Comments for H&I* Fires 21 SEP 2007

H&I* Fires 21 SEP 2007

2007-09-22T04:46:08Z

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

**********************************

The French lose a soldier in Afghanistan, in an attack that killed the soldier and wounded many civilians nearby. In other fighting, 75 Taliban and six civilians were killed. The headline? 82 Killed in Afghanistan Violence. True enough. Fair and balanced... but misleading, too. Especially since the public is used to headlines like that from Iraq generally meaning a mass casualty event among civilians from a bomb. The vast bulk of the casualties in Afghanistan were Taliban combatants.

I like this one though - SC Mom scoops Al Qaeda. Another raid by the Army of Davids.

Meanwhile, out at the Castillo Nuevo:

I saw that a couple of the boys had slipped into the proto-Arms Room of Argghhh! to check out their new digs, still under construction - but there's a light at the end of that tunnel. -the Armorer

*********************************

Not to make this blog all preachy since it's Friday, the day of original sin, but... I kind of agree with John Derbyshire over at NRO: Islamaphobiaphobia. I don't think we're at war with Islam. I believe if people freely choose to practice Islam without the threat of death and without infringing on the rights of individuals, that okay by me. Although, the idea that the fermentation of grapes and grains is bad, kind of gets my goat around 'Rita time and the idea that those who wish to leave it should be killed can make me nervous. But, Islam itself?

Robert Spencer is interesting because I have learned a lot about Islam, but I also know that terrorism is a self fulfilling prophesy that doesn't need a religion to make it so.

On another note, vis-a-vis a conversation with Ry re: whether such extremists have something other in mind besides killing people, I believe thiat Victor Davis Hansen is either as brilliant as bloggers here or is reading our stuff:
]What Does Bin Laden Want?]
-Kat

********************************

Someone is having a birthday... Congrats, Bloodspite! -the Armorer

*******************************

The Lex family had a close call, inspiring a tribute to a furry family member, that will likely resonate with a number of Castle Denizens. - FbL

*******************************

]]> *A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone"

Comment from ry on 2007-09-23

2007-09-23T08:15:57Z

First, let's not take liberties with history. Argentina at the time of the Falklands was a right wing gov't supported by the US against the Red Spread(TM) in Latin America, and the coup forces weren't that keen on Communism either(being Peronists). So it wasn't Grenada or Nigeria where the Brits went in to halt a geopolitical bit of momentum by the Global Soviet. The devil is always in the details. More broadly I would agree. Actions taken by the West that isn't in such good lights now didn't just happen just for, how does Bill say it?, "Chits and giggles." On that I agree, but not how the Falklands is being used here. Britain was most definitely not fighting to counter communism by going to defend the Falklands. Even the Argentinians who dreamed up the plan of taking the Falklands/Malivinas back don't list economics as a motivator. No, they claim it was a nice bit of what's known as 'Periclean strategy' where you start a war to get people un-interested in domestic politics(the original Periclean Strategy having been claimed to be started to protect Pericles from an investigation about siphoning off money during a major construction move by Athens). That should give one pause about claiming all war can be explained in terms of economic motivators. Neither side saw economic benefit in going to war, neither side had economic interests on the line, neither side saw the land as more than a political prop, but yet a war was fought and a goodly number of men died fighting it. Which is why I invoke crystal field theory when dealing with economic determinism. There's exceptions, lots of them, and so many that it becomes a real convoluted mess to keep straight why it applies in full here but not here, or only partially here but not there, and..... It has its applications. LIke CFT was useful in explaining the magnetic properties of some things, worthless for others, but was the only tool we had until MO theory came around so too is economic determinism good at some situations and the worst possible choice in others. But mostly I have to be Inigo Montoya with regards to the Falklands. "I don't think it means what you think it means." (Chit, I'm sooo going to be in trouble when Jess wakes up to find me still in front of the computer.) "As noted, I did not say that oil was the only method of economic warfare or for their own economic survivability, just that, today, oil is the base of economy just as agriculture and mining were once the base or spices, gold, etc. It is ever changing." Al's going to be pissed about all the quasi-Fisking goin' 'round here. Oh, well, I have to at least attempt to get into bed before Jess wakes up. Frying pan to noggin no feel good. I think you're missing the point I'm rather jerkily trying to convey here. Economic disruption is a means to an end. Not the end itself. FOllowing the money is a means to an end and not an end of itself. The ports on the Med side of the Levant were taken by Alexander not to deny their economic value to the Persians, but instead for their logistical value in tying him back to Greece. The economic value, while not nothing, was simply a bonus. The economic hurt was a peripheral. Alexander bypassed many important economic targets in his march towards the Tigris/Euphrates river valley. He did so because the economic lever has only limited utility. The theory that pushed LeMay and Harris into believing that bombing population centers was proved at least partially in error. While it did a decent job of wrecking the economy it didn't end the war cheaply or break the will of the German people. Ancient and modern examples of how pressing on the economic lever doesn't do much of anything for a conflict because economics is only a means to an end. Breaking the economy is not overthrow of the opposing gov't or bringing him into line with your will. Following the money has only limited value in war at the level we're talking about(one could talk about logistics as being an economy---as Kat has already alluded to in talking about attacking lines of communications and supply depots). Where did economic reasoning work? Cutting your opponent off from his Magazine comes to mind. Operation Anaconda and *ahem* **Sherman's March to the Sea** being some othr fine examples where economics was the key to victory. The difference is in looking at who the enemy is and what it is they want to be. The Confederacy wanted to be a very modern nation and thought about war in terms of in the Napoleanic style. So, yes, it did work against them. Wouldn't work against the Persians, and didn't against the Nazis. It depends on who we're talking about. "Okay...I think you should retract that one. Acre? how many ports does the "Levant" have? Trade routes? Why did the Romans want it so long ago? Cause they wanted to own a carppy piece of desert with brown people who kept revolting for the purpose of training their legions for much more important battles?" Nope, stand by it. Not just to be a punk either. In the age of sail and steamship the Levant lost almost all value. Was economic backwater. It cost more for Johnny Turkey to garrison the place than he could get out of it. Economic determists cannot explain why the Ottoman Empire, the 'sick man of Europe', was capable of fighting on or even coming to the fight at all with the crap economy it had. The Levant had lost all real economic value, prior to the discovery of petroleum there, because it was a whole lot faster, cheaper, and more efficient to send it all by sea. portage the cargo across a small part of Sinai(where Suez is now, if memory serves), and then by ship on off to Europe. No longer needed the 'silk road'. No longer was the necessity or even boon it had been for quite a bit before that. But in WW1 the only value it had was strategic----to get at the Turks and put them out of the war by owning it. Zero economic value. Economics does not explain the value of attacking it(control of the Dardenells may have an economic impact). And let's not forget that it really only is small portions of the Levant that had any economic value, at any point in history including ancient times. Antioch and such. More than quite a bit of that land was useless for a very long time---which explains why the critical mass of population necessary for a capitalistic, or even industrial, society to emerge there, at least is one reason for why. "How about Salt? You know, once upon a time, salt was the basis of economy? No refrigeration meant long term survivability depended on salting and storing food stuffs?" Absolutely true. So? Was the LEvant the only place salt could be gathered, or mining the only way? No other sources that were easier to hold onto? It is a true statement, salt has played an immense role in history. but still, so? There's copper mines, tin mines, and other workable metal mines there----except they were too hard to work because the conditions sucked massively and other sources existed that were closer to home for many nations(the nations that bordered for sure). Little to no economic value because of the effort expended was not recovered by what was taken out. Economic money pit. "Now you're slipping into the "paradigm of singularity" as if the Falklands were in a vacuum. " Nope, just taking economic determinism at its face. If economics is the core of all wars then some major economic factor should stick out prominently with the Falklands. There is none. None of the island chains that the Falklands war was fought over sits strategically on anyone's SLOC nor provided a major source of trade for either nation. If one claims that economics is at the root of every war then there better well be one in every war. There is none in the Falklands. (Gawd, when did I become my flesh and blood older brother?) "The non-vacuum you ignored was the expansion of communism into South America supported by the Soviets which would eventually interfere with the greater trade Britain realized among the South American nations. They needed to appear capable of defending their trade and nominal economic allies so the USSR and their ideological adherents down in the jungles wouldn't get to uppity." Again, don't be overly liberal with history. Monroe Doctrine? That S. America was largely seen as the US' balliwick? If that is true then why was the UK doing the exact opposite by removing just about everything of the RN from the region? Could it be that the UK didn't need to do that because someone else was already doing it(namely us), or that such a rationale is quite simply untrue of the situation? "Why did Hitler want Alsace-Lorraine?" Because it made a nice vector to attack into France with maybe? Just maybe? Remember, I'm the guy who says that economics can be a factor, but isn't always nor is it always the main factor. I'm not amorphic and having no intellectual ground to defend, but this isn't getting at my position at all. Hitler had many reasons for going after Alsace-Loraine. Why did Hitler want Belgium? Was he going to supplement the industrial power he was getting out of the Rhine River Valley by taking it? Or did it simply serve a purely military strategic purpose? So waging war against Belgium at that point had no economic point whatsoever then? The Chinese have MANY reasons for going after Taiwan. One of them, yes, being economic. Taiwan is a major high quality electronics producer. They could use that. But, mostly, it is for national pride. To right a wrong they've suffered for CENTURIES. Hell, even when the Portugese held it around 1600(with nobody like a mainland Chinese anywhere to be found on the rock) it belonged to The Middle Kingdom and it was only the damned Europeans, upstart fools, who denied it to them(see, the CHinese sailed all over the Far East and so it's all ours! Bwahahahaha!). No, really, that is a comical take on their reasoning but at the core it is---we went there first, it belongs to us, and you guys just denied us our property. That was the reasoning behind the validity of Argentina to invade the Falklands. Land has purpose. It can also be useless. Various people have shown control of people is more important than control of land. Yes, some land is of critical value. I don't deny that. But if Arizona was to claim all of Death Valley not a Californian would complain about it---welcome to it. Only certain bits of land are of any real economic value. There's a difference between the perception of being in charge and capable and legitimate for a gov't, and economic value. Someone could blockade Oregon for a century and it wouldn't make a difference. Blockade California? That's different. Don't mistake the need for perception of validity gained by maintaining integrity with economics. The two are not the same. (Chit. That's all I'm giong to be able to do tonight.) And John's still a hater. [Am not. Punk. - the Armorer] (Are too.--ry)

Comment from Trias on 2007-09-22

2007-09-22T14:36:20Z

Good gracious the petri dish is still bubbling and fuming.

Comment from ry on 2007-09-22

2007-09-22T07:50:40Z

I have yet to cede the field of battle! But damn I'm I tired, and tired of fighting with Kat. Exhausting work. Til the morrow, when I shall continue to make an @55 of myself!

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-22

2007-09-22T06:43:13Z

Wow..can't finish a thought above or use proper grammar. time for bed. Good night.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-22

2007-09-22T06:30:48Z

I am basically talking to myself, but I did promise a nice long response to Ry. I didn't want him to think I was "skimming".

They were also helped, immensely, and not just Bader-Meinhoff but the entire slew of violent socialists like the Italians had, by 'passing the hat' and informal economic relationships. The IRA is a classic example. The Code Pink issue is another($600K from a charity? That's serious money to terrs.)Renditions to Mexico? HOly Chit that's almost a third of the Mexican economy! Don't try to tell me that charity or the 'Rich Uncle' can't keep a nation afloat when it frickin' already does.

First of all, the only one of those that you may have a mark on is Mexico. We keep talking around in circles. I admit that Islamists, underground movements, like separatists, can exist for a long time on "donations" and illegal trade, but they are still practicing economics for survival, whatever the base of their economy might be. But eventually, as I noted in our many previous conversations, they all want to set up their own controlling government. All of these movements, even so called anarchists, always believe that there will be a central government that will simply enforce their ideological views, even if it is anarchy. Even the Islamist. but, before they can do that, they have hold the land and be physically secure. They have to be able to provide a stable base of economics to provide for their subjects and maintain that security. As the state grows, so do their economic needs. It is one thing to provide this economic need through illegal means like drugs and guns when the financial responsibilities are limited, but it is another to be financially responsible for the security and economic existence of a nation. Particularly one so large as that they envision including some rather large and highly populated emirates or states. As for your "Mexico" remark, I think of them in two contexts. First, prior to Reagan, with the various monarchies, revolutions and flirts with Communism and Socialism, I really believe we had no interest in Mexico as a developed nation. In fact, we would have viewed their economic development as a threat. I think Louisiana Purchase, Annex Texas and California, etc in context to why we would not want Mexico to prosper by good trade with us or anyone else. While their continued wars was somewhat of a threat, I think that is the purpose of that vast expanse of nothingness in Texas: one gigantic gate to armies of the south. Later, it was simply about having the economic superiority that gave us the military superiority to ignore them. It wasn't until much later when the expansion of communism was so rampant, that we began to consider the danger of a poor nation to the south. It's really only then that we began to consider their economic viability. Mexico does have an economy. the fact that we are the "rich uncle" is neither here nor there. That is not a good economic source, nor one any state should or would consider as a major source. It leaves them vulnerable to the demands, the power and to the stability of said uncles. Mexico has tied their existence to ours and its not a bad trade, although, as noted by many a Mexican law on land ownership, etc they fear their independence would be destroyed by an over flow of American companies with their revenue, tax and lobby money leading to virtual take over. so, at they have come to an accommodation with us. We provide them security and economy, they stay the poor cousin and we get cheap labor to keep inflation from going crazy and allows us to compete. We are the Rich Uncle who is imminently stable. The Rich Uncles of AQ are not so stable, even with their petro dollars and such. They can be arrested and bombed out of existence, including Iran. any nation, particularly a start up nation, that tries to exist on such a pretext without a stable economy and economically AND militarily powerful "Rich Uncle" would be the most unstable nation on the planet. rife with intrigue and revolutionaries just waiting to be bombed out of existence if they ticked off the other "Rich Uncle" Sam (unless, of course, such an uncle was weakened with political and economic cancer, then their Rich Uncle could be safer, more stable and so could they). So, I have to say that Mexico is an exception that stands on our economic, political and military shoulders. You also mention the IRA. Sure, they had plenty of rich and not so rich uncles, but eventually, both Britain and the Sinn Fein decided that the economic and political benefits of power sharing was much more viable than continued scrounging for support from said uncles, particularly after certain financial laws here in the US started to put the kaibosh and their many mini-rich uncles cash flow. IN other words, when Sinn Finn could realize some of their dreams as a "nation" and governance, the uncles were no longer a viable source. did all of their sympathizers and members imagine living off of their uncles forever or did they want to realize their own economic and political power? It's Mao "On Guerrilla War". They followed the path exactly.

As long as there's a major player someone out there who doesn't like us there'll be something like under the table donations from said major player.

Yes. As long as they are not a "nation" but roaming bands of criminals, that's good. As a nation? Not so good, particularly if, eventually, they want to realize their own power and nation. Do you think that the Islamist want to find themselves beholding to Iran or a bunch of "uncles" forever? They want their own Caliphate with their own rules and their own power. They want power over these "uncles". If the uncles are lucky, they'll get to live in it without being swallowed whole. Let's say, on the off hand, that the Islamists take over Saudi Arabia. Do you really think that they would simply stop pumping oil out and stop all trade with all countries, thus cutting off their noses to spite their faces? Or, do you think they would use this economic power to attempt to realize the rest of their dreams? We know the answer already because Osama and Zawahiri both issued directives at one point that these resources not be harmed beyond repair because the Caliphate would need it. I think, after this long discussion, they answered the question for me. The only reason they contemplated harming it recently (recall the 172 "radicals" that were rounded up in the Saudi desert with a huge cache of arms and explosives ready to blow up the giant oil complex), was because they felt that it's continued existence at this time was more damaging than any usefulness it could hold for the future. In fact, by taking that off the table at first, they took away an extremely powerful weapon. I have to say, looking at the numbers of Saudis that were traveling to Iraq for jihad and that eventually dwindled away this year, the jihadists broke their truce with the royals and were highly damaged by that raid and subsequent activities of the security apparatus. Of course, tied with the Sunni Iraqi rejection and the threat to Syria that the advent of terrorists through their borders was about to tick us off badly helped as well. But, remember that, the potential economic destruction of Saudi Arabia by these internal forces, forced them to do what all of our appeals had not.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T04:42:22Z

In just about every situation where people claim economics was teh deciding factor the counter factual of 'There was more money to be made by siding with than against' is never explored(Try WW2 without the US embargo against Japan, which doesn't lead to massive rationing and 1/20th of every dollar earned in the US from 1945-1960 being spent to rebuild Europe.).

You are so short visioned. Why do you think everything is about the short term? And who said the decisions always make sense? Look at the Japanese historically. when they first open up trade to the west, what happens to them? Their entire class and economic system is turned upside down. The middle class businessman begins to rise against a privileged samurai class. Japan began to experience the industrial age while simultaneously experiencing a crisis of identity. They believed, as do these current nut jobs, that their identity was being crushed by the west and their inability to compete. They believed they were superior in every way. Except one: trade. We owned the trade in the area and we were not about to share it with some little island nation that, less than a hundred years previous, did not know what a frigate looked like, much less how to advance trade beyond the China sea. Not to mention, it really hadn't been that long since the great depression. We were equally struggling to expand, improve and secure our economic survival. Of course we looked negatively on their attempts to expand into that territory aggressively and subsequently embargoed their oil. NOt to mention, mister I can only see one slice of history at a time, Japan and Germany already had economic and diplomatic ties. Germany was busy selling weapons and providing military officers to Japan while simultaneously sucking up Alsace-Lorrain, Poland and Austria. You think we were interested in making an economic pact with the folks who were nominal allies of the folks starting to chew up Europe? come on Ry...give me something else. This was about long term survivability on our part as well as the near future. We had hit our frontiers and had no where else to go right before the big bust unless open trade allowed us to compete with other nations for economy. Imperial Japan, Fascist Germany and communist Russia...we had to start drawing the line somewhere or we would be cooked. I always think about when people say "we could have been speaking German", not just because Germany could attack us, but because they would have become the major economic player in the world. Whoever that is, whatever their language, it becomes the language of the world. Once upon a time it was French and Italian, then it was British English and now it is American English. In the long run, it was not cheaper to play ball with any of them.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T04:23:36Z

You're also glossing over that the East Germans, much less The USSR, had serious hard currency problems(not to mention the hard core internal fights over whether or not terrorism was acceptable to true Lennist-Marxist thought).

yes, they did have hard currency problems. What did the East German's want from West Germany? Ideological unity? Why did Hitler want Alsace-Lorraine? Look, when you view a country's territory, you are viewing their economic survival. Lack of water, minerals or arable land for agriculture determines their survivability as well as their ability to develop goods for trade and improve the economy. No economy, no military to defend the land. No land, no country. Not forgetting of course, that we were at economic war with them our free trade and supply side economics trumped any controlled prices economy any day. They simply could not compete. East German's wanted the economic power of the West. Read the history. First thing East German's wanted when the wall came down? Unified currency. If the USSR could implant and support ideological partners that would willingly place price controls on their goods and benefit, the more they could support, the more they had access too without competing with the US. However, at the bottom, there was the choice between low range price control that limited the possibility of economic growth for the country and individuals vs. the possibility of a growing "supply and demand" trade that, in the end, was much more steady as a growth economy, providing wealth to individuals and thus power. Who, by the way, funded the counter communist guerrillas besides the US in these nations? Wealthy and middle class business men. Read 'em and weep.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T04:04:26Z

There's too many reasons for why people go to war(what vital economic interest was there in the Falklands? Was the UK going to run short of wool?).

Now you're slipping into the "paradigm of singularity" as if the Falklands were in a vacuum. We are talking about a multitude of things, somethings which you sometimes allude to in "why wars begin" tied up with "pride" and "honor" etc, but don't get down to brass tacks. Why won't the Chinese let Taiwan have their independence (aside from the economic strategic point in the China Sea)? You said it was "pride" or something. It is really about power. If a nation let's their lands and assetts be annexed without complaint or prior organization, they appear weak. Weak nations are open to attack by their much stronger opponents who, in turn, would like nothing better than to abscond with their LAND and RESOURCES. The non-vacuum you ignored was the expansion of communism into South America supported by the Soviets which would eventually interfere with the greater trade Britain realized among the South American nations. They needed to appear capable of defending their trade and nominal economic allies so the USSR and their ideological adherents down in the jungles wouldn't get to uppity.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T03:57:12Z

Levant long before there was economic interests there, any economic interests. Place had strategic value to the Ottoman's but economic? BS. It was a money pit for them, but they kept it anyways.

Okay...I think you should retract that one. Acre? how many ports does the "Levant" have? Trade routes? Why did the Romans want it so long ago? Cause they wanted to own a carppy piece of desert with brown people who kept revolting for the purpose of training their legions for much more important battles? How about Salt? You know, once upon a time, salt was the basis of economy? No refrigeration meant long term survivability depended on salting and storing food stuffs? Among other things.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T03:52:44Z

That, hey, if we were on a different energy economy(say hydrogen) that they wouldn't resort to cyberstrategies if they wanted an economic weapon? Nope. Petrodollars. That's the key. Just follow the money as it explains everything.

As noted, I did not say that oil was the only method of economic warfare or for their own economic survivability, just that, today, oil is the base of economy just as agriculture and mining were once the base or spices, gold, etc. It is ever changing.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T03:43:28Z

So, fine, we use some other energy source other than fossil, we're still going to be buying large volumes of the stuff so people can lather on Oil-of-Olay or take their Viagra. So neener-neener on ending dependence on foreign petroleum

Yeah, actually, I have been arguing that for an eternity with the "disengage" crowd. It would really suck if they went to the hospital and couldn't get that all important blood transfusion because their were not IV catheters made from oil by products. yeah..I will argue passionately, but, I will tell you when I am "mad". Ask Owen if he ever comes back. LOL continuing.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T03:39:56Z

Now why couldn't I have said that. Mebbe, when you can, the marquee will read "The Home of Two of Jonah's Military Guys +1 +Gollum"

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T03:37:14Z

I mean, the Sov's couldn't have funded and sent aide to all those countries in the ME and East Asia without all those big petrodollars they were raking in(when they were having trouble keeping their own fuel supply working AND having to import wheat because they listen to farkin' Lysenko). Nah.

Yes. Look at Russia today and where it's economic interests lie and, in fact, their very survival. Oil, natural gas and ports for import and export. I noted previously that Russia historically has attempted aggressive expansion for the very purpose of economic security and improvement. Even Peter the Great knew this. Although, it was obviously not oil at the time. Trade goods were more closely associated with agriculture since the industrial age had not occured yet, but it was definitely the same issue. Today, it is simply oil as the economic base. Russians then and now understood that, without resources, the ability to trade and a strong economy, the ability to hold together their empire, to patrol and protect their borders, would be devastated. In fact, they would fall apart as a nation, as they eventually did when the ruble crashed and burned and the USSR was no more. Of course, ideology fueled "movements", but as long as the state held the economic power and that economic power was just enough to maintain the population or control it, it held the power of authority (military and police), the state remained intact. See also Stalin's engineered famines and starvations to control the population while simultaneously giving much money and resources to his "loyal" districts. Or, Saddam keeping the Shia in economic straights while providing same resources and money to "loyalists". Or, the poor Sunni tribes in Anbar who had little to offer beyond their ability to smuggle in goods and lookouts in a far flung desert. They enjoyed "autonomy" in as much as he did not interfere with their underground economy so long as they continued to perform their limited duties. If they did not, he could have easily crushed them by cutting off their smuggling routes and driving them from their lands as he did the Shia. Or, my most recent favorite, why did the Sunni turn on AQ in Iraq? Was it simply because they were cruel and inhumane, ideological nutjobs? Or, was it because they began killing the sheiks when they began complaining and fighting with the AQ who were trying to cut them out as the middleman in their smuggling rings so they could limit their cash exposure (a cash crunch both Zarqawi and Zawahiri discussed) and, of course, the possibility of being outed for money. And the anbar sheiks suddenly are loved by the Shia central government who are now cognizant of the fact that they will not be able to hold the Sunni to their second class status in revenge for their years of servitude because they just found a 100bn bbl reserve of oil in the desert? And now the Shia government is afraid that, if they go federalist, they won't get much of a share of the revenues and they won't be able to economically control these pesky nomads.

accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

And they do that because they are "comfortable", economically. They are surviving and that survival is less costly in a cost to benefit ration than the actual battle. But lets look at little more closely at our own revolution. Stamp Act. Boston Tea Party. No taxation without representation. Major Complaints Among the Founding Fathers:

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

In many ways, this was about the survival of the people and their freedom, yet without the freedom of trade or commerce, their survival and advancement was limited and they could never entertain the idea of demanding the power of legislature and representatives without the power of wealth which would make them partners in the kingdom. Without economic power, there is no political power. Stand by for additions.

Comment from ry on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T03:26:23Z

"The problem in a nutshell is that the paradigm-pushers don't see it as part of the battle -- except the one they're fighting to regain the Executive Mansion." Now why couldn't I have said that. That's largely what I'm really trying to say. Economic determinism isn't sufficient to explain it all. And yes, I did read VDH's article(though only once). He trotted out the theory of the day that if we weren't paying Suadi princes, or Iranian Iyatollahs, petrodollars at $80/brl that bin-Laden wouldn't really exist and we wouldn't have to worry about being 'bankrupted'. Which is flawed because terrs attacked us long before petrodollars were really an issue for their financing from the ME. It's trying to make it all about foreign oil again. Stuuuuped in my opinion. (Particularly because, I, as a former chemist, have never heard anyone say where we're supposed to get feedstock for just about anything synthetic we make, from pharmaceuticals to plastics. So, fine, we use some other energy source other than fossil, we're still going to be buying large volumes of the stuff so people can lather on Oil-of-Olay or take their Viagra. So neener-neener on ending dependence on foreign petroleum.). ED is emblematic of a 'silver bullet' approach to me, and I don't go for that. What I'm seeing is this: a stressing of economic factors as primary and others as far distant secondary factors. That isn't the case as far as I'm concerned, I could be wrong, but definitely isn't the case generally. Each case is different. There is no Unified Theory of Warfare and Its Causes(which was the point of bringing up Kagan's book).

Thus, you are correct, I skimmed. So sue me. ;) Stand by for fire.

This is why I can put up with this over here. 200minutes writing stuff, thinking people are pissed off, taking it very seriously, and then you get the so sue me with smiley face. Chit, I'm thinking I'm taking this way to seriously for a Friday night.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T03:04:48Z

I'm going to get to your longwinded answer in a second, but I would point out that even Hanson did not say that the Islamist motivation was only oil or economy. Speaking of skimming, did you read it? and yeah, I said I would answer your long answer with a long answer and that was a quick off the cuff. Thus, you are correct, I skimmed. So sue me. ;) Stand by for fire.

Comment from ry on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T02:45:24Z

"And this utterly ignores a dirty little secret: big nations give foreign aide in situations like this to facilitate this kind of stuff."-ry "One thing, and I'll reply more succinctly promptly, is that Bader Meinhoff was funded by the east German Stasi in no small part"-Kat Gee Kat, I guess I'm an idjit since you didn't notice me mentioning this, huh? I may not be Conrad, but, damn, I'm not skim material neither. You're also glossing over that the East Germans, much less The USSR, had serious hard currency problems(not to mention the hard core internal fights over whether or not terrorism was acceptable to true Lennist-Marxist thought). Yes, they directly helped terrorists. They were also helped, immensely, and not just Bader-Meinhoff but the entire slew of violent socialists like the Italians had, by 'passing the hat' and informal economic relationships. The IRA is a classic example. The Code Pink issue is another($600K from a charity? That's serious money to terrs.)Renditions to Mexico? HOly Chit that's almost a third of the Mexican economy! Don't try to tell me that charity or the 'Rich Uncle' can't keep a nation afloat when it frickin' already does. As long as there's a major player someone out there who doesn't like us there'll be something like under the table donations from said major player. Kat, if you pay attention to what I'm actually saying you'll find I'm faulting the notion that a situation/war is so easily explained by economic factors. Never said that economics has no place, quite the contrary I've said explicitly that it does, but trying to condense everything down to be so easily understood as economics is wrong and one-sided thinking. "As to your "what if we had a different economy base" question, yes, the answer is, if something else was to take the place of oil, then it too would be a target" I don't think you get what I'm saying or trying to say. I'm not saying that hydrogen would be the target. I'm saying that there's more ways than I can count to make money to support a military or terrorist organization. Tin is utterly unrelated to the manufacture of hydrogen(at least it is in any of the things I've seen in industrial scale production). It's just that I know that there's workable mines of metals out there in the Levant. Maybe not great mines, but there to be used. Then stanous-dollars will become the next big rage(when tin makes very little on the open market) because you'll still find some wackadoo preaching hate and finding ways of buying AKs or whatever on the pittiance that tin makes on the market if directly from a nation-state or from 'Rich Uncle'. "While I do not doubt that the current Islamist primary goal is to set up an ideological state. However, the massive state they envision, as I previously noted, cannot exist on "donations" and illegal drugs and smuggling forever." What I think you're missing is that they largely don't care about material things the way you and I do. Buy pharmaceuticals? Why, Allah provides(granted this is a gross oversimplification, but I think you get the point). They'd be utterly comfortable with the currency of the realm being salt. It is because of what they want to become that makes it so. They want a medieval state---why else do they ban satellite dishes, cut off people's heads for being materialistic and reading about ideas other than those proscribed---and a medieval state does not require modern economies. I'm thnking of this very much like the French Force de Frappe(SP? Proll'y it is me after all). The concept of minimal deterrence that is embodied by that miniscule nuclear force. A few guys with fertilizer bombs is apparently enough to drive off some nations(Spain, and England appears headed that way) and influence politics such that they can be left to do as they please. Look at what that Nonpartisan guy wrote. Hey, to him 3000 dead isn't enough of a reason to worry about it, besides, it's easier to just end involvement there and 'firewall it off'. He's not alone as you found with the Code Pink lady and a busload of other jackalopes. IF they have their way the bin-Laden's might actually get their way. Which would leave the neo-Caliphate with what? And economy based on hectares, goats, and gold, right? They don't need an economy like you're thinking. They don't want to be a nation state. They don't want to trade with us much if at all. They don't want the trappings of a modern nation state as it is anathema to the very idea that put them on the path to war in the first place. Modernity and the neo-Caliphate are diametric ideas. Ergo, I don't think you can try to push them into the classic nation-state mold economically. They wish to be other. Legitimate trade does NOT mean having to trade outside their own boundaries or using a unit of measure they don't choose, which is something that seems to be the intended inference. They don't have to defend their borders in the classical way. They don't need destroyers, airplanes, tanks, and a large professional army of infantry. They can achieve that by the threat of crazies blowing themselves up in the invader's country while simply hanging on with guerilla -esque tactics on the home front. This might be an over-simplification of 4th and 5th GW thought, but that's kind of where it leads. Yes, they can defend themselves with suiciders, they're doing a decent job of succeeding in Iraq right now(if poll numbers mean anything, or that the Dems are going ape trying to end our involvement means anything). The idea that they need a real economy does not apply to bin-Laden and his follower, but it does for Iran. As would China, but that's because of what they wish to be. THey're flowing somewhat from a Western idea of what a state is. The Chinese aren't guided by a religion with a godhead atop it gifting things out to the faithful. Iran straddles the line of being a trully modern state and a nut-job theocracy. I don't quite grasp how they get around contradictions and paradoxes, but they do. But the bin-Ladens of the world don't want a nation-state like we think of it. They want other, and therefor the rules are totally different. "In the end, war has never simply been about politics or massive armies maneuvering to kill each other. It has and always will be the ability of one or the other to defend or obtain the necessary resources." No, war is *sometimes* this. reducing war's cause to one variable, or one constant primary variable with a distant second set of others, is not being realistic. It isn't dealing with reality or history. Even use of the caveat 'modern war...' doesn't do it either. There's too many wars with too many reasons to ascribe it just to resources, in the modern era(the Falklands being the mere tip of the iceberg on that). Sorry, but that's just too video gamey. Doesn't take into account the wide variety of reasons people do what they do. I never said that economic warfare wasn't real or an element that shouldn't be considered. BUt defining everything in terms of whether it hurts economy or not is wrong. Sure, they could close the Suez, Panama, and many other shipping choke points. It would hurt. That they haven't tells me that they think of things far differently than in terms of dollars and cents, trade, and other factors you've listed. I can see China doing that(particularly in Panama, or Suez after they've got the oil pipeline from Siberia contract in hand and built.). They I can see using that type of weapon---matter of fact they do think of that (Unresctricted Warfare being the book that largely lays out how they do think about war outside of just blue on red.). Defining it all, having economics as the sole factor, that just seems so wrong. Ideology or no, it just doesn't explain it all. And, when I found out what Greenspan actually said, I agreed with him(stabilizing the flow of oil by invading Iraq was a good thing, a peripheral thing, but still a good thing, as it reduced threat to the global economy. But it was peripheral. At least that's how I've taken the subsequent things he's said in relation to that.). Other factors matter, and in some instance far more than economics, in war or the decisions to go to war and how to fight said war. Reducing it to about resources is the way of the game designers at Blizzard(economics) or Nintendo(moral). It just doesn't apply to all cases well enough. It's like crystal field theory that it's got so many exceptions to it that it no longer works as a theory to explain the phenomenon.

Comment from BillT on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T02:35:30Z

...to ignore the economic front because someone links it to oil and it does not fit some ideological paradigm seems to me to leave out an important part of the battle. The problem in a nutshell is that the paradigm-pushers don't see it as part of the battle -- except the one they're fighting to regain the Executive Mansion. Over the course of the past three years, I have become pretty well convinced that the firm of Reid, Pelosi and Associates are now so blinded by their own rhetoric that they are oblivious to anything that can't be turned into a 10-second talking point aimed at November, 2008.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T01:31:54Z

Baader-Meinhof sucked. They blew up my officer's club, killing LTC Paul Bloomquist, and scared my mother, who was back in the states burying her father and chewing her fingernails until she found out the "dead officer" wasn't Dad. [Looks at Ry, reaches for more popcorn.] No, that had nothing to do with this discussion. Just random neurons firing. But yeah, I remember things like that. It was in interesting time to be a teenager in Frankfurt.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-09-21

2007-09-22T00:57:13Z

One thing, and I'll reply more succinctly promptly, is that Bader Meinhoff was funded by the east German Stasi in no small part. Further, if the Cold War was not an economic war, why did the Soviets/Communists spend so much time trying influence allies in strategic places? I mean, they were both militarily and economically strategic. As to your "what if we had a different economy base" question, yes, the answer is, if something else was to take the place of oil, then it too would be a target. You don't just defeat your enemy politically or militarily without also defeating them economically. As long as a nation has access to resources and has the ability to produce the weapons it requires, purchase that which it does not have and pay for the fuel (whether that was mules, horses and feed or steel, oil and diesel fuel) to move its army from one place to the other, it still has the ability to maneuver and fight or simply project power over a greater area. Talking about oil simplifies the situation down, but, if you recall the other pieces I've written on the subject, strategic interdiction of food, clothing, technology, minerals, etc, etc, etc has the same effect. In fact, it is simply the modern version of sieging a castle on a global scale. Or, if you will, the cavalry cutting the main army's supply lines. Such areas, I concluded on review of the map of the ancient "Caliphate" that they wish to establish, includes the Suez Canal, Gibalter, Straits of Hormuz and the Malaysia/Philippines. The Ottoman Empire did not take control of these areas because they simply wanted to spread Islam around the globe, but because, even in their day, it represented the most heavily traded, enduring economic routes that they required to establish and maintain, not only the physical control of their empire, but the financial control. While I do not doubt that the current Islamist primary goal is to set up an ideological state. However, the massive state they envision, as I previously noted, cannot exist on "donations" and illegal drugs and smuggling forever. We're talking about over a billion subjects who do not all live in caves. Nor can they defend these massive borders with nothing but guerrillas with RPGs and suicide bombers. If they ever hope to obtain this state, they will have to move into legitimate trade, even if it is with people that is not the west. China, for instance, would demand cold hard currency. In the end, war has never simply been about politics or massive armies maneuvering to kill each other. It has and always will be the ability of one or the other to defend or obtain the necessary resources. Just because it has changed from a massive army movement to obtain or defend said resources to a massive army rolling around and, one amounts to light cavalry, repeatedly hitting the supply lines. I agree with you in the interim, the Jihadists don't need to take and control oil or other economic resources vitally important to the west. They don't have to control much land. They can hit us with little stabbing wounds here and there, bleeding us to death over the long run. Sink a ship in the Suez Canal and find out what happens to our JIT (just in time inventory) economy and that of the globe when ships now have to transit thousands of miles to circumvent Cape Hope. As you once infamously said to me, use a ruler. How many days would it take to transit these routes? How much fuel? What would the price of goods be? It is why we are fighting "pirates" off of Somalia and in the Straits of Malacca. It is a real danger to our economy. Blow up a freighter in Singapore and see what happens. That is not to say that in this war, there is not the battle fields of politcs/propaganda or the military front that are important. But, to ignore the economic front because someone links it to oil and it does not fit some ideological paradigm seems to me to leave out an important part of the battle. It is, in fact, as if you were leaving your supply line and baggage train to be sacked over and over again, pretending it will not effect your army in the field. maybe they can just forage off the land?

Comment from BillT on 2007-09-21

2007-09-21T23:19:30Z

...sends me to a write email screen with NRO's web address in the to field. Think it could have something to do with the "mailto:" command at the beginning of the code?

Comment from ry on 2007-09-21

2007-09-21T22:57:28Z

This economic determinism bender around here is making people loopy, methinks. So, in VDH's world, oil at $30/brl didn't allow terrorists and hostile to US ME nations to acquire just about every weapon they wanted then? Bollucks. Didn't allow them to conduct ops pretty much wherever and whenever they wanted? We weren't being 'bankrupted' at $30/brl when it was paying for Iran to buy all kinds of SU and Mig fighters, Syria to buy similar gear, etc.? THis just seems like forcing everything to go thru the funnel of economic determinism(just like Barnett always does). That, hey, if we were on a different energy economy(say hydrogen) that they wouldn't resort to cyberstrategies if they wanted an economic weapon? Nope. Petrodollars. That's the key. Just follow the money as it explains everything. Really, this has gone nutty. If it wasn't petroleum it'd be something like Sn(Tin) fueling terrorism and ME nations hostile to the US, giving them the capability to. No resources? Even Afghanistan has found something from which terrs, and the people, are finding ways to make many(in a place most people would otherwise say has no real natural resources). And this utterly ignores a dirty little secret: big nations give foreign aide in situations like this to facilitate this kind of stuff. Hence, wow, oil is soooo damn important in the scheme of things isn't it? I mean, the Sov's couldn't have funded and sent aide to all those countries in the ME and East Asia without all those big petrodollars they were raking in(when they were having trouble keeping their own fuel supply working AND having to import wheat because they listen to farkin' Lysenko). Nah. Like Bader-Meinhoff wasn't capable of doing their thing, in support of Palestinian terrorist groups at times, on whatever they got from donors and robbing banks(and their thing was trying three times to hit an airliner with an RPG in W. Germany). Aum Shinrykyo? Nah. None of this matters because it all comes down to macro economics. Never you mind that modern arms were finding there way into the Levant long before there was economic interests there, any economic interests. Place had strategic value to the Ottoman's but economic? BS. It was a money pit for them, but they kept it anyways. Like the history of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Arabian Peninsula isnt' riddled with wars and invasions before petroleum even really became important globally? And this is between nations like Tsarist Russia and England? Okay, you might say that from the Brit perspective it was about economics(protection thereof), but from the Russian perspective, extending you borders and military into areas of absolutely no economic value for invasions you never planned or executed on British economic interests? Fine. Economics uber-alles. It's the Unified Theory of Warfare. Like Iran hasn't been able to acquire whatever they wanted (much less Libya) with major and serious embargoes limiting the amount of petroleum they could extract and sell. Yup, petrodollars are weapons and the major reason for why they all have weapons with the capability to conduct operations against the US. Yup. Yup. Hell, our arming of Pakistan(and Turkey) was all about directly securing some vital economic interest too, wasn't it? Couldn't have just been a move to hold the Sov's in place. It's all about economics. The UNified Theory of Warfare. Nope, no other causes, move along, no point in looking because all you have to do is follow the money(says the voice on the phone). I don't buy Unified Theory of Warfare(i.e. economic determinism). Never have and never will. There's too many reasons for why people go to war(what vital economic interest was there in the Falklands? Was the UK going to run short of wool?). In just about every situation where people claim economics was teh deciding factor the counter factual of 'There was more money to be made by siding with than against' is never explored(Try WW2 without the US embargo against Japan, which doesn't lead to massive rationing and 1/20th of every dollar earned in the US from 1945-1960 being spent to rebuild Europe.). Not buying this thesis of it being predominately about oil, whether it is from Saint VDH or anyone else. Oh, and for some reason the link isn't working. It comes up with the same URL for me as well when I went to NRO, but sends me to a write email screen with NRO's web address in the to field. Weird.