Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
October 16, 2007
WAR: On The Benefits Of Choosing Where To Fight

By now you have no doubt seen the most important news story of the week, yesterday's front-pager in the Washington Post reporting the debate among the U.S. military between those who believe that recent, dramatic successes against Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQIZ) represent a decisive and irreversible turning point, especially given the newfound cooperation in Sunni areas alienated by AQIZ, and those who caution that AQIZ might yet regenerate itself again as it did after its leadership was decimated by the series of raids beginning with the decaptitation strike that killed AQIZ's notorious leader, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, in June 2006.

That debate is itself important, as are the collateral domestic political questions that follow from it. But perhaps the most intriguing line in the WaPo piece is this one:

The flow of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq has also diminished, although officials are unsure of the reason and are concerned that the broader al-Qaeda network may be diverting new recruits to Afghanistan and elsewhere.

This raises a question I have addressed before: whether the United States is doing enough to expand the battlefield on which we take the fight to the enemy.

You see, regardless of the precise nature of the organizational charts of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, the basic fact remains: we are facing an enemy that operates across national borders, mostly shares common goals and common religious and poilitical ideology, and draws from the same pools of resources. Al Qaeda and its fellow travelers operate in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, even in New Jersey and North Carolina.

Like any adversary in war, especially an asymmetrical war such as this one, the jihadist enemy has some advantages over us: fanatical foot soldiers willing to engage in suicide attacks, superior ability to manipulate the media, an absence of moral restraint, little or no territory to protect, an ability to blend in with the population, and patience to take the long view against a nation famous for its impatience. Their goal is to make maximum use of those advantages, while nullifying ours.

But it should not be a given that the U.S. lets the enemy dictate the terms of engagement - and indeed, that is precisely what the Iraq War has been all about. It is a basic rule of any form of conflict - from wars to political campaigns to sporting events to litigation to business competition - that you force the enemy to react to your strengths, rather than let him dictate that the battle be fought on the ground of your weaknesses. It's a dictum as old as Sun Tzu. You don't win wars by hunkering down to figure out how to stop what the other guy does best; you win wars by making the other guy wake up every morning wondering what you are going to do to him.

My concern is that, while the Iraq War has succeeded in occupying much of the enemy's attention, U.S. policy has let the enemy too often off the hook by allowing them to fight only in Iraq. Remember, with no disrespect to our fighting men, America has won wars in the past (hot and Cold) not so much by having more or braver men than the enemy but in large part by forcing the enemy to compete on multiple fronts in ways that allow us to leverage our huge advantages in producing armaments and supplies and in moving men, materiel and information from place to place while interdicting the enemy's ability to do so. Indeed, those are advantages being deployed now by Gen. Petraeus:

Captures and interrogations of AQI leaders over the summer had what a senior military intelligence official called a "cascade effect," leading to other killings and captures. . . .

The deployment of more U.S. and Iraqi forces into AQI strongholds in Anbar province and the Baghdad area, as well as the recruitment of Sunni tribal fighters to combat AQI operatives in those locations, has helped to deprive the militants of a secure base of operations, U.S. military officials said. "They are less and less coordinated, more and more fragmented," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, said recently. Describing frayed support structures and supply lines, Odierno estimated that the group's capabilities have been "degraded" by 60 to 70 percent since the beginning of the year.

There remains a debate about precisely how much manpower the jihadists can call upon, and thus whether a strategy of manpower attrition (i.e., killing terrorists) is likely to get us anywhere on a global basis any time soon:

Despite the increased killings and captures of AQI members, Odierno said, "it only takes three people" to construct and detonate a suicide car bomb that can "kill thousands." The goal, he said, is to make each attack less effective and lengthen the periods between them.

But even terrorist groups don't just run on warm bodies; they need money, leadership, experience and expertise (e.g., in building IEDs), munitions, and communications. All of these are finite resources, and the United States and its allies can reproduce them, move them, coordinate them and interdict them far better and on a far larger scale than the enemy can. We need them to be fighting on more fronts than they can logistically handle. And unless there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than we can guess, I'm not convinced that we are doing nearly enough of that. The Iranians, for example, appear to have a very free hand to stoke the violence in Iraq and Lebanon and support the jihadis (even the Sunni jihadis who represent Iran's ancient enemies, but who are fighting us now) with minimal consequences for themselves, and little taxation of resources they would have difficulty replenishing. Ditto the Syrians.

The prescription to expand the battlefield is easier said than done, of course; we don't really need to be invading countries willy-nilly, nor am I suggesting we do so. As the Cold War experience - against a much vaster and better-funded enemy - shows, there are a variety of ways to engage the enemy in combat without committing large numbers of our own troops (although we had a much larger and better-funded military then, as we probably should today). And there is a counter-argument, which is in essence that our main priority needs to be consolidating gains of fragile democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, to a much more tenuous extent, in Lebanon, where the democrats still have a fighting chance against difficult odds) rather than opening new fronts. But the longstanding logic of war, together with the political reality of a restive U.S. populace, counsels daring rather than caution. As a guiding principle, whenever and wherever U.S. policymakers have the opportunity to engage the jihadist enemy in ways that further tax its finite resources, we should be doing so.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:14 PM | War 2007-12 | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Given that we cannot invade willy-nilly and assuming that we are engaging the enemy in places where we have cooperatives hosts, what you're proposing would amount to chasing the jihadis into territories where we do not have cooperative partners.

Since these loonies have the ability to make themselves unwelcome just about everywhere they bunk, I like it. Chase them to Iran, let's see how sympatico they really are.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 16, 2007 4:13 PM

Interesting point, but would you have the US chase into Pakistan? We didn't actually open the fronts in WW2 or WW1, we just played the hand that was dealt us.

Posted by: Brendan at October 16, 2007 8:37 PM

Crank -- You call for a continuation of the Bush Administration’s comic book approach to foreign policy. Like the President, you speak of keeping the jihadists/terrorists on the run and challenging them on multiple fronts - as if all militant Muslims meet regularly at the Hall of Doom.

The US Military has long estimated that Al Qeada in Iraq accounts for at most, 15% of the attacks on our forces. Some believe this estimate to be grossly exaggerated. And nobody is certain of the link between AQI and Osama Bin Laden. (See The Myth of AQI, (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html)

At fifteen percent, AQI certainly poses a deadly threat, but how many of these guys joined because of the Iraq War? And was it worth it to encounter the other 85% of the attacks to take the battle to the supposed enemy?

Instead of blurring together all militant Muslims, we should be working together with civilized nations of the world to isolate and extinguish radical Muslim fringe elements, whether they arise in Kabul, Leeds, Tehran or Newark.

Posted by: Patrick at October 16, 2007 11:18 PM

Patrick,

Rudy G. wants to know why you hate America.

Posted by: jim at October 17, 2007 10:49 AM

Patrick, how do youo propose to "isolate and extinguish" the radical Muslim fringe? I don't think Sunday school is going to work.

Posted by: maddirishman at October 17, 2007 10:49 AM

re: "Patrick, how do youo propose to "isolate and extinguish" the radical Muslim fringe? I don't think Sunday school is going to work."

FBI, CIA, local police, Dept Homeland Security, their counter parts in other civilized countries.

Or we could just keep invading countries, 'cause that seems to work out really well.

Posted by: Patrick at October 17, 2007 11:24 AM

Clinton tried treating it as a law enforcement issue and that got us 9/11. Huummmm, I'll take putting Il, Assad and Iran out of business over that every time.

Posted by: maddirishman at October 17, 2007 12:16 PM

Funny, I always thought Bush was President in 2001. The Neo-nuts keep telling me otherwise.

Posted by: jim at October 17, 2007 12:37 PM

The British tried your theory with the IRA and it failed miserably. Hell, we were the IRA main fund raising hub. The first way to stop radical Islam is to stop the Arab dictators from blaming America for all their society ills. Then confront the Saudis head on they are the key source for funding and supplying men and ideology to the fight.

But lets put the focus on Iran instead.

Posted by: Javaman at October 17, 2007 1:21 PM

"The British tried your theory with the IRA and it failed miserably."

It sure did. We are now suffering intolerably under the Catholic Irish yoke.

LOL at your bullshit, and LOL double at "supplying... ideology". Let's put a stop to that, eh? Can't have people freely trading ideas.

Posted by: Dr Zen at October 17, 2007 7:40 PM

So Zen, your saying the Brits original idea to crush the IRA worked? I guess when the IRA were ordering the murder of prison guards from their cells that is called a sound strategy to crush terrorism?

That thing they say about learning and repeating history does not apply. Then again it sounds like your okay with protecting the Saudi's as they are largest funders of radical Islam. Hell, we don't even get cheap oil out of the deal.


Posted by: javaman at October 17, 2007 9:30 PM

madirisman,
Let's keep 9/11 out of the conversation, or I'll have to explain to you why it was no big deal to the President.

Posted by: Robert at October 18, 2007 12:29 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg