After 9/11, the U.S. reacted like a giant dinosaur with a very small brain--a small, bush of a brain.

Lashing out, causing damage helter skelter, and only making our security position worse.

The military "lost" both wars because the politicians picked unwinnable wars. I include the top military brass in the political class responsible. If they advised it was unwinnable and that advice was rejected, they should have gone public and resigned. If they did not foresee the aftermath, they are incompetent.

The military was probably the best for its size, but only in fighting another conventional army. It was still a cold war army, and it was criminal for the politicians and brass to think it any good at fighting the same ragtag bunch who had defeated the Soviet Union's massive conventional army.

Andrew Bacevich will be on the Bill Moyers show tomorrow night, on PBS:

Is an imperial presidency destroying what America stands for? Bill Moyers sits down with history and international relations expert and former U.S. Army Colonel Andrew J. Bacevich, who identifies three major problems facing our democracy -- the crises of economy, government and militarism -- and calls for a redefinition of the American way of life. "Because of this preoccupation with the presidency," says Bacevich, "the president has become what we have instead of genuine politics, instead of genuine democracy."

(taken from Eric Alterman's Altercation, http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200808140002#6 )

Consult your local listings.

Goes to show; General Hubris is a dangerous foe.

I've always held that victory is achieved when your enemy becomes your ally. I have never heard what what would constitute victory in Afghanistan or Iraq.

That's because the actual goals -- securing a pipeline route for the Caspian oilfields, de-nationalizing Iraq's oil industry, and protecting Israel's interests in the region -- aren't avowable. There's no exit strategy because we haven't defined (admitted) what we're doing there to begin with.

The problem with leaving the mission undefined is that we can't measure our progress. 10 feet gained is wonderful if you have 15 feet to travel; not so promising when you have 2000 miles.

Of course, politically it is vital to leave victory undefined. Political victory consists of drawing the target around wherever the arrow actually hits.

Witness Nixon's "Peace with Honor" victory speech. He fooled no one; not even the reddest Republicans claim that we won in Vietnam, because even after 40 years we've still not admitted what our real goals were in Vietnam.

"Peace with Honor?" That's what we were fighting for? We couldn't have achieved that by staying home?

Tungsten, the Gulf of Tonkin oilfields, whatever it was, we still haven't defined "victory" in Vietnam. However, our experience in Vietnam largely defined "defeat" until the current Bush administration. I'm afraid that unless we publicly avow our true goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, we'll have a new definition of "defeat" in years to come.

For all their talk about new technology, the battle plan of the US military remains the same as they practiced in 1945; large bodies of troops delivering overwhelming firepower. In other words, Blitzkrieg.

In 1940, the Germans used this revolutionary new style of warfare to defeat the French, who had put their faith in the old style, building the Maginot Line. Historians have vilified the French over this blunder for years, but in reality, did they do anything different than America has done - cling to the tried and true tactics, because they were unable to conceive of new ones?

The US military forces could probably have 'won' the war in Afghanistan - if only GW Bush and Gang had not ordered it into Iraq.

The US could certainly have won the 'war against terror' - if only the another route had been chosen than the one taken by GW Bush and Gang: prematurely attacking Afghanistan in just one month or so after 9/11.

In "Avoid Osama's Trap", published in the Hindu (a leading Indian newspaper) on 25th September 2001 (about 3 weeks before the US' attack on Afghanistan), Professor Bernard Haykel of New York University, a specialist in Islamic studies, outlined an approach that would have probably gotten the great majority of Muslims in the world united with the USA in a real war against terror. (The short article is pasted, along with a link to the original, below my signature). In brief, Haykel argued as follows:

+++

1. The vast majority of the Muslim community around the world were utterly horrified by 9/11 - this kind of attack on civilians is totally against the precepts of Islam.

2. In these circumstances, the best way for the US to proceed would be to present all the evidence available against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan to the clerical and political leaders of the Muslim community around the world, and thereby force them to act against the organisers of the 9/11 atrocity.

3. There was every hope at that point that the Muslim community would largely support any such US move, and their punishement of Osama and the Taliban leadership would be very severe indeed.

+++

But GW Bush and Gang were unable to hear (would not even trouble to listen to) wiser advice. They chose the one route that was guaranteed to set the whole Muslim world against the US: declare and carry out a "crusade" - the whole 'war of civilisations' bit. Well, the US (and the rest of the world along with the US) has now got exactly what the GW Bush Gang's whole approach was always guaranteed to create: practically the whole Muslim world (except for stooges like Musharraf) lined up against the US in hatred that will take generations to overcome.

And all that was even before GW Bush's little misadventure into Iraq and the whole "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" vainglory.

Now GW Bush is preparing as best he can, before he bows out of power, to attack Iran - probably with the hope of ensuring a McCain victory in September.

And STILL US citizens have not yet caught on to the games that have been and are being played with their lives (and the lives of everyone around the world) by this bunch of war criminals!

GSC

+++

Avoid Osama's trap

By Bernard Haykel

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/09/25/stories/05252523.htm

(With the article in place, I seem to have run up against the 1000 word limit of Salon. I've removed it for now; shall post it later as 'Part 2' of this mail)

+++