JOURNAL: Haditha and Creveld's Paradox

As news of the incident in Haditha filters out, it is becoming increasingly clear that Martin Van Creveld's paradox of modern warfare is in play:

In other words, he who fights against the weak - and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed - and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force, however rich, however powerful, however advanced, however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat...

Comments

[arash sotoodeh]

we are for sure living in times of psychological warfare. do you think Iraq is becoming a second Vietnam? Sometimes it seems so. arash

[John Robb]

In the sense that the problem has become bigger than our will to fix it, that's probably correct.

[jimbo]

Until those supporting a war realise victory is only won through the death of the opposition, both symbolic and physical, the paradox will apply.

When the majority of Americans whose say they supported the war when it was declared now say they want to win the war, they want victory, they understand war involves death and destruction, there is no hope of victory.

The same applies to every conflict the US may engage in. I'm not sure war is wrong, in and of itself. I would like to own the world view “All you need is Love,” but what I see doesn't make me think those who think thus will last long enough to contribute in a lasting way to the gene pool.

If the US and the UK are going to engage in hostilities in other countries, for whatever reason, the electorate should be ready to either vote the culprits out and call back the troops, or send immediate cash contributions to each service to ensure they have the resources to leave victorious. Even if it means killing every single human being on the other side, as well as those suffering “collateral damage syndrome,” to ensure that victory. There is no point in going to war unless the combatants are prepared to sacrifice everything to win. For war seems pointless without victory.

There is nothing less moral than killing for no purpose, unless it be dying without one.

[tim302]

Jimbo,
Do you think that victory always requires death? Or can there be other ways to victory? What do you define as victory?

[Duncan Kinder]

The problem with Van Creveld's thesis is that human nature, demonstrably, can be quite cruel. For example, there were famous psychological experiments in which people demonstrated that they were willing to inflict extreme amounts of apparent pain on subjects. There are demonstrated episodes of mass cruelty throughout history.

[jimbo]

tim302,

Does victory always require death? In war, yes. Please remember, I am talking about war. For example, as is being waged in Iraq currently. I fail to see how the US can successfully conclude victory in the absence of absolute control of every aspect of life within Iraq. I cannot perceive this being achieved in the absence of the death of a substantial majority of the opposing forces, whoever they may be. If the US cannot control absolutely the territory within the borders it has no hope in hell of either a victory nor of implementing a government, of any form.

In the case of war, I would define victory as total control within the borders of the country being contested. It really is that simple. If the US had the will, if the US was ready to implement a draft, if the control of the area from the Syrian border on the west to the Pakistan border on the east was the prize, then I believe the US would be an absolute world power, if they were able to tolerate the implications such an act would entail. The toll of life would be immense. But as history seems to indicate, to the victor goes the spoils.

Mind this, I *do not* advocate this position. I personally want a warm and fuzzy life. I point this out to remind myself that war is about the killing of people and the destruction of a way of life for that people. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Cavolonero]

Starts to get kinda' confusing dosen't it ?

[jimbo]

Cavolonero,

Not when the people is you and the way of life yours.

[sammy small]

What it took in the past to achieve what was termed a victory in war would today be the basis of a genocidal war crime. There is no more victory in the classic sense of the term. Yet neither is there a good short term alternative to break an opposing force’s will to violently resist, especially when religious fanaticism is one of the underlying elements. To achieve a lasting victory, honor and pride of the opposing populace must not be left intact. It must be shattered and rebuilt from the ground up in a new image. In WWII this was done by introducing them all to the gates of hell a la Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima.

If western society buys into the paradox of fighting the weak, then we truly will never achieve a real victory. And yes this was part of the problem with Vietnam as well. The west has painted itself into a corner from which it will never be able to achieve a military victory through war. Until the very end when the gates of hell open up for all.

[jimbo]

sammy small,

“genocidal war crime“ is just so much linguistic conjuration. I'm trying to find a war without a genocide. Try and try, I don't think I can. Wars always involve genocide. Always. After all, it's always my gene pool versus your gene pool.

As for the gates of Hell, yes, that is possible. But, I think, unlikely. The West has to do one thing and one thing alone to ensure hegemony, always succeed in mortal combat, regardless of the “moral” implications. Should the West, and the US in particular, act this way in both Iraq and Afghanistan, without compassion, without remorse, from top to bottom, the US could become an absolute power. Without doubt.

[Z]

I'm allways impressed with people who advocate mass murder as a "solution" and believe it has never been tried before. Iraq would not be the first time a powerfull nation has lost a counterinsurgency struggle. Most attempted unyielding cruelty. The French In Vietnam and Algeria, the U.S. in Vietnam (some 3 million vietnamese killed...sounds pretty ruthless to me, though I guess jimbo can do better,) The Soviets in Afghanistan, and even the Nazis in Poland, Greece and Yugoslavia. None of whom succeded in ending their respective, insurgencies.

An advocate of unrestrained cruelty must therefore argue for mass murder and torture on a scale the Soviets, nay the Nazis themselves, were shy about.

Z

[adam]

I'd have to agree with Z. Mass-murder has failed as a solution ever since the AK-47 was invented. Rwanda, where the butchery was far more effective than anything the US could fantasise about in Iraq, was lost by the side that led them.

Frankly if the US starts going for the Einsatzgruppen solution - and lets not cuddle it up, Jimbo is arguing for the organised and deliberate murder of men women and children - then every Iraqi, and every decent person worldwide is going to have to work out what to do. I, personally, remember when we used to hang people for these "crimes against humanity".

What is left is the Zapata option: a) Die on your feet or b) live on your knees. A simple choice, every decent person would choose a. Creveld knows that and its the heart of his thesis.

I'd also question whether I (as a Brit) want to see the US as the absolute power that Jimbo thinks is a good thing. Its not like the US are good guys, right? Under the "kill them all and let God sort them out" (copyright the Crusaders, not really the historical image the US wants these days) they are blood-soaked maniacs. The sort of people that in 1945 the Greatest Generation (remember them?) fought against, not for.

And on that note I'd also question whether people would want soldiers coming back from their slaughterhouses at all. There's a reason that Himmler tried to keep the Holocaust a semi-secret, so that his people could remain "decent". In a modern communications age that option isn't open to the US soldiers. They will never be able to go back to normal life.

Isn't it comforting to know that in the rush to take control of Iraq, the US stopped being America? Call that another major win for Bin-Laden.

[John Robb]

All,

I think it is important to understand that total war died, at least between major states, with the advent of the nuclear weapon. Wars that major states engage in today are far less than existential -- in that a loss will not result in an end of our way of life. As a result, these wars will be fought within strict confines. There is absolutely no objective for the war in Iraq that could justify any of the most aggressive aspects of total war.

Van Creveld's argument, gained through the hard lessons of Israel's experience, is that wars fought against weak groups that view the conflict as existential will result in a loss. There's not just an asymmetry of weaponry, there is an asymmetry of motivation and the limits of what you are willing to do to win.

[Marcello]

"I'm trying to find a war without a genocide. Try and try, I don't think I can."

That only if you adopt a definition of genocide so encompassing as to be practically useless.
Do you think that the Falklands war, for example, involved genocide?

"In WWII this was done by introducing them all to the gates of hell a la Berlin"

It is funny that you would mention that because fundamentally the 3rd Infantry division did in Baghdad what the 3rd Shock Army did in Berlin: march in the enemy capital, collapse the government and raise the flag on a convenient symbol.

"To achieve a lasting victory, honor and pride of the opposing populace must not be left intact."

Since we have already succesfully invaded them and destroyed their armed forces and government how do you suggest it to be done?
Do we rape their women?
Do we start to firebomb one city after the other until either everyone kiss our combat boots or there is nobody left?
All of the above combined with feel good propaganda about spreading democracy?
Please answer loud and clear.

"Until the very end when the gates of hell open up for all."

Are you waiting for the rapture or something?

[jimbo]

All,

I'm not advocating mass murder, or any particular “solution,” let alone rapture. If American forces are going to do battle with an enemy as ruthless as the Iraqi insurgency (let us ignore Afghanistan for the moment), America had better well be prepared to meet out punishment on a scale not the same as but larger than that of the insurgency. If American forces expect to successfully occupy Iraq they need to punish those, and their accomplishes, who would seek to destabilize the country at the expense of both Iraq and America. I cannot see how it can be otherwise.

At some point after America has successfully secured Iraq then the stated aim of bringing democracy to the Middle East can actually begin. I fail to see how an Iraqi government can be formed in the absence of the stability that such security brings.

Lastly, I am not by any means some violent nutcase, I simply suggest that unless America is able demonstrate a use of force greater than its opponents it will eventually retreat and the exercise will have been pointless.

If you really want to know how I would approach the conflict, I might go at it like this: First, I would take a few billion dollars and invest it in food, medicine, hygiene supplies, portable generators, fuel for said same, cooking fuel, and clothing. I would then load up every C130 America's got with these supplies and begin dropping them hour after hour, day after day, throughout Iraq. Think Berlin on steroids. I would drop so much the insurgency would be overwhelmed and unable to abscond with it all. I would overrun the “black market” market. So, at last, some would land in the hands of the Iraqis. I would keep this up day after day after day. Until no self-respecting Iraqi would have to go to the black market. All they'd need to do is wait for the next drop, or the one after that, or the one after that.

In less than a month any American could walk anywhere in Iraq and be welcomed as a friend. And I would pity the life of those would take the life of an American. Justice would be swift and unpleasant.

I would carry this policy into Afghanistan as well. Can you imagine how Tehran would take to this? I would then begin dropping “aid” into Iran, hour after hour, day after day. I would make the Pentagon responsible for this project (the entire thing, not just Iran). That way everyone would be very clear, yes the American military can weak havoc, but they can also deliver life. After sixty to ninety days of intense aid delivery, 24 / 7, the insurgencies would be crushed. American firms welcomed with open arms. Pro-American governments welcomed. Sadly, it will never happen.

Marcello,

Did the Falklands involve genocide? Well, having reviewed a definition or two of genocide, I'd say yes, the Falklands war involved genocide. Was the killing systematic? Was a racial or cultural or political group, or groups, involved? If these answers are yes then I suspect the Falklands war was genocidal. What war isn't? Please elaborate. I just cannot find a single war that fails to meet the several definitions of genocide I've reviewed. But, if you think otherwise, carry on old chap. After all, war is never “us” against “them.”

[adam]

Jimbo,

Marcellos point is that the Falklands war was a major skirmish between two professional armies. There is no way that you can say that genocide was involved as even on your test there wasn't enough violence involved. Racial groups, not an issue. Cultural groups, not an issue, political groups, even less so. It was a simple argument over post-colonial ownership.

Fun fact: Few people died in the 3-month long Falklands War than in a month in Iraq.

As for your throw lots of money at the situation (or the "Zardoz") solution. Arguably it was tried in Iraq, but in reality your solution offers nothing other than subservience to the Iraqs, and practically the contractors the US would choose would simply loot the money.

More to the point I find it difficult to be convinced that a nation of 25 million can be fed, clothed or watered in such a manner. Nor would it see electricity or practical government on the streets of Iraq.

[londamium]

Shorter Jimbo: Bring back Saddam Hussein.

[jimbo]

adam,
“...was a major skirmish between two professional armies.”
So being a professional in an army, whatever that might actually mean, exempts one from being a victim of genocide? Is this only while in the Falklands? Does it apply elsewhere? Is it possible one could be a victim of genocide even while in the employ of a professional army? Have I lost my status as a human being, and thus a potential victim of genocide, once I willingly become a paid member of a state-armed force?
“...there wasn't enough violence involved.”
So, genocide is dependent on “levels of violence?” As long as the method of dispatch doesn't exceed some “basal violence,” it's not genocide? I guess that's what you're are saying. If I can coax them to their demise, Hansel and Gretel like, then that doesn't count as genocide. Thanks for the clarification. Here victim, victim... Here victim, victim...
“...political groups, even less so.”
Ah, I failed to note that fact. So, the British forces weren't operating at the behest of their political establishment, were they? Neither were Argentina's forces. They just showed up to make up the numbers.
“Fun fact: Few people died in the 3-month long Falklands War than in a month in Iraq.“
I guess that makes Falklands Wars better for survival than Iraqi wars! Good to know. Funny, think I'll stay away from both, if you don't mind.
I'd like to understand the point your making? As long as the number of deaths for the entire conflict is less than the number of deaths in Iraq in a month, every little thing is peachy keen? Guess that really is a “Fun fact!”
“As for your throw lots of money at the situation ... Arguably it was tried in Iraq”
Yeah, I remember, let's build a the biggest embassy complex in the world, let's make sure our boys have Pizza Hut and McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Sure, the US threw a heap-o-cash at Iraq. Most of it never went to the locals, by all accounts.
“...your solution offers nothing other than subservience to the Iraqs”
Please expand. It would seem to me the US would be obligating Iraqis, if anything. After all, if the US is going to go balls-out to deliver the aid that makes their lives functional, don't you think they might be inclined, at least for a while, to accommodate American SNAFU's? Of the genuine kind.
“...practically the contractors the US would choose would simply loot the money.”
Hey, it's your country, and that's a rather telling admission. That's why I wouldn't have anyone else do it other than the forces themselves. If it comes from the Army and the Navy and the Air Force it comes from the US.
“More to the point I find it difficult to be convinced that a nation of 25 million can be fed, clothed or watered in such a manner. Nor would it see electricity or practical government on the streets of Iraq.”
Based on everything you've already said, you've concluded the situation is hopeless in any case. I never suggested the mechanism would actually serve to provide infrastructure. I simply suggested the actions would provide compelling evidence and support to the Iraqi population that the intention of the US was to ensure their survival. If you were an Iraqi and hour after hour your village and region were being bombarded by aid from the US military, would you be inclined to support them?

[jimbo]

londamium,

“Shorter Jimbo: Bring back Saddam Hussein.”
I'm not sure I see your point.
Perhaps America might have considered that as a possibility before Saddam was disposed.
For the moment, American forces are unable to overcome the insurgency. Is this because American forces lack the capacity? Is it because American forces lack the will? Is it a re-run of Vietnam? America does not have the stomach capable of fighting a war on the terms of the insurgency. Let alone crushing the insurgency.
Iraq cannot hope to move beyond the current occupation until one of two things happen: the US fucks off after another dismal failure; the insurgency is trashed and Iraq has enough stability to ensure not only government ministers and university lecturers are safe to travel to and from the office, but everyday working class stiffs can not only get to the job, but they can get back home at the end of the day.
Next time, don't invade. If you cannot take the will to complete the job to the job, just don't start the job.

[Marcello]

"I'm not advocating mass murder, or any particular “solution,” let alone rapture."

For the records, that part of the reply was directed towards mr sammy small.

"I'd like to understand the point your making?"

I would like too.You have come up with a definition of genocide wich lumps together the sinking of the general belgrano and Auschwitz.If you cannot see the problem with that, then I do not know what to say.

"If you were an Iraqi and hour after hour your village and region were being bombarded by aid from the US military, would you be inclined to support them?"

I suggest to run a few calculations on the sorties necessary for such operation factoring in: the size of the iraqi population, the amount of supplies to be delivered per capita and C-130 capacity.
After that I suggest further readings on the Berlin airlift and the logistical issues involved,like infrastructure wear.
There are additional problems but by when you get there you should already be having second thoughts about the whole issue.

[sammy small]

Marcello,

The gist of the leadoff post was Van Creveld's Paradox that we lose in this type of "war" no matter what we do. Therefore, in order not to lose, what would it take to overcome the Paradox? Something along the lines of WWII brutality. Are we going to do that in this day and age? Of course not, therefore we will lose in the end.

How long will the strong be able to continue to lose to the weak and have any influence in the world? Certainly not much longer in a military sense.

I guess that only leaves us doing the EU shuffle while other countries arm-up to take our place (maybe Iran). Eventually one of them will not care about mass destruction like we do and, as we used to say, the balloon will go up. That is what I mean by the analogy to the "gates of hell". Connecting that to the so-called rapture is invented in your mind, not mine.

By the way, what I meant in the Berlin context was the round-th-clock strategic bombing campaign. One of the long lasting results can be found here.

[sammy small]

Sorry HTML link didn't take above

try this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teufelsberg

[jimbo]

Marcello,
“You have come up with a definition of genocide wich lumps together the sinking of the general belgrano and Auschwitz.If you cannot see the problem with that, then I do not know what to say.”
Thank you so much for setting me on the road to truth. I didn't realize that a container load of death wasn't enough. Now I understand, genocide is more your Walmart scale of death. A mere boatload would never suffice to be genocide. No, we need the entire output of death of say a region, or a nation even. Before we can talk genocide. Thanks for setting me straight.
For the record, I believe the KKK murders, albeit one victim at a time, were genocide. But, as Marcello has made clear, we need high level output to qualify as genocide, so I'm just plain wrong.
“I suggest to run a few calculations on the sorties necessary for such operation...”
Yeah, your right. Wish the Bushie II boys had run a few calculations as well. But, hey, no harm in trying. Guess that might even be part of the point, though. Imagine the looks the Yanks would get if the did try such a bold scheme, eh? Put the brakes right on ol'e Binnie Boy I expect.
But, nah, couldn't be done. Hang on, though. Seems we got a shed load of fellas to show up in Kuwait a while back... I'm pretty sure that happened. Something like half a million men at arms, as I recall. Guess I must be dreamin. No, I'm sure there were all these army and marine types on foot and in tanks and such. Not to mention the countless hours these poor air force lads were forced to endure. Flying high and flying low. Hour, after hour, after hour.
But no, Marcello, you're most correct, the calculations would say it just couldn't be done. Must be a proud time to be am American.

[jimbo]

Sammy,

"Of course not, therefore we will lose in the end."

By the definition you've tendered, you've already lost. So why not just pack up and go home now? Why do you need to wait until the "end" to accept defeat? Why do you need to wreak yet more death and destruction to only walk away, just like South East Asia? Why wait?

And if your elected representatives won't take your advice I suggest you impeach the shits and get yourself some representatives that are ready to represent your constituency.

Gotta run, American Idol repeats are on Sky. Don't wnna miss them.

[sammy small]

jimbo,

I know this sounds like Bubba Clinton, but it depends on where the "end" is. I think its at a different time from different perspectives.

Can we stay longer and help prevent a "killing fields" result like that of the Vietnam pullout? I don't have a crystal ball, but my gut tells me yes. The graph of successes in the Iraq timeline over the past 3 years all in all has a positive slope. But we will have to stay around for a long time to help keep it that way, or until it turns negative and we can't prevent it any longer from happening. Maybe that's the point where we pull out. With enough of the Paradox, it will probably happen.

Until then, sit back, grab some popcorn, and veg out on American Idol. Let the military do the fighting. That's what their paid to do.

[Marcello]

Ok, let's have some fun.

"Eventually one of them will not care about mass destruction like we do and, as we used to say, the balloon will go up."

I would not bet on that.Doing the above would be committing suicide and no matter what country you come from, politicians do not like suicide for the sake of it.
Fun fact: Nazi Germany had first rate chemical weapons and the ability to deliver them.Yet they did not use them.I will let you to figure out why.

"Connecting that to the so-called rapture is invented in your mind, not mine."

Sorry, I could not resist.

"But, as Marcello has made clear, we need high level output to qualify as genocide, so I'm just plain wrong."

Then try to make your case that the sinking of the general belgrano or HMS Sheffield equates genocide elsewhere.
You will be laughed out of the room.And the court room for that matter.

"But, nah, couldn't be done. Hang on, though. Seems we got a shed load of fellas to show up in Kuwait a while back... I'm pretty sure that happened."

Ever wondered how it happened? Me too.
The answer is ships.That's how over the 90% of the materiel got there.The people were flown in, as well as the most urgent supplies.But the bulk of the stuff got there by sea.That's the only practical way
to do it.

[Marcello]

Genocide is not strictly a matter of numbers.
Hypothetically, wiping out a small tribe of a few hundreds of people might constitute a genocide.The battle of the Somme with nearly 20.000 british dead during the first day only oon the other hand would not.
You can only label it as genocide with an hare brained interpretation of the definition which will not fly in a court or anywhere else.

[tim302]

If we are talking about international law with respect to genocide, then killing is not enough. The actors must have the requisite intent , namely " intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group," which is a definition from the UN Convention Against Genocide.