Giving Moral Force to the Enemy
In my reading of Dodge's series on the Napoleonic wars I came across this little nugget. Dodge reprints a letter from Napoleon to his minister of war Henri Clarke regarding the behavior of his older brother Joseph, then acting King of Spain:
This maxim from Napoleon can still be applied today, especially in regard to public opinion in the U.S. In Iraq the enemy exaggerates its strength through the use of suicide bombings on civilians. At the same time we diminish our power through the rhetoric of defeat by the constant coverage of the losses in Iraq rather than the successes. We are giving moral force to the enemy and taking it from our self.
I know I depart from my many of my conservative brethren regarding this war. The war in Iraq is a liberal idea - a liberal idea, which has its roots in self defense. But, on a more fundamental level, it pains me to accept that many here believe that the United States, the greatest society that has ever existed in human history, should not aid those besieged by the forces of evil. If the enemy is so deranged that they will blow themselves up in the mist of public market places in order to gain power and subject peoples to tyranny, there is no force on earth but the United States that can stand up to such perverted barbarism. Of course, we should not police the world, but the terror campaign in Iraq is not about policing, it is a battle of good vs evil. America must always be in that battle no matter where it is waged.
Now we have some on the right allied with those on the left demanding that we give up the fight. I hope they do not succeed. For if they do, we will no longer be who we once were or who we ought to be. Not all of us are soldiers, but we will all reflect on the past and what we did. Let it not be that we stood down.
To Clarke, October 10, 1809: I desire you to write to the king of Spain to make him understand that nothing is more contrary to military rules than to make known the forces of his army, be it in the orders of the day and proclamations, be it in the gazette; that when one is induced to speak of his forces, one is to exaggerate them, and to present them as redoubtable by doubling and trebling the number; and that when one speaks of the enemy, one is to diminish his force by one half or one third; that in war everything is morale; that the King departed from this principle...that it is carrying discouragement to the French troops to present the number of the enemy as immense, and it is to give to the enemy a feeble opinion of the French in presenting them as few, that this is to proclaim in all Spain its feebleness; in a word, to give moral force to his enemy, and to take it from himself. That it is in the spirit of men to believe that in the end the lesser number must be beaten by the greater....The most experienced military men have difficulty on a day of battle to value the numbers of men which compose the enemy's army, and generally natural instinct leads one to judge the enemy that one sees more enormous than he actually is...
This maxim from Napoleon can still be applied today, especially in regard to public opinion in the U.S. In Iraq the enemy exaggerates its strength through the use of suicide bombings on civilians. At the same time we diminish our power through the rhetoric of defeat by the constant coverage of the losses in Iraq rather than the successes. We are giving moral force to the enemy and taking it from our self.
I know I depart from my many of my conservative brethren regarding this war. The war in Iraq is a liberal idea - a liberal idea, which has its roots in self defense. But, on a more fundamental level, it pains me to accept that many here believe that the United States, the greatest society that has ever existed in human history, should not aid those besieged by the forces of evil. If the enemy is so deranged that they will blow themselves up in the mist of public market places in order to gain power and subject peoples to tyranny, there is no force on earth but the United States that can stand up to such perverted barbarism. Of course, we should not police the world, but the terror campaign in Iraq is not about policing, it is a battle of good vs evil. America must always be in that battle no matter where it is waged.
Now we have some on the right allied with those on the left demanding that we give up the fight. I hope they do not succeed. For if they do, we will no longer be who we once were or who we ought to be. Not all of us are soldiers, but we will all reflect on the past and what we did. Let it not be that we stood down.
posted by Sloanasaurus | 4/24/2007 12:35:00 AM
What self defense? How is this possibly self defense? Honest conservatives believe in self defense, but not in unjustified intervention. Liberals believe in nation building and meddling, not conservatives.
It's not even worth explaining again. You war opposers don't listen to the answers; you just respond back by repeating the same questions.
I understand why the Left does it -they don't care about facts, but why our own kind adopts the same tactics is most troubling....
Because you never explain why we're there!
If Saurus won't explain I will.
Will Ms. Stebbing deny that we are fighting, in Iraq, an organization called Al Qaeda in Iraq? We are fighting in Iraq the war we expected to be fighting in Afghanistan. That is, Al Qaeda decided to throw all its resources into the Iraq theater and not the Afghanistan theater.
So to recap:
1) Al Qaeda is our enemy.
2) We are fighting them and killing them in Iraq.
3) By killing them there, they are diminished in their capacity to kill us here.
Therefore,
4) This is defensive.
No, right now we're trying to prop up yet another government against out interests. Trying to fight Al Qaeda is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. Come to think of it, propping up this Iraqi government is like nailing Jello to a wall.
Additionally, we're so focused on Iraq that we're not working on getting legitimate intelligence on Al Qaeda itself. Going after Al Qaeda is something you do covertly. It has nothing to do with nation building and police actions.
Because you never explain why we're there!
This is the same old...same old. From the war protesters. In fact you can find 100 page documents on the subject at the white house web page and dept of defense. But, the war opponents don't want to look. They don't want to contemplate the reasons... they just want to ask the question over and over and over and over again.
It's a leftist tactic. If you re-ask the question over and over and over, eventually people will believe that it has never been answered.
But I will agree with Harsh...
We went to Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein. We won that war. We are still there because Al Qaeda came to Iraq.
Additionally, we're so focused on Iraq that we're not working on getting legitimate intelligence on Al Qaeda itself. Going after Al Qaeda is something you do covertly. It has nothing to do with nation building and police actions.
Says who? General Scribbler? It has everything to do with nation building. We kill them daily.
Something must be working. You say that we are not winning against Al Qaeda, yet everyone including Al Qaeda said they were going to hit us here in the U.S. followng 9-11. But, it has been 5 1/2 years.
I say the burden is on you protesters to now prove that what we are doing in Iraq is not working against Al Qaeda.
Then why don't we go take out every tyrant? China is forcing late term abortions. Nuke 'em. And we've been awfully tolerant of the Castro brothers.
You know, we used to go after strongmen the old fashioned way, by funding the resistance. I don't know why we've chosen to kill our own guys this time. To fuel Al Qaeda's fire?
Sigh.
You guys want us to be in a war? The powers-that-be will ensure we're in a war if that's the only way they can get their damn North American Union. And they'll keep feeding you the talking points, and you won't question them.
They should make me General. I'd make quick work of this folly.
We did weaken Al Qaeda, at least initially. Word is they've been recovering. But we weakened them not because of Iraq. We were running some intelligence and making inroads. Pakistan screwed us, but you keep after them by getting in with their neighboring cave dwellers. You don't chase them into centralized terrorist training camps in Iraq.
But we weakened them not because of Iraq.
Maybe, but you only make an unprovable assertion. Six months into the Iraq war and 2 years after 9-11, your argument was plausible. We had the burden to prove that the Iraq war was making us safer. But 3-4 years into the war, that burden started to shift. Now 5 1/2 years after 9-11 and 4 years in Iraq, Al Qaeda has done nothing but make tapes. The terrorists were at the height of their power after 9-11. They had terrorist cells in 50 countries. They had 10,000 trained soldiers. Where are the cells. Where are the attacks. So far there are only audio tapes calling for Jihad. The only success Al Qaeda has had since 9-11 has been to increase sectarian violence in Iraq. That is not much of a success.
Our soldiers are winning this war. They will only fail if the defeatists succeed surrender.
We did some damage in Afghanistan, no question.
You think we've hobbled them, though? Outside of the Middle East we've seen the train bombing in Madrid, the London bombings, the too-close-for-comfort plot for the London-to-US flight. And if you want to say the Iraq war is related to terrorism, they've succeeded in killing another 3,300 Americans, doubling their 9/11 take.
And they've been rumored to be gathering strength. If a goal of 9/11 was to get us out of Saudi Arabia, what do you think they're using for propaganda now? They're eating this up!
What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish there right now? Is our goal now to fight one-on-one with Al Qaeda? We'd need a hell of a lot more troops than we have men in this country, because we will need to occupy the entire Middle East.
Meanwhile, we're bringing the Middle East here to America, just lately to the tune of 25,000 Iraqis. That's just a start. We're going to get our own little training camps in the suburbs. Man, what a mess.
And your alternative plan is better?
Your commentary is wrong on all points. Al Qaeda is not the norm in the middle east. There is no islamic tradition supporting Al Qaeda. There is nothing about Al Qaeda that can be attributed to any islamic glory age. Blowing up civilians is not in the tradition of Saladin or any of the caliphs. It is a peversion of anything in history. It is a fascist movement. It can and will be defeated. But to defeat it we have to fight it and not sit back and hope that the impovershed people of Afghanistan or Iraq or any other peoples in the middle east fight it themselves.
The goal of 9/11 was to get us to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. So that we could be defeated there and leave the middle east all together. After our retreat, Bin Ladin, with a giant victory on his shoulders, would have little opposition in rebuilding his "caliphate."
What are we trying to accomplish. We need to stay there until Al Qaeda peters out and keep them from gaining anything.
Dateline today: Poll finds most Muslims agree with Al Qaeda's goals
This breaks it down in better detail: http://nationmultimedia.com/worldhotnews/read.php?newsid=30032604
and it was dated yesterday, not today.
You of all people Scribbler should know better than to cite polls from countries ruled by dictators, you should know better than to cite polls from countries where people disappear in the middle of the night for opposing the regimes. In countries where people and their families are targeted by fanatics for speaking up against them.
How far do you have to go Scribbler to support your bankrupt positions. Maybe you can cite Saddam's election results to prove that Saddam was loved by the people.
Maybe it's better to look at results. If so many people in Egypt support Al Qaeda, why aren't millions flocking to Al Qaeda's ranks.
And now Al Qaeda is planning a massive attack: Al Qaeda in Iraq Planning Attacks in the UK.
At least our intelligence is better than it was. But Iraq is not working.
The poll was conducted by "the Washington-based nonprofit group WorldPublicOpinion.org and the University of Maryland."
Al Quada is now planning a massive attack? Oh no!
This must be because of Iraq. They were so peaceful before. If we hadn't invaded Iraq there is simply no way they would be planning a massive attack now.
I'm just saying we're not seeing a lot of improvement. There HAVE been more attempts since our involvement in Iraq, but we seem to be more on top of them, more alert.
Al Qaeda has been such a dissappointment for the anti-war crowd. They get overjoyed when Al Qaeda releases another tape with Bin Ladin wagging his finger at us saying we are doomed. The anti-wars groaners are hoping and praying for just even a measly car bomb attack here in the U.S. Then they can stand up and scream... "Bush was wrong we are not safer."
No doubt Al Qaeda knows this. They have been trying and trying, but it's hard to get recruits these days...so many of the good ones are lying in graves in Iraq.
I can't speak for the anti-war liberals, as their position is not grounded in any moral basis, having been entirely willing to get into Bosnia, etc. But Mr. S'aurus makes a preposterous claim against those of us who oppose the war from a conservative, Constitutional foundation. We have the clarity, not feeling the need to adhere to a party line or talking points, to understand that war in Iraq has no positive effect on our vulnerability to terrorists. On the contrary, it is demoralizing our nation, dividing us so that we may be conquered, and is sapping our resources.
Look, I listen to talk radio too, a lot of the same guys you all do, but I've given myself permission to think for myself. Try it. They say using your brain helps to stave off Alzheimer's.
I feel a sudden need for sunlight and fresh air. Don't miss me too much.
I've given myself permission to think for myself
Outrageous! Are nominations for the vitriol award allowed here?
But Mr. S'aurus makes a preposterous claim against those of us who oppose the war from a conservative, Constitutional foundation
I never made that claim. I am not sure what opposing the war from a "conservatvie constitutional foundation" means.
On the contrary, it is demoralizing our nation, dividing us so that we may be conquered, and is sapping our resources.
You are right about this. But whose fault is it? The Civil War also divided us, but the truth prevailed. The divisions already existed before the war in Iraq began. The challenge was bound to occur and it did on Sept 11. Sept 11 opened the wounds that already existed in our society on how to deal with these threats.
Whose fault was the civil war? Would it have been better to keep James Bucannan in office for another term in 1860? Would that have reconciled us or only postposed the inevitable.
The War of Northern Aggression is a matter for another post. But I can see some similarites, none of them positive. However, we weren't forced to take on tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants as a result thereof.
It was the "German" division that collapsed on the Union Right at Chancellorsville.
I would talk about the large transfers of freed slaves from the south to the north, but lets leave that discussion for Brits.
Freed slaves practiced the same religion as the rest of us, and held similar values at that time. And the slaves were already here.
But good idea. We'll save that for Brits.
Post a Comment