Large Scale Central

Sure to Stir up Conversation

Twelve Myths of Twenty-first Century War
by Ralph Peters**

Unaware of the cost of freedom and served by leaders without military expertise, Americans have started to believe whatever’s comfortable. We’ve never had better men and women in uniform. But our leaders, and many of our fellow Americans, no longer grasp what war means or what it takes to win. Thanks to those who have served in uniform, we’ve lived in such safety and comfort for so long that for many Americans sacrifice means little more than skipping a second trip to the buffet table.

Two trends over the past four decades contributed to our national ignorance of the cost of, and necessity for, victory.

First, Ivy League universities once produced heroes. Now they resist Reserve Officer Training Corps representation on their campuses. Yet, our leading universities still produce a disproportionate number of US political leaders. The men and women destined to lead us in wartime dismiss military service as a waste of their time and talents. Delighted to pose for campaign photos with our troops, elected officials disdain the military in private. Only one serious presidential aspirant in either party is a veteran while another presidential hopeful pays as much for a single haircut as I took home in a month as an Army private.

[b]Second,[/b] we've stripped in-depth US history classes out of our schools.  Since the 1960's one history course after another has been cut while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues.  Dumbed-down textbooks minimize the wars that kept us free. As a result ignorance of the terrible price our troops had to pay for freedom in the past creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts.  When the media offers flawed or biased analysis, the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments.

National leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn’t been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever’s comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.

Myth Number One: War doesn’t change anything.

Over thousands of years war has been the last resort–and all too frequently the first resort of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a heartless quest for glory. War is sometimes necessary. We can’t pretend that if only we laid down our arms all others would do the same. Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan? Even a just war may generate undesirable results, such as Soviet tyranny over half of Europe after 1945. But of one thing we may be certain: a US defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world and they won’t be deterred by bumper stickers.

Myth Number Two: Victory is impossible today.

Victory is always possible if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is, indeed, impossible if US troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target must be approved by lawyers and if the American people are disheartened by a constant barrage of negativity from the media. We don’t need generals who pop up behind microphones to apologize for every mistake our soldiers make. We need generals who win. And you can’t win if you won’t fight. We’re at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy’s feelings. One of the tragedies of our involvement in Iraq is that while we did a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, we tried to do it on the cheap. It’s an iron law of warfare that those unwilling to pay the butcher’s bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end. We not only didn’t want to pay that bill, but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated. Killing a few hundred violent actors like Moqtada al-Sadr in 2003 would have prevented thousands of subsequent American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. We started something our national leadership lacked the guts to finish.

Despite our missteps, victory looked a great deal less likely in the early months of 1942 than it does against our enemies today. Should we have surrendered after the fall of the Philippines? Today’s opinion makers and elected officials have lost their grip on what it takes to win. I n the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest, “War means fighting and fighting means killing.” And in the words of General Douglas MacArthur, “It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.”

Myth Number Three: Insurgencies can never be defeated.

Historically, fewer than one in twenty major insurgencies have succeeded. Virtually no minor ones survived. In the mid-20th century insurgencies scored more wins than previously had been the case but that was because the European colonial powers against which they rebelled had already decided to rid themselves of their imperial possessions. Even so, more insurgencies were defeated than not from the Philippines to Kenya to Greece. In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good. The insurgencies we face today are, in fact, more lethal than the insurrections of the past century. We now face an international terrorist insurgency as well as local rebellions, all motivated by religious passion or ethnicity or a fatal compound of both. The good news is that in over three thousand years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.

Myth number Four: There’s no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.

Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. We’re the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction–the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria–is convinced it can win. The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.

Myth Number Five: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

If you don’t fight back you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously. Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn’t work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. If we’re unwilling to
fight the fraction of humanity that’s evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we’ll face even grimmer conflicts.

Myth Number Six: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.

It’s an anomaly of today’s Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists. Zarqawi is dead and forgotten by his own movement and no one is fighting to avenge Saddam. The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Want to make a terrorist a martyr? Just lock him up. Attempts to try such monsters in a court of law turn into mockeries that only provide public platforms for their hate speech which the global media is delighted to broadcast. Dead, they’re dead and killing them is the ultimate proof that they lack divine protection. Dead terrorists don’t kill.

Myth Number Seven: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we’re no better than them.

Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as millions of Japanese lives, turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March? While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime. Soldiers are human and no matter how rigorous their training, a minuscule fraction of our troops will do vicious things and must be punished as a consequence. Not everyone in uniform will turn out to be a saint and not every chain of command will do its job with equal effectiveness. But obsessing on tragic incidents–of which there have been remarkably few in Iraq or Afghanistan–obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities and who claim their god wants blood.

Myth Number Eight: The United States is more hated today than ever before.

Those who served in Europe during the Cold War remember enormous, often-violent protests against US policy that dwarfed today’s let’s-have-fun-on-a-Sunday-afternoon rallies. Older readers recall the huge ban-the-bomb, pro-communist demonstrations of the 1950’s, and the vast seas of demonstrators filling the streets of Paris, Rome and Berlin to protest our commitment to Vietnam. Imagine if we’d had 24/7 news coverage of those rallies. I well remember serving in Germany in the wake of our withdrawal from Saigon when US soldiers were despised by the locals–who nonetheless were willing to take our money–and terrorists tried to assassinate US generals. The fashionable anti-Americanism of the chattering classes hasn’t stopped the world from seeking one big green card. As I’ve traveled around the globe since 9/11, I’ve found that below the government-spokesman/professional-radical level, the United States remains the great dream for university graduates from Berlin to Bangalore to Bogota. On the domestic front we hear ludicrous claims that our country has never been so divided. Well, that leaves out our Civil War. Our historical amnesia also erases the violent protests of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the mass confrontations, rioting and deaths. Is today’s America really more fractured than it was in 1968?

Myth Number Nine: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive US administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks–from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole–we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool. Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes. But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda’s Vietnam, not ours.

Myth Number Ten: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.

The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there’s nothing more we can do. But we’re not there yet, and leaving immediately would guarantee not just one massacre but a series of slaughters and the delivery of a massive victory to the forces of terrorism. We must be open-minded about practical measures, from changes in strategy to troop reductions, if that’s what the developing situation warrants. But it’s grossly irresponsible to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq–an allegation that ignores history.

Myth Number Eleven: It’s all Israel’s fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: “The Saudis are our friends.”

Israel is the Muslim world’s excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn’t support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless other imagined wrongs since they fear our freedoms and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women of conscience must recognize the core difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel genuinely wants to live in peace while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map. As for the mad belief that the Saudis are our friends, it endures only because the Saudis have spent so much money on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Saudi money continues to subsidize anti-Western extremism, to divide fragile societies, and encourage hatred between Muslims and all others. Saudi extremism has done far more damage to the Middle East than Israel ever did. The Saudis are our enemies.

Myth Number Twelve: The Middle East’s problems are all America’s fault.

Muslim extremists would like everyone to believe this but it just isn’t true. The collapse of once great Middle Eastern civilizations has been under way for more than five centuries and the region became a backwater before the United States became a country. For the first century and a half of our national existence, our relations with the people of the Middle East were largely beneficent and protective, notwithstanding our conflict with the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. But Islamic civilization was on a downward trajectory that could not be arrested. Its social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, its lack of scientific curiosity, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a single modern state that served its people all guaranteed that, as the West’s progress accelerated, the Middle East would fall ever farther behind. The Middle East has itself to blame for its problems.

In Sum:

None of us knows what our strategic future holds but we have no excuse for not knowing our own past. We need to challenge inaccurate assertions about our policies, about our past and about war, itself. And we need to work within our community and state education systems to return balanced, comprehensive history programs to our schools. The unprecedented wealth and power of the United States allows us to afford many things denied to human beings throughout history but we, the people, cannot afford ignorance.

**Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, strategist and author of twenty-two books including the recent “Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century.”

Well Steve,

I’m sure he learned a lot of lessons, but he forgot about Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and a few other places. :wink: :frowning:
OTOH who wouldn’t want to forget that! :wink: :slight_smile: The list of forgettable places is being added to as time keeps ticking away.

And your point is?.. :slight_smile:

Steve,

You really need to go out and play with your trains. Reading all those right wing blogs is just killing off those last few, much needed brain cells. :lol:

-Brian

I don’t think he did forget about Viet Nam. He mentioned the fall of Saigon which happened when our leaders lost the will to fight, turned tail and ran. As for the others you mentioned, perfect examples of trying to fight on the cheap.

“Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. We’re the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction–the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria–is convinced it can win. The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength”

There is no negotiating with extreme fundamentalists.
That being said, we are just stirring up the hornet’s nest. There are many factions that have spent centuries fighting each other. We have united them by giving them a common enemy.
Ralph

Well, no actually, now they have 2 common enemies, the US and Isreal.

They became our enemy when we helped them defeat the Soviet Union.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Brian- appreciate the poke, but what do you disagree with here? :lol: I am just taking a break from laying track.

Ken Brunt said:
Well, no actually, now they have 2 common enemies, the US and Isreal.
True, We gave them cause to unite in 1949. It is best to find a way to turn them on themselves. For every one terrorist we kill, it creates several more. Because they have family and friends who then begin to see things as they did. At the risk of sounding like a right wing redneck republican.......You have to either step back and let them kill each other or kill them all. And that means women and children too. Because the women will then teach the child and you will have a new generation of terrorists. So, the only real solution is to step out and let them have at each other. Iraq is the perfect place to let this happen as far as I am concerned. Ralph
Steve Featherkile said:
They became our enemy when we helped them defeat the Soviet Union.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Brian- appreciate the poke, but what do you disagree with here? :lol: I am just taking a break from laying track.


That was our first big mistake.
Our second mistake was in thinking we could succeed when the Soviets couldn’t. And the Soviets were much more ruthless than we are.
Ralph

Ah, 'Nam was inevitable because of the left-wing demonstrators and their left-wing media support!

I have always felt that when we have anti-war protesters, round them up, shave their heads, put a uniform on them, and place them right smack dab in the middle of the conflict at hand.

If they don’t believe in the Second, then they don’t get any firepower, rather flowerpower.

A) we wouldn’t need a Draft.
B) we would limit the need to support professional students who never seem to get on with “work” anyway.

Curmudgeon said:
Ah, 'Nam was inevitable because of the left-wing demonstrators and their left-wing media support!
Which we've since come to find out was the north's ace-in-the-hole. Can't beat'em on the battlefield, put your money in the anti-war movement.

Jane Fonda

Steve Featherkile said:
They became our enemy when we helped them defeat the Soviet Union.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Brian- appreciate the poke, but what do you disagree with here? :lol: I am just taking a break from laying track.


I don’t disagree generally with what is being said except for two things - 1) What myths are being debunked here? and 2) There is a hell of a lot of stuff that is being omitted to obtain these rationalizations. Too much so for a brief synopsis here. More like a term paper’s worth for such a complicated subject but I guess it needs to dumb downed for the fans of Bill and Rush.

-Brian

Back in the 1970’s a new movement was conceived, neo-conservatives. They saw America’s place in society as the world policeman, the good guy out to correct all wrong in the world by crushing those they perceived as bad. The old cowboys and indians scenario. They found favour with George Bush Snr and then later with George Jnr and hopefully with a Democrat government elected the neo-conservative cavemen will become extinct. The neo-conservatives have been the think-tank of American policy for over twenty years and their world outlook is responsible for many of America’s recent conflicts.

America’s reluctance to place the issue of Israel in perspective has united the Arab world against America’s Mcdonalds version of what democracy actually is. The Greeks invented democracy and their model was a far cry from what would be deemed acceptable to today’s society. Remember the aftermath of Israel achieving freedom as a separate country from the British, post WW2. It was not a seamless transfer of power. The British abandoned the country and allowed many attrocities to occur. The world stood by and watched as genocide was perpetrated against the Palestinian population, much as the world stood by and allowed the Hindis and the Muslims slaughter each other when India achieved its freedom and Pakistan was created. The Muslim world, to this day, still blames America for the Palestinian situation because of its insistence on guaranteeing an Israeli homeland at the expense of the Palestinian population. One really needs to look at exactly who America is supporting when it props up the Israeli government. The Israeli government is nothing but segmented minor parties banded together to achieve a majority right to govern. The major parties require the support of the fundamentalist Jewish parties to remain in office. To do this they bow to every wish of the minority fundamentalist Israelis, such as continual land acquisition of Palestinian territory and continued resistance to establishing successful peace negotiations. The fundamentalist Jews do not want peace with the Palestinians and the major parties are not going to risk losing office by meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians or cessation of land grabs. Remember how the native American indians resisted settlers taking their tribal land. Exactly who are the terrorists these days. Like Hamas, Israeli armed forces still target individuals for assassination and then complain when Hamas targets the Israeli countryside in retaliation. Who is morally right and who is morally wrong. The chicken and egg scenario. The neo-conservatives put it simply - we are right and the rest of the world are wrong. A recent study saw over two-thirds of the Israeli population want peace with the Palestinians. However, their combined voting power is insufficient and to stay in power, the governing power still requires the support of the anti-Palestinian fundamentalist Jews.

George ‘dubya’ put it simply when he announced that he will not negotiate with terrorists over the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Exactly who is the terrorist and who is not? All very subjective and depending on where allegiances lay. The main problem that I see is that conservatives see negotiation as a sign of weakness. They see an armed conflict as a positive outcome. Who is actually benefitting from the current Iraqi conflict? It is not the troops in the field, it is not the Iraqis, it is not the middle east. The only people deriving a benefit are the contractors supplying arms and assistance to the American troops and the supposed rebuilding programmes, mostly funded with Iraqi funds frozen in the 1990’s and squandered by ‘favoured’ contractors selected by the Bush regime to rebuild Iraq. Conflict of interest is a big stumbling block when one looks at the way the aftermath of the 2003 invasion was handled. Inept Bush allies were given senior positions and contracts to administer and rebuild the country. The American courts will be busy for many years to come as the courts prosecute the many who squandered not only America’s financial contribution to the conflict, but the frozen assets of the Iraqi people. No wonder the world is sceptical when America launches an armed invasion. The trillions of dollars spent have bolstered the bank balances of the arms suppliers and the contractors selected because of their political alliances to the current regime. The Iraqi invasion had nothing to do with Iraq, or with Saddam. The puppet government elected to run the country are nothing but American neo-conservative selected allies.

There are no moral ethics when one takes armed intervention, it is all about what profit can be derived. Few in the world actually believe that the current Afghanistan incursion will actually achieve anything. The puppet Afghani government does not even control the capital city in Afghanistan and yet supposedly speaks for the whole Afghani populastion. Puppets are merely puppets prompted by their puppet masters. Pakistan will never bring the Taliban to justice nor will they rout out the Al Qaeda terrorists. Fundamentalist Muslims will one day overrun Pakistan and then unite the middle east. Reliance on oil will see the west kowtow to the fundamentalist regimes. A generation ago China was regarded as an enemy of the western world. Today it is onne of the major trading countries in the world with the world becoming more reliant on Chinese manufactured goods. If a generation ago the decision was made to mount an armed invasion of China then the world would be a much different place and China would not be the western friendly neighbour it now is. Negotiation is a mightier weapon than the sword.

Tim,

Instead of starting your history lesson with The USA involved why don’t you start further back, before the US was around, say like the year 711 in the country known as Al-Andalus. Or even further back, like say when Muhammed wrote the Koran. Then explain why all this trouble is the US’s fault.

The fundamental extremists believe it is their duty to kill all non-Muslims. You can not negotiate their position.
That is why it is best to let them have Iraq and fight among themselves. Meanwhile our resources are better spent developing alternatives to oil.
We put a man on the moon in the 60’s. So the failure to develop alternatives to oil is not about ability but effort.
Ralph

Ken, you know it is too hard to think that far back. Besides, the US wasn’t there to kick around. If Charlton Heston can kick their butts as a corpse, we shouldn’t have too much trouble.

Brian said:
I don't disagree generally with what is being said except for two things - 1) What myths are being debunked here? and 2) There is a hell of a lot of stuff that is being omitted to obtain these rationalizations. Too much so for a brief synopsis here. More like a term paper's worth for such a complicated subject but I guess it needs to dumb downed for the fans of Bill and Rush.
Ahh, yes, when you don't have any ideas, make personal attacks. It says so right here in the playbook... :lol:

Ken,
we could go all the way back to Adam and see who actually grew the trees in the garden of Eden, the fruit of which was used to tempt Adam to deny the Lord and put us in the predicament we are in now. If truth be told, the supplier of the fruit tree was an American company well known for growing bananas in Central and South America and also well known as a front for businessmen hell-bent on bringing down democratically elected governments and installing puppet governments loyal to the United States.

   We could go back thousands of years,  but we would always come back to the current day and current world issues.  We had the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Carthaginians, the Arabs, the moors in Spain, the Norsemen, the Chinese,  the Spanish,  the English, the French, the Japanese, Communists, Christians, Muslims,  all have tried their hardest to conquer the known world.  America is simply the latest power to spread its doctrine around the world.  This is not a criticism of colonisation but the deceit used to cover the true motives for actions carried out.  If McCain is able to wrestle power in the next term then a certain ex-vice-president can rest easy as the attorney-general will be an ally.  If Obama is successful then the Democrats will have a field day bringing seemingly corrupt political recipients to justice.  This is not an indictment of the American nation but a criticism of absolute power corrupting absolutely.  Ostriches hear no evil and see no evil because they bury their heads in sand when trouble is likely.


    In so far as the history of Andalus then one almost had Utopia,  until Christian Europe invaded to spread the word of God and crush the existing Jewish and Muslim religions.  Prior to this the people, Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in seeming harmony, tolerating the views of others and the country flourished.  Religious zealots thought that their version of God was better than others and sought to convert or exterminate.  Sought of like today's history lesson.
Curmudgeon said:
Ah, 'Nam was inevitable because of the left-wing demonstrators and their left-wing media support!

I have always felt that when we have anti-war protesters, round them up, shave their heads, put a uniform on them, and place them right smack dab in the middle of the conflict at hand.

If they don’t believe in the Second, then they don’t get any firepower, rather flowerpower.

A) we wouldn’t need a Draft.
B) we would limit the need to support professional students who never seem to get on with “work” anyway.


Draft?
Hmmmmm … a keen observer commented the other day - on CBC, that left-leaning liberal loonie-bin :wink: :slight_smile: (just had to add a few of those “L” words :lol: :lol:) - : “The function of the Draft in the USA has been replaced by poverty.”

Same effect with much less uproar? And no cards to burn?