Rusted Sky

Can't argue with that, Jerry.
They are a greater evil, than the Nazi's and Japanese were.

Although I appreciate the Gygaxian take on just about anything, I completely disagree with this statement:

"It's getting pretty clear at this point that the WoT really does boil down to some rather simplistic concepts."

Very little in the word does, and the WoT certainly doesn't. Take Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Quaeda. These organizations have a lot in common, but they are quite different in important ways as well. There is a trend in the rhetoric of the U.S. to conflate all three into "Radical Islam" to make a certain point. Well, point taken.

But you, Jerry, are smart enough to know that to win a war you really have to know your enemy. The Nazis and the Japanese were both in the Axis, but they were also both quite different enemies, requiring different strategies and tactics to defeat.

Jason -

Actually, the concept I think it's boiling down to is "They want to kill everyone who doesn't believe like they do." And I agree that in war you DO need to know your enemy... but the first thing you need to do is define the enemy. In the beginning of a war it's usually sufficient to use the definition of "They're the folks who want to either kill you or subjugate you."

At this point in time I'm willing to group all three (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Q & Associates) as the enemy. What they hate is a society, a civilization, a population that they do not control.

Hezbollah and Hamas focus on Israel. Al Q & Associates focus on the rest of the civilized world. (Up to and including bombings in Saudi Arabia.) They're not willing to co-exist with Israel or Western civilization, and it's hard to not take seriously (given past history) their statements that they're going to destroy us. We might laugh - but it's an insecure sort of humor.

When an asshole with a firebomb says he's going to torch your house, it'd be wise to take him seriously. Yes, it could be hyperbole. Yes, it could be attention-getting behavior. (Remembering one girlfriend who regularly threatened suicide to get attention.) Also, yes, it could be serious. Given the bombings in London and Madrid and 9/11, and the latest plot to destroy planes, I'm going to take their stated desires as something they seriously intend to do.

In the end, it boils down to whether you believe them when they say they want to kill you. So - "They want to kill everyone who doesn't believe like they do" is an adequate summation, I believe.

As far as differing strategies and tactics went re WW2, we've been REALLY careful to avoid the sort of random carnage that even one bombing raid back then produced. Our enemies haven't exactly been so law-abiding. If we get to a point where we don't pull our punches, I hope we don't go any larger than the MOAB. Above that, and you're into nukes, and I REALLY don't want to see those used.

As Rodney King said... "Can't we all just get along?" - the answer from radical Islam is a decided "No." And we have to understand they mean it.

J.

Once again, you have stressed the similarities between the three while gliding over the differences. How about this one:

Hezbollah has a political constituency. In the actual government and on the ground in Lebanon, they serve the local people in many ways, and have the support of those people. In this respect, Hezbollah resembles a state in many respects. Al-Quaeda is a stateless organization. It exists in many countries, and it is at home in none. In all of the Middle East, they were forced to hide largely with the Taliban in Afghanistan. And the Taliban didn't even like those guys.

I think perhaps it would be better to look closely at these differences, and at the strengths and especially weaknesses that they present. That would be more effective, in terms of actually winning the war instead of fighting it for 60 years, than calling both "the enemy" and leaving it at that.

And so the meme changes again - the Taliban didn't like Al Quaeda. Funny that they'd defend them to the death then instead of giving them up when asked...

Jason, I really don't much give a rip about their differences. They're against freedom for others, they're for the imposition of their way of life on everyone in the area, with death for those who don't accept it. Israel's trying to exist, Hez and Hamas are trying to destroy it. Al Quaeda wants to destroy Western civilization. That's not sufficiently nuanced, I know.

Radical Islam's a malignant belief system. I don't much care if Hezbollah's marketing themselves as the good guys in Lebanon - I don't care if they run blood donation centers. Under that lovely Hezbollah flag, they've co-opted a significant portion of Lebanon and it doesn't look like they're going to give up their weaponry IAW the UN cease fire - so what you've got is a private militia taking over part of a country, and giving the world the finger.

That makes it real hard for me to believe that deep down they're really peaceful, and it's just those damn Jews that are the problem.

Sometimes it's possible to nuance yourself into immobility. They're depending on that sort of response from the world. Nobody does anything, believing in the magical power of a UN cease fire, while they prepare for the resumption of hostilities with goods from Syria and Iran. In fact, I wouldn't be at all suprised if they're doing resupply runs now. After all, this is just a hudna. And UN resolutions and cease fires... well, we know how much THEY count.

I am not worried about the condition or type of knife held to my throat. What I am concerned with is the fact that the knife is being held to my throat.

J.

You are saying that all of these organizations are legitimate enemies. I agree with that. You don't have to convince me. You don't have to point out their similarities to sell the point.

Talking about theif differences is part of winning. Of course you want to know what sort of knife is held to your throat. Wasn't your last blog "Milblog?" Doesn't the US do enemy analysis any more? We sure as hell did in previous wars.

Jason:

First you've got to identify the 'enemy'. Seems like a lot of Democrats are banking on discrediting Bush on how he's handling the WoT - and they're REAL sure who the enemy is. (And that enemy isn't anyone overseas as far as they're concerned.) THEY aren't concerned about anything other than the upcoming elections. Long-term threat identification just doesn't matter to them.

A lot of other folks are doing a whole lot of handwaving, making sure the groups THEY support aren't labeled 'enemy'. (I was moderately appalled, but not terribly surprised, at the various demonstrations over the weekend in the US that displayed a hell of a lot of supposed Hezbollah supporters.) I'm glad I don't have to convince you that we have enemies that would kill us rather than find a way to co-exist - but you seem to me to be more obsessed with the diferential details than worrying about the strategies needed to actually fight and win a war.

Those details are the province of the military planners, and they take them into account when formulating their strategies. One thing that's been much more of a worry is the current necessity to minimize civilian casualties - because we're the 'good guys'. It's not much of a worry for the enemy - because no matter WHAT they do they're protected. I'm not worried about what type of knife's at my throat - I want it AWAY from my throat.

I identify a particular group as an enemy, you go "Yes, but we have to take their differences into account." We agree that they're enemies. That'll do for me.

J.