A couple of days ago, I wondered aloud what the
reaction of the Spanish people would be, to the massacres in Madrid. Support for
the US in the global war on terror was never very popular among the people
– getting Spanish troops to Iraq took leadership on the part of Jose Maria
Aznar, leadership being defined as getting people to do those necessary things
that they otherwise might choose to avoid.
Defeat
Clearly,
the results of the general election in Spain speak for themselves: Defeat for
the center-right Popular Party, and victory for the socialist party. As has been
pointed out in many areas, Al Qaeda and their affiliates can claim a victory
– through their actions, a democratically elected government has been
overthrown. The Prime Minister-elect, the 43-year-old Jose Luis Rodgriquez
Zapatero, called Spanish support for the war in Iraq “an error.” He
has publicly committed to withdrawing his troops from Iraq, absent dramatic and
unlikely expansion of the U.N. charter in
Iraq.
Parenthetically, according to James
Taranto in the WSJ’s Best of the Web, Zapatero is one of those world leaders who want
to see John Kerry win in November that the Senator
does go on
about (scroll down to the entry on NoKo: No-go on Jo-Fo). Without naming names. Because that would be
telling.
But
anyway.
Part of this result can be seen
as a backlash against Aznar’s public exclamation (and no doubt fervent
hope) that the Madrid attacks were very likely the work of the Basque terrorist
group Eta.
(Some call them “separatists.” For my own part, anyone who
intentionally blows up crowded supermarkets does not deserve such moral
objectivity.) But it’s also true that the Aznar government, while looking
hard at the devil they knew all too well, also admitted that the investigation
was open – this all in advance of the election.
And so it’s hard to escape the
Jonah Goldberg’s conclusion that the election of the socialists was
intended to send a message to the terrorists. And that message is, “we’re sorry .” They’re sorry they got involved
in America’s nasty little wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They’re
sorry that 30 million people have been freed from tyranny. They really
didn’t mean it, and they promise never to do it again. Unless of course,
those paragons of moral virtue (France, e.g.) in U.N. Security Council are on
board for the big win.
Winston Churchill once famously opined that an appeaser was one
that fed a crocodile, hoping it would eat him last. And of course the Spanish
people have every right choose appeasement as their national policy in a
democratic process, although I believe it’s shortsighted of them. Unless
of course, they ultimately mean to give back al-Andalus. Which, based on their
negative population growth, and the impact of North African Muslim immigration,
does not seem out of the question. (Link courtesy of the Allahpundit
.)
So call it a win for Islam0-fascist
terrorism. What kind of win was
it?
Victory
Conditions
There are three levels of
warfare: Tactical, Operational and Strategic. Tactics are how units engage
units. Strategic warfare is the national goal, the desired end-state.
Operational warfare is on the sliding spectrum between the two – matching
the national will to the trigger puller on the ground. Successful tactics enable
operational success, which in turn creates strategic victory, so long as
purpose, method and end-state are well
aligned.
An artillery battalion
supporting an infantry company’s advance is a tactical execution. The
movement of supporting forces on land, at sea and in the air is operational in
support of the larger effort, of which the company’s action is but a part.
Strategic victory is won when the enemy is compelled to yield to the national
will through a continuum of operational
successes.
I mentioned centers of gravity
in a previous discussion on maneuver warfare . There are
different centers of gravity at each level – for democracies, the
strategic and operational centers of gravity are almost always “public
opinion.” Because democracies are typically aligned with legions of like
minded peoples, and these unions are politically, economically and militarily
robust, they make a hard target, so long as they have the national will to
resist oppression.
The bombings
themselves were tactical – small-scale actions by individuals. Operational
success was achieved when the PP government was ousted. Next comes strategic
– which brings us around to victory
conditions.
One of the problems with the
GWOT is simply that the conditions of victory for the West are difficult to
achieve – we ask ourselves, when is it over, when will we have won? If we
state, “Victory is achieved when global terrorism no longer threatens our
innocents with destruction,” we have set the bar rather high. In this
case, we need to hunt down every last wild-eyed jihadi with a grudge, and kill
or incarcerate him. That takes time, patience (never a virtue of democracies)
and resources.
For the jihadis on the
other hand, their strategic goals are relatively simple: US forces out of Saudi
Arabia (we’re gone) and the larger Islamic middle east, withdrawal of
support for the democratic state of Israel (Push them into the sea - Europe is
on board!) and finally submission to the will of Allah, as evinced by his
prophet. Failing that, dhimmitude will do nicely. After all,
“there is no compulsion in
religion.”
And oh, yeah
– they’d like Spain back. And they’ve got a bone to pick with
Austria, too, since the expansion of the caliphate took a little hit at the gates to Vienna , back in
1683.
So this operational success must
give us some pause, over here. Does anyone else know of any countries whose leadership went out on a
limb for the war in Iraq, against popular opinion?Or somewhere else? Someplace the socialists are interested in or have an interest
?
Divide and
Conquer
Collective self-defense is a
wonderful notion – there are tremendous economies of scale and comparative
advantage. Much better that you and your neighbors collectively agree to a
neighborhood watch program, rather than every head of household staying up all
night with a flashlight at the front window. And at least we have our principal
military alliances, right? NATO, that bulwark of the West for example, which
wags often said was designed to “keep Germany down, Russia out, and the US
in?”
France has “Germany
down” – the Germans have essentially ceded foreign policy to the
French in the name of a Franco-Germanic core to the EU. “Russia out”
is obsolete – the Russians have bigger fish to fry, at home. So what is
the role for the US in Europe now?
The
US was only there to protect Europeans – collective self-defense meant
that we’d come back if the need arose. It was never seriously thought that
the US would need Europe’s help, at least not in the minds of Europeans.
Which brings me back to an earlier line
in this entry: “… democracies are typically aligned with legions of
like minded peoples, and because these unions are politically, economically and
militarily robust they make a hard target, so long as they have the national
will to resist oppression..”
The
jihadist strategy is becoming clearer – they will avoid force-on-force
confrontation, since they are militarily weak. They will attempt to divide the
democracies, by targeting the national will through those who waver, who would
prefer to stick their heads in the sand, hoping it will all go away. They will
attempt, if possible, to overthrow governments, using their own democratic
processes. They can achieve sympathetic effects against economies, using the
impact of their bomb blasts to threaten capital markets and stability.
By the way, the US markets were down today. Anybody else
notice?
And when you have attacked and
won politically, with secondary effects on economies, what of the vaunted
Western military power? When there is no money to support it, nor will to use
it?
Neutralized.
------------------
(Parenthesis
- Has anyone else noticed the gas prices climbing at the pump? Wonder what OPEC
has in mind for our nascent economic recovery. I don’t mean to imply that
OPEC is on side with the jihadists, mind you. But I do think that they’re
scared as hell at the idea of a truly democratic government in Iraq, and what
that could mean to their own job security, when their enslaved masses get a
whiff. They’d probably be a lot happier if the crocodiles would go back to
killing infidels and Jews, leaving them for the last.
Wonder if these are the same folks that
John Kerry counts among his foreign friends?
Crawling out of the fever swamps now
– end
parenthesis)
---------------------
Thanks
for bearing with me this far – I know it was a long road to a small house.
There is a point, I think.
The point is
that it seems we cannot any longer count on Europe. Europe is accommodating
again, appeasing again. When the USSR was the threat, they needed us – now
they fear being associated with us. Our interests are no longer aligned.
Perhaps the Spanish will wake up with
buyer’s remorse. Perhaps the EU will take stern talk (always cheap in
Brussels) and turn it into stout action. We will
see.
The point is that these jihadis have
a serious plan, and they’re deadly serious about executing it. We may
think they are ridiculous, but they clearly do not see themselves that way.
They’re willing to do whatever it takes in the name of their desired end
state. They are professionals, these terrorists, and I do not mean that to
convey even a grudging nod of respect. I mean it to say, “They are not
part-timers - this is their job, this is what they do.” They have won a
victory, whose scale and importance is not yet clear, but one that will
nevertheless increase their morale.
The
point is that we may have to fight alone, and shoulder the entire burden.
Because if we are not ready to:
The point
is that we (the West, collectively) could lose. And the sooner we realize that,
the more serious we will become, and the more certain our chances for victory
will be.
We are not Spain, may God
shelter them from further harm, and heal their wounds.
Because when the terrorists hit America
on 9/11, exactly 911 days before 3/11, we mourned our dead for a suitable
time.
And then we went to
war.
--------------------------
And
as for the terrorists, we have if necessary Melville's Captain Ahab for
inspiration: "to the last I grapple
with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last
breath at thee."
Posted @
06:32 PM
|
Posted in
""
|
Sendit
|
Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." - John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Ceasar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friederich Nietzsche
