, of course, each explosion reduces the number, so waging a war of attrition against terrorists can work in the long run."
Yeah, that's why we won in Vietnam, LOL. Try this rewrite on for size: There is only a finite number of people fanatical enough to persist with a pointless occupation, and, of course, each explosion reduces the number, so waging a war of attrition against the US occupier in Iraq can work in the long run.>
On a purely attrition basis, the USA conquerors are bound to lose. There are umpty million Moslems in the area, with convenient access to Iraq. Since that'll be the focal point of jihad [other than Israel] I suppose there'll be a constant increase in confrontation.
150,000 occupiers can't suppress 100 times as many people in the region who have strong ideological and theocratic differences with the occupiers. Not without continuing strife anyway.
But neither is it in the interests of the locals to have ongoing mayhem. So the ethical dimension becomes the key.
The militaristic dominance hierarchy way of thinking avoids ethics, morals, kindness, respect, love, law and that sort of stuff and goes for logistics, morale, firepower, costs, benefits, pummeling, etc ... a calculus of confiscation and dominance. <Re: "In general, it is not just who can pummel whom the most, but the whole calculus of costs and benefits, and questions like morale, that determine the outcome."
This is true, but the problem is that our morale is worse than theirs. We're fighting for their hearts and minds (supposedly). They're fighting for their homes, hearts and minds.>
The occupiers' morale is fragile because they are fighting for survival without a clear ethical framework for what they are doing. They have been misled or don't understand just what they are trying to achieve. Even the bosses seem bewildered. One minute they are after BigFoot and Yeti, then on finding neither of those, they are a bit perplexed about just what the heck they are trying to achieve.
With the locals shooting back all too often, it's clear to the occupation troops that all is not peace, light, harmony, happiness, health, prosperity, longevity, fun and love just because Saddam's on the lam, his sons are dead and the deck of cards is mostly imprisoned.
The way to the good times is to rev up the UN and get it firing on all cylinders. Talking ethics, law, morals, respect and all that soft stuff is the key to success. Without it, raw power and eons-old dog eat dog rules will be the order of the day - the USA will have to stay fairly gory to stay in power. I doubt they have the stomach for it, especially as they'll be experiencing a fair bit of gore among their own troops and supporters.
Meanwhile, an election is looming next year. The voters will decide whether they want jingoistic jihad to bring it on in Iraq. Now that BigFoot has gone missing with the yellowcake, leaving only depleted uranium, I suppose a lot of Americans are less clear on what is being achieved in Iraq and they don't want their sons and daughters going home in body bags without good reason. Very, very, very good reason.
Mqurice |
