Tuesday, September 28, 2004

 
Like, Duh
Or: The Reservists are restless?
Or: Is there a draft in here?
(the above could confirm my old fears that I will some day "run out of puns"-nonetheless will spew out some stuff with even less care than usual)

Gee, whadya' 'spose it might mean that some polls show that most Americans believe we're "on the wrong track" in Iraq *and* that others show that they trust Bush more than Kerry on the Iraq "issue"? Hmmm, could it be that there is substantial opposition to Bush's conduct of the War from the "right"?(the "paleocons" who consort with leftist scum don't count here)
I don't pretend to know all of the consequences of a massive(as opposed to "precision")aerial bombardment of civilian population centers of a province or two of Iraq. The results of the London "blitz," and the subsequent whirlwind reaped by the citizens of Germany and Japan suggest that the relation between air attacks and civilian resolve is not exactly linear. At some point the large numbers of civies begin to blame their own leaders rather than the enemy for the carnage, and at another, decide to accept total defeat and "endure the unendurable."-and even to some extent, actively *support* freedom 'n democracy.
Bush and his advisors may not only be miscalculating the costs and benefits of their present cautious course with respect to the war itself, but also of the domestic consequences. The turnout of Republicans otherwise inclined to vote for Bush and that of decent Democrats and a handful of leftists inclined to vote for Bush *only* because of his stance against Islamofascim compared to that of Kerry could be depressed. And if an attack "from the right" by Kerry fooled only a million or so morons, this could provide the margin for his victory.
Resumption of the shock and awe in Iraq might result in uprising in all of Iraq's provinces or might result in a crushing success. It's been said(i.e. too lazy to look up)that Nixon's poll numbers went *up* with his periodic upticks in the airwar against North Vietnam, although I suspect that most of the population realized that South Vietnam was ultimately doomed. Bush & Co may be overestimating the domestic political costs(including campus riots and the like)and underestimating the political benefits of a more aggressive war against Islamofascists in Iraq and eleswhere.
In spite of glowing reports of our guys building schools, bonding with the locals in some of Iraq's quieter places, the effect on morale of restraint in such places as Fallujah and Najaf may be grossly underestimated. None of my children are in the armed services, yet I can't be the only who foams at the mouth with each report of rules of engagment that prevent our guys from firing at the enemy because of concerns about "innocent civilians."
Granted that the U.S. had a draft during WWII, but isn't it worrisome that our recruiters aren't now having to turn away hordes of those trying to enlist? Voters may be willing to hold their noses while voting for Bush as the lesser of two weasels, but it is another matter to put one's own life on the line in WWIV (or whatever.)
Long before reading Derbyshire's masterpiece, "We Have Ways," I've mulled over the thought that while I oppose torture, I am perfectly willing to support inflicting massive casualties from the air. Putting "boots on the ground" with air support is something with which one can agree. There are psychic costs to putting "boots on the face" in fighting guerrilas. There are also psychic costs to *not* putting boots on faces. -as well as operational costs and benefits to both. Worse than Kerry's exaggeration and acceptance of some fabrications of U.S. "atrocities," was his condemnation of free fire zones and the like and his expressed opinion that the U.S.,not the Vietcong and NVA were the worst violators of Geneva conventions. A decent human being would have lauded his comrades for having for the most part, *avoided* the tactics of Genghis Khan, in spite of what must have been a widespread desire to respond in kind to the terrible provocations of a terrible enemy.
It may be that most Iraqis are not Islamofascists, but it may be sufficient for the Islamofascist evil to triumph by the decision of most "good" Iraqis to do nothing.(this may be a little harsh, given the suspicion that in many places Iraqis now face a very high risk of death by informing on the "insurgents") Unfortunately we might not be able to make it riskier to support Muslim terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world than to fight or inform against it without annihilating most of the Islamic world. I don't doubt many, if not most, of the world's billion-plus Muslims would be willing to fight to, as has been noted by some from time to time, "the last Palestinian" -or, for that matter, last Iraqi.-----Well, if so, so be it. And if so, better sooner than later. -These *should* be(doubt that they are, tho)some of the sobering thoughts in the heads of our Fearless Leaders *and* our monotheist enemies. (I don't regret having a letter around here somewhere from SOF magazine thanking me for a few bucks for an Afghan Relief fund a couple of decades ago. And as noted in an unsolicited email August 27, 2004(Helprin got around to mentioning the Chinese in his recent work): "....And even if Islam were annihilated, the 21st century and perhaps several others still seem likely to be dominated by the Chinese....sigh...grumble" I don't doubt that the Chinese are/would be adverse to a strategy of "let's you and him fight" with respect to the West & Islam.)
Final thoughts: Caught part of something with Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens on cable recently. AS gushed about the valuable experience in fighting terrorist our forces were getting in Iraq. He meant well, and I wish our guys well, but as expressed by YT elsewhere I fear that overall we may be depleting the capital of morale of our forces and potential recruits at this time. Something like the air campaigns advocated by Derb and Helprin may be more sustainable than boots on the ground or on faces. Most of the rest of the world has long hated us anyway. Estimates of the number of "sorties" carried out over Iraq during the interwar years seem to vary(perhaps because of differing definitions of sorties)but it seems to have been a biggee and the costs seem to have been sustainable -and might not be much greater if we decide that over the *next* decade or so, each sortie should drop a bombie on behalf of a struggling non-terrorist Iraq government or on a nasty "failed state." A "humanitarian tragedy"? Your choice, Mohammed. Should we contemplate(or threaten) "dissolving the people" of Iraq and "electing another"? The truth, Berthold: Yep.