Cooling it with Cluster Bombs

blacbird · Dec 4, 2008

Higgins said:
Is there some war AQ is winning? It think the answer is they are losing and they are losing because the only way to win as a terrorist is to hit vital economic targets over and over and show that you can hit over and over as long as necessary.

One of the problems we have (and we had it in Vietnam, too) is that we have trouble defining "win" in situations like this. Certainly our definition of "win" in the "war on terror" isn't anything close to the AQ definition of "win".

In Vietnam, for the longest time, we tried to define "win" the way you would in a football game: by scoring more kills than the bad guys did. These numbers used to get trumpeted to the American public every evening on the TV news. By which the Johnson Administration in particular kept maintaining we were "winning" the war.

The Vietnamese defined "win" as "get the Americans out of the country". Same as they did with the French twenty years earlier, and the Japanese before that. The cost of that effort was pretty much immaterial, as long as the end was achieved. Which, of course, it eventually was.

In any case, I don't think we actually elucidate much by harping on buzzwords like "win" and "victory" and "defeat" in the "war on terror". Which has been a huge conceptual failure of the Bush team from Day One. Remember "Mission Accomplished".

caw

Higgins · Dec 4, 2008

blacbird said:
One of the problems we have (and we had it in Vietnam, too) is that we have trouble defining "win" in situations like this. Certainly our definition of "win" in the "war on terror" isn't anything close to the AQ definition of "win".

In Vietnam, for the longest time, we tried to define "win" the way you would in a football game: by scoring more kills than the bad guys did. These numbers used to get trumpeted to the American public every evening on the TV news. By which the Johnson Administration in particular kept maintaining we were "winning" the war.

The Vietnamese defined "win" as "get the Americans out of the country". Same as they did with the French twenty years earlier, and the Japanese before that. The cost of that effort was pretty much immaterial, as long as the end was achieved. Which, of course, it eventually was.

In any case, I don't think we actually elucidate much by harping on buzzwords like "win" and "victory" and "defeat" in the "war on terror". Which has been a huge conceptual failure of the Bush team from Day One. Remember "Mission Accomplished".

caw

Yeah, but I just don't see any way that AQ is materially better off today than it was before 9/11. Since we are talking about the value of inflicting mass casualties on unarmed people...I just don't think it is a good sign when that is all you have to show for your use of force. It suggests you are way in the hole strategically and flailing at poorly defined "soft targets of opportunity"...you can call this assymmetric warfare or call it being way in the hole strategically...anyway, it doesn't look like a winning strategy to me in objective terms which is why I don't think cluster bombs are an indespensible kind of weapon.

Noah Body · Dec 4, 2008

AQ is not better off.

They no longer have the ways and means to perpetuate large-scale asymmetrical attacks against high-value targets, and they themselves are being wiped out by just about everyone--even Iraqis. They've worn out their welcome in the ME because all they did was invite a longstanding American (and coalition) presence, and whenever they attack those military targets...they lose.

It's no time to become complacent, and the fight has to continue. But as it stands now, AQ is no longer a true "standing force" capable of creating such wholesale destruction as they did in 2001. In order to survive, they have to retain a low profile. A low profile does not mean complete and total inactivity, but it does mean they have to balance risks versus reward...and the rewards lately have been pretty low, while the risks are off the chart.

By the way, blacbird? "Mission Accomplished" was a banner hung up by the carrier crew, celebrating their completion of the mission, not the cessation of hostilities in OIF. That's a longstanding media myth that's been propagated forever and day.

blacbird · Dec 4, 2008

Higgins said:
Yeah, but I just don't see any way that AQ is materially better off today than it was before 9/11.

I didn't say they were. Clearly inroads have been made on their ability to communicate and fund operations. But they have also spawned a variety of independent copy-cat groups, often simply small cells inspired by the Bin-Laden operation, and dangerous as hell. If these groups can get supplied with sufficient weaponry and support, you get things like the Bali hotel bombings, or the Mumbai atrocity. It's a mistake to consider AQ as some kind of central military leadership orchestrating all this stuff now. Bin-Laden himself is nothing but a figurehead, a symbol, but his very presence on the planet, however shadowy, makes him a powerful symbol to the like-minded. He really doesn't need to do much of anything.

So, to reiterate, it's tough to define "win" in such circumstances, any more than we can define "win" in a "war on crime". It's more going to be a long-term matter of security and control of situations, cleaning up bad guys wherever we have the chance, but not deluding ourselves into thinking we're marching on Berlin in 1945 to demand a signed surrender document.

caw

blacbird · Dec 4, 2008

Noah Body said:
By the way, blacbird? "Mission Accomplished" was a banner hung up by the carrier crew, celebrating their completion of the mission, not the cessation of hostilities in OIF. That's a longstanding media myth that's been propagated forever and day.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. And so was George W. Bush when he so gleefully did his famous flight-suit photo-op right in front of it, the one he now says he regrets. He didn't regret it at the time, though, did he?

caw

Don · Dec 4, 2008

blacbird said:
One of the problems we have (and we had it in Vietnam, too) is that we have trouble defining "win" in situations like this. Certainly our definition of "win" in the "war on terror" isn't anything close to the AQ definition of "win".

Interestingly enough, if you go back and read some of OBL's early statements, you'll see that by his definition of winning, he's already won. One of his intents was to introduce fear and reduce the liberty of American citizens, and he's certainly accomplished that.

Higgins · Dec 4, 2008

Don said:
Interestingly enough, if you go back and read some of OBL's early statements, you'll see that by his definition of winning, he's already won. One of his intents was to introduce fear and reduce the liberty of American citizens, and he's certainly accomplished that.

That's odd. If you go back and look at my early statements you see that I win if I'm scared and have my liberties reduced.

I've won. What do I get?

Noah Body · Dec 4, 2008

blacbird said:
Oh, I'm well aware of that. And so was George W. Bush when he so gleefully did his famous flight-suit photo-op right in front of it, the one he now says he regrets. He didn't regret it at the time, though, did he?

caw

That was not my point--I was just ensuring you were aware the Navy hung the banner, not Bush & Company.

Cooling it with Cluster Bombs

blacbird

Higgins

Noah Body

Entertainment Ronin

blacbird

blacbird

Don

All Living is Local

Higgins

Noah Body

Entertainment Ronin