UNLEASHING THE DOGS OF WAR

Zogby Poll: A majority of Americans - 54% - believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq.

John Robb: "In 4th generation warfare (guerrilla warfare), the war typically ends when one side, usually the nation-state, suffers moral collapse and loses the will to fight (ala Vietnam) -- this is in contrast to a collapse in means due to attrition (WWI) or a collapse in ability due to disruption (WWII)."

If you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end with this US presidency, think again. These wars will likely outlast the next several Presidents. The old Vietnam era formulas don't apply anymore. The reason is that the moral weaknesses that have traditionally limited the state's ability to fight long guerrilla wars have dissipated, and modern states may now have the ability and the desire to wage this type of war indefinitely. Here's what changed:

• A radical improvement in marketing war. The US military learned from Vietnam that it needed to be much better at marketing wars to domestic audiences in order to prevent moral collapse. It has gotten better at this, and that information operations/strategic communications capability has reached a new level of effectiveness with General Petraeus. Despite this improvement, the military and its civilian leadership still don't have the ability to garner wide domestic support for guerrilla wars beyond the initial phases. However, they do have the ability to maintain support within a small but vocal base -- as seen in the use of weblogs to generate grass roots support for war -- and the capability to trump those that call for withdrawal (by keeping the faintest glimmer of potential success alive and using fear/uncertainty/doubt FUD to magnify the consequences of defeat). In our factional political system, that is sufficient to prevent withdrawal.
  
  
• The threat that justifies the state and the perpetual war that codifies it. The ongoing threat of terrorism has become the primary justification for the existence of a strong nation-state (and its greatest instrument of power, the military) at the very moment it finds itself in decline due to globalization (or more accurately: irrelevance). The militarization of "the war against terrorism" reverses this process of dissipation, since it can be used to make the case for the acquisition of new powers, money, and legitimacy (regardless of party affiliation) -- for example, everything from increases in conventional military spending to the application of technical reconnaissance on domestic targets. Of course, this desire for war at the political level is complimented by the huge number of contractors (and their phalanxes of lobbyists) attracted by the potential of Midas level profits from the privatization of warfare. The current degree of corporate participation in warfare makes the old "military industrial complex" look tame in comparison.
  
  
• The privatization of conflict. This is likely the critical factor that makes perpetual warfare possible. For all intents and purposes, the US isn't at war. The use of a professional military in combination with corporate partners has pushed warfare to the margins of political/social life. A war's initiation and continuation is now merely a function of our willingness/ability to finance it. Further, since privatization mutes moral opposition to war (i.e. "our son isn't forced to go to war to die") the real damage at the ballot box is more likely to impact those that wish to end its financing. To wit: every major presidential candidate in the field today now gives his/her full support to the continuation of these wars.

Comments

[anarchonihilist]

An overlooked aspect against indefinite war is mutiny by the troops. There were a lot more "fraggings" in Vietnam than acknowledged by the mainstream. Presumably, there would need to be a draft for this to happen regularly, as in Vietnam, but the extended tours are de facto conscription.
The quickest way to collapse a nation-state or empire is to have an ill-advised war, and continue to fight it when losses should have been cut.

[jesus reyes]

The financing of this war may end up being the ultimate limit. Vietnam was financed on the backs of E-3's,4's and 5's making $180 -$350 monthly. A privatized unit is $356,000+ annually. This war is being financed by debt held by Chinese, etc and that debt is only good because the dollar is the currency of the world oil trade at a time when Iran, Venezuela and Russia are in the process of shifting their trade to other currencies. The quickest way to collapse an empire is bankruptcy. This one is probably already bankrupt.

[Duncan Kinder]

Two comments:

1) The "ability/willingness" to finance the so-called War on Terror comes from the Chinese, not the Americans.

2) The Global Guerrillas, of course, have a vote on whether, how long, and under what circumstances this "war" will continue.

[londamium]

Considering that Congress had to raise the federal debt ceiling in March, it's more than a little awkward that the Bush administration is going to be over its overdraft ceiling by the end of this month....again. I'm fairly certain that the requisite begging letters have already gone from the Treasury and that this will be one of the first orders of business when everyone comes back to Washington from their exciting hols and newfound enthusiasm for extreme sports in the skies over Baghdad.

It looks as if USG is currently bleeding cash at about $45 billion per month - and this is when the US economy is supposedly growing. Quite what happens when the SS funds start paying out net in 2011 ( ie before the end of the next president's first term ) and/or there's a recession for a couple of quarters is anyone's guess - but it does raise some pertinent questions about how the fuck the US government is going to finance continuing operations.

We've seen a few spanners chucked at Ben the past few weeks - although I can't help thinking that timing a 7% stock market fall just in time for investors to park some of that cash in the August government bond auctions was, well, fairly desperate; it certainly suggests that October is going to be a lot of fun in the markets.

[Z]

If lack of domestic opposition is what the war party wanted then...be careful what you wish for. If you about to get in a bar fight, it may be useful to have a couple of friends "hold" you back while you scream "let me at'em!"

I agree with john that the war still has a few years to go and that the public is apathetic. But apathy may not always redound to the benefit of the war party.

Imagine for a moment a Vietnam war fought with an all volunteer army and highly paid mercs. Would the result have been;
1) A quick U.S. victory
2) A U.S. victory but not until circa 1978-79
3) An exhausted army that starts looking for a face saving way out around 1970.

[Natasha Yar]

While financial collapse is the most likely limit on endless war there is another, overreach. bogged down in China Japan decided to size the southern resources area and attcked the U.S. Stalemated by the RAF Germany attcked the U.S.S.R. The result was disaster to both when they starched their militarizes past the breaking point. Now we see a growing call to attack Iran which of course will solve all our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the current government is stupid enough to attack Iran we may see this war end a lot sooner than otherwise would be the case.

[Cavolonero]

I didn't sell out ... I bought in !

[Nic]

Governemnt spending is necessarily a problem. If the money comes back to the US economy it might just stimulate demand in a very keynesian sense (in the same way that building roads would). I guess that a lot of the spending is going to US citizens, and US corporations. Both spend money in the US, pay tax (though les sin the case of corporations).

More importantly, public support is not just a consequence of marketing. Its also a function of the threat. The public was willing to make huge sacrifices in WW2 becasue they correctly judged that the US was under mortal threat from the Axis.

[Marcello]

"If the money comes back to the US economy it might just stimulate demand in a very keynesian sense (in the same way that building roads would). I guess that a lot of the spending is going to US citizens, and US corporations. Both spend money in the US, pay tax (though les sin the case of corporations)."

There are a few problems with that. First of all roads in the US are actually useful to the US economy. Armored cars (for example) blowing up stuff in Iraq are a net loss. To quote the great Orwell:

"A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built."

Mind you, the people building said armored cars are being paid and are spending the money, so the loss isn't 100%. But still they are doing something economically improductive at best and harmful at worst (as they are inflicting economical damage somwhere).
Further, IIRC Keynes suggested public spending as a way to get out of a recession, not something that is supposed to go on for decades regardless of the state of the economy. Else the whole scheme quickly begins to show its side effects.

[Duncan Kinder]

Another problem with Keynesianism is that it presumes that "the economy" coincides with the set of economic affairs encompassed by the nation-state.

What the United States has discovered, particularly following the Japanese auto invasion of the 1970's, is that there is no guarantee that - when Congress stimulates demand - that the resulting supply will come from within the borders of the United States. The resulting supply might very well come from Tokyo, from Shanghai,or some other such place. The political malaise of the Democratic party, IMHO, directly results from its inability to resolve this conundrum.

What supply-siders now are learning is that similar problems exist when you stimulate supply instead. The capital development might very well take place in Bangalore rather than in Peoria. Hence, among other things, the developing malaise of the Republicans.

As applied to John Robb's concerns, all sorts of productive capacity - necessary for conventional warfare - ranging from steel mills to silicon chips - is being outsourced. This outsourcing gives rise to a host of security problems. The combined Democratic and Republican malaise to which I have referred could very well contribute to the moral collapse of the government.

[anarchonihilist]

I would think Keynes is discredited. Austrian economics is the only way to explain the credit bubble and now the credit crunch. I think deflation is coming.

[enigma_foundry]

Well, this seems to be a pretty sweeping conclusion drawn from a limited data set. Let's expand the data set a little:

Abstract: (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Most people in the United States believe the coalition effort will be recalled in a negative light in the future, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 57 per cent of respondents think the mission in Iraq will be seen as a failure in the long run, while 29 per cent think the war will be deemed a success.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/iraq_will_be_regarded_as_failure_say_americans/

Secondly, it is true that the opposition to the War isn't what it should be. This is chiefly a failing of the so-called 'free' press, which has refused to take a very critical view of the War, until very recently. however, you are right to point out the effectiveness at marketing the war, and overstating the results of 'losing' the war are having an effect. However, what I wonder if the effectiveness at present won't eventally create a 'blow back' That is, once peopple realize how much they were lied too, and what the consequences are, things could get very 'unpretty' for both the Republicans and the Democrates too.

Could we see populism? Very probable.

Could we see a third party? Hope so, but I won't hold my breath...

[a517dogg]

"A radical improvement in marketing war" giving us the ability to wage war indefinitely? I hope to hear more about that at NDU later this month!

[Jeffery]

An interesting film that relates to the discussion is "The Fog of War" the documentary film about Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara's experience.

[pm2075]

"This war is being financed by debt held by Chinese... "

fyi, i think the Japanese are still our largest debt holder. Given there's been many missteps, they(US) may stop short of selling their souls to the communist regime, authoritatrian to be exact. Can't wait for Petreus' report. They may have finally gotten a general that's willing to put his reputation on the line on an optimistic Iraq progress report. Give them credit after the all the genrals that been trough the revolving door. My honest opinion you'll never hear a loss or a lose associated with the war in Iraq in the history book. Nothing short of a manufactured victory.

"Keynes suggested public spending as a way to get out of a recession,..."

Actually Keynesian economist are steadfast believers that we can spend can our way to prosperity and GROWTH which hasn't had really good data to show and boot. But don't expect to hear that from the halls of prestiges Business schools. It is politically incorrect even treasonous to say the least.

invest_mavin

[Bob Magnant]

Does anybody really care? It’s been a year since I finished The Last Transition…, warning against the Bush administration’s machinations toward an assault on Iran. The signs have been out there for years. As the beat continues, take a moment to reflect on the things that are happening all around us. Are we really that jaded?

http://web.mac.com/magnant/Last_Transition/Does_Anyone_Really_Care.html

[danielet]

Gen. Jones, retired NATO Commander was one of the few generals of the Rumsfeld era that deserves any respect. But the Jones Commission Report seems almost like a bad joke. Imagine a nation where the army runs the country and enforces its will...the name Noriega comes to mind, for a nation where the army's guns are pointed inward is nothing but a banana republic. Yet, the Jones Commission tells us that the Iraqi Army is doing well against "internal enemies"-- there's no one there but the Iraqi people. Armies are used against something-- while it is supposed to be the police that maintains law and order; per the Jones Commission, the police forces are defunct. Perhaps, as seems to be the case according to numerous Iraqi and American reports, the army is doing well going up against the police because US officers are leading its units to do so!

This is what almost 4000 Americans payed for with their lives, hundreds of thousands with their limbs or their future... and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died violently? All this was NOT happening under Saddam Hussein, and far too many Iraqis are quick to point that out today, five years after our "liberation" of Iraq from his dictatorial grip.

One might recall that we made the same mistake in Vietnam-- building a large army and a weak police force to supposedly stop external aggression but really pointing their guns and cannons inward. However, the South Vietnamese army ended up fighting North Vietnamese regulars. In Iraq, both "friend" and "foe" are BOTH still Iraqis. So what are 160,000 Americans doing there other than trying to force the PSA oil "privatization" law on Iraq?

While Bush must be considered criminally negligent for allowing the Rumsfeld -Cheney team to have their way with Iraq, almost as if it were a helpless woman, one must look at the entire US Government-- Congressional and Judicial-- for allowing the criminality the Pentagon unleashed upon the Muslim World after 9/11. Nothing speaks more clearly of the caliber of military men Bush allowed to enact our terroristic War on Terrorism as one PowerPoint slide in a 2001 Pentagon presentation proposing how to deal with Afghanistan in response to 9/11; it read: THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, POISON ALL ITS CROPS AND WATER SUPPLY. This raises the simple question: how far will we go to capture Iraq's high energy and easily accessible oil for our massive national fleet of SUVs? Are we out to impose a banana republic run by our army and our made in USA Iraqi army?

Daniel E. Teodoru

[anarchonihilist]

It's all good, Daniel: the empire will never recover from this debacle, just as the empire's gunmen won't recover from missing limbs.

[Joshua]

Don't forget the other open-ended war the U.S. has been engaged in since long before 9/11: the "War on Drugs". All three developments that John Robb pointed out were in place for the WoD. I'd hazard that it was in that war where U.S. presidents first hit upon the formula for indefinitely keeping up political support for an open-ended war: Keep the stakes low, but the fear factor sky-high.

[pm2075]

>>The US military learned from Vietnam that it needed to be much better at marketing wars to domestic audiences in order to prevent moral collapse.<<

Don't think it'll help the 'cause the initial premise under the litmus test of a Supreme Being('in God we trust') was amoral to begin with. That's why we "lost" in Vietnam and "losing" now in Iraq. We should have always adhered to the advise of our 1st President as stated in his farewell speech! That's the downside of government by representation. Something inevitably gets lost in translation consciously or not
(manipulated or not, misdirected or not) when the populous does not get tuned in...

"invest_mavin"

[NietzschesGhost]

Posted by danielet:
"160,000 Americans"

300,000. Everyone always forgets to count the "security contractors".

[pm2075]

“Between 1945 and 2005 the United States has attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes… In the process, the U.S. caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.” (Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower).

... this i found interesting. I thought i would be extremely difficult or even impossible to determine exactly when the United States decided to participate in what i'll term "cognizant entanglements" in the foreign governments, to involve oneself in the shaping other nations that were deemed vital in the interst of national security. 1945 isn't the exact year just off by abou 6 years or so.

[adam]

PM,

Well the obvious example of "national security" early on is the US relationship with pro-Nazi dictator Franco, which really starts to get close and sweaty in 1945. Franco was so important to the US for his anti-Communist credentials that he remained backed by the US (and in power) until 1973. Of course post-war Spanish history also includes such hot potatoes as Opus Dei, Catholic intervention, assassination and kings - and that's just in the government. There's enough there for a Dan Brown novel.

The first year when the US really gets rolling in the coup market is probably 1949. In 1949 the US organised coups in Syria and Greece. In both cases the US was publicly afraid that the government of the nation would be / was "pro-Communist".

In the case of Syria the reality was the US was more afraid that Israel would be harmed as Syria was seen as too pro-Palestinian, being the last Arabic nation to sign an armistice agreement with Israel. Even at the time it was clear that this was only the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As a result the elected government of Syria had to go - Colonel Zaim would take charge with CIA support (the CIA ran the torture facilities). There's been an attempt in recent years, spearheaded by Rathmell (1995) to revise this position by suggesting that the naughty colonel approached the naive CIA and asked for promises of US support, whilst the innocent CIA had no idea what they were agreeing to. I have more than slight doubts about this position - and even the revisionists start from a position where the Americans were aware of an attempt to overthrow a government and promised to support it, after that its just a question of who had the idea in the first place.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-War-Middle-East-Struggle/dp/1850439923/ref=sr_1_1/203-0418649-0450339?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189325405&sr=8-1

The inevitable Syrian counter-coup occurred the same year and another military man (not US backed, just nationalistic) ran the place for years. Then the national government returns and, oddly, tends to lean towards the Russians (who haven't been organising coups in their country!) Who ever would have thought that?

In Greece the 1949 coup started a long period of political repression which included such delights as child-kidnapping of pro-democracy activists (their children would be taken from the parents and designated as "orphans" so that their parents could never find them - well, that was the public explanation - personally I've always thought that just dropping the kid's corpse into a hole would be a lot less work) and "re-education camps" (the new word for torture facilities).

Of course the thing about coups is that they are really hard to stop once they get rolling - Greece has another CIA-backed coup in the mid-1960s when the far-out, far-right, Colonels take charge for yet more repression (against Communists or people that think that governments should be elected).

Fun fact: the CIA was formed in 1947 around 18 months before the coups started. Well, they've got to do something to justify their pay, right?

[P-]

Thanks for the Reply Adam & here's a reply worth of an answer. I'm not here to dispute anyones opinion just to present and >>objective>President's very own words anyday, anytime

Truman was President between 1945-1953. Around 1951 give or take 1 year, he threw a few British officers/politicians out of his office saying something to the effect that U.S. government doesn't meddle in the affairs of other nations.

Wiki excerpt...
Harry S. Truman (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was the thirty-third President of the United States (1945–1953)

2-Here's the kicker...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d'%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts

(list of coup detat s. Nothing pops up until 'Ajax')(citation are usually needed for wiki's)

Again, Adam you bring a very interesting point and thank you for your input!!! You know if anything did happen prior to 1951, being that CIA might be in its' infancy you caould have called them just "boys w/ toys" and not "men w/ ideas."

[adam]

P-,

I'd still today call the CIA boys with toys. Historically they've not made the US any safer. Inevitably their meddling has made things worse. The mere fact that the US now needs a $600bn military to protect it appears to indicate that things have gone terribly, terribly wrong.

[Barry]

pm2075: "Can't wait for Petreus' report. They may have finally gotten a general that's willing to put his reputation on the line on an optimistic Iraq progress report. Give them credit after the all the genrals that been trough the revolving door. My honest opinion you'll never hear a loss or a lose associated with the war in Iraq in the history book. Nothing short of a manufactured victory."

He's already demonstrated that he's just what Bush and Cheney were looking for, a biddable whore. He's 'revised' statistics to look good (last year's revised upwards, to make this year look better), and has advanced the art of definition - apparently a bullet in the back of the head is a 'sectarian killing'; a bullet anywhere else, or a car bomb, isn't.

In the US he's been appearing with Hugh Hewitt, Fox News, and other bastions of unbiased truth and objectivity. He's had exclusive meetings with GOP Congressmen, but none with Democrats.

It's worth remembering three things:

First, Petraeus' record in Iraq only looks good compared with everybody elses'. His tour in Mosul resulted in a police force which joined the guerrillas, but only after he left. His tour training the Iraqi Army (remember 'as they stand up, we'll stand down'?) resulted in an ineffectual army. He was the guy in charge when 190K weapons were lost.

The second thing to remember is that this administration has learned from earlier stumbles, when honest people got in. Since 2003, they've had a 100% record of dishonest scum only - no Larry Lindsays going off message on war costs, no Paul O'Neills, no John DiIulios who actually believed in faith-based methods. Even people like Ashcroft were replaced with people like Gonzales.

The third and final thing is that we've been here before. Gen. Casey was going to save us, Gen. Abizaid was going to save us, Chalabi was going to save us, Allawi was going to save us, killing the last few 'dead enders' was going to save us, killing Saddam's sons was going to save us, capturing Saddam was going to save us, having an election was going to save us, painting schools was going to save us, not printing bad news from Iraq was going to save us - on and on and on and on, until today, when the administration hints that perhaps attacking Iran is going to save us, or kicking out the current Iraqi government is going to save us.

[adam]

Barry,

I agree with what you are saying. I do have a certain empathy for Petraeus, I suspect that, as a competent general, he wants to tell the truth, but he does still work for Bush. This would be rather awkward. If he tells the truth then he smears his own commander in chief.

You'll note that this discussion is based in America, not Iraq. Its American politics that are important this week, not Iraqi politics, or whats best for Iraq. The battleground has now left Iraq - its not important any more - and its now being fought in Congress with paper and soundbites. Of the two I prefer the paper based version.

Petraeus' main problem is that he needs time - a lot more time, say a decade or two. And he needs troops - a lot more troops, say trebling the size of the US Army. And the needs money - a lot more money, say anywhere between three to five hundred billion dollars a year. If he gets all that then its "mission accomplished!".

Well, maybe. We were here in the 1960s in Vietnam and all it did was cost a lot more money and give the English language the term "wasted". The shadow of Westmoreland should be hanging over Washington this week. Petraeus should know this, and probably does, but its doubtful if he cares much. Politically however as a result of all that it means that Bush can drop the entire mess onto his successor and claim that he "laid the foundation for success" or whatever the retards that believe Bush will understand. I suspect the word foundation might be too long, either for him to say, or for them to handle.

I'd add that Petraeus isn't a Middle Eastern hand. He's got expertise in Europe and wrote a book about where it all went wrong in Vietnam. This continues a common theme in the US military that Iraq is somewhere other than Iraq. Iraq has been Germany, Japan, Malaya, El Salvador, Algeria and now it appears that Iraq is meant to be Vietnam.

[anarchonihilist]

The biggest threat to Americans' freedom or wealth is the US government, so I am glad they are keeping busy in the desert. The longer they stay there, the more likely the US will have a financial collapse, especially if things go very wrong.
And don't forget the Petraeus is a member of the tribe whose first loyalty is to Israel.