Discussion about this post

User's avatar
hk's avatar

One thing I noticed during the war in Iraq (the W version) as well as Afghanistan was that what passed for "strategy" was that the other side should be so completely defeated and prostrate that we can do whatever we might decide that we want to do after we win. Or, in other words, nobody knew what they wanted to do exactly, other than something might come up after they win.

So "winning" was paramountly important, because that was seen as the key to everything, but that "win" had to be so comprehensive that it didn't matter what the aims were.

Needless to say that this is ludicrous: you can never win THAT comprehensively, except possibly at unspeakable cost to yourself. If you don't even know what it is that you want, how can you justify such cost? This, then, leads to a dangerous mix of cowardice, delusion, and hypocrisy It makes sense only to pick fights with people whom you (think you) can defeat conprehensively, or somehow convince yourself that you can defeat your adversary comprehensively. If you wind up in a fight with an adversary that you cannot defeat comprehensively (ie almost every time), you wind up giving up everything and go home or sulk aimlessly (or both.)

Expand full comment
Stephen's avatar

Good article.

Recognises the reality that Russia (not just the West) has some very tricky dilemmas to resolve. Military “victory” in Ukraine could prove to be a Pyrrhic one. The Neo Con plan to destabilise Russia via Ukraine was in their own terms possibly a brilliant one! Albeit not one I support. Of course, it came with its own unintended adverse effects for the US that have not yet played out in full either. However, there is a tendency for some people to think in a bipolar way: the West incompetent and evil; Russia / Putin masterful and victims. Many people then think the exact opposite too. Reality is more nuanced.

The Algeria example is also interesting. I still believe that Trump’s least bad option would have been a full pull out from Ukraine back in January at the height of presidential power rather than the current drawn out and bogged down process that will go nowhere. It would have had immediate disruptive consequences but arguably far less bad outcomes than we will see from how things are now playing out. However, the moment for that has gone. His power is waning and as the mid terms get closer I suspect it will wane still further. This is now his war. He is not De Gaulle.

Expand full comment
78 more comments...

No posts