RULES? IN A KNIFE FIGHT?: Redrafting the Rules of Engagement in the First Terrorist War

As I wrote on my own blog today (in reaction to the Dana Priest WaPo article) one of the reasons we need to press for victory in Iraq is that right now we're running the best possible training area for would-be terrorists and jihadis to perfect skills that are effective against us. If we don't achieve decisive victory against them, those people and skills will be exported all over the world—here, Europe, everywhere.

Posted by Dave Schuler at January 14, 2005 8:22 AM

That event, should it be allowed to occur, will cost the lives of thousands if not tens of thousands of American men, women and, this time, children.

Not to detract from your excellent essay, but just to clarify this one, small area. There were child passengers on at least one of the aircraft on 9/11.

Posted by P.A. Breault at January 14, 2005 8:31 AM

I think what Gerard was referring to was intentional targeting of children versus children as incidental collateral.

Posted by phil g at January 14, 2005 8:53 AM

Phil, aka. Beslan. I agree. There was talk of something like that happening down in San Diego a few months ago. When they found those plans of the San Diego school in Iraq, combined with the scare that some AQ might have snuck across the US/Mexico border... Doing something like that, however, I don't think is in the terrorists "best interests" as that would just re-galvanize the American public. What we've got going on in Iraq (though I fully support it) is a slow leak. Like being "nibbled to death by ducks". There aren't any nuclear/bio/chem weapons being used, though those guys most likely have access to at the very least chlorine gas. What we're all seeing is 10,15 and on a big day 20 (average #'s) GI's being killed. I think American's *are* tired as we can see with slipping approval ratings and the "is the war worth it" figures. *shrugs*

/arm-chair quarterbacking

-Fat Kid

Posted by fat kid at January 14, 2005 9:17 AM

I'd like to think that Americans still have the mettle to respond in such a forceful way to an attack. I know that I do, and I know that you do, and, being from the South, I know most men here still think the way their grandfathers did. I don't know about the rest of the country, but, if pop culture is any indication, it doesn't look good.
Let's hope we still have enough Americans who understand that dying to keep your people free and safe is the greatest thing a man could ever hope to accomplish and that, as a country, the correct way to respond to a hard punch in the gut is a fast bullet to the head.

Posted by jared at January 14, 2005 9:18 AM

Gerard is clearly referring to a terrorist nuclear attack on the U.S. Read his earlier piece,"The Sacrifice and the Reckoning."

Posted by Philomathean at January 14, 2005 9:39 AM

You got us thinking . . . thanks for the post.

Posted by Chain Gang at January 14, 2005 9:54 AM

After three-plus years of the so-called War on Terror, much of it hidden from view, most of it confusing, the picture is somewhat coming into focus.

Tactically, there is plenty to admire: the U.S. military and its civilian overlords have shown an impressive creativity and ability to learn in action -- a far cry from the tradition of generals fighting the last war, as when sending wave after wave of infantry against machine guns.

Strategically, the story is different and troubling. The administation, despite occasional flashes of effective rhetoric, can't seem to clarify for Americans, much less the rest of the world, why we have taken on this heavy responsibility that everyone agrees is costly.

You have described with admirable precision what is at issue in Iraq and its neighborhood, yet the words from the presidential pulpit seem almost to want to play down geo-strategic considerations, and to sell the Iraq mission as foreign aid. Our soldiers, a few more of whom are blown up in each morning's headlines, are cast as social workers with guns. When the government talks about safeguarding the American people, it is usually in the context of justifying deep-shoe probes at airports.

I'm convinced that the overwhelming majority of Americans, except for part of a cohort that came of age in the 1960s, is willing to accept risk and sacrifice so that we are not at the mercy of Islamic fanatics with nuclear weapons and improvised explosive devices. They will not, and should not, tolerate the nation's sons and daughters being sent into detonation range to teach civics.

Offering the establishment of Middle Eastern democracy (a possible benefit, but not a convincing goal) in exchange for lives spent appeals to the delusion of another time, that prosperity and democracy will overcome all ill-will. Today it is not the generals who are fighting the last war; it's their political masters.

Posted by Rick Darby at January 14, 2005 12:31 PM

I've commented on other blogs that I do not want peace with our enemies...I want victory over them. We are an especially tolerant and generous people. We did not make these enemies--they decided to become our enemies all on their own.

And you're completely right about the question of how we should respond to another WMD attack on our soil. [I say "another" because I view the 9/11 attacks as WMD attacks.] I do not want to live in a post-nuclear world, but more so, I do not want to live threatened constantly by Islamic extremists. Should we be attacked again, I hope the response is quick, and brutal.

Posted by azlibertarian at January 14, 2005 7:08 PM

One additional thing, since no one else has commented on it...

Rule #1 in a Knife Fight is: Bring a Gun.

Posted by azlibertarian at January 14, 2005 7:10 PM

Rick,
I agree completely. This administrations blind spot is it's inability to make a coherent argument in defence of its war strategy and communicating it effectively. All administrations and leaders have their strengths and weaknesses, if this is the major weakness in this admin, I can live with it. There are many great communicators such as Gerard who are carrying the water for this admin in making the case. Hopefully it is enough.

Posted by phil g at January 17, 2005 7:44 AM

The sheer enertia of big organizations drags at our ablity to take action in the Middle East. That and our fickle allies with their fragile egos. Everyone has an excuse not to act. Yet we have acted and with 3 elections, a Lebanon that is becoming free of Syria, and a Kadafi who has thrown down his WMD as though they were too hot to handle, we have actually been very successful. Kurdstan is peaceful and prospering. Many of the Shiite areas of Iraq are quiet. There are indicators that Al Qaeda is giving up and leaving the battle field. Their horse is looking tired in Iraq and it is not welcome in Afghanistan. That is some kind of victory. One that our troops have fought and bled for. And yet the ordinary public is unaware of much of this.
The problem of perception is not Bushes fault.
Our weakness is homegrown. All news is filtered though a dishonest liberal news media. And for political gain the Democratic party is trying to tear down the institutions that support the war. This is essentially suicidal, but they persist.
We are doing well, but this is a battle on many fronts and the most critical ones may be here at home.

Posted by Rob at April 20, 2006 1:56 AM

The Salafist terrorists can only win if we prove weak willed to the point we cannot defend ourselves. Most of our history does not encourage this hope. There are numerous examples of enemies who have misunderestimated the soft corrupt old United States. Those would include our own slave owners in the South, Tojo, the Nazis, and the Barbary Pirates. The last were of course the Jihadists of their day. Only by having to fight ourselves, can we be defeated, and yet that is exactly the battle that we are engaged in. The leftist elites in the media, academia and permanent bureaucracy are at war with the war against terror. It is quite disspiriting to find your pleasant liberal neighors trying to commit suicide and take you with them. I think the liberals and the terrorists will fail. But then I am known as an optimist.

Posted by Rob at June 3, 2006 9:17 PM

This war on terrorism not only gifted our presence in the middle east, but has also tightened our national security to top tier levels. The average person now is yielding some privileges back to the government ultimately to uphold "life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I'm all for it, but you need proper excavation and a solid foundation laid to build a structure. You can't build a house on sand.

Posted by chris at January 17, 2007 10:08 PM