Dying to Win by Robert Pape

[Mickey]

Good points, especially the one I highlighted. Many Americans, and British and a lot of others for that matter don't have an understanding of the issues. Something like WW2, or even the "Cold War" was a lot easier to defend, much easier to point a finger at. Nothing about this conflict is politically correct. Therefore, real clear explanations of issues aren't going to come out of the media or the administration, especially when the true indicators of success won't be seen for 10 or 20 years. Even when one can explain it, it seems to me that many people refuse to believe it. It is in many ways so convoluted that it sounds like it's made up. I don't know how to get around that one. The lack of perception will be manifested in the voting booth. Should an opposing view win in the elections, they aren't going to be able to continue activities the same way. Hard tp predict what might happen, but odds are it won't be good. Concessions don't have to look like concessions to be concessions.

425202[/snapback]

I'm sure the last thing you want to hear is that I am reading another book relevant to these issues . Even so, I did just finish "Blind Spot" by Timothy J. Naftali, which gives a history of US counter terrorism efforts from WWII to the present. Here is a review from Foreign Affairs: Review

 

It recounts many of the failures and successes we have had. He is pretty even handed in his criticisms of government, mostly he replays the facts and only briefly states his criticisms based on those facts. For example, he is critical of Clinton for not being willing to consider invading Afghanistan but also notes that Clinton did more than prior administrations to recognize the seriousness of the threats posed by terrorists and to begin to reorganize our capabilities. He compliments a study done by then VP Bush but is critical of Reagan and HW for not ever implementing the recommendations contained in that study. He also takes congress to task during the Clinton years for failing to pass those recommendations into law when Clinton tried to get them through.

 

Some of the things I learned that I didn't know before I read it:

 

In the early '70's some ex-cons hijacked an airliner out of Detroit and demanded a $10 million ransom. At one point they flew south to threaten Oak Ridge, Tenn. warning that if the ransom wasn't paid, they would crash the jet into a nuclear facility there. Thus, the idea of causing mass casualties by using an airliner as a flying bomb was known as early as the Nixon administration.

 

After the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon, an air strike was organized and ordered. Reagan changed his mind at literally the last second and called off the operation. No military response to that attack ever occurred.

 

Reagan sent Carter to Syria to send a message to Assad about Syria's support for terrorism. Carter caught Assad in a lie and, after some embarassing explanations promised to alter Syrias terrorist support. They then expelled Abu Nidal and his group, the AQ of its day, from Syria. The loss of their sanctuary resulted in the disintegration of Nidal's organization and the destruction of its capabilities. Imagine that, two Presidents from opposite ends of the spectrum working together.

 

The US had no real capability to pull off an Entebbe style hostage rescue until well into the Reagan years. We had tried to create that capability but it took a long time to do so. Mostly, we sought instruction from the West Germans who had developed their abilities in response to Munich and from the Israeli's.

 

In any event, to the extent one might object to the resulting policy advice or criticism of this or that leader, it is easy enought to ignore that and concentrate on absorbing the facts presented of which there are plenty.

 

As for war and democracy, certain realities are unavoidable. One of them is that in a democracy you can't realisitically take the nation into war, especially a long drawn out one, based on a leader saying "trust me on this one, there are things I can't tell you". They have to be shown why and they have to believe in it. It is probably unavoidable in the long run. After stating the best case you can, it is their right to then decide what they feel is best. Submitting one's self to the judgment of the masses is scary but that is democracy.

 

I think that at best, the administration gave mixed signals as to the sacrifice involved. Yes, you can dig up plenty of quotes from administration officials that state how difficult the conflict will be but you can dig up just as many "sweets and flowers" comments. For example, Wolfowitz testified to the House Budget Committee that "I am reasonably certain that [the Iraqi people] will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." I don't think I am going out on a limb to say that you don't prepare the American people for the rigors of a long drawn out and bloody conflict with rhetoric like that. Recall that we took Saddam's forces out unbelievably quickly in the Persian Gulf War and that was when his regime was at full strength. Given his comparatively castrated state in early 2003, I think it is not out of line to suggest that the American people didn't forsee a bloody campaign. Add in the public rhetoric of Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld occasionally hinting at a possible cakewalk and it isn't hard to see why perhaps that as a people, were not prepared to endure a grueling campaign in Iraq. I have no empirical studies to back this up, still, I really don't think the administration did much to prepare the nation for the sacrifice and heartache to come in Iraq.

 

Maybe they felt that if they did, they would lose support for the war before it started. Maybe they beleived that it would be a relatively quick campaign. I have no way of knowing.

[Mickey]

That goes without saying. You can even go farther back than 1983. I was just listing some examples.

 

Japan was a different generation. Times were much different back then. I do not think that you can compare war against Japan with war against Iraq.

425214[/snapback]

Yeah but I am no big fan of the "greatest generation" thing. I say that having a grandfather who served in both World Wars. Cav. in France and artillery in the Pacific the second time around. As much as I admire that generation, I also note that the same generation was running the show when Hitler was being appeased and was perfectly happy being on the sidelines of that war until we were attacked. Had Japan not attacked us, we might never have entered the war and if that happened, would be talking about the greatest generation.

 

I agree that the war with Japan was entirely different but, such as it is, that is kind of the point. In a different war with our interests far more clearly threatened, people were willing to sacrifice plenty. We also had different leaders who spent a lot of time preparing the nation to endure sacrifice.

[BadDad]

No. They were attacked because they were involved in the "war". Not to purposely separate them from the coalition, and there is a distinction. The election effects were a by-product of that, not a strategy. Unexpected windfall to AQ. But, they learned from that.

421602[/snapback]

 

That's been my take on it and watch the Italians, Dutch, and Brits quitely disengage from Iraq also. Other than symbolic support there really was no coalition this time any way.

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm sure the last thing you want to hear is that I am reading another book relevant to these issues . Even so, I did just finish "Blind Spot" by Timothy J. Naftali, which gives a history of US counter terrorism efforts from WWII to the present. Here is a review from Foreign Affairs: Review

 

I'm working on "The Persian Puzzle" by Pollack. Might as well start reading up on Iran.