READING VAN CREVELD

A mathematician we know, who evaluates weapons systems for the U.S. military, sent us a message about a recent article in the Forward by military historian Martin Van Creveld, who is described as "the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers." Even though the article has been widely quoted elsewhere, particularly the sensational conclusion, we have to flag it. Its freshness is still evident from Howard Dean's latest remarks. (See below.)

Our friend writes: "Two of Van Creveld's incidental observations seem especially worth noting. The first relates to what the Revolution in Military Affairs has accomplished":

Whether that revolution [RMA] has contributed to anything besides America's national debt is open to debate. What is beyond question, though, is that the new weapons are so few and so expensive that even the world's largest and richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of them.[Emphasis added.]

For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached [emphasis added] and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.

Van Creveld's article ran in the Forward on Nov. 25. What popped up yesterday in The New York Times? Bingo! An article headlined "White House Tries to Trim Military Cost," which states: "While there have been periodic attempts recently to hold the line on some costly weapons, this is the first serious threat to the next-generation weapons that military contractors have been developing for years."

As long as we're citing Van Creveld, here's another piece of his from a year ago, "Why Iraq Will End as Vietnam Did." Most of it details at great length what the Israeli general-turned-politician Moshe Dayan learned from his experience in Vietnam as a war correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Maariv. But Van Creveld's prediction of the outcome in Iraq is most striking:

[A]n armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up by losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. Depending on the quality of the forces -- whether they are draftees or professionals, the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, the nature of the political process, and so on -- things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.

In other words, he who fights against the weak -- and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed -- and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however, advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat. ... That is why the present adventure will almost certainly end as the previous one did. Namely, with the last US troops fleeing the country while hanging on to their helicopters’ skids.

If you don't believe that, well, how about a taste of what an old friend of ours calls more Rice Krispies. Or her latest breakfast cereal, Rice Pablum. Then you can wash it down with plenty more bullshit.

We know what Howard Dean believes, and we'd bet we know what he's been reading. In a radio interview in San Antonio on Monday, he said: "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." He said: "I remember going through this in Vietnam, and everybody kept saying, 'Oh, just another year. Yeah, we're gonna have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory then. And it cost us 25,000 more troops because people were too stubborn to be truthful about what was happening."

-- Tireless Staff of Thousands