{"id":16510,"date":"2014-10-23T12:15:17","date_gmt":"2014-10-23T01:15:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=16510"},"modified":"2014-10-24T07:04:43","modified_gmt":"2014-10-23T20:04:43","slug":"the-long-war-on-the-ground","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/the-long-war-on-the-ground\/","title":{"rendered":"The Long War\u2014on the ground"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>\u00a0\u2018Big History\u2019 is all the go at the moment. This is a relatively new way of attempting to explain what\u2019s occurring today by searching for deeper trends that are shaping events. Its popularity\u2019s understandable\u2014particularly when we\u2019re confronted by a world that we can\u2019t explain using the old ways.<\/p>\n The rise of ISIL, for example, seems to be a classic instance of an almost elemental force. A century ago, we might have attempted to explain its rise using the \u2018great man\u2019 theory. However unlikely a candidate, we might have tried to suggest that al-Baghdadi, ISIL\u2019s leader, possessed unique abilities and charisma. That\u2019s the way some explained the rise of Hitler, although in that case the thesis was challenged\u2014some say demolished\u2014by others as different as the polymath Herbert Spencer and the novelist Leo Tolstoy. Spencer approached the idea from a biological perspective; Tolstoy by harnessing elemental ideas about the nature of people and \u2018Mother Russia\u2019. They would have pointed to the economic chaos of the Weimar republic, giving it a central role in interpreting how Hitler came to power. They effectively destroyed the idea that leaders are anything other than the products of their societies.<\/p>\n Nevertheless as individuals we love a story and, as every journalist knows, wrapping events around people allows a narrative structure to take over. It makes for a better story. It\u2019s also the way most of us, unconsciously, perceive the world. Take John Howard, for instance. It\u2019s so easy to attribute the coalition\u2019s longevity in office to his remarkable political skills. After all, he became the second-longest prime minister and undoubtedly does have outstanding abilities. Nevertheless hagiography\u2019s inevitable, and so we brush aside other realities\u2014such as that Howard was lucky to form a government in 1998, even though he lost the popular vote; that six months before the 2001 election he was trailing badly in the polls; and that in 2004 he was fortunate his opponent was Mark Latham. It\u2019s easy to imagine how minor changes might have re-written events. And how much was the 2007 result to do with Kevin Rudd\u2019s genius, and how much simply because of the \u2018it\u2019s time\u2019 factor?<\/p>\n Big History, on the other hand, focuses on broader themes, searching for patterns. That\u2019s what makes Peter Leahy\u2019s new ASPI study Another century, another long war<\/a><\/em> so interesting. He erects a framework that allows us to isolate the real issues driving events and place them into perspective. This establishes a context that\u2019ll be critical because it\u2019s the way we understand the world. Importantly, he categorically states that any solution to the current situation \u2018must come from within the Muslim world\u2019. Even more importantly, Leahy emphasises that we need to re-conceive \u2018victory\u2019. \u2018It might only be partial; we might only limit, but not eliminate, terror and radical Islamism and its damage to secular societies. The focus should be on\u2026the commitment of resources over an extended period.\u2019<\/p>\n That isn\u2019t, of course, the sort of thing a journalist wants to hear. Once a problem has been identified we want it solved\u2014at once. So do most people. Anything else seems lazy. When Tony Abbott declared we were getting involved in the struggle to degrade ISIL, news organisations immediately demanded action, preferably things that could be reported with TV cameras. The politicians gave every indication they\u2019d accede to our expectations. Troops were dispatched from Australia and journalists hopped on planes eager to cover the clash. That\u2019s why I\u2019m in the Middle East now.<\/p>\n Except that we\u2019ve been disappointed. That\u2019s because we didn\u2019t understand the nature of this campaign. We got two things wrong. Firstly, we in the media built ISIL up into a terrifying monolith. But that was because journalists didn\u2019t really understand what sort of organisation it is. After all, it had kidnapped and killed any reporter who was captured and the organisation had emerged, seemingly unstoppable, from nowhere. It now turns out that ISIL may be far more fragile than first thought.<\/p>\n It seems, for example, that just a single, carefully-targeted US bomb was enough to effectively blunt the insurgency in the north. Although only a small number of insurgents in Kobane were killed in that specific attack, they included the most fanatical of the fighters, together with a number of their leaders. They had been meeting in a particular building that was targeted with the assistance of US special forces. This one attack seems to have changed the dynamic of the fight. ISIL brought up replacements, but those weren\u2019t nearly as effective and, as a result, the insurgents have been forced to fall back.<\/p>\n Their big tactical advantage, vehicles equipped with heavy machine-guns can no longer move in the open. If they do, they\u2019ll be destroyed from above. ISIL lacks the mobile firepower necessary to dominate the battlefield. In another area west of Bagdad about 500 Iraqi soldiers have been clinging to defensive positions for weeks. Their situation is dire, but the key point is they haven\u2019t collapsed and now they\u2019ve got support from the air.<\/p>\n The military\u2019s actually meeting the demands of the battlefield well. The only thing it\u2019s not doing is pandering to the media and political demands to put Aussie boots on the ground.<\/p>\n No matter how you frame the answer to the bigger problem of the Middle East, you need to begin with a tactical solution. The West is doing this\u2014just not as quickly and decisively as some of us might like.<\/p>\n Nicholas Stuart is embedded with the Australian Forces in the Middle East Area of Operations. Image courtesy of Department of Defence<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00a0\u2018Big History\u2019 is all the go at the moment. This is a relatively new way of attempting to explain what\u2019s occurring today by searching for deeper trends that are shaping events. Its popularity\u2019s understandable\u2014particularly when …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":16524,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[44,191,837,895,274],"class_list":["post-16510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-australian-defence-force","tag-iraq","tag-isis","tag-islamic-state","tag-syria"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n