Forward Freedom Vs. Bleed Until Bankrupt

Current Events Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
1

I assume everyone here, by now, knows about America’s official war policy: the forward strategy of freedom. But now we also have a name for the enemy’s strategy: “bleed until bankrupt.”

If you are unfamiliar with the enemy’s strategy, you can read Osama bin Laden’s recent description of it here.

It seems to me that the enemy’s long-term war strategy is far superior than our own. First, their strategy is a direct plan against whole nations, including us. They aim to “bleed” us, reducing our precious resources (human and economic) until we are forced to give up. Second, their strategy is one of using physical force to directly achieve their goal. With every calculated use of force, they are depleting our resources. And third, they have a clear vision of victory, of what it would look like: “our bankruptcy.” They know that they will win once it is physically impossible for us to continue fighting, after which we must therefore surrender.

Compare this to the Bush administration’s policy of the forward strategy of freedom.

In sharp contrast, America’s policy is an indirect effort against her yet undeclared, but easily recognized enemy. Having backed down on our rhetoric against Iran, we are now locked in an informal “war” against a “tactic” (terrorism) and “tacticians” (the terrorist-leaders-of-the-day). We have failed to declare formal war on any Islamic totalitarian nation. Thus, our primary tactic against the real enemy in this war is not one of direct physical force, but one of indirect spiritual appeal. We weakly offer our idea of “freedom” to an enemy who rejected it long ago.

Because we are not, as a country, focused on acting directly and physically against the enemy, we end up sidetracked by moral and spiritual diversions, confused by enemy propaganda and domestic debates, and increasingly terrified while on the defensive. While we attempt to bring “freedom” to Iraqis and Afghanis, the enemy is pounding us from all sides, depleting our resources and will. Presently, we are helpless to stop their progress, because our vision of the future does not include the annihilation (or bankruptcy) of our enemy. We are not working toward their direct, physical demise. We are, in fact, working toward our own. Our vision is one of dying for the freedom of people in enemy nations. Our vision is one of going into debt for their welfare. Our vision is one of human and economic self-sacrifice.

While on the surface Bush and bin Laden’s war strategies look different, in my view they really lead to the same result: our destruction.

2

Mr. Swig, your reference of “Forward Strategy of Freedom” reminds me of an article I read very recently on the Capitalist magazine site by Paul Blair

…I reject Bush’s “forward strategy of freedom.” War means deciding that a threat is such that one no longer gives a damn about the enemy or its civilians; it means unleashing as much destruction as necessary so that an enemy pose no threat whatever. If one is unwilling to wreak such destruction, one has no business fighting a war.

A real defense against terrorism would have involved raining massive destruction on the prime state sponsor of terror–Iran–then announcing: “Another peep out of you, or anyone else, and we’ll do it again,” leaving the enemy to deal with the wreckage it had brought on itself. Forget nation-building and “spreading liberty.” Freedom is a value, and like any other value it must be earned by those who benefit from it. Even had Iraq been the primary terrorist threat, liberating it has just meant granting that country an unearned benefit; it’s just one more altruistic welfare program.

I find this context very interesting. In this context, it relates directly to America’s defense of its self-interest. Once again Blair echoes the frustration of some capitalists, including myself, regarding the true objective of having waged a war against Iraq in the first place.

I still accept, to this day, that Iraq under Hussein did represent a threat to American security. But it also represented a threat to the international security of all “free” Western nations, including much of Europe, as the Hussein regime had no right to interfere with the process of free trade.

3

For an alternative to the doom-and-gloom, all-is-lost because we are scared to fight back and the sky is falling due to Bush’s incompetence position, here is a blog by a marine in Iraq. It gives an interesting overview of the upcoming battle for Fallujah, plus the debacle last April. He provides links to some great imagery.

Here is the link.

By the way, did you notice in the bin Laden tape that he has dropped all references to global conquest and American streets running with blood? At the end of the tape he essentially proposes a truce: “You leave us alone, we will leave you alone.” Doesn’t sound like the declaration of an implacable, focused, determined, relentless, winning foe. Sounds more like someone that needs a break from the cave lifestyle. If he is winning big, his mainstream media must be giving him as distorted a picture of the war as our media is giving us.

I wish it were as simple as vaporizing Tehran, followed by an air-drop of a few thousand copies of the U.S. Constitution, with a note attached saying, “Set up a government like this or we’ll come back and nuke another of your cities.” Trouble is, at present any president that did that would be impeached, convicted and out of office before the mushroom cloud dissipated.

So our choice in this election is to stick with the man who is willing to do something militarily, however inadequate, or go with the man who will do nothing. This is the “We aren’t ready to quit” versus the “We surrender” election.

4

So our choice in this election is to stick with the man who is willing to do something militarily, however inadequate, or go with the man who will do nothing.  This is the “We aren’t ready to quit” versus the “We surrender” election.

Bush said in his acceptance speech:

We will help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan — so they can grow in strength and defend their freedom.  And then our servicemen and women will come home with the honor they have earned.

I’m having trouble figuring out whether that statement places Bush in the “We aren’t ready to quit” or “We surrender” category. What happens after our troops come home from the Islamic Republics of Iraq and Afghanistan?

5

We will help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan — so they can grow in strength and defend their freedom.  And then our servicemen and women will come home with the honor they have earned.

I’m having trouble figuring out whether that statement places Bush in the “We aren’t ready to quit” or “We surrender” category. What happens after our troops come home from the Islamic Republics of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well, since the very next line of Bush’s acceptance speech is as follows – “With good allies at our side, we will fight this war on terror with every resource of our national power so our children can live in freedom and in peace.” – and since in his press conference today he “vowed to pursue his doctrine of going after those countries that harbor terrorists, as well as the terrorists themselves” – I assume that when the troops come home from the semi-free Republics of Afghanistan and Iraq, they will rest, re-arm, re-fuel, re-load and then re-deploy.

I agree, however, that actions speak louder than words, so it will be interesting to see how he handles Iran and North Korea.

I suspect the military assets of CENTCOM and the vast train of logistical troops that support them need a rest. So there may well be a pause that refreshes. What do you think, Janet?

At any rate, I’d say if Bush were cut from the “We surrender” cloth, he’d have never survived the year-long war the media waged against him during the campaign.