Two Ways of War

The link between these quotes may be a little oblique, but I think it's there, and more interesting than another pair of "David and Goliath" quotes might be. First, Van Creveld, dean of military historians, tells us pithily why the superpower is also the looser in the current situation in Iraq -- he goes on to hammer the point home:

In other words, he who fights against the weak—note, in this connection, that the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed—and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins, also loses. To kill a much weaker opponent 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, or however well motivated, is immune to this dilemma.

The solution is to win admiration not contempt, and that's a matter of public diplomacy.

Contrast with this approach -- the continuation of war by subtler means, restrained by it's very nature -- the utterly unrestrained vigor of the insurgent, as typified by the comment from Libyan jihadist Noman Benotman in a current Jamestown interview -- and he's just talking about training! Another comment from the same section of the interview:

We trained on weapons, tactics, enemy engagement techniques and survival in hostile environments. All weapons training was with live ammunition, which was available everywhere. Indeed, there were a number of casualties during these training sessions.

The polarities are stunning!