You forgot strategy that can include such gems as propeganda, terrorism, and guerilla warfare. -- John M Reynolds
I think that strategy is a subset of Might; Will; and Sacrifice.
See the end of this guest-post at "Daimnation!":
"Don't Send a Lion to Catch a Mouse"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archi...ved/
008993.html
Mark
Ottawa
Comment from a middle-aged civilian.
Like so much of the stuff I read in the rightwing blogosphere there always seems to be an ellipsis at the end of said statement on western decadence, our lack of will and general wish to go to the beach rather than discussing the killing of bad people in sufficient numbers to make you folks happy.
Do you think our current strategy of 'make nice' in Afghanistan is not going to work?
Tell me what exactly you want to do so that we can win this...mess, and I'll tell you how far I'd be willing to follow along. I really don't know what you want from us - carte blanche?
Do we just kill lot and lots of people in the general area, knowing that at least some of them are the bad guys? The moral 'OK' to blowing away huge 'swashes' of people? The acceptance that that is what it is going to take so we soft shallow liberals just better get used to the idea?
And it's not necessarily the case that the West is unwilling to go to war, it's just that alot of us don't have high expectations of it solving the problems we face, and more likely of exacerbating them. There may be sufficient reason in the future but the experience of Iraq certainly has lessened the argument for proactive engagement.
"Kill lots and lots of people"
Whatever for? In the context of Afghanistan, that's just ridiculous. What would there be to gain from that? And who is advocating that? Certainly not this post and not any conservative I know. Asymmetrical warfare means digging wells as much as it does killing bad guys.
The experience of Iraq shows that there is a thinking adapting enemy involved and that conditions change and morph... as in every conflict. The "game plan" must be adaptable; and I think that that is being shown now.
So I'm reading too much into the example of the Romans? Alright.
But it's still a classic example of Catoism - instead of Hellenism though, it's postmodernism*, (whatever the hell that is), that is corrupting us, making us soft. If history were physics the one constant of the conservative equation would be - that civilisation is making us soft, and yet here we are, entertaining ourselves.
I will agree that the warrior is always, in time of peace, (and Junker, I sincerely hope most of your career is a peaceful one) undervalued.
* I assume you're going to say it's relativism. But most people aren't relativists, they might say 'live and let live'- if they're gooey western liberals like me - but they believe that it's their society that's the best of all possible societies.
"but they believe that it's their society that's the best of all possible societies."
Absolutely without a doubt!
The downside of such a benevolent and gentle society, is that it must be pushed into a very deep corner before it defends itself. It is the double edged sword of liberty. Liberty unavoidably leads to decadence ... which causes a softening of resolve, which I contend, results in greater calamity in the end if those with liberty can't stir themselves to preventative, but occasionally violent action.
I fear Total War above all else. I guess that's why I'd rather have the low scale long-term asymmetrical type of conflict. I've got visions of hundreds of thousands ... or millions of Muslim civilians perishing because we didn't want to kill Taliban and dig wells. I see a resulting mammoth clash between civilization and barbarism in the end. It's happened before, and I can see it happening again.
When I wrote the piece, I wasn't looking to tackle any sort of moral dilemma, although there is a tremendous quandry present. I simply wanted to take a look at east/west conflicts of the past, and what it takes to achieve victory.
Commenting by HaloScan
