Why We're Losing This War
My evolutionary psychologist friend, Satoshi Kanazawa, author, with Alan S. Miller, of Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, is blogging over at Psychology Today. Here's his take on the difference between us and those we're currently fighting:
Both World War I and World War II lasted for four years. We fought vast empires with organized armies and navies with tanks, airplanes, and submarines, yet it took us only four years to defeat them. Now we are in the middle of what the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman aptly calls World War III, a global clash of civilizations with localized struggles against enemies ranging from al Qaeda in the Middle East, to Jemaah Islamiyah in the South East Asia, to the Chechen rebels in Russia, to the Taliban in Afghanistan, to the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, to the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. World War III, which began on September 11, 2001, has been going on for nearly seven years now, but there is no end in sight. There are no clear signs that we are winning the war, or even leading in the game. Compared to our enemies, we have much more money, much more technologically advanced weapons and machinery, and better organized and trained armies (although far fewer actual combatants). Why isn’t this a slam dunk?It seems to me that there is one resource that our enemies have in abundance but we don’t: hate. We don’t hate our enemies nearly as much as they hate us. They are consumed in pure and intense hatred of us, while we appear to have PC’ed hatred out of our lexicon and emotional repertoire. We are not even allowed to call our enemies for who they are, and must instead use euphemisms like “terrorists.” (As I explain elsewhere, we are not really fighting terrorists.) We may be losing this war because our enemies have a full range of human emotions while we don’t.
This has never been the case in our previous wars. We have always hated our enemies purely and intensely. They were “Japs,” they were “Krauts,” they were “Gooks.” And we didn’t think twice about dropping bombs on them, to kill them and their wives and children. (As many commentators have pointed out, the distinction between combatants and civilians does not make sense in World War III, and the Geneva Convention -- an agreement among nations -- is no longer applicable, because our enemies are not nation states.) Hatred of enemies has always been a proximate emotional motive for war throughout human evolutionary history. Until now.
Here’s a little thought experiment. Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost.
Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running.
Wow, that's strong stuff.
I think that we'll get to that point yet, for the simple reason that the Islamofascists will not back down until there's a complete showdown. At which point they will lose and many many people will die.
Todd Fletcher at March 7, 2008 8:14 AM
This is the most idiotic crap I have read since my brother-in-law sent me "the Secret Communist Part of America (SCPA) is behind the rise of Hillary and Barack".
eric at March 7, 2008 8:18 AM
oops- Party.
eric at March 7, 2008 8:19 AM
Yikes! I was pretty uncomfortable about the Geneva Convention no longer being applicable, but then I got to where he wanted to nuke most of the Middle East and I realized I my worries about the Geneva Convention were petty.
(Now I feel bad about my prior silly false pride in my own apparent beauty since I only have daughters....)
jerry at March 7, 2008 8:29 AM
I'll take this as additional evidence that scientists are every bit as fallible as the rest of us when they get outside their areas of expertise.
Shawn at March 7, 2008 9:46 AM
I don't think it's reasonable to say "Let's nuke the Middle East." But, I posted this because I think he has some interesting points -- and while I was not for going into Iraq, if we were going to go into Iraq, we should have had a much stronger military action than we have.
Amy Alkon at March 7, 2008 9:53 AM
I'm sorry, but promoting zealous hatred is just a reprehensible thing to do.
Zeal causes us to throw off all thought of the humanity we share with our victims. It leads us to glory in atrocities that serve the ends only of the megalomaniacs who inspired us to hate.
Axman at March 7, 2008 10:25 AM
I think it's ridiculous to believe we can instill democracy in a people whose Muslim ideology (collectivist) runs counter to the necessary mindset for it.
I was never for the Iraq war because Saddam didn't attack us. And also because of the above. But, we went in half-ass, under-prepared, and troop "surges" were discussed way too late in the game.
Again, I think it's ridiculous to say "Let's just drop 35 nukes" on the Middle East. But, if you step back from that, consider whether our response, and the level of our response, has made any sense, militarily or politically.
Amy Alkon at March 7, 2008 10:32 AM
I posted this because I think he has some interesting points
Indeed he does, but they tend to be overshadowed by his outrageously stupid ones. Come on, nukes and Coulter are two things that intelligent people don't generally advocate.
I hate to say this, because I have an almost Crid level of loathing for the CIA, but I think the person I've read who has made the most sense on this is Michael Scheuer. I haven't found a concise quote of his position on what we should have done after 911, but here's what I recall: 1. Kill or capture the the majority of the Taliban by quickly and forcefully invading Afghanistan. 2. Quit messing around with middle east politics.
Here's something more recent:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/110937
Shawn at March 7, 2008 10:47 AM
Shawn, that article is really interesting, thank you.
sam at March 7, 2008 11:04 AM
This whole argument started from a ridiculous proposition, namely comparing the threat from a few dozen / few hundred motivated terrorists to the unprecedented events called World Wars. To suggest that America is losing the battle to maintain our freedom and lifestyle is just nonsense. If it weren't for reading or the internet, most of us wouldn't even know there was a conflict going on.
Our response to 9/11 led us into Iraq, and a newer type of warfare, but that is the inevitable result of dropping a hundred thousand well armed "authorities" into any society. If we invaded had Switzerland, there would probably be one heck of an insurgency today.
Dropping a few dozen nukes throughout the Middle East probably would have invited nasty reponses from China and Russia, and every other country in the world, which could have led to a WW3. By the way, how many nukes should we have dropped on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the UAE?
And suggesting that we aren't winning because we don't hate the enemy enough? Where does this guy formulate his military thinking? There were lots and lots of Americans oposed to firebombing the "Gooks". The hatred of Japanese on the West Coast is now an almost universal embarrassment to Americans, and recognized as an irrational fear-based response to racist political opportunism. My Dad, uncle, and aunt, all British and served in WW2, never expressed any hatred of the German people. My uncle, who was in the campaign to liberate Buchenwald, spent the rest of his life an alcoholic trying to figure out how a society could have tolerated such hatred (of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.).
The whole thought train of the essay above is just bizarre, and demonstrates a child-like understanding of history.
eric at March 7, 2008 11:04 AM
Nukes and Coulter don't really work for me either.
Miller's sentiment is correct, though without precision, the fuzzy sentiment is not enough. What we had in WWII which the West now lacks is civilizational self-assurance (if that is actually a term...) We should have declared war on all Islamic Theocratic Totalitarian states, and destroyed Iran first. (or in conjunction with Afghanistan which was small potatos)
Iran are still the terror masters, the center of power and the progenitor of Islamic theocracy. Once they were defeated, we should have threatened Saudi Arabia to stop exporting Wahabi Jihad or they will be next. Threaten Syria to dipose Assad within a week or they will be next. And followed through on those threats.
And no nation building. I agree with Amy, if they don't want a nation of laws and private property rights, fine. We should not waste American lives and dollars sacrificing ourselves. However, the new thug in charge will know that if he threatens the US, we will be back.
Now Ann Coulter would not be able to do this because she is also a theocrat. But she thinks she is in the right, because she has the Lord Jesus Christ, which she thinks the West was founded on. It was not. Aristotle, Aquinas and the Founding Fathers freed us from religion, no matter how much the Christian Right attempts to rewrite history.
newjonny at March 7, 2008 11:23 AM
Rick Atkinson made the same point in his books on WWII.
http://www.squidoo.com/rickatkinson
"North Africa becomes a proving ground: it is here that American officers learn how to lead, here that soldiers learn how to hate, here that an entire army learns what it will take to vanquish a formidable enemy."
We are still licking around the edges.
austin at March 7, 2008 11:26 AM
You're welcome, sam. You might want to check out Imperial Hubris. Fair warning: it's a bit long-winded.
eric, well said, although I think people are starting to notice the monetary cost.
Shawn at March 7, 2008 11:30 AM
What it really comes down to is: what the devil are we doing over there? Bin Laden and company can and should have been dealt with by means other than military. That's what the CIA or perhaps the special forces are for.
As for the countries that harbor such nitwits, a trade embargo by the US and Europe would have brought them to their knees. Europe was wholeheartedly behind the US in the days after 9/11, and would have supported any reasonable action.
Instead, the President's actions changed the world's attitude from one of sympathy and support to one of disgust - quite a achievement. Arrogance, pre-emptive warfare, disregard for the Geneva conventions - you name it, and Bush did it wrong.
Even more astounding is how much support he has in the media - and, through the media, in the populace. I vividly recall his State of the Union speech in 2003, when he was working the country up to support the Iraq invasion. I didn't understand why he was headed that way, but figured he would explain it.
Instead, he lied(1). Outright, blatant lies that a child could see through. After the speech, I talked with my family back in the USA - and asked how long they thought it would be before he was impeached. They were shocked! His speech was wonderful! It matched exactly what all the papers were saying! Rah, rah, let's go!
I still find it unbelievable, but since then I've made a point of reading both international and US news. The degree to which the major US media presents a single point of view is amazing. It's reminiscent of watching those videos of fish swarms in the ocean - each fish is an individual, but they somehow all turn and move and swim as one.
If you want a current example, look at global warming. It's all bunk(2) - politically motivated trash science - and this is bloody obvious to any competent scientist. But the media seems completely unified in their support of it.
I must be in a ranting mood - having just gone through the global warming thing again with someone...
Cheers,
bradley13
(1) Actually, he didn't lie. I went back and read the text of the speech - it is incredibly carefully worded to mislead while being truthful. As an example: it sounded like he was listing weapons known to be in Saddam Hussein's possession - X missiles, Y tons of nerve agents. In fact, he was listing weapons destroyed in the 1991 invasion, but only a careful reading of the text reveals this.
(2) If you haven't heard that human-caused global warming is a scam, here are the facts in brief: 1. statistically, the temperature of the earth is driven by solar output, not CO2. 2. CO2 is a lousy greenhouse gas anyway but a great plant fertilizer. 3. The two studies (the "hockey stick" study and another by NASA) that started the whole craze were both based on "secret" methods that - when revealed - were immediately shown to be nonsense. 4. The sun entered a very quiet phase about 2-1/2 years ago, which is now having the expected effect of dropping global temperatures. A bit of googling will get you all the info, but here is a sample.
bradley13 at March 7, 2008 11:46 AM
"To suggest that America is losing the battle to maintain our freedom and lifestyle is just nonsense." eric...
well, yes, and no.
What the original writer fails to delineate, and also maybe not seen by Eric is the nature of our enemy.
Clearly we won't be hanging around singing kumbyyaa with Islamists. There are certainly factions within their religion who are more moderate, but those factions are not driving change. They hate anything that is not Islamist, and even people willing to convert are lesser status.
This presents the West in particular with a problem. All the stuff we have been spouting about how religions should be equal under law, and we should respect diversity and all that... Only works if everyone agrees to make it so. The minute one religion starts asking for the unreasonable thing [like polygamy in the UK] in a reasonable way, and we blythely give in to that, we have already startd down a more difficult path.
Because they can use our own sense of fairness and honor against us. They can use our own laws against us. they can use our own care for their lives against us. We used to hope the Russians love their children too. We were mostly right about that. The militant Islamist can take that hope, and hold us hostage with it. He packs his own child with an explosive belt, and sends the child to meet us. What can we do? He doesn't care, because he can just make another.
Nuking everyone and letting some god sort it out, is an answer, but are we sure we want to ask that question? It invalidates pretty much everything we think about basic human fairness. Yet, and this is un-PC these days but true, if we hadn't dropped nukes on Japan at the end of WWII, we would have had to kill virtually every person in the country. The battle plans estimated MILIONS dead, based on the experiences of other island hopping in the Pacific. Showing the Emperor EXACTLY what this would cost him, and in such a specific way, ended the war right there.
Unfortunately we have no such ability with Islamists. They do not fight under a single banner. There is no one person we can force to see how this hurts his own people. the ones in power don't particularly care.
And here is the rub. They have TIME on there side.
As can be seen by any number of comments all over the web, people think of war in an amazingly short timescale. Their fatigue is about 3 years. The islamists have hundreds of years, because they never have to win directly. They can take over the UK from within. they can do this with the rest of Europe as well. 50 years from now, they can continue doing this, and as critical mass is created, we will do less and less about it. Untill they become well entrenched in our armed forces worldwide.
Then they will likely stage a classic coup in most governments, and then it will really be a war. at least in places where civilians still own guns then, if any.
Interestingly, at that point is when a place like China, might simply challenge them, and potentially be victorious. Because they don't have to hold anything back.
There is a lot of amazingly stupid rhetoric about this situation precisely because of how militant Islam undermines our notions of fairness. Will it invalidate our notions of religious tolerance? The freedom to live as you wish to? We are hitting a brick wall because of the disconnect modern people seem to feel about tolerance. The disconnect seems to me to be about paying for the sins of our fathers, which is a favorite self-flagellation that we see everyday in many political quarters.
To pay back the world for The West's former imperial ways, former racist stupidities, former religious zelotry, we will roll over and do nothing when faced with the same thing in return. As if that will get us somewhere.
Here's a newsflash, if you don't set guidelines for a child, they will always try to get away with more and more, because they are LOOKING for the edge of what you will take. If you allow the practice of Sharia Law for religious reasons, you can expect that eventually those same people will want you, yourself to submit to it.
It is not wrong for a community of people to allow the practice of certain cultural or religious institutions as long as they don't violate established law. It is wrong to just set aside that established law when asked, just because there is a religious implication. Public policy certainly has to apply to everyone, and they have to agree on it.
If a group wishes to violently dissagree with that, then you will have to confront them.
Because they are in the wrong. If you must go to war over this, then you must.
Wishing it will go away isn't an option.
SwissArmyD at March 7, 2008 12:39 PM
Actually, we are losing the war in unexpected ways -- for example, as Harvard bends over for Muslim women and cuts gym hours for men so the ladies from the repressive religious cult can swim without being seen by men.
Those who have problems with the freedoms of western society should stay in the backward lands they come from.
Amy Alkon at March 7, 2008 12:51 PM
"...and while I was not for going into Iraq, if we were going to go into Iraq, we should have had a much stronger military action than we have."
This is the kind of statement we get from the current politically-correct, media-driven mishmash promoted everywhere today. If you'll slip back to ~1991, you'll see the 3rd-largest standing army evaporating under American smart weapons, bang, bang, bang. Since then, we have not waged "war" - we have had our hands tied entirely in something approaching Janet Reno's dreams but a professional soldier's nightmare, where most of the people in view are to not be considered the enemy until they start shooting.
And this is a completely different issue than the public's abject ignorance about who is funding the American presence, and who has the Constitutional duty to recognize and declare war.
Radwaste at March 7, 2008 12:53 PM
> On September 12, President
> Coulter would have ordered
> the US military forces to
> drop 35 nuclear bombs
No, she wouldn't have.
> killing all of our actual and
> potential enemy combatants, and
> their wives and children.
No, it wouldn't have.
People got some weird, weird ideas about war and killing.
And I swear, Ann Coulter gets free rent in people's souls; she lives in the penthouse of fear overlooking the citidel. It's like being scared of Casper the Friendly Ghost. I'll never understand it. Seipp is badly missed when reading shit like that.
Crid at March 7, 2008 12:55 PM
I think it is also very important not to group a peaceful group of women petitioning for their version of privacy with the people who hijack airplanes and fly them into civillian buildings... (all types of) women have been screaming about designated gym hours since they won the right to get into male only gymnasiums.
And I am puzzled about the Janet Reno remark.
eric at March 7, 2008 1:09 PM
No, the women aren't murdering people, but they're chipping away at western society and western values, and discriminating against men to do it, and I'm against allowing that. Believe me, they'd love to have Sharia law instituted here -- they can't, so they just chip away at what they can.
Remember - the pyramids were built one brick at a time.
Amy Alkon at March 7, 2008 1:32 PM
Hmm.... I think the reports of our demise are premature. Anyone heard from the Archbishop of Canterbury lately?
eric at March 7, 2008 1:48 PM
"Anyone heard from the Archbishop of Canterbury lately?" Eric...
who cares about a church official with no legal power?
Let us talk about changes in policy and law that allow something that has been outlawed for many years to suddenly be practiced again, if it's according to their religion...
Polygamists will get benefits for all wives... Even though polygamy is illegal in the UK.
Also, tax credits for Polygamists ammended 5! years ago in the UK:
The Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003
So... in a few years, the polygamy law in the UK will be challenged, because they have tacitly ignored polygamist marriages that are from outside the Commonwealth. This is only one non earthshaking law, that is being quietly changed by asking for the Unreasonable thing, in a Reasonable way.
So what that Canterbury is no longer news? This isn't a soundbyte in a 24/7 news cycle. This is going to go on for YEARS. Once you set a precedent that you will change, you will be asked for more changes.
SwissArmyD at March 7, 2008 2:28 PM
What is interesting to me is the lack of so called "moderate muslims" who, when asked to denounce the islamo-fascists, say that they are in fear of reprisal from the radical elements themselves if they speak out against them. Bullshit. In the dark little corners of their minds, they quietly say and do nothing, hoping the radicals will do job they want done, installing sharia law around the world after converting us all into their way of thinking. Or to die instead. The nuclear route is tempting under the real world circumstances, but I know I couldn't pull that trigger.
brian at March 7, 2008 3:23 PM
Back on Amy's topic...
Describing this war in terms of emotion (they hate us more than we hate them) is, as eric said, a little childish.
The real issue is that our thought leaders don't think we are worth fighting for.
newjonny at March 7, 2008 6:12 PM
Splitting atoms in anger is something that should be avoided.
winston at March 7, 2008 8:40 PM
Hold on. Let's get a handle on what we are talking about. War is the use of organized violence to achieve a political end. Modern typologies categorize war as of two types, limited and unlimited. Limited war is the use of organized violence to coerce a political entity into a course of action. Unlimited war, also called a war of annihilation, aims to to totally eliminate a political entity.
In my view, we should fight a war of annihilation against Islamists. I also reject the notion that in war one can separate the government from the people. War aims to coerce governments, but it does so by violent action against people. A people who forget that fact will tend to lose wars.
The tactical aim of war is to create a pursuit in which the enemy can be killed efficiently, en mass. The whole object of battle is to create this situation. A people who flinch when it's time for the throat-cutting will tend to lose wars.
The Geneva Conventions are defunct, in fact of not on paper. Western liberals have interpreted the Conventions as applying only to white people, and they use the treaty to hamstring Western armies. Muslims are never accused of war crimes for: executing prisoners, torturing civilians, acts of perfidy, operating out of uniform, etc. Nation-states enter treaties to achieve a political advantage. When treaties cease to provide an advantage, nation-states exit from treaties. Western liberals use the Geneva Conventions against the very powers that follow it, while excusing the very powers that don't. Liberals have abused the Conventions to achieve opposite of the treaty's intent. No nation-state will long tolerate a treaty that threatens vital national interests. Western liberals have inadvertently destroyed the Geneva Conventions.
The essence of war of preemption. I'm all for preemptive nuclear attack. I have no doubt that Islamists would use a nuke if they had one, and they could deliver it.
Jeff at March 8, 2008 6:02 AM
Now if he could just turn his attention to how a handful of razor blades defeated our trillion dollar "defense" system, he's on his way to winning the coveted Medal of Freedom!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 8, 2008 8:59 AM
It's an absurdly false analogy to compare the "war on terror" with past military conflicts. It is far more akin to the cold war.
At this point the perception of the west is that it engages in a little too much cultural imperialism, a position I agree with.
Those part of the world suffering oppression, lacking democracy and freedom, will need to evolve in their own time and on their own terms. We cannot force democracy on them, particularly at the point of a gun.
gwalla at March 8, 2008 7:05 PM
To think that "those part of the world suffering oppression, lacking democracy and freedom, will need to evolve in their own time and on their own terms" insinuates that they will actually be allowed to evolve by their leaders, who are dominated by religious zealots who preach "Death to America". They want to "evolve" into the 5th century and they want us dead. Get it? Dead. If they want to practice their religion and not kill us, I'm pro-muslim. I'll go their bingo nights and raffles and grow a beard for Ramadan. Until then, they are the enemy.
brian at March 9, 2008 11:05 AM
gwalla is on the right track. The cold war being WWIII, we are now on WWIV. Sun Tzu said, "In war the moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1." The USA and Europe has not found our "moral" or "will" to fight this war, which is not easily won with high explosives (or nukes.) Read 'Imperial Grunts' to learn about some Americans who understand WWIV are are fighting it. Sun Tzu's sayings about defeating your enemy before he even takes the field of battle apply more than Clauswitz's theories of state-on-state warfare.
Mike S at March 9, 2008 5:59 PM
President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children.
I'd prefer quarantine, myself. I'm perfectly happy to let Middle Easterners to go jihad on each other over austrolopithican tribal issues (and have their asses periodically handed to them by the Israelis), with no access to US opportunity or wealth until they, as a culture, embrace the 18th century at minimum. Obviously that can't be done when our shipping infrastructure depends on oil.
One thing about media coverage of the Republican primary always struck me as odd. Tom Tancredo, whom I consider something of a weirdo, was lambasted for his plan to "nuke" Mecca in the event of another jihadist attack, regardless of the jihadis' national origin.
I found myself wondering how it is that, when faced with a worldwide religious insurgency, the notion that one should stage an overwhelming counterattack at the heart of that religion is any more absurd than the notion that
1) we can drag an entire civilization thousands of years into the future in, like, five or ten years (Bush)
2) our President's charisma will somehow convince, say, Hezbollah to abandon its fool crusade (Obama; this was around the time of his invite Assad and A'jad to Washington gaffe)
Odder still, was that the two weirdos, Tancredo and the even weirder Ron Paul, were the only two candidates on either side that seemed to have plausible answers to the question of how to deal with the phenomenon of Global Jihad. Commit to destroying the enemy completely or stand behind a wall and watch as he cannibalizes himself.
Steven at March 13, 2008 1:28 AM
Leave a comment