Jihad is Forever

Wretchard at the Belmont Club waxes eloquent, as usual.

"It is mostly a matter of wills. Whose will is going to break first? Ours or the enemy's?" ... Mattis, who led the Marines in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and led the 1st Marine Division in the invasion of Iraq and march to Baghdad in early 2003, said he was once asked by an Iraqi when he would leave that country. "I said I am never going to leave. I told him I had found a little piece of property down on the Euphrates River and I was going to have a retirement home built there. I did that because I wanted to disabuse him of any sense that he could wait me out. ... Wars like this are winnable but you have got to have a sophisticated approach and you've got to have very sturdy and spiritually sturdy Marines who can keep their balance in the face of an extremely complex fight. It's not a small issue to wave to kids after just seeing your buddies blown up, but that shows on the most pedestrian level the kind of sturdiness that is needed in what is just a morally bruising environment where the enemy hides among the people."
[…]
"The offensive is planned in stages and is designed to avoid an all-out attack. In the first phase, launched July 9, Iraqi security forces positioned checkpoints throughout the city. In the second phase, launched last week, Iraqi forces supported by U.S. troops began isolating and clearing parts of the city block by block. Iraqi security forces will remain to provide security once areas are cleared. When areas are stable, the government will bring economic assistance into blighted neighborhoods." This strategy is essentially what the Marines call the "3 Block War." ...

It is ironic that such determination and patience is the very thing attributed to our enemies. But whereas hatred and cunning retribution for perceived ills can last centuries, the same can be said for the enduring fortitude necessary to build advanced civilizations. Who will out last the other in the end will come down to whether the tenders of civilization realize that no more progress can be made without a giant leap back into the fray of unmitigated warfare.

The 3 Block tactic sounds akin to the surveyor laying down points to define a region, a clearing and grading of the ground, and finally a reconstruction. It also suggests a poignantly new approach to warfare, in that it starts first with a multinational force, introduces indigenous security, then, hopefully, leaves. Forward together, successful or not, offers a way forward that is an optimistic alternative to the apocalyptic options that we have had to choose from.

About Iran,
A man who has threatened to kill me may demand security guarantees, but I would offer him none. If he were to bear arms due to the intransigence of my position then I would see to it that he never had the opportunity to use said arms.

I think it reasonable to assume that Iran, flush with oil money and a successful succession of mullah after mullah, has thought long and hard about its stated goal of bringing “Death to America”. They have had 20 years to evolve their doctrine, to apply it to its corp and to develop it covertly in its inexhaustible foreign services. Any man willing to accept the worse will exploit the best of possibilities. I wouldn’t tread lightly with Iran, I would instead, tread most heavily.

Ash derides,
annoy mouse, your response is basically what that article in the Asia Times alleges; the Bush admin. is just playing at negotiating and it simply wants to go to war.

Annoy Mouse rejoins,
I find it difficult to believe that the administration “simply wants to go to war”. On one hand they’d be pilloried for not negotiating in the international arena and on the other, they are accused of “just playing at negotiating”. You can be credited with being consistent with your ideological positions Ash. It sound like a damned if you don’t, damned if you do proposition as always. This is where ideology becomes nettlesome because there is only strife and never the possibility of a mediated outcome, just bad verses bad.

My personal thoughts on Iran are that war with Iran would be horrible and an almost certain harbinger of WWIV. My personal thoughts continued, is that with enemies of humanity like you in the world, Ash, that WWIV is as inevitable as your weather beaten rejoinders.

Until then, “walk softly and carry a big stick”.

Ash continues,
Annoy Mouse, I am not necessarily supporting the Asia Times position that Bush and crew want to go to war with Iran but I am curious as to what the problems with the US offering Iran security guarantees. The Asia Times article may be wrong in that security guarantees have indeed been offerred. My understanding is that they haven't been and, again, why not? Annoy mouse, your response was
"A man who has threatened to kill me may demand security guarantees, but I would offer him none. If he were to bear arms due to the intransigence of my position then I would see to it that he never had the opportunity to use said arms."

which is basically, "nope, no security guarantee, time for war".

Why not skip the war part and tell them we won't invade in return they halt nuke development (paraphrasing more detailed language).

Annoy Mouse again,
Ash, honestly, if it is as simple as that, I would be all for it. But I honestly don’t believe that the mullahs have the least fear that we’d invade them. Not with the poison pill that they’d conjure up. The argument is a straw man at best. Should we be content that though they open each parliamentary session with chants to “death to America!” that we can take solace in their heart felt assurances that they do not seek weapons of mass destruction? I lament proliferation to the point where Pakistan and India possess such terrible powers, but, that said, they have not proven to be such a destabilizing power as Iran has. And, are you to say that since the U.S., who has not used nuclear weapons for over sixty years, has these weapons, that the world would be a safer place if everyone had them? I suspect that you and Madeleine Albright would agree on such matters. The United States earned the right to nuclear weapons because we invented them in the pursuit of world peace. Can Iran say as much?

Then again again,
The issue, Ash, is what are we willing to negotiate away to the mullahs in order to guarantee that they do not pursue nuclear weapons. A sticking point, nuclear fuel cycle, it is rather ambitious for a country without a nuclear generating capacity to worry about such things, particularly with Russia offering to co-generate fuel. It is a transparent ruse playing on the ignorance of Middle Eastern pride that the Iranians need such things. It is also a vital component to nuclear weapon production and therefore something that the ambitious Iranians will not consider to drop. The mullahs have said point blank, “it is a non-negotiable right” to refine uranium. What more could diplomacy hope to achieve? I hope, for the sake of the world, that we can find allies in the cause of world peace and apply effective sanctions to cool Iran’s jets. Seems that the Chinese will then have an opportunity to violate it visa vie the Oil for Food method. It is not war mongering that “it is a non-negotiable right” to protect the earth whether you’re on the bus or not.