[Note: This entry builds upon my entry of yesterday. I’m surprised that no one addressed the questions I raised.]
I did not watch the President’s speech last night. I’ve read a number of reports about it (LA Times, Daily News, CNN), and read the speech itself. Surprisingly, there are some aspects I agree with.
Early on, he speaks about the nature of the enemy:
Since the horror of Nine-Eleven, we have learned a great deal about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy – but not without purpose. We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam – a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. And we have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings, and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations. The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation.
I would agree with this. I’ve been saying this for a while: we are dealing with an enemy that is different than we have faced before. It is an enemy that does not abide by the gentlement’s rules of war and engagement, an enemy that sees deaths during battle for their publicity value, if they have value at all. It is an enemy that is growing in that part of the world: not only with Al Quaida, but with groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and those in power in Iran and some other countries. It is a religion-fueled battle (the hardest kind to fight), almost the reverse of the crusades. And, as with any religious battle, it cannot end well for the Jews in the country under attack.
Later in the speech, the President draws some parallels to World War II:
Yet America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it – sometimes at the cost of thousands of good men in a single battle. When Franklin Roosevelt vowed to defeat two enemies across two oceans, he could not have foreseen D-Day and Iwo Jima – but he would not have been surprised at the outcome.
I think the parallel to WWII is a good one. As in WWII, we are battling an ideology — an insidious ideology that devalues people for their beliefs. It is something that can be defeated if the right approach is taken. We have gotten used to “comfortable”, push-button air wars. The battle against terrorism is a dirty ground war, that will have more casualties that will strain the volunteer armed forces. It will require a different and innovative approaches, a different way of thinking, a different way of battle. It will require infiltration, and it may require some techniques that are normally distasteful. It will take a lot of strength of character to not let the battle destroy what it is obstensibly protecting.
That said, there are aspects I disagree with.
First and foremost, I think our approach to battle has been mired in WWII thinking and approaches. We’re approaching whatever battle we have expecting the enemy to follow the rules of war… and they don’t. For this, I blame the leadership. We need youth and new approaches, and Rummy is WWII-era. The way to win is to figure out how the enemy thinks.
Second, I think our intellegence apparatus is behind the times, and misfocused. This, along with personal agendas, is why we went into Iraq, and what we’re seeing now is rationalization for those bad decisions. We are not able to understand our adversary because we haven’t infiltrated them. Electronic observation and overhead observation can only provide so much information. Those who have watched old spy movies know it is the personal contact that is key. We haven’t rebuilt that network.
Third, we need to move beyond personal agendas. Personal agendas are a weakness; those who watch movies know that is it personal agenda that always trips up the bad guy. It is good for them to have the agenda. It is not good for us. We need to be agile. We need to have unclouded thinking. This goes back to the leadership issue.
So, am I arguing in favor of the war or the president? Not as it is currently being run. I do think we need to battle terrorism, but I’m not sure we’re taking the right approach. I’m open to suggestions on what would be an effective attack against terrorism.