War is about the correlation of forces
by Dan tdaxp ~ May 7th, 2008
Half Sigma adopts the Jacksonian line that war is about destroying enemy states, and that other definitions are dangerously “liberal”
Half Sigma: We are not “losing” a “war” in Iraq
I’m sick and tired of hearing people say that we are “losing” the “war” in Iraq.If fifty years ago, you told someone that our troops went into a country, took the place over in a few weeks, and now run the place, they would have responded, “wow, you guys won a really big victory!”
But someone has managed to redefine the term “win” so it means that you have to transform a nation into a peaceful Democracy while taking zero casualties and not being allowed to attack and kill enemy guerillas unless you have a clear shot at them without any women, children, or Mosques in the way.
Obviously the political left is responsible for this redefinition, and the political left is so powerful that they managed to sucker a lot of people in the Bush administration into believing this nonsense.
Yes, the Bush administration is thought of as hardcore conservative, but actually Bush has been brainwashed into believing in liberal left-wing hate-America nonsense. He has bought into the idea that you can’t just win a war by taking over a country; he has bought into the nonsense that America is inherently evil and that the only way to cleanse the evilness of a military victory is by subsequently taking a lot of casualties and showing that we are the good guys by bringing peaceful Democracy while, all the time, respecting the most absurd and evil religion on the planet.
As I wrote as a comment:
War is about the correlation of forces — those forces that support your efforts, minus those forces that oppose your efforts. Taking out Saddam’s Iraq succeeded in removing a dangerous enemy from the Middle East, but if Iraq would have degenerated into a state controlled by al Qaeda or a hostile Iran, we would not have improved our correlation of forces in the region.
It was foolish to expect Iraq to develop into a modern liberal democracy without undergoing deeper and harder reforms first. However, the importance of managing Iraq’s government and security for some time was a wise one. We appear to be heading to a type of victory that is familiar to us in these small wars: spoiling our enemies while setting up a government that can keep the peace, cooperative with us militarily, and push the question of liberalization off to the future.
The blogger at half sigma likes his rhetorical flourishes, but he is influential, and I have seen him change his position as new facts come in previously. So: join the discussion at halfsigma.com!
May 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Half-sigma wrote:
“2) It’s impossible to bring peaceful Democracy to religious fanatics with lower genetic intelligence than the average caucasian American. ”
I wasn’t aware that the Baathist regime had conducted much in the way of standardized IQ testing in it’s time.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
IQ of Iraq’s Arab neighbors are Kuwait (83), Saudi Arabia (83), Jordan (87), and Syria (87), with Iraq’s non-Arab Turkeys being Turkey (90) and Iran (84). [1]
Certainly inbreeding doesn’t help [2].
[1] http://baconeatingatheistjew.blogspot.com/2006/02/middle-east-literacy-and-iq-rates.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/11/19/mapping-the-gap.html
May 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Yes, he definitely likes his rhetoric. Isn’t the definition of “victory” reliant upon the goals of the invading force? I’m a bit hesitant to agree that victory is defined by simply “taking over” a country. By this logic the Soviets “won” in Afghanistan.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:16 am
So, much smarter Islamist religious fanatics would be more amenable to democracy ?
May 8th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Mark,
Al Qaeda’s a vanguard organization, composed of knowledgeable and intelligent men capable of long-term planning, imaginative thinking, and resilience.
That may be the problem.
Perhaps the safest system is an intelligent public and an unimaginative political class?
If so, we’re pretty safe.
Jay,
Excellent point!
May 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“It’s impossible to bring peaceful Democracy to religious fanatics with lower genetic intelligence than the average caucasian American. ” (-Half-Sigma)
Its important to realize that the word “caucasian” also includes Arabs, North Africans, and Indians. So knowing this, the question is what’s the difference between an American caucasian and a middle East caucasian?
While this statement is a little over the top, maybe some thought should go into whether a certain “cut-off line” exists regarding the country’s average IQ and its ability to have a functional society?
There does seem to be a correlation between IQ and national prosperity{1}.
{1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
May 11th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Yes, that’s a good idea:
“If fifty years ago, you told someone that our troops went into a country, took the place over in a few weeks, and now run the place, they would have responded, ‘wow, you guys won a really big victory!’”
Let’s declare victory and leave.
This is bad:
“However, the importance of managing Iraq’s government and security for some time was a wise one. We appear to be heading to a type of victory that is familiar to us in these small wars: spoiling our enemies while setting up a government that can keep the peace, cooperative with us militarily, and push the question of liberalization off to the future.”
It’s not a “small” war for those who’ve lost their limbs, minds, or family members.
It’s not “spoiling our enemies” unleashing chaos in Iraqi society, and we haven’t “spoiled” anyone who lost a child due to collateral damage.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Seerov,
Excellent points!
Schencka,
I used to agree [1]. I no longer do. [2]
“Small wars” is a term of art referring to conflicts in which the focus is less on kinetics and more on social networking. More information about this form of conflict, and its jargon, can be found at Small Wars Journal [3].
By “to spoil,” I mean “to frustrate the objecties of.” So, in Korea (1950s) we overtly spoiled the Communists (preventing them from achieving their objective of unifying the pennensula), in Afghanistan (1980s) we spoiled the Communists (preventing them from achieving their objective of pacifying the countryside), etc.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/08/11/leave-iraq-now.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/28/the-coin-cycle.html
[3] http://smallwarsjournal.com/