Schneier on Security

Ian Cognito • September 12, 2006 12:14 AM

In Afghanistan, we used special operations forces, and left the tribal power structure in place, more or less. We also left many of them much richer, because we are not as vigorous as the Taliban in enforcing our desire for them to not grow opium. In Iraq, we used conventional forces to decapitate the power structure, and things are a mess. It's almost like the Eastern Front in WWII, where Stalin had purged all the military leaders, and the Red Army performed about like the new government in Iraq is performing.

Our strategy in Afghanistan was like judo, using an opponent's moves against him, or a coup-de-e'tat. Our strategy in Iraq is like a very linear heavyweight boxing match, or a conventional head-to-head military confrontation. One of them is making news all the time, and one isn't. I wonder why.

One thing to remember about the Arab countries is that they seem to be in a similar place in their civilization as the West was in the Middle Ages, or that Japan was just before we introduced them to cannons. All used religion (well, bushido and Zen buddhism in Japan) as a way to channel (some might say control) the forces of chaos, who were variously called knights, martyrs, or samurai. The rulers were often at war with each other, and religion was a thin veneer over lust of power and money.

I used to work at a place that had Fox News on all the time, and I was very disappointed that whenever a purported Al Qaeda statement came out, they failed to play it for us, and as a consequence the public doesn't really seem to know much about our opponent's goals and beliefs. Anyone who expresses an interest in it is suspicious. How can we hope to defeat an enemy who we don't want to understand, due to jingoism? We won't win by repeating slogans such as "they hate freedom". You can't stop a virtually leaderless movement that glorifies martyrdom with bombs and guns, except perhaps through total genocide. It didn't help the Romans to kill the leader of Christianity, did it?

From what I can tell, the colonial powers of the Middle East made sure to gerrymander the national boundaries enough that they are in constant conflict, and on top of that they supported whatever regimes offered stability and favorable oil production figures, no matter what their domestic policies were. Furthermore, the various parties involved have much to gain, mostly personally, by starting trouble. Israel insists on fomenting trouble in neighboring states, as a means of keeping their enemies (i.e. everyone but the US) fighting internal struggles. And the rapaciously greedy dictatorships around them are definitely no better, funding "martyr missions" covertly. Every enemy of the US is probably trying to figure out a way to give the US a black eye in Iraq, and we created the opportunity for them to do so. George senior had a prescient quote about why he didn't invade Iraq, and it is worth reading. The real reasons behind invading Afghanistan and Iraq are locked away in the minutes of the Energy Task Force. The leaders of nations and religions may cast their actions in moral terms, and occasionally they are morally justified, but for the most part it's political theater. No, it's a charade, and you'd have to be very naive to believe the simple-minded explanations (slogans) they say publicly. Idealism is an evolutionary disadvantage compared to realism.

Ian Cognito • September 12, 2006 12:15 AM

Sorry, wrong page! :-P