All weekend long this post has been bubbling inside me, asking to be let out. All weekend long I demurred, procrastinated, changed the subject, argued with myself. It’s a deep subject, susceptible to error, even to over-generalization. It might be long to write, uncomfortable to think about and challenging to get my mind around.Because most of all, I wish it was not so:
The United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday…
“Compelled by a militant ideology that celebrates murder and suicide with no territory to defend, with little to lose, they will either succeed in changing our way of life, or we will succeed in changing theirs.”
This has been a realization slow in coming to the US national command authority. Much effort was made in the early days after 9/11 to try and isolate the cancer of the jihadis from the body of the umma.
All over the West, presidents and prime ministers tripped all over themselves in their rush to lecterns and mosques ‚Äì even while the World Trade Center ashes were yet burning - in order to reassure a ruffled population that Islam was a “religion of peace.” This despite the fact that there was no lack of countervailing evidence, evidence the West had painfully accumulated through a thousand years of contact with yet another messianic faith brought to the West from the Middle East. A faith generously offered where genially accepted, but brought anyway, even on the point of the sword wherever necessary.
As if to prove that parentage still matters, there is this little bit of genesis to ponder: The prophet of the West died for his people – the Eastern prophet killed for his. For those of us in the West who no longer hew to our prophet’s philosophies – and there are no few – it doesn’t matter: The Eastern prophet’s more radical disciples will still kill you anyway.
In those early days of mournful anger and ‚Äì say it - altruistic hopefulness immediately following 9/11, it made perfect sense to separate the ostensibly minority radical Islamist fringe from their peaceful co-religionists. A fight was clearly upon us and we chose to frame it as a war that we could swiftly win ‚Äì topple the Taliban for hosting Al Qaida, topple Saddam for being the industrial sum of all apocalyptic fears. In the place of tyranny, plant optimism and freedom. We asked ourselves, who would resist the chance to govern themselves, even if a hated enemy offered such an opportunity? And we asked for our own part, who would want to fight a war against a billion people? That’s a war that we could certainly win militarily - although at great price - but risk the losing of our own national soul in the destruction of our enemies. We would risk becoming what we had beheld.
And after all, what should it profit us to gain the whole world, but lose our own soul?
But after having liberated the people of Afghanistan from a barbarous regime, still our soldiers fight and die there. The almost unimaginable reality of 11 million free Iraqis queuing up at the polls to select a government not of our preference is insufficient to stop the deliberate, sullen, wholesale slaughter perpetrated upon them by their disenchanted countrymen. Along with the murder of innocent civilians and an appalling loss of life among the Iraqi police and military forces, these murderers continue to claw at coalition forces hoping to gall them to retreat no matter what cost. In Iran, an end-times infatuated madman who thinks that the Holocaust was propaganda, that Israel should be wiped from the map, that the West is decadent paper tiger, that he is somehow personally destined to bring forth the Mahdi who will lead Islam to final triumph over its enemies, is the president of an imminently nuclear state. Somehow we find ourselves, even with military forces to Iran’s east and west, with no good options to forestall this.
And now poor Denmark is threatened and embassies and consulates burn throughout the Middle East because a dozen or so cartoonists had the temerity to put pen to paper and draw a picture of the prophet. Someone who, giving credit where credit is due and taking nothing else away, was nothing but a man, take him for all in all.
Such a rendering is a violation of Islamic tenets, as it turns out. As is drinking alcohol and eating pork. Both of which Western cartoonists have been known to do, without death threats being heaped upon their heads. Now incensed Islamists in Britain use their freedom of speech rights to decry - wait for it: Freedom. We are left to scratch our heads and wonder how people who left the oppression of their homelands to join us in our national houses as guests in search of a better life demand upon arrival that we change our rules to more closely conform to the oppression that they fled.
Irony? Not a big enough word.
Are these our only choices? Fight and maybe die, or submit, give in, surrender? And in that surrender, give up all that we have built in the last five hundred years, our freedoms, our way of life – everything?
We cannot submit. But the more we fight this, this slow attempt at the strangling of our freedoms, the very things that define us, the more radicalized become our adversaries. In that radicalization, young men – and it is men, very few “protest babes” are observed in any of this – men who have been denied many of the simpler pleasures of this life but promised Hefneresque obscenities afterwards bring in their after draft an increasing number of passive co-religionists. People of a generally non-violent bent who fear to be labeled “apostate” - a death penalty offense under the sharia - and who grow increasingly persuaded that the war against terror is not against terror at all, as we have framed it, but against their faith. They grow convinced that this is a war being fought against their very selves.
They are been dragged towards the fringes by an Islamist information campaign that we have clearly underestimated. The jihadis are organized, intelligent and committed – where do you think the villagers in rural Pakistan or in Gaza found Danish flags to burn? Why do you think these protests explode into the streets only now, when the cartoons were printed in September?
As the Islamists carefully craft their message to appeal to Muslim sensibilities, the perception of the war in the minds of the great, undecided middle shifts gradually away from modernity and towards reaction. The ranks of intolerance and barbarism swell, the middle ground gets mined, and all of us on either side are left to walk away from dialogue and man the barricades instead. Or most of us, I should say. Some decline to join the fight. No impeachment process for W? Not interested then. Nothing to see here. Move along.
And here’s the pity of it: When the dialogue ends, the Clash of Civilizations truly begins. That is a war of cultural survival, and one the West can, must and will win, if we have to. But it will be a long war, and at the ending of it, we will not be the people we had once been.
31 responses so far ↓
1
Paul
// Feb 6, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Here is another side of peace…Have you heard about the novel, “After 9/11: A Korean Girl’s Sexual Journey?”
I strongly believe that you will have something to say about it, and especially about Chapter 43, “9/11s are forgiveness,” which makes “9/11″ a general noun for the worst disaster that could happen in one’s life. I have never seen any writer put it this way.
It is a very interesting book. If you want a closer look at this book, visit the author at http://www.youngheecha.com
Best Wishes,
2
FbL
// Feb 6, 2006 at 1:15 pm
I’ve been mulling over very similar things, lately. They have made me very sad.
But it will be a long war, and at the ending of it, we will not be the people we had once been.
But neither are we now who we were before 9-11. Will this be where America finally truly loses its youthful idealism?
3
badbob
// Feb 6, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Nice essay Lex. Nail on the head, as usual.
This got general release today:
http://www.dod.gov/qdr/docs/2005-01-25-Strategic-Plan.pdf
I hope the people get to read it before the press parses it to death…
fbl- re youth idealism you’re probably right. We are the sole holders of western civilizations flame (well MAYBE the UK and Austrailia). We can’t expect much from the continental europeans of Old Europe.
B2
4
Bryan Strawser
// Feb 6, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Well said, my friend, well said.
So much to ponder in this struggle that we find ourselves in, the least of which is that many of our fellow citizens do not support this war, the worst of which might be that we lack the stomach as a nation for the long war.
Bryan
5
Mary Alpha
// Feb 6, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Lex - Much still needs to be realized re: the World War we are now fighting. Rummie seems to think the tactical impacts will be similar to the Cold War.
I fear he may be wrong.
We haven’t been really hurt yet, but the day is coming when the Islamists’ real weapon will be used. Nukes, Bio, NO!!! Oil! When they drop that bomb the world economy will go to H3ll.
Long before the end of the war - “we will not be the people we had once been.” - because we will have started down the road of winning at all costs. Just as has happened in all World Wars.
6
MissBirdlegs in AL
// Feb 6, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Well thought-out post, Sir! You’ve said what I’ve thought since 9/11. Part of my frustration has been that noone I know wants to even consider it. They look askance at me when I verbalize it, as if I’ve lost my mind (right wingnut, you know). I’d rather not have to consider it, but the reality slaps me in the face too often for me to ignore it. I have 4 grandchildren - I worry!
7
AW1 Tim
// Feb 6, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Shipmates,
We are close, nowadays, to seeing the modern version of the Moors at the gates of Vienna. I take an even dimmer view. So many nations have Muslim immigrants, and all have located themselves in commercial hubs. They refuse to assimilate, rather choosing to live in their own communities, staying aloof of local customs, and reinforcing their own cultures.
Look at how CAIR has come to the forefront in America. CAIR is to Islam as Seinn Feinn is to the IRA. It is a propaganda front for the Jihadists. They run to the cameras and proclaim the Islam is a religion of Peace, and is soooo misunderstood.
Make no mistake. This is a war between Islam and Civilization. We must make a choice between the freedoms and liberties of the 21st Century, or the barbarism and theocracy of the 8th Century.
Shipmates, I have read the Koran numerous times. It makes no bones about what is required of the believers. Kaffir (we non-muslims) are given three choices: Convert to Islam, or Pay a tax to islam and live as a Muslim, or die. That’s it. No bargaining, no treaties. The Koran even spells out the requirement of Muslims to lie to unbeleivers if it helps win the day for them. Make a treaty with Islam? Wrell, the Koran says that Muslims may engage in a truse with Kaffirs if they (the Muslims) find themselves in a lesser position. However, the truce may not last longer than ten years, and the Muslims must take every advantage to strengthen themselves so as to rise up against the Kaffirs and destroy them as soon as possible.
In other words, a Muslim’s truce is only as good as the Kaffir’s ability to keep him down.
This is indeed a war between Islam and Civilization. 1.2 Billion Muslims seem to feel that the 5.8 billion non-muslims ought to bow down to them and submit to Sharia.
I’ll give ‘em a Sharia to latch hold of….
We need to get beyond the liberal PC multi-cultural crap here. Islam seeks to establish a world-government based upon Sharia and the Koran. We must needs take them at their word, lest we make the same mistakes as our father’s did with Hitler and “Mein Kampf”.
We cannot afford any Neville Chamberlains in charge. We need the iron strength of Churchill and Roosevelt these days, or else we can set the Constitution alight, and say goodnight to civilization.
Say what you will, but that is the truth. It has come down to the Light of Civilization, or the Dark Ages of Islam. I’m not willing to let that light go out.
Respects, Cap’n,
AW1 Tim
8
lex
// Feb 6, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Mary Alpha, as far as the oil bomb is concerned there is reason for concern, but not yeat unreasoning fear. We at least have a strategic reserve capacity, and Middle Eastern OPEC nations need petrodollars at least as much as we need petrol products.
As for the rest of your statement, in re: “winning at all costs,” I greatly prefer winning - at whatever cost - to losing, at whatever cost. Never start a fight you haven’t got the will and means to win.
It’s passing strange to hear the wars against militarism and fascism raised as a negative example. Many died of course, but the world was saved.
For a while, at least.
Now it’s up to us.
Tim - I honestly do not think that all or even most of the world’s Muslims really want to fight an apocalyptic battle with the West. Most folks want just what we want. The problem is that far too many of these people have allowed the worst among them to hijack the public debate, and frame the conflict we are fighting in apocalyptic terms.
Paul - 9/11’s are forgiveness? I remain unpersuaded…
9
FbL
// Feb 6, 2006 at 6:11 pm
the worst of which might be that we lack the stomach as a nation for the long war.
It may be now true now, but that will only embolden our enemies, until they do something catastrophic like drop a nuclear bomb on a major Western city. Then we will have the “stomach,” but it will have been gained at tremendous and painful cost.
And like Lex implies in his comment: when it’s a matter of losing to fascism or militant Islam, losing isn’t an option.
No matter the cost. This isn’t Vietnam where “losing” was painful but not cataclysmic for the U.S. And yes, that will change us, but it comes down to whether you want to be dead, living in subjection to others, or free but changed.
10
badbob
// Feb 6, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Aye Lex. Well articulated as usual. A long war and here is the roadmap to counter it, just released today:
http://www.dod.mil/qdr/docs/2005-01-25-Strategic-Plan.pdf
What Tim says rings true and all the I&W point towards that reality. I can’t get into his mind, but Lex is possibly being hopeful when he writes “.. really want to fight an apocalyptic battle with the West.” If armed with nucs and suicide jihadists I certainly believe they would attempt it. In fact it is probably inevitable if we do little or nothing….
Fbl asks: ” Will this be where America finally truly loses its youthful idealism?” I think she is correct for we are the only bastion of strength remaining in the remnants of western civilization (respects to the UK & Austrailia). It is our obligation. Our burden. As somebody said today “it is not just about our personal safety”.
Regarding that segment in the west who do not get it, I have been looking at this photo quite a bit over the last couple days:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004462.htm
Look at that woman holding the sign with the beheaded G.W. Will she ever understand? Is she capable of ever understanding?
B2
11
lex
// Feb 6, 2006 at 6:43 pm
You might enjoy James Lileks’ take on the photo in question, B2.
12 Eric // Feb 6, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Lex - As you know I’ve had my doubts that we can win the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìWar on Terror?¢‚Ǩ¬ù militarily for some time now. However, I see two tools at our disposal that I feel would be more effective. The first is propaganda: Iraq an Afghanistan should be blanketed in pro-American pamphlets, magazines, books etc. The airwaves should be nonstop documentaries of Muslims living in the United States and interviews with soldiers. Of course, every care must be taken not to bend the truth or people will protest. We’ll need a charismatic (read not Bush or Cheney) voice to explain that a huge amount of disinformation about the Unites States is spread in the Middle East, and we need, at the very least, to counteract that disinformation.
). We also need to open the market to Western products, probably with incentives for companies to try and sell goods there. As they say, when goods cross borders, armies do not. (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_2.html) Furthermore, we should be practically giving away computers. Wide ranging and unrestricted access to the Internet(s) can only help.
The second tool is economic. We need to open up ways for Westerners to buy Middle-eastern goods other than oil. I’m thinking food, spices, handmade furniture and clothing, whatever they’ve got (except opium
I say combine these strategies with some token troop cutbacks. If it doesn’t appear to make a difference we can always go back to blowing each others brains out.
13 Mary Alpha // Feb 6, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Lex - You said: “We at least have a strategic reserve capacity, and Middle Eastern OPEC nations need petrodollars at least as much as we need petrol products.” True re: the reserve, but it will be used up early in a long war. The petrodollars don’t have to come from the western nations. Tactical use of the oil bomb.
14
lex
// Feb 6, 2006 at 8:27 pm
MA - The long war that SecDef is speaking of is akin to the Cold War in that it is mostly non-kinetic, or kinetic only in a low-level, brush fire kind of a way.
I take for granted that the economies of the West would not sit out a total embargo passively, waiting for their reserves to run out.
Eric -?Ǭ† You’ve got a good argument to make as an augment to force, but it’s difficult to see how it can entirely substitute for kinetic action to find and incapacitate those who are not interested in purchasing computers, except as a way to build better suicide belts via CAD/CAM.
15
Sim
// Feb 7, 2006 at 1:59 am
B2-
Australia, just the one i.
16 enrevanche // Feb 7, 2006 at 3:29 am
Neptunus Lex ?Ǭª A long war…
Chap, who’s on travel at the moment, mentions a great post over at Neptunus Lex’s site. Brief excerpt:
In those early days of mournful anger and ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú say it - altruistic hopefulness immediately following 9/11, it made perfect sense to separate t ….
17
Kris, in New England
// Feb 7, 2006 at 6:06 am
Once again Lex, your erudition says what I haven’t been able to find the words to say for a very long time now. I try to be balanced in my views of a multi-cultural world, but I’m finding that increasingly difficult. I try not to over-generalize but again, difficult now. I’m tired of the double-standard with which Muslims expect us to behave, with no self-inspection for their own people. I’m tired of the claims that Islam is a religion of peace, made by people who do nothing to stem the tide of violence by their own.
I also worry about the toll the GWOT will take on our own country. While it would be “nice” if we could just let them all go back into the sand from which they crawled, I’m realistic enough to know that we can’t, not now. That particular wolf came to our door in 2001 and left it open for others to follow. We need to defend that door as far away from its entrance as possible - take it to them. And stay the course, as difficult as it may become at home.
We need to be prepared to make the sacrifices our parents & grandparents did in WWII - we are a very priviledged generation with an attitude of entitlement - the GWOT threatens that as well as everything else already said. But if I have to sacrifice some personal freedoms, give up my SUV and muscle car for a hybrid, burn alternative fuels to heat my house in cold New England, then sobeit.
Anything to make sure 9/11/01 remains the ONLY foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil. And to ensure that we lose no more loved ones in the same way.
In memory of Heather Lee Smith, Fligth 11
18
Cerberus
// Feb 7, 2006 at 6:46 am
Hefneresque obscenities - a well turned bit that. At first I felt my adolescent dreams had been trod upon, but then I realized how apt the phrase was. It eloquently captures the immature world and lifeview of the barbarian.
19 Eric // Feb 7, 2006 at 9:26 am
Re “augment to force”:
That’s precisely what I meant, sorry if I wasn’t clear. My thinking is that brute force alone probably will not win this.
Some small troop cutbacks generate a good buzz, very aggressive information campaigns make sure our intentions are well understood, and a sustainable way to make a living reduces the appeal of detonating a suicide bomb.
20
MCPO Airdale
// Feb 7, 2006 at 11:35 am
What will Americans be willing to give up to sustain Western values? I keep turning this question over in my mind and arrive back to the beginning.
I, personally, will do what it takes to ensure that my God, my family and my nation survive against the hate-filled cult that is aligning for their destruction. I’m not sure that all of my countrymen are even aware of the danger. They are too busy discussing last week’s edition of “American Idol”.
21
FbL
// Feb 7, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Airedale, if you God is who you believe he is, that’s at least one thing you won’t have to fight for the survival of. I think he’ll be able to take care of himself.
22 Fuzzilicious Thinking // Feb 7, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Dark Thoughts…
Simmering under the surface of much of what I’ve read online in the last few days is the nexus of the “cartoon wars,” the GWOT, and the politics of identity/culture. These are dark and scary thoughts, for they force us to sift our treasured belie …..
23
CPT J
// Feb 7, 2006 at 2:24 pm
“…But it will be a long war, and at the ending of it, we will not be the people we had once been”
Yes, we will win. We must and so we shall. Of course it will also be at a needlessly high price in lives and future dreams. Because both our history of wishful thinking, and our denial of the persistent nature of evil, is as American as apple pie.
Some call it innocence, but it is our conceit as a nation. As conceits go, it is a noble one, but it is still a weakness. That conceit will die in this war.
Whether we are wide-awake or sleepwalking through the War on Terror makes no difference: we all have this conceit. It is the uniquely modern American illusion that the world is a place ready-made for us; that tomorrow always gets better; that ancient implacable hatreds which make no sense to us as sovereign individuals will somehow magically disappear–just because they should; that a happy ending will be ours without sacrifice, blood, sorrow and anguish. Simply because we are Americans and are therefore entitled to our guarantee of happiness without effort,pain, mistakes or regrets.
Our immigrant forbearers knew better than this. Freedom and liberty were not comfortable givens, but journeys of hardship and uncertainty. They could take nothing, not even survival, for granted. We are heading down that road again, where nothing can be taken for granted.
Perhaps when we have suffered through enough together, we will find within ourselves the strength and clarity they had. We owe it to our past, and to our future, to remember what that was.
24
Brian
// Feb 7, 2006 at 8:29 pm
All,
I too am losing more and more sleep over this situation. And once again Lex rides in and I see ?¢‚Ǩ?ìmy thoughts?¢‚Ǩ¬ù in cyber-space. Thanks for that, Lex.
For my part, I am convinced that the first thing we need in this fight is a mature, experienced leader. Someone who’s seen the elephant and has a nuanced view of the world.
I think Bush had some decent ideas out of the gate, but I truly believe that this situation is beyond him. I say this because right after 9-11 he had a golden, yea unprecedented, opportunity to extract something from Americans that they have not considered for a long time…self sacrifice. Bush made other good moves at the time ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú many of them rather obvious - but this key item was pretty much missed. I know, there were national economics to be considered, etc., etc., etc., but the bottom line is that he did not early on grasp that aspect of the situation.
It was a fleeting moment quickly lost. I wish he had instead asked for Americans to get on a war footing in a sense akin to WWII - some amount of sacrifice for the greater good. Maybe in this case it would be a couple of cents gas tax to fund a Manhattan-style project to develop fuel cells to the fullest, or something. Anything to get us going on a firm track to free ourselves to a reasonable extent from the Middle East hold. Witness how the Saudi?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s reacted when Bush mentioned ending our ?¢‚Ǩ?ìaddiction to oil?¢‚Ǩ¬ù in his 2006 SOTU address. My question is why the hell wasn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t that phrase being brought to the forefront back in 2001/2002? Once we really get a handle on the next practical propulsion system for the masses, and it involves significantly less oil, you will see the attitude in the ME change. It won?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t change entirely, but those countries are going to have a hell of a time just keeping their citizenries employed and happy once the petro-dollars start to dry up. Course, that will probably just make a lot of them meaner, but without the same level of funding some of the bite reverts to bark.
I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t know, I guess my problem right now is that I see the issues boiling as Lex describes, and I just don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have confidence that the current group in the White House has the capacity to handle it. Personally, I am praying for a quick couple of uneventful years and the election of John McCain. I really think he?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s the only guy in the crowd of usual suspects who can do the leading that will be is necessary.
I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m not any kind of political hack, campaign dude, or whatever. I just really think we need a guy who has ?¢‚Ǩ?ìit.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t think Bush does.
Thanks for indulging my running on?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Brian
25
MCPO Submariner
// Feb 8, 2006 at 4:40 am
Further scarey thoughts… When we go to the ‘hot’ war on terror are we going to finally finish the war or allow it to further simmer for 900 years to break out yet again. There are far more questions than answers.
26
badbob
// Feb 8, 2006 at 4:58 am
Brian,
Encourage you to read Bush’s speeches in their entirety- end-to-end. IMO, Roosevelt-Churchill-Lincoln have nothing on George. He hasn’t waivered much and his message is as clear today as it was when he stood on that smokin ruin called the WTC.
That being said, there is the question of effectiveness. It’s dam hard trying to lead this nation when 1/3 of the population, nearly all the media and 9/10 university faculty suffer from B.D.S. (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Maybe somebody could do better. We’ll see. I am not going to take any shots at John McCain, for he is a Naval hero of mine too (not for his piloting skills though- he is the first to remind folks he was shot down) but I will not support him because of his age/health, temperment and management style.
Leaders can’t be all things to all people in their own countries, let alone the rest of the world. All they can do is define a COA to be taken, remain flexible and improvise. If you expect more, well, you’ll always be let down. We are living history now, let someone else interpret it later.
B2
27 Chapomatic » Quick Comment On Lex’s Reluctant Post // Feb 8, 2006 at 10:08 am
[...] Lex’s “A Long War” post is a seed that could grow into a mighty op-ed. Or something. En Revanche also reacted to it, as have many folks; the comments string is interesting reading. [...]
28
Subsunk
// Feb 11, 2006 at 6:36 am
CAPT Lex,
Good thoughts, sir. I’ll agree with almost all.
“And here?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s the pity of it: When the dialogue ends, the Clash of Civilizations truly begins. That is a war of cultural survival, and one the West can, must and will win, if we have to. But it will be a long war, and at the ending of it, we will not be the people we had once been.”
I believe, at the ending of it, we will be greater than we are today, not in power, not in wealth, but in morality and courage. Character is forged and tempered in the fire of Conflict. And large conflicts, pursued with determination and dedication to ideals, even when those ideals are besmirched by inappropriate actions or events during the conflict, yield the hardest steel, the toughest metal, and the shiniest armor.
We will not be the people we once were. We will be better.
And AW1 Tim, you have a shipmate here for your thoughts. Clear talking and forthright speech are always superior to lies and deception. I’ll follow that torch with you.
Subsunk
29
StormWarning
// Feb 12, 2006 at 5:01 am
Badbob. I hadn’t seen that strategic document (I was thrown by the URL since it reads “2005″ but the plan is dated 2/1/06). That document hasn’t been mentioned in the press, and frankly, neither has the QDR that came out on Feb. 6th (http://www.comw.org/qdr/qdr2006.pdf)
The concept of “long war” was highlighted in this strategic document from the DoD
Stratfor also did a great job of summarizing the QDR, but since I’m not a “premium” subscriber, alas, I cannot link it here. But one of the statements made there is “…Ultimately, the new QDR envisions a significant transition in the military’s intelligence role: from protecting only the services and their interests to protecting wider national interests as well…”
I’m in the process (when I have time) of reading the QDR and looking at its implications. When done, I’ll post it on my blog and link over.
BTW, I found Neptunuslex via ThreatsWatch.
30
Bill
// Feb 16, 2006 at 6:55 am
Basic strategic fact:
a) In a long war, demographics counts. Russia lost the Cold War in large part because about half its army was killed in WW II, and the Russian population never recovered.
b) WW I and II were a disaster in large part because it cost the West Russia as a Western country.
c) Western demographics are very poor. Germany does not need Islamics to destroy a quarter of its population in a generation. Demographics will do that with no outside assistance. The net effect will be similar to that of WW II on Russia. US demographics are roughly comparable.
d) Middle Eastern and general Third World demographics are reported as below replacement, but the figures are not from trustworthy sources.
e) The conclusion is that, enemy or no enemy, the West will vanish as an entity unless demographics change. To quote a couple of Romans, some time ago, “No peasants, no troops” Cato. and “Salus populi, suprema lex,” an old legal saying not generally attributed. This advice and maxim were not effectively acted upon, and the “penuria hominem,” depopulation, was instrumental in Roman loss of France and Italy, and later Byzantine loss of Anatolia.
f) Western response to demographics problems has been to (1) deny that they exist and (2) spend money on force multipliers, which makes sense militarily only if forces are in short supply. Example: no followon forces after combat victory in Gulf War II. Why? Effectively, no troops.
g) If demographics isn’t addressed by political leadership (as it has been in Germany and Japan), and addressed effectively, then the “long war” isn’t going to go as well as it might have.
31 Neptunus Lex » Fukuyama: The Wall Street Journal responds // Feb 27, 2006 at 4:22 pm
[...] But why is this idea of democracy?Ǭ†implantation?Ǭ†so critical? It’s important precisely because we ourselves are a democracy, embarked on a world-changing experiment at great cost. We are in a “long war,” and we need to believe that something more is coming out of this than Kissengerian?Ǭ†”stability,” especially if by stability we mean that we once again?Ǭ†have to shake the?Ǭ†hands of?Ǭ†blood-drenched tyrants who are in any case unable to deliver on their minimal committment to keep their own crazies in a box. [...]
Leave a Comment