The Victory Speech that George Bush should give

My fellow Americans,

Four years ago, the armed forces of the United States and the world liberated the peoples of Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

We did this because every other method of forcing Saddam to comply with United Nations resolutions and the no-fly zones had failed.
We did this because Saddam refused to allow us to verify the dismantling of his WMD programs.
We did this because to stop the flow of support to terrorists who threatened Americans, Israelis, and innocent people across the world.
We did this to prevent, for all time, any possibility that Saddam would develop nuclear weapons.
We did this to prevent, for all time, any possibility that Saddam would use Iraq’s wealth to support terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

We have succeeded in our goals. In only six weeks, I was able to tell you that our mission was accomplished.

Following the end of major combat operations, we — in cooperation with our coalition partners — attempted to build a new Iraq. We hoped that Iraqis major peoples — the Shia, the Kurds, and the Sunni Arab tribes — would be able to put the past behind them and stand united. A series of elections proved that most Iraqis were opposed to terrorism and welcomed democracy. Even though Iraq had long been ruled by parasitic small minority that deprived most Iraqis of their countries wealth and never won power through any election, we hoped that all Iraqis would welcome the possibility of being equal citizens in a new country.

Sadly, events have now proved that this is impossible. The violent rejection of a new Iraq by a small minority has lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. We will appease this violence by loyalists of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden no longer. Instead, I now announce a policy of providing substantial support, in the form of materiel, capital, and airborne security, to all groups and parties in Iraq that stand against Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and Osma bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist organization.

While many Iraqis opposed terrorism and supported democracy with their fellow Iraqis, that country’s tribal Sunni Arab minority has proved hostile to our ideals of liberty, justice, and freedom. Unlike the white minority government of South Africa, Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority regime has been unwilling to accept peace and reconciliation with their neighbors. After World War II, ethnic Germans and ethnic Japanese were relocated from their former colonies. This caused much hardship and grief, but ultimately proved vital in building a peaceful Europe. In the same way, it appears that the democratically-elected Iraqi government will relocate many members of this former ruling minority out of shared neighborhoods. Additionally, Iraq’s President and Prime Minister have informed me they have no plans to divert that country’s oil wealth to same tribes that have supported al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I welcome this decision.

By holding the Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes to their crimes, such as IED attacks on American troops and the destruction of the holy Golden Mosque, we prevent any possibility of any victory by loyalists to the dead tyrant Saddam Hussein or the cowering terrorist Osama bin Laden. Providence has given Iraq to populations who have suffered the most from Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda: the Kurds and the Shia. The Iraq War now ends in victory, not just for us or for Iraq, but for all the people of the world.

This victory, which will allow the majority of American ground forces to be withdrawn within the year, also strengthens our diplomacy with Iran. As long as we were unable to fully support the free and peace-loving people of Iraq, many Iraqis concluded that Iran would be their only friend against terrorists who kill for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Now that we no longer will forgive certain Iraqi tribes for their harboring of fascist and totalitarian tyrants, no Iraqi will think that America is only a fair weather friend. We hereby give our immediate and complete support to the many political parties and civil societies in Iraq that suffered under the Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda regimes. We support them as they fight back.

We have won, and through our friendship to the young democracy in Iraq we will continue to win.

Thank you, and God Bless the United States of America.

Brave New War, Part II: Global Guerrillas: The Long Tail of Warfare Emerges

This is my second initial reactions post on Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization, by John Robb. The second section is called “Global Guerrillas,” and contains three chapters: “The Long Tail of Warfare Emerges,” “Systems Disruption,” and “Open Source Warfare.”

This post focuses on the fourth chapter of the book, “The Long Tail of Warfare Emerges.”

Brave New War, by John Robb

The Long Tail of Warfare Emerges” is a split effort, containing solid counterinsurgency with a definition (I think) of “global gurreillas.” The solid section covers “Paramilitaries,” or what could be thought of as an Extended Systems Adminitration Force. Both loyalty militias and security contractors are discussed in this section that runs from page 86 to 89. Sadly, the section ends with one of the one-way claims that detract from Robb’s work generally:

For every local or global failure of nation-states to address critical problems, corporate participants in general and PMCs in particular will continue to gain ground. It’s inevitable

Note in the above quote non-national states/devolutionary possibilities are not discussed (particularly gauling for an American author, who should be readily familiar with 50 quasi-sovereign states that are not nations), and that no possibility of states gaining ground on corporate service-providers is mentioned.

Right on the heels of that quote is a discussion of “Third Generation Gangs” theory,” whose quixotic use of “generation” may be of interest to 4GW and 5GW theorists.

When I first heard of the “generational gangs” concept, I wrote:

Sounds a bit buzzwordy.

“1 GEN” gangs are suppliers of public goods, mainly security. They earn a profit through taxation.

“2 GEN” gangs are suppliers of private goods, mainly drugs. They earn a profit selling these goods to customers.

“3 GEN” gangs would appear to be a sub-contractor of “1 GEN” gangs. For instance, a number of brothers who join a “1 GEN” gang together would, presumably, be in their own “3 GEN” gang among themselves.

Thus, as I think the “global guerrilla” idea itself is a bit buzzwordy, I was pleased to see that Robb writes “Third generation gangs fit the model of global guerrillas perfectly” (93). Right or wrong, at least I’m consistent in my criticism.

Robb ends the section describing global guerrillas — these subcontractors of gangs — thusly:

One thing that these hundreds, growing to thousands, of global guerrilla groups have in common is an affinity for systems disruption.

Personally, I think that one thing these gangs have in common with each other — and indeed, with all gangs — is a desire to make money. What Robb is adding to the this “3rd Generation Gang” format without mention is a belief that global guerrillas are realpoliticians, unconcerned with money except as it relates to power. Humans are so perfect though. Global guerrillas, like all men, are vulnerable to greed, pride, and vanity. Thus all angelic dreams — utopias and dystopias — are crushed on the rocks of reality. The System has cash, the State has cash, and for all their petty nuisances gangs make more money by free-riding on the State than by fighting it.

Good for the State and the System. Bad for anarchy and “global guerrillas.”