Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Posted here Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 10:29:36 PM     From Statfor's free letter http://www.stratfor.com There are some who argue that it is not reasonable to speak of the confrontation between the United States and al Qaeda as a war. It certainly does not, in any way, resemble World War II. It is nevertheless very much a war. It consists of two sides that are each making plans, using violence and attempting to shape the political future of a major region of the globe -- the Muslim world. One side masses large forces, the other side disperses much smaller forces throughout the globe. But the goals are the goals of any war: to shape the political future. And the means are the same as in any war: to kill sufficient numbers of the enemy in order to break his will to fight and resist. It might not look like wars the United States has fought in the past, but it is most certainly a war -- and it is a war whose outcome is in doubt. This is a powerful view. It reminds me of some of the logic of the Indian wars, but in the case of the middle east the US wants no territory (except maybe bases), and does not want to replace populations or cultures (except perhaps modernization). Also the Taliban and Al Queda are to some extent the results of the cold war, and US/Soviet training and support. This means we are in some ways fighting ourselves. It is like boxing in a mirror, or stuck to tar baby.  To the extent it is a cultural war it is as much technical secularism vs id-lam as it is Christianity vs Islam, and indeed within both societies there is a complex spectrum from religious fundamentalisms to humanisms that oppose technology dominance, and admiration and desire for consumer culture and capital flow.  The US opted for the war route, when a slow friendly disengagement may have been the better way. The knot that binds to a war policy however may be the Israel situation. I worry that the definition of the future as a war, in almost mythic terms not unlike start trek and star wars, empowers - and enriches - the more necrophilic tendencies among us, and the life loving biophilic is lost. ********

Posted here Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 5:13:24 PM     The hard linkage to make, not because it isn't right, but because it requires complex thought, is that The state of the country led to bush election the country faces major problems (impact of American power on middle east, at home, environment) bush as a weak person choses a weak backroom staff the administration is lost .  with no agenda around major problems, until 9/11 And responds with an immoderate war on terror (there were other options requiring real moral vision) and replaces a strategic analysis of asymmetric warfare and the super-empowered individual, the problem of Pakistan,  and other southern eurasian problems, with Iraq Then the war is badly planned because ideology said it would be easy and lack of overseas experience did not get in the way of such innocence. The lack of regard for world opinion (which was decent and anti terror as well as anti-violence and military adventurism) The tendency of the admin to want to do it cheap and not pay attention to morale in the lower parts of the system and contempt for others and a desire for strength (Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz styles) gets lousy behavior at the bottom and Iraqis are exasperated and many turn against the US and the US reacts with force which mobilizes the Iraqis further And we basically lose the war we can't get out of, and a president whose ego, he feels,  is on the line.   ********