OP-ED: “Obama Is Right on Iran,” by Shelby Steele, Wall Street Journal, 26 November 2007, p. A21.ARTICLE: “Iran: They think they have right on their side; Why the Iranians see themselves in a very different light,” The Economist, 24 November 2007, p. 49.
Brilliant bit by Shelby Steele that really opened my eyes (grateful, I am!).
He distinguishes between “wars of discipline” (enforcement of existing rules, in my vernacular) and “wars of survival” (my rule set versus yours).
May seem like a small distinction. In “discipline” wars, as Steele argues, you’re looking to “preserve a favorable balance of power that is already in place in the world.” In “survival” wars, he says, “we fight to achieve a favorable balance of power.”
To me, this is like the point I made in PNM on the “From the Sea…” naval white paper of 1992: our big leap of logic was when we stopped arguing whether or not the U.S. had
“sea control” globally and started talking about what we were going to do with that control (a concept explored nicely by Walter Russel Mead’s God and Gold book, which I just finished).
So Steele would call the Cold War a discipline war and WWII a survival war. Nice.
In my strategic vernacular, then, here’s the key difference between the Old Core and the New Core WRT the long war against radical extremism: despite the wobbly types in Europe, the long war is a war of discipline for the Old Core. We enjoy the current world order and dealing with the radical jihadists is simply a matter of preserving our advantages. Over time, globalization makes the problem go away in the variety of ways I’ve long described here (e.g., various reformations, demographics, moving beyond oil).
In contrast, for the New Core and for Seam States in general (like Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia), the long war IS a war of survival, just as it is for the jihadists themselves, doomed as they are.
This is why the West, and the U.S. in particular, will never wage—and should never wage—an all-out or total war, nor should we put America on a war footing. It’s unnecessary and unsustainable and unwise. So all that gibberish about “America’s getting the war it deserves” is all wrong. America is getting the war that’s appropriate for the risks entailed.
Secondly, this is why I say the U.S. must locate its future key allies in the New Core and Seam, not in the Old Core (except maybe, the “youngish” Ozzies and Kiwis).
Steele’s larger point in the piece is also good: in wars of discipline, you have to talk to your enemies (Obama’s point on Iran). Not to do so is to fundamentally misdiagnose both the correlation of forces and the type of war we’re waging.
And no, the fact that both sides—even all sides—view the conflict asymmetrically is not a problem per se. It’s the reality in most wars. Being un-self-aware or delusional on the subject is the real danger.
And that’s where Dick Cheney comes in . . .
| Permalink |
Comments (4)
I thought the WSJ article was disappointing (especially its flat end on "moral authority"), but your summary of the main point is brilliant. It's one of the best things you have written.
The New Core functions as a loyalty militias for globalization, more desperate to get a more version of what we want. It thus provides the motivation and the KISS strategy that we so often lack.
Brilliant.
Posted by dan tdaxp | December 21, 2007 8:23 AM
There was a "little" war in our lifetime which a lot of people have forgotten. The Falklands. Some Argentines looked in the mirror and saw all those fancy uniforms and comic opera hats and thought they were really military men. They decided to take on the Brits. Now I come from a long line of Irishmen who had no love for the Brits but one thing we all should know from history is this. The Brits are fighters.
So the Falklands War was a classic example of a country that was lead by delusional men who did not know history, warfare, or their enemy. One incident that sticks with me is the Argentine outrage and despair at the sinking of their one cruiser by a Royal Navy submarine. How sad for the men who died.
Posted by Ted O'Connor | December 21, 2007 1:42 PM
Would what characterizes "radical extremism" be defined differently for each context:
(1) Old Core -- War of Discipline -- Enforcement of Existing Rules
as compared to:
(2) New Core -- War of Survival -- My Ruleset v. Yours,
or would they be the same in each instance?
Posted by Bill C. | December 21, 2007 4:38 PM
We might look at this another way:
The wars of the early 21st Century will not be wars for survival (for the Old or for the New Core) nor will they be wars of discipline (maintaining the status quo).
These early 21st Century wars will, at the risk of survival and the status quo, be undertaken in the name of opportunity.
This may be the true context in which to determine moral authority and other important matters.
Posted by Bill C. | December 22, 2007 9:59 AM