OnPrincipleBlog

I’m a contrarian at heart.

I pull for underdogs. I loved Revenge of the Nerds (hits close to home). And I see a lot of encouragement coming out of Iraq.

As you’ve probably heard, or read, all of the troops which form the much derided “surge” have just arrived in Iraq in the last couple of weeks. What you probably haven’t heard, or read, as much is how this arrival marks the start - yes, the START of the actual surge. General Odierno refers to what has preceded as the “force buildup” and what has begun in the last week as the “offensive operations”.

(I think I’ll now call these phases the “Troop Surge” and the “Offensive Surge”.)

In the last week, everything has changed. And what are the results? Bill Roggio, whom I highly recommend as a daily read, provides this summary of the first week in actual, operational surge:

Operation Phantom Thunder: Joint Coalition-Iraq Offensive in Baghdad Belts (Initiated June 16th)

Operation Arrowhead Ripper: Joint Coalition-Iraq Offensive in Diyala province (part of Op. Phantom Thunder)

• 59 Al Qaeda killed
• 40 Al Qaeda captured
• 28 Roadside bombs destroyed
• 12 Booby-trapped buildings secured
• 16 Weapons caches uncovered and recovered

In Mosul:

• 32 Insurgents captured
• 1 VBIED factory uncovered and secured (Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device)
• 1 IED factory uncovered and secured
• 1 storage facility for VBIED & IED bomb making materials

In Taji:

• 500-man neighborhood watch established (with reporting/alignment links to Iraqi government & forces)

Northwest of Baghdad:

• 13 Al Qaeda killed
• 15 Al Qaeda Captured

Against Sadr’s Mahdi Army:

• 4 Terrorists Captured (Including 1 “leader” who is “responsible for coordinating and conducting kidnappings, death squad killings and improvised explosive device attacks”.)

Grand Total:

• 72 Killed
• 91 Captured
• 28 Bombs & 12 Booby-trapped buildings deactivated
• 16 Weapon Caches secured
• 2 Bomb factories closed

American Losses: about 30.

Iraqi Civilian Losses: I don’t have the data yet.

So, the war’s lost Mr. Reid????

Important Note: I don’t relish the thought on anyone dieing or want to fixate upon gratuitous, unnecessary violence. Of course, I also don’t see this operation as being “unnecessary”. I certainly don’t see these Al Qaeda, insurgent and terrorist enemies as being open to verbal persuasion, olive branches of friendship or any other non-violent restraint short of supernaturally changed hearts.

And this doesn’t even begin to address the absolute inhumanity these beasts are ravaging upon the Iraqi populace. Included in the week’s findings, a house used for torture - complete with drills, knives and a blood-drenched floor.

On Principle,

CBass

I’m a realist. The Iranian government, like the US government has a responsibility to seek the legitimate interests of its nation. To the extent they do this, let’s chat it up. When those legitimate interests violently cross ours, however, it may be time for other activities under heaven .

A quick look at the “legitimate” interests of Iran:

• Caught Red Handed Aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan
• Caught Red Handed Aiding Insurgents in Iraq

• Caught Red Handed Smuggling Nuclear Materials Across Europe

• Planning, Funding and Directing Special Forces-styled Attacks Against US Troops
• Repetitive Attack and Kidnapping of Other Armed Forces
• Funding Hezbollah in the Oppression of Lebanon
• Funding Hamas in Fomenting Palestinian Civil War

In earlier posts, I lamented the the execution of post-war Iraq and the larger continued degradation of our military strength. It’s hard to miss that Iran makes a perfect example of the dangers of discounting the need for a strong military option - in the appropriate sphere of context.

In this context, let’s consider the drumbeat of support for the findings of the Iraq Study Group which has started anew. Among the much trumpeted findings was the recommendation for the US to engage Iran and Syria in “talks” regarding Iraq - Iran, a rational regime with only the best interests of it’s neighbors at heart.

Ok, stopped laughing? Go ahead, take your time.

Look, I’m willing to pretty much talk to anyone, but not with the end expectation that a regime like Iran will magically drop its ambitions, hold our hands and sing songs of peace for the united and prosperous Iraqi people.

Its seems I must march to a different drummer on this song.

On Principle,
CBass

In my last post on the “War on Terrorism” I float the concept as to the nature of our nation’s current “Long War” and what means are appropriately brought to bear on which targets through a simple equation:

1. Terror Tactics = Internal fortitude of heart
2. Terror Groups = Policing Operations
3. State Sponsored Terror Groups = Overwhelming military force.

In reviewing this list, there are two questions which may come to your mind which need further explication:

1. Overburdened Military:

Isn’t our military stretched too thin to wage a “Long War” against additional state sponsors of terrorism (such as North Korea, Syria and Iran)? Yes. It seems to me that this is the case (now, please keep in mind, that I am not exactly one of our nation’s great military minds).

In the first Quadrennial Defense Review of the Bush Administration, Secretary Rumsfeld’s team made a dramatic shift in America’s military sizing to reduce the number of “capital cities” our forces would be able to “occupy” while increasing the number of fronts on which we could fight. I was a solid supporter of this approach. In light of the last few years of mired conflict in Iraq, the approach still seems attractive, but let’s face it - reality has caught up with and overtaken theory.

In times like these, the appropriate response is to change course. It is time for the military to beef up its size in terms of personnel and budget in terms of value driven development of weapons, logistics, intelligence platforms and defensive capabilities. I’ve been frustrated for a few years now that our government seems slow to embrace this change. (I’ll flesh out the reasoning behind these thoughts in a future post).

At the same time, four items must be noted:

1. Our lack of size doesn’t change the right course of action. State sponsors of terrorism have demonstrated a determined effort to disrupt the world’s apple cart, killing untold innocents, through their dedicated investment of cultural support, legal protection and national resources. The right course of action against these states is military in nature. Our lack of sufficiently building our military doesn’t change this equation.

2. If we can’t do it now, let’s start building for the day when we can. State sponsors of terrorism are not likely to disengage from these actions short of military pressure. Notice, I said, not likely. The blessing of being overstretched in terms of military might is that it forces our nation to truly pursue every other non-military end. If time allows, I FULLY support other approaches (see below). But in the meantime, we need to martial our resources in a way we simply having in the last 20 years to rebuild our military capabilities.

3. The US is not the only Nation which can conduct military operations. We are certainly the largest and most capable of sustained operations, but we are decidedly not the only (or in the some cases even the best equipped) to engage in the appropriate military operations. (Again, in a following post I’ll explore this concept in terms of the “Coalition” forces at some point in the future).

4. Not all military operations must involve the “occupation” of “capital cities”. Senator Lieberman made this point in terms of Iran in a recent Sunday morning interview. Here’s an excerpt:

I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me that would include a strike into–over the border into Iran where I–we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.

Notice his main point. Aggressive military action does not always mandate “occupation” forces. As I state above, such limited actions may be best performed by other nations and may buy us the time to build our military and, most importantly, to pursue diplomacy by “other means”.

2. The Prince of Peace:

As a believer in Christ, doesn’t it bother you to focus so much on the military? No. (Ok, yes it does, but only within a certain context.)

1. Government and Government Might are Constituted by God: Both Jesus and Paul (and, all of Scripture) affirm God’s hand in appointing governments. Not His direct will in how each government acts toward its people and other nations, but the authority and role of government in general. In this affirmation, it is clear that government has the power of the “sword” to enforce peace on a world which is in rebellion against the “rule of love”. State sponsored terrorism is a poster child for this rebellion.

2. Turning the Other Cheek: Both Jesus and Paul (and, all of Scripture) have a lot to say about the virtue of embracing personal humiliation instead of fighting for self-rights. I wholeheartedly affirm this as being central to the way of Christ. At the same time, none of these teachings are provided in a context of forcing others to do the same. They are to arise from individual’s heart response to God’s forgiveness AND God’s vindication of the wrongly attacked. Government is not in the position to mandate this sort of extremely personal moral response in the face of terrorism. To do so would mirror the fascism of radical Islam. The role of government, as constituted by God, is to beat back such threats such that individuals have the freedom to make self-sacrificing choices of love, service, humility, intercession, forgiveness, etc.

3. The Ultimate Victory Comes from Changed Hearts, Not Charred Homes: There is no lasting honor or peace from military action. It has a moral role, but that role is extremely limited. If deployed (hopefully as a last resort) it must be deployed wholeheartedly. Once completed, another wave of soldiers are needed. This second wave must bind the broken hearted, rebuild the desolate inheritances, set the oppressed free, etc. Only when sufficient quantities of folks lay down their lives in service to the citizens of a combatant state will a lasting peace be established. Yes, it would certainly be better to see this happed PRIOR to bombing. But the whole purpose of this concept is to answer the question of what to do when it hasn’t happened and innocent lives are being placed in jeopardy as a result.

This 1-2 punch of force and service has demonstrated its effectiveness time and time again. When was the last time our fellow citizens faced threats from England, Spain, Germany, Italy or Japan? All of these nations were our enemies in battle at one time.

Yes, I favor peace through redeemed lives filled with existential hope, but I will support the use of national force as needed to provide those hearts ample opportunity to hear the words of those who cry in the wilderness.

On Principle,

CBass

Now that we are deeply mired in the campaign season for Presidential Primaries, our current engagement in and conduct of the “War on Terror” is oft questioned by pundits and waxed a little less than eloquently by brave campaigners.

It amazes me that 6 years into our realization that this battle was launched upon us, we still don’t, as a collective people, have a better grasp as to the nature of our warfare. With all the pomp, circumstance and inflated self-importance which is so integral to blogging, I will here attempt to set the record straight.

Misnomer #1: War on Terror

We are not waging a war on “terror”. Terror is an internal, emotional reaction to a frightening or dramatic event. Sir Winston Churchill could be said to have waged a war on terror, in this sense, during battle of London in WWII. Through his example, decisiveness and stirring rhetoric, he sought to confront the reactive terror which gripped the hearts of his citizens. While this sort of reinforcement of the American psyche would be an advised addition to the Administration’s battle plan, an addition badly lacking of late, it simply is not core to the “long war”.

Misnomer #2: War Against Terrorists

CAUTION: Liberal content warning!!!!

Battling Terrorists, as an end goal, is not, primarily, a job for our military in its full weight and stunning lethality. Terrorists, folks who try to invoke terror in innocents for self-selected purposes, are thugs and criminals. Confronting them is largely, in most (no, not all) cases, a job for law enforcement. What? Isn’t this sacrilegious for a deeply committed conservative? No, as a conservative, I deploy the full force, fury and frustrating bureaucracy of my government on an extremely limited basis. And I have some examples to back up this point:

1. The Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. Both were terrorists, both were confronted by law enforcement.
2. The mob / mafia. Organized terrorist families, clans, cells ranging from Prohibition Bootleggers to today’s highly structured, multi-state Latino gangs. All of whom have been effectively confronted by law enforcement.
3. Iraqi Police. Its seems as though many of us have taken for granted that when America talks of training up Iraqi “security forces” some of the major focus of this work is on raising competent, non-compromised Iraqi police - often to a greater degree than the Iraqi armed forces.

Conservative readers, you can come back now.

Before moving on I should note that surgical strikes by small groups of highly trained and well armed Special Forces units may be one very appropriate tactic in battling terrorists, but when conducted on foreign soil absent a larger military campaign, these raids are probably far more effective in the long term when coordinated with that country’s law enforcement. Conservatives do like to uphold the integrity of national borders of nation states - our own apparently excluded from this otherwise truism.

Misnomer #3: We Can’t Declare War on an Idea or Tactic

Ok, admittedly, it did take the Administration far too long after 9/11 to craft some definition around the sort of terrorism against which we would battle. But please don’t miss the point, this has been done and the selected definition correctly aligns with who we are as a people both historically and in the modern world. Our long war is not against the idea of terror or terrorism as a tactic. Our long war is specifically against “state-sponsored, international terrorism”.

What does this mean? Let’s start with what it doesn’t mean. This doesn’t mean that we have declared direct war on remnants of the Irish Republican Army, Colombia’s FARC, Spain’s ETA or Aum Shinrikyo of Japan. They all invoke terror (see Misnomer #1 above), but they are all best confronted by the law enforcement efforts of each country. The US may support these efforts through military aid, US military hardware, etc, but we are correct to NOT confront these terrorists (see Misnomer #2 above) through Shock & Awe.

War on Terrorism: What It Means

Our war is against organized groups (things against which we can really declare war) which utilize the legal safety, cultural support and enormous resources of nation states to mobilize terrorists in waging terror tactics against innocents, often in other nations, to secure the self-selected purposes in which they find value. I find it difficult to believe anyone can’t grasp this difference between the tactic of terror, the rather limited resources and reach of “local” groups of terrorists and well structured, well funded, well trained, well armed, well coordinated, internationally structured, far-reaching state-sponsored terrorism.

Since history has a whimsical way of smacking us on the collective rear when we ignore it’s lessons, I highly recommend the short article “Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates” by Christopher Hitchens. Much of what today defines us as “Americans” was born out of our nation’s first officially declared war oversees - a war against, gasp!, the idea, nay - the tactic, of piracy.

Gotcha! Not so!

Our Congress declared war and our President Jefferson executed war against state-sponsored piracy. The difference is very, very important. Since the piracy was not some independent group of thugs to be policed, but a coordinated attack of terror upon innocent people (entire cities were raided and possibly 1.5 million Westerners were taken captive as slaves) coordinated from, funded by and under the protection of the nation states of northern Africa. As such, we wage war against the physical arms (slave ships), soldiers (funded pirates) AND the sponsoring homelands of the pirates. By stemming the flow from the state-sponsor, Islamo-piracy eventually receded to irrelevance for centuries - courtesy of a good ‘ol butt kicking.

As the T-shirt says: “WAR NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING: Except for Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism”

Hitchen’s alludes to much of what is “apple pie” America as having arisen from the fight against state-sponsored terrorism:

1. Our grievances against England as captured in the original draft of the declaration of independence - for his support of the “slave trade” which mirrored the tactics of state-sponsored piracy.

2. The only mention of Armed forces in our Constitution - a Navy for battling the state-sponsors of the Barbary Pirates.

3. The original stanza’s of what would later become our national anthem

4. The Marine Corps anthem

5. The liberal tradition of appeasement - John Adam’s stance that we should bribe the Muslim states to the sum of 10% of our National Treasury.

Ok, But What Exactly Does It Mean:

Our Constitutional structure arose out of, in part, a struggle similar to ours today. It was designed to support the following principles when battling state-sponsored terrorism:

1. Unite domestically to raise a fearsome military to end the ability of enemy states to sponsor terrorism.
2. Encourage development of friendly governments (since terrorism is also feed through the defacto “state” of culture - ie the KKK in the post-Reconstruction South).
3. Support the local law enforcement efforts of these newly constituted governments to confront the now de-funded and orphaned terrorists.
4. Return home to enjoy the 2 centuries of peace which can only be won through such displays of strength - at least in this fallen world.

One last question.

If you buy into any of the arguments above, what would be the appropriate response to Iran, Syria and the defacto autonomous regions of Pakistan? The answer is obvious, but it would require the same efforts as were required of our Nation’s founders - raise an armed force, sufficiently capable of executing the task at hand with sufficient lethality and provide a demonstration of nation will through Congressional declaration.

Then, let’s remember, this is a “long war”.

Of course, we may learn a lesson from other wars as well:

1. Sometimes we need to commit the same level of resources to rebuilding what we utterly destroy.
2. Sometimes we need to flood defeated foes with the best Ambassadors we have to offer, hundreds of individuals carrying and demonstrating the Love of God for the populace shaken free of terrorist sponsors.

Proud American,
Christian