One of the first things a motorcyclist learns is that “You go where you look.”
Target fixation is the term used for the habit motorcyclists (and drivers) have of running into things they mean to avoid. They do this because we – for some reason – are wired to tend to steer toward whatever we are paying attention to.
So that’s interesting, you reply.
I want to extend this toward the larger debate we’re having here about Iran. And to put it into context, let me base the argument on something I know a bit about directly – personal combat.
One of the key issues in making fighting personal is that typically, it is far from clear that you’re really in a fight for a long time. Often the person who knows that you are – or decides first that you are – has a substantial advantage.
There’s a problem with this formulation, of course.
And that is that a very small proportion of interpersonal conflicts actually become fights. Let me give a concrete example.
You‘re driving cross country, and you stop to put gas in your car late at night. A pickup truck full of violent lacrosse players (note the clever use of stereotype) pulls up next to you and starts making fun of your car, of you, of the trailer you’re pulling, and of your wife sitting in the car.
They get out of the truck and approach you in a menacing manner, challenging you (the technical term is ‘woofing’). So what do you do? The threat is real, and as they approach you – two of them – it’s clear that time isn’t on your side. How do you respond?
The problem, of course is that while there is a conflict, there isn’t necessarily a fight yet. So you have to make a decision. On one hand, the decision ought to be relatively easy – they threatened me – GO!!!
…but on the other, most of us know that if we used that as a criterion to start fighting, society would be a worse place, we’d be ostracized if not imprisoned, and worse – the actual risk of harm we’d face would be higher, not lower – because the increased odds we’d face in each fight because we made the decision first would be far outweighed by the increased exposure to harm that we’d face because we’d be in so many more fights.
There is a conflict of stereotypes that we can look at; on one hand, the meek victim, never willing to realize they are at risk, always in ‘condition white’; there is another stereotype as well – of the person with a ‘hair-trigger’ temper, the bully, the one who always seems to find themselves in conflict wherever they go.
Practically, we want to navigate a middle ground.
It starts by recognizing that conflict =! combat. Conflict is always a precursor to combat – but combat does not always follow conflict.
I’ll quote Clint Smith, a famous firearms instructor:
“You better learn to communicate real well, because when you’re out there on the street, you’ll have to talk to a lot more people than you’ll have to shoot, or at least that’s the way I think it’s supposed to work.”
So what’s the goal?
On one hand, the goal of personal defense skills, as it’s always been explained to me, is to enable you to have the comfort not to have to respond too quickly, and thereby make combat certain.
On the other, it is to give to the mindset and skills to win when you do fight.
But most of the skills you learn – on the mat in the dojo or on the firing range – don’t do a good job of teaching you the hardest thing – which is to know when you are really in a fight.
Expanding back to geopolitics and Iran, some of the bloggers on this site are convinced that the fight is here, and that we need to act accordingly and act soon. We get something for that – we get a tactical advantage, and the certainty that Iran won’t create or use nuclear weapons in the next five or ten years; if we invade and make it stick, we’ll get the certainty that Iran won’t in the near term, make them at all.
But we’ll trade some things away for that.
First, it means that we’ll certainly have a fight.
Next it means that others will be making decisions about whether to make nuclear weapons in a different light. Will they be more likely to make them – more hostile, more committed to opposing our interests, more certain we are Crusaders? Or less likely – as they are more afraid of our response, more convinced of our commitment to reshaping the Muslim world? It’s hard to say.
Finally, it means that we’ll be fighting without the tactical advantage time can give us, if we use it.
There is no certainty in this kind of world; mistakes are made on both sides – in World War I, in fighting too soon, in World War II in fighting too late. There is no ‘right’ answer. We have to weigh the odds, and decide what kind of risk we’re willing to take.
The thing to watch out for is target fixation – of either kind.
Trent, Tom, and Joe are convinced we’re in a fight. To be honest, they’re looking for one, and if we follow their policies, we’ll certainly have one.
Matt Yglesias, Josh Marshall and others are convinced that a fight is out of the question. To be honest, they’ll make the opposite mistake, and won’t know we’re fighting until the planes have flown into the towers again.
There is a large middle ground, which doesn’t reject force – even the first use of force – but doesn’t list it as the opening gambit.
The situation at the gas station I’m describing above really happened to someone I know, at an isolated gas station on an Interstate late one night.
It happens that it happened to Clint Smith, a retired Marine combat veteran, former SWAT sniper, and then a shooting instructor on his way to teach a submachine gun class to a local police department. He was armed with a handgun under his jacket, and his wife had a MP-5 submachine gun in her lap, as the trailer was stacked full of submachine guns, ammunition, and police munitions.
How does that change the response you’d propose? How does it change the kinds of mistakes you’re willing to make in that situation?
Where would you look? Where would you want to go?
Armed Liberal: “Trent, Tom, and Joe are convinced we’re in a fight. To be honest, they’re looking for one, and if we follow their policies, we’ll certainly have one.”
I won’t speak for Trent, Tom, and Joe.
For myself, I think we are in a fight. To be plain, I think we are in a condition of hostility only a few rungs removed from the top one. I think it is in our permanent, visceral interest to have less of Islam, and specifically less of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That’s not “zero sum”, but if you stand up tall from where I am you can see “zero sum” in the far distance. It means that there are no diminished levels of Iranian wealth, religious and ideological influence, military power, technical capability, organisational efficiency, territorial extent or anything else that I would regard as inherently undesirable. An Iranian that emigrates to Tahiti and leaves behind everything that once made him or her Iranian thereby makes the world a better place.
With most adversaries, in most fighting, I’d like to see the adversary pushed back a bit, but not too much. I want there always to be a Russia, even though Russia is acting in ways that make adversarial relations an unavoidable matter of fact, and morally justifiable in that we “owe them a few”. I don’t want a world without Germans, even though Germany’s karmic debt will never be paid off, and even if it resulted from Germans deciding peacefully that they would all rather be Slovaks, Spaniards, Danes and so on. I think that – even gutted by the slaughter of its culturally fertile Jews – German culture still has something to say, other than “Die!” and I want the world to hear it.
Not with the Islamic Republic of Iran. I have heard what it has to say: it is “Allah hu Akhbar!” and I don’t want any more of it.
By the way, this also applies to the (Wahhabi) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the other great fountain-head of Muslim hate. Little that is valuable would be lost if all these people became something other than what they are, leaving no trace of their traditions. I think we have a permanent practical interest in drawing as near to that ideal state as possible.
If I knew other people thought about Australia the way I think about these countries, I would think of them as being in a state of hostility with me no matter who said what and regardless of whether there were any visibly aggressive moves being made at that moment. Actually, it’s because I know that Islam does see Australia, its friends and its traditions in this way and in even worse ways than this – a priori, permanently and as a matter of religious dogma – that I see them this way. Permanently, they want us gone, replaced by more of them. So we have a permanent interest in them being gone.
“Fighting” is one thing, true hostility is another.
Anyway, let’s to the isolated gas station on an interstate late one night … I’m in the car, and if not I immediately get in the car. I’d roll up my windows instantly, slowly and carefully drive a few dozen yards down the road – enough so that approaching my new position, where I obviously do not want to be approached would be a definite, sustained decision rather than a few steps taken out of curiosity or a mistaken impression that I was inviting further confrontation – turn my car straight towards the station (and the hoons), belt up if I wasn’t already belted up, stop, and relax. I can get my gas in a few minutes, after these guys have gone. Who needs the grief?
I know I wouldn’t go running dozens of yards down the road, toward headlights shining in my eyes and some guy with his car pointed at me like a gun. I think anybody who would is likely nuts. And since I assume I can’t just drive away and keep going without the gas I need in this scenario, I would think: “If someone has to be knocked down or even injured here I’d rather it wasn’t me.”
Now, same scenario, but with the arsenal and the skills to back it up. Same deal. The cautious option is the good option. And a gun you have no intention of using is a danger only to you (for example by making a startled hostile think he needs that gun in his hands, immediately), so let’s be even more cautious. Improving my position, I make the hostiles or potential hostiles show me their intention without telling them anything they don’t already know. (Cars are bigger than people.)
Under no circumstances would I contemplate getting out of the car and engaging in either some confrontation or attempt to prove that I am a diplomatic genius and can negotiate away anything. I think those are both ego moves.
And I don’t need to make this turn out in a heart-warming, friendly fashion for a good end to a story. There is no need for explanations or “closure”. These are not my buddies and I am not their buddy. They are not a part of my story, they are an interruption that I intend to minimise.
Armed Liberal: “On one hand, the decision ought to be relatively easy – they threatened me – GO!!!”
I don’t understand this at all, coming from an intelligent man, even though it’s only “at one level”. To the extent that the threat is real, you act with less warmth, more cold-bloodedly reducing the relative combat power of the hostiles while increasing your own, yes? Getting out of your car reduces your relative combat power by thousands of horsepower and some armour, while increasing the adversary’s options by making surrounding you, knocking you down and so on into attractive possibilities. And if you have a friend in the car you are putting them in a ridiculous position by:
A: making a move that leave them behind – a classic losing move in every age.
B: making them abandon you if you get in trouble.
C: making them abandon their safe position in the car after you have gotten yourself in trouble – which for brains is on a par with kids in a slasher movie going into the Old Dark House on the Hill to find the other kid that went there and hasn’t come back. Or
D: making them intervene to stop this, automatically creating conflict and undermining you.
It’s like a beginner at chess who plays by “just fighting” – planless attacks on hostile pieces and pawns.
Now, if the car scenario is meant to match up with our problem with the Islamic Republic of Iran – what is the non-confrontational, superficially retreating option that increases our safety, flexibility and general relative fighting power, while stripping the opponent of immediate aggressive options and while forcing it to give us information about its intentions in return for not one word? If there is such a “friendly” option, I am all for it. I like such options, at the chessboard and in life. Nothing is nicer than to destroy the position of an opponent who doesn’t even see an active move. (E.g., in this case, attacking by driving away.)
But if time is not on our side, and we can’t get time to be on our side, that’s different.
And by the way, Armed Liberal, you are a gun guy. Assuming in a confrontation you couldn’t avoid, you have put up your fists, and your adversary with the bulky jacket wants to take about three steps backward while keeping you plainly in his sight. Do you trust his intentions since he is not “fighting”? Or do you think that he might be trying to kill you?
If we are not in a fight why is Ahmanutjob in such pain?
I think the Cash Flow Jihad (clever term) is hurting him.
Which is the more honorable course for him? To get beat by the USA in an open fight or to get overthrown by a hungry populace?
Thus he is trying to start a shooting war.
So we have put the other guy in a position where he has already chosen to fight as we have, but we are in the “phoney war” period. The armies are eyeing each other and looking for an opening. A dropping ofthe guard. The little relaxation or the false move.
I think Iran is cornered.
Very dangerous.
Full of opportunity.
David Blue,
I’ll keep saying this til I blue in the face (am I being a smart ass or what?) in answer to your hypothetical:
what is the non-confrontational, superficially retreating option that increases our safety, flexibility and general relative fighting power, while stripping the opponent of immediate aggressive options and while forcing it to give us information about its intentions in return for not one word?
Cash Flow Jihad.
It is working nicely.
It is June 1941 – Japan’s oil has been embargoed since 1936 – it is beginning to hurt. America believes it will be attacked in the spring – Japan has other plans.
Iran made a $15 bn profit on oil last year. They expect a $45 bn profit this year. They have just withdrawn $30 bn in cash and about $7 bn in gold from their Euro Banks. I’d say they are in the starting to hurt phase.
Surrender or fight? They are a proud people as were the Japanese.
Immediate provocation? I’d bet on the Kurdish Communists we have been supporting to every one’s chagrin. Iran has already done a 3 mile incursion to punish them.
Re: Japan,
Upon further research:
Crude oil embargo and Japanese assets in Amerca frozen 26 July, 1941. Gasoline embargo 1 Aug 1941.
If you had asked me about Iran 6 months ago, I would have said, “We’re not in a fight yet, but there is one on the horizon.”
Ask me today and I’ll say “We’re not quite in a fight yet, but one is almost certain to happen. Better prepare for it.”
What has changed between then and now? The US, EU, and Russia have all struck out diplomatically with no evidence that Iran is realistically interested in finding a diplomatic solution. Too many countries want Iran’s oil to make sanctions viable. I don’t see any way to bribe them and keep them bribed (and North Korea has discredited this move). Frankly, at the moment I don’t see any options other then a conflict of some sort unless Iran changes it’s diplomatic stance.
Hopefully we can create a situation where internal dissidants who are willing to be at least neutral towards us, if not friendly, take over. Realistically I think we’ll be putting our citizen-soldiers into harms way in Iran within the next couple of years.
StargazerA5
Something depends on what you mean by “we”, StargazerA5. Reports like this trouble me. The Iranians have denied it officially, of course. But, if Iranian regulars are crossing the Iraqi border for any reason whatever, that seems something beyond merely provocative to me.
Additionally, I wouldn’t be surprised if we already had special forces inside Iran. You might want to look at my speculations from more than a year ago in which I wondered if we weren’t already at war with Iran.
is the real question what we mean by “fight”. I certainly think we are in a fight with the govt of Iran (as we are with AQ and its fellow Qutbists, and with the remnants of radical PanArab nationalism). Its a fight on many fronts, and requires many tools. Conventional force is not always the best tool. I dont think its the right tool right now, although I think its wise to keep the world aware that we have it as an option.
How do you respond?
A difficult question.
For me, the most wrenching part of United 93 was seeing the men come to terms with the fact that what was happening was real, that they were in a fight and had to act. Having had a similar experience (blogged about here if anyone’s interested), I have some firsthand knowledge of just how difficult that it is. The right choice may seem clear and simple from the comfy chair perspective, but when you’re right there in it it’s a whole ‘nother matter.
There are also some variables. Judging by the inclusion of wife in the car in your scenario, the question is directed at men. I’m not a man. Does that matter? At the risk of being horribly, horribly un-PC and acknowledging that there are biological and societal differences between men and women, I think it does. Groveling my way out and/or tucking tail and running, while not enjoyable, just don’t cost me what they would a man. In that particular situation, I would retreat to my car, lock the doors, and get out my cellphone. If I had a gun, I would get it out, too.
None of this really extrapolates out to the Iran situation, however. There, it’s more than just myself and my hypothetical spouse at risk. There are a bunch of other people in that hypothetical gas station and no 911 at the other end of that hypothetical cellphone. Whatever misbehavior those dastardly (albeit hypothetical) lacrosse players have in mind, if I don’t stop it, nobody will.
Iran is a problem and, like it or not, fair or not, America is who’s going to have to do something about it. The mullahs aren’t going to magically transform into reasonable, peaceful people overnight. With all respect to Regime Change Iran, they’ve been breathlessly predicting an uprising anyminutenow for years. It’s not something we can rely on. Still less is Israel going to come flying in to Osirak them. Still, blitzing Iran — physically or psychologically — is just not an option at the moment. Fortunately, we’re not a lone unarmed individual facing a gang of athletes. We’ve got guns in the car and a little bit of time.
Don’t go to guns until we have to. Use whatever time we’ve got to soften them up while we prepare. The more time we buy, the more Iraqi and Afghani forces come online, freeing up more of our forces. And the more experienced our forces get. Put a full court press on infiltration and espionage. Learn their capabilities, plans, and pressure points. Engage in a bit of low-key asymmetrical warfare of our own.
Is it a perfect plan guaranteed of success? No. But, if we’re very very lucky and very very good, we might just pull it off without catastrophic bloodshed.
A.L.,
Iran has been at war with us for years. They’ve been engaged in acts of war against us and lots of other countries for years.
This is not a question of war or no war. We have war right now. And we didn’t start it.
The only question is when we start fighting back.
So please tell us, do you or do you not feel that Iran is at war with the United States RIGHT NOW?
Tom, Iran has clearly been in a conflict with us since 1979. Does it rise to the level of a war? No one has thought so to date.
Are we at war with the Cubans? We’ve had a shooting war by proxy with them as well…
A.L.
Where is your bottom line, A.L.? How many Americans must Iran kill before you’ll admit that they are making war on America?
Give us a body count. How many Americans must be blown up and shot by Iranian agents before their “conflict” with us turns into a “war”?
100? 200? 500? 3000?
They say it’s a war, so you don’t have the out of contending that it’s not a war until one side says it is.
Is your definition of “war” one peculiar to you? It ain’t war until Danziger says it’s a war?
You are playing word games.
Are Iranian agents shooting at American troops right now? Are they blowing up American troops right now?
How does Iran’s combatant actions against American forces in Iraq in the past 12 months not constitute a war?
I have three words for you, Marc:
Shoot the hostage
Iran has been like a bank robber trying to get out of town. They want to obliterate Israel, and they’ve got plenty of oil that we want. Unless we cooperate, the oil gets it. The oil is so valuable to us (even more than a real hostage, ironically) that we’ll do anything to keep it safe. It looks like Russia and China will even look the other way while WWIII starts.
The only thing to do is to shoot the hostage. Completely destroy the Iranian oil production. This will hurt a lot! But it totally changes the dynamics of the situation. Then the Iranians will look like what they are: a bunch of third-rate lunatics.
Shoot the hostage
As for “are we in a war or not?” Iran is like a small dog barking around our ankles. We can smile and try to ignore it, or ask the owners of the house (the UN) to shut the little furball up. The owners of the house seem to think the little dog is funny. They are laughing at our discomfort. So we laugh along also, as long as the little bstard doesn’t jump up and grab us by the private parts.
You can make the call either way you want. Sooner or later, though, the little dog is going to do something to us that is going to hurt. A lot.
Postcript for A.L.,
Liberals have a major league tendency to deny that what our enemies do to us constitutes a “war”, and to say that it is “war” only when we fight back. I.e., it ain’t a war unless we shoot back. Because it’s always about us, not the enemy.
So give us a definition of war which depends on enemy action, not our action. Give us a definition of “war” which does not include what Iran has been doing to American forces in Iraq for the past year and can still pass the giggle test.
Or stand revealed as the caricature of liberals held by conservatives.
BTW, starting this thread was a serious error. It exposed liberals’ sucking chest wound on national security.
Tom, don’t be more ridiculous that you have historically been.
As an advanced student of the history and art of war, you’re obviously aware that nations have had conflicts before that resulted in deaths – and that those conflicts have sometimes, but not always escalated to wars.
I’ll go with two definitions of war…
Clauswitz:
bq. Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to contend against violence. Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power.
bq. Violence, that is to say, physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of States and Law), is therefore the MEANS; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object. In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed, and disarmament becomes therefore the immediate OBJECT of hostilities in theory. It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from our calculations.
So Clauswitz suggests that enforcing the submission of an opponent through the essentially limitless application of force is war.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines war as
bq. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
Is our conflict with Iran “open and armed”? Not exactly. Could it be? Certainly.
What do I want to do about it?
First, make sure we have the resources to win without making the cinders bounce.
Second, make sure that winning – even if it involves making the cinders bounce – doesn’t leave us worse off than we are today. They aren’t the only one we’re in conflict with, or likely to be.
To do those things will require a strong national will. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s not there today.
Your – screeching – there’s really no other word to describe
bq. Liberals have a major league tendency to deny that what our enemies do to us constitutes a “war”, and to say that it is “war” only when we fight back. I.e., it ain’t a war unless we shoot back. Because it’s always about us, not the enemy.
sets back the requirement that we develop a national consensus on what to do.
Take a deep breath, step back and look at your words. If MoveOn wanted someone to use as a caricature of a hawk – how would it be different?
And how, exactly, does that serve the national interest?
A.L.
AL —
Of course we are at war. Khobar Towers, Iranian assistance with 9/11 Operational issues (transit help), Al Qaeda sanctuary, etc.
Acts of war.
Our non-response mirrors Clinton’s to Al Qaeda in the nineties.
Giving the enemy all the initiative inevitably results in 9/11 or larger attacks.
Iran nuking America is the downside of your approach. Once the US is nuked ONLY the total destruction of Iran as a nation will suffice, otherwise other nations will see a net positive for nuking America. Not good with Pakistan, North Korea, China, and Russia being hostile and having nukes now.
I would argue fighting back NOW to keep nukes away from being used beats getting nuked in a super-9/11 and having no choice but to respond in a strategic manner to kill tens of millions.
Wishing and hoping Iran won’t nuke us is not a strategy.
David Blue (#1) I apologize; i left you with a few bad interpretations. “GO!!” in this context means the fight is on. And typically, when I’m filling my car, I’m standing alongside it.
I’ll agree with your assessment that we’re in conflict with Iran (and the Islamist movement it is striving to lead) a few steps above the top. The question is how to manage our situation to our advantage.
Achillea (#8) – no, I didn’t intend to aim this solely at men; Clint’s wife in the car was the biggest factor in the reality ofthe situation, and given a choice between fighting one of them, I might well prefer to fight him – out of cowardice.
No, it’s not an exact simile to Iran – but the core question – when does confrontation become combat, and how we decide – is exactly the same.
A.L.
Jim, there’s a Grand-Canyon sized gap between what I’ve conretely proposed (go back and see “Just A Second – It’s Not That Dark Yet,” where I propose
* Meaningful National Energy Policy, to lessen the stanglehold the ME has on our economy;
* Building conventional forces, and conventional forces in-theater;
* Talking to the Iranians, to the internal opposition, to the Japanese, Europeans, Russians and Chinese
These things will take years. We’ve got years – not many, but some.
The alternative? A war without the abilility to occupy or rebuild. A world economic crisis, and allies who are now slowly moving toward us running away. And a Middle East (and Africa) full of countries that know we don’t have the resources to figtht all of them, the wealth to create the resources, or the allies to join us in getting it done.
What then, Jim?
A.L.
Sorry – forgot to credit the excellent “fire ants” post below – think about it. yes, you can kill all the ants on your property. then next year, you get nine times as many fire ants.
There’s a lesson here.
A.L.
AL #14, just to clarify the problem.
Assume the existince of countries Alpha and Omega.
Omega is “enforcing the submission of an opponent through the essentially limitless application of force” against Alpha by:
1. Conquering sovereign Alpha territory by seizing Alpha’s embassy and kidnapping Alpha’s diplomatic staff.
2. Funding terrorists who mass murder Alpha citizens.
3. Giving terrorists who mass murder Alpha citizens sanctuary right across the border from Alpha forces.
4. Developing a nuclear bomb in secret while lying about its nuclear program at every opportunity.
5. Brainwashing generations of children to hate and strive to warfare and conquest against everyone outside Omega.
6. Creating a theistic totalitarian tyrrany that controls every aspect of its citizens’ lives, in order to prevent any surprises at home (in case of war).
On the other hand, Alpha is talking and talking and talking some more, not even talking itself but authorizing proxies in Beta and Gamma to do its talking with Omega.
Clearly, Alpha is not “enforcing the submission of an opponent through the essentially limitless application of force”.
Clearly, Omega is in a war against Alpha. What about Alpha?
Questions
1. Is Alpha in a war against Omega?
2. Was the cold war against soviet/stalinist/leninist communism really a war?
As an addendum to my point…
Being at war is sorta like fighting. You aren’t fighting if you are just getting your ass kicked. But even if you are letting yourself get beaten up, you’re in a fight. So, if the other guy is at war with you, you’re in a war. Period.
Pangloss –
Yes, as I’ve said before, we’re in a conflict/confrontation with Iran (among others). And yes, they have underwritten acts of terror and clear violations of international law. I’m not suggesting that we ignore those and pretend we’re buddies.
But that – background noise – goes on all the time. That’s the reality of international affairs in the latter half of the 20th Century.
Let’s pick a few – USS Pueblo, USS Liberty, Orlando Letelier, Salvador Allende, Omagh, and I’m just rattling off names from memory. None of these led to a war, or even a police action (a la Korea).
So let’s go back to your question – we’re getting stung by ants, nasty ones, which could – if they multiply and really occupy our cities – cause deaths and hardship.
Do we pour hot water on the visible nests? Or set our slow-acting bait?
A.L.
Armed Liberal, in the original post: “Where would you look? Where would you want to go?”
I’d want to look all around, stay frosty, and move to the safest position available.
I’m not a motorcyclist, I don’t go where I look.
I’m not a predator, eyes and ears only on the target.
I’m a bunny rabbit, eyes and ears in all directions, including behind me, when things get scary. (On the Internet, nobody knows you are a bunny rabbit. Oops!)
#3 from M. Simon:
“David Blue,
I’ll keep saying this til I blue in the face (am I being a smart ass or what?) in answer to your hypothetical:
what is the non-confrontational, superficially retreating option that increases our safety, flexibility and general relative fighting power, while stripping the opponent of immediate aggressive options and while forcing it to give us information about its intentions in return for not one word?
Cash Flow Jihad.”
That’s the kind of idea I like, even though I think limited supply and increasing demand make it difficult.
#11 from Tom Holsinger:
“Is your definition of “war” one peculiar to you? It ain’t war until Danziger says it’s a war?”
#13 from Tom Holsinger:
“Postcript for A.L.,
Liberals have a major league tendency to deny that what our enemies do to us constitutes a “war”, and to say that it is “war” only when we fight back. I.e., it ain’t a war unless we shoot back. Because it’s always about us, not the enemy.
So give us a definition of war which depends on enemy action, not our action. Give us a definition of “war” which does not include what Iran has been doing to American forces in Iraq for the past year and can still pass the giggle test.
Or stand revealed as the caricature of liberals held by conservatives.”
Tom, how dare you speak this way to a Bush voter?! Calm yourself!
(Yes, A.L.: I’m never, ever going to let you forget that one. 🙂
#16 from Armed Liberal:
“David Blue (#1) I apologize; i left you with a few bad interpretations. “GO!!” in this context means the fight is on. And typically, when I’m filling my car, I’m standing alongside it.”
Thanks! That’s clearer now.
OK, what I’ve said in effect was, I would regard the situation as “Go!” and I would immediately put up shutters, move to a more defensible position and so on. Maybe that’s just temperament. Maybe it’s because in a situation a bit like that once (minus me being armed and with backup), I was feeling dead tired, a bit groggy with fatigue and amiable to the whole world, and figured I’d just “friendly” my way out of it, instead of going to “action stations!” – and I was lucky to get out of that, and I would not make that mistake again. See, it’s not how friendly you feel, it’s how the other crazy bastards feel, and that you don’t get to find out till it’s too late or if you’re lucky almost too late.
Armed Liberal: I’ll agree with your assessment that we’re in conflict with Iran (and the Islamist movement it is striving to lead) a few steps above the top. The question is how to manage our situation to our advantage.”
Yup. We’re on the same page. It’s a tough one.
I have a sinking feeling that this is another occasion where the sheer craziness of the other guy may make our would-be reasonable (if in my case deeply unfriendly) thinking irrelevant.
But we have a little time yet
I would stick with Iraq. I would not free up our forces from there to go at Iran. History may condemn that as lunacy, but that’s my call.
When people act dangerous, goodwill and suspension of doubt go out the window early for me, but I prefer quiet moves.
I do not want to release the squeeze on jihad terrorists in Iraq till the crunch from the Iranian nuclear threat is even crunchier than it now is. I think the Iranians are trying to mess with our heads, perhaps trying to jolt us into a half-cocked, weak, inconclusive reaction.. I don’t want to react precipitately to bluster. I don’t think we have a dramatic move available that will do militant Islam more harm than just staying the course (with some quiet corrections) will.
I think it’s reasonable to hope to free up our forces from Iraq substantially in, say, two years, and then let, probably, President John McCain give Iran his total and undivided attention. If that doesn’t work, if Iranian nukes raise mushroom clouds, then we have the right to cry, because I think we will have taken a course that gave us as good a chance as any there was to be had on the information now available to us, and fortune will just not have favoured our cause.
Now you:
* On Iran? Could you expand a little more?
* How does your story end?
* And the call I asked for in post #1 – how do you see it?
David –
OK, here’s a fast one while I’m listening in on a conference call.
You wrote:
bq. “Assuming in a confrontation you couldn’t avoid, you have put up your fists, and your adversary with the bulky jacket wants to take about three steps backward while keeping you plainly in his sight. Do you trust his intentions since he is not “fighting”? Or do you think that he might be trying to kill you?”
First, of all, I wouldn’t put my fists up until there was really a fight. Dropping into a fighting stance changes the dynamics of the situation a lot, and choosing a stance before you really understand the specific threat is generally a bad idea.
Bulky jacket could conceal a gun; and taking three steps back could be clearing for action or trying to defuse the situation.
I’d position my feet so that if he did reach into his jacket I could quickly cover the ground in between us, and continue to talk calmly to try and move the interaction away from combat – and to send the clear message that I’m not rattled.
In the actual case, as it was told to me, Clint calmly watched them walk up, didn’t say a word, and didn’t react. That’s actually much more menacing than almost anything else you can do – the overt watching makes it clar that you’re paying attention, and the lack of reaction makes it clear that you aren’t worried. They left.
I’m working on some more specifics re Iran, but it’s much closer to what’s suggested by Pahlavi than by Trent & Tom.
It also includes troop buildups in Iraq, and a bunch of domestic and foreign base-covering.
A.L.
No, it’s not an exact simile to Iran – but the core question – when does confrontation become combat, and how we decide – is exactly the same.
Well, I make that decision based on a number of factors, many of which differ significantly between Iran and the gas station, so for me at least the analogy is fatally flawed. In answer to the question stripped bare:
Confrontation becomes combat after both sides have struck an actual physical blow against the other. It’s possible to quibble about what constitutes a blow, but that’s it in a nutshell.
If your question is more along the lines of ‘how do we decide when it’s time to start hitting,’ that’s another matter.
Achillea, it’s not that simple in either case.
If I poke him in the chest with my finger, is that a blow? If we bump chests? If I put my hand on his shoulder or arm?
And – as an example – if we shoot down one of their airliners, is that a blow?
There’s a whole, subtle, and important continuum between kind words and axe kicks.
A.L.
A.L.,
You try so hard to deny that Iran is making war on us in Iraq right now that you came up with a definition of war which excludes all hostilities in Iraq in the period May 2004 to the present. I.e., it doesn’t pass the giggle test. The Sunni Arabs have not laid down their arms. They’re just using them on their former Al Qaeda allies.
Like I said, you erred in opening this thread – it exposes the hollowness of liberals on national security. You guys have an almost total inability to fight back. Because war is only something we do. It is never what the enemy does to us.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060501-121449-7319r.htm
“Iranians accused in Iraq bombing deaths of soldiers
By John Phillips
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 1, 2006
ROME — Iranian agents were accused yesterday of masterminding a bomb attack that killed three Italian soldiers in Iraq last week and intensified political pressure for the incoming government to speed up its withdrawal of troops from that country.
… The newspaper la Repubblica yesterday quoted officials of the Military Intelligence and Security Service, known by its Italian acronym SISMI, saying the attack was organized by Iranian agents, who were first spotted in the province in early April.
The SISMI sources were quoted as saying the Iranians met with radical Shi’ite leaders to plot that attack and another roadside bomb that exploded near three Carabinieri paramilitary police armored vehicles close to a bridge over the Euphrates River on April 22.
A spy in a local police station evidently provided the Iranians with the route to be taken by the soldiers’ convoy. Iraqi officers at the Nasariyah police station were trained by the Italian contingent, but many are considered unreliable.
“The Tehran government was the direct mastermind of Thursday’s attack, not just a political reference point,” la Repubblica said. It said plans for Italy to withdraw all its forces from the country by the end of this year “makes it [essential] for Tehran to dominate the radical guerrilla panorama in southern Iraq.”
… Italy, a staunch ally of Washington under Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, sent 3,000 soldiers to Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Involvement in the war has been unpopular at home and was a key issue in close-run parliamentary elections last month.
… Oliviero Diliberto, head of the Italian Democratic Communist Party, a coalition partner of Prime Minister-designate Romano Prodi, said the new government could withdraw all Italian forces from Iraq by this summer.
Mr. Prodi “completely agrees with me” on speeding up withdrawal, he said. But political sources said Mr. Prodi, who is set to form a government after Mr. Berlusconi resigns tomorrow, was unlikely to accelerate the phased withdrawal so dramatically.
“There are already nearly 1,000 Italian troops scheduled to leave Iraq in May who won’t be replaced,” a diplomat said. “June is unrealistic, but Prodi might speed up the schedule to pull out by October.”
http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2531
“5/1/2006
ITALIAN COMMUNIST GROUPS HELPED KILL ITALIAN SOLDIERS
Italian communist groups helped kill 3 Italian soldiers in Nassirya I reported about here. An article on L’Opinione reports (in Italian) that anti-globalization and communist groups based in Italy, among which is the infamous “anti-imperialist camp” (that collecting “Euros for the Iraqi resistance”) coordinated with Islamic terrorists in Iraq to attack our troops in Nassiryiah. The Italian intelligence heard phone conversations in which the red fundamentalists instructed the Islamists about how and when to kill our soldiers. It seems that the attack was organized in order to pressure Mr. Prodi to speed the pullout from Iraq.
And of course all was coordinated by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I am sorry that I can’t find the English translation of some must-read news and reports, but if you can manage to translate them by yourself, please read this news about the anger of many Carabinieri at the new-born Prodi government. When the coffins with the bodies of the three fallen heroes were staying in a governmental palace in Rome, some of the dead’s colleagues (Carabinieri) expressed their unwillingness to accept the ‘condolances’ of Prodi and company. One of the Carabinieri said that the troops in Iraq strongly disagree with Prodi’s choice to pullout them …”
Re: #23 from Armed Liberal
Thanks. Those were good answers.
I always think Bill Clinton should get much more credit than he does for his perfect response to the Chinese confrontation of Taiwan. He made all the correct moves with no hesitation, and said the absolute minimum: that the defence of Taiwan was a reality. I thought – oh no, he’s a talker, he loves to negotiate, and that will signal weakness or convey provocation or both. But Bill Clinton was way ahead of me. He made all the right moves in what amounted to silence. Pause .. . Pause .. . The Chinese backed off.
Your friend’s story does have application on a grand scale.
But it works best with sane people.
Chinese Communists are evil but sane.
Militant Muslims may not be sane by our standards. And if doesn’t help us if they are sane by their standards.
You’re at war when you stop doing tit for tat.
We have a lot of unfriendly neighbors. We can’t be at war with all of them, all of the time. Mostly we try to influence them.
So, say some unfriendly person calls you a homo. If you try to kill him or render him helpless, that’s war. If you say “No, I don’t want you. But thanks for the offer, I don’t take offense at any offer.” then that’s tit for tat. Or you might want to ignore him.
If somebody spills your beer you might demand they buy you another one. And if they don’t you might spill their beer and laugh and tell them you don’t take offense. Tit for tat. Or particularly if they mean no offense you might possibly forgive them.
You can show them they don’t get away with things without trying to flatten them. Maybe they’ll accept that or maybe they’ll escalate. Tit for tat can keep you out of some fights without looking weak, and it can delay some fights. If the other guy really wants to fight your choices are to fight or surrender or run away (and on a world scale there’s nowhere for the USA to go). But if he puts it off then you don’t have to do that fight today. That’s handy when there are a lot of candidates to fight with.
During the cold war we had a plan in case the USSR nuked a US city. They could tell us it was an accident and apologise or something. And we’d be out a city. The plan was, we had a list of soviet cities, and we had experts who estimated their populations and economic significance and military significance. And we estimated the population and economic and military significance of each of our cities. And we had a computer program. For any combination of US cities it would come up with the best combination of soviet cities that together rated about the same on all three scores. So if they nuked some of our cities, less than all-out thermonuclear war, we’d nuke the same value in their cities. And then we’d accept their apology. Because we weren’t ready to actually do mutual nuclear suicide over a few lost cities. Tit for tat.
This isn’t the textbook definition, but I say it’s war when you give up trying to influence them and you try to destroy them or make them surrender. Some things that get called war would instead be “limited war” etc. You aren’t trying to win, you’re trying for limited goals that you intend the enemy will accept defeat on.
We’ve had various minor scraps with iran, less than we historically had with communist china, less than north korea, etc. If they’re trying to get us to surrender they’re doing an utterly inadequate job of it. We aren’t at war with them yet. When we do it will because Bush chooses to.
#25 – As I said, it’s possible to quibble about what constitutes a blow.
In terms of Iran, I would say their attack on our embassy definitely qualifies. And, yes, shooting down one of their airliners would constitute a blow.
Final point:
A.L.’s opening statement emphasizes how liberals can’t get away from their conception that war is merely a more violent form of law enforcement. They are fundamentally unclear on the concept of war.
This makes them fundamentally unserious about war.
Tom – ‘final point’ – you promise?
You know, Tom there are just so many things wrong with your argument – in substance and form – that it’s hard to decide where to begin.
Let’s start with liberals and war. The two seminal liberals in American history were TR and FD Roosevelt. I’ll stand on their wartime record.
Next seminal liberal president? JFK. Pacifist? I don’t think so.
Tom, there’s a huge void between ‘police’ and ‘total war’. I’m assuming you’re well-read enough to know that, and don’t understand why it is that you keep trying to argue that there isn’t.
Yes, there is a powerful pacifist/clueless movement on the liberal side of the house today, and people like me have our work cut out for us pushing it back. You make that task far harder when you come off as a gunslinging blowhard, and everyone who favors some military push behind our diplomatic words gets tarred with your brush.
As a final thought, I’ll point out to you that we both have to share a country – and by extension, we both have to share it with a wide range of people whose views don;t nevessarily line up neatly behind either one of us. A little more respect for your fellows would be a useful thing in making that work for you.
I can put together a reading list on gradations of military action for you if you’d like.
A.L.