Sunday, December 31, 2006

Reaction to the LONG WAR post

It always surprises me how many emails come in to the public email point as opposed to commenting. Am I that scary? Or is it the experience of readers that one on one is more cordial?

A practical, 'amoral' look.

The post on THE LONG WAR has elicited a number of comments and emails, at IBA and here (this is a cross post) indicating that a large % feel that either the Pentagon, really doesn't get it, or that a the long war of pressure and containment is a losing proposition.

Folks, we can't run around yelling "killemall because we have to" as the educating message.

I am convinced that any epochal, cataclysmic confrontation, and action, for the west to win, will have to come about as a result of some action by the other side.
If we observe Iraq, the lesson is clearly that avoiding the unknown (for instance Saddam getting nukes as a result of the imminent lifting of sanctions for 'humanitarian' reasons ..due to our friends in France & Russia) is NOT sufficient for americans to feel it was justified. Americans, apparently will make real war only if the other guys kill us first. I am not sure if this is a bad thing, frankly. It is for those who will die to prove a point, but in the glacial morality play of history, it may not be. Hideous, but true.

Therefore the ultimate END GAME must come about as a result of THEIR actions.

We don't have to make the message that a long cold war is impossible. They will. All we have to do, if the moral imperative is not to strike first (rightly or wrongly) is to fight a cold war, overthrow bad guys from within, educate the public as calmly as possible, and prepare.

For democracies, cataclysmic wars MUST always be a close run thing. That IS why democracies don't fight each other. We can only fight OTHER if we are sufficiently roused.

One look around and it should be clear that today we are NOT.

Continue reading "Reaction to the LONG WAR post" »


Anonymous said...

I agree with your point, E. What worries me about the Joint Staff Long War story is the emphasis on the "long" part. Given recent experience, one has to wonder if, once the enemy does initiate total warfare, the response will be adequate in both the military and ideological areas. But you make an excellent point about our lack of preparedness in both WWI and WWII, especially the latter. Perhaps the wake-up call must include the realization that we could lose this thing! before we stop hitting the snooze button and hit the floor running instead. We had, or thought we had, the luxury of mourning and flag-waving as a response to 9/11 that we didn't have on 12/7/41 when the Japanese demolished a chunk of our fleet. It's all well and good to say it shouldn't have to come to that, but the fact is that it does. What alarmed me about the Long War briefings is that I never heard of them before. Who is getting the benefit of these briefings and why isn't this information more widespread? And, of course, what can we do to help get it out there?

Always On Watch said...

any epochal, cataclysmic confrontation, and action, for the west to win, will have to come about as a result of some action by the other side.

And if the enemy has wised up on that score?

We could indeed lose--by default.

Epaminondas said...

Well, that's a real issue AOW2.

However, there are too many over there who are compelled by the immutable document to commit acts. Acts of paradise entry quality.

Patience is not such an act.

The body of philosophy based on this has been honed for 1 1/2 millenia.