Redstate

Asymmetrical Fighting + Nonlinear Battlefield = More flag-draped coffins

By Jeff Emanuel Posted in War — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

As you have undoubtedly noticed, RedState's editors spent today vocalizing their widely varying views on Iraq - the past, the present, and the future.

As I served in Iraq myself, the question, "Why didn't I weigh in?" was posed to me several times throughout the day. The reason, quite frankly, is because there was no need. Between the different viewpoints offered here by my extremely distinguished co-writers, I believe that the bases were well covered, and that there was - and is - little or no need for me to jump into the fray and attempt to restate various points thrown out there by each of them - and all had points worth restating.

However, with this day of debate drawing to a close, I decided that I might as well throw in 2 cents or so of my own anyway. For those interested, continue on.

My personal stance on the situation in Iraq, as with any other conflict, is really quite simple: You do what needs to be done. You give the troops the equipment - and the leeway - to accomplish their mission. Period, dot.

What this does not mean is that you continue to embed reporters, to put questioning eyes over the troops' shoulders, to replace key, effective officials in the chain of command, or to allow support for the mission to visibly waver. There's already an opposition party which favors every one of those practices.

What needs to be done by the President, by the party still in power until the end of the year, and, above all, by the American people, is to reinforce support of both the troops and the mission, and to recommit to the objectives which America seeks to accomplish, both in the country of Iraq and in the region. Without a clearly defined goal, and without progress markers along the way, the situation in the desert is less like a war with a purpose, and is instead more akin to hopping into a car and hopping onto a known road, but taking a directionless route from there - but with people shooting at you and your passengers all the while.

That, to me, is one of the two gravest concerns with the situation in Iraq - the lack of a clearly-defined objective (or destination).

The second is the radically uneven playing field, with regard to the tactics, the techniques, and the firepower which each side is willing to employ.

Read on.

Regardless of whether it is out of a hyperbolic sense of decency, out of respect for so-called "world opinion," or simply out of a desire to avoid all criticism - warranted or not - from our own opposition party, and their accomplices in the domestic media, we are forcing our troops to fight with one - if not two - hands tied behind their backs, and are purposely affording the enemy giant advantages of which we would never make reciprocal use.

From allowing "insurgents" to flee into - or to hide weapons cachés within - mosques, and granting them safe-haven due to the religious nature of the building, to taking and not returning enemy fire because it is coming from behind the purposeful cover of civilians (women and children being the obvious preference), to allowing our courts to rule that the due process granted to American citizens be afforded terrorists and enemy combatants, to refusing to even somewhat forcefully interrogate - let alone threaten the lives of - captive terrorists (although when US soldiers were captured, they were not only brutally tortured, but beheaded and mutilated beyond recognition), the situation in Iraq - which already featured the best real-world example of nonlinear warfare in years - has become so asymmetrical that it is akin to playing a game of basketball in which one team has to follow the rules (i.e., with fouls enforced)...and in which the other team is not only exempt from foul enforcement, but is allowed to kill indiscriminately as part of the game.

Is this an extreme analogy? Absolutely - and it describes an extreme situation. We are fighting a war which features combat situations extending far beyond the bounds of "usual combat," defined as it could be as the type of combat in which there are clearly delineated allied and opposing forces, rules, and everybody tries their best, as Westley said to Fezzik in the incomparable Princess Bride, "to kill each other like civilized people."

The bottom line is this: What started as a war to improve the national security of the United States, to remove a murderous dictator, and to hopefully bring democracy to a region known for dictatorships - the former having been sought to be accomplished through success at the latter two - accomplished the second beautifully. In doing so, though, it increased a front in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) to an even larger scale - a result which helped strengthen America's homeland security if for no other reason than the fact that jihadis were streaming to Iraq to take on the West there, rather than plotting and attacking us on our home turf.

What did not happen, though - to the surprise of some, and to the chagrin of more - was the quick and easy pacification of a region which has long known brute strength as its only currency, and violence as its only bargaining tool.

If we are to defeat this enemy - be it in Iraq and Afghanistan now, elsewhere later, or (God forbid), at some indeterminate point in the future, on our own shores - then our only option is to show our strength. Going into Iraq initially sent the message that, Leftists and peaceniks be ****ed, America and her allies meant business, and would not sit idly by while rogue dictators thumbed their noses at us, and while terrorists plotted to murder us to the last man, woman, and child. Mumar Qaddafi got the message - within weeks of our invasion of Iraq, and deposing of Saddam Hussein, he was begging for the opportunity to give up his weapons of mass destruction.

Going into Iraq sent a message that the West was strong – and it made those who would do us harm take note.

Unfortunately, what has been happening since then has also done the latter, but not in a good way. The enemy has long since taken note of America’s tendency to be queasy – and thus less than courageous – at the first sight of bloodshed; thus, they have made sure to put on a spectacularly bloody show. The enemy has long since taken note of America’s tendency to be queasy – and thus less than courageous – at the continued sight of soldiers in flag-draped coffins; thus, they have made sure to kill very steadily. The enemy has long since taken note of America’s refusal to enter mosques (although they are perfectly willing to blow up their own mosques), to return fire when civilians may be in danger (though they have zero compunction about slaughtering their own innocent), or to save the lives of its own soldiers when the trade-off is a soldier’s life vs. the appearance of possibly insulting or offending a foreign people or religion; thus, they have made sure to use each of these to their advantage, happily taking our sacrificial offer of young lives in exchange for their possible forgiveness for any offense we may have committed. The enemy has long since learned how to use America’s media against her; thus, they have done so, and spectacularly.

What must be done to reverse this trend (or, more aptly, this tsunami) of insurgent and terrorist advantage? What must we accomplish to call Iraq a success and to be able to leave?

The latter is something which must be decided immediately. We must - must - define the mission, both in the short-term and over the long haul.

Then, the next step must be taken: not only must the hands be unbound, but the gloves must come off. America has the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, and, though it has been successful in a great deal of the mission, we are once again being made fools of on an asymmetrical battlefield. We set a precedent when we sacrificed thousands taking and retaking the same square inches of jungle in Vietnam, and then fled the country, allowing it to be taken over by those we had ostensibly been fighting against. We reinforced that precedent when we turned tail and ran from Mogadishu – despite the wishes of the most elite fighters that America then had to offer chomping at the bit to go back and to leave the future terrorists with a very different message about American strength and resilience.

America, the world’s superpower, is capable of accomplishing nearly anything she sets out to do, provided that her people and her government do not waver, and give up on the mission before success has been achieved. Unfortunately, this has been happening since before our initial invasion of Iraq, and has only increased as time has gone on.

Those who rail against the war, against the President, and against America herself must not be heeded right now. President Bush needs to maintain his focus, regardless of the incoming Congress, and not allow this mission to be compromised. Every day that the fighting continues, more of America’s finest – real people, with real lives, real families, real hopes, and real desires – are dying. Every one of them volunteered for this duty, and every one, down to a man, is willing to give his life to the cause of keeping America secure; indeed, every one is willing to give his life on a foreign battlefield in lieu of innocent lives being taken at home.

Either abandoning this mission, or allowing it to be continued in a haphazard fashion, as a continuance of the newly adopted practice of the asymmetrical fighting of a nonlinear war, compromises and marginalizes every one of those battlefield deaths, and makes it less and less likely that what each gave his or her life for will actually be accomplished.

President Bush, your party – our party – lost this past election. It may have been a referendum on Iraq; many think so, and I agree that it was not unrelated in the least to the GOP loss last week. We all saw your end-of-the-Rumsfeld-era press conference the next day, and my request for you stems directly from what I saw there.

Regardless of the results of the election, regardless of the impending investigations, regardless of the media outcry, and regardless of the demands of the Democrats, sir, here is what you MUST do: straighten your back, reinsert your spine, pick your chin up, reenter the arena with your head held high – and, for goodness sake, allow America’s armed forces to do what they have done better than anybody else in the world for far longer than I’ve been alive: allow them to fight and win a war, and to do so decisively, leaving no question - no question - in the minds of our enemies what the consequences of ever taking on America again will be…and allow our men and women in uniform, in carrying out that mission, to achieve what it is you have promised since 9/11: to keep our country, from the top to the bottom, every man woman and child among us, safe from those who would try to harm us.

Sir, I served, as did so many others here on this site, and in this nation. Every person who has put on the uniform of this greatest nation the world has ever known has done so knowing the risks involved – and, in volunteering for that service, has, in essence, said to any who would attempt to harm our innocent: “Here I am. Take me instead; for not only am I able to fight to protect the innocent among us, bit I am willing to die to do so, as well.”

Mr. President, you have asked our armed forces to fulfill that blood oath, and they have responded spectacularly, like the true champions and heroes that they are. All I ask of you is that you fulfill your continued responsibility, which you took on when you – still rightly, in my opinion – decided to cash that chit with their blood, sweat, and tears by going into Iraq in the first place. That responsibility encompasses these two tasks:

(1) Establish the objective, set the mission, and allow your armed forces to complete it

(2) Never, never – EVER – allow yourself to waver in your commitment to their total victory.

If you can fulfill these responsibilities, then we can succeed. Our troops are both committed and willing, Mr. President – the rest is on you.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"

And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

Isaiah 6:8 NIV