RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,144721,00.html Once you get past the sense of hopelessness and despair, the lesson I take from this is we have little historical precedent from which to draw for how to deal with today's Middle East. No matter how glorious and successful, the obviously competent Decatur might need a little more seasoning than what his 36 yrs of age gave him in 1815. And I wouldn't begin to compare anyone in today's politics with the likes of Madison.
Mr. Lind, as usual, is talking out his ***, looking for connections where there are none and making dubious claims.
Last "good" war in the Middle East? Well, it was actually North Africa and the Med, and I seem to recall us doing quite well there in a small confilict during the 40's after a stumbling start at Kasserine Pass.
Another small niggling point would be his "legitimacy" arguement, OBL is more legit than the Barbary states? How is a dude more legit than a state?
Finally, Mr. Lind should know that piracy and terrorism, while related are NOT the same thing.
And are you gonna trust a guy with that haircut? Jeez!
You must realize that in Lind's world "legitimacy" does not refer to law and judical decision. It refer to percieved morality.
In that context a Robin Hood is more 'legitimate' than a Prince John even though the latter scrupulously observed the letter of the law, while Robin robbed and often killed people.
A short (if somewhat incomplete) way of putting it is that in the information society the propaganda war have become more important than the bullet war.
"Good is better than bad cause its nicer" Mammy Yokum (as related by Al Capp)
There is a particular contrast between the behavior of the prepared and the behavior of the willing that we need to address, especially when it comes to who will deal most successfully with this conflict. Compare the behavior of our elite units with the behavior of our typical infantry unit and you will find a marked difference in mentality. Specifically, your average Recon Marine is stoically confident in his abilities, while your average grunt will attempt to make up for certain insecurities with aggressive behavior.
I judge our nation's leaders according to this same scale. Some are thoughtful, describe the situation exactly as it is, and are certain of their approach. Others are boisterous, speak of hypotheticals, and attempt to win popular support by praying upon America's fears. The first is the leadership model we should have. The last is the leadership model we do have.
Having been led by boisterous individuals for so long, I am not in least bit surprised to see that so many would casually toss aside the underlying suggestion that this author and others have made. Then again, you may not have even been aware of the fact that war is about more than combat.
Obviously, many of us believe that this conflict will only be concluded when the enemy has been killed or convinced to surrender. We think little of recruitment or what beliefs, besides religion, cause individual Arabs to join Osama and his friends to take up arms in the first place. This after having witnessed the continued restructuring of a force that has repelled French and Russian invasions in the past and is currently turning out to be more determined than the instigators of the Iraq invasion had realized they could be.
Most frequently our combat only crowd relies upon the seperation of peoples into individuals nations having the power to police their citizens when determining the potential outcome, and not enough on the demonstrated desire of the inhabitants to rally despite pressures applied by king, president, or prime minister. This is a tragic error.
A short (if somewhat incomplete) way of putting it is that in the information society the propaganda war have become more important than the bullet war.
Africa in WWII was won by Monty and the British, the US forces were primarily cannonfodder. Credit where credit is due though, they performed that role admirably. As to the Western front, the allies had to slog through all of 30 divisions to "win" while the Soviets punched through 130, so lets see a little sense before proclaiming American military prowess in WWII.
