"God help the army that must fight for an idea

[TexasTiger 13,053]

Yeah, I know. I wish I could be more hopeful on Iraq. I wish I had some solution to offer. But its very difficult to repair what is built on a faulty premise.

God help the army that must fight for an idea rather than an objective. After somehow failing to argue competently on behalf of a patently justifiable invasion, and as its more specious arguments were collapsing, the Bush administration then pivoted with breathtaking enthusiasm to nation building, something so Clinton-tinged that it had previously been held in contempt. The more that nation building in Iraq is in doubt, the more the mission creeps into a doubling of bets in hope of covering those that are lost. Now the goal is to reforge the politics, and perforce the culture, not merely of Iraq but of the billion-strong Islamic world from Morocco to the South Seas. That--evangelical democracy writ overwhelmingly large--is the manic idea for which the army must fight.

But no law of nature says a democracy is incapable of supporting terrorism, so even if every Islamic capital were to become a kind of Westminster with curlicues, the objective of suppressing terrorism might still find its death in the inadequacy of the premise. Even if all the Islamic states became democracies, the kind of democracies they might become might not be the kind of democracies wrongly presumed to be incapable of supporting terrorism. And if Iraq were to become the kind of democracy that is the kind wrongly presumed (and for more than a short period), there is no evidence whatsoever that other Arab or Islamic states, without benefit of occupying armies, would follow. And if they did, how long might it last? They do not need Iraq as an example, they have Britain and Denmark, and their problem is not that they require a demonstration, but rather their culture, history, and secret police.

If we could transform Germany and Japan, then why not Iraq? Approximately 150,000 troops occupy Iraq, which has a population of 26 million and shares long open borders with sympathetic Arab and Islamic countries where popular sentiment condemns America. The Iraqi army was dispersed but neither destroyed nor fully disarmed. The country is divided into three armed nations. Its cities are intact.

In contrast, on the day of Germany's surrender, Eisenhower had three million Americans under his command--61 divisions, battle hardened. Other Western forces pushed the total to 4.5 million in 93 divisions. And then there were the Russians, who poured 2.5 million troops into the Berlin sector alone. All in all, close to 10 million soldiers had converged upon a demoralized German population of 70 million that had suffered more than four million dead and 10 million wounded, captured, or missing. No sympathizers existed, no friendly borders. The cities had been razed. Germany had been broken, but even after this was clear, more than 700,000 occupation troops remained, with millions close by. The situation in Japan was much the same: a country with a disciplined, homogenous population, no allies, sealed borders, its cities half burnt, more than three million dead, a million wounded, missing, or captured, its revered emperor having capitulated, and nearly half a million troops in occupation. And whereas both Germany and Japan had been democracies in varying degree, Iraq has been ruled by a succession of terrifying autocrats since the beginning of human history.

To succeed, a paradigm of "invade, reconstruct, and transform" requires the decisive defeat, disarmament, and political isolation of the enemy; the demoralization of his population and destruction of its political beliefs; and the presence, at the end of hostilities, of overwhelming force. With U.S. military capacity virtually unchanged since the Clinton years, and a potentially heavy draw upon American forces in other crises, the paradigm is untenable. Though against all odds it may succeed temporarily in Iraq, it is premised upon succeeding in far too many other places of fierce and longstanding antipathy to what we represent.

An impressive civil-defense effort has been made, but only relative to the absence of anything before it. It isn't a question of gaps in the fence here and there, but of sections of the fence here and there. Four and a half years after September 11th, air cargo is still not x-rayed; illegal immigration and drug smuggling prove that the borders are porous; simulated attacks are almost always a walk-over for the red-teams; and the nature of chemical, nuclear, and biological terrorism remains such that merely rattling terrorist networks is insufficient.

Although nuclear detonations in American cities are not to be slighted, still, the greatest and most likely perils are natural epidemics and biological warfare. A common belief among public health experts is that a viral shift such as that which caused the 1918-19 pandemic is almost certain. Estimates of the number of dead run to the hundreds of millions world-wide and scores of millions in the U.S. If nature fails to deliver an epidemic, it is unfortunately easy for a highly trained terrorist, by genetic manipulation, to create a super-virulent pathogen with a nearly 100% rate of mortality. Natural or artificial epidemics are collectively the greatest threat this country has ever faced, and will not be exceeded for decades to come. But though the biological sciences advance day by day and could put up a spirited defense, they can do so only if efforts are begun now on a scale several orders of magnitude beyond what is scheduled. Given current plans and preparations, this will not occur, and the greatest enemy the country has ever known will have no opposition.

By taking intelligent advantage of the fertile relation between economic development and military capacity, China will be able to leverage its extraordinary growth into superpower parity with the United States. Without the destruction of Chinese social and political equilibrium, this is only a matter of time. And just as we had no policy for dealing with the rise of Germany, Japan, and (prior to the late 1940s) Russia, we have none here.

But with the exception of South Korea, which chafes under our protection and may eventually break from the fold, our major allies in the Pacific are islands, and conveniently in this regard our strengths are the air, the sea, space, and amphibious warfare. We have not since the Korean War been able to face China on the mainland, but if we vigorously augment what we do best, we and our allies--by deterrence and maneuver rather than war--can hold the chain of islands well into the coming century or longer, after which our objective would be to contest the open ocean. China's objective is to establish a defensive line to the east of the chain, and it is building up its navy accordingly. But we, to prepare for the coming maritime century in the Pacific, are forcing naval strength to its lowest levels since the 1930s.

Uneven and ineffective application of military power, vulnerability to mass terrorism and natural epidemics, blindness to the rise of a great competitor: matters like these, that may seem remote and abstract, are seldom as remote and abstract as they seem. A hundred years ago, our predecessors, unable to sense what had already begun, did not know the price they would pay as the century wore on. But, as the century wore on, that price was exacted without mercy.

Mr. Helprin is a novelist, a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

God help the army that must fight for an idea rather than an objective.

Yeah, freedom is such a bother. The continental army would most likely disagree with you were they around today.

[Tiger Al 0]

God help the army that must fight for an idea rather than an objective.

Yeah, freedom is such a bother. The continental army would most likely disagree with you were they around today.

166660[/snapback]

Wasn't the Continental Army's objective to gain freedom?

[AURaptor 1,128]

But its very difficult to repair what is built on a faulty premise.

So sorry, but there is no 'faulty premise' here. That you dont' AGREE w/ the premise does not render it 'faulty'. The factual basis of this war remains. You and those like you who try to minimalize the effort of our troops only mock them and their sacrafices.

[Auburn85 432]

yeah..no wmd..over 1700 soldiers dead........billions upon billions spent on it........ didn't expect the high amount of insurgents.....but guess what? we're there....... we can't go back...... we can't change history..........bush lied? I don't know....... whether he lied or not....we're there

So apparently some think constantly throwing the casualty numbers, with the financial numbers, throw in the haliburton,... nazi comparisons...vietmnam comparisons....quagmire comparisons..... gulag comparisons............................. will bring the troops home from an unfinsished project and bring down the bush administration and the republican party

[Tiger Al 0]

So apparently some think constantly throwing the casualty numbers, with the financial numbers, throw in the haliburton,... nazi comparisons...vietmnam comparisons....quagmire comparisons..... gulag comparisons.............................    will bring the troops home from an unfinsished project and bring down the bush administration and the republican party

166759[/snapback]

A boy can always dream, can't he?

[AURaptor 1,128]

So apparently some think constantly throwing the casualty numbers, with the financial numbers, throw in the haliburton,... nazi comparisons...vietmnam comparisons....quagmire comparisons..... gulag comparisons.............................    will bring the troops home from an unfinsished project and bring down the bush administration and the republican party

166759[/snapback]

A boy can always dream, can't he?

166791[/snapback]

At least when Democrat Presidents are 'brought down', the opposition doesn't praise those who are shooting at our troops or try to marginalize our Nation's image to the rest of the Planet.

[tiger88 934]

So apparently some think constantly throwing the casualty numbers, with the financial numbers, throw in the haliburton,... nazi comparisons...vietmnam comparisons....quagmire comparisons..... gulag comparisons.............................    will bring the troops home from an unfinsished project and bring down the bush administration and the republican party

166759[/snapback]

A boy can always dream, can't he?

166791[/snapback]

Seems like everyone just had their chance at that dream and what was it that happened???????

Oh Yeah! GWB was re-elected! Thats what is truly pathetic. As much as you hate GWB and as incompetent as you think he is, your weak a$$ed party couldn't even field a candidate to beat him. It's always funny to see the hata's at work .

Go hillary in 08 .

[TexasTiger 13,053]

But its very difficult to repair what is built on a faulty premise.

So sorry, but there is no 'faulty premise' here. That you dont' AGREE w/ the premise does not render it 'faulty'. The factual basis of this war remains. You and those like you who try to minimalize the effort of our troops only mock them and their sacrafices.

166743[/snapback]

The primary premise of the war was that Saddam was an imminent threat. Faulty. Now the new "premise" is that it will spread democracy which will lessen terrorism. We'll see. The Wall Street Journal writer makes a strong case that such hope is not supported by fact or at all analogous to WWII.

But once again, you stupidly assert that I have somehow minimalized the "effort of our troops." I think that their effort is exceptional. I also think they have been poorly served by their political leaders and people like you. You let them down daily. You have no respect for them at all. You are as blindly hawkish as anyone while you able-bodied @ss sits on the sidelines. Since you are so pro-War, get in the game. Prove your support. Put yourself at risk. Oh yeah, we've been over this. You are too much of a coward to ever do that. Run your mouth instead. It is all you are willing to do.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

God help the army that must fight for an idea rather than an objective.

Yeah, freedom is such a bother. The continental army would most likely disagree with you were they around today.

166660[/snapback]

Wasn't the Continental Army's objective to gain freedom?

166739[/snapback]

Don't confuse Tiger in Spain with actual facts. He might hemorrage. BTW, TIS, you just made one hell of a bad analogy. Just after saying this to Tiger Al.

Your analogy is pretty weak Al, and it highlights the stupidity and ignorance of the left.

You highlight the stupidity, arrogance and ignorance of the Right Wing Facsist-Leaning crowd with almost every post.

[Tiger Al 0]

So apparently some think constantly throwing the casualty numbers, with the financial numbers, throw in the haliburton,... nazi comparisons...vietmnam comparisons....quagmire comparisons..... gulag comparisons.............................    will bring the troops home from an unfinsished project and bring down the bush administration and the republican party

166759[/snapback]

A boy can always dream, can't he?

166791[/snapback]

At least when Democrat Presidents are 'brought down', the opposition doesn't praise those who are shooting at our troops or try to marginalize our Nation's image to the rest of the Planet.

166792[/snapback]

I'll bet they don't criticize the president when we're at war, either, do they?

[Auburn85 432]

TT, TA...how would you go about fighting the WAR on Terror? And save us from the retoric of no WMD no links..I'm talking terrorism in general. Just curious. I'm not trying to et you up as re meat or anything. I jsut want to know..what you would do.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

God help the army that must fight for an idea rather than an objective.

Yeah, freedom is such a bother. The continental army would most likely disagree with you were they around today.

166660[/snapback]

Wasn't the Continental Army's objective to gain freedom?

166739[/snapback]

No, their objective was to defeat the British and gain independence from the crown. They fought for the idea of freedom.

You two mockingbirds make it so easy.....

[TexasTiger 13,053]

TT, TA...how would you go about fighting the WAR on Terror? And save us from the retoric of no WMD  no links..I'm talking terrorism in general. Just curious. I'm not trying to et you up as re meat or anything. I jsut want to know..what you would do.

166826[/snapback]

A few things: focus resources and energy on rooting out terrorist cells around the globe. This requires close work with allies, and finding agents who can infiltrate them-- and as much as folks think this sounds "weak", this is often more like solid investigative police work than raw combat-- the combat that needed to happen in Afghanistan was an exception. Focus more resources on examining cargo from ships and planes; greatly enhance security on chemical plants, etc.; shore up infrastructure that might be susceptible to attack and which would greatly cripple our economy and efforts to respond, (e.g. bridges, etc.); shore up first responders in major cities-- instead we have depleted their ranks by deploying many of them to Iraq; implement meaningful fuel efficiency measures to lessen the US dollars flowing into the middle east-- Saudi Arabia is the greatest breeding ground for terrorists-- frankly, attacking them made more since than Iraq; more pressure on Saudi Arabia to clean up the mess it has created.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

God help the army that must fight for an idea rather than an objective.

Yeah, freedom is such a bother. The continental army would most likely disagree with you were they around today.

166660[/snapback]

Wasn't the Continental Army's objective to gain freedom?

166739[/snapback]

No, their objective was to defeat the British and gain independence from the crown. They fought for the idea of freedom.

You two mockingbirds make it so easy.....

166831[/snapback]

So you're saying the abstract notion of "freedom" was what they fought for, not gaining their own freedom?

And you are equating our troops fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people with our soldiers fighting in the revolutionary war on their own soil for their own independence? And you still think you've got a great analogy? So much so, you can be cocky and insulting about it?