My Ancestor was an Ostrich

[tealin]

The 'Long War'

[starts packing to move into cave]



EDIT: Seems like we're getting a decent party together – we can have a campout in my cave, with hot chocolate and s'mores and a merry sing-song! Tra-la! (You guys post the best comments. :)

Comments

[tannhaeuser.livejournal.com]

That is precisely what General Kimmit is saying: this war cannot simply be fought as a military campaign, or even a series of military campaigns, but will have to embrace every possible means.

To achieve victory the US military will have to change dramatically, he says. Like the terrorists it will have to build international networks, General Kimmitt says, making better use of “soft power” — diplomacy, finance, trade, and technology. “I’m an artillery officer, and I can’t fire cannons at the internet,” he says, referring to what he sees as one of the key weapons of the modern age.

(Some of your readers, by the way, seem to state that the general said the exact opposite of this — that he could fire cannons at the internet. This is either disingenuous or careless reading.) The U.S. lost in Viet Nam precisely because it neglected the propaganda war at home; the failure was not that of the military, but of the civilians. You cannot, I agree, fight a guerrilla war with tanks, armies, and squadrons of jets only, any more than you can fight malaria by swatting individual mosquitoes. Nevertheless, where tanks and armies and squadrons of jets are still useful, it is just as stupid to renounce their use entirely, when you can use them, as we have used them in Afghanistan and Iraq, to drain the fever swamps where the mosquitoes breed. In Afghanistan we have been largely successful; in Iraq perhaps somewhat less so (perhaps not — it seems impossible to find any unbiased reporting). In any case, having once stirred up the fœtid waters, we have to drain them now. And I’m afraid there’s no use hiding in caves. The particular cockroaches we’re fighting have declined to wait for us to blow ourselves up and are enthusiastically endeavoring to do it for us; I assure you, they know very well how to find their way into caves.

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

I suspect that many of the people posting here, even if they knew what the general meant, couldn't help but find humor in the image that was conjured up of someone trying to fire a cannon at the internet - so difficult to be serious among such giggling cynics!:)
It's possible that there is reason to hope that the military will be smarter and more effective in the way it combats terrorism, based on some of the quotes in the article, but without specific solutions mentioned, it's hard to know if they really know how to properly pull such high-concept goals off (and it's likey that none of us will ever know what their specific plans are, at least if they are successful). The problem with continuing to try to solve the problem with conventional means is the tendency, when attempting to "clear a swamp" with tanks, armies, and squadrons of jets, to wipe out the swamp altogether, as well as the surrounding countryside (and many victims of the mosquitos that we are supposedly trying to save!) and miss a lot of the mosquitos (and possibly to help enlist more mosquitos). I'm not saying that there's never a time when brute force isn't necessary or the best means available, but it doesn't seem to have been a very effective tool for us to achieve our ends in Iraq. I am unpopular among many here on the west coast in that I am also uncomfortable with the idea, now that we have completely turned Iraq into a deadly, unstable mess, with just admitting that we goofed, turning tail and fleeing, leaving the citizens to be plunged into civil war and at the mercy of all the crazy insurgents that have flooded the borders. But I just don't know if it's possible for US to save them anymore, even if we sacrifice many more American lives and create more enemies in the process (how's that for cynical and pessimistic?)

Really?

[noodledaddy.livejournal.com]

>We have completely turned Iraq into a deadly, unstable mess.

I don't think so. First thing, much of Iraq is MUCH better off. The problems we are having are in just a few of the provinces. I agree with Tann, it seems the only reporting we hear is of the negative type, we never hear news of the progress made there, the schools that are now open, the rape and torture rooms that are now closed, and so on. What "news" gets out is always tempered by the accusations of terrorists that we are bombing civilians. Remember the house with the "Wedding Party" that was bombed killing all inside? At 2:30 in the morning on a Tuesday? Yet their word is spread in our press at the same value with the statements of our military. Remember the NY Times which a few weeks ago ran a picture of an old man and a little boy with a shell casing, standing in what remained of a house in Pakistan where "innocent civilians" were killed when a Predator drone knocked it out? The shell casing was later identified as a Russian 155mm artillery shell (which, if you haven't guessed by now is not fired from a Predator) and the photo was actually two years old . . . and was taken in Afghanistan.

And who is it that has turned Iraq into a mess? Us, or the terrorists? The people of Iraq would have peace if given the choice. That is also our choice. It is not the choice of those who set off car bombs where children play and adults worship.

A²

Yes.

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

OK, that statement of mine was rather imprecise. The US hasn't personally created every problem that now besets Iraq, naturally. I've also heard several stories personally from returning journalists and servicemen (and been e-mailed many more, multiple times) of significant triumphs in individual circumstances, due to some truly heroic efforts on the part of our servicemen/women, which should not be dismissed or forgotten. I think the tendency of the media to focus on the negative often has less to do with liberal journalists with a political agenda than with the old, widely-held perception that bad, sensational news sells more (and/or piques more interest) than good news. I also have no doubt that certain reports, as you mentioned, were falsified (or at least exaggerated) by anti-coalition sources (keep in mind that the US military ALSO has an understandable vested interest - protecting the lives of their servicemen, for example - in skewing numbers and details of events in THEIR favor) But all inspiring anecdotes aside, the sheer, raw numbers are difficult to ignore: to date, 2,573 coalition deaths, 17,469 U.S. military wounded, and anywhere from 34,030 to 38,164 Iraqi civilian deaths. No-one can claim (with any integrity) that Saddam wasn't a monster, or that life was really horrible for a lot of the population under him, with many, many attrocites comitted, and it seems clear that a lot of Iraqis were secretly hoping for his downfall. But Saddam had managed (through brutal means) to control the local conflicts within Iraq, as well as control the borders, providing, at least, some stability. The power vacuum we are responsible for has swept all that away, opening the door very wide to lawlessness, insurgency streaming in from all sides, hostility and constant peril for the leadership and local security forces that attempt to cooperate with the coalition forces, and an imminent, very scary all-out civil war - yes, the bad guys are responsible for a lot of this, but we empowered them to do it by not being adequately prepared to deal with the aftermath. Whatever our honorable objectives might have been, or still are, I think that Iraqis deserve better than the situation our invasion has set into motion, and it doesn't appear to me that, overall, things are going to get anything but a lot worse for a lot of Iraqis any time soon. There's a really great interview about all of this that I will send you if I can find it...sorry for the delay.

Re: Really?

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

BTW - GREAT icon! I applaud your excellent taste!:)