Friday, November 03, 2006

Winning the War

Michael Ledeen, over at NRO makes some good points about the war on terror and why it is more than just Iraq and Afganistan. His main point is that the war on terror is a regional one, with worldwide implications.
The debate over the appropriate number of American troops in Iraq is a typical example of how our failure of strategic vision distorts our ability to win the war. So long as the terror masters’ killers can freely cross the borders from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran in order to deliver money, weapons, expertise, and manpower, it is hard to imagine that any conceivable number of American soldiers could defeat them.
It's a great article, go read it.

I note that since WWII, we have forgotten how to wage a world war. Regional conflicts have global implications. To limit our military response to a particular country creates a safe haven for our enemies. During WWII, we invaded Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Italy, France, and Belgium (I'm sure I'm forgetting someone) before we got around to invading Germany. There were no safe havens for Nazis (or the German Military) and we went after them wherever we found them. Eisenhower held together an often fractious alliance without losing sight of the real issues, which was the defeat of Hitler.

Like Mr. Ledeen, I suspect that a lot of us, on both sides of the aisle have been asking the wrong questions about the WOT. If you ask the wrong question, then the answer isn't helpful and the debate is bogged down. Lets ask the right questions.

1 comment:

Rivrdog said...

During the 'Nam, the futility of this kind of strategy usually elicited this languid comment from any enlisted troop asked for his opinion:

"Sir, it's a f***ed up war."

Now this one is, too.

And you are correct: the US of A hasn't done a war right since WW2. Desert Storm wasn't done right, since we stopped too far short of the logical objective.