Why the US will lose the war in Iraq.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

Have no doubt, the US WILL lose, becuase the war is unwinnable. Let me explain why.

What we have in Iraq is classic low intensity warfare - the military euphamism for guerilla war. A guerilla war is NOT winnable by standard military tactics, in fact NO guerilla war has EVER been won with standard military tactics becuase standard military tactics merely create more guerillas.

Let's take a specific hypothetical example to explain why.

Four disgruntled men attack a US convoy. The US troops of course fight back with all the firepower they can muster. They kill the four attackers, maybe with no loss to themselves, but in the process an innocent civillian caught in the crossfire is killed.

There are now 5 families with a grudge against US troops. Those 5 families produce 1 person each who decide to seek revenge on US troops, except this time instead of one attack, there are two.

Once again, an innocent civillian is killed in the crossfire during each attack along with the 5 original attacker. Now we have 7 families with a grudge.

Continue this over an extended period of time, and what happens?

This example is just a tiny part of the reality. Multiply this by a hundred different attackers and you can see that hatred and desire for revenge will explode exponentially over a period of time.

In other words, the act of fighting back against the guerillas creates the conditions for many more geurillas to be created.

In other words, the only way to win this war with the standard tactics is to kill nearly everyone in Iraq. This would be genocide, and I assume the US people would not stand for it. So even if US casualties never even reach the heights of Viet Nam (which they probably would) the sheer number of dead Iraqis would result in the demand of a withdrawl of US troops.

In fact, the only war to win a geurilla war - and this has been proven in the past, notably by the British - is to do the complete opposite of what American gungho attitudes will allow: You have to stop fighting back.

When a convoy is attacked, you have to just absorb the casualties and run for it in order to prevent further civillian casualties. Then you have to encourage the locals to see your restraint as being because YOU are on their side and didn't want any of them to suffer because of the battle, and that if they wish to prevent further deaths of their own people, all they have to do is stop supporting the geurillas.

You have to start thinking like a cop rather than a soldier - protect and serve, rather than secure and subdue. The US military is not trained for this. Their whole life experiences are based on dominating their opponents - beat him at football - beat him in the stock markets - beat him. But you can beat everyone, and trying will only result in being beaten.

That is what happened in Viet Nam. That is what happened in Afghanistan to the Russians, and what is going to happen to the US. Hell, it has been happening in Israel/Palestine for half a century.

The US will never again fight a purely conventional war - no nation on its own can beat the US in such a fight, so they will ALWAYS resort to low intensity warfare as it is the ONLY winnable strategy against the US military.

So that is Iraq and Afghanistan, but what about the wider "War on Terror"? The answer is the same - the US will lose. Every time it tries to beat down terrorists, all it is doing is creating MORE terrorists who see terrorism as the ONLY way to successfully attack the US.

It is basically IMPOSSIBLE for the US to win in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in the "War on Terror", becuase the US itself will not be able to bring itself to do what HAS to be done to win - address the root causes of the problem in a non-violent manner.

[Clete]

1. So mebbe you should be sending your article to Rummy.

We all knew this was a stupid operation from the beginning.

[AP]

2. Edward Said, in the introduction to one of his books, says that

nowhere in the world where light-skinned people tried to occupy a nation of brown people has it worked out well.

The weight of history is a big reason this isn't going to work.

[premjan]

3. good analysis

this indicates that it is time to switch to standard UN peacekeeping (policing) strategy. Exit strategy time.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. It goes beyond that though...

although I do agree. Imagine for a moment that Canada invaded and occupied the US to get rid of Bush. They succeed, but a small cadre of Bush loyalists start fighting back using guerilla tactics.

In the ensuing battles many inncoent people are killed. How long do you think it would be before EVERY American, no matter how much they hated Bush, would hate the Canadians even more?

It is human nature. When you are being killed, no matter whether it is accidental or not, you come to hate the killers. Hell, it is not uncommon for people who accidentally run over children - through no fault of their own - to be beaten and even killed at the hands of enraged friends and family, and that is in everyday society, not in a war torn occupied nation, where the occupiers seem to care little for your life or your customs.

[paulsbc]

7. Romans

seemed to do well.... for a while anyway :)


Greeks?

French under Napoleon?

British empire was huge, and had many a 'nation of brown people' occupied for centuries.

Edward Said is, IMO, dead wrong.

Now, the US endeavor in Iraq is certainly winnable, but it isn't going to be easy, or cheap, or without additional loss of life.

We should have never gone into Iraq.

But we are there, and can not leave, to leave now would be 10x worse for our country than sticking it out and trying to make this work.

The key to the entire thing is the involvement of the Iraqi people, and the recognition of a freely elected Iraqi Constitution, Congress, and leadership (Pres, Prime Minister, whaterver). Then, the replacement of our troops with UN troops, then with all troops leaving the country after the police and armed forces of the new Iraq are in place.

This will take years, btw, and the next President, Howard Dean, will have to try to mend fences throughout the world for our fuck ups.

[AP]

10. You're going to have to cite countries by name. The only

colony England occupied without ugliness and revolt ensuing interminably was Scotland, and they're mostly white there. Even Ireland ended ugly. Everywhere else there was revolution and death.

[knight_of_the_star]

22. Not even Scotland

They fought the English right up until 1606 when a Scottish king became the King of England and united the two nations because h still ruled them both. That and ever since the Battle of Culloden the English made a point of either shipping as many Scots OUT of the Highlands as possible either forcibly to other nations or by means of conscripting them into the Army or Navy, which turned out fine for both parties because it helped Scotland's economy by having soldier's pay coming back home and the Scots are fierce fighters so that helped the English. When they stopped doing that, by then they were already giving Scotland powers of self-rule anyway. As it stands now, the only things that they DON'T control where relevant are foreign, military, and monetary policy. That and Scotland and England need eachother anyway. The only place that really just rolled over was Wales, but only AFTER they grabbed all the Welsh archers they could find and wiped out as many bards as they could.

[sweetheart]

47. breaking those highlanders

The highlanders are completely self sufficient without england or edinburgh for that matter... and to repress independent minded thinking, these tribes were broken in the clearances, where large land owners forced their tenants (read "serfs") off the inland grazing areas by burning their houses down.

The house i write this in was built by people driven down to the coastline by the clearances... to make a living off a much more difficult land where salt-burn from the ocean kills crops, etc.. During that clearance binge in the 19th century, the scots who were ethnically cleansed made a world famous name for scotland as a world power... and the names macleod, mackiensie, mackay... etc... are common names in all english speaking nations.

Even today, the fuel prices are jacked way up... that the local petrol station is THE MOST EXPENSIVE IN BRITAIN at 86pence per litre... all in an attempt to force highlanders down to the cities where they can be better controlled... on to the oil rigs, or the highland cannon fodder regiments. All the while, the royal family keeps close to its balmoral landholding... and also charles' at castle mey (of the old queen mother). Land in the higlands is owned by mostly foreign land owners (english)... duke of westminster, etc. When scotland goes for independence, this will eventually go away, and no longer will the native highland peoples have to tolerate an invader's caste system that imposes a "you're at the bottom" ethic on highlanders since birth.

Methinks the new american administration (awol) is doing the same thing to IT workers as the old english did to the highlanders... all in an effort to disenfranchise and destroy potentially opposing political forces. Crushing your own people in a nation you're responsible for is never ever successful.

[sweetheart]

45. scotland is not soooo clear

Likely ireland and scotland will continue on a trajectory towards further devolution and independence...

The way scotland was conquored most recenly was putting everyone on welfare and having no jobs. Then everyone who wanted to succeed went down to england or elsewhere... and even today, scotland pays 50k less than england... or more finely, 10K per annum less pay per 100 miles north of london.

The long term effect of that disempowerment has been a stagnation of scotland and its economy... compared say to a similar nation in terms of population (finland)... scotland has not been successful, and likely because of the way england conquored and repressed the scots, that it will take independence to correct the problem.

I used to believe that scotland would be best remaining in the UK, but i have learned otherwise by seeing the facts on the ground and how the groupthink of the royals/tonycrony's/newlabour has been to keep scotland from developing any significant economy that leverage might move north of the border.

Ireland ended up after centuries of being conquored gaining independence in 1916? Methinks scotland will eventually go that way... as the english have not done a good job... perhaps at repressing violence maybe, except also they destroyed an entire country to achieve that.... the only successful scots are those who've left scotland... that fact speaks on the ground.

[AP]

55. Said's point is that ugly = killing people to prevent eventua independence

I can't think of a single colonization of a racially non-white group by a predominantly white nation which didn't end up with a lot of people getting killed in the process of obtaining some form of independence, except Scotland and maybe Jamaica (however, there is a ton of social inequity resulting in lots of crime, and I may not know all their history). And Ireland is a good example of how colonialism founded on religious bigotry (rather than racial bigotry) ends up ugly.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

18. wrong--we can leave iraq

and the sooner we leave the better.

you say:We should have never gone into Iraq.
But we are there, and can not leave, to leave now would be 10x worse for our country than sticking it out and trying to make this work.

simple solution:
cede control of the country to the United Nations and pull out.
NOW !!!

Why do we have to stay?
One group wants us to stay and one group is behind this whole takeover...and that's the multi billion dollar corporations--the oil companies, the reconstuction contractors-the defense contractors who make weapons--

Let me ask you this:
Would you want your relatives(brother,son,daughter sister) to stay there for say 3 or 4 years?
What are the odds of them ever coming back to lead a normal life.
What are the odds of them even coming back in one piece.
The emotional scares will give them nighmares and render many non functional and disturbed. The instances of suicide among American troops is way up right now--have these guys and gals are reservists and national guard.

Let me ask you this: would YOU go there for a year or two?
No you wouldn't.

So the answer is definitely that we CAN pull out now and that things will be rough there in IRAQ but the UN can handle it-
-sorry but Halliburton will bite the big one
-they'll just find another country to siphon off resources--they'll survive

[ErasureAcer]

25. exactly...

this is why we must support kucinich...not only will he get us the hell out of Iraq...he will work to solve the underlying problems the world has with america such as our empire clearly seen in a 400 billion dollar pentagon budget.

Peace can win...we just gotta give it a chance.

www.kucinich.us

[paulsbc]

49. who do you think

the UN uses for troops? the US is part of that. Even if we completely hand it over to the UN, we will still have our men and women in harms way. I'm 100% for turning it over to the UN, but don't attempt to say that turning it over means all our men and women come home, that would not occur.

On your other questions

-> yes, I would go if called. I'm mid-30s, so I doubt I'd be called, but I would go

-> I want our troops to stay, under UN stewardship as I said, until Iraq is brought forward to their own representative government, which I believe can be done in < 2 years. Once that is accomplished, the UN (and hence, the rest of our troops), should be sent home.

[knight_of_the_star]

60. And the UN will take Iraq under their wing because...

If I was a nation's representative on the Security Council and that proposal was offered after all the stuff Bush has done, first I would laugh, then I would tell him, "Your mess, you clean it up." The UN has no obligation whatsoever to clean up this mess because we told them they didn't know what they were doing, etc. They MIGHT if Bush loses in '04, but not as long as the GOP holds the White House.

[Dhalgren]

36. You simply couldn't be more wrong.

You are assuming that the reasons we engaged in this illegal war are those stated by the Emperial government. They, however, have been lying about their reasons from the get-go. There will never be a popularly drawn constitution, there will never be a popularly elected government - not as long as there are US occupying troops on the ground. We want Iraq as an "aircraft carrier" and staging area for military actions in the future. All this nonsense about "bringing freedom to the Iraqi people" is just that, nonsense. We could begin to deescalate this mess by turning everything over to the UN, but we won't do that, because we want the oil and the foothold in this immensely rich area.
The Romans ruled by cruelty, coersion, and an iron fist. They also ruled at a time prior to the development of the "nation state". People in the Western provinces were loyal to clan and family and tribe (generally speaking) and the Eastern provinces had never known anything but conquest from outside empires.

[paulsbc]

50. correct

I don't believe a lot of the crap you all post here w.r.t. Bush and his imperialistic intentions. I think Bush is seriously misguided, and made the wrong call on Iraq, but I do not believe that we will not allow them to draw a constitution or hold free elections.

Your "aircraft carrier" statement along with your "we will never let Iraq rule themselves" is, IMO, far left extermism that paints us as the "conspiracy theory" party.

[leftofthedial]

43. Roman colonialism

and its system of patronage (oddly similar in many ways to the Bush-Halliburton system of rewards) led in many ways to the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire, which really went out more with a whimper than with a bang.

The Romans were bled pretty consistently at their frontiers until they, in effect, "went native."

[AP]

56. Furthermore, I don't know how much of Roman 'colonialism' relied on racial

differences as justification for it. Mostly, it was about making the dosh for them. But they did have problems when they started running up against Ottomans, right?

[Terran]

57. The Romans were successful

because they didn't try to impose their culture on the people they conquered (with the exception of raising a few temples). They always let their conquered people keep their own gods, and their own ways of life, as long as they accepted the authority of Rome. In other words, there was a degree of respect in operation there that is wholly absent from imperial America, and also was absent from the other imperial powers of recent centuries.

Dirk

[zoidberg]

23. Japan?

n/m

[BeFree]

29. Japan

The Japanese people surrendered. As told to by their leaders. Then the US undertook a program of Nation Building. The differences between the two cases -Japan and Iraq - are too large to make any kind of comparison. The case that no subjagation of a brown race by a white race stands.

There is one classic element that we can differentiate betwixt the two: Nation Building was favored by the US administration in the 40's, now there is a declaration that this administration will not undertake Nation Building. Oh wait, they have changed their minds, haven't they? Or is it all a charade? I'll vote for charade.

Confusing? You bet...They say one thing and set about doing the opposite...Integrity and honesty, my ass.

[lanlady]

32. what about India?

From the perspective of today, India did well. This is not to justify British imperialism, which I totally abhor (being part Irish) but.... come to think of it, India has millions of desperately poor people, so maybe Said was right after all.

[AP]

40. India didn't do well at all

The British slaughtered Indians. It took Gandhi to get them independence. The British left the country by pitting one religious group after another. How many Indian PMs have been assasinated? India has been totally set back by colonialism, and it didn't work out well for either the Brits or India.

[Cocoa]

4. I can't see how it's winnable

I can't even picture it.

Bush or any of his people haven't given any clue as to how they're going to do it, other than saying someone's bad people and blaming someone or other for everything. Your idea about showing restraint is the closest to a plan as I've heard, and I agree that they're not likely to adopt it.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

6. "Winning" the war depends on definition...

If by winning you mean regime change - then the war has already been won.

If by winning you mean setting up a client state - that is unwinnable.

If by winning you mean setting up a arab country focused on improving the lives of its people rather than Nassarism - that is possible but likely too expensive for the Bush administration, and by their mismanagement becoming an ever more distant possibility.

Oh, and just accepting casualties without fighting back is always a recipie for loosing, except when fighting against a liberal Democracy. Singing "we will overcome" before any tyrant, great or small earns you nothing but death. Violence must always remain as a last resort to be used when every other reasonable means to end the violence has failed.

Of course this wasn't done in Iraq, and we are reaping thr bitter rewards of Administration policy because of it. Still, the principal remains. Even police, whom you laud, wear sidearms for a reason.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

13. Tell that to Ghandi...

You have to break the cycle of violence or the violence will continue. Who do you think can tolerate the violence longer? The Iraqi people who have no other choice, or the American people who do?

I told you that Americans can't do this, and you are an example of what I am talking about. Only when violence is ruled out by one side, can violence be stopped on the other. If the only civillian casualties are caused by Iraqi guerillas, who do you think the Iraqi people will hate, the US or the guerillas?

You have to stop thinking of "winning" as "beating the enemy in battle", becuase the US will ALWAYS beat them in battle, but what has been accomplished? Nothing. The war continues, violence continues, hatred continues. You just can't win by beating them. Its that simple.

You have to get them to WANT to stop fighting, and the only way to do that is to give them NO reason to continue fighting. Will the US people allow Americans to die to protect Iraqi lives? I doubt it. Thus the US will lose. You can bet on it.

The phrase that the British SAS had for this is "Winning hearts and minds", but the US has never been able to do it, because they can't bring themselves to carry it out properly - it smells too much like defeat.

The US military has one word foremost in their mind - dominance. They want dominance of the battlefield, dominance of the sky, dominance of the sea. All well and good if you want to fight a conventional war, but in a guerilla war dominance equals tyranny, and it just doesn't work.

[TahitiNut]

42. Peace is NOT a 'zero-sum game'.

Sun Tsu understood this many centuries ago. PNAC does not and never will. When a nation seeks "win-lose" everyone loses. There is only "win-win" (peace and freedom) and "lose-lose" (war and loss of liberty).

[ConservativeDemocrat]

54. Ghandi won against Britian... not Hitler

Ghandi's strategy was successful only because the British people were fundimentally unwilling to engage in brutalities. When trying to change people with no compunction against atrocities, pacifist methods do not work. Period.

Understand, like Howard Dean, I was against the Iraq war. However, this silly idealism about human nature has no relation to reality. There are some people, some regimes, against which reason and reasonability does not prevail. And against those people, no amount of negotiation, no amount of appeasement, will work. For people who have dedicated their lives to hate you must make them fear. Or make them dead.

Go read The Prince. Machivelli explains reality much better than I.

- C.D.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

59. Bullshit!

The British were some of the most brutal colonialist occupiers around. Why the hell do you think there was an American Revolution?

And I can tell you this, they were far more brutal to non-whites.

However, your generalisation that ALL Iraqis are brutal is exposing your own bigotry. A VERY VERY small minority of Iraqis have been involved in brutalities yet you suggest they ALL have no problem with them.

What about Americans? They seem to have no problem with the mass murder of innocent Iraqis, are ALL Americans brutal?

You see you have totally ignored the point of my post - that the small minority of Iraqis willing to kill innocents can be overcome ONLY by getting the vast majority who DON'T support such acts to stop supporting them and actively discourage them. You can ONLY do this by encouraging them to see the US not as a brutal occupier, but as a friend who is trying to help. Do friends kill their friends to protect them? Hell no. The intentions of the US only play a small part in the equation - the ACTIONS of the US play the largest part.

Until the US is willing to say that "winning" should not come at the price of a single Iraqi civillian, the Iraqis will have no reason to believe the stated US intentions.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

61. Oh please....

I never said anything about "all Iraqis". Those are words you decided to put in my mouth - probably because it's easier for you to refute.

Insofar as the British are concerned, you are not very cognizant of American history. Largely speaking, the U.S. war of independence was a civil war. Part of the reason the Americans won was that many notable British noblemen openly sympathized with the colonists and refused to fight against their borthers. Even three years into the war, the Pennsylvania parliment were still making peace ovatures that would have kept America's most powerful state (and probably all the colonies) under the crown.

Further, you are missing about a century and a half of development among the British. Britain let India go in 1947, after the most traumatic war imaginable. They had no stomach for more conflict and the moral arguments were particularly strong - e.g. 'how can you be so happy about freedom from the Germans when you are subjugating the Indians?' Though largely ignored by world media, the U.S. also used its power at the time to pressure the old European colonial powers into giving up their territories.

Again, in just about any other environment, Ghandi's efforts would have been in vain.

Now insofar as the Iraqis are concerned, I think it is fairly obvious that it is against American policy to attack Iraqi civilians. And if that is all you truly meant, then I agree. However, your posting still has statements that smack of a well meaning idealism that ignores the reality of warfare. There is no way for the U.S. to never guarantee a civilian won't be killed by accident - especially a gurrilla war. Nor even if this guarantee was absolutely made, would it necessarily lead the Iraqis to believe our soldiers generally mean the best for them. (Nor do I even think it true - our soldiers generally want one thing - to go home.) Many Iraqis seethe with bizarre conspiracy theories: one currently making the rounds is that the soldier's wrap-around sunglasses allow them to see through women's clothing.

It's a mighty bad pickle our dumb-ass President has gotten us into. We've broken the cookie jar that is Iraq. And now we've got to fix it despite the intentions of a dedicated minority of Iraqis.

- C.D.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

62. I may have misunderstood your post because...

I was refering to the majority of Iraqis that don't condone violent attacks on civillians, yet because of the numerous attacks on Iraqi civillians have come to believe that the US does.

You said that "pacifist" measures (which I personally would call just measures) will not work against them, or that is what it appeared. I made it perfectly clear in my post that I was not refering to the geurillas but to the rest of the population, and you were arguing against me. So if I jumped to the conclusion that you were refering to the same people I was, accept my apologies.

However, you are wrong. It is perfectly possible to ensure that no US bullet or bomb kills an innocent Iraqi civillian. All the US has to do is stop shooting everything that even appears to be a threat, and to only respond with deadly force when they can gaurantee that no innocents will be caught in the crossfire.

As I pointed out, an example may be a convoy passing through an Iraqi town. If someone in that town fires on the convoy, do not return fire, but exit the area. Later, a properly prepared patrol can enter that area and make it clear that no one in this town will be harmed by US troops for the actions of a few guerillas. Hell, they could even ask the towns people to find and arrest the attackers themselves, and to deal with them as they see fit.

But it goes beyond just battles etc, it has to extend all the way through US - Iraqi interactions. US troops must treat Iraqis wiht respect. They must defer to the Iraqi people, after all it is their country. In other words, the Iraqi people have to be treated as a partner for peace, rather than as potential enemies. If you treat them as enemies, they will have little choice but to become enemies.

Remember, the only justification that the Bush cabal has given for the Iraqi invasion that has ANY merit is the "freeing the Iraqi people" excuse. Although that was not a just reason to invade them, now it is done - or it should have been. But the US military in its typical "dominance" mindset has instead of saying "Saddam is gone, so now we will join the free people of Iraq to rebuild your fine nation" has said "Saddam is gone, but we don't trust any of you to actually do what we want, so we are going to ship in quislings from overseas to do it for us, while keeping you under armed guard".

What are the Iraqi people meant to be? The people you freed from oppression, or the people you wish to oppress? If the former, stop treating them as the latter.

Its very simple - except maybe to people who think that "dominance" is the way to "win" a war.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

63. As I said... nieveity

As I pointed out, an example may be a convoy passing through an Iraqi town. If someone in that town fires on the convoy, do not return fire, but exit the area. Later, a properly prepared patrol can enter that area and make it clear that no one in this town will be harmed by US troops for the actions of a few guerillas. Hell, they could even ask the towns people to find and arrest the attackers themselves, and to deal with them as they see fit.

The only thing that would happen is that the "properly prepared patrol" gets shot at again. And if they do manage to come in contact with civilians, who are those people going to cooperate with - the soldiers who won't attack anybody or the gun wielding thugs who promise to murder anyone who deals with soldiers?

Again, your ideas sound all very nice from several thousand miles away. But singing "we shall overcome" at a bunch of Bathists who only a couple of months ago were dragging people off the street and torturing them isn't going to work.

Oh, and insofar as the "quisling" theory, I hate to say it, but it's not true. We'd have been a lot more brutal if this were a true war of occupation. In fact, an Arab group has been doing a tracking poll of Iraqi civilians - and while they're none too happy with the whole invasion thing, by a substantial majority they don't want the U.S. to leave, either. Everybody is afraid of what will happen when there is absolutely no law enforcement. Quite frankly, if all the Iraqi people were against the Americans being there, U.S. soldiers would be dying by the dozens every day - not by ones and twos in the Sunni triangle.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

64. No, it's the truth.

The only thing that would happen is that the "properly prepared patrol" gets shot at again. And if they do manage to come in contact with civilians, who are those people going to cooperate with - the soldiers who won't attack anybody or the gun wielding thugs who promise to murder anyone who deals with soldiers?

That is where you are wrong. The US ALREADY manages to come into contact with civillians, but the civillians are just as afraid of US troops as they are of Iraqi guerillas. Why are US troops dying every day, but not UK troops? Why is the UK largely unscathed? Yes, I know they have taken casualties, but nowhere near as many as the US troops.

It is because the UK troops at least TRIED to treat the Iraqis as trustworthy friends. Take for example the fact that as soon as Baghdad fell they discarded their helmets and started wearing berets. Its the small things like this that signal to the Iraqi people that they are NOT being subjugated by a new master - or at least that they are not supposed to be.

But the US - in the fear of bad public reactions to losses - has actually caused MORE losses by acting like Nazi overlords rather than liberators. Consider the difference in how the Nazis took over France with how the Allies took over France during WWII. THe British are trying to do it the Allied way, the US is doing it the Nazi way.

Who was fought against, and who was celebrated when they took over France?

Again, your ideas sound all very nice from several thousand miles away. But singing "we shall overcome" at a bunch of Bathists who only a couple of months ago were dragging people off the street and torturing them isn't going to work.

Who said anything about singing, and who said anything about Baathists? I am talking about the people who the Baathists subjugated and mistreated for decades - the people who already had a reason to hate the Baathists, but who now are coming to hate the US because they are acting as bad or even worse than the Baathists.

Remember, reports of Iraqis being dragged off the streets and tortured by US troops are quite common today. But you just go ahead believing your faulty notions of US superiority and keep yourself blinded to the truth until "Iraq" becomes a synonym for "Viet Nam".

Oh, and insofar as the "quisling" theory, I hate to say it, but it's not true.

Yes, it is. Unless you think Ahmed Chalabi is an Iraqi hero trying to preserve the dignity and sovereignty of the Iraqi people. If you do think this, I suggest you think again.

Quite frankly, if all the Iraqi people were against the Americans being there, U.S. soldiers would be dying by the dozens every day - not by ones and twos in the Sunni triangle.

Obviously you ignored what I said in my post and have just decided to argue because you can not see how the US could be inferior at fighting a guerilla war. As I pointed out, these things have a momentum that builds up over time. The fact that the deaths are so low today merely shows that most Iraqis DO want to have peace, and the fact that the numbers of attacks and deaths are increasing shows that the US actions are creating more guerillas every day.

[Fixated]

14. ...

I agree with CD. We smashed their military, but making Iraq a stable place to live will be much harder. The Bushies certainly didn't look over their post-major battle (I refuse to say the war is over with our soldiers dying as they are) plans well enough. The country is just a shadow of its orderly self.

[SmileyBoy]

8. The US has never won this type of war, and will never be able to...

...unless they decide that you win that type of war by pro-actively eliminate the cause for battle that your guerrila enemy is engaging in. If they continue doing like they're doing at the present, expect a long, grueling Vietnam-style war with the dead building up to the thousands and the tens of thousands.

[Dover]

9. This was an INVASION...UNprovoked! Let's change our language to

reflect the truth. The rest of your statement I'm in complete agreement with. And the U.S. will continue to label those resisting it's control "terrorists". We will suffer a million cuts....and will eventually bleed to death.

[Kat 333]

12. I'm glad you made reference to that fact ..

It has irritated me that, from the beginning, nearly everyone has referred to this fiasco in Iraq as a war. It was an unprovoked ATTACK by the United States on another country or as you said INVASION. To me that is Not the same as a "war".

[Devils Advocate NZ]

16. I agree and disagree...

There have in fact been two phases: the initial unprovoked invasion, and now the war of liberation. There was a gap between the two so they are definately two distinct actions.

The initial conventional battle was definately an invasion and should be described as such, but what I am now talking about is the war that has resulted from US actions in Iraq post-invasion. This war is seperate from the invasion, and people should realise that. It has NOTHING to do with Hussein even though some Hussein supporters may be involved.

This war was declared by the Iraqi people, and is a perfectly legitimate war, unlike the illegal invasion that gave birth to it.

[bpilgrim]

11. to make matters even worse...

most of the time the ambushers get away...

here is another good read on the topic...

<>

The Iraqi resistance's attacks are being conducted by small, mostly well-trained groups who generally manage to escape without losses. They follow classic Giap thought: to demoralize American soldiers and at the same time increase the already unbearable distress suffered by the population, thus nourishing resentment against the occupying power. Asia Times Online has learned of many former high-ranking army officials - now unemployed - who have been called to join the resistance: they answer that sooner or later they will "if the Americans continue to humiliate us". Others are financing small guerrilla groups to the tune of thousands of dollars. The reward for someone launching a rocket against an US fighting vehicle is about US$350 - enough for many to buy what is now the rage in Baghdad's at least partly free market: a color TV with satellite dish.

more...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH20Ak04.html

we have not learned the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki yet nor the recent ones of vietnam that you can not bomb people into total submission and if they are voting for their homeland and their rights you are in big trouble unless you are prepared to do what we did in wwII and the people won't stand for it... i hope.

great post :toast:

peace

[bpilgrim]

41. must read article with comparisons to Vietnam and references to Giap

<>

The Iraqi resistance's attacks are being conducted by small, mostly well-trained groups who generally manage to escape without losses. They follow classic Giap thought: to demoralize American soldiers and at the same time increase the already unbearable distress suffered by the population, thus nourishing resentment against the occupying power. Asia Times Online has learned of many former high-ranking army officials - now unemployed - who have been called to join the resistance: they answer that sooner or later they will "if the Americans continue to humiliate us". Others are financing small guerrilla groups to the tune of thousands of dollars. The reward for someone launching a rocket against an US fighting vehicle is about US$350 - enough for many to buy what is now the rage in Baghdad's at least partly free market: a color TV with satellite dish.

more...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH20Ak04.html

just want to make sure more folks see this who are interested.

peace

[Mechatanketra]

15. I think you're being optimistic.

In other words, the only way to win this war with the standard tactics is to kill nearly everyone in Iraq. This would be genocide, and I assume the US people would not stand for it. So even if US casualties never even reach the heights of Viet Nam (which they probably would) the sheer number of dead Iraqis would result in the demand of a withdrawl of US troops.

I'm not convinced that this is the case. Frightening as it is, I think it's completely plausible that a slim majority of Americans do not care if we kill each and every native person in Iraq; this is, in fact, the simplest explanation as to why we're even there, why a case for war built on 'evidence' which dogs know is faked a day later is then touted for months as rock-solid: because killing Iraqis is simply not seen as evil. Whatever the circumstances. Once conventional wisdom dubs a country "the bad guys", they cease (in public consciousness) to be human -- they're Tolkien's orcs, born evil and irredeemable to the death.

I believe this nation is very, very capable of genocide. It is the rest of the world, not the rest of America, which keeps the American government from simply making that the goal outright.

[lanlady]

34. No one in this country is remotely interested

in knowing how many Iraqis have died since hostilities commenced in March. Has a single TV talking head or so-called "journalist" faced the camera and told the American public that we've killed, what, 8,000 innocent civilians and who knows how many young boys who formed Iraq's rag-tag army? No, and no one even thinks to ask. And yet we get all pissy each time some soldier stubs a toe over there.

[truth2power]

44. I couldn't agree more...

Just based on my observations in my own community, where the Faux news junkies and dittoheads show absolutely no indication, in their discourse, that Iraqis or Arabs in general are anything more than faceless monsters.

Yes, these people, some with college degrees, I think would countenance genocide against the Iraqi people.

[dani]

17. one way to "win"

Create an Iraqi National Guard to replace the US troops. As long as an Iraqi force can maintain and protect a pro-US gov't in Iraq, a "hand-picked democracy", the USA can continue to pursue its goals in the region without taking the steady casualties that will garner a lot of domestic opposition to the occupation of Iraq as well as putting a damper on the resentment against the US from Iraqi people.

[Dhalgren]

37. Ever heard of "South Vietnam"?

Ever heard of the "ARVN"? This has been tried and didn't work - won't work here, either. These are all Iraqi nationals - we have to get that through our heads.

[msmcghee]

19. You are right, of course.

But it's simpler than all that. Just as the Israelis will never stop Hamas suicide bombers, the US occupation forces will never be able to prevent the killing of US soldiers and sympatheitc Iraqi civilians or - the ongoing destruction of any symbols of US occupation including the Iraqi infrastructure.

There are far more than enough well trained Baathists and America haters there who have set aside enough more than enough weapons and explosives for a campaign that will last far longer than the US is willing to suffer the losses and political and financial costs.

[msmcghee]

20. To that I add . .

Analysts: Iraq a 'magnet' for al Qaeda

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=73952

[juajen]

21. Perhaps the powers that be don't really care if we win or lose

After all, if we are in a quagmire for years, their big corporate buddies will rake in the dough; they'll just lose a few thousand or many thousands of people they don't care about anyway. If they win the war, they will still rake in big bucks. See, it's a win/win situation. I can't help it if I'm cynical, I'm just drawn that way.

[moondust]

24. BushCo went to Iraq partly to "get the win".

I think they knew the Waronterra was unwinnable. Voters might not understand and would expect more. They knew Iraq could provide them with a clear military victory in plenty of time for the 2004 election campaign. They went for the win.

[gulliver]

26. Asymmetric conflict and security

I think you are right in your assessment about chain reactions of guerilla fighting and the need for non-violence. Overall I agree with you.

It's a physical fact that it is a lot easier to destroy something than to build it. The 9/11 WTC and Oklahoma City attacks are classic examples. Snipers and Internet worms are other examples.

The Bushies are misleading people about that nature of security. Being secure doesn't mean being so strong that people are afraid of attacking you. That's secondary. The first key to security from enemies is not to have enemies. People take peace and good will for granted, but it is the single most effective security measure in existence. Without it, security is impossible.

If anything, Bush's "bring 'em on" comment shows just how wrong-headed Bush and his soon-to-learn-better believers are.

I'm in agreement with other posters that there is a proper use of defensive measures, including violent ones. I don't think you disagree with that, either. But violence has to be a last resort and, more importantly, justifiable. The Bushies didn't justify their violence (except with a pack of slick half-truths nearly indistinguishable from lies), and their violence wasn't a last resort. The degree of recklessness shown by the Bushies concerning the truth, international relations, and even American unity is a true outrage. It's beyond imagination.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

27. You are correct...

I don't believe that ALL action must stop, but that it must be treated the same way that police treat it - you don't fire unless there is no doubt at all that innocent people won't be killed, even if that means enlarging the risk to your own troops.

US soldiers are paid to get shot at, Iraqi civillians are not. The US MUST stop killing people at checkpoints for the act of not stopping. They MUST stop killing people on suspicion. Take the Reuters cameraman for example. If those soldiers had only waited until they were actually fired upon, he would still be alive today, but they didn't.

They fired on suspicion of hostile intent and thanks to a misidentification killed an innocent man. Of course if this HAD been a guerilla with a rocket launcher the US troops would have put themselves in danger by not firing, but as I said that is what they signed up for.

Another option would have been to gun it and leave the "kill zone" as quickly as possible, reducing the risks for all concerned.

Basically, they have to pick their fights, think like geurillas and only fight when the conditions are in their favour, including NO INNOCENTS in the vicinity.

They also have to think in terms of relative force rather than overwhelming force. 4 people in a building do not constitute a valid target for strike fighters and helicopter gunships, especially when there are innocents in the immediate vicinity. If you are not willing to risk soldiers lives to get these people without endangering innocents, just how important is it to get them in the first place?

This is the kind of thing I am talking about. Sure if a man with an RPG attacks your convoy you should shoot him, but ONLY if in doing so you reduce the risk to innocents, NOT increase it. If he happens to be in a crowd of innocent people leave the area, don't kill the crowd. Its that simple. But as I said this would seem like running away from a fight, and we all know that the US doesn't run don't we?

If US troops aren't willing to die, and their leaders not willing to send them to their deaths, to protect the Iraqi people, why are they even there?

Of course, we know why they are there, but how many moderates and undecided voters know what we know? That is why what I am saying should be the main platform of the Dems with regards to the war - either we are there to protect the Iraqi people, or we shouldn't be there at all.

[althecat]

28. Impeccable analysis Devils Advocate...

Tell me. Does this sort of thing help or hinder a force fighting a guerilla war?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

31. Actually, it depends...

on what the effect you're trying to achieve is. We know that in this case the desired effect was to enrage Hussein supporters and get them to attack US forces. In that, it will probably succeed.

Whether intentionally trying to get your enemy to attack you is such a good idea is another question altogether.

Here is an interesting question for you. Should the US be trying to end the bloodshed by killing all opponents, or should they be trying to convince opponents that fighting is not the answer?

If you think the former, then these posters certainly help in that regard. If the latter, then these posters are insane. I vote the latter.

As you can see from my original post, the former is impossible to achieve - you just can't end violence by commiting violence. It won't happen. So you could say that in terms of the strategy that the US is carrying out, these posters will certainly do what they were designed to do, but in the end, the strategy itself can not succeed.

(PS - people were complaining about the 5 sentence rule... bah! I just took 5 PARAGRAPHS to say "no, they don't help"!)

[Kbowe]

30. How about getting out of other people's country and treating others

with dignity and respect instead of as though they were all less than human?

[Jacobin]

33. You are absolutely right.

In the M.E. the following luminaries have attemtped what Smirk is trying:

Alexander the Great
Genghis Kahn
King Richard the Lion Heart
Napoleon Bonaparte
The British in the late 19th Century.

All were run out on their asses. Smart bombs and computer run tanks don't mean a thing in a guerilla war.

Fortunately, Smirk doesn't "do policy" and is illiterate, so there's no danger of him reading history....he can't continue to spout his banalities and leave the loss of the invasion to some future administration.

[Aristus]

35. Excellent, post, Devil's Advocate.

I have to disagree with you on one point, though.

The idea that the American people will not stand for genocide in Iraq. I believe absolutely that the majority of Americans would not only stand for it, they'd cheer it on! The Iraqis have brown skin and names like 'Mohammed bin Mussad'. People like that are easy to kill and to watch being slaughtered. White "Christian" Americans don't consider the Iraqis human beings. They consider them to be ragheads, towelheads, diaperheads, camel jockeys and sand ni**ers. I stood on street corners to protest the war in Iraq. I carried a sign that had two quotes on it: "Thou Shalt Not Kill", and "Blessed Are The Peacemakers" I can't tell you how many people gave me the finger and said things like "F**K Eye-rack!" and "Nuke Eye-rack!" Easy to say things like that when the Iraqis are less than human to you.

With great sorrow, I would have to assert that if we carried out a genocidal extermination of the Iraqi people, most Amurikkkans would applaude and say "That's for 9-11, scumbags!"

The only people to express outrage would be those who opposed the war in the first place; and B*sh considers us to be no more than 'focus groups', and the Arab-American community. Since they are not a politically powerful voting bloc (yet), they would be ignored by the Administration and the sheeple of the U.S.

Forgive the pessimism, but I think it's warranted.

[Mari333]

38. A marine who was over there, outside of Baghdad

spoke to a friend of mine..he basically said its SO BAD that soldiers have their fingers on the trigger all the time.....and its a shooting gallery on both sides...

[leftofthedial]

39. and we start with a huge number of people who already hate us

for being would-be conquerors and occupiers.

We ahven't even remotely seen the Iraqi resistance begin to gear up.

[TahitiNut]

48. Agreed.

Prediction: Within the next weeks we'll see/hear of an 'incident' where a US patrol or small deployed US force in an urban setting will be swarmed and overrun by a mass of berzerker 'civilians' and paramilitary in a Mogadishu-like retaliatory attack. They will take no prisoners and will wipe out the armed force, probably at the cost of many civilian lives.

[leftofthedial]

51. something like that is almost inevitable,

although the military must be sensitized to that possibility and be planning missions to avoid it if at all posible.

[RichM]

46. You're right. One quibble, however - you write "I assume the US people

would not stand for (genocide)" - killing nearly everyone in Iraq. Unfortunately, this is not true.

First of all, it would be reported here in such a way as to make it sound palatable if not downright justifiable. Second of all, shocking numbers of Americans don't really mind killing dark-skinned foreigners, especially if they've been painted as trouble-makers.

If the US were to systematically murder millions of Iraqis -- even by building gas chambers and following the Nazi script right down to the letter -- I'm afraid that our media here would be able to present it in a way that made it not really seem too bad. And most people here would pay little attention, being far more concerned with their salaries, promotions, & whether or not their stock portfolio was doing well. On the FOX News Channel, they could televise executions and mass gassings -- with little computer-graphic American flags waving in the lower right corner of the screen, perhaps captioning the whole event "Operation Iraqi Purification" -- and the audience would eat it up. They'd applaud, order pizza, & beg for more.

[leftofthedial]

52. after all, they are all Saddam supporters and terrorists with

possible links to al Qaeda



I don't know that even Murkan sheeple would stand for true genocide.

They don't know or care about the 100,000 children we killed due to the first Bush Gulf War though, so maybe you're right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Should be past tense. Why the US lost the war in Iraq.

It was lost before it started. BushCorp believed it's own propaganda that the people of Iraq would be tossing flowers at the smiling troops and naming their kids Dubya. And, that all the surrounding nations would be quivering in fear and eager to sign on to the grand illusion of the middle east as part of PaxAmericana happily supplying oil to fill SUV gas tanks and fatten capitalist wallets.

Unfortunately for the boy emperor, the Iraqi's (and the rest of the middle east) don't like the parts written for them by Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rummy the dummy. Those durn, ungrateful, ayrabs, just don't grasp the necessity of shooting up their people, bombing their cities, ripping off their oil, and imposing a "democratic" government on them without their consent.

Is there a "light at the end of the tunnel"? I can't see it.

[Eloriel]

58. Brilliant, just brilliant

I've been wondereing about these very things. Thanks so much for a very clear-eyed explanation/analysis.

Eloriel