When I was stationed at Great Lakes Naval Training Station in 1975, I used to spend duty weekends playing military simulation games. One of my favorites was Avalon Hill’s 1776. I prefer to play the historical losers in any game and so I took the British. And I mopped up the map with the Continental Army. Again and again.
But I didn’t win because of my masterful grasp of grand strategy and in-the-shit tactics. No. I won because my opponent didn’t grasp what General George Washington figured out after the disastrous battle of New York in 1776: the Americans win not by beating the British army, but by staying alive.
Every time the American player goes toe-to-toe with the British player, he gets his butt kicked. But if the American player fights little battles — think Washington at Trenton — and keeps the British chasing him across the map, he wins.
I was reminded of all this on Monday, Independence Day, when the Diane Rehm Show rebroadcast an interview with David McCullough about his book: 1776. In the interview, McCullough made the same observation: the goal of General Washington was not to defeat the 30,000 troops under General William Howe, Washington’s goal was to keep the Continental Army alive.
We Americans do a poor job of understanding our own history. The rest of the world, however, does not suffer under that handicap. In the modern world, we are the British and Al-Qaeda is the Americans. Now, before some freeper jumps all over my blog, I’m not in any way suggesting that Al-Qaeda, or any rebel force, has a moral equivalency to the American Revolutionaries. But strategically, it is the same place General Washington was in 1776.
What I am saying is that to win the war, Al-Qaeda does not have to defeat the United States military, it only has to stay alive and, when opportunity presents itself, fight the little battles. Like the bombings in London yesterday.
Tragically 38 humans lost their lives, and approximately another 50 were seriously injured in the savage, cowardly attack. How will Britain react? There will be lots of speeches from politicians vowing to find and punish those responsible. No politician who wants to get re-elected can say to too many constituents, “I’m sorry, I can’t do anything about your problem.”
There will be military strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorists will die. And then they will attack us someplace else.
One of the definitions of insanity is the repeated execution of a certain activity and expecting a result different from all previous actions. In the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, or any other War on that you wish to name, the United States has used the same strategies of force over and over again with the same disastrous results.
Great Britain has been battling the terrorists and insurgents (from the British point-of-view) of the Irish Republican Army for the better part of a century. I think it’s important to take note of how successful they have been in their own War on Terror.
People fighting for what they perceive as freedom — and don’t make the mistake of thinking that to Al-Qaeda and its permutations that freedom is not an issue — are a tenacious bunch.
The point is not to just stop doing the same thing, but to start doing something different. What is that something different? We have a serious lack of successful models. Where in the world has any Western power defeated a native insurgency over the long-haul?
I don’t advocate our withdrawal from Iraq. We made a mistake in attacking Saddam Hussein. We’re in there now and we have a moral obligation to do our damnedest to create a viable democracy.
But we need new ideas — and not just a rehash of either traditional Conservative or Liberal approaches. We need to answer questions like: why is Al Qaeda really doing what it is doing? Can we take that reason off the table? Can we isolate Al Qaeda from its support base? Can we make the alternatives so attractive that Al Qaeda’s supporters abandon it?
Those will do for a start. Any suggestions?
My Soundtrack: Mornings Eleven by The Magic Numbers on WOXY.