Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Grumpy Old Watchmen”

« Lame Duck Crushes Christmas Turkeys | Main | And One More for the Road »

December 18, 2007

Grumpy Old Watchmen

Hatched by Dafydd

This is the grumpy edition of the Watcher's Council vote... peevish, short, curt, crotchety, cranky, off the meds, fizzywigged... the reedy, rambling threnody of an alter kaker. Forewarmed is four-armed.

Council

The winner this time was JoshuaPundit -- for making yet another invalid comparison, again to George Bush's disadvantage. (Does Freedom Fighter agree with Democrats that Bush is The Worst President In All of American History? I don't know for sure, but I have my suspicions.)

Pearl Harbor... And 9/11, by JoshuaPundit.

This time, he posits the following question:

66 years ago on this day, December 7th, Japanese pilots bombed Pearl Harbor in a sneak attack.... The next day, December 8th,President Roosevelt went before Congress and asked them to declare war.... Less than 4 years later, Germany, Japan and Italy were in ruins, their militaries destroyed, their capacity for evil extinguished....

Sixty years after that grim December morning in Hawaii, there was another sneak attack on American soil.... It's been over six years since that happened, and we have yet to defeat these enemies who pose no less of a threat to our civilization and our freedom.

Why is that?

Well for one reason, because we were not attacked by any specific country. We were attacked by an amorphous, transnational terrorist group with no chain of command, no fixed membership, and not even a completely consistent ideology. Nevertheless, we have fared remarkably well: We utterly routed al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and we're well on the way to doing the same in their next base, Iraq.

(They've returned to an old base, Sudan, and to a traditional one, Pakistan; and there are AQ affiliates, allies, wannabes, groupies, and hangers on deeply infested in scores of countries around the globe, all plotting our death and the death of Israel. Merry Christmas!)

There has been no successful attack on American soil or territory since 9/11, and we have shattered major cells from the ME to the Horn of Africa to Canada to Minnesota. But there isn't going to be a signing ceremony on the deck of the USS Missouri because, at its core, our enemy is really not this or that particular group; it is a meme, a wicked, nihilist ideology that seeks only destruction, ruin, and human sacrifice. We are fighting Moloch, and Moloch is everywhere.

But for some reason, Freedom Fighter choose not to compare the War Against Global Hirabah to the more obvious conflict: the Cold War. How long did it take us to defeat the Evil Empire? Well, we first invaded in the 1920s and it didn't fall until 1992... so it took us about 70 years.

But of course, we weren't just fighting the Soviets; we were fighting Communism -- which included also Red China, North Korea, North Vietnam (later just Vietnam), Cambodia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Berkeley, Harvard, and many other satellite countries. Most of these still exist; does that make the entire Cold War worthless, the fall of the USSR a pyrrhic victory, and Ronald Reagan a fool?

Of course not. We won the Cold War because the influence of Communism collapsed from its peak in the early 1970s and has never recovered to that point. Victory is not complete so long as Communists states still exist in various places; but it is a victory nonetheless, because our future is no longer clouded by Lenin's long shadow.

And that is the same sort of war and "victory" we look for in the WAGH: When our future is no longer clouded by the grasping dead hands of Salafist Sunni and Shiite Twelvers, then we will have won.

We do not fight WWII-style wars anymore for reasons amply discussed in Thomas P.M. Barnett's book the Pentagon's New Map. That is not a reflection on President Bush, any more than it was a reflection on Ronald Reagan that we didn't leave the Soviet Union "in ruins, their militaries destroyed, their capacity for evil extinguished."

We live in a different world than that of six decades ago. So it goes.

Freedom Fighter is not the only person I know who pines for the good old days, when our enemies were clearly defined and had the decency to clump together into a single country (or in the instant case, a pair of discrete countries), and when we could fight massive tank battles in the sands of North Africa and hop from island to island, closing in on our foe. I think to some extent we all do... but some more than others.

But to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war against the enemies you have. We weren't attacked by a country; we were attacked by a transnational group that affiliates, to some extent, with a number of countries. We took out two of the most dangerous affiliates -- the Taliban's Afghanistan and Hussein's Iraq. But we cannot possibly launch a war simultaneously against Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan (with nukes), Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and a half-dozen 'Stans. I'm puzzled that anyone would think we could.

I think this is another manifestation of American Omnipotence Syndrome... sort of the flip side of the Democratic version, where liberals demand to know why Bush "allowed" Hurricane Katrina to destroy New Orleans -- instead of turning on his big wind-sucking machine and vacuuming it all up.

We voted for a pair of posts that did not fare all that well. Our number one achieved "middle of the pack" status, but number 2 was skunked by everyone else:

What the NIE on Iran's Nuclear Weapons Development Doesn't Say, by The Glittering Eye;

Another Sign: Islam Is a Human Rights Violation, by Rhymes With Right.

In the first, the author (I don't know who writes the Glittering Eye) points out all the cold facts about Iran that the new and not very improved National Intelligence Estimate did not change; they remain the same, and just as dangerous as before.

The second falls into the category of posts that note how much of the violence and depravity of Islamic radicals in fact comes straight from the tenets of Islam itself. The difference between a Moslem militant and moderate is not so much what they believe... but what they intend to do about what they believe.

Nouncil

We did much better in the Nouncil category, though neither of our choices won; but our number one and two came in a clean second and third, respectively. First, the winner:

Men of Valor: Part IV, by Michael Yon.

Another Michael Yon piece. I suppose a lot of people love this stuff; Sachi does. But I must confess, it all seems the same to me... and purely descriptive, no real analysis. Not even the level of strategic thinking that one gets from, e.g., Bill Roggio at the Fourth Rail (and all around the milblogosphere). Oh well; vox populi, vox Dei.

Now to our much more interesting choices...!

What Happens After the Surge, by Pajamas Media (Omar Fadhil of Iraq the Model);

What Iran's "Victory" Means, by ShrinkWrapped.

The first is an amazing, fascinating insider account of what is happening in Iraq, and where it's likely to go after the "surge" ends (after we transition out the extra troops we transitioned in). It's written by Omar Fadhil... one of the famous brothers who started and still contributes to Iraq the Model, the greatest blog every to come out of the Arab Middle East. (In fact, Omar is still the mainstay of the blog.)

In the second, the anonymous psychiatrist and psychoanalyst of ShrinkWrapped (hence the name -- cute, eh?) tries to fathom Iran and what it will do in response to the fawning NIE that the nits from the State Department just handed to the president (and the media). He has some very interesting insights, well worth reading.

I Saw 17 Posts Come Sailing In

...And you too can see them here!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, December 18, 2007, at the time of 10:16 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2655

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

I agree with your thoughts on JoshuaPundit's post. It is a very poorly reasoned example of writing. What I'm amazed at is that it received enough votes to win. Me thinks some of the voters need to cut back on their meds or something.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz at December 19, 2007 9:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

"It is a meme, a wicked, nihilist ideology that seeks only destruction, ruin, and human sacrifice. We are fighting Moloch, and Moloch is everywhere."

Best summary I have ever read on the issue. I can never be wholly defeated, only beaten into submission.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman at December 19, 2007 11:55 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dave Schuler

Thanks for your support, Dafydd. I write The Glittering Eye. ;-)

The above hissed in response by: Dave Schuler at December 19, 2007 12:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: Towering Barbarian

"Another Michael Yon piece. I suppose a lot of people love this stuff; Sachi does. But I must confess, it all seems the same to me... and purely descriptive, no real analysis."

And that, Dafydd, is why I

The paraphrase Heinlein had Lazarus Long do of John Adams comes to mind here: "The facts, what are the facts? Never mind surmise, wishful thinking or opinion. What are the facts?"

Analysis is good to the extent that you get to see how a mind as good or better than yours but different operates and learn from that watching, but in the end analysis is sstill merely the shadow that derives its existence from the facts.

The above hissed in response by: Towering Barbarian at December 19, 2007 8:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: Towering Barbarian

Feh. Let's try this again. Take two, begin:

"Another Michael Yon piece. I suppose a lot of people love this stuff; Sachi does. But I must confess, it all seems the same to me... and purely descriptive, no real analysis."

And that, Dafydd, is why I adore such with all my heart. Analysis is cheap. I've enough confidence in the wetware system I've built up over the years that I can do it for myself and indeed prefer to do just that. But data? Precious, necessary, vital, juicy, dearly beloved data? That's the sine non qua and the true quill! :)

The paraphrase Heinlein had Lazarus Long do of John Adams comes to mind here: "The facts, what are the facts? Never mind surmise, wishful thinking or opinion. What are the facts?"

Analysis is good, to the extent that you get to see how a mind as good or better than yours but different operates and learn from that watching, but in the end analysis is still merely the shadow that derives its existence from the facts. ^_~

The above hissed in response by: Towering Barbarian at December 19, 2007 9:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dymphna

What a rousing good review of the Watcher's Winners! Much better than anything I did in my days there.

You are definitely an addition to the Council.

As for Dave Schuler, I think he's most insightful. Analysis has its adherents, as one of your other commenters pointed out. And Mr. Schuler writes clearly, thoughtfully, and with panache. As does Wretchard of the Belmont Club.

Mr. Schuler is also refreshingly free of vitriol, but doesn't plod, either...I learn a lot reading him.

One of the things I liked about being on the Council was figuring out who would take the prize. You could never tell why a particular post won, or why sometimes your own stellar effort failed so badly it fell off the page.

The Watcher's Council is definitely a learning experience. Though I never did like it when super big blogs were nominated -- e.g., Michael Yon. It takes the fun out of reading smaller blogs you'd not otherwise see.

When I'm Pope, I'm going to ask the Watcher if he could change that little rule.

The above hissed in response by: Dymphna at December 21, 2007 3:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dymphna

Hey, I just noticed the metamorphosis at the Council:

There are now lizards, worms, weasels and wolves in your group.

Not to mention an eyeball, a mirror, and a colossus.

Intriguing melange. I'll have to go back to reading the Watcher's offerings again...Wheeee! I won't have the excruciating duty of voting.

BTW, Shrinkwrapped is an old member of the Council. I suggest you read him when you can. He may change your mind about the need for analysis (not your psyche, but the facts on the ground). He and Wretchard are supremely good at it. I think thia ia ao because they are both compassionate and modest. Rare virtues in the blog world.

The above hissed in response by: Dymphna at December 21, 2007 3:48 PM