Middle East - what's next

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

No one has the guts, esp. the extremely weak UN, to disarm Hezbollah or to even attempt to create the buffer zone.

The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics.

The [Green Lantern power ring] is a bit goofy. Basically, it lets its bearer generate streams of green energy that can take on all kinds of shapes. The important point is that, when fully charged what the ring can do is limited only by the stipulation that it create green stuff and by the user's combination of will and imagination. Consequently, the main criterion for becoming a Green Lantern is that you need to be a person capable of "overcoming fear" which allows you to unleash the ring's full capacities. It used to be the case that the rings wouldn't function against yellow objects, but this is now understood to be a consequence of the "Parallax fear anomaly" which, along with all the ring's other limits, can be overcome with sufficient willpower.

Suffice it to say that I think all this makes an okay premise for a comic book. But a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.

They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.

What's more, this theory can't be empirically demonstrated to be wrong. Things that you or I might take as demonstrating the limited utility of military power to accomplish certain kinds of things are, instead, taken as evidence of lack of will. Thus we see that problems in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't reasons to avoid new military ventures, but reasons why we must embark upon them

It's not a matter of will, or guts, it's a matter of the limited abilities of modern militaries. The Soviets definitely had the 'guts' in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and look how that turned out.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

With over 20 "cease fires" in the past several decades, this one has the worse chance of holding for any length of time. No one has the guts, esp. the extremely weak UN, to disarm Hezbollah or to even attempt to create the buffer zone. It's hilarious, you make "a more favorable UN mandate" sound like that's worth something. History will keep repeating itself (which you and most others seem to forget that the exact same thing has happened multiple times in the past four decades) because everyone will just dance around the issue. Besides, I fully believe that the UN under Anan will be judged as the most worthless, ineffective and corrupt period in its history.

Buccaneer. I can appreciate your passion on this subject. Here's my notes.

History will keep repeating itself. Too defeatist. In the large view, sure history repeats itself is easy to say and it does happen. When talking in generalities there are numerous examples. Also, given enough time, anything repeats itself.

However, my contention is that history does not need to repeat itself. Ex. There is hope Egypt/Jordan will continue to have peace with Israel.

My preference is not to say it can't be done because it has failed numerous times, instead we should say that we have not found the proper solution yet.

UN under Annan. Jury is still out but the scandal certainly does not help his cause. Specific to this ME situation, I'm not sure I can fault him for anything that has happened ... I think countries backed out of their initial bravado, leaving him to hold the bag.

[Noop]

Bucc is weak.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics.


It's not a matter of will, or guts, it's a matter of the limited abilities of modern militaries. The Soviets definitely had the 'guts' in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and look how that turned out.

MrBigglesworth. I disagree with you. Certainly not a matter of limited abilities of modern militaries. It is almost always a lack of political AND civilian population will. I add the "civilian factor" because I believe that is key and explains the Soviet failures in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

If US political/civilian strongly supports the US military actions, the US military can most probably prevail and accomplish anything (given a little headsup to ramp up).

Of course, the US "civilian will" is finicky at best. I think the last time there was this example of US "civilian will" was in WWII.

[CraigSca]

Speaking of history repeating itself. Time and time again the population has proven that they go into any war "rah-rah". Then, when the war isn't won in a month, people start to question the leadership and grow tired of the situation. THIS is history repeating itself.

[Edward64]

Speaking of history repeating itself. Time and time again the population has proven that they go into any war "rah-rah". Then, when the war isn't won in a month, people start to question the leadership and grow tired of the situation. THIS is history repeating itself.

CraigSca. Yes, population is finicky but this did not happen in WWII and look what happened, a new world order ex. to our benefit.

[CraigSca]

No, but it did happen in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War and look what happened there.

[SFL Cat]

Following the Revolutionary War, the transition of America from British colony to independent nation wasn't an easy one...even AFTER we had The Constitution in place. The Fed had to put down several home-grown uprisings, there were times of severe economic uncertainty, there was still strong Tory sentiment in certain parts of the country that lasted until after the War of 1812, and the European powers were circling like vultures waiting for our little experiment with a democratic republic to fail so they could swoop in and pick up the pieces.

[CraigSca]

Whether you realize it, you're siding with me, SFL. That's exactly the point I was trying to make.

[st.cronin]

This "cease-fire" really is laughable.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This "cease-fire" really is laughable.

What pisses me off is that the UN can renege on the promises made to in order to get the cease fire, Lebanon can renege on their promises, Hezbollah can openly send more troops and weapons back across the border, and the media doesn't give a damn.

But the IDF finally does something about it, and the headline on al-CNN is "Israeli Raids Jeopardize Cease-Fire." I mean, WTF? Why not give the same treatment to the lies coming out of Kofi Annan's mouth on a daily basis?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What pisses me off is that the UN can renege on the promises made to in order to get the cease fire, Lebanon can renege on their promises, Hezbollah can openly send more troops and weapons back across the border, and the media doesn't give a damn.

But the IDF finally does something about it, and the headline on al-CNN is "Israeli Raids Jeopardize Cease-Fire." I mean, WTF? Why not give the same treatment to the lies coming out of Kofi Annan's mouth on a daily basis?

Let's not leave out the fucking French.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Let's not leave out the fucking French.

Viva la France! French diplomacy makes American diplomacy look terrible. We had a situation here where each country during the conflict would prefer to return to the status quo, because the war was disasterous for both sides. But neither side wanted to be seen as the one backing down, and there was no way in hell that Israel/USA and Hez/Iran/Syria would ever negotiate with each other. Enter France. Chirac successfully completes two bait and switches, the major conflict ends, both Lebanon and Israel get what they want, and France doesn't have to use barely any of its resources.

Chirac is one smart motherfucker.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But the IDF finally does something about it, and the headline on al-CNN is "Israeli Raids Jeopardize Cease-Fire." I mean, WTF? Why not give the same treatment to the lies coming out of Kofi Annan's mouth on a daily basis?

I hope that in calmer times, you look back on things like this and feel a bit sheepish.

But on the subject matter, now that things are back to pretty much the way they were before the war except that there were lots of lives and resources lost on both sides, are you ready to admit that this wasn't the best policy of Israel's to escalate the conflict? Or what went wrong, in your mind?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

MrBigglesworth. I disagree with you. Certainly not a matter of limited abilities of modern militaries. It is almost always a lack of political AND civilian population will. I add the "civilian factor" because I believe that is key and explains the Soviet failures in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

If US political/civilian strongly supports the US military actions, the US military can most probably prevail and accomplish anything (given a little headsup to ramp up).

Of course, the US "civilian will" is finicky at best. I think the last time there was this example of US "civilian will" was in WWII.

Like was said, it's impossible to prove the Green Lantern Theory wrong, because every defeat can just be explained away by a lack of sufficient 'will'. But, how could Iraq have gone better if the US political/civilian 'will' was stronger? An increase in our 'will' wouldn't make the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds love each other. Killing more of them wouldn't make them love us more. How can you look at Iraq and see anything other than a limitation of a modern army?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Viva la France! French diplomacy makes American diplomacy look terrible. We had a situation here where each country during the conflict would prefer to return to the status quo, because the war was disasterous for both sides. But neither side wanted to be seen as the one backing down, and there was no way in hell that Israel/USA and Hez/Iran/Syria would ever negotiate with each other. Enter France. Chirac successfully completes two bait and switches, the major conflict ends, both Lebanon and Israel get what they want, and France doesn't have to use barely any of its resources.

Chirac is one smart motherfucker.

You're right about one thing. America wouldn't have backed out of the obligation it had made. I do question your point that by doing so, France looks smart. I understand your point, but I can't look at essentially a country reneging on its promise pragmatically. France may be getting what it wants, but it looks chicken shit, not "smart".

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You're right about one thing. America wouldn't have backed out of the obligation it had made. I do question your point that by doing so, France looks smart. I understand your point, but I can't look at essentially a country reneging on its promise pragmatically. France may be getting what it wants, but it looks chicken shit, not "smart".

I don't know what France got that is so great. All it has are a bunch of people calling it 'chicken shit'. But what it did was stop the conflict that both sides wanted stopped and that the US was trying to keep going. I'm thankful that France stepped in so that the disasterous conflict didn't have to go on for one more day than it had to.

Think of it this way: who gets screwed by France reneging? Not France, not Israel (who wanted a way out to save face), not Lebanon (that also wanted a return to the status quo and didn't want to open up the whole representation thing again with their Shiites), not the UN (which did its job by helping bring about the ceasefire), not the US (who can now blame the French surrender monkies for screwing up what the US didn't want in the first place). Granted, it's not an ideal ending, but it's better than the alternatives.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth
Think of it this way: who gets screwed by France reneging? Not France, not Israel (who wanted a way out to save face), not Lebanon (that also wanted a return to the status quo and didn't want to open up the whole representation thing again with their Shiites), not the UN (which did its job by helping bring about the ceasefire), not the US (who can now blame the French surrender monkies for screwing up what the US didn't want in the first place). Granted, it's not an ideal ending, but it's better than the alternatives.

As for 'who gets screwed by France reneging?' ...

France. Probably right, a little loss of face and although some parties will remember it, this renege won't be significant in the future.

Israel. Disagree, definitely got screwed. From what I've read, the IDF and Israeli population would have wanted a continuation of the war till a positive conclusion. Increasing from 10K to 30K troops in the last days was probably political manuevering but it shows some intent.

Lebanon. Agree, worked out the best for them.

UN. Agree, Kofi can't help it that France renege. But do wonder if a Chapter 7 mandate vs a Chapter 6 mandate is what France really wants?

US. Agree, I think US public opinion was not as positive on the Israeli's this time around and GWB/Rice could see the trend.

You forgot Hezbollah. Agree, if the 15K + 15K force is toothless (as it now seems to be), Hezbollah wins.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Like was said, it's impossible to prove the Green Lantern Theory wrong, because every defeat can just be explained away by a lack of sufficient 'will'. But, how could Iraq have gone better if the US political/civilian 'will' was stronger? An increase in our 'will' wouldn't make the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds love each other. Killing more of them wouldn't make them love us more. How can you look at Iraq and see anything other than a limitation of a modern army?

I think you are assuming 'good intentions' with your Green Lantern Theory, ex. win the hearts and minds etc. My point is there is plenty of examples of overwhelming military might subjugating a population into docility (for the most part) ... definitely not forever (don't think there are any examples of this) but for a long period of time.

Do you really believe that the US, given enough military/civilian will, could not subjugate Iraq (and bordering countries that mess with us) into submission?

Or think of it this way, if General x had a mandate to use whatever means possible to subjugate Iraq regardless of the political consequences over a time frame of 20 yrs with x increase in troop levels with x unlimited funds and a guarantee of 'civilian support/will' ...

Again, plenty of examples of overwhelming military might subjugating a population.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What pisses me off is that the UN can renege on the promises made to in order to get the cease fire, Lebanon can renege on their promises, Hezbollah can openly send more troops and weapons back across the border, and the media doesn't give a damn.

But the IDF finally does something about it, and the headline on al-CNN is "Israeli Raids Jeopardize Cease-Fire." I mean, WTF? Why not give the same treatment to the lies coming out of Kofi Annan's mouth on a daily basis?

I think one of Israel's issues is PR, they seem to be very reactionary right now and surprising the world with their tactical actions. Maybe not the best example but I think of a rabid dog reacting aggresively to every movement. Israel's actions are very overt and public, Hezbollah/Syria's are not.

IMO, a better way would be saying "look world, here are some photos of Syria/Hezbollah violation #1 ... oh look world, here are some photos of another Syria/Hezbollah violation #2 ... okay world, with violation #3, all bets are off and we will start intercepting".

At least in the US, Israel will get more sympathy.

[Edward64]

With France reneging and a significant UNIFIL force questionable (I think I read only 3500 committed so far) in the near future, I would recommend to Israel to stop transitioning territory to the Lebanese forces until there is a larger UN force in place.

I think this is the only trump card that Israel has to force a better UN committment.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Again, plenty of examples of overwhelming military might subjugating a population.

Do you have any examples of the past 50 years?

Originally Posted by Edward64

Do you really believe that the US, given enough military/civilian will, could not subjugate Iraq (and bordering countries that mess with us) into submission?

Or think of it this way, if General x had a mandate to use whatever means possible to subjugate Iraq regardless of the political consequences over a time frame of 20 yrs with x increase in troop levels with x unlimited funds and a guarantee of 'civilian support/will' ...

We've spent a trillion dollars (and we have no more money) and we've had 150k troops in the country (and we have no more troops), and the thing is a disaster. So what do you mean by 'whatever means'? What could the generals do in Iraq that would help that they aren't currently allowed to do?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Israel. Disagree, definitely got screwed. From what I've read, the IDF and Israeli population would have wanted a continuation of the war till a positive conclusion. Increasing from 10K to 30K troops in the last days was probably political manuevering but it shows some intent.

I'm sure the IDF wanted to keep going, and maybe the Israeli population, but the Israeli leadership knew it was hopeless. They had Israeli kids out there dying for no reason, Israelis at home dying for no reason. Hezbollah was tougher to root out than they thought. I can guarantee you that if they could have taken a do-over of the war, they would have never escalated it. Israel made a mistake, and the UN, with France's help, helped them out of it without making it look like they were backing down.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Do you have any examples of the past 50 years?

Lets say since 1900 (why 50 yrs btw?).

China - Civil war.
Soviet Union - Civil war.
WWII - US in Japan. Soviet Union over Eastern Europe.
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

I can probably dig up another dozen examples of petty African dictators and their civil wars etc. where they have kept the people in line.

We've spent a trillion dollars (and we have no more money) and we've had 150k troops in the country (and we have no more troops), and the thing is a disaster. So what do you mean by 'whatever means'? What could the generals do in Iraq that would help that they aren't currently allowed to do

Your first 2 sentences about money and troops are inaccurate. Kinda agree about the disaster statement. If you really believe we are out of money and troops, I don't think we will ever see eye to eye rationally.

In theory, whatever means means whatever means, no restrictions.

Was Genghis Khan worried about popular opinion? Was Stalin concerned? They effectively contained their population when they were alive.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm sure the IDF wanted to keep going, and maybe the Israeli population, but the Israeli leadership knew it was hopeless. They had Israeli kids out there dying for no reason, Israelis at home dying for no reason. Hezbollah was tougher to root out than they thought. I can guarantee you that if they could have taken a do-over of the war, they would have never escalated it. Israel made a mistake, and the UN, with France's help, helped them out of it without making it look like they were backing down.

We agree that Israel could not keep the war going but we disagree on the reason.

I think you believe Israel thought they could not acheive their military objectives and decided to take the cease fire.

I believe Israel would have expanded the war and would have been able to acheive their military objectives if the political price (both domestic and abroad) would not have been too high.

Yes, Israel could not wipe out Hezbollah in 30+ days. Pretty sure if it went on for 180+ days, Israel would be in much better shape than Hezbollah (public opinion notwithstanding).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Lets say since 1900 (why 50 yrs btw?).

China - Civil war.
Soviet Union - Civil war.
WWII - US in Japan. Soviet Union over Eastern Europe.
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

I can probably dig up another dozen examples of petty African dictators and their civil wars etc. where they have kept the people in line.

Why 50 years? Because before that is an entirely different period in military history. Just a few examples from the past 50 years is all I ask.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Your first 2 sentences about money and troops are inaccurate. Kinda agree about the disaster statement. If you really believe we are out of money and troops, I don't think we will ever see eye to eye rationally.

We could, in theory, send every penny we have and every soldier we have to Iraq, but that is just a little absurd, isn't it? What does the Iraq effort need money for that it doesn't have already? Where would you take troops away from to put into Iraq, and if you have what we agree is a disaster with 150k, how many do you think we would need for it to be a success?

Originally Posted by Edward64

In theory, whatever means means whatever means, no restrictions.

Was Genghis Khan worried about popular opinion? Was Stalin concerned? They effectively contained their population when they were alive.

I'll ask again: what do you want the Iraqi generals do be able to do that they aren't allowed to do right now?

Our discussion is about the limited uses of a modern military. Our goal in Iraq is to bring about a stable democracy, something I don't think can be done militarily while you (I think) are arguing that it can. For your examples of how a military can bring about democracy, you use Ghengis Kahn and Josef Stalin. Are you saying that to bring democracy to Iraq, what we need to do is institute a nomadic ancient Mongolian style government that beheads everyone in each village it takes over? Or are you saying that to bring democracy to Iraq we need to instutute a brutal early Soviet style purging Communist government? Or what is it that you are trying to say?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yes, Israel could not wipe out Hezbollah in 30+ days. Pretty sure if it went on for 180+ days, Israel would be in much better shape than Hezbollah (public opinion notwithstanding).

I don't think anyone believes that Hezbollah would be able to defeat Israel, but you have to look at it from a cost/benefit approach: let's assume that Israel achieves its goal of getting rid of Hezbollah militarily. That still doesn't change the political climate which resulted in Hezbollah, so someone else will just come and take their place. Meanwhile, the cost to Israel would be huge: thousands of casualties, perhaps thousands of deaths, and billions and billions of dollars. Meanwhile, if they had just kept the status quo, they would have a dozen people killed every decade or so, with the possibility of creating a situation in Lebanon where they will be able to get rid of Hezbollah on their own.

[Dutch]

Our goal in Iraq is to bring about a stable democracy, something I don't think can be done militarily while you (I think) are arguing that it can.

Our goal militarily was to oust the former regime. Our military is not going to bring democracy to anywhere. The US Military is probably the most socialistic organization in America. So it's pretty impossible for them to provide democracy.

What the US military can do, is provide a security arm for the fledgling Iraqi government while it is forming. It is a crutch and obviously a much needed one at that.

The true gains remain the Iraqi government for forming and it's people for voting. The US Military can only get credit for helping fascilitate that, but the true credit goes to the Iraqi people who went to vote under threat of terror-retaliation.

And in the end, it will remain the Iraqi's who decide. They can now vote to allow Al Qaeda run the country for them if they wish, but I think they have had enough of war and would never do that.

In any event, the US Military is there to help. Something that a military under Ghengis Khan or Stalin would never be accused of.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't think anyone believes that Hezbollah would be able to defeat Israel, but you have to look at it from a cost/benefit approach: let's assume that Israel achieves its goal of getting rid of Hezbollah militarily. That still doesn't change the political climate which resulted in Hezbollah, so someone else will just come and take their place. Meanwhile, the cost to Israel would be huge: thousands of casualties, perhaps thousands of deaths, and billions and billions of dollars. Meanwhile, if they had just kept the status quo, they would have a dozen people killed every decade or so, with the possibility of creating a situation in Lebanon where they will be able to get rid of Hezbollah on their own.

I don't disagree with this. The cost/benefit equation is equivalent to my political price/public opinion factor.

I thought in a prior thread you implied that Israel accepted the cease fire because they could not acheive their aims regardless of cost.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I thought in a prior thread you implied that Israel accepted the cease fire because they could not acheive their aims regardless of cost.

I may have said that, I think it depends on what you define their aims as. If their aim was to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, that was definitely possible, if there aim was to weaken Hezbollah militarily, that was definitely possible and achieved. If they wanted to get rid of Hezbollah and create a 100% representative democracy in Lebanon, that was pretty much impossible.

[Edward64]

Why 50 years? Because before that is an entirely different period in military history. Just a few examples from the past 50 years is all I ask.

50 yrs was not a claim I made. The issue with the 50 yr limit is because of East/West polarization and the UN which limited large conflicts.

Nevertheless, see attached list. I'm sure we can find some examples of overwhelming might subjugating the populace.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

We could, in theory, send every penny we have and every soldier we have to Iraq, but that is just a little absurd, isn't it? What does the Iraq effort need money for that it doesn't have already?

Yes, it is absurd because this example is the extreme. If you do not believe we can come up with another 500B or 100K troops, I do not believe we can have a intelligent discussion on this specific point.

Where would you take troops away from to put into Iraq, and if you have what we agree is a disaster with 150k, how many do you think we would need for it to be a success

I'll ask again: what do you want the Iraqi generals do be able to do that they aren't allowed to do right now?

You are making a point that about Iraq that I have not contested. I have not made a claim that Iraq can be fixed (although I have expressed hopes).

My premise was in response to your Green Lantern theory. Given US political and civilian will, the US military can assuredly overwhelm most any other country, and China/Russia is probable.

I have made claims that we do not have this political and civilian will.

Of course, the US "civilian will" is finicky at best. I think the last time there was this example of US "civilian will" was in WWII.

Our discussion is about the limited uses of a modern military. Our goal in Iraq is to bring about a stable democracy, something I don't think can be done militarily while you (I think) are arguing that it can. For your examples of how a military can bring about democracy, you use Ghengis Kahn and Josef Stalin. Are you saying that to bring democracy to Iraq, what we need to do is institute a nomadic ancient Mongolian style government that beheads everyone in each village it takes over? Or are you saying that to bring democracy to Iraq we need to instutute a brutal early Soviet style purging Communist government? Or what is it that you are trying to say?

I see our misunderstanding.

Modern Military. This probably implies past 50 yrs and implies East/West, not necessarily sub-saharan/latin-south american petty dictatorships.

Goal in Iraq is to bring about a stable democracy. Yes, that is definitely the goal, but not one I had in mind when I was theorectically talking about using US military force to overwhelm a country. I am actually a proponent of 'pax americana' (I know this is a dangerous statement without a clear definition, but that's another thread). England/Rome/Barbarians/Greeks et all ruled big chunks of the world quite profitably and for a long period of time without democracy.

I will concede (and agree with Dutch) that US Military might and democracy probably do not go hand-in-hand other than in the most optimal situations.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

50 yrs was not a claim I made. The issue with the 50 yr limit is because of East/West polarization and the UN which limited large conflicts.

Nevertheless, see attached list. I'm sure we can find some examples of overwhelming might subjugating the populace.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

Can you pick an example out of that list of a military taking down a foreign insurgency? I don't see any. I see many failures: Kurds in Iraq, Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Chechnya...

Originally Posted by Edward64

You are making a point that about Iraq that I have not contested. I have not made a claim that Iraq can be fixed (although I have expressed hopes).

My premise was in response to your Green Lantern theory. Given US political and civilian will, the US military can assuredly overwhelm most any other country, and China/Russia is probable.

I have made claims that we do not have this political and civilian will.

I think we have a misunderstanding about the Green Lantern Theory. The GLT says that the military can do anything, it's just a question of will. But no matter how much will we have, our military can't bring about peace in Iraq. As Dutch alluded to (in the midst of disavowing his responsibility for the failure of the foreign policy that he has stridently supported for the past several years), the Iraqi people matter, and if they don't want to have our style of democracy we won't be able to force it on to them at the barrell of a gun. In a similar vein, Israel is not able to completely root out Hezbollah and similar groups from along their borders through their military. It's just not possible, and our lack of evidence to the contrary in the past 50 years supports that.

But GLT can not be proven wrong. Any failure, no matter how complete, can just be explained away as having a lack of 'will', like your explanation for Iraq.

And Russia/China? Do you mean we can beat them militarily, or pacify those countries?

[Edward64]

MrBigglesworth. Lets define this discussion clearly. I am losing track of the definition of GLT and my/our suppositions ...

It is my understanding that from reading the website link you provided ...

1) GLT was discussed specific from the viewpoint of US Military
2) Assumed to be associated with 'modern military' as the viewpoint was of US Military
3) Assumed to be associated only with 'foreign insurgency' as the viewpoint was of US Military in Iraq

Under these specific assumptions, I concede the GLT is true.

However, if you add a 4th statement

4) No amount of US will can make our military acheive its military objectives in Iraq

I tend to disagree with. Our military objectives probably won't be acheived in Iraq because we do not have the "will" ... however, in theory, if we did have the "will" we could ...

This is where our discussion went off on a tangent. I was trying to use historical examples to point out "will" and "might" can subjugate a populace.

My added suppositions are:

1) Civilian as well as political will
2) Plenty of historical scenarios (not just 50 yrs, eh?) where military might was imposed and subjugated populace for a long period of time
3) Not limited to foreign insurgency, my comment was on military might imposed on population to control them, this includes the various civil wars with a military junta aspect to them.

Under these added suppositions that expands the GLT in timespan and other countries, I do not agree with GLT.

Feel free to add or correct to this list of assumptions, talking points and lets go from there after clearly defining the discussion parameters.

But GLT can not be proven wrong. Any failure, no matter how complete, can just be explained away as having a lack of 'will', like your explanation for Iraq.

Specific to the above quote, is it not possible to prove (my expanded) GLT wrong if I can show historical examples of where will and might subjugated a population for a long and profitable period of time?

[Edward64]

And Russia/China? Do you mean we can beat them militarily, or pacify those countries?

I know this may sound flippant and I do not mean it to be, I am trying to be as clear and blunt as possible. To answer your question, given enough political and civilian "will" we can most assuredly military beat and pacify them through a series of first strikes.

Maybe not China in 2050.

[flere-imsaho]

Edit: NM, I should real the whole thread first.

[flere-imsaho]

I think post-WWII history shows that as the use of force escalates, so does a resolve amongst the populace to resist such force, especially in the long term.

Also, I don't think you can consider the repression under the U.S.S.R. or China to be analogous. Both regimes relied not just on military power, but an extensive security infrastructure (read: secret police) to keep local populations in line.

I also think the comparison to African warlords is overblown. Most such states exist(ed) in relative chaos, and the warlord in question typically only has (had) full control wherever his troops are (were).

I think the point you're making is that given infinite troops, and infinite will to send them into harm's way, one can pacify any country. Hypothetically, I suppose that's true. If we put 5 million U.S. soldiers into Iraq, perhaps it would be peaceful. I think what MrB's pointing out is that from a non-hypothetical standpoint, the 2nd half of the 20th century is bereft of successful examples of this strategy. Perhaps the best example of this is Vietnam, where the United States (for a good long while) actually had the ability to send a very large number of troops into the country.


Edit: Ironically, as usual it's here that I agree with Dutch. U.S. troops are in Iraq (well, they're in Iraq for this reason now, but who knows why we originally went) to provide security in the hopes that out of such security a new government may be formed, get its legs, and get off the ground.

The U.S. military will fail in this mission, however, because it lacks adequate resources to accomplish it. While U.S. soldiers do lack "regular" resources such as working vehicles, ammunition, etc..., they key resource they lack, and have lacked since the beginning, is enough troops to provide security. This is the difference between the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" (fewer troops, more mobile military) and the Powell Doctrine (if you're going to provide security, do it with an overwhelming number of troops.

I'm not sure where Dutch stands with the above paragraph, but I believe that's where we agreed to disagree the last time.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I know this may sound flippant and I do not mean it to be, I am trying to be as clear and blunt as possible. To answer your question, given enough political and civilian "will" we can most assuredly military beat and pacify them through a series of first strikes.

Maybe not China in 2050.

Very questionable. Russia has second-strike nuclear capability--if there is military success to be had in the invasion of Russia, it will come at a great price. China does not have reliable 2nd strike capability at the moment, however...

What do you mean by "pacify"? The Mongols were the only power that managed to subjugate present-day Russia (and to some extent, China) for any significant length of time. The Germans and French failures in occupying Russia/USSR are well known, and they had the advantage of territorial contiguity. Even if there was tremendous political "will", I don't really see the US having the necessary manpower to occupy territories that are 3X the size of the US and have 5X the population.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

The Mongols were the only power that managed to subjugate present-day Russia (and to some extent, China) for any significant length of time.

I'd like to point out that this claim is, from a historical standpoint, ridiculously overblown. "Subjugate" suggests a population held in complete thrall to the overlords, which simply wasn't the case, especially outside of urban areas. Sure, the Mongols were the accepted overlords, but local communities continued to mostly regulate themselves, submitting to Mongol control only when the Mongols were in the area.

In fact, I'd suggest that it was only with the advent of "secret police" that the complete subjugation of a populace for an extended period became possible. The goal should be (and was, in successful instances) to make the populace fear each other, not just the State. If they only fear the State, they can continue to work together towards its eventual overthrow. If they're always worried that they'll be ratted out, it's much more difficult, and a good percentage will just give up and be subjugated.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd like to point out that this claim is, from a historical standpoint, ridiculously overblown. "Subjugate" suggests a population held in complete thrall to the overlords, which simply wasn't the case, especially outside of urban areas. Sure, the Mongols were the accepted overlords, but local communities continued to mostly regulate themselves, submitting to Mongol control only when the Mongols were in the area.

Yes, subjugate is too strong a word. In fact, some postulate that the Mongols managed to maintain control over these territories because their rule was much more benevolent (in terms of religious freedom, rule of law, etc) and commercially advantageous than the regions' own rulers and systems of governance.

I highly recommend Jack Weatherford's recent book on Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire. It provides a good corrective to some of the Mongol stereotyping in this thread.

[Solecismic]

:
Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth
I don't think anyone believes that Hezbollah would be able to defeat Israel, but you have to look at it from a cost/benefit approach: let's assume that Israel achieves its goal of getting rid of Hezbollah militarily. That still doesn't change the political climate which resulted in Hezbollah, so someone else will just come and take their place. Meanwhile, the cost to Israel would be huge: thousands of casualties, perhaps thousands of deaths, and billions and billions of dollars. Meanwhile, if they had just kept the status quo, they would have a dozen people killed every decade or so, with the possibility of creating a situation in Lebanon where they will be able to get rid of Hezbollah on their own.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't disagree with this. The cost/benefit equation is equivalent to my political price/public opinion factor.

I thought in a prior thread you implied that Israel accepted the cease fire because they could not acheive their aims regardless of cost.

What people don't understand is that Hezbollah isn't a random group of angry people. It's a highly organized army, financed and supplied by Iran, which is dedicated to the eradication of Israel. They don't hide that, even though the international media paints a far rosier picture.

This army was entrenched on Israel's border, and for 20 years now, has been amassing weapons stockpiles.

If you look at the last few years in a vaccuum, Israel was wrong to respond in the manner it did. But if you look at history of the region, the Hezbollah attack that started the war demanded a response. It's naive to assume that Israel would have incurred less casualties had they simply ignored the attack.

In that vein, the IDF response was a lot like the first strike in 1967 which took out the Egyptian air force while tens of thousands of troops waited on Israel's border to attack.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1201

This article is optimistic from an Israeli point of view, but describes why it probably was a good idea for the IDF to respond more harshly than it had in the past.

However, it's clear from the anger coming out of Israel right now (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3149) that the war was badly mismanaged from a strategy perspective. Israel's leaders did not see that Hezbollah wanted to highlight civilian casualties in Lebanon, and the effect that would have on the international media. They picked a poor initial strategy, which turned the media (being led to the site of every civilian casualty, as illustrated by the video showing how news reports were staged by Hezbollah). Then they kept changing strategies and would not fully commit. Nevertheless, they did take out an enormous number of weapons caches - and that's however many thousand missiles that will never see Israeli soil. And Hezbollah is significantly weakened, with the UN and France forced to accept a solid plan to gain a cease fire (though, as was inevitable, the UN seems to have no intention of honoring the more important parts of that plan).

I'm not sure it was worth it in the end, but it's by no means as big a disaster as Bush's decision to go into Iraq. With that kind of military buildup, Hezbollah was certain to launch a full-scale attack sooner or later. Did the IDF response force that to happen too soon?

I just hope this warning isn't true, as the story of Iran's military games takes on a bizarre religious slant based on Muhammad and 8/22. Ahmadinejad is nothing if not insane.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1203

[Bubba Wheels]

Some middle-east 'expert' was just on Fox stating that according to her sources Iran will attack Israel, if not on 8/22 then in the early fall. She further states that Iran is doing this to unite growing dissent in their own country for regime change.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

MrBigglesworth. Lets define this discussion clearly. I am losing track of the definition of GLT and my/our suppositions ...

It is my understanding that from reading the website link you provided ...

1) GLT was discussed specific from the viewpoint of US Military
2) Assumed to be associated with 'modern military' as the viewpoint was of US Military
3) Assumed to be associated only with 'foreign insurgency' as the viewpoint was of US Military in Iraq

Under these specific assumptions, I concede the GLT is true.

However, if you add a 4th statement

4) No amount of US will can make our military acheive its military objectives in Iraq

I tend to disagree with. Our military objectives probably won't be acheived in Iraq because we do not have the "will" ... however, in theory, if we did have the "will" we could ...

This is where our discussion went off on a tangent. I was trying to use historical examples to point out "will" and "might" can subjugate a populace.

My added suppositions are:

1) Civilian as well as political will
2) Plenty of historical scenarios (not just 50 yrs, eh?) where military might was imposed and subjugated populace for a long period of time
3) Not limited to foreign insurgency, my comment was on military might imposed on population to control them, this includes the various civil wars with a military junta aspect to them.

Under these added suppositions that expands the GLT in timespan and other countries, I do not agree with GLT.

Feel free to add or correct to this list of assumptions, talking points and lets go from there after clearly defining the discussion parameters.


Specific to the above quote, is it not possible to prove (my expanded) GLT wrong if I can show historical examples of where will and might subjugated a population for a long and profitable period of time?

Your view of GLT is incorrect, you are arguing on the PRO side of GLT, not trying to prove it wrong. GLT states that our military can do anything, it's just a matter of will, which seems to be your position also.

I think you'd agree that keeping control of your own country is much easier than keeping control of a forieng country, for various logistical, cultural, religious, political, intelligence, etc reasons, so civil wars aren't a good example of the strategic tactics of battling insurgencies. Neither is going back to 500 AD when everyone lined up across from each other in big groups and engaged in hand to hand combat: you have to use modern militaries against insurgents with modern weaponry. And the track record for such insurgency battles is not good.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I know this may sound flippant and I do not mean it to be, I am trying to be as clear and blunt as possible. To answer your question, given enough political and civilian "will" we can most assuredly military beat and pacify them through a series of first strikes.

Maybe not China in 2050.

I don't think anyone doubts the military's ability to kill people. But turning Russia or China into a barren wasteland is not an optimal outcome. Killing every last man, woman, and child in Iraq is not a desirable outcome either. Those that are against GLT aren't against it because they believe the US is not able to win wars, but against it because they believe that the US military is incapable of achieving the goals that GLT supporters say are only a matter of 'will', such as bringing democracy to Iraq, or Israel rooting out Hezbollah, or other such missions that for the military are mostly just a waste of time, money, and, most importantly, lives.

If we had the will, what could we do differently in Iraq? I've asked this a couple times now, and the only answer that I think I have gotten is thinly-vieled insinuations of genocide, which isn't going to help democracy along in Iraq.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's naive to assume that Israel would have incurred less casualties had they simply ignored the attack.

Why? There were hardly any casualties in the decade before, and Israel is now in a worse situation than they were before going forward. And I don't think anyone suggested that they should have just ignored the attack, I think the most common complaint is that they should have responded in a more measured manner.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

...it's by no means as big a disaster as Bush's decision to go into Iraq. With that kind of military buildup, Hezbollah was certain to launch a full-scale attack sooner or later. Did the IDF response force that to happen too soon?

Agree on the first part, but what's this about a 'full-scale' attack? It's not like Hezbollah tanks would come rolling into Tel Aviv, or that Hezbollah aircraft would lay waste to Jeruselem. You know as well as I do that Hezbollah would get destroyed in any kind of frontal attack on Israel: their only power is in insurgency. There was never going to be a full-scale attack beyond lobbing a few rockets over the border, which is not a desirable outcome, but the risk of that is a lot better than the certainty of it.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Ahmadinejad is nothing if not insane.

How did he make it up through the ranks of the dictatorial Iranian society while being obviously insane? What irrational acts has he committed?

[Dutch]

How did he make it up through the ranks of the dictatorial Iranian society while being obviously insane? What irrational acts has he committed?

Everytime he speaks about Israel is wildly immoderate. His defiance of internationally recognized nuclear proliferation treaties is alarming to say the least. Supplying terrorist camps and waging war by proxy with Israel isn't the most reasoned response towards legal sovereign nations.

Of course being fingered as one of the terrorists involved in the Iranian Hostage Crisis and being wanted as a murderer by Austrian authorities probably doesn't help.

[flere-imsaho]

That reads like a list of stuff we used to do against the Soviet Union.

I don't think he's insane. I think he's very committed to a particular worldview, with which I do not agree, but I don't think he's insane.

Now, Kim Il Jong? He's insane.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Your view of GLT is incorrect, you are arguing on the PRO side of GLT, not trying to prove it wrong. GLT states that our military can do anything, it's just a matter of will, which seems to be your position also.

You are absolutely right, let me try the right POV. Lets try again to clearly specify the parameters of what the GLT theory states and lets agree on some baseline facts of the GLT before we discuss more, otherwise I suspect we will go around in circles.

1) GLT is specific to the US military
2) GLT is specific to current US military
3) GLT is specific to current US military in Iraq
4) GLT supposes that with enough political/civilian "will" the US military can accomplish anything in Iraq

My additional suppositions are

A) GLT is not specific to the US military
B) GLT is not specific to current (ex. within 50 yrs)
C) GLT is not specific to Iraq scenario
D) GLT does not exclude "civil wars"

The provided link http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/ygl...of_geopolitics does not specifically exclude A,B,C,D.

MrBigglesworth. Does our discussion of GLT include my suppositions of A,B,C,D? Can you please specifically state include/exclude to the 1-4, A-D statements so I understand your interpretation of GLT? Feel free to add to either category.

Again, just trying to establish a baseline of understanding before we proceed any further.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Of course being fingered as one of the terrorists involved in the Iranian Hostage Crisis and being wanted as a murderer by Austrian authorities probably doesn't help.

I did not think the link to the Hostage Crisis was ever positively shown. Though I read US intelligence said he wasn't the one.

Can anyone give a link that shows one or the other?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd like to point out that this claim is, from a historical standpoint, ridiculously overblown. "Subjugate" suggests a population held in complete thrall to the overlords, which simply wasn't the case, especially outside of urban areas. Sure, the Mongols were the accepted overlords, but local communities continued to mostly regulate themselves, submitting to Mongol control only when the Mongols were in the area.

In fact, I'd suggest that it was only with the advent of "secret police" that the complete subjugation of a populace for an extended period became possible. The goal should be (and was, in successful instances) to make the populace fear each other, not just the State. If they only fear the State, they can continue to work together towards its eventual overthrow. If they're always worried that they'll be ratted out, it's much more difficult, and a good percentage will just give up and be subjugated.

flere-imasho. I know this was not directed to me but feel it was related to my discussion with MrBigglesworth on GLT and how, given enough "will", the US military can subjugate a population.

(1) I did not study the use of the word subjugate. Use what ever you wish, the point is that there are plenty of historical examples where a population was force to accept a military force's will for a long period of time.

(2) Your point of "secret police" is well taken, however I would contend that the military force came first, then the "secret police" continued environment of "subjugation". Same difference to me.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Very questionable. Russia has second-strike nuclear capability--if there is military success to be had in the invasion of Russia, it will come at a great price. China does not have reliable 2nd strike capability at the moment, however...

What do you mean by "pacify"? The Mongols were the only power that managed to subjugate present-day Russia (and to some extent, China) for any significant length of time. The Germans and French failures in occupying Russia/USSR are well known, and they had the advantage of territorial contiguity. Even if there was tremendous political "will", I don't really see the US having the necessary manpower to occupy territories that are 3X the size of the US and have 5X the population.

Yes, I am sure Russia can retaliate. Bottom line, pretty sure in a US first strike, Russia will be in much worse shape than US. Agree about China.

Regardless, in this extreme scenario, everyone loses but some (ex. US and allies) will lose less than Russia/China.

I did not mean to suggest 'pacify' include the ground occupation of Russia/China. Certainly the US could not do this alone, however I would contend that without US intervention, the Japanese would have occupied China quite easily even with the disportionate population. Let me define 'pacify' as no longer a significant threat or near-equal.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Edward64

My additional suppositions are

A) GLT is not specific to the US military
B) GLT is not specific to current (ex. within 50 yrs)
C) GLT is not specific to Iraq scenario
D) GLT does not exclude "civil wars"

You are correct that it is very important to define terrain here. Any social theory has boundary points beyond which it doesn't make much sense. I don't know what the inventor(s) of GLT considered to be their boundaries, but in order for GLT to make sense I think your point (D) should definitely fall outside of them, and possibly point (B) as well.

(D): There are very distinctive characteristics at play in a situation where an insurgency/guerrilla military is fighting a foreign occupier that are not in play in a civil war (or at least not to the same degree). It is much more difficult for an outside force to subjugate a population than a local tyrant. The insurgents have a far easier time convincing the populace that the outsiders are to blame for everything in that scenario, and people have a natural tendency to not look very kindly on foreign control in any situation. A local tyrant necessarily has considerable local support (or would otherwise be unable to exert any force), and that support will not be easily swayed to the insurgency. I think there is ample evidence to show that in internal conflicts overwhelming force (generally assisted by an internal security apparatus) can subjugate a population. It is much more difficult to find examples of foreign forces doing the same.

(B): There are at least two important developments since WWII that probably impact the GLT equation. The first is telecommunications and mass media. Conflicts are fought much more in the public eye now than previously. The result is that excessive use of force exacts a much higher political price than before. The recognition of this fact by militants in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon is central to their strategic approach.

Additionally, for an occupying nation, a conflict that might in an earlier era have seemed abstract and remote is now far more accessible and immediate, again creating additional political costs and a steady attrition of public support for foreign occupation. Under GLT consideration, we may be ignoring this factor for the occupier (?), but it would remain an important international consideration (as far as I know GLT does not insist that we view events in a bilateral vaccuum), and as we saw with Lebanon (and a decade ago in Chechnya, and before that in Vietnam), international action (or the threat of it) can constrain policy options.

Another development (and this is a more arguable point) has been the development of overwhelming military technological superiority. Going back to WWII, the application of massive destructive force that broke the enemy spirit came in the context of full on total warfare. Carpet bombing an enemy city is always ethically questionable (to say the least), but less so in the context of a large scale military conflict with national survival at stake. Today there is far less conventional military conflict. None of our opponents has a conventional military that is even worth putting on the field against the US. We essentially skip directly to the occupation phase and asymetric warfare. I imagine that if we had forced a surrender from Germany and Japan and then executed half their military-age men and firebombed their cities the local and international reaction would have been somewhat different... On the other hand, the attrition inflicted on Vietnam by the US was proportionally probably in the same ballpark as WWII, but that didn't seem to work either, so there may be other factors at work here...