""Losing small wars"" Topic

Well in my former Grunt mind, as long as we're killing the bad guys … we're doing something. But in the end … our grandchildren's generation will have to wait and see …

Milites wrote:

I'd have thought Binnie would have taken action, if he felt he had been misquoted, though I do agree I'd have liked to have read the original myself. The frothing loon comment, to describe those you disagree with philosophically, (the blogs) really does mean this is a pointless debate to continue.

Oh, so sorry, evidently a site with the title "F*ck France" should be taken seriously as a source of reasoned and informed political comment.

And I notice that one of the sites containing the snippet you quoted provides a suitably conspiraracist explanation for why you couldn't see the original:

link

"As one might expect from the BBC, the written report at their web site concerning this incident has been sanitized of all such stuff as "The war in Iraq has minimized the threat to Europe.""

If you don't find anything a little bit suspicious about that, I think you need to see the Energizer Bunny about some fresh batteries for your bullsh1t detector.

If I do dig up anymore evidence it will be similarly dismissed out of hand, I think there was a 'flypaper' strategy, you don't, end.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that I've dismissed any of your so-called evidence "out of hand". I've gone to the trouble of tracking down the web sources you failed to supply, and given reasons why a clueful person should not be taken in by such a weak gruel of isolated and unsourced factoids.

Just in case it is not clear to you, strategy is not determined by Candian journalists, or by bloggers, or even by IHS commentators, but by national leaders. If you cannot find a statement by one of these outlining or at least mentioning the "flypaper" strategy, it is a fair bet that no such thing exists. It would certainly be surprising if it had somehow managed to exist all this time and yet escape mention anywhere that I can recall in the pages of RUSI Journal, the Marine Corps Gazette, or the British Army Review.

I don't think there is a "flypaper strategy" because I have yet to see any good evidence for it (and even an old cynic like me is not yet prepared to believe that national policy-makers are quite so stupid as to go for such a daft idea).

You, on the other hand, are quite prepared to believe that such a strategy exists, apparently on the say-so of nothing better than the unsupported opinion of a few journos and bloggers. No wonder you're trying to paint me as dismissing your evidence out of hand; by seeking to portray me as the unreasonable party, you give youself an excuse not to submit your crackpot beliefs to any further critical examination by the nasty rude man who insists on good scholarship, clear argument and firm evidence.

I have seen exactly the same tactic used by 9/11 truthers, UFOlogists, and all sorts of internet pond life. If you can't manage any better than that, then the argument is, indeed, over.

As we've been doing book recommendations, I shall mention this one again:

link

All the best,

John.

Sorry John, me thinks the poster doth protest too much. As far as I was concerned the quote by Sanchez was pretty definitive, as it perfectly expoused the strategy. Bare in mind your original post stated your 'research' had only linked the term with David Warren's, yet a cursory search showed the Sanchez link, odd you never mentioned that.

Your origibal dismisal, of Sanchez, was pretty weak tea, since the flypaper strategy was, you insisted, only created as a post-event justification by neo-cons. Strange how it was mentioned in 2003, shortly after the invasion, by the senior commander. The statement was apparently to be read differently when placed in its true context of the full CNN interview. I've read the whole interview, where specifically does context disprove the flypaper strategy. The final invalidation is based on a comment (with no context) that he then criticised strategy four years later. When has the success of a strategy ever been linked to its existence? The Generals implication in, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and his later political aspirations, might have had some bearing on his 'failure' statement.

Finally, since when is a strategy singular? There might be a strategic direction which spawns other strategies, closely linked. Does a de facto strategy have to be de jure to qualify as being a strategy? Do I have read it to confirm its existence? Sorry, I never bought into the Vienna Circles definition of epistemology.

Finally, why so angry? Why is the very idea of the flypaper strategy such an anathema to you? Why must the legacy of the Iraq invasion be a total failure for you? And I do stress the you, as your langauge, to describe an opponent (crackpot, pond life, frothing loon) suggests an emotional involvement, beyond any scholarly interest. Chillax man it's only banter on the intertubes!

ps You did raise a chuckle with the BBC comment, put the rest of your comments into perspective.

Iraq is no longer a threat to the region and not in violation of UN sanctions … not to mention AQ attrited. Sounds like some sort of victory to me. Regardless, the Iraqi factions continue to kill each other … which clearly appears to be very much the dynamics of the region. Now and in the past … It appears to me the "clearer and possibly cleaner" WWII style victories are very much a thing of the past …

I think the detractors could perhaps enlighten us to their alternative strategy, apart from sitting and doing nothing. Saddam had the knowledge to build a nuclear device, he did not lack the will, but the way. If Iran had maintained its programme Saddam would have locked his country into an arms race. The 2006-7 events in Syria showed nuclear technology was a NK franchise operation, and the Iraqi's were well ahead of Syrians in that regard. So one could assume a sanctions free Iraq (France Russian and China whould have seen to that in the UN) would have plowed its considerable oil revenue into a crash nuclear programme, to replace elements lost in the original UN inspections.

Alternatively, we could have taken the homegrown appoach and hope a civil war would depose Saddam, neither very palatable approaches, I would contend. So the Iraq operation, must, to its detractors be a failure and the alternative, of maintaining an increasingly difficult status-quo is never extended to any logical conclusion. AQ suffered a severe setback in Iraq, not only because the organisation lost key personel, but also support from Muslims, apalled at their preparedness to inflict carnage on fellow members of the Umah.