Asymmetric warfare, commonly known by its Orwellian pseudonym "terrorism" has been the holy grail of warfare since the dawn of time. It supposedly allows a less well armed, but larger force defeat a more well armed larger force. Since the discovery of pointed stick, wealth has been the overwhelming determiner of success on the battlefield. Even the man who personified the hope of Asymmetric warfare, Mao, wrote "Power flows from a barrel of a gun."
To understand success of the use of Asymmetric warfare by Muslim conservatives is to understand just how wrong Mao was. Power does not flow from the barrel of a gun. Mao's revolution died with barley a shot being fired. The greatest significance of Mao's victories and those of Allied forces over the Axis forces was certainly the election of Dwight Eisenhower as president.
The greatest fiction woven by the writer of alternative histories, is that wars are lynch pins on which history turns. If World War II had been won by the Axis powers it is hard to imagine that the lives of the vast majority of people around the world would differ in any significant way from the lives they live now.
One of the many perversions of those civil war buffs who spend their life in the fetid detritus of Southern secession, is the pitiful significance they place on the various battles of the war. Southern independence never had a chance. Once it became clear that the European powers would not join the Southern cause and that the naval blockade was somewhat successful, any faint hope of success for the Confederacy was extinguished.
All the battles that so many study with such passion were utterly meaningless. The north could have lost virtually every battle and even the war itself and virtually nothing would have changed. The value of agricultural goods would have diminished in any case. The northern industrialist would have come to power in any event.
The true wisdom of battle was that Lao Tzu. Nations rise and fall of there own accord. A victorious general is one who knows how to fight the battles that are winnable. Battles determine who stands at the captain's wheel, but these captain's wheel is not connected to a rudder.
Mao won for one reason and one reason only. The cities had become dependent on the great powers. The destruction of the Japanese and British Empires in the war doomed the power of the cities and allowed them to drown in the countryside. When the cities were reborn the Mao's tide ebbed away. The millions of lives lost, the millions of dollars wasted, all the plans of mice and men mattered not.
A similar change in the stars is occurring now. The center of the gravity of the world is shifting East. The institutions that supported the post World War II era are being swept away. The old battles of Europe go on, but their significance is diminishing to zero.
The old battles of the East are ascendant. You can date the graves in the Middle East by the direction in which the bodies are lain. As one influence wanes the bodies themselves turn to the future. And the future is with the rising sun and the East.
One could read the above and suppose that there is a certain fatalism, in the author's approach. How, if the outcome of test of arms is insignificant to the flow of history, can one triumph over terrorism.
The answer is simple. Wars decide the fate of individuals, not peoples. Those who understand this have the power to influence the personalities who lead claim to rule the world, and means that they follow to do so. To the extent one values such things, there is a clear path to "winning" asymmetric wars.
Successful people by definition rarely fail. If they appear to fail, chances are, that observer was mistaken about their goals. If there is a rich patriot, he is no more common than other madmen. The powerful of the world overwhelming are motivated by their own desires, caring little for what happens to the people they claim to represent.
Leaders both civilian and military are motivated much more by their own careers than the fate of their nations. Throughout history, the vast majority of the leaders of a defeated power, if not killed, immediately and with apparently very little reservation switch their allegiance to victor.
Understanding Asymmetric warfare is understanding why that very few who remain loyal to their lost cause do so. The answer is simple. They do not have the means to do join the victors. As Lucifer so eloquently says "It is better to reign in hell." By attaining leadership position amongst the resistance these leaders can benefit either from a change in fortune between the two powers, or much more likely, reach the position were they can betray their followers for a position of power with the victors.
We in our vanity say things like "They hate us for our freedom." These people don't hate us at all. They couldn't care less. And, if they had been offered a position of power on our side they almost surely would have taken it.
The goals of several of the recent strategies of combating terrorism are based upon thwarting the supposed goals that terrorist leaders have for their people. The Reagan doctrine of not negotiating with terrorist, hopes to make it clear that nothing is to be gain by terrorist activity. The Powell doctrine of overwhelming force is also premised on the resistance is futile meme. Perhaps the least effective anti-terrorism method is Israel's "Crazy Boss" strategy which tries to leave fear in the terrorist's mind that any violence could result in overwhelming force.
These strategies have been a total failure, because they are based on the vain nation that the terrorist care about us at all. To the terrorist, the only thing that matters is their position of power within their own movement. Terrorism gives them power not because it weakens the enemy but because it increases their power in the movement. The power of terrorism is not its effect on the enemy but the sense amongst the resistance that something is being done as opposed to nothing.
Thus the most effective course to ending terrorism negotiation. In negotiations the illusory nature of a the terrorist's "resistance" is immediately exposed and the true power differential is made immediately apparent. After decades of trying. Israel was easily able to defeat Arafat with negotiations. One could argue that the defeat of Fatah and the splintering of the Palestinians would result in a few more feet of land for Israel in the final resolution of the matter, but even this is highly unlikely.
By negotiating with Hamas could Israel easily defeat them as well. The significance of such a victory or even its desirability are debatable but the certainty of the victory is almost certain. The clear eyed leader is not confused. The song is not about us, at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment