I am going
to get a strategy soon. No you aren’t. My Mommy is bigger than your Mommy. Come on guys,
you can do better than that.
The media is
punch drunk on strategy. Republicans, of course, are giddy over the President’s
admission that he has no strategy for ISIS in Syria. The President is resolute that it takes time
to design a strategy and as soon as he convenes important meetings with leaders
on seventeen planets, he will announce exactly how he and they will both
destroy and contain ISIS.
All of this
manic depressive chatter gets us absolutely nowhere and therefore makes the problem worse. You say – Larry, how can
you argue with strategy? Strategy is obvious. Strategy is like breakfast in the
morning. Peyton Manning would not start a game without a strategy. Samsung
Electronics has a clear and present strategy to destroy Apple. Jack Daniels plans
to take over the world. No organization can exist without a strategy.
As one who
taught for 169 years in a business school, I can hardly argue with the last paragraph. But the truth is that there are times when you can’t have a strategy – or at least
you can’t meaningfully advocate one. You might think of other examples but I
have one to press upon you today. When you wait too long to create a strategy
and everything starts to fall apart – it is time to have either a Hail Mary or
an escape route. College Joe doesn’t need an overall educational strategy when
he gets his math test back with an F on it. What he needs to figure out is if
he can find a way to bribe his math teacher. When the barn is burning, you don’t
think about how to prepare your horse to win the Kentucky Derby. Get a hose
and call the fire department.
See my
point? There is no strategy for ISIS
in Syria or Ellettsville. There is no strategy because the horse is out of the
barn. There is no strategy because we have let the problem get to where US
leadership will not tolerate a solution.
The
President seems to want a solution that involves political pressure either
among Iraqis, regional players or perhaps NATO. But no such solution is possible – at least
not for two hundred years or so. Whether you call it destruction or containment
– that bunch of yahoos is not going to win a Parcheesi game.
More
war-like approaches expounded by many hawkish Republicans are probably too late as well. Giving Kurds more modern equipment might help some but even with
US air power to create cover, it is dubious to think that the Kurds, the Iraqis,
and other partners will have the will to overcome a very motivated, entrenched, and
determined ISIS. In the end, any such military solution will have to involve US
troops and much more air cover. As in Vietnam many years ago, neither
party in the US has the stomach to do the kind of bombing that might be
effective in removing ISIS. There would be much too much collateral damage for either
party to withstand.
So there you
are. If there are no good tactical choices then it is hard to envision a
strategy. I
had one email interchange with a thoughtful friend and we started using words
like bullies and worse bullies. Do we want help from Iran and Syria to topple
ISIS? My friend says yes and he might be right. But we made friends with Russia
as the Allies toppled Hitler.That seemed like the right choice since
Hitler was a real menace. Like in our present dilemma the US waited too long to
enter World War II – and for more than 60 years we had to deal with a Russian
bear. Maybe we could have stopped Hitler
without selling our souls to Russia. Ask a Baltic friend how she enjoyed the
Soviet experience. Then ask a Ukrainian.
What do we
learn from all this? First, hesitation is often wrong. When something walks and
quacks like a duck then it is a duck. ISIS is like kudzu*. Once it gets into
your garden it will take over the whole neighborhood. If you wait to create an
alliance with neighbors or you hope science will soon invent a new weed killer,
then you will soon be choking in kudzu. Second, once you are forced to act quickly, don’t
argue about strategy. That just slows the solution even more – and guarantees
that no solution will be very effective. We may need to get help from dangerous
places. We may need to harm civilians. We may need to live with dangerous
consequences for decades. Quit arguing about strategy, make some tactical decisions, and get out a fire hose.
*From Wikipedia:Kudzu (/ˈkʊdzuː/, also called Japanese arrowroot[1][2]) is a group of plants in the genus Pueraria, in the pea family Fabaceae, subfamily Faboideae. They are climbing, coiling, and trailing perennial vines native to much of eastern Asia, southeast Asia, and some Pacific Islands.[2] The name comes from the Japanese name for the plants, kuzu (クズ or 葛?), which was written "kudzu" in historical romanizations. Where these plants are naturalized, they can be invasive and are considered noxious weeds. The plant climbs over trees or shrubs and grows so rapidly that it kills them by heavy shading.[3]
*From Wikipedia:Kudzu (/ˈkʊdzuː/, also called Japanese arrowroot[1][2]) is a group of plants in the genus Pueraria, in the pea family Fabaceae, subfamily Faboideae. They are climbing, coiling, and trailing perennial vines native to much of eastern Asia, southeast Asia, and some Pacific Islands.[2] The name comes from the Japanese name for the plants, kuzu (クズ or 葛?), which was written "kudzu" in historical romanizations. Where these plants are naturalized, they can be invasive and are considered noxious weeds. The plant climbs over trees or shrubs and grows so rapidly that it kills them by heavy shading.[3]
I love Kudzu. It is great for back yard fire pits. It probably could become a major agricultural crop if only science could use the root system to support marijuana.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, the US has always felt protected or at least isolated by our location on the globe. We only have to worry about the Canadians (no worry since they are just like us) or the Mexicans ( no worry since they take the jobs we do not like) Then there is the South Americans which seem to be climbing the economic ladder as they find that having elected officials is better for their economic growth than having dictators who are self serving....wow! what a discovery.
Back to ISIS. Since the Greeks, the Persians were always the bad guys. Remember the fake wooden horse? The Romans had the same issues and even the Mongols avoided the Persians. Then along came Islam, a hybrid of Judaism gone afoul.where God justified treating women like dogs and killing the infidels in hopes of going to heaven and getting 7 vestal virgins. Not to mention wearing the ugliest facial hairs one could imagine.
The Russians just want their country back but only because it is a main route for shipping oil across land. Putin is doing no more than we did by minding other countries business. The EU is too weak to do anything but more sanctions.
Korea? Why does one region prosper and the other becomes retarded. For the EGO of a short fat dictator vs a capitalistic society with free elections. We are continually faced with these stupid conflicts and the institution that was supposed to stop them stands by and does nothing...the UN.
So here we are like a page out of Hamlet. To or to not to do that is the question. There is no answer but to get the fire hose out,, pressurize it to 3,000 psi and wipe these idiots off of the earth. Seems a little barbaric? So is the loss of the contribution of the citizens from these countries and the things that have been stolen from them in the name of what?
Nice work James -- from Kudzu to Shakespeare. Who can argue with that? One caveat -- Russians have no claim to Ukraine. How the world can let them put their tanks and soldiers in another country is beyond me. Sanctions are doing little to deter the Bear and soon we will be in a no-win position in that place too.
DeleteViet Nam, Korea, Grenada Texas, California never belonged to us either. But I agree with you that the big bear should not be bullying members or want to be members of the EU., I wonder what would happen if they tried that with western China or one of the Stans countries. OK World War 3 has to start somewhere. Look at how the first world wars started and the underlying reason...getting resources. The US waited too long and paid a heavy price in lives for it's political ineptitude. The next war will be using atomic weapons, gas, lasers and robots. It will not be a nice one. Our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences. However, they are getting good training via the computer games and swords and guns movies.
ReplyDeleteI can assure you that the "selective" air strikes we are using now are mere pinpricks considering the size and scope of the problem, ISIS...or ISIL if your name is Obama. So we don't have a strategy. That's the time when you employ tactics to hold the fort until you get a chance to look at the big picture and develop a coherent plan. Coherency has never plagued this administration. Pinpricks are not going to hold the fort. We need some major wide-area bombing. Bring out the BUFFs and the BONEs! Oh, but what about collateral damage? Won't that just make the people in the region hate us more? Hey Clyde, those people are never going to love us, much less like us, us so what's another degree of hate matter?
ReplyDeleteOf course, you must have a strategy to follow up the airstrikes. "Winning" involves boots on the ground to secure it. Air power cannot win a war by itself. You can bomb the crap out of a particular place, but once the bombing stops, the gomers move back in, and you have to go bomb them again. A bomb can't hold the territory....well, and A bomb can, but I'm pretty sure we aren't ready for that escalation, yet.
We had the Taliban on the run and on their knees in Afghanistan until W decided to abandon the plan and go after Saddam. We never seem to learn that nature abhors a vacuum, power or otherwise. As in Vietnam, we lost an opportunity for a major victory by abandoning a strategy to pursue a nation-building pipe dream. Won't those Iraqis love us now! Of course, LBJ's strategy in Vietnam was like Georgia Tech against Georgia...not playing to win but playing not to lose. How'd that turn out? Looks like we're playing not to lose in this one, too, because we have a leadership vacuum....in the WH and all over the federal bureaucracy.
Good post Larry! Brings back way too many bad memories, though.
Thanks Fuzzy -- I am just happy that you got out of Vietnam alive. When I saw you at Tan Son Nhut in 1972 I wasn't sure you would.
ReplyDeleteDid I look that bad?
ReplyDeleteYou looked fine -- it was what you were doing that was more than dangerous.
DeleteYou both look marvelous for old people. Fuzzy, you are right either play to win or get out of the game. If lives have to be spent make sure there is a noble purpose. It never pays to procrastinate. I expect the speech tonight will be milk toast compared to what should be done. World War 2 is the last time we played to win.
ReplyDeleteDear LSD. As you know I am not an Obummer fan—he’s incompetent for POTUS and I’m so sorry and embarrassed that a gulag-organizer commands our military. But this latest terrorist doo-da is literally unlike nothing the U.S./world has been. I don’t point a finger at his “no strategy yet” admission . . . actually probably the one truthful statement he’s made in years.
ReplyDeleteThe ISIS, or whatever, emergence derives not from territorial, military, or political hegemony . . . its essence is religious and fanatical . . . comparable to a virus immune to political/diplomatic antibiotics. Its constituents have no values consistent with non-violent religions or Western values and therefore cannot be negotiated. The conventional approach is to bomb them/boots on the ground out of existence. But, that’s tactical . . . and not having the benefit of Obummer’s grand strategy yet (will preview tomorrow) . . . the only way to eradicate the radical Muslim threat is to confront all the petro-dictators/countries that support radical Muslimism . . . shutting off access to US markets, financial benefits, etc. . . . . making them global pariahs . . . no ifs ands or buts . . . . call them out for what they are. Tell the world the US will not tolerate any support of radical Muslimism, draw the red line in the sand and enforce it. But, of course, the spineless Obummer and terrorist-calling-resistant POTUS and UN won’t stand for such candor.
Bombing and boots on the ground—tactical—won’t kill the beast.
Thanks Charles. My point in the blog is that our lateness in action means that no strategy or set of tactics is going to be palatable to US and other world voters. The collateral damage is too large for any politician to take. Your economic remedy would have large costs and would surely slow an already weak world economy. To politicians, that is as dangerous to their health as boots on the ground. As such what we will get is a lot of fanfare and tough talk followed by inaction and finger pointing. Obama wants a coalition and the failure to form and execute such a coalition will absolve him of continued miniscule progress. Much light. No heat.
DeleteDear LSD. I got the blog’s point—being late and leading from behind is Obummer’s default foreign policy strategy . . . and that immediate action is needed. My point is that that limp approach—despite whatever immediate action is taken—will result in prolonged “corrective action(s)” afterwards. And after viewing Obummer’s “strategy” last night I am more sure of that . . . that his “strategy” is tantamount to whack-a-mole and that the root cause—which I suggested previously—isn’t being addressed. The root cause being the support of radical Islam by petro-dictators/countries and that while immediate action with or without a coalition is taken corrective action(s) will be a continuing occurrence unless that support is stopped.
DeleteConfronting the petro-dictators/countries and possibly incurring economic costs (I presume in the US) and affecting an already sluggish economy might be the price justified for a serious attempt (possibly not final, though . . ) to address impending terrorism and threats to the US for the foreseeable future. While that economic remedy might not fly with politicians it surely is consistent with Obummer’s aversion to direct military action.
Immediate action in the form of aerial bombing, forming a coalition, and whacking terrorists wherever they pop up is good show but it won’t sever the beast’s head . . . . Politicians might go along with that production and Obummer can sit back and say he did something, but unless the root cause of support by radical Islam advocates is confronted—be they trading partners or not—we will forever be whacking the ISISs of the future. It’s like Mr. Wrench—you can pay me know to address the long-term problem or continue footing the bill for whack-a-mole side shows.
Charles, I see your point but it doesn't avoid my main worry -- that we have come on too late and the costs are not tolerable to leaders or voters. Confronting petro-dictators/countries is, I think, a much bigger deal that you imagine. Like troops on the ground or bombing of civilians, getting tough with countries who buy oil may be too much in the way of economic costs. As such, our politicians will shy away from things that might work and are very unpopular so that they can focus on things that will not work but are less unpopular. It is a scary world out there.
DeleteDear LSD. Confronting petro-dictators/countries/advocates of radical Islam IS a big deal; facing reality always is. Suffering presumptuous short term political (presumably US) and/or presumptuous economic losses from reduced trade with petro-dictators in light of US energy surpluses and possible US energy exporting therefrom seems less a big deal. US political gains/losses are short term, but the costs of not addressing the radical Islamic threat are much greater and severe longer term and will endure way beyond the political lives of tepid/shy political decision/policy makers. My super-duper Excel discounted cash flow doo-das cannot calc the better outcome of confronting the root causes/sources of radical Islam now and ongoing vs. presumed political/economic losses during upcoming elections and short term. At some point one has to dispense with hard/rigid formulas and calcs and just do what is right (morally, at least in Western culture/society) no matter the political/economic cost.
DeleteScary world out there? . . . how about here in the US where sentiment exists for the expedient rather than for truth, justice, and the ‘merican way?
Dear Charles,
DeleteThere are two realities that are subject to differential calculation in light of uncertainty. First is the size of the global blowback that impacts us -- if we go after petro-dictators. Second is the real danger from ISIS to Americans. It is understandable that differences of opinions exist on these. What happens if we are underestimating the former and overestimating the latter? While I tend to agree with your judgments on this -- one has to give the opponents some due.