I was going to name this post "Between Iraq and a hard place" , but after Google'ing the phrase, it was obvious that it was neither new nor unique nor original, with usage dating back at least to a 2003 TV special. So much for original thought.
In the American Revolution, it was the British who were perplexed with "unconventional warfare". They were used to marching along in nice, neat columns. Stopping, fixing, kneeling, and firing in complete, formal order according to their squad leaders shouted commands. Then came along these weird colonists who didn't obey the "rules of war". They hid in the bushes, and fired from the brush and ran away before the mighty British army could kill them. How dare they!
Well now it's our turn. Middle-east terrorists, knowlingly or not, have taken a page from history and turned it against us. They don't obey our "rules of war". They don't have a country to attack or levy sanctions against. We cannot use diplomacy; they have no diplomats. We can lay waste to vast areas of land; killing hundreds, destroying people, buildings, land, and resources on a massive scale. This can be done, but at a phenominal cost to us which is very difficult to sustain. And yet, all it takes is ONE LONE PERSON to strap a home-made bomb (IED, or "improvised explosive device") to their body and walk into a populated area, and set it off. And they have won. At least according to the newspapers, who amplify everything the terrorists do a hundred-fold, while seemingly diluting the American military effect at the same time.
This activity is not sustainable. Over time, we will exhaust our vast resources, drain our reserves, and impoverish our own people. And, even then, all it will take is ONE LONE PERSON, with one IED, to put us all back in the losing column. Problem is: THEY KNOW THAT. They, the terrorists, feel that no matter what we do, they can always get ONE LONE PERSON to kill some civilians and then they can claim victory.
We need to alter this "asymmetric warfare" scenario. But how? Although a noble concept which I happen to agree with, the Bush effort to democratize the middle east seems at best horribly expensive and costly in terms of American lives and resources. We are essentially trying to make their country look like ours, so we can use our "rules" to win the contest. That's like going into a football game, and saying "you know, I don't much like football, how about we play basketball instead?" (Because I know I can win at basketball, and I really suck at football). Again, nice idea, but pretty difficult to achieve.
Can we learn from history? What did the British do? Although historical reference does not usually directly translate into modern-day strategies, let's consider it for one moment. The British expended tremendous resources, over many years, with essentially an occupation spanning much of what is now the North American east coast. They were essentially engaging in nation building, trying to get the colonists to act like they were back in England. But it did not work. And those folks CAME from England!!
So what happened in the end? The British LEFT.
This time, we are the British. Perhaps we should leave too. We can spend the same money and resources, but instead of occupation and nation building, we can spend it on homeland security, better intelligence, rebuilding America, strong border defence/interdiction, and new technologies that will make us energy independent.
Will it work? Who knows. But I'm not sure the result would be worse than what we have now.
20060712
Condolences for the latest Big Dig victim...and the rest of us.
Sadly, the endless series of blunders, budget overruns, and downright criminal activity have resulted in the ultimate injury - death. Earlier this week, a portion of the Ted William's tunnel came loose from its supports and collapsed, killing a female occupant of a passing car.
This is of course the worst possible tragedy, and nothing can be said to make it better. The only hope is that this serves as the final impetus for the hopelessly incompetent management of the Big Dig project to finally own up to what everybody in Boston has known for years: that the Big Dig is a fiasco. Not only has it served to scoop up billions in taxpayer dollars and shove them into the pockets of corrupt people all down the line, it has created an unnatural disaster unparalleled in our time. We will have to live with the ramifications of this testament to beaurocratic incompetence for decades. That is, if we are lucky. Some of us will not have to live with it...we'll simply be dead.
Forget Enron. Forget suing companies like Microsoft. It is the people who slither though life, adding absolutely no value, stealing people's money and, tragically, their very lives, that we need to finally cease to tolerate. The products of their actions are infamous. The largest benefit to society would accrue if we simply said "enough". We will no longer tolerate this. Spend what's left of our tax dollars not on bridges to knowwhere, not on subsidies to thriving business, but rather on enacting laws that stipulate the harshest possible penalties to be extracted on these unscroupulous vermen of our society.
We can all live with that.
This is of course the worst possible tragedy, and nothing can be said to make it better. The only hope is that this serves as the final impetus for the hopelessly incompetent management of the Big Dig project to finally own up to what everybody in Boston has known for years: that the Big Dig is a fiasco. Not only has it served to scoop up billions in taxpayer dollars and shove them into the pockets of corrupt people all down the line, it has created an unnatural disaster unparalleled in our time. We will have to live with the ramifications of this testament to beaurocratic incompetence for decades. That is, if we are lucky. Some of us will not have to live with it...we'll simply be dead.
Forget Enron. Forget suing companies like Microsoft. It is the people who slither though life, adding absolutely no value, stealing people's money and, tragically, their very lives, that we need to finally cease to tolerate. The products of their actions are infamous. The largest benefit to society would accrue if we simply said "enough". We will no longer tolerate this. Spend what's left of our tax dollars not on bridges to knowwhere, not on subsidies to thriving business, but rather on enacting laws that stipulate the harshest possible penalties to be extracted on these unscroupulous vermen of our society.
We can all live with that.
20060710
Will we never learn?
I guess it's human nature...someone "gets in your face" and then you feel the need to "show them who's boss". Call it Sabre Rattling, or what you want. We don't ever seem to learn that this stuff will always occur when people interact. Get enough people, put them together, and you inevitably get conflict. That's exactly what's happening with North Korea right now. From our point of view, the leader of N. Korea is crazy, evil, etc., and we are... "righteous". Perhaps so, but I can't help thinking that characterizing our enemy/opponent on the world stage as nuts makes it all too easy. I suspect reality is somewhere in between. For whenever we start painting with a broad brush our opposition, essentially making them 2-dimensional, we sow the seeds of an impasse. Let's face it, if we are righteous, and he is nuts, where do we go from there?
One of the main problems the United States has with foreign policy is that our positions/viewpoints are debated on the world stage for all to see. That is also one of our greatest strengths. In a case like this, however, we have to acknowledge the negative side effects of this reality. Consider the analogy to a hostage situation. The "bad guys" have people held hostage in a bank, and we send in our crack negotiator to solve the problem. Unfortunately, the bad guy has the room bugged where our negotiator discusses and debates all his strategies and tactics with us. So the bad guys know what we know, but we don't really know what they know. We are at a disadvantage from an intelligence point of view. This was the problem in Iraq and Afganistan, and now North Korea.
What we need to do is simply acknowledge that this is the case and try to use it to our advantage. I'm sure our government is trying, but it seems from my point of view that we can still use some more improvement. Publically saying things like "This guy is crazy" or "He is basically acting like a spoiled child and should be treated as such" may in fact be true, but will hardly be effective strategies if 1) we publicize we feel this way and 2) Kim Jong Il hears it on CNN. We may feel this way. It may in fact be true. Doesn't matter. We simply can't say it and then expect to act on it effectively. The bad guys have our room bugged.
So what do we do? If I knew that, I would not be blogging; I'd be doing something more productive. For what it's worth, here are my recommendations:
1. Make US policy crystal clear. If we or any of our allies gets attacked, spell out exactly what will happen, automatically, without negotiation. If we are clear, consistent, and credible, our enemies and our allies will heed our positions. IF not, then they are crazy and deserve what they get. This is something we can do for free. It costs nothing, and will save lives and money in the long run if we do it properly. There is no excuse for being ambiguous about the U.S. response to a specific type of attack.
2. Make our allies take a stand. Naturally, we need to do #1 above in order to have any chance of making our allies be clear and credible. Lead by example. Then expect our allies to follow. We need put checks in place to verify their actions and hold them accountable. And by the way, they should be doing the same thing to us.
3. Make other countries get off the fence. This includes our "special friends" like China and Russia, who seem to enjoy unique status because they have nukes. Dont' we get it? It is this unique, special treatment that we endow China and Russia with that the other countries like North Korea WANT. They see them getting special treatment and want it too! We are training them to act in this manner. If you want other countries to stop pursuing nukes, you need to take away their appeal. Make it more dangerous to own nukes than to not own nukes.
---> These recommendations do not require troop movements, UN resolutions, or other significant investments of money, time, or human resources. They do, however, require thought, nonpartisan cooperation, clear convictions, and resolve. Perhaps that is why we never seem to go this route.
One of the main problems the United States has with foreign policy is that our positions/viewpoints are debated on the world stage for all to see. That is also one of our greatest strengths. In a case like this, however, we have to acknowledge the negative side effects of this reality. Consider the analogy to a hostage situation. The "bad guys" have people held hostage in a bank, and we send in our crack negotiator to solve the problem. Unfortunately, the bad guy has the room bugged where our negotiator discusses and debates all his strategies and tactics with us. So the bad guys know what we know, but we don't really know what they know. We are at a disadvantage from an intelligence point of view. This was the problem in Iraq and Afganistan, and now North Korea.
What we need to do is simply acknowledge that this is the case and try to use it to our advantage. I'm sure our government is trying, but it seems from my point of view that we can still use some more improvement. Publically saying things like "This guy is crazy" or "He is basically acting like a spoiled child and should be treated as such" may in fact be true, but will hardly be effective strategies if 1) we publicize we feel this way and 2) Kim Jong Il hears it on CNN. We may feel this way. It may in fact be true. Doesn't matter. We simply can't say it and then expect to act on it effectively. The bad guys have our room bugged.
So what do we do? If I knew that, I would not be blogging; I'd be doing something more productive. For what it's worth, here are my recommendations:
1. Make US policy crystal clear. If we or any of our allies gets attacked, spell out exactly what will happen, automatically, without negotiation. If we are clear, consistent, and credible, our enemies and our allies will heed our positions. IF not, then they are crazy and deserve what they get. This is something we can do for free. It costs nothing, and will save lives and money in the long run if we do it properly. There is no excuse for being ambiguous about the U.S. response to a specific type of attack.
2. Make our allies take a stand. Naturally, we need to do #1 above in order to have any chance of making our allies be clear and credible. Lead by example. Then expect our allies to follow. We need put checks in place to verify their actions and hold them accountable. And by the way, they should be doing the same thing to us.
3. Make other countries get off the fence. This includes our "special friends" like China and Russia, who seem to enjoy unique status because they have nukes. Dont' we get it? It is this unique, special treatment that we endow China and Russia with that the other countries like North Korea WANT. They see them getting special treatment and want it too! We are training them to act in this manner. If you want other countries to stop pursuing nukes, you need to take away their appeal. Make it more dangerous to own nukes than to not own nukes.
---> These recommendations do not require troop movements, UN resolutions, or other significant investments of money, time, or human resources. They do, however, require thought, nonpartisan cooperation, clear convictions, and resolve. Perhaps that is why we never seem to go this route.
20060706
Goodbye Kenny
Ken Lay - could not have happened to a nicer guy. My only regret is that he seemed to go to his grave insisting he did nothing wrong. That's the problem with very successful people. Many of them have huge egos. These egos propel them into the limelight. They give them confidence to keep going when everybody else tells them to quit. They make them appear "larger than life", and give others confidence in them. Unfortunately, it is this same quality, possesed in abundance by many powerful people, that makes them refuse introspection to a fatal measure; insisting they are right when simpler minds can see the truth through the haze of marketing spin. When rational, cold, factual analysis indicates otherwise. This quality, or curse, of the huge ego brings them down as fast as their meteoric rise. Because of all the things they can imagine; of all the great future potential they can envision, they can not and will not see the possibility...that they are just plain wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
