RSS« Lovely and Rambling a bit about current MENA policy and Iraq | In other matters: the 35 hour week »
July 19, 2004
A Comment on A Comment on Air Strikes
I thought I should respond to this highly peculiar comment in main text, insofar as it, well, puzzles me. And amuses me in the way a fairly poor clown does.
Now the odd fellow who left this first tells me:
Intelligence is not an exact science, thank you so very much for the news flash!
I suppose excellent, then that I need not argue that using hammers where needles are preferred due to imprecision, I presume. Although from the comments that follow it appears that I do.
This next section is just, well, bizarrely nonsensical:
Lets back up a bit, had the previous administration not cut the budget so drastically or put policies in place to incapacitate the intelligence agencies or acted on previous intelligence or made it a priority to build a God like military 100% efficient then perhaps we would never have gotten where we are.
Primo: I do not give one fucking dime of care about idiotic partisan blather about what X or Y American Administration did in regards to theater and global intelligence spending. It (a) has fuck all to do with battlefield tactics, (b) fuck all to do with the lack of American capacity in regards to the Arab region. An empty and idiotic bit of moronic posturing. I further note that the reduction in Cold War structured military and intelligence budgets are not signs of failing to grapple with terrorism, indeed they are indicative of at least some redeployment (it would appear insufficient) of assets, assets that remain largely inappropriate to the job to my best understanding. Neither the Bush I nor the Clinton Administrations strike me as particularly to fault regarding failing to grapple with al-Qaeda per se, so I leave aside the partisan idiocy.
Secundo: the second clause is just… well impossible to parse. God like militaries have nothing to do with this, appropriate tactics and strategies do. Of course, better intel would be laudable, but given that is difficult to change, appropriate tactics given poor data is highly advised.
For the irredeemably dim, that means not using airpower against urban targets which may (or given the record to date) or may not contain insurgent targets. It is, again for the irredeemably dim, to be clear, a losing proposition.
Finally, let me reemphasize, for the irredeemably dim, the entire point of my commentary was the recognition of flaws, that is when one has fairly decent reason to believe one’s intelligence is shit (and given the utter failure to date to deal in an appropriate manner with the insurgency, the constant mischaracterization, which seemed largely based on wishful thinking – I mean the entire dead-ender rubbish – as well as similar failures in Afghanistan), tactics should reflect that.
Hind sight is 20/20, isn't that wonderful.
Again, nonsensical and rather a non-sequitor. The comment is what not to do at present, given as noted supra, a reasonable conclusion given the extent data. That is, learning lessons from past errors.
This is so one sided that it really doesn't even deserve to taken seriously.
I presume that this sentence is in regards to my commentary, although given a lack of a clear antecedent perhaps the confused commentator realized that his own commentary is fairly bizarrely nonsensical.
Regardless, insofar as my commentary is my own fucking point of view, I feel no need to balance it against the ignorant maundering bleating of people who think Iraq is going well or other such nonsense.
Where is the side of the story that points out the advantages of these tactic, there have to be some or they wouldn't be doing it this way?
In your imagination, I presume. The advantage is of course ‘force protection.’ But then that’s already been addressed, penny wise, pound foolish in my considered opinion. Save a few soldiers lives in any given encounter, at the cost of alienation of the population, increasing sympathy for one’s own enemy and increasing the depth of resources upon which the insurgency can draw. Rather clear in the progression of opinion polls in Iraq by the CPA that this has been precisely the result of American military and reconstruction efforts, a population (Iraqi) that turned against the ‘liberator’ – from indifference to widespread hatred and dislike.
Insurgencies are not defeated by turning the population toward them.
So, again for the dim witted, the point at hand is whatever perceived advantages on the side of the military, the cold calculus of cost versus benefit, on a strategic level, indicates the excercise in the use of air strikes in the context of poor intelligence and an urban insurgency is a loser. Pyhrric victories and all that.
I may add that I disagree with Kaatib that insurgencies can not be defeated with sheer might. They can, but at the cost of engaging in total savagery and the total alienation of the population. It is rather clear in the context of what the Ibn Bush Administration pretended to be seeking in Iraq and in the region (democracy and all that), such a military policy would indeed be self-defeating, in short, Pyhrric. As a parenthetical, this is precisely the point missed by the maundering gits who ramble on about how the United States could have "won" in Vietnam if not for "fighting with one hand tied behind its back." Or similar nonesense, a point of view that entirely forgets that one fights wars(in the modern world, at the state level) to achieve discrete political objectives, not simply to achieve battlefield victories, which may or may not achieve the political goal required. Wiping out the North Vietnamese state was of course possible, doing so of course would have set back global political goals (I note the discredit achieved in 'winning' badly in Iraq.).
Oh yeah there it is, because their "weak" and "fearful", what a contradiction to the overall emphasis.
I am afraid I do not follow this at all, although there is little surprise in that given the muddled thinking here.
On consideration, I think the writer means 'because they [the US military] are weak and fearful,' apparently in response to my side comments on perception of the US being all too willing to kill at a distance, not willing to take casualties, with the side note that there is perhaps some truth in the perception.
First, of course, the source comment was on the perception - I should think I can say globally, not just in the Middle East - of the US as huge bully unwilling to sustain real pain. I do not see anything particularly controversial in noting this perception exists, indeed I should think it is widely acknowledged that after Lebanon, Somalia, etc. the perception is there. Now, the comment there is some truth in the perception, that is somewhat controversial I am sure, but it does strike me that the American military puts such a premium on force protection, that it has generated rules of engagement in the context of insurgency that are counter productive - that is indeed go too far in allowing massive firepower to be used in ambig. situations. I note further that per reports, British military commanders and other Western military concur. What is appropriate, I may add, in regards to posture during a conventional war situation (as in the March-April period), is likely not to be appropriate in a non-conventional, urban insurgency context.
Now, the commentator appears to prefer unthinking "me right" sort of masturbatory commentory. All well and fine, it gets you nowhere fast.
This is exactly whats wrong with journalist, wannabe journalist, and journalism today, facts and objectiveness are conveniently absent, its more about making a statement and taking a position.
Another rather confused statement. What my commentary has to do with “journalism” I have no fucking clue as I am not a fucking journalist, nor do I desire to be a fucking journalist. My field is finance, and I rather like it.
But let us abstract away from that, and even presume that the confused and muddled commentator is addressing Dickey’s commentary.
Of course, primo, Dickey’s commentary is just that, commentary. The voice of the writer is analytical, not reporting.
Leaving that aside, it appears the commentator has an issue not with the “facts” (and certainly not with objectivity, insofar as the commentator seems to feel objectivity means reporting what he wants to hear), but with the discomfort of cognitive dissonance between what is desired and what is actual.
It is so transparent and the general public is realizing how disrespectful to them as the readers and recipients not to be given the credit of the capability to decide for themselves and given the full set of facts.
Again a non-sequitur. What the fuck this has to do with my fucking commentary or even Dickey, I have on bloody fucking clue.
Since I am neither journo nor anything related to journo, I will just say I find the comment moronic. “All the facts” appears to really mean “give me a story that does not provoke cognitive dissonance.” See next sentence:
Check the FOX ratings if you think its not so.
I don’t live in the fucking States and I care fuck all about Fox. Bloody mindless trash, but well, if your taste for news is in your ass, feel free.
I should note that if the commentator feels that he is getting "all the facts" from Fox, my best understanding is this is hallucinatorily stupid. Of course, I do not live in the States and do not watch Fox, however to my best understanding Fox appears to play the non-analytical, emotive, rah-rah line, in short agit-prop. As I recall from nonesense being cited to me from Fox, it tried to sell the line that things were going better than "the media" was reporting up until everything clearly went to hell. I would then hazard the opinion to watch the channel appears to mean not that one wants all the facts, but rather one wants a nice diet of self-indulgent navel gazing.
One last note, the illustration offered by a poster is so simplistic only a child like mind would claim to have redeemed some value from it.
Interesting. Well, considering the logic to date, I must bow to the commentator’s typically muddled and confused analysis, insofar as I no fucking clue as to what this refers to.
If your going to point out a problem, at least offer a solution, until you can do that its really just a bunch of propaganda.
And here we have the final confused nugget.
Of course, critiquing a problem but “not” offering a solution is not “propaganda” – this for the edification of the dim witted. It is, well, critiquing a problem. Now, if the critique is off base, if it has spun the facts in a political manner to support a particular political agenda (I may point the readership to any of the fine bizarro extreme left sites rambling on about stealing Iraqi oil and the like), then that is propaganda. Else, it is not under any ordinary English language usage (again, note to the dim-witted, that which makes you feel uncomfortable is not ipso facto propaganda, sometimes reality does not match conception you know.).
Second, of course, I do suggest a solution: abandon the use of air strikes in an urban insurgency context, use other force, as of course ground forces. Painful and expensive, yes, imperfect, yes. Better, well, worth a shot.
Of course application of force is important as well, again taking lessons from less-than-complete failures in other contexts (and nota bene, one should look to examples that are actually applicable, in re foreign forces).
Posted by The Lounsbury at July 19, 2004 12:33 AM
Filed Under:
Jan-Jul 2004
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.aqoul.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1082
