August 21, 2003, 3:30 p.m. Phase Three? The enemy is growing desperate. by Victor Davis Hanson After the first two conventional military victories in Afghanistan of November 2001 and this spring in Iraq, the recent bombings suggest that we are now entering a third phase: A desperate last-ditch war of attrition in which our enemies feel that bombing, suicide murdering, assassination, and general terrorism against Westerners the world over might still achieve what conventional military operations did not. The idea is to make life so miserable for Iraqis, and so dangerous for foreigners, that the United States will withdraw, thus allowing either a fascist autocracy or terrorist theocracy — in the manner of the Taliban or an Afghan warlord — to emerge from the chaos. Indeed, the abhorrent assault on a U.N. complex in Baghdad — taken together with the near-simultaneous murdering of innocents in Jerusalem, the recent attack on the Jordanian embassy, and the bombing of Iraqi oil and water pipelines — may suggest to critics of the Americans that the enemy is recouping and gaining the upper hand. Far from it. We are indeed entering a third phase. But it is not quite what most people think, since it has brought a brutal clarity to the conflict that the terrorists may not have intended. For those who were still unsure of the affinities between the West Bank killers once subsidized by Saddam, Baathist fedeyeen, the Taliban, and al Qaedist terrorists, the similarity in method, the identical blood-curling rhetoric, and the eerie timing of slaughtering during peace negotiations and efforts at civil reconstruction should establish the existence of a common enemy. It has been fighting us all along — a general fascism, now theocratic, now autocratic, that seeks to divert the Middle East from the forces of modernization and liberalization. Contrary to the latest round of punditry, the liberation of Iraq did not stir up a hornet's nest nor create ex nihilo these terrible alliances. No, they are natural expressions of the hatred manifested on 9/11 that will continue until either we or they are defeated. The intifada was unleashed during negotiations and concessions. The World Trade Center and Pentagon were bombed in a time of peace after a decade of forbearance in the face of continual affronts. The killing in Afghanistan focuses on aid workers and restorers. And the U.N. complex in Baghdad was not a casualty of war, but rather targeted during the postbellum efforts to feed, clothe, and rebuild civil society. There is a pattern here. From the detritus of Wednesday's terror will arise a new grim acceptance that despite all our brilliantly rapid military victories we are not yet finished in this war for civilization, and that there are a group of killers — whether Baathists, al Qaedists, West Bank murderers, or Iranian and Saudi terrorists-who shall give no quarter. We should never forget that. In the euphoria of the three-week victory many of us rightly still worried that under the new restrictive protocols of postmodern warfare the age-old laws of conflict were for a time being forgotten: The ease of postbellum occupation is in proportion to the level of punishment inflicted on the enemy. Our careful air campaign, the inability to sweep down into the Sunni triangle in the first days of the war from Turkey, and the abrupt collapse rather than the destruction of enemy forces in the field paradoxically resulted in thousands who ran away rather than were defeated. We immediately ended the fighting and began the humanitarian effort to help the helpless — even as our enemies and their jihadist friends saw that magnanimity as the removal of the stake driven through their vampirish heart. Yet tragically whether an enemy is engaged in battle or in the street, there always remains a finite number of recalcitrant diehards who must be killed or captured. So while it was amazing that Saddam's army dissolved in April, we should always remember that many of them still must be dealt with in August and September — both to eliminate combatants and, just as importantly, to send a message to foreign terrorists that it is a deadly mistake to take on the United States military. The current choice of soft and largely civilian targets, while in the short-term horrific and depressing, is also instructive. The Baathist remnants and assorted terrorists who are now their allies have declared themselves not only enemies of the United States, but murderers of innocent Iraqis, Jordanians, and U.N. officials at large. They brag that they are driving infidels and Westerners of all stripes from sacred land. In fact, the current indiscriminate killing was a strategic mistake. It is a sign of desperation and can only unite the global community in its belief that terrorism, suicide murdering, and the agents of rogue regimes really do constitute a nexus of opposition to the forces of civilization — and must in return warrant universal resistance from the world at large. Blowing up petroleum pipelines and vital water supplies in a scorching summer is directed at the Iraqi people, not just the American military. That nihilism reminds both us and the Iraqis that there is no going back to Saddam or descending into anarchy. The terrorists wish to make life as miserable for Iraqis as they do for Americans, and are willing to kill both for their own political ends. The net result of that desperate gambit will be a grudging acceptance that those who seek to end water, gas, food, and freedom in Iraq are the enemy, not us — and thus only Iraqi assistance can end the terror that threatens themselves. What should be the American response to the latest terrorism? There will of course be the normal post-calamity bickering and recriminations: Not enough troops? Unwise dismissal of Baathist police and army? Failure to incorporate U.N. and international peacekeepers? These are important issues to be adjudicated, but they and many others still to be raised do not get to the heart of matter. Our astonishing defeats of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban cannot blind us to the reality — unchanging since 9/11 — that we are in a war to the end with those who wish to destroy Western society and all that it holds dear. Both tactically and strategically this is a conflict that our enemies cannot win — given their military inferiority and accompanying failure to offer an attractive alternative to the freedom and prosperity of the West. This doom the nihilists grudgingly accept. Thus the past week in Afghanistan, in Baghdad, and in Jerusalem they have once more embraced the tactics of the bomb-laden truck and suicide belt to demoralize civil society and to win the only way they can — as was true in Beirut and Mogadishu — by eroding public support for the continuance of war. Otherwise, they will lose and the virus of reform and legality will only spread. Because September 11 was a direct consequence of our early failures to confront our enemies, our general response to the latest challenges should be even greater defiance. It is time to bring to fruition the president's warning of nearly two years ago, that one is either with or against the terrorists. So Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, from which our enemies (many now in Iraq) operate, must either close their borders, turn over terrorists, and join the ranks of civilization — or chose the side of barbarism and accept the terrible consequences of such a fatal decision. And for the short term, we must continue on course-employing counterinsurgency tactics to go after the terrorists in the field, accelerating the transfer of governance to Iraqis to increase their visibility and responsibility in the conflict and restoring infrastructure to Afghanistan and Iraq. It is the American way and the nature of our media culture to exaggerate setbacks and ignore successes. Thus even as our television screens seem to be overcome by panic and fear, high-ranking Baathists continue to be arrested in Iraq, terrorists find themselves stymied in achieving another 9/11, and the reconstruction of Iraq continues. Our real problem? We must shed our complacency that has habitually arisen after the absence of another 9/11 attack in the United States, and the rapid victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, and press on. Either the Middle East will be a breeding ground for terrorists and rogue regimes that threaten sober nations and peoples the world over, from Manhattan to Jerusalem, or it will desist and join the rest of the world. It really is as simple as that.
Heath, you continue your annoying habit of posting numerous articles from the National Review Online without accrediting them. I guess I can understand your embarassment at having to post almost exclusively from the National Review Online. heath's source
Either the Middle East will be a breeding ground for terrorists and rogue regimes that threaten sober nations and peoples the world over, from Manhattan to Jerusalem, or it will desist and join the rest of the world. It really is as simple as that. This is definitely an issue. No one wants terrorism and rogue regimes. Unfortunately it is the very neocon policies that increase terrorism. When the CIA and State Department basically expressed fears that our Iraqi war would increase this they were ignored and replaced by cooked intelligence from a neocon cell in the Defense Department.. 1) overthrowing the Democratic elected government of Iran 2) supporting dictators in Saudi Arabi and Iraq as long as they did the oil deals we liked 3) funding Osam Bin Laden and the Taliban in their early days, 4) Israel funding Hamas in its early days 5) the US repeatedly blocking the return of the occupied territores and UN resolutions 5) unprovoked war and occupation of Iraq. This policy of trying to conquer the Arabs with only brute force and heavy handedness as a way of making them more moderate will lead to years and years of turmoil with doubtful success. Perhaps it is a Freudian slip by the author to link Manhattan with Jerusalem. God knows the neocons consider them the same. As Americans we should not pursue policies that allow them to be seen as the same with the same disastrous effect.
Despite similarities in posting style, so far I had not thought it was probable that Trader_Jorge and johnheath are the same person. However, the spelling of the thread title seems to point in that direction.
So far there are more terrorists in Iraq now than when Saddam was in charge. This is one of the reasons why we shouldn't pull out. It is also why we are in danger now because of poor planning for post Saddam Iraq. Sadly our administration believed that they could handle the situation more or less alone. Now they see that they actually need help from the UN and thush Powell is trying to gain support. Unfortunately Bush's attitude, and lack of diplomacy from most of his administration has alienated many of the nations we now want to help us. It's a sticky situation and I hope we do the right thing.
shouldn't it be The Enemy is growing desparater? as in more desparate? variety is the spice of life, and if you're going to have enemies, it's best to have a smorgasbord
I had not thought it was probable that Trader_Jorge and johnheath are the same person. I've been thinking that, but because it was startling the way TJ disappeared the same day John Heath returned from the dead.
i've always thought that...particularly since TJ was so very concerned with the lack of conservatives posting on the boards... i do recognize i could be wrong, though...it happens quite frequently that i'm wrong, actually. just ask my wife.
Max, thank you for that tremendous compliment. Of course, you do realize that the moderators would never allow TJ to post under two names. TJ has asked Jeff to tell these guys that we are not the same poster several times, but Jeff won't do it just to rankle TJ. Jeff knows the truth, and he isn't talking for entertainment purposes.
Wow! This article is just a classic example of what someone in another thread was talking about, emotion over substance. It gushes with melodramatics while giving almost no depth of thought at all to the issues it pretends to address. You could even argue that it plays into the hands of the terrorists. Their greatest hope for success lies in the weaknesses in leadership and strategy of the western forces in this war, and this feeds the misunderstandings that seem to have lead to some of the poor decisions that have been made. I’ll just touch on a few points for examples, after I flesh out the context a bit more. There is no doubt that the US and the west are dramatically superior in technology and firepower. The terrorists cannot win a direct battle with the West. The only way the terrorists can win is to draw the Western forces into situations where they waste their resources, and into particular situations where the terrorists have a very significant advantage, namely where they are on their own turf and where they can use unconventional war strategies that favour them. To do this they must rely on the West fundamentally misunderstanding the context they are moving into and therefore making the wrong decisions. One way to do this to an opponent is to incite them emotionally and hope that their emotion causes them to act, or rather react, without thinking through the situation. How many times in history has misplaced emotion led to rash action and a foolish battle plan? Is it happening again? How could anyone not take the time and care to think through a situation as serious as this? Let’s have a look at this article to assess the soundness of this author’s thinking. First, the reference to “victories.” This is a classic strategic management mistake that we discussed before this war started. What constitutes victory? This is not as simple as it may seem. In business it does NOT mean making the best product or providing the best service. It means maximising customer satisfaction. This is not the same thing. If you make a technically superior product, but the client doesn’t understand it or can’t use it, then you have failed. If you alienate or otherwise piss off the client in the process of delivering the product or service, they won’t be happy and the will have a bad feeling about you and your product, and you will have again fallen short of what you really wanted to achieve. In Iraq it was never about removing Saddam. Removing Saddam does absolutely nothing if he is replaced by someone or something worse. The objective was to secure lasting positive change for the people and country of Iraq. (I’m keeping this brief because we discussed all this in exhausting detail before the war). If this bigger picture goal is not understood and planned for then the right measures won’t be taken to deal the multitude of extra variables that come into play. (Again, we discussed all of this from ethnic divisions, to religious divisions, to interference from neighbouring countries, etc.). And failure to adequately understand and plan for the context you are entering into sets you up to misuse your resources and put yourself in an unwinable position, to essentially snooker yourself. In snooker there is a saying, “It’s not what you get. It’s what you leave.” If you’re only thinking about the shot that’s in front of you, you are setting yourself up to lose. You have to plan all your shots right through to the end of the game. Nine ball is a better example because in that game whoever sinks the last ball wins. You can sink the first 8 balls but if you haven’t planned for the 9th and you miss it, you’ll lose. The Iraq situation will be like that. If it isn’t taken through to the end successfully it will likely blow up into a huge disaster. There are just too many other forces pushing it that way. And taking it through to the end means it has to be thought through to the end and planned through to the end. If the planning to this point has only amounted to “we’ll hit them hard and it will all work out from there.” Then the US is going to lose. They will have set themselves up to lose by not understanding the situation and not responding appropriately. So, back to the article. Neither the war in Afghanistan nor the war in Iraq is anywhere close to being a “victory” yet. The objective in Afghanistan is somewhat different because it was more focused on getting OBL and the Taliban, but it also includes leaving Afghanistan is a state where it will no longer be a breeding ground or a shelter for terrorists. This would clearly have been an objective from the beginning. While removing the Taliban was an important part of achieving this, leaving the country in chaos with an angry and resentful populace would significantly work against the objective. Significantly winning over the hearts and minds of the people has to be a major objective of both these operations, because in the end that will be the most powerful defence against terrorism. (This is a point that has previously been discussed at length as well). So, with his very first sentence the author shows that he doesn’t understand the objective of the war. He doesn’t know what it’s about. The reference to “third phase” is problematic as well because it implies a linkage that really isn’t there, and he doesn’t even attempt an explanation. Here we have a lack of substance and a dubious connection between events, and his misunderstanding of the situation starts to magnify. This is an emotional phrase and one that he provides no information to support and one which there is very little evidence to support. In fact, recent reports in the media suggest that terrorist from around the region have just moved in. Far from being desperate they are just setting up and settling in, and not trying the last of anything. Again, emotion over facts. He is misunderstanding the most basic elements of the situation. If this author is influencing public opinion and through it military strategy in any way, he is playing right into the hands of the terrorists. Failure to understand the situation kills, and it results in failure of the mission. Who is suffering the attrition? How many of the terrorists have been killed? How many western soldiers have been killed? Was this a Freudian slip? This may well be a war of attrition, but it is the western troops that seem to be suffering the losses, and the people of Iraq. Suicide bombing? That hasn’t happened to any significant extent in Iraq. This is important because it says a lot about who your enemy is, what motivates them, and how you deal with them. This is not a war like the one being fought in Israel and the West Bank. It is fundamentally different, another misunderstanding. And the war on terrorism was never a conventional war. Saddam was a tyrant, but he had nothing in common with the global terrorists. He was a secular, materialistic, opportunist who wanted personal power, status and wealth. The terrorists are idealists, religious fanatics who would live in poverty in caves and die for their cause. Saddam ran like a coward and didn’t even put up a fight. It’s hard to imaging that the terrorist would have anything but contempt for a man like this. So the war against Saddam was not a war against terrorists, but the war that is taking place in the power vacuum that now exists may well be. These are two quite separate wars. This is yet another fundamental misunderstanding displayed by the author. Leaving aside from the terms “fascist autocracy” and “terrorist theocracy”, this is essentially a correct statement, but the picture he paints of the war that is taking place to achieve this objective is laced with emotion and almost completely factually incorrect. The author simply does not understand who the enemy is or how to deal with them. For the sake of (relative) brevity I’ll skip ahead to the end. It is painfully clear that the author has a dim to non-existent understanding of what the real problem is, what the solution is, or perhaps even how many martinis he had before he wrote this pulp fiction. Instead he resorts to simplistic analysis and simpleminded solutions. If the mythical picture painted by this man and others like him (those who wallow in self-indulgent emotion and self-righteousness at the expense of competent, level headed analysis), was ever to be mistaken for credible analysis by politicians and military strategists it could result in decisions being made that would be very self-destructive to the western forces and western objectives. Again, this is the only way the west can lose, if it ties up its resources in places that don’t advance it toward its objective, and/or if it places its resources in very specialized contexts that heavily favour the enemy. In this situation, with respect to the war on terrorism, if the terrorists could bait and goad the west into tying up their resources in a place that was not a stronghold for the terrorists, where they did not have resources or people at risk, preferably in an area where they had no personal connections and one that was ideologically and morally corrupt by their standards and which they wished to disrupt and transform anyway, then they would have scored a HUGE tactical victory. If they could further draw the enemy, in small groups, into places where the terrorists could easily hit and run and hide repeatedly, and with ease, then they could actually take the offensive. How could they incite their enemy to the level where they would make such unimaginably poor choices? How could they run their keys down the side of the enemy’s new Corvette, metaphorically speaking? Would hitting the heart of their financial establishment, the heart of their military establishment, and the heart of their political establishment be enough? Would that so blind them with rage that they would behave in a manner so ill considered that they would sabotage themselves? Would the media be so unsophisticated, narcissistic and manipulatable that they would actually feed into this in their rush to stroke their own self-righteous egos? If the enemy could ever goad the west into taking such rash and ill considered actions they just may just have a chance to win. edit: Oops! I think I may have just been had. Is this johnheath guy a joke, somebody's creation? He must be I guess.
And many people here have asked johnheath to confirm that he's been several other (mostly banned, I believe) posters like SayJack and t465etc. He's not talking either.
I can't believe that you spent all that time writing, and failed to comprehend such simple points. Dr. Hanson has broken down the conflict into PHASES, and we won the conventional military phase. Unless you are the Iraqi Information Minister, or Grizzled, you probably know this. Hanson is not talking about Saddam and his army. Remember, Saddam was defeated in the primary phases. Dr. Hanson is referring to the Jihadists and Baathist hardliners who have nothing to lose. He understand who the enemy is perfectly. It is you who have failed to understand the article. Yeah, I am sure you are waaaaay smarter than this guy, lol. Victor Davis Hanson received his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University and is Professor of Classics at California State University at Fresno. He is currently a visiting professor at the US Naval Academy. Dr. Hanson is the author of more than eighty scholarly articles and editorials on classical and military history and contemporary culture. His most recent books include An Autumn of War, Carnage and Culture, and The Soul of Battle. He has written for the Claremont Review of Books, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Weekly Standard, and many other publications, and writes regular columns for National Review Online. He lives and works on a farm near Selma, California, with his wife and three children.
Desperate indeed, very similar to the Democratic party. Howard Dean John Kerry Gray Davis Bill White Sylvester Turner DESPERATE
TJ, the cadre of back slappin' Lefties is honoring me today with comparisons to you. With my looks and your mind, we could be a dangerous duo.
Yes JH, I anticipate the lunatic fringe liberals will be out in force, promoting their outrageous ideas, right up until local elections in November. Every day we will hear the latest negative news headlines as they strive to put forth a negative agenda. Sigh.
Off topic- TJ, I wonder if you might help me with a charitable project that I am organizing. I think Batman Jones needs help with his binge drinking, and an intervention is in order. I would have already done the same for MacBeth, but he is Canadian, and apparently excessive alcohol abuse is valued in his culture. Do you have any experience with interventions? Call me if you can help. Thanks in advance.
