Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

- Warfare between pre-state societies was incessant, merciless, and conducted with the general purpose, often achieved, of annihilating the opponent." -
I think you are completely correct. I also think that the possibility of re-primitivization is probably unless we stay out of the man-to-man combat. I feel that it is completely innappropriate for a culture and civilization that is modern and progressive to get involved in such a physical way. I feel there are many better solutions to this conflict than the age-old way of doing things.

-Matt

Posted by Matt at July 18, 2006 09:58 AM

This should be an excerpt from Duh! magazine. It shouldn't take a genius to look at the structure of societies throughout history to see that warfare has been a very common factor. Cities and villages built with walls. Feudal communities built around a local military force and commander. Persistent fear and hatred of outsiders. Prestige, status, and political power being very closely tied with military experience and prowess. These are not the trappings of peaceful societies.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at July 18, 2006 10:35 AM

Matt says: I feel that it is completely innappropriate for a culture and civilization that is modern and progressive to get involved in such a physical way. I feel there are many better solutions to this conflict than the age-old way of doing things.

Innappropriate it may be, but if the fighting comes to you, you best be able to respond. The people we're fighting now do not understand or plain do not engage in diplomacy. We either fight them, or they kill us.

Posted by Mac at July 18, 2006 10:36 AM

That's not what they're doing. The invasion of Iraq followed the Willie Keeler strategy of the war on terrorism: hit 'em where they ain't. There is no measure by which Baathist Iraq had more connections to Islamic terrorism than the United Arab Emirates did. (But hey, those guys at the UAE are our pals.)

But it is true that more than half of the world's Islamic terrorism is in Iraq now.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 10:48 AM

Rockwell says: There is no measure by which Baathist Iraq had more connections to Islamic terrorism than the United Arab Emirates did.

So, the known Al Q training camps in Iraq count for nothing. The traced funding counts for nothing. The FACT that Zarquawi (forgive misspelling) was running operations from Iraq before we invaded counts for nothing as well?

The UAE acknowledges their connections and are using diplomacy to correct that instead of outright denying everything. No, its not better because there is a viable double-standard there, but at least they're doing something.

Rockwell says: But it is true that more than half of the world's Islamic terrorism is in Iraq now.

Of course they are. If they lose this fight, the face of the world will change and they will not have power. Iran and its dog Syria cannot let Democracy reign in the Middle-East because their people will realize that a Theocracy is a joke and they will feel the yearning to be free, as is the case of every human on earth.

Posted by Mac at July 18, 2006 10:58 AM

I didn't say that any of this counts for nothing. Even if it weren't tenuous, ex post facto propaganda, it would count for far less than was going on in the UAE.

Zarqawi is a case in point. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not the same as Al Qaeda, any more than Javascript is the same as Java. Zarqawi and the United States simply both found it convenient to give his group the same name as the other enemy.

Meanwhile the UAE fostered the real Al Qaeda.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 11:23 AM

I see. And what is the "real Al Qaeda"?

Or are you just redefining terms for your political convenience? You don't have to answer that question--it's obvious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 18, 2006 11:27 AM

Rockwell says: Even if it weren't tenuous, ex post facto propaganda.

Zarquawi in Iraq before the invasion is not propaganda. It is a represented fact. Its not tenuous either. One would be forced to wonder why the second-in-charge of Al Q is in Iraq with documented (again not a tenuous propaganda stunt) training camps. hmmmmmm

Rockwell says: Zarqawi is a case in point. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not the same as Al Qaeda, any more than Javascript is the same as Java. Zarqawi and the United States simply both found it convenient to give his group the same name as the other enemy.

Zarqawi running operations out of Iraq is Al Qaeda in Iraq. The US simply found it conveniently used what Al Qaeda told us that Zarquawi was the 2nd in command.

But all this is beside the point of the original post and I apologiza for skewing it. Warfare is a part of the human nature until we find a way to evolve beyond it. As long as there are those that would threaten us, there will exist those that fight to protect us. If there exists someone who physically threatens my family, I will fight them to pretect my family. Instinct, pure and simple.

Posted by Mac at July 18, 2006 11:32 AM

And what is the "real Al Qaeda"?

The one led by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They don't control "Al Qaeda in Iraq". Before September 2004, Zarqawi didn't call his group Al Qaeda; he called it "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad".

It's just like the difference between Java and Javascript. Sun created and owns copyrights and patents for Java. Javascript was created by Netscape; Sun only owns a trademark for its name.

The distinction between between Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq is fundamental. But even if the distinction were irrelevant, the UAE provided more material support to Al Qaeda than Saddam Hussein did to either Zarqawi or Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- and the United States obliged.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 11:41 AM

Other odds and ends:

The US simply found it conveniently used what Al Qaeda told us that Zarquawi was the 2nd in command.

You are confusing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with Ayman al-Zawahiri. Zarqawi is a dead Jordanian terrorist. Zawahiri is a living Eqyptian and the second in command of al Qaeda.

Or are you just redefining terms for your political convenience?

See, this is what I meant by eating out of the palms of politicians. I don't have any political convenience; the Bush Administration does. Bush and Zarqawi both found it politically convenient to associate Zarqawi's group with al Qaeda.

Zarqawi's motive in this is can be compared to the business convenience of associating Javascript with Java.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 11:46 AM

And you're clueless enough to believe that we're only at war with what you call "the real Al Qaeda"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 18, 2006 11:50 AM

And you're clueless enough to believe that we're only at war with what you call "the real Al Qaeda"?

At this point, we are barely at war with Al Qaeda at all. We have lost sight of those guys. We are at war with and against so many Islamic factions in Iraq that we're at war with ourselves. America can't really lose a war against a well-defined enemy, but it can defeat itself. One of the best examples of that Bush glad-handing the al-Dawa Party in Iraq -- they have the prime ministership there -- even though the same al-Dawa bombed the US embassy in Kuwait.

The correct statement is that the United States should be at war with real Al Qaeda, first and foremost. It should not co-opt that war with rebranding. Unfortunately, we can't go home again.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 11:59 AM

Ah, so you are that clueless.

We are at war with Jihadis, because they are at war with us. No one has ever labeled this "the war against the real Al Qaeda."

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 18, 2006 12:05 PM

We are at war with Jihadis, because they are at war with us.

No we aren't, Rand. We (or rather, they in Washington) have chosen war against some jihadis, but not others; and also against some who are not jihadis. We are not at war with al-Dawa, even though they directly attacked the United States; instead, we have put al-Dawa on our side. al-Dawa is short for "al-Dawa Islamiya", which translates to "The Islamic Call". And I have to ask, what part of "The Islamic Call" do you not understand? What are you missing about the meaning of driving a truck with explosives into the US Embassy in Kuwait?

Anyway, to get back to the point of the post, it's not only war that is only human nature. War against the wrong enemy is also only human nature. Shakespeare was an expert in human nature and he explained the point well in Macbeth.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 12:16 PM

Rockwell,

Do you consider the US invasion of Morocco in WW II to be "fighting the wrong enemy?"

Posted by Rick C at July 18, 2006 02:46 PM

Its a good thing your not running a conflict Rockwell. During strife, you choose allies and enemies according to that which best serves your needs. One of the finest PC games of all time is Civilization and it teaches that lesson very quickly.

Yes, it is a nasty thing to have a cohort that once wronged us, but we have need of them now. Just as you've been telling us that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not Al Qaeda....someone who bombs a building may not represent the entire organization. Et tu Brute.

But, you're absolutely right...America can only defeat itself in this conflict. And its the people who consistently throw a net of gloom and doom and conspiracy theories over our operation. Its you Rockwell that will cause us to fail, you and those like you who cannot stop criticizing our leadership because they aren't doing the things YOU want them to do.

Posted by Mac at July 18, 2006 02:51 PM

Exactly Rick. At least Iraq is on the same continent as Afghanistan. Morocco isn't even in the same hemisphere as Japan.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at July 18, 2006 03:35 PM

It sounds like Rockwell has stared and studied long and hard at his own little map deep down in the captain quarters. Fortunately, there are plenty of good souls still on deck actively making sure that this boat doesn't run ashore.

Posted by Josh Reiter at July 18, 2006 06:45 PM

Um, Rockie, I don't think the 3ID or the Marines are doing any subtle targeting based on the names in Arabic or subtle philosophical differences of the various self-styled jihadis. I think the rule is pretty simple: if they shoot at us, shoot back.

No one has ever much found a way to "fight" terrorists per se, who hide out in a civilian population and emerge sporadically and unpredictably. However it's accepted that terrorists only really become dangerous when they have the resources of a state behind them. Then they can get access to modern finances, modern weaponry and training, safe havens, et cetera. Hence a lot of modern anti-terrorism has tended to emphasize going after the states that support, or even might support, terrorism. This does unfortunately allow clueless or dishonest folks to claim that effort is being "wasted" on state sponsors while the terrorists themselves are being ignored. But that's no more true than that a doctor might "waste" time prescribing drugs to kill the bacteria infecting your body while "ignoring" your fever, chills, muscle pains, and so forth.

From this point of view, the logic for the destruction of the Taliban was that they openly harbored training camps to which the 9/11 attack could be directly traced. So, scratch one government who openly supported terrorist operations. Note that, since that time, no other government has similarly openly supported Islamic terrorist camps, and some (e.g. Pakistan) have been at pains to help root them out where they previously existed. Nor have any other Islamic terrorist activities been traced back to Afghanistan. Sounds like a win to me.

The invasion of Iraq was predicated on information and logic, generally accepted at the time by present supporters and critics of the war, that Iraq was very likely to be an effective and willing supporter of, or at least supplier to, terrorism. So, scratch that possibility now. Even if terrorists are finding a home in Iraq, it's not because the government is making them welcome. There's no possibility that a deranged Baathist government could funnel oil money into the development of chemical weapons or dirty bombs and sell them to crazies in Yemen with a yen for setting them off in New York. (Do we know that this would have happened had Hussein's government been left alone? Nope. But it doesn't take knowing I'm going to crash the car to make me put on my seat-belt, either.)

That a side-effect of these two invasions was not the sudden catapulting of both countries into the 21st century, complete with peaceful parliamentary elections, a massive service sector, and 60 channels of cable-TV programming available for $59.95/month is, I suppose, a little disappointing. But not very germane to the main point, which was to viciously nail governments that could credibly be understood to be supporting, or probably supporting, or even idly daydreaming of supporting, terrorism, so that such things became widely perceived as a very inadvisable component of one's foreign policy. The idea was a response wildly out of proportion, to use the phraseology currently in vogue, so that sponsoring terrorism became seen as a really dumb idea, on account of the world's (or the United States') outrageous, unfair, brutal and excessive response to it.

That similar action hasn't yet been taken against other countries against which one could harbor similar suspicions -- North Korea, Iran -- is indeed a demonstration of the practical limitations of military force. But it's hardly an argument for not getting done what could be done. The fact that you can't solve four problems at once is not much of an argument against solving at least two of the four problems if you can.

Posted by Carl Pham at July 18, 2006 07:04 PM

Yeah, what he said...

Posted by Mac at July 18, 2006 07:32 PM

Um, Rockie, I don't think the 3ID or the Marines are doing any subtle targeting based on the names in Arabic or subtle philosophical differences of the various self-styled jihadis. I think the rule is pretty simple: if they shoot at us, shoot back.

They aren't even doing that. Never mind that al-Dawa was an Islamic terrorist group before it was an Iraqi political party. Moktada al-Sadr's men shot at the US Army in a big way, and they responded by cutting a deal with him and letting him go. Now he controls dozens of seats in Parliament. He is a kingmaker.

Why would they let someone like Sadr go, when they had him surrounded? Because his militia is much stronger than the Sunni insurgents that they can't quite manage to defeat. If the idea really were to get every jihadist in Iraq, then everything that has happened so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

Even if terrorists are finding a home in Iraq, it's not because the government is making them welcome.

No, that's just not true either. Shiite jihadists all but have the run of the Iraqi government by now. Sadr has the health ministry, for example. And that's just one example.

It's not as if Saddam Hussein supported no Islamic terrorism at all. The correct statement is that the new Iraqi government will foster far more terrorism than the old one.

It will also be a close ally of Iran, as it already is.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg at July 18, 2006 08:28 PM

Someone get Rockwell a Jane's. The US military could and can kill every one of Sadr's men. The decision to stop was a political one. I think the wrong one.

Posted by Bill Maron at July 18, 2006 08:58 PM

Someone get Rockwell a Jane's. The US military could and can kill every one of Sadr's men. The decision to stop was a political one.

That's right, it was political. The whole war is political. All modern wars are. If not for politics, the US military could kill every one of Sadr's men simply by killing all Iraqis. But it would have a negative effect on Iraqi democracy. All Iraqi elections would result in a tie. They would also need foreigners to run for office.

Politics is what makes the entire Iraq mission a fraud.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg at July 18, 2006 09:06 PM

"The whole war is political. All modern wars are. Politics is what makes the entire Iraq mission a fraud."

So, all modern wars are a fraud. You must have majored in circular logic. Do you know which other wars throughout history were political? ALL OF THEM!

Posted by BDavis at July 18, 2006 09:38 PM

Rockwell,
you poor simp EVERY war is political. From Ug killing Zoop, so he could get the bigger cave, Which would make him more attractive to Lulo, so he could get more zugzug!!

Where did you study history? At K-Mart in the movie section?

Dude, if a rattlesnake crawls up under the porch, and proceeds to have 40 little rattlers, who have 40 other rattlers, who all periodically bite the kids and dogs, you root out ALL the snakes and kill them.

You try not to kill the corn snakes and black snakes, but the friggin' rattlers mingle in, on purpose. The rattlers couldn't care less if the other snakes get killed.

The real problem here is, these are smart, war savy, 21st century, laptop owning snakes. Who have spent the last 150 years, slowly convincing the younger snakes that the kids and dogs DESERVE TO GET BIT!!!

This is not some geopolitical idealistic difference where the sides can talk it out. They have vowed to kill us all.

What's your opening line for discussions of stopping this fighting? "OK, here's my neck. But, if you'll stop and talk before you pull a Nick Berg on me, maybe we can reach a compromise."

Once someone has vowed to kill you, all your children , your families, and everyone you know, and they've vowed to blow up your country, your churches and your buildings, talking is done. It's kill or be killed.

Posted by Steve at July 18, 2006 09:46 PM

So, all modern wars are a fraud. You must have majored in circular logic.

I assume you got your doctorate in circular logic?

Posted by Chris Mann at July 18, 2006 09:47 PM

EVERY war is political.

Fine, every war is political, in the sense that there is something to fight over. The point is that there was a time when the invading army could just kill all of the locals. Now there are political reasons not to.

They have vowed to kill us all.

People seem to be saying that the US military can lick anybody, which is true; and that therefore the only way that it can lose is by not killing enough bad guys, which is not true.

The problem all along in Iraq has been a contradictory model of exactly who are the good guys and the bad guys. You don't win a war by killing the good guys. You don't win a war by saving the bad guys, worse yet by empowering them. There is this impulse to say that it's all obvious, that the bad guys are the ones "shooting at" us.

But in Iraq it's anything but obvious. In fact, it's getting more contradictory by the day. Bad guys sit at the top of the government. On the streets, good guys have been killed on the thinnest pretext that they could be bad guys -- not because our boys are monsters, but because they don't usually know which ones are the bad guys. Futile raids and sweeps are mischaracterized as collateral damage.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg at July 19, 2006 07:35 AM

Hey Rockwell,
of all the simple @ssholes!! If the bad guys aren't the ones shooting at us, who IS? Have you EVER had anyone fire a gun or point a gun at you? It has this un-nerving affect on you, makes you want to defend yourself.

You evidently are one of those superior people willing to take a bullet to prove that, you're willing to take a bullet. Toward what end does that help anyone? You're dead and they're dragging and kicking your carcass.

You contradict everything anyone says. Be proactive, you tell us how to solve this, oh great mind, oh superior intellect!! Do we pull out? Do we give them billions to fix their country, that Sodamn Insane trashed? Do we accept Islam and hope they let us live?

You tell me, us, I'd really like to hear something non-contradictory and advantageous to either side.

Posted by Steve at July 19, 2006 07:54 AM

Simborg's "we're fighting the wrong folks" argument would have a little more basis if it was in service of fighting someone. Instead, it's a "don't fight anyone" argument.

Yes, he'll say "but I support going into Afghanistan", but he didn't when that wasn't clearly a success and retreats to that position with every setback.

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 19, 2006 08:24 AM

Simborg's "we're fighting the wrong folks" argument would have a little more basis if it was in service of fighting someone.

I already said, Al Qaeda. And not just in Afghanistan, but also in Pakistan and elsewhere. Those operations have been starved for resources for a long time.

Besides, it's a dangerous statist imperative to perpetually demand that the government Do Something, and then Do More. Everyone sensible libertarian understands that governments often worsen the problems that they set out to solve.

Yes, he'll say "but I support going into Afghanistan", but he didn't when that wasn't clearly a success

You know absolutely nothing about what I advocated, wise guy. My view is no different from that of Colin Powell. He always thought that the Afghanistan campaign made sense, and never thought that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

Although it is true that the Afghanistan campaign is spiralling downhill these days. But that's not because it's unwinnable, merely because it's hard. It's a lot harder than the Bush Administration cares to believe. Those who try to do the impossible typically also botch the possible.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg at July 19, 2006 08:54 AM

Be proactive, you tell us how to solve this, oh great mind, oh superior intellect!!

It's no longer so hard to guess what is going to happen in Iraq. There is going to be a murderous civil war, which the Shiites will eventually win. They will set up a draconian theocracy that will make Iran look like Fort Lauderdale on spring break in comparison. Kurdistan might survive as a separate country. Some Sunnis might survive on separate but worthless land.

Basically it's too late to discuss solutions. No American leader can offer solutions without getting blamed. I don't envy the next president. The only solution --- for the voters, not the officeholders --- is to deter politicians from repeating the mistake of Iraq. The voters should remember Bush's remark that reelection proved him right. Electoral victory is as good as military victory; that is the way that politicians think.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg at July 19, 2006 09:04 AM

Basically it's too late to discuss solutions.-

Game, set and match to anyone but you dude.

As I suspected you have no solution. It's easy to draw the straight line to a civil war. It alleviates YOU having to pick a strategy for victory, for us or the Iraqi people. And I mean the people, NOT the country or government.

I asked what your solution was because you didn't like anyone else's ideas. You gave me rhetoric. You just want to kibbitz our opinions. No problem, it's a free country and evidently Rand hasn't booted you for your opinions or lack there of. It's his yard and ball.

Posted by Steve at July 19, 2006 09:57 AM

Wow, I guess you had a REALLY tough time figuring out who the bad guys were in the Cold War. You keep saying Iraq was a mistake. Iraq was the wrong thing to do. We're losing. We screwed up. But this was the most telling thing you said...

No American leader can offer solutions without getting blamed.

Apparently, you can't offer a solution either, making you a leader, or a sheep. We are winning in Iraq, despite what you think and what you read from a extremely small selection of people who blog.

Then you say: It's no longer so hard to guess what is going to happen in Iraq. There is going to be a murderous civil war, which the Shiites will eventually win.

I happen to believe that the democracy has every opportunity to take hold and flourish. Obviously, your "Libertarian" mind takes the more obvious "Liberal" mindset that the people over there are too stupid for democracy. You might try thinking that the people over there have a chance at freedom and once they taste it, they won't let go. It must be difficult to live in a world where everything is a depressing failure.

Posted by Mac at July 19, 2006 10:35 AM

I happen to believe that the democracy has every opportunity to take hold and flourish.

There is an interesting libertarian saying that democracy is "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner". The point is not that anyone is "too stupid" for democracy. It's that democracy, in the narrow sense of persuasive elections, does not by itself lead to sound government. After all, in American history, democracy started a civil war.

Iraqis are just as good as Americans at voting for their individual interests in elections. The problem is that elections alone will not reconcile those interests, any more than they reconciled American interests in 1860.

What clouds the discussion is an irritating ideological redefinition of "democracy" and "freedom" as "everything good". If you get a raise on Monday and get laid on Friday, that's "democracy". If Vladimir Putin wins an orderly election, that's "not real democracy". If you have too much of this mental rot, you become incapable of realizing that terrorists really can win elections, in Iraq just as well as in the Gaza Strip. Or even in the United States, given that Klansmen are also terrorists.

In reality, sound democracy is as much a symptom as a cause of sound civil law. Which tells you by itself what is going to happen in Iraq. The only laws with any credibility there now are Sharia law and tribal law. No other laws, no matter how laudable, are enforced or trusted.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg at July 19, 2006 11:23 AM

Oh Crap!! Now Rockwell Simborg III's grandfather is opining, and he's a blow hard too!!

Posted by Steve at July 19, 2006 12:33 PM

Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have been tried. Democracy is an excercise in freedom, though I would propose a representative republic. Democracy and a Republic both allow individual freedom, which in no way is a bad thing.

Posted by Mac at July 19, 2006 01:59 PM

I tire of these anonymous trolls. "Rockwell", you may or may not believe whatever you are saying. But please use the same handle each time or stop wasting our time. And I doubt that Aerojet (which owns the rocket.com domain) would appreciate your phantom email address "space@rocket.com".

Posted by Karl Hallowell at July 21, 2006 09:27 AM

It's just like the difference between Java and Javascript. Sun created and owns copyrights and patents for Java. Javascript was created by Netscape; Sun only owns a trademark for its name.

Perhaps before you make an analogy you should understand what you are analogizing to.

Posted by Sameer Parekh at July 22, 2006 04:12 PM

Post a comment