Presented by Gary Farber, this is a Winds of Change reprint, from Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing, written by: "Sgt. Stryker" and originally posted here.
It's a commentary on political independents, excessive partisanship, and who is to blame for future failures in preventing terrorism. With Joe's and the Sgt's blessings, I fully endorse what the Technical Sgt. has to say. Over to him:
"The one good thing that has come out of this week’s hysterical woman story is that it’s made me think about “single-issue voters” and the seeming paradox they represent.The Sgt. has an equally important "Morning in America" followup here, with a third to come.The story, and the response to it from the (forgive the pun) reactionary portion of the blogodome, is telling. Most of the blog responses to the story from the conservative wing or the “single-issue voters” was one of fear. “Could this be a dry run?", “This is why we need to profile all Arab males!", “The security doesn’t work, it’s up to us!” were all common responses to the story, which is odd because most of them base their support of the current Administration on the very fact that it has done a lot to protect us from future terrorist attacks. If you believe that this Administration is our last, best hope for Victory, then why do you carry-on as if nothing has changed or improved in the past three years? How do you rationalize the paradox? Most of the responses to the panicked woman story were indictments against the current Administration on the very issue that they say represents their over-riding decision to support the Administration. It doesn’t add up.
If I were a challenger to any incumbent in this election, my main question would be, “Are you safer now than you were 3 years ago?” Let’s go to the handy stand-by: The WWII Analogy. Three years into our entry into WWII, the entire nation had been converted to a wartime footing, the Army had ballooned to Olympian proportions and had subsequently conquered North Africa and Italy. The liberation of France was nearly complete and most were hoping that the war would be over by Christmas. The Marines had been island-hopping in the Pacific and steadily grinding toward Honshu island. Victory in Europe was less than a year away. Victory in Japan would come a couple of months after that.
The main point is that we were winning, we knew we were winning, and we knew the end was in sight. There was no question of another Pearl Harbor happening, and the Wolfpacks in the North Atlantic had been all but eliminated. Americans were confident and secure in their power.
Three years into this current war, we’ve invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. We’ve created a new Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. We created a “Transportation Security Administration". The nation and the government, however, are still on a peacetime footing. No sacrifice has been asked of the general populace. People are apparently still scared to fly and have no faith in the security apparatus meant to protect them. A sizeable portion of the public honestly believes that we’re not at war. Three years into this thing and we’re about as screwed-up a nation as we can be. If you want someone to blame for the state of things, then each of you needs to take a long, hard look into the mirror.
Most of you conservatives say we’re at war, yet you’d hardly know it from your actions. You engage in the same stupid partisan bickering and arcane gamesmanship as in peacetime. You say this Adminstration is strong against terrorism, yet your very actions and words betray your confidence in it. You support it because it uses strong words and invaded Iraq. When you eliminate all of your paradoxes about this Administration, that’s all you have left: you support this Adminstration because it talks tough and it invaded Iraq. Are you safer now than you were 3 years ago? You wouldn’t know it by listening to you.
Most of you liberals say we’re at war, but your war is against the President. You’re more concerned about defeating Bush than you are about defeating the enemy. To you, Bush is the enemy. Just like your conservative brethren, you’re more interested in political showmanship than doing anything to seriously help win this war. You oppose the President because he uses strong words and he invaded Iraq. Unlike the conservatives, you think that the security apparatus put in place after 9-11 does its job too well and does it against the wrong people. Are you safer now than you were 3 years ago? Obviously not. You think we’re on the verge of the Third Reich.
Do you want to know why I’m an independent? It’s because you conservatives and liberals are a stupid and silly people. You bicker and posture as if we have all the time in the world to defeat international terrorism. You say we’re at war and things need to be done right now when it’s politically convenient for you to do so, but you carry-on as if we’re still at peace. We have Americans dying overseas while they’re obstensibly trying to protect you, but all you can do is paint them as either untouchable heroes or pathetic victims. You can’t seriously debate the course of this war because for you, this isn’t a war against international terrorism, this is a war about personalities, specifically one personality: George W. Bush. For you, this isn’t a real war with real consequences, this is just another phoney war of opinion. You aren’t conservatives and liberals, you’re Phobos and Deimos: Fear and Panic. One of you uses the fear of external threats to win elections, the other tries to frighten us with internal threats. You both serve the same Master and that is why your supposed differences are as illusory as the fears you try to frighten us with. You’re more concerned with winning the next election than you are the real war. It’s a farce. This would make for a great comedy if it wasn’t so f*cking tragic.
If there’s another major terrorist attack on American soil and thousands more people die, remember who to blame on that day. The silly fools on both the left and right, after the proper period of mourning, will go back to their old props. The conservatives will blame the media and those dastardly liberals, while the liberals will blame the evil neocons and the President (if he’s still a Republican at the time). For them, and for us, the real blame will lay with that person staring back from the mirror. If we lose, it’s because we are all to blame: you, me, everyone. What did you do to prevent another attack? Who did you support in the government? Whose feet did you hold to the fire to ensure Victory? Who did you toss out of office or vote in? Why did you go about your business, thinking someone else would take care of everything? Why were you more concerned with winning an election than preventing another attack? How come you were more concerned about scoring minor political points than scoring major, meaningful victories against international terrorism? Why did you choose to become so caught-up in personalities rather than results? Why did more people have to die because you chose to continue with peacetime foolishness rather than wartime seriousness?
Am I safer now than I was 3 years ago? No. And I doubt I will be three years hence. I blame every single one of you reading this, but more importantly, I blame myself. We all share equal blame for the state of things today. September 11th was a freebie. You can reasonably say you didn’t see it coming, and those that said we were to blame for it were rightly chastised, but the next attack will be our fault. We have no excuses.
Sgt. Stryker's home blog is Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing. Gary Farber's home blog is Amygdala.
No sale.
As one of Donald Sensing's commenters asked re. this essay, who're you going to vote for in November? Winston Churchill?
There are limits to the insight contained in "a pox on both your houses."
Having followed (and occasionally commented on) the "Terror in the Skies" story, I see clear progress in understanding the key issues involved--at least among the subset of people who care enough to write in on comments threads here at WoC, at One Hand Clapping and at Michelle Malkin's site.
Yah, plenty of obtuse people to throw in their "throw Arabs off de plane" or "hysterical bigoted pseudojournalist" two cents' worth. So what else is new. This is what discussions among people with very different viewpoints looks like. I think we can deal with it, especially if the process leads to a keener appreciation of what the choices really are regarding security and civil rights, and what the government and private industry choices have been up to this point.
Thank you Gary and Sgt Stryker.
In response to Sgt Stryker’s comments posted here and the follow up link.
As many who post here have noted previously there are those of us who do not believe our politicians are doing the jobs we empowered them to do. Writing our congressmen and senators and screaming at the top of our lungs about the issues that are most important to us as individuals (priority) have gone unheeded for too long. Resolving ourselves to focusing on just the federal level alone is not enough. Our focus must also include state and local administrations along with our civic duty to aid in the efforts of securing our home land and winning the war.
Your comments concerning safety and security of Americans are well founded. I think most of us would agree that the main question as you suggest is ’Are you safer than you were 3 years ago?’ Your take on it is no. My take on it yes with the optimistic view that we can and will do better. Political pandering aside we are making progress.
Your comments concerning the establishment of ‘Home Land Security” and the political pandering leading to its’ implementation are well documented and like you there are those of us who have not forgotten. Like you that is why some of us are Independent and vote the issue not the party.
You’re analysis of pandering concerning Berger as being trivial I can’t agree with. It is his actions that lead to the potential destruction of our security. It is his actions that lead to the potential of giving the enemy the advantage. Reference the 7th hearing
‘From the mid 1970s when terrorists began to launch attacks in the Middle East and Europe, intelligence and border authorities knew that terrorists used forged or altered travel documents. By the 1980s the U.S. government had developed a Red Book used to guide and train consular, immigration and customs officers throughout the world on spotting terrorists. It included photographs of altered or stolen passports and false travel stamps also known as cachets used by terrorists. The importance of training border officials on use of the Red Book is evident from a U.S. government film entitled "The Threat is Real." Here is a brief excerpt.’
‘The U.S. government ceased publication of the Red Book by 1992, in part because it had fallen into the hands of terrorist groups. There continued to be a number of government efforts to provide information about generic forgery detection and document inspection techniques. Before 9/11 the FBI and CIA did know of some of the practices employed by al Qaeda. They knew this from training manuals recovered in the mid 1990s and from tracking and interrogations of al Qaeda operatives.’
Again thanks Sgt Stryker / Gary and I’m looking forward to his follow on commentary.
I really don't give a rat's rear end about what's-her-face peeing her pants about Arab guys on a plane.
There is one element of deep truth in all this, however, and that is that the cultural relativism -- political correctness -- social justice crowd is a decided hindrance in our war against militant Islam, and they are proud of that fact. I really don't care that they advocate the right of a couple of queers to 'marry' -- that won't get me killed.
However the Left maintains (and attempts to enforce) what Strauss & Howe ('Fourth Turning') would identify as decidedly 'post-seasonal' behavior. IOW their core principles and beliefs not only no longer apply in the current situation, but actually undermine our collective chances of success in a new and dangerous environment. Strauss & Howe go so far as to state fairly categorically that to the extent that the multi-cultural pluralists enjoy success going into the Crisis era, that crisis will be deeper, more intense and less likely to turn out well for the United States.
Those of us on the right who support Mr. Bush do so in spite of our recognition that much more must be done. Wahabbism and every single institution that supports it must be crushed beyond recognition because it is that 'terrorism' that is the enemy but a form of Islam that is every bit as distorted and dangerous as Bushido amongst the Japanese.
Because the Left militantly believes that a) all cultures and belief systems are equal, and b) because America says otherwise, it is America that is evil, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the Left must be defeated before we will be able to do what we have to do to crush Wahabbism and all its unbelievably ugly excrescences.
This time, and in this regard, I disagree rather profoundly with Stryker. There is no "History of Great Moderates" anywhere in the world.
Para 4 -- ... it is NOT terrorism that is the enemy, but a for of Islam ...
I will say here what I said to Stryker:
It is the wrong metric.
The Cold War started with Churchill's Iron Curtin speech. 1948
In 1951
Almost all of Eastern Europe was behind the Iron Curtain.
China had been lost to the Communists
The Korean situation was stabilized but bloody
"National Liberation Movements" were springing up every where.
Now the War we are in will probably last as long as the cold war. Why? It is not a matter of territory or possesions. It is, like the Cold War, a matter of belief.
If you measure where we are today relative to Cold War terms we are in excellent shape.
What the Sarge wants is a return to 9/10 and all the cozy assumptions of that day and the decade that came before.
We will not see it again for at least two decades and maybe ten.
If you look at human nature we see all men long for peace yet peace is an abberation. We should come to terms with our nature. India got it right in the Bagavad Gita. We have no choice but to fight. The only question is the cause.
I think AMac said most of what I wanted to say. Like Sgt. Stryker I'm fairly disillusioned with the details of what Bush is doing, and I'm not sure he knows what that is in a broad sense. For a convert to nation-building he certainly places that activity in rather low priority. There is no discipline of nation-building, nor any cadre of professionals dedicated either to doing in or to discovering and revealing its principles. There is no "critical path" that, like an architectural schematic, shows the structure of the plan as well as a means of testing whether or not its sound. Indeed he seems almost to have a phobia about approaching the task systematically. And whereas the Arab Middle East is "due," or "ripe," at the moment other areas of the world are ripening fast, including Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Within a decade, or sooner, we'll be pushing directly against China, in their sphere of influence.
And most importantly, there's a distinct ideological "movement" dedicated to countering any attempt we might make either to devise or implement a plan. In fact their metric for victory is the extent to which they can retard or scuttle any such plan. To listen to Gary Hart, who probably articulates the best that this group has to offer, you'd think the US were founded by the RCMP, and our job is to hold the door for the rest of the the planet. I'm afraid I don't even recognize what he believes to be founding "values" of the country.
And if there aren't two simultaneous shooting wars, there are certainly two simultaneous "wars of ideas" going on, one of which involves a decision about what our core values are going to be, and the other of which involves influencing a civilization to reject its perverse satellite culture.
We have a long way to go.
"Because the Left militantly believes that a) all cultures and belief systems are equal, and b) because America says otherwise, it is America that is evil...."
I hate to say anything that will turn the conversation towards partisan argument, but it's necessary to point out that this, despite assertion, has little to do with either party, no matter that many will insist it does.
It's a cartoon of Those Bad Guys Over There, not a portrait of either Democratic leaders nor most followers.
I know a zillion commenters will pour derision on that assertion, but that still won't make it true.
Go ahead, though. And, of course, we hear tell that it's Bush in a landslide. Re-assertion of that will be news, and enlightening us with depth of thought, because prognostication is, if we simply repeat it, over, and over, and over, and over, again. Repetition is truth, you know.
There is no way to fully plan nation building. You have men aiding you, men opposing you, and men indifferent. However the broad outlines are known.
1. Provide security
2. On the basis of security authority
3. Develop a viable private property system
4. Develop indiginous structures for security
5. Work out locally acceptable structures for the transfer of power during local regime change. (i.e. elections)
6. Transfer authority.
And we do have experts. Believe it or not the military and the foreign service have cooperated in the past to nation build. They have the records and a track record. They get it right about 50% of the time but so far for the critical cases (Japan, Germany) they are 100%. A pretty fair record when it comes to human events.
Iraq looks like it will be a success story.
Saddam has soured them on the alpha male model of regime change. My guess is that excepting some tribal interests (we dealt with those harshly in America) enough people want an elected government to make it work.
The Left =/= the Democratic Party. Even if one believes, as I do, that its influence on that party is growing and that Belmont Club's thesis re: the Left and this war is in fact true, there would still be many people on the Democratic side of the fence who are (a) serious about defending their country and (b) therefore worth working with per Stryker's recommendations (and earlier, Gary's as well).
So Gary is largely right.
We'll be publishing and linking to a few reactions and thoughts on the 9/11 commission over the next week, but they will all have a common denominator: they will be thoughtful, professional assessments rather than attempts to score partisan points. And they will come from both sides of the political aisle.
Joe
Again we are back to the point we have all mentioned before. The war in Iraq and Terrorism are not partisan issues and should not be viewed as such just because the news media, sports idols, rock stars, and movie stars say so.
Attacking the executive branch will not make the issues any better. Holding the legislative branch by the scruff of the neck and forcing them not to shirk their responsibilities will. Is the legislative branch the answer to all of our problems? No they aren't but they are granted the power to legislate based on the will of the people. Regardless of executive / judicial powers. Judicial powers are required to enforce the legislative act and nothing more.
The plan as M. Simon so aptly puts it although not all inclusive is not unlike the plan for our own nation. Difference is we aren't starting from scratch.
OK, I know there are experts. I even know some of them (Larry Diamond, Juan Lintz, etc.). The point is that we're essentially doing this ad hoc, throwing in an expert here or there. The best thing we have going for us are the troops and personnel we have on the ground, not because there's any systematic plan for doing this, but because they're Americans... so have a certain natural facility for sewing the seeds of what they know. We create national prodigies... sometimes.
But it'd be a damn sight less costly, and the odds of success a damn sight better than 50% (which, frankly, isn't really good enough) if we took some real pains to institutionalize what is partly art and partly science.
Take transfer of authority, your last outline point. Lipset wrote a first rate book on why so few nations have travelled the route of the US, and it's still pretty relevant. And it's not that it can't be done. It's that it's really a form of alchemy for which Americans have a certain knack, but that can be developed into something profoundly more powerful with the right sort of focus. The State Department? Sorry, but those guys just have the wrong sort of training. They're very clever, but don't know much about nation-building, unless they picked it up from their recreational reading. What they know are broad theories like "realism," which basically teaches that nation-building is, by definition, unrealistic.
Upon the process of building democracies from autocracies and tyrannies rests the success or failure of the War on Totalitarianism, and quite possibly our own survival. Do you really think a few broad points are adequate? I don't. Not for an instant.
Well that's pretty breezy. I'd say that tribalism is about the only reliable source of legitimation for a new government, which will inevitably face a crisis of legitimacy sooner or later (and probably sooner). Building on that source, and institutionalizing it into the new state, without giving away the farm, and while creating more robust and durable legal/rational legitimacy will be no easy task. Just how do we play it? Trial and error? How big an error do you suppose we can afford to make?
USMC,
The courts have one other function besides enforcing laws. Protection of rights. Protection of rights is the one that causes all the trouble.
====================================== Scott, I think you have missed the systematic plan due to concentration on explosions. The systematic plan. 1. Local elections 2. Regional elections 3. National elections At some point in this process you have a constitutional convention (elected reps to this are best if possible - there will be some dictation for critical points by the occupying power), then national elections. The critical point is not the first government in Iraq. It is the second. You actually have hit the nail on the head. Americans have a natural facility for this sort of thing. It is the reason that when an area calls for peacekeepers Americans are greatly preferred. We have institutionalized the science as much as can be done. Teach the Constitution and how it came into being. As to the art? Americans have been making it work continuously for longer than any one else on the planet. We are truly artists of democracy. Why do I think a few broad points are all you need? Because the rest will be based on local agreements. Just as our Constitution compromised certain interests. However, we know certain ponits are essential. 1. Equality before the law - honest judges 2. Women's rights to participate in the political process 3. Maximum of liberty - especially economic 4. Property rights secured Comparing the Japan Constitution to the American one ought to be quite helpful in moving forward. The reason that this is so hard to plan is because at every step you must obtain agreements before the next step can become effective. The success of any such policy will depend more on the people implimenting it than on anything else. Fortunately we are Americans. These are the kind of jobs we do better than any one else. Ever. If a few broad point are not adequate then you have an opportunity. Since you can see the holes: fill them. Let us hear about what your plan might be. It is easy to criticize. How about some solutions? =============================================Science:
The steps I outlined.
Art:
Making agreements based on local conditions.
=========================================Tribalism is not a good basis for nationalism. It leads to severe factionalism and lack of trust across boundaries. America's success is due in main to its lack of tribalism. We have replaced it with long distance trust.
" Just how do we play it? Trial and error? How big an error do you suppose we can afford to make?"
Trial and error in biology is called learning to adapt to local conditions. It works pretty good. It is called a feedback controlled system when humans practice it. What you are hoping for is an open loop system that can just be turned on and will then run to the desired condition without respect to local conditions.
Feedback systems are more robust. They adapt.
What you are asking for is a template we can drop in and it will work. There is none. We can not make them adopt the exact American Constitution we use without adapting it to local circumstances. This is pure art. Robert's Rules of Order can help. There is no blueprint.
But I could be wrong. - Do you have a blue print? I'd like to see it.
===================================As to how big an error can we make?
Depends on the capacity of the system and the allowable time for recovery. A way to determine the ultimate capacity of a system is to shock it and see the response. Or you can keep upping the gain until it oscillates.
However this is all very difficult because human systems are quite non-linear. And causing instability is not a good idea when the focus is on restoring stability. And then you have the interactions of not just ten or a hundred subsystems but hundreds of thousands. The problem cannot be calculated.
So you make changes and watch for instabilities. Feedback.
Feedback systems are living systems.
Let me do the first paragraph to Scott again better format:
Scott,
I think you have missed the systematic plan due to concentration on explosions.
The systematic plan.
1. Local elections
2. Regional elections
3. National elections
At some point in this process you have a constitutional convention (elected reps to this are best if possible - there will be some dictation for critical points by the occupying power), then national elections. The critical point is not the first government in Iraq. It is the second.
You actually have hit the nail on the head. Americans have a natural facility for this sort of thing. It is the reason that when an area calls for peacekeepers Americans are greatly preferred.
We have institutionalized the science as much as can be done. Teach the Constitution and how it came into being. As to the art? Americans have been making it work continuously for longer than any one else on the planet. We are truly artists of democracy. Why do I think a few broad points are all you need? Because the rest will be based on local agreements. Just as our Constitution compromised certain interests. However, we know certain ponits are essential.
1. Equality before the law - honest judges
2. Women's rights to participate in the political process
3. Maximum of liberty - especially economic
4. Property rights secured
Comparing the Japan Constitution to the American one ought to be quite helpful in moving forward. The reason that this is so hard to plan is because at every step you must obtain agreements before the next step can become effective.
The success of any such policy will depend more on the people implimenting it than on anything else. Fortunately we are Americans. These are the kind of jobs we do better than any one else. Ever.
If a few broad points are not adequate then you have an opportunity. Since you can see the holes: fill them. Let us hear about what your plan might be. It is easy to criticize. How about some solutions?
Scott,
As to your desire to get it perfectly right the first time: that is not what feedback systems are about.
We might have to fail and try again. Certainly the reconquest of Iraq ought to be no problem for our military for at least 10 years and perhaps as long as 30.
This is a very long war. A few defeats are to be expected. Yes they are disheartening. Yes they sap morale. But if they can be overcome we will be much stronger. Remember Dec 7 to June 2 in WW2 was a series of defeats and losses. Even strategic wins were often tactical defeats (Coral Sea). We were learning how to fight. We learned.
Much of the success our military is having is due to the loss in Vietnam. Our #1 problem in Vietnam was the government the French left behind. We have no such problem in Iraq. So we have a better military and fewer impediments. Pretty fair odds for success. The military has always been the first line for nation building.
For Americans the very first step in nation building is chocolate for the kids. i.e. making personal friends with the natives. We do that real well. Our boys and girls are superb. Citizen volunteers. The best.
Did I mention that in terms of East meets west we have several million people in the area practiced in Western ways and also with deep understanding of the Middle East? The Israelis. Their political expertise will be of very great help.
BTW 50/50 odds are not so bad. Two tries give you a 75% chance of a positive outcome. Four tries give you almost 95% chance of success. By the time you have done it ten times you ought to be quite experienced and just given the odds you are up to 99.9%. No, all the tries are not statistically independent etc. But we are not trying for exactness just a rough estimate.
M. Simon
Point well taken on the courts and if I implied the courts only job was to enforce laws that was not my intent.
As far as the feed back issue goes the determining factor is the populace and regime in charge. One must keep in mind feed back is negative / positive / inconsequential. It is what the populace and regime do with the feed back that is important.
What the regime and populace sees as a positve feed back may be negative in terms of outside looking in perspectives. This is part of an entire set of issues we are dealing with.
Great comments; M. Simon did a good post on local elections first (I've harped on that before).
In Iraq, you're missing the need for local districts, rather than national party slates -- the party slates will degenerate into Kurdish/ Sunni/ minority independence parties.
The big fear is Iran; getting nukes; letting terrorists get them.
Probability of a nuke in the next 4 years?
With Bush - 10%
With Kerry - 40%
Bush should push, NOW, for regime change in Sudan. And prolly more sacrifices in America -- I think a regime change GAS tax would be good, painful, but understandable and acceptable.
The goal: A World Without Dictators
(in my lifetime!) one country at a time.
See my Fantasy Bush Speech on Sudan
http://tomgrey.motime.com/post/314378#314378