Lying and competence
As a general rule, as far as I can see, not many Americans are bothered by a President who lies on topics of foreign policy. The practice is expected. But at the same time, a President and his administration are also expected to have a competent strategy. The lies are supposed to advance the strategy. President Bush has a problem: more and more people are wondering whether he and his administration have a competent strategy. In particular, in early May President Bush said that the asymmetrical war in Iraq was over. But that turns out not to be the case. A small number of US soldiers are killed nearly every day: the fighting will not bring a US military defeat but might bring a US political defeat. Look at it like a general who considers his enemy: The then Iraqi government, as well as those who fund other anti-US forces, looked at history: * the US and the USSR won World War II, a conventional war * the US lost and withdrew from the territories of three non-conventional conflicts, -- Vietnam under Presidents Nixon and Ford -- the Lebanon under President Reagan -- Somalia under President Clinton The first conclusion is: do not fight the US in a conventional war; you will lose. Fight the US in a non-conventional war; you may win. The second conclusion is: do not attack conventional US military targets, unless they are easy. If they are hard you may lose. If they are easy, like a housing block in Saudi Arabia, or a ship which you may approach without trouble, then you may attack. The third conclusion is: attack in such a way that you aid your friends and harm your enemies. The fourth conclusion is: change the opinion of US political leaders and their supporters, as with the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. These suggest that in Iraq, the enemies of the US planned to carry out an asymmetrical war in which 1. They avoid much of a conventional war with the US. 2. They avoid all but easy US military targets, or let stooges make the attacks and get killed by the Americans. 3. Among their current goals, through sabotage, hurt those Sunnis whom they do not like, hurt (by destroying electric power pylons) the Shiites and Kurds whom they oppose, and arrange that much of the sabotage occurs via looting, such as stealing metal from power lines, so that their friends benefit. 4. Persuade decision makers in the US to pull out of Iraq within the next 10 or 20 years without leaving a government behind it that is as harmless to US interests as West European governments 10 or 20 years after World War II. As Gautam pointed out, the ability of US forces ... to adapt and learn a new strategy has been nothing short of astonishing. which is true. Unfortunately, as Gautam's statement indicates, since the middle of April, US forces have had to adapt and learn, rather than adopt a `Plan B'. I expect US forces to adapt and learn quickly -- that is what the new `lessons learned' programs are all about. Morever, I have learned that some US generals even suggested that the US would need a large Iraqi occupation force, which indicates they were wise ahead of time. The problem is that the Bush Administration does not give the impression that it is fostering and protecting `lessons learned' people or encouraging people with foresight to write `Plans B, C, and D'. For example, in May, the US government hoped Chalabi would take over the Iraqi occupational government. But it turned out that various important Iraqis disliked him and considered him too corrupt. So the US had to design a second occupational government. The new Iraqi Governing Council looks fine to me, but the problem is that it took so long -- it took weeks -- for the US to install it. The US adapted and learned; it did not have a `Plan B' ready to adopt in May. So the question becomes one of political perception: is the Bush Administration perceived as one that can competently carry out the job it has undertaken? Can it pull together a coalition in the US that will last at least a generation? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Lying and competence
[I've been out of town.] As a general rule, as far as I can see, not many Americans are bothered by a President who lies on topics of foreign policy. The practice is expected. But at the same time, a President and his administration are also expected to have a competent strategy. The lies are supposed to advance the strategy. President Bush has a problem: more and more people are wondering whether he and his administration have a competent strategy. In particular, in early May President Bush said that the asymmetrical war in Iraq was over. But that turns out not to be the case. A small number of US soldiers are killed nearly every day: the fighting will not bring a US military defeat but might bring a US political defeat. Look at it like a general who considers his enemy: The then Iraqi government, as well as those who fund other anti-US forces, looked at history: * the US and the USSR won World War II, a conventional war * the US lost and withdrew from the territories of three non-conventional conflicts, -- Vietnam under Presidents Nixon and Ford -- the Lebanon under President Reagan -- Somalia under President Clinton The first conclusion is: do not fight the US in a conventional war; you will lose. Fight the US in a non-conventional war; you may win. The second conclusion is: do not attack conventional US military targets, unless they are easy. If they are hard you may lose. If they are easy, like a housing block in Saudi Arabia, or a ship which you may approach without trouble, then you may attack. The third conclusion is: attack in such a way that you aid your friends and harm your enemies. The fourth conclusion is: change the opinion of US political leaders and their supporters, as with the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. These suggest that in Iraq, the enemies of the US planned to carry out an asymmetrical war in which 1. They avoid much of a conventional war with the US. 2. They avoid all but easy US military targets, or let stooges make the attacks and get killed by the Americans. 3. Among their current goals, through sabotage, hurt those Sunnis whom they do not like, hurt (by destroying electric power pylons) the Shiites and Kurds whom they oppose, and arrange that much of the sabotage occurs via looting, such as stealing metal from power lines, so that their friends benefit. 4. Persuade decision makers in the US to pull out of Iraq within the next 10 or 20 years without leaving a government behind it that is as harmless to US interests as West European governments 10 or 20 years after World War II. As Gautam pointed out, the ability of US forces ... to adapt and learn a new strategy has been nothing short of astonishing. which is true. Unfortunately, as Gautam's statement indicates, since the middle of April, US forces have had to adapt and learn, rather than adopt a `Plan B'. I expect US forces to adapt and learn quickly -- that is what the new `lessons learned' programs are all about. Morever, I have learned that some US generals even suggested that the US would need a large Iraqi occupation force, which indicates they were wise ahead of time. The problem is that the Bush Administration does not give the impression that it is fostering and protecting `lessons learned' people or encouraging people with foresight to write `Plans B, C, and D'. For example, in May, the US government hoped Chalabi would take over the Iraqi occupational government. But it turned out that various important Iraqis disliked him and considered him too corrupt. So the US had to design a second occupational government. The new Iraqi Governing Council looks fine to me, but the problem is that it took so long -- it took weeks -- for the US to install it. Honorable, brave and patriotic Americans adapted and learned; but they had no `Plan B' ready to adopt in May. So the question becomes one of political perception: is the Bush Administration perceived as one that can competently carry out the job it has undertaken? Can it pull together a coalition in the US that will last at least a generation? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Lying and competence
[I've been out of town.] On 24 Jul 2003, Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] said Honorable, brave men would have attacked military targets This does not follow. After all, the goal in war is to gain an unfair advantage: to win, not to lose. Honorable, brave men do not intend to bring defeat on themselves and their supporters. An enemy decision maker could well figure that in asymmetrical warfare, an attack on a highly symbolic target that kills civilians would would more likely bring victory to him than an attack on an enemy military. (I don't think the Pentagon was the primary target of the third airplane.) However, I do think the decision makers in Al Qaeda made a mistake from their point of view. The US had a choice of two responses to the attack on the World Trade Center. It could flee or fight. It could withdraw from the Holy Land (i.e., from the land of the two holy cities, Arabia), as it had done from Vietnam, the Lebanon, and Somalia when faced with asymmetrical, symbollically managed warfare, or it could fight. The attack resulted in the US fighting rather than retreating. (Also, Caleb Carr has argued that terrorism always fails in the long run, since the terrorized may surrender for a moment, but continue bitter. The Lessons of Terror, Caleb Carr, Random House, 2003) The question is whether the next stage of US fighting will be done competently. One problem the Bush Administration faces is that to fight a war that involves long times between publically visible action it must organize its support through words. It must be able to say that intelligence indicates that the US government should spend money in Africa that would otherwise not be borrowed. Ideally the Bush Administration will be believed when it says that; but even if it is not believed, the Bush Administration must be perceived as borrowing and spending that money competently. In the past, Al Qaeda has often waited two years or more between attacks. This is a long time for Americans. Indeed, I have heard some Americans wonder whether Al Qaeda still has forces left since it has not undertaken a symbollically significant attack against the US in the last 23 months. There are two issues here: * First, the Bush Administration has often said that Al Qaeda is dangerous. Will Americans continue to believe the Bush Administration? Or will they disbelieve and then be surprised if another attack occurs? As I said, I don't think that many Americans are bothered by a President who lies on topics of foreign policy. However, if Americans stop believing in a President altogether, they may ignore even truths. * Second, Bush Administration attention to Al Qaeda must please its backers and `semi-neutral supporters' since it suggests that Al Qaeda is as important as they hope. Al Qaeda is fighting an asymmetrical war; that is why it attacks symbolic targets and kills civilians instead of attacking the kinds of military targets that might lose it the war. Because of this attention by the Bush Administration, Al Qaeda has not had to make a recent attack in order to carry its symbolic message to its supporters and enemies. (However, from their point of view, I do think Al Qaeda will need to make another symbolically important attack within a year, and perhaps within a few months, to avoid being judged defunct. They can depend on people believing the Bush Administration only so long.) -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
