NZ Bear – who was the catalyst for Porkbusters, and may have single-handedly triggered the ‘no entitlements’ revolution, is at it again. he’s apparently started (I say apparently because I haven’t talked to him in a while) “The Victory Caucus” which intends to focus the energy of people who – well, believe in winning the war as an option.
I’ll make some time and talk to him about it, but will suggest that he’s showing the power of doing stuff while many of us spend far too much time worrying about stuff. A lesson I need to think about for a bit, I think.
Tried to discover what they meant by ‘victory’. This blurb::
bq. We support victory in the war against radical Islamists. We supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and we believe victory is necessary in both countries for America’s self-defense.
doesn’t seem to help.
It is self defeating to have an open ended defition of ‘victory’, as one sets oneself up to never reach it and thus your enemy (and your subconcious) will conclude you have been defeated instead.
They also seem to be a bit too Israel and Hezbollah centric.
Hezbollah is the #2 terrorist killer of Americans, and actions such as Khobar Towers directed by Iran have never been answered.
Inciting FEAR in the hearts of Muslims when considering terror attacks is far more effective than a doomed effort to get those bent on conquering you to “love you.”
egads InJapan. I suppose you think Porkbusters was a bad idea because we’ll never end pork. There are a lot of groups on both sides of the idealogical spectrum that don’t settle for lowered expectations and I think by and large are more succesful than those that don’t. But in this case we’re supposed to be afraid that if we fail, it will embolden the enemy? It will embolden the enemy if we act like we might fail.
It looks to me like the “Victory Caucus” feels that victory will come because they really, really want it. And because they will try to kick butts of people who don’t want it the way they do.
I’d have more respect for folks who are willing to look carefully at why things turned out so terribly in Iraq. (And no, it’s not just because liberals didn’t get behind the war.)
As I have said before: We are facing a real and dangerous enemy out there, but we are fighting fire with gasoline, and we’re getting burned. If you look at the goals of al Qaeda and of Iran as of, say, early 2002, the actions of the Bush administration have made an astonishing number of them come true. We’ve eliminated two of Iran’s major enemies: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. We provide a boogeyman to help keep Ahmadinejad in power in spite of the fact that most Iranians think he’s a nutcase. And I don’t need to recount all the good things we’ve done for al Qaeda, lifting them from a small group of thugs to an existential threat to the USA.
If you want victory, you need to figure out which weapons will work, and stop pointing the wrong weapons in ways that hurts our own side.
The window has probably closed for Iraq. I don’t suspect there’s any path to a good outcome for them, shorter than decades long. But there’s some pretty serious mistakes ready to be made in Iran.
Sigh.
“It looks to me like the “Victory Caucus” feels that victory will come because they really, really want it. And because they will try to kick butts of people who don’t want it the way they do.”
I’ll refer you to the opening chapter of United States Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication #1, “Warfighting.” You’ll find it says more or less exactly that.
It may say that, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that’s not all it says. Wanting to win is necessary, but certainly not sufficient.
If you’re doing the wrong thing, you’re going to lose, no matter how much you really, really want to win. If you think that killing terrorists, one by one, is going to eliminate the terrorists, rather than making more faster than you can kill them, then you are doing the wrong thing.
I don’t believe the professional military leaders believe this. They know they have to get the Iraqi people behind them (if it’s not already too late). But it is clear that the civilians calling the shots had an excessively simple-minded view of the War on Terror.
Just because they want to win, just because our troops have all the courage in the world, doesn’t mean they are going to win, particularly if their leaders make bad decisions. Read “The Charge of the Light Brigade”.
Ah, the simplistic view of civilians about the war on terror. That explains why no one refurbished any schools in Iraq, no one in the administration supported the formation of democratic political parties in Iraq, none supported local and regional elections in Iraq, none worked to reform legal codes and court systems in Iraq, and none worked on rebuilding Iraq’s ports and other infrastructure.
It would interfere with that simplistic view of course.
#3 PD Shaw – there is a significant difference between the Porkbuster project and the current VictoryCaucus effort, namely:
“Winning” at cutting pork is self evident by simply looking at what budget riders get voted down and do not find their way to the final bill that makes it to the President’s desk.
There is no clear analogy to that type of political victory in the current VictoryCaucus effort.
VictoryCaucus appears to be about venting emotion and seeing what Congressmen/Senators to target for not wanting “Victory”, or not wanting it bad enough.
Indeed, “Warfighting” has quite a bit more to say. And it’s only the first in the doctrinal publications, which are themselves only the first lessons for Marines — they are followed by reference publications, schools, training, experience, leadership.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the first lesson in the first book is the one you described. If the VC has gotten that, they may have yet a lot to learn — but they’re far ahead of the people who’ve not yet learned the first, bedrock thing.
“We’ve eliminated two of Iran’s major enemies: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.”
Very true. Also proof if any was needed that inciting fear in Iran is the only way to deter their negative actions against us (such as giving Al Qaeda nukes).
We have been trying to make Iran love us since 1979, with no results. It’s far better to make them fear us, and fear us greatly.
If every Muslim abroad was fearful of “what will the US do?” and every Muslim in the US afraid that “sudden jihad syndrome” would result in terrible retaliation for their families and friends, we would have vastly enhanced security.
I’ll note that the Jihadi that shot up the Empire State observation tower did so on orders of Arafat for jihad against America. It would be far better to make Palestinians fear us greatly than “love us” which is a fool’s errand.
“They know they have to get the Iraqi people behind them (if it’s not already too late).”
Which Iraqi people would that be? Kurds (need our patronage). Shia (require the US to block Iranian domination). Sunnis require protection in their Al Anbar redoubt since they lost.
Success in Iraq demand fear in Tehran. That simple (and difficult).
You assume that the marine bombing was done by Hezbollah and not one of the other fundamentalist Shiite groups.
Without the barrack bombing the number attributed to Hezbollah is to low to make such a statement hard.
Another problem with the barrack bombing is that it was a clear military target occupied by armed enemy soldiers and it could by described as an surprised attack by vehicles cloaked as civilian. Something which the US military also does.
It is not like the Vietcong which bombed bars frequented by US soldiers.
ps. Did you forget Al Queda or the Vietcong?
Kurds need patronage but they like the Russians a lot more than the Americans. Don’t know why (how many times did the Anglo-Americans betray them?)
You assume that the marine bombing was done by Hezbollah and not one of the other fundamentalist Shiite groups.
He’s not the only one making that assumption:
In his letter to Hickey, President Reagan wrote, “Some people work an entire lifetime and wonder if they ever made a difference to the world. But the Marines don’t have that problem.”
A month after writing Hickey, on Oct. 23, 1983, a Hezbolla terrorist, supported and encouraged by Iran, Syria and Labanese Druze, drove an 18-ton Mercedes truck, laden with the equivalent of 18,000 pounds of TNT, into the headquarters building of Marine Battalion Landing Team 1/8, killing 241 Marines.
The latest surge of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, like all their other battles, is aimed not at terrorists, not at Iraqis, but at fellow Americans who don’t demonstrate the necessary commitment to George W. Bush, now literally compared to Jesus. How is it that people claiming to be disgusted by spitting on returning Vietnam veterans in 1970 are so willing to question the patriotism and courage of anti-surge veterans? Perhaps this should not be surprising from an organization whose view of bravery is showing up to work at the Empire State Building. Of course, the whole VC movement is aimed not at terrorists, but at other Americans, in fact other Republicans, who don’t generally fight back with firearms.
Since being in a fringe protest movement is a new experience for so many of you, let me explain. Even though we sing it at our rallies (not to mention our secret meeting with Kim Il Jong and bin Laden), the whole idea of “El pueblo unido Hamas será vencido” is bunk. After all, Allende got squished like a bug.
Looking past the protest music, the Victory Caucus really should do a better job of asking why people like Chuck Hagel and Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones are deserting the holy cause. Here’s a hint: there are ten times as many anti-American fighters in Iraq as three years ago. All indications are that with George W. “Jesus” Bush at the helm, three years hence there will be yet another ten-fold increase. No amount of will can unbreak an egg, and no amount of will can disguise the fact that our options in Iraq are, partly through your premature celebrations, reduced to carnage now and carnage later. At this link, you can see VC champion Hugh Hewitt get schooled about just what our capabilities are at this stage. Many influential conservatives have come to an honest realization about how, as Atrios puts it, you aren’t more upset by the fact that George Bush has fucked up [your] pet war.