Success in a particular field of endeavor does not, sadly, translate to success in all fields. When I was a nobbut, experienced civil aviators of my acquaintance often called the Bonanza V-35B the “doctor killer,” since it was an expensive, high performance, slippery aircraft which demanded precision, especially during adverse weather. Weather for which certain of the wealthy, master-of-the-universe-type physicians who often purchased them declined to adequately prepare.
One need only cast one’s eyes to Hollywood, where people whose winnings in the genetic lottery were spent almost entirely upon appearances end up infatuated by a received sense of self-importance. They read something in a magazine one day and feel suddenly empowered to speak as experts on Tibet, feel the need to speak Truth to Power on the topics of Race and Courage during Academy Award speeches. But even then such people, whose CV’s often list universities that they “attended” (if they list them at all) most often without remarking upon the degrees received upon “graduation.” They often seem to us a mere handful of brain cells away from consignment to assisted living communities, yet we forgive them: They are so damned cute.
Brighter men than these have made similar mistakes. Noam Chomsky, a brilliant theoretical linguist, has often mistaken himself for an informed political commentator, albeit one whose contributions to the public debate are largely restricted to advancing utterly exploded theories on the benefits of world-wide socialism – just give it one more chance! – when not engaging in wild-eyed conspiracy theorizing.
Finally George Soros, billionaire financier and profligate supporter of losing presidential candidates, feels compelled to once again box above his weight in the Wall Street Journal today, in his (behind the wall) op-ed on “A Self-Defeating War.”
A “false metaphor” is how he describes the Global War on Terror, and a misleading one that has resulted in the explosions we have seen in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Somalia. Of course, he begs the question of whether those explosions are more or less to be lamented than the ones suffered at the World Trade Center in 1993, and reprised in 2001. Gaza was apparently just fine under Israeli occupation, as was Lebanon under the Syrians, Afghanistan under the Taliban and Somalia under whichever war lord owned the local zip code that week. Tyranny, terror and death are all very acceptable, so long as they happen off the stage, away from US media interest.
National self-loathing aside, Soros has four main points:
1) Soros has discovered – uniquely – that war creates victims. Innocent victims! This recent innovation apparently has the result of increasing terrorism, being thereby self-defeating. Hence the catchy title! It’s a tricky bit of chicken-and-eggery to claim that you create terror by fighting it, but that appears to be the financier’s considered political opinion. And while he’s keen to catalogue real or imagined offenses of the US in the world – all of which appear to have occurred since January of 2001 – he’s very short on recommendations.
2) He goes on to say that terrorism is an abstraction, which fact may come as something of a surprise those recuperating in Israeli hospitals, mourning the five-years memory of their dead in less than a month, or thanking God (and Scotland Yard) for their deliverance from airborne explosions. These people tend to see terror as rather concrete and tangible, but never mind all that: The important thing is George Bush’s simple-minded refusal to draw distinctions between Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni rejectionists and the fat boy’s Mehdi army. Such distinctions are apparently important if, as Soros posits, one wants to negotiate with Iran and Syria. Who, it might be churlish to point out, are really only interested in negotiating the size of our coffins, as well as the attendant “use by” date.
3) Soros points out that “the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions.” True, but also too clever by half. We’re interested in the ongoing struggle between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam over in Sri Lanka, and that’s a territorial conflict. On the other hand, we’re fascinated by “global” terrorism, one that knows no boundaries and respects no nationality – not even its own. International terrorism, one is tempted to remind, is what President Bush declared his antipathy too, all those years ago.
Soros goes on to say that recent British terror in the air plot was uncovered by good intelligence, offering that as an alternative to our kinetic clearing of the terror fields, root and branch. Given that the British government, which otherwise shares many of our legal traditions, has a much more intrusive array of investigative techniques at their disposal as a legacy of their long, dark struggles against the Provisional IRA, would Mr. Soros recommend that we adopt similar measures? One suspects not, and Mr. Soros does not say.
4) Us and them, he laments. We drive a wedge between those who cut people’s throats on the internet, and those who fight to stop them. Wedge away, says I, and enough of this bullshit moral equivalency.
Soros has, as have all too many others, tailored his outrage to suit his politics before declaring, based on the strength of the foregoing that the war on terror “cannot be won.” Well, it certainly could not be won by him. But then again, neither could the 2004 presidential election.
He concludes his essay by saying that the “strength of an open society lies in its ability to recognize and correct its mistakes.”
So also might one judge the strength of an open mind, a useful notion for Mr. Soros to reflect upon.
Nor law, nor duty bade me fight,
Nor public men, nor cheering crowds.
A lonely impulse of delight,
Drove to this tumult in the clouds.
– A fragment, from W.B. Yeats’ “An Irish Airman forsees his death“
Lex,
Soros is a joke. Nice skewering job.
I love to remind my liberal ‘friends’ that if GW Bush was truly the Hitler that they paint him to be; all of them would already be in ‘camps’. Shuts’um right up!
Read your day in the life on a bird farm. Great stuff! Brought back some 36 year old memories for me like it all happened yesterday. Looking forward to more.
Todd
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
’70~’72
James Fallows published an article in the Atlantic that urged the administration to declare victory in the war on terror, do away with the war rhetoric and return to a foreign policy approach to countering terrorism. Its a well reasoned arguement, well laid out. His point was that the war analogy assumes a victorius result, when perhaps the best we can hope for in this struggle is containment of the problem.
The damn Atlantic requires a subscription to read it on their web site, so I went to the library to read the article.
I’m no fan of Soros, but for different reasons I agree that the GWOT isn’t “winnable” either. To Skippy’s point above, containment should be the goal, not victory. But I also don’t believe that a foreign policy approach will work either. These people don’t understand diplomacy, negotiations or the cessation of hostilities. They have a bottomless pit of resources to recruit, train and unleash and an unquenchable appetite for it.
Rock, meet hard place.
That being said – I’m fond of a more extreme approach – bomb them back to the 2nd century BC and be done with it. Sorry…
I have absolutely no respect for Soros. First, his name, before his father changed it, was Schwartz. Soros was a new language that was invented for some sort of political movement, and was supposed to translate as “to soar.”
During WWII, his father’s job entailed confiscating property from Jews and other undesireables, and turning the property over to the Arynas. His brothers biggest deprivation during the war was the absence of quality tennis balls to play with at his matches. The following is from Heartbreak Ridge, and I think it applies here.
Col. Alexander: Are you new to the infantry?
Maj. Powers: Yes sir. I came over from supply and logistics.
Col: Were you good at it?
Maj: YES SIR!
Col: Well then stick to it, because you’re a walking clusterf**k as an infantry officer. Gunny Highway and Lt Ring took a handful of young fire pissers, exercised some personal initiative, and kicked ass!
I view Soros as a guy who made a lot of money That’s all. Too bad politics has to be his hobby. Foriegn policy? War? He has as much expertise as the guy who just walked by emptying the trash can…
Kris- Sorry to see you say this: “bomb them back to the 2nd century BC and be done with it” or agree with Skippy’s reactionary (Cold War era realpolitic worldview.
Re the first, you spend some time in here reading stuff. You must realize our military’s limitations by now. IE- we can’t do everything..all the time. Plus, you must know that isn’t possible at all from a legal or moral postition.
Re the second, we can’t go back to “Reagan-era realpolitic”, anymore than we can go back to the Clinton era “Phony War” backed up with “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tommorrow” background music…..The world has morphed, requiring a different approach, one we haven’t all agreed on yet.
B2
Reactionary my a**. The Reagan Real politic view is the way to go. Even he knew when to cut and run in Lebanon……….
The point is, that terrorism will be with us always. To defeat extreme Islamic thinking will take time and as you pointed out we don’t have enough resources. Thank you Mr Rumsfeld.
Great post, Captain Lex.
RPL: I didn’t know a lot of what you posted about Soros’ father, but I suggest going easy on the name change. I believe a lot of Jews in countries with rampant anti-Semitism changed their names mainly to attract just a little less hostile attention. In principle I don’t admire this, but then that’s awfully easy for me to say, living in modern-day America rather than in early 20th-century Hungary (or in late 19th-century Iran, where an ancestor of mine did the same thing).
Skippy-san: I agree that some form of containment might be the best we can hope for. The question is, what kind? Forgive the metaphor, but are we talking Reagan containment or George “Come Home America” McGovern containment?
Also, with respect, declaring victory isn’t very convincing when your enemies don’t feel defeated, and when your motives for doing so are weariness, pessimism and frustration. These may not be your personal motives, but I get the sense that they’re important in the aggregate.
I enjoyed the fragment of the poem at the end. Very powerful. I recently read “To The Last Man” about World War I and, relevant to the poem, about the pilots and their knowledge of the reality of their very imminent mortality. Very good book.
B2 – my feelings are extreme – and unrealistic – and I know that. I try to be more of a realist, but in “interesting times” it gets more and more difficult. But you have to have had the same thought at least once in the past 5 years, even acknowledging at the same time that it’s filled with impossibilities.
I know our military “limitations” and recognize that my proposal has no real value as a solution, obviously. But I also don’t know that we CAN defeat an enemy who doesn’t recognize they’ve been defeated. As I said, they have an endless supply of people hoping for the visions of 72 virgins.
And I agree – no one has settled on a solution to handle the new world we live in today. But saying it’s a war by defnition means it has to have an ending point. Someone wins, someone loses. In today’s circumstances, if we are being honest, do we really believe we can stamp out terrorism? Come out victorious over those who will kill themselves to kill even one infidel?
I’m not espousing a return to Reagan-era, Clinton-era (god no!) or any other. But we have to recognize it’s a new era filled with new threats and we have to be ready to shift our ideaologies, what we consider right vs. wrong, and how we respond to threats and aggression, without using the past as a template. Because there is no template for this.
Lex,
The Irish Airman is way too ironic for 2006. The question is, why fight for England?
If you’re Irish, why indeed? He’s not even fighting for Kiltartan Cross – his own home.
I suppose he’s fighting for England because that is how you get into the fight. I’m a pilot – I understand.
I was hoping you might be a bit more fond of us that the Irish Airman was of his charges.
“Those that I fight I do not hate, those that I guard I do not love.”
What’s with all the negative waves? People seem to think our enemy is some kind of unstoppable inhuman wave. I got news for you. Every terrorist, every single one, has at least one thing in common: They all bleed. And to quote the Governor of California “If it bleeds we can kill it”.
They do not have an endless supply of anything, neither people nor money. Their resources for both are smaller than ours. People who are willing to kill themselves have to override 4 billion years of evolutionary programming, they are few and far between. You’re more likely to find people willing to risk their lives because they have the training and resources to likely survive.
Their money comes from one source, us. We give them money for oil, but not all the money we give goes to them. The oil needs to be pumped out of the ground, put onto ships, and refined into useful goods. They see none of that money. They also have to give us back money so they can live the opulent lifestyle they desire. If they have infinite money then we must have infinity squared money.
Containment is an impossible strategy. First off, we aren’t fighting the USSR. These people don’t have tanks, infantry divisions, or ships that we can track. Their weapons are people who go boom. Right up to the point they explode there isn’t much to tell them apart from anyone else. We need to remember the Cold War dictum “the bomber always gets through”. Secondly the idea of containment implies that they are equal to us, that we cannot risk confronting them directly. Their own actions bely that position. They work to avoid direct confrontation, and every time they go head to head with us they get wiped out.
Everybody keeps comparing this war to WWII, that’s inaccurate. IMO the purpose of this war is to do to Islam what the Diaspora did to Judaism and the Thirty-years War did to Christianity. We need to make them realize that even if they are God’s chosen people, God isn’t going to do anything for them they don’t do themselves. It’s going to be a long, hard slog, measured not in decades but in centuries.
On the subject of fantasy solutions, here’s mine… give them their own homeland. Antarctica. Nobody else uses it all that much, and it’s got a great border which can be secured. Sort of an Islamic Coventry. Take them one by one if necessary, or in bunches, voluntarily or involuntarily. The ones who hide have got to come out of their caves to go to mosque eventually.
And just to make it more fun, take the Kaaba and install it belowdecks on an in-service aircraft carrier, so that none of them will ever be certain that they’re praying in the right direction.
Hey, it’s better than leaving a third of the world radioactive.
Dave