On Iraq: Which Choice Strikes You As "Best of Show"?
of the war in Iraq. First of all, I think we had plenty of troops on the ground. That said, my complaint is that we've been way to concerned about attitudes and feelings not concerned enough about making sure EVERYBODY knows who's winning.
We should have never taken religious sites off the targeting vectors, the first mosque that was used as an ambush site should have been bombed to rubble. The entire city of Fallujah should have been flattened. For starters.
There's no time like the present.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
War only ends when one party submits. The Hussein government certainly did, but other parties have not. We must either force them to submit, or submit ourselves. There really aren't any other choices.
Breaking up an determined insurgency is hard, bloody work. I suspect it means killing a lot more civilians than we're accustomed to. But this is the fault of those who turned to outlawry, not we who fight them.
I can understand why Bush hasn't wanted to do this. Many of his goals are related to winning converts to Westernism, and a harshly conducted war isn't going to help.
But one thing at a time: First we take control of the country. Then we can install the government of our choice, and hope Iraqis come to see the benefits. It worked in Japan after WWII; I don't see why it can't work here.
Whitfox:
I'd like to suggest some important differences between Japan and Iraq, and that therefore the analogy is wrong. The analogy's should be The U.S. In the Philippines, France in Algeria, Britain in Malaysia, if one seeks the best outcomes. Still even they were not very good outcomes.
1. Japan started the war, which was prosecuted vigorously by both sides, the Japanese knew they were defeated. We started the war against Iraq, the people did not support the Saddam govt and had an expectation that our presence would be transitory, they had no sense of defeat.
2. The Japanese govt and officials were retained by MacArthur who ruled through them with continuity. The Iraq govt was terminated by Bremer, chaos immediately ensued.
3. The Japanese showed a willingness to adopt western methods before and after the war. Arabs have not. (technology does not equal method)
4. Our victory gave us rule over all Japanese, we do not rule over all Arabs.
mbecker, you got the perfect nail.
I'd destroy every mosque whose imams promote violence, and do it with pork products.
ALL allied ordinace would be slathered with pork fat, and loaded down with ampules of bacon cologne.
All terrorists' remains would be buried by the military with pork products, especially pork weiners, and a pigskin shroud.
Anyone considered target worthy of being kidnapped by terrorists would have their clothing and skin be pork slathered and saturated.
to Black Jack Pershing, who is reputed to have used similar tactics in dealing with Muslim insurgents in the Phillipines oh so long ago. Don't think it would play very well today.
In Vino Veritas
I'm not concerned about their eternity, I'm concerned about their here and now. I'm perfectly willing to allow the dead to be buried in any way the still living see fit. I just think we need LOTS of dead to bury.
Will we kill civilians? I hope so. What we need to do is make it so risky and so expensive in terms of lives lost that "civilians" will decide it's not worth hiding a terrorist.
And yes, I probably am a barbarian.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
has been more in the attempts to overly win hearts and minds, when what we needed to do was win decisively-even if that meant bombing a mosque.
I also think our kid gloves with Al Sadr was dumb, dumb, dumb, I think we kept thinking he would just go away, but he hasn't and now he is stronger than ever and a hug part of the problem. We should have taken him and his then much smaller militia out and dealt with whatever repercussions occured-because now the repercussions are going to be a heck of a lot more to deal with.
we were allowed to target religious sites if they were being used for military communications, weapons storage, a targeting source for hostile fire or a platform for hostile fire.
Unfortunately in war, it takes despair, destruction and suffering to win the hearts and minds. We began with a high tech 'tipping point' philosophy that has become popular with the defense contractors and retired flag officers pushing expensive military toys. Rumsfeld's mistake was believing these folks. They first came into power during Desert Storm in a (then) closely held cell called "Checkmate" in the Pentagon. Col Warden and Gen Horner were smart guys but, as Air Force technocrats, they only saw one dimension of warfare (air power). Their fatal flaw was believing air power and technology alone can win wars - heck it wasn't air power per se that won WWII in Japan, it was the total destruction of two cities and the resulting loss of life that led to surrender.
Google: Desert Storm, Checkmate, Black Hole for plenty of info..
Technology has its place, but it is a subset not the superset of a war plan.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
copious amounts of innocent Iraqis to take out the bad ones. If we had done that upfront, Iraq would not be the problem it is today. It is not to late to start that now.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
And I'm sure with your extensive military service, you'll be the first in line to assist.
with the chickenhawk meme. It has been treated by much abler pundits, but the crux of it is that it has become a form of Godwin's Law, a debate stopper for which there is no effective comeback. Peddle it elsewhere.
Just wait for until my backup group, the Tbonettes, arrive. Dupe ta dupe.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Bet you don't have one of these.
Next time you get the urge,(usually justified), to ban me reload it.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
To the target when the bomb goes off, they're either guilty by association or being used as humn shields. Sorry folks.
Besides, does anyone here remember a movie where two cops were talking about how to deal with a hostage stuation and the one says the answer is to shoot the hostage and take him out of the equation?
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Here is someone posting who does have service from the first Gulf war and with the 10th Mountain Division. We can not fight a politically correct war. As long as our troops are hampered by political correctness and not wanting to "offend" the muslim world we can not win. We need do what it takes whether it means bombing masques, assasinations, or worrying about collateral damange after the fact.
America does not have the stomach to tackle global terror at th e moment. It'll sadly take another major attack(s) on US interests for us to realize extremists will never be satisfied or settle through appeasement.
Our spineless media will make it difficult to respond to any terror w/ any significant response until the terrorism against the US is of huge proportion. We are in a battle of the minds on our own turf. We have to win this war in our backyard before winning any war overseas.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be a Democrat.
-CommonCents
William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."
"It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it..."
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
the Yankees line up in Parade Ground order to assault the death trap he'd set on Marye's Hill at Fredericksburg. Must have been some sight; fresh snow on the ground, low winter Sun breaking through as the clouds began to part and the fog burn away, all those regimental colors flying, and the Sun reflecting off thousands of polished barrels and bayonnets.
In Vino Veritas
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Is that we have not madde war terrible enough for our foes...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
In the recent debate of the options Go Big, Go Long, and Go Home, Go Big has been eliminated due to a lack of troops. This proves that military strategy is limited by the size of the military. Conventionally it takes a certain number of troops to pacify a country. We did this war cheaply in terms of bodies on the ground, and from the first looting this has been apparent. We're feeling the pain of that decision, which was Rumsfeld's mistake. And moreover, for the history of the world to this point in time, strength has been largely dependent on size. How that could have suddenly changed in 10-20 years is beyond me. No piece of technology exists that can remotely replace a steely-eyed warrior on every street corner. Get to that reality and you'll see the insurgent activity come to an end simply because there's no practical way to function in such an environment.
How a nation of 300 million can be humbled by a nation of 27 million is beyond me. We're portraying weakness to a region of the world that most despises it.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan
at all. We've won every significant encounter with the enemy. The problem is, the enemy now chooses to fight women, and children, and unsuspecting civilians. An not surprisingly, they're winning that fight. More troops won't fundamentally alter that situation, because the problem is not that our soldiers are losing the war, but rather that they're being deprived of the opportunity to fight the war against an enemy that wishes to offer combat.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
To support this insurgency. Stop it either on the Iraqi side or the Iranian side and watch how quickly they either disband or stand up and fight.
if we had the support of the Iraqi government, especially their fledgling police force, but we don't. And we don't have enough troops to control all the borders with Syria and Jordan, and fulfill our other responsibilities in the country.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Read this for a summary, from the NY Times, no less, of how Hezbollah/Iran/Syria have funded, trained, and participated in the Iraqi insurgency.
While Iran wants a stable Iraq, the official said, it sees an advantage in “managed instability in the near term” to bog down the American military and defeat the Bush administration’s objectives in the region.
“There seems to have been a strategic decision taken sometime over late winter or early spring by Damascus, Tehran, along with their partners in Lebanese Hezbollah, to provide more support to Sadr to increase pressure on the U.S.,” the American intelligence official said.
If we are to change this pattern, we need to go to the source- which is not in Iraq- it's in Damascus and Tehran. Some may cry that it's not time to open the battle on another front... but I say it's been opened already by the other side.
A ship in the harbor is safe
but that is not what ships are built for
...the current policy of W and Condi "Appease Anyone Who Asks" Rice is apparently, if only the Iranians will promise *sincerely* to give up their nuke program (and we promise not to try and see if they have their fingers crossed when they promise) then we're going to roll out all manner of economic goodies for them...you know, as a reward for being the main enabler of the folks killing our soldiers in Iraq every single day for the past 3+ years.
The one legitimate parallel with Vietnam that the MSM never talks about - surprise, surprise - is that the US is yet again allowing the enemy safe havens to rest, recruit and resupply...and yet again, our brave soldiers and marines are paying the price for spineless politicians who lack the courage (or good sense) to act...
I would never, ever have supported going into Iraq in the first place had I even suspected that we'd still be sitting there as sitting ducks at this point, without doing a bloody thing about Syria and Iran over the intervening 3 years. George W Bush has completely lost his nerve and had his spine surgically removed, as far as I'm concerned. And, he's very probably made it impossible for the next President (or two), even if we elect one who is so inclined, to forcefully prosecute the GWOT.
There are still 72,000 troops in Europe uhmm er defending? the Euros from uhmm what exactly I'm not sure.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
the kick-butt option, but it would be nice to have an air base in Kurdistan that is at least equivalent to the Prince Sultan.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
in early summer, 2003. US forces no longer operate out of there.
Ideally, that would deprive Al Qaeda of one of their reasons for waging war on us - infidels in the holy land and all that - but it hasn't earned us much approval for some reason.
There's nothing quite so exhilerating as being shot at... and missed. Winston Churchill
That's why it would be nice to build a new airbase where we're wanted. Unfortunately, Congress forbid the construction of a permanent base in Iraq. What were they thinking?
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
which is to foster Iraqi federalism. So I chose number 5. BTW, for the "unleash hell" voters, how exactly are we going to unleash hell on an insurgency that chooses to fight unarmed civilians - women, children, old men, infants, etc. - rather than take a beating by fighting us? That is the central reality we need to grasp. The insurgency is no longer primarily an anti-American insurgency. It is an anti-Iraqi insurgency, and all the people of Iraq are the potential targets. No army ever made can protect Iraq from that kind of enemy. Only the Iraqi people themselves can do that, and they won't succeed if they insist on waging a brutal civil war against their own neighbors. And they will continue to fight as long as they are forced to live in one country by an arbitrary political map drawn up by some mad old English crone (that would be Gertrude Bell) that the British government should have known not to trust with creating a country anyway.
So with all that in mind, how is "unleash hell" a viable option? Unless, of course, by "unleash hell" we mean continue to stand back and pretend that Sunni and Shia are not murdering each other with uncommon zeal, and that our supposed ally in Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki, is not allied with our avowed enemy Muqtada al-Sadr. If that is the strategy, then by all means we must continue, because it's working just fine.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
The "unleash hell" option isn't about protecting people. It's about killing the killers. And anyone who might be a killer. And anyone who might be supporting the killers with resources or encouragement. And anyone near enough to these people to be caught in the fighting.
It is not a pleasant option, by any means. I'm not sure it was politically possible before the election, let alone now. It is an option, though.
Fostering Iraqi federalism would be great, but IMO it assumes more active cooperation than we're getting. If you're planning to do it by force, you have the same essential problem of terrifying the Iraqis into submission.
I'm suggesting that each of the major ethnic groups get their own share of the country, and each group gets to choose how to run their own affairs. Then we step back (probably to bases in Kurdistan and Kuwait), and keep an eye on them to make sure there's no funny business (i.e., terrorist, cooperation with Al-Qaeda and/or other organizations.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
would have been the better option, but I am not so sure Federalism would/will work, although I like the idea better than outright partitioning.
The problem you run into is that Saddam sought to thwart the Federalism idea, by redisbursing Sunni's in various areas, so Federalism may work, but would it in the end mean some people would have to move to feel fairly represented? I am just not sure that I like the idea of state drawn on ethnic lines-I suspect in the end it just foments Civil War for a later date rather than now. But I think partitioning the country into three seperate countries does the same thing.
But way back, before they even had a provisional government I was making the arguement for a representative republic type federalist model over the parliamentary one.
is to stop "arresting" those who are fomenting all the violence and just shoot them on the spot - or shortly after.
Caught planting and IED? Blam!
Have IED making equipment in your house? Blam!
In a rather short period of time a lot of the violence would subside.
We are in Iraq to make the country a relatively stable democracy. Just shooting people on the street runs counter to the very idea of the rule of law.
An ArcLight raid would work much better.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
We need a national vote in Iraq so they can choose their own destiny. This will give the US a pass to leave under mission accomplished situation or give the US new political capital to continue. This would go far to change focus on the blame the big bad US game to Iraqis being responsible for their own future.
Iraqi's voting for more help is the only thing that will get any significant international help there. Until then, it'll be the US responsibility.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be a Democrat.
-CommonCents
screw their votes, and their right to vote. They've had their chance to vote. They've had three of them. They've chosen leaders who've participated in the Civil War rather than try to stop it. They've chosen leaders who have allied themselves with the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr. I, for one, have come to the conclusion that these people are no longer fit to govern themselves, so it's time to choose for them.
Besides, if they vote on the issue of U.S. forces in their country they would almost certainly vote to expell us, regardless of the fact that they'd be cutting their own wrists.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
"I, for one, have come to the conclusion that these people are no longer fit to govern themselves, so it's time to choose for them."
Or maybe: Why Libertarians ought to run screaming from the liberals and come home to the conservatives.
Yes, I agree, Libertarians should run screaming back to the conservative coalition. But my conservative friends haven't given them enough of a reason to come back.
Believe me, I've tried and tried and tried to reason with my fellow Libertarians. They ain't buying it.
The least y'all conservatives could do would be to eliminate a government program or two. That might be good for openers.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
There can be no better proof of someone who has spoken to no Iraqis than what was said in the above comment.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Maliki has allied himself with Al-Sadr. True or False?
The Maliki government prevents U.S. troops from going after Shi'ite death squads and the Shi'ite militias. True or False?
Iraqis routinely desert from the Armed Services and the Iraqi Police Forces because they do not recognize the nation of Iraq as an entity to which they owe loyalty. True or False?
No, I haven't been to Iraq. But I know people who have, and I have accessed a whole lot of information using newspapers, and radio, and TV, and the Internet, and I am certain I know enough to have an informed opinion. What is your expertise based on? BTW, after the last 3+ years if you believe that we can make a democracy out of Iraq you might as well believe in alchemy.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
When you have lemons, make lemonade. As much as I wish we bomb the crap out of Iraq, this will not happen. The only option for victory is to hang Saddam and setup the country of Kurdistan. Iraq is a bunch of lines drawn on a map by a bunch of dead white Europeans. I don't care if the country breaks up. I do care if Iran gets control of all the oil. Kurdistan gives us a base and oil. Plus the US has made alot of promises to the Kurds. I would give the Kurds, Kirkuk and Mosul, and encourage Kurds to move from Turkey to Mosul.
Iraq is breaking up. The Prime Minister is in Iran trying to cut a deal.
I couldn't agree more. This is the most sensible solution. Let the country break up and protect the Kurds.
The only catch is the Turks. But they haven't been our friends any way.
The War in Iraq was worth it for one reason and one reason alone; the liberation of Kurdistan.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Too bad Papa Bush didn't have his son's vision to take all those troops and intall a beachhead of democracy when we had half a million troops there itching to finish the job.
I don't think much of the terrorism that went on in the 90's would have happened and Iran would go near the idea of going nuclear for fear we would take them out.
If you are going to go to war go to war. Just like we did with Japan. Don't think that if after 2 bombs if they had not given up that we would have not dropped the third.
"It ain't over till it's over"
Yoggi Berra
We had 2. And they didn't give up after the nukes. They gave up after the B-29s flew again and took out their last refinery 1 week After the Bombs...
The math went in those days:
1 Bomb = 1,000 B-29s
And after the Bombs were dropped, another 2,000 B-29s attacked the North end of Japan. The one part that we hadn't touched until then. The part they thought was out of our reach.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
but in any case they knew we were not letting up for any reason until we achieved total victory.
That is what I think is missing today.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont, 16 November
1778)
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
maybe, but not 2K ships; don't think we ever had more than a few hundred operational B-29s. It took everything the 8th and the RAF could do to put 1K ships in the air over Europe, and those a/c were much simpler and had been in production far longer than the 29.
In Vino Veritas
Boeing built nearly 3 thousand alone and an additional 1100 were built by other manufacturers. War-time industry was an amazing thing, wasn't it?
Oh, and it had been in production since 1939.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b29.html
Granted, that's just on what was Produced and not what was used. But I'm not good enough at this internet searching thing yet to find that ;atter bit of info...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Ah, yes but the Japanese didn't know that, and in those days the New York Times was not in the business of telling them that. Of course, in those days no one would have thought to tell the NYT in the first place.
John
--------
Ethic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Knowing. We were worried about the Russians knowing. And I'm not sure the world wouldn't be better off if the Russians Had found out...
Patton would have gotten his war with Russia.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
The Soviets declared war on Japan a week or so after Hiroshima. They advanced 100 miles a day through Mongolia and China. The japanesse already had the the largest navy and air force in the world arrayed against them. The Soviets brought the largest and most battle tested army in the world to bear.
The fear of a Soviet occupation of Japan probably had something to do with the rapid surrender. Much better to have the Americans has overlords than Joseph Stalin.
He was refused by Congress when he asked for a declaration of war. What he got was an extension of the War Power Act and a whopping 90 days to accomplish as much as he could...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
has anyone considered moving every us troop in iraq to its border? i mean, no troops anywhere but ther border. nothing gets in, nothing leaves, and anything goes. fewer of our own would be under direct fire, iran would see a big line in the sand, and whatever the people of iraq decided (with purple fingers or guns) would certainly be something they could call their own.
would it take more than 140,000 troops to secure just the border (excluding or including, i suppose, the Kurds)?
Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.
I have recently thought about comparing the fights that were going on in Latin America during President Reagan's time in office, and current fights going on now in Iraq and Lebanon. One partner that played a big role IMO is Pope John Paul II. The people living in Latin America are predominantly catholic, and certain radical communist priests stirred them up a lot. The Pope rejected and defrocked these priests, and turned the hearts and minds of catholics away from the communist agenda. Today we could use a muslim leader who could move people like the Pope did to reject the radical agenda of "dying for allah" and toward a positive agenda of "living for allah".
I do not know if this is even possible. I'm just saying that it played a very important role in Latin America in moving people away from communism in the '80's.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
It would be a Caliphate, which doesn't exist.
Furthermore, if there was one, judging by the dominate demagoguery coming out of nearly every imam around the world, said Caliph would most likely denounce and defrock the imams that supposrted Us...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
the Vatican as the equivalent of a global caliph. I think this is because the Vatican encourages people to live and do good works in the name of Jesus. The majority of imams encourage people to die in the name of allah. I don't disagree with your opinion, and that is why I wrote that I am not sure if it is possible for the US to have a partnership with Islam the same way we had a partnership with the Pope.
just wishful thinking
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Would be the equivalent of the Pope as being the head of the religion. I don't see any other applicable rubrick...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
A global caliph is the head of the religion Islam. The pope is not the head of the religion Christianity. I don't think this is a quibble. I think this is a major distinction. There are many many Christians who do not accept the Pope as the head of the religion.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
the caliphate they have in mind is more, much more that some worldwide religious authority comparable to the Pope for Roman Catholics. Since Islam is more than "just" a religion the caliphate they have in mind is more of a world government wrapped up in ritual.
John
--------
Ethic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Between Catholicism (the largest sect of Christianity and for good reason) and Islam, a Caliph is the only religious figure the Muslims could produce that would be comparable to the Pope.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
what you have pointed out highlights a major difference between the conflicts in Latin America where the Pope was a plus for the US efforts against communism and the conflicts in the moslem countries where a comparable religious figure for moslems is a minus for the US efforts against islamofascists. Perhaps the Muslim version of a Conrad Adenauer will come after we are successful in defeating our enemy.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
4G stands for "4th generation". The term was coined by John Poole, former SNCIOC of the USMC's 3rd Marine Division's Combat Squad Leader's course.
4G warfare involves religion, psychology, politics, media, economics, and infrastructure.
Both Vietnam and Iraq qualify as 4G wars. You could throw in the Gulf War, Kosovo, and Korea. But Vietnam and Iraq illustrate the point best.
You cannot win a 4G war merely be accumulating wins on the battlefield. The militarily weaker side will be very patient in a 4G war because it understand that the best time to attack is after the initial invasion. The weaker (militarily weaker) side in a 4G war wants to win the war by turning off the moderates on the other side. They want to convince the moderates that the objectives of the war are unjust, that the war isn't worth the cost, and/or that troops should be withdrawn.
Their attacks are insignificant militarily but are calculated to get on TV screens and onto the front-page headlines.
Using women, children, and symbols such as "the golden mosque" would be foolish in a traditional war but strategic in a 4G war.
Intentionally killing unarmed civilians does not accomplish the goals of traditional warfare but it does accomplish the goals of a 4G war.
As much as it feels good to carpet-bomb one's enemies, it is wrong and will not bring victory in a 4G war. Nixon tried it in Vietnam (and Laos and Cambodia). It didn't work.
No one wants to face the reality that war costs the lives of men and women. We want an easy fix. Surely with all of our money, we can buy an easy fix. There isn't one.
We need to be willing to pay the horrible price for freedom from terrorism.
I'm not just talking out of my rear. I've been in Iraq for the past 6 months. Every NCO I've talked to agrees with me.
Using blown up bodies on TV to undermine the stronger country's will to fight only works if there are people willing to assist in such an effort. Fortunately for the Jihadis and unfortunatley for the U.S. we have these people here and they are called Democrats. Once, while discussing this with a Democrat, I used the phrase "aid and comfort" the enemy. He replied that those words have specific meaning and can't be just tossed around.
I said I know what they mean.
The problem with Iraq is that we didn't bring the country down to its knees. We started democratizing Iraq before we destroyed the enemies of Democracy and liberty. Simply, we put the cart before the horse.
Recall Japan at the end of World War II: they were so beaten into the ground that representatives of the new Japanese government -- with tears in their eyes -- begged General MacArthur to totally disband their military and never allow Japan to have a military ever again.
Today, America's leaders apparently believe in fighting a sanitized war -- a PC war. I'm not for a cut and run redeployment strategy; I'm all for the "sh*t or get off the pot" strategy.
the fun with car bombs. Can't two play? A bomb goes of in Baghdad, a bomb goes off in Damascus, make that two.
An assassination in Baghdad, a murder in Tehran.
Realizing that we are in a war where our killing people is a bad thing, where piping the wrong music into a prisoner's cell is torture, and other such monstrosities, yet a little tit for tat might serve both as a reminder and a bracer to otherwise comfortable leaders in those countries. Make them crap in their pants at the thought of leaving the house to visit the seraglio.
Naturally we would do this selectively and humanely, nail bombs used only on a weekly basis, no beheading of defense ministers, paramilitary and military targets primarily, weddings and funerals to be torched only for officials. oh, and kidnappings, with videos of contrite and weeping victims pleading for a paid ransom.
I think this might get their attention, if not, well it's a nice thought.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Special Forces into Tehran, followed by the Marines.
Infantry Division into Damascus
Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum
I think I'd send the infantry to Tehran...
But I like your overall concept.
--
""What's interesting is they're beginning to understand that, with victory comes responsibility..." - Pres. GW Bush
I was all for going to war with Iraq. I agreed with Bush 100%.
Nation building Iraq with its bizarre borders defined by Britain a century ago never made sense.
Kurdistan would be USA's #1 ally in the Middle East behind Israel, but Bush BLEW IT, by not recreating Kurdistan.
Create Kurdistan, sign an alliance with them, and establish permanent military bases there.
The Kurds love America. The Turks do not. If Turkey doesn't like it - tough. The Kurds will be more dependable than Turkey ever has been.
------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes! http://www.fairtax.org
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont, 16 November
1778)
We have WON the war, we did that in about 3 weeks -- what we seem to be incapable of, is maintaining law & order until a civil government is able to do so. THAT is what we need a plan for!!!
-paul-
Is that while we Did, technically, win the war, we did not convince the Enemy of that fact...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
mikeleader
"Is that while we Did, technically, win the war, we did not convince the Enemy of that fact..."
I disagree Raven....we didn't convince the American public of the fact..The manipulation of the war by the main stream news outlets, and molders of popular opinion overwhelmed the average american..In the same way the average American believes a-Bush wanted to "privatize social security",b- "deprive the elderly of health care",c-"and that tax cuts gutted our economy."
The netroot nit wits don't realize they are playing the part of "useful idiots" for the terrorists, and the democrat intelligentsia plays demagogue to win power..while destroying the fabric of our nation...
are there no patriotic billionaires out there who can buy up the "old press" and truly counter the left onslaught?
I can think of two things that would work.
The first is to flood the place with as many troops as we can spare. Remove all regulations keeping soldiers from shooting back at anything that is currently firing on them. Move every bit of the navy possible as close as possible, with a constantly moving water-based line of supply. Begin construction of a large permanent hospital/regrouping/resupply zone off the coast, much like one of Japan's islands.
Mass curfew. Close the Iraqi borders and search everywhere for weapons. The country is in lockdown and paralyzed, but there won't be as many explosions. More people will be willing to go to Iraq; numerous jobs will open up for American (and let's make them American, please) contractors. (No illegal alien labor, by the way.) Build a country. However, utilize Iraqi labor as much as possible. Now that the country is paralyzed, the walk-around-shopping-and-delivering industry is ready. Otherwise, the Iraqi economy will collapse.
While they're not being shot at, begain full-scale training of an Iraqi defense force. Police, army, doctors, educators.
It'll take a long time and it'll cost a lot of money, but in the end the militias will wake up one day to an operational country, no weapons, and a secure Iraqi system.
If America tried this, I'd volunteer to go over there and build a country in a heartbeat.
Option two is to just build a new country (maybe in a Kurd-dominated area) and invite anyone interested in working to make an operational country. We'll build their houses and promise to help. Secure the area. If anyone wants to stay outside and fight it out, go ahead.
If the Iraqi government goes against these ideas, or if they fail, I can't see any change coming. Then we get two much less desirable options.
The first is to run and leave everyone in Iraq to an awful fate. We could probably bring millions of refugees with us when we retreat, but it'd still be a disaster.
The second is to hand the whole thing over to Iran and Syria, and maybe invite in Hezbollah to try what they did in Lebanon on Iraq.
That wouldn't be good for us.
Specifically, I would like to see a built-up US force engage -- really engage -- the enemy forces in Anbar province. Forget about Baghdad, forget about the rest of Iraq.
Anbar province lies to the west of Baghdad and stretches to thge Syrian border, and contains the Sunni part of Iraq, who have now allied themselves with Al-Qaeda and are escalating their aattacks on our forces there. Anbar contains the towns whose names -- Ramadi, fallujah, Haditha, Tikrit -- will reverberate in the history of the US marines, whose forces have taken many assaults there.
This is what I'd like to see -- forget about Baghdad, forget about Al-Sadr, forget about the other parts of Iraq which are largely pacified. It seems that the Marines have circulated a report saying that the Marines need 15-20,000 more troops to win in Anbar against the Sunni-AlQaeda alliance. Hmmm. !5-20,000 -- that sounds familiar. That sounds like the number of troops the President said he might put into Iraq before beginning withdrawals.
Mr. President -- I'm begging here. Please put an additional 15,000-20,000 troops in Anbar. Go after Al Qaeda and the Sunnis, wipe them out. I'm OK with talking with Iran and Syria -- as long as we're pounding the enemy in Anbar at the same time!
As for the militias in Baghdad -- not our problem. Al Sadr and the other Shia militias -- let the Iraqi army handle them. We should not, repeat NOT, go into Baghdad and engage these militias, which are really criminal gangs affiliated with political parties. The enemy in Anbar, on the other hand, are paramilitary forces and well worth our engaging them.
I'm hopeful because of the President's remarks recently that he will follow this course or soemthing similar. Much of Iraq is OK -- the Kurds have achieved a level of social and economic progress that we and they can be proud of.
Don't go wobbly, George!!!
Redeploy to an independent Kudistan; yet unleash a Pattonesque assault on Sunni strongholds and rubbing out that Shiite tinfoil tinpot Moqtada Al-Sadr and his Mahdi army. Bury his carcass in a casket filled with peanut like pork skins.
The idea that somehow the outcome of a war is determined by the good feelings of the vanquished is utter nonsense. Throughout thousands of years of human history the victor took the spoils, the vanquished were massacred or sold into slavery. Only in this past century has victory become defined as the vanquished being happy with the new system.
We defeated Iraq. The first thing the media did was go out and find every discontented Iraqi in the country and put them on display. There were huge whines about the history museum. There were people complaining that their wall was damaged or their garden trampled. WTF is this?
I'm not saying we have to kill everyone or turn them into slaves. But how did the US Army and Marines get turned into social workers, responsible for the health, happiness, and well being of the Iraqi public? We should have kept our eyes on the ball, which was to destroy al Qaeda, Baathism, and give the Iraqis a chance to do better. We were doing fine until the entire focus shifted from that into whether or not our enemies were comfortable at Abu Ghraib. That's not to defend the abuses there, but turning that into the main issue was a major error. It's a trap we bought into and it's reflected today in the stay the course option.
I vote for unleashing hell. Let them hate us so much that they never ever again allow an antiAmerican regime to take over the country and give us an excuse to return.
I thought we went to war to save Iraq--to spread democracy-- not to defeat Iraq. Oh, that's right. That was after finding the WMDs. And after we decided Iraq was the frontline on the war on terror. But I guess when you're losing, all you can do is keep changing the rules.
How many of you Red State chickenhawks who are so eager to "unleash hell" have ever served in the military? How many of you have ever witnessed the hell of war firsthand? If you think we need more troops in Iraq, I suggest the first to volunteer be the chickenhawks and Yellow Elephants here calling for "unleashing hell." Go get a taste of hell for yourselves, little boys.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Congress convenes is demand, no DEMAND!, that the draft get reinstated.
Then your cozy little ass will get drafted and you can go get in front of my son's Marines to make sure the streets are safe.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
is an interesting scientific data point. It tells us how long this troll can survive under The Redstate Bridge w/o a functioning brain.
Kos and MyDD beckon. You can tell them all about how you got vaporized here for the boring chickenhawk fallacy.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Mayflies survive longer as they hover over fully stocked trout streams.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
From Brigade commanders to special operators, we're pretty well covered here.
We can definitely do without you, though. Bye.
It seems folks here have forgotten the lessons of recent history. Insurgencies and civil wars are not defeated by more violence by third-party states, unless our goal now has changed from "promoting democracy" to flattening a nation and killing a people. A massive bombing compaign will certainly halt the violence, along with the people of Iraq.
What about more targeted bombings? Who does America attack? Shiites? Sunni? They both contibute to the bulk of Iraq's wanton violence. They also contribute to the bulk of Iraq's population. More violence in this situation will do nothing but bread more--against us and against themselves.
Why are we in Iraq? Why are we sacrificing our youth? 10 more troops were killed there today. Can we imagine, here in over-fed, virtual-realty America, what it is like to see our loved ones blown and burned into pieces of flesh, now apparently only for a President's own ego and insecurities? Stop and imagine for a moment.
What has happened to our basic empathy and decency? Our enlightened principles that set us apart? Does "terrorism" excuse our recent crimes against our own cherished laws, mores, and Constitution? Our crimes against our own souls?
Terrorism is violent. So are car accidents, which you are 500 times more likely to fall victim to next year. Time to bomb Detroit? Time to surrendor our own rights and rule of law? Time to stop caring for our own-self respect, and the welfare of others?
More presciently here, how much further into fascism will those that speak for "The Right" slip before they alienate almost everyone, and are wholly--and rightly--exorcised from Washington?
I've watched the ISG guys on several interviews today. The one common thread in each of them is that they are proud of their bi-partisan report. "The only bi-partisan report." They do not emphasize what to do for success. Their bottom line in every interview I saw was political.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
>>>>>It seems folks here have forgotten the lessons of recent history. Insurgencies and civil wars are not defeated by more violence by third-party states,
They have been on several occasions. Burma, The Phillipines, and Angola all come readily to mind. That's all in the 20th Century. Lebanon comes to mind as well. Hezbollah didn't set up shop their to work on their suntans on Mediterranean beaches.
>>>>What about more targeted bombings? Who does America attack? Start w/ Muqtada Al Sadr.
>>>>>What has happened to our basic empathy and decency? Our enlightened principles that set us apart? Does "terrorism" excuse our recent crimes against our own cherished laws, mores, and Constitution? Our crimes against our own souls?
If it were possible for you to be less specific and to emit more greenhouse gasses in one paragraph, I'd be morbidly curious to see how you managed.
>>>Time to stop caring for our own-self respect, and the welfare of others?
Only if we take your suggestions to heart and stop fighting the terrorists. Accidents are by definition unplanned events. 9-11 was one of the most professional operations ever conducted against a US target.
>>>>More presciently here, how much further into fascism will those that speak for "The Right" slip before they alienate almost everyone, and are wholly--and rightly--exorcised from Washington?
I'm sure if I had a herd of cattle emitting as much methane as you just did in that concluding paragraph, you'd make like Moussalini and fine me for it.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
If you can't figure it out, this poll is about Iraq.