August 21, 2005
Brushstrokes in Mosul
Rusty wrote about something I neglected, because I wasn't sure how to frame the issue. I considered posting something using precisely the same quote from Michael Yon that Dr. Shackleford used here. While folks like Chuck Hagel suggest we're losing in Iraq, based on the train wreck of incompetent reporting and distorted information provided by MSM, genuinely astonishing things are happening that point to precisely the opposite conclusion. Does anyone understand how difficult a global war against stateless totalitarianism actually is? And does anyone appreciate the almost-miraculous fact that we're not just holding our own, but beating them at their own game one small victory at a time?
By way of analogy, suppose the military had decided to suppress the information that Sherman had taken and burnt Atlanta in 1864 (ignoring the fact that suppression of such an overt event would have been almost impossible)? Well, McClellan would have won the election backed by the anti-war Copperheads; the Union probably would have withdrawn troops from the South; and slavery would have continued another 20 to 30 years in the US, almost into the 20th Century. In addition, the US might well have not entered WWI and the Allies might have lost that war, leading to German domination of the European subcontinent, extermination of most of European Jewry in the mid-20th Century, and precipitating a maelstrom of social and political consequences that are so unlike what we know now that we'd be living on a virtually alien planet, if we were living at all.
Because it really was rather close. The only thing that prevented a defeat of Lincoln in 1864 was the Union victory in Atlanta, and a few other skirmishes. That gave the population enough confidence to stick with it even after the loss of nearly a million men. Yes, that's right, we're balking after less than 2,000 US deaths, and the American Civil War killed almost a million soldiers and severely wounded several million more. That's millions, not thousands.
I don't know what it takes to get the military to recognize the significance of this propaganda dimension of the war, but they have to learn it somehow, and pretty quickly. And we need another two-dozen Michael Yons, if possible. Any millionaires out there mulling over what to do with your well-earned gains?
Does anyone in a position to run for President in 2008 understand this?
I once saw the original Picasso painting, Woman With Guitar, (depicted below) on display in the museum at San Simeon. Looking at a print or reproduction gives absolutely no idea what the painting is about, because the meaning is revealed only in the brushstrokes and can be seen only if you're standing three feet from the original and looking very carefully. I suppose the broad cubist patterns have some significance to esoteric students of art, but what none of these reproductions reveal is the horrific vision that emerges from the brushstrokes themselves. It's Picasso's image of the Apocalypse, with demons, Satanic figures, and other hellish characters emerging on foot and horseback from the gates of hell, prepared to submerge the Earth in unconstrained destruction. There isn't even a hint of this image conveyed in a reproduction it's so subtle, and seeing the original convinces the observer that Picasso must have painted such images in an altered state of consciousness. He must have been like a machine, sculpting subtle 3D structures out of paint to produce a breathtaking landscape that's all but invisible from six feet away.
Something like that is going on with this War on Totalitarianism 3.x, because the strokes that reveal the real story are nearly invisible to us... and totally invisible to most of the world. The troops on the ground know the details, as do their superiors, but except for a few hints that squeak through with witnesses like Yon they've chosen to keep the real story from us. This, not because it's damning, but out of some misguided sense of clandestine caution.
(Cross-posted by Demosophist to The Jawa Report)
Posted by Demosophist at August 21, 2005 11:46 PM | TrackBackNice blog you have here.
Posted by: Eddie at August 22, 2005 05:04 PMI saw Trent Lott on Fox today saying that, while his constituents are 100% behind Bush, they are starting to doubt the war.
I'm wondering if it's over and the MSM have succeeded in derailing this war as they did with Vietnam. It's too late to get heavy (as we should have done in Fallujah - destroy the city) because the new government is too fragile.
It's also a pity that the new Iraq constituion is less enlightened than the Baathist one.
Posted by: PatC at August 22, 2005 10:41 PMPat:
I'm still somewhat amazed at just how much it takes to get this adiministration in gear. When I first entered the Ph.D. program I took a long seminar from John Warfield, and at one point he talked about his experience with Dick Cheney, who had at that time been the Secretary of Defense. He characterized Cheney as completely devoid of imagination. Smart, but hidebound. I've heard similar reports about others in this administration, from people on the "inside."
OK, he did the right thing after 9-11, but so could most of us. It wasn't that tough to figure out, frankly. The issue is whether he did it WELL, and I'm just not sure that's the case. Moreover, as time passes the task simply becomes more complex, and my impression of the policy establishment over the last two years in which I've frequently interacted with them is that they've become more simple-minded, rather than less. At this point I think they have good intentions, but they're completely and totally lost.
I'll be frank. I think we're going to be hit again, only this time the death toll will be in the tens of thousands. I think this could have been avoided, but there isn't enough expertise and conviction in this administration to carry it off. They're pretty good at strategy, within a five year time frame, but lousy at both grand strategy and tactics. (Grand strategy requires good tactics in order to stay on course when conditions change.)
I recall the reason why I'm not a conservative. It's simply that conservatives either just see what they want to see, or they spend their resources attempting to return things to a known state. And there is no known state to return to that offers us any reasonable security.
I think there's actually a reason why we haven't captured and killed Bin Laden: incompetence and lack of vision. The notion that we're ruled by an elite who doesn't quite grasp the situation has a great deal more merit than I thought.
The truth is, if I had any sense I'd be getting as far from here as I possibly could. And yes, there are lots of people who could've done a better job than G.W. Bush. Mayb we'll have enough sense to elect one of them in 2008, if there's still a Capital.
I mean, we aren't even securing the borders. How utterly brain dead is that?
Posted by: Demosophist at August 22, 2005 11:30 PMIf it takes another attack to wake us all up - so be it. And, yes, the terrorists will probably walk in across our unsecured borders. It's very hard for a liberal society to be in a state of war for long. Perhaps we need another outrage to summon up our righteous anger again.
Posted by: PatC at August 23, 2005 10:41 AMInfovlad has recorded cyber attacks on some places today. MU.NU seems to be down as well.
Posted by: Howie at August 23, 2005 12:58 PMThe trouble with taking another hit from the terrorists is that we may not react by renewing efforts to democratize the Ummah, but by deciding to destroy it. Wretchard on The Belmont Club speculates that we nearly crossed the threshold to a nuclear counter-attack with 9-11, and if the terrorists are much more "successful" they could jeopardize their whole culture, and millions of lives.
I think we need new leadership, rather than another attack. I'm pretty sure the Republicans have three potential candidates I could support: Giullianni, McCain and Gingrich. I haven't seen any Democrats who fit the bill, and the Moveon folks will probably ensure that no one they oppose even gets close to nomination. And I think I've had all the Clintons I can tolerate for awhile.
My impression of Allen is that he's another George Bush. (At least he's another George.) I'd vote for him, but not with any real hope that he'll be able to perform. Right now I'd be enthusiastic about either Rudy or Newt, but I prefer Newt. If he's nominated the Dems won't know what hit them.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 23, 2005 02:16 PM