Tiptoeing Through the Iraqi Tulips
Over at the American Thinker, Doug Hanson has a great piece about the new military thinking and why things have gone awry in Iraq. As he points out, Rumsfeld has taken the fall for the mistakes being made, but ultimately he was listening to his commanders who have been trained in new, untested theories about ``no cost`` warfare and have developed the beaurocrat`s ability to blur the meaning of words-such as victory. Essentially, we have tried to implement a ``kinder, gentler`` approach to warfare which emphasizes engagement, ``winning hearts and minds``, and a whole lot of other pseudo-intellectual psychobabble. Classroom training has come to replace battlefield experience as the desired method for selecting commanders, and advanced degrees have come to trump Silver Stars and Purple Hearts. In short, we`re waging an academic war, with predictable results.
As General Robert E. Lee pointed out ``It is a good thing that War is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it`` and the General is absolutely correct; war is and should be terrible, not casual or simmering. That is the problem with the entire Middle-East-the endless war being waged has never reached the point where the participants dread the consequences more than they enjoy it. THAT was the job of the U.S. military; to bring down the wrath of the Almighty on the terrorists and other evildoers. We needed to approach this not as a police action, but as a war with the horrendous consequences which our enemy has rightly earned. The enemy will continue to fight if he perceives that things aren`t too bad. He must either be killed, captured (and that was what made Gitmo such a great tool; the enemy was terrified of Gitmo) or placed in such misery and peril that he loses the will to continue. This clean little war we`ve fought does none of the above.
Here`s a great example of a gross misunderstanding of the issue from Gen. Peter Chiarelli:
ÂWell, we are fighting to win, but we understand that winning is a combination of a whole bunch of things in this insurgency weÂre fighting, and as IÂve indicated time and time again, this is different than any other fight I believe the United States of America has ever found itself in. And I quite frankly think that this is a fight that will characterizeÂmany of the characteristics of this fight will be characteristics of future fights if we get into them.
It is a blend of both kinetic and non-kinetic effects, and the non-kinetic effects are many times as important and often more important than the kinetic effects. And thatÂs whatÂs different. And that is really what Pete Devlin said in his report, and I think he was right. We need political support, we need economic support at Al Anbar. When we do that, it will have an effect on security in Al Anbar and drive down security.
First, terrorism and partisan warfare are nothing new to civilization, and nothing new to America. The Indian Wars were fought against what was, essentially, the same tactics as employed by the insurgents. Ditto Quantrill and Nathan Bedford Forest during the Civil War, ditto the Japanese in China and S.E. Asia. What of the French and Indian War? What of the battles against piracy at Tripoli and through the Caribbean? There are ways to deal with this type of asymmetic warfare, but it requires more stomach than I fear our current leaders possess.
Further, that business about ``this fight will characterize...characteristics of future fights`` suggests that our generals are more interested in posterity than victory; they are too busy creating new techniques for the manuals to actually FIGHT.
After that jabberwocki about kinetic and non-kinetic (gee, I though kinetic energy was what a bullet was all about) he goes on about needing political support. You do not get political support by not fighting; people will come out of the woodwork to support you when you are winning. If we want political support over there we need an aggressive military approach. This is an intellectual redux of the Vietnam strategy whereby we contain the war to limit our political liability. It failed then, and it will fail now. The enemy has to fear you. If they do not they will take the offensive, and you will fear them. We have reached this point; our commanders fear the enemy, and fear the fallout of aggressive action. Such an approach guarantees defeat.
Humanity has practiced warfare throughout our history, and technological advancement dsupersedeupercede the fundamental principles which govern success or failure. Technophilia has convinced those who are running the show that the rules have changed in an absolute sense, and that war can be fought in a kinder, gentler manner. Wrong! Technology offers us more powerful tools; the atom bomb is the ultimate club, for example! But in the end, we still have the same human nature, and the same principles which Sun Tzu wrote about thousands of years ago still apply. The generals would do well to read their Sun Tzu more, and their Academic theorists less.
Finally, I have said this repeatedly; we cannot win if we continue to allow the enemy sanctuary. As long as Iran and Syria continue to act against us, we will not be able to secure Iraq. That is why this silly notion leaked from that taffypull commission about negotiating with the two terror masters resembles a Monte Python sketch; we are asking the cause of our problem to help solve it. I simply cannot believe that Jim baker is that stupid-but my credulity has certainly been overtaxed in the past.
One thing is for certain; the next 6 months are critical. Failure in Iraq will bring the fight home to America, and the public who tired of the war will find their plates piled high with fresh, new battles. I hope they enjoy their all-you-can-eat buffet.
As General Robert E. Lee pointed out ``It is a good thing that War is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it`` and the General is absolutely correct; war is and should be terrible, not casual or simmering. That is the problem with the entire Middle-East-the endless war being waged has never reached the point where the participants dread the consequences more than they enjoy it. THAT was the job of the U.S. military; to bring down the wrath of the Almighty on the terrorists and other evildoers. We needed to approach this not as a police action, but as a war with the horrendous consequences which our enemy has rightly earned. The enemy will continue to fight if he perceives that things aren`t too bad. He must either be killed, captured (and that was what made Gitmo such a great tool; the enemy was terrified of Gitmo) or placed in such misery and peril that he loses the will to continue. This clean little war we`ve fought does none of the above.
Here`s a great example of a gross misunderstanding of the issue from Gen. Peter Chiarelli:
ÂWell, we are fighting to win, but we understand that winning is a combination of a whole bunch of things in this insurgency weÂre fighting, and as IÂve indicated time and time again, this is different than any other fight I believe the United States of America has ever found itself in. And I quite frankly think that this is a fight that will characterizeÂmany of the characteristics of this fight will be characteristics of future fights if we get into them.
It is a blend of both kinetic and non-kinetic effects, and the non-kinetic effects are many times as important and often more important than the kinetic effects. And thatÂs whatÂs different. And that is really what Pete Devlin said in his report, and I think he was right. We need political support, we need economic support at Al Anbar. When we do that, it will have an effect on security in Al Anbar and drive down security.
First, terrorism and partisan warfare are nothing new to civilization, and nothing new to America. The Indian Wars were fought against what was, essentially, the same tactics as employed by the insurgents. Ditto Quantrill and Nathan Bedford Forest during the Civil War, ditto the Japanese in China and S.E. Asia. What of the French and Indian War? What of the battles against piracy at Tripoli and through the Caribbean? There are ways to deal with this type of asymmetic warfare, but it requires more stomach than I fear our current leaders possess.
Further, that business about ``this fight will characterize...characteristics of future fights`` suggests that our generals are more interested in posterity than victory; they are too busy creating new techniques for the manuals to actually FIGHT.
After that jabberwocki about kinetic and non-kinetic (gee, I though kinetic energy was what a bullet was all about) he goes on about needing political support. You do not get political support by not fighting; people will come out of the woodwork to support you when you are winning. If we want political support over there we need an aggressive military approach. This is an intellectual redux of the Vietnam strategy whereby we contain the war to limit our political liability. It failed then, and it will fail now. The enemy has to fear you. If they do not they will take the offensive, and you will fear them. We have reached this point; our commanders fear the enemy, and fear the fallout of aggressive action. Such an approach guarantees defeat.
Humanity has practiced warfare throughout our history, and technological advancement dsupersedeupercede the fundamental principles which govern success or failure. Technophilia has convinced those who are running the show that the rules have changed in an absolute sense, and that war can be fought in a kinder, gentler manner. Wrong! Technology offers us more powerful tools; the atom bomb is the ultimate club, for example! But in the end, we still have the same human nature, and the same principles which Sun Tzu wrote about thousands of years ago still apply. The generals would do well to read their Sun Tzu more, and their Academic theorists less.
Finally, I have said this repeatedly; we cannot win if we continue to allow the enemy sanctuary. As long as Iran and Syria continue to act against us, we will not be able to secure Iraq. That is why this silly notion leaked from that taffypull commission about negotiating with the two terror masters resembles a Monte Python sketch; we are asking the cause of our problem to help solve it. I simply cannot believe that Jim baker is that stupid-but my credulity has certainly been overtaxed in the past.
One thing is for certain; the next 6 months are critical. Failure in Iraq will bring the fight home to America, and the public who tired of the war will find their plates piled high with fresh, new battles. I hope they enjoy their all-you-can-eat buffet.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:40 AM
4 Comments:
During the American Civil War, William Tecumseh Sherman said, “War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.” And he was considered a lunatic at the time, but he had a deep understanding of how terrible it was, but how total the destruction of an enemy must be for the war to end.
Right now, we don’t get it. Remember Kosovo? Remember the war fought from 30,000 feet? Well, it didn’t work. The Serbian dictator was removed but the much and the mire still goes on. Jihad filled the void.
War si terrible but as George Orwell wrote, “The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.” And if so, what a horrible time is coming.
I enjoyed your commentary. You make many excellent points.
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being usedby our forces as we speak.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, "Odyssey of Armements"
The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.
How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the Sec. Def. to be - Mr. Gates- understand such complexity, particulary if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?
Answer- he can't. Therefor he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.
From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.
This situation is unfortunate but it is ablsolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.
This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won't happen unitil it hits a brick wall at high speed.
We will then have to run a Volkswagon instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.
In the present multi-culti environment, the ritual torture to death of captive warriors of other tribes, in honor of the victorious tribal god, is a feature of uncivilised savages which it is politically correct not to mention, especially as Native Americans such as the Iroquois delighted in these abominations.
Mercifully for the captives, death would normally occur within two or three days of continual torture, due to heart failure, dehydration, blood loss or infection.
But consider the fate of a warrior captured by a savage tribe with the same Satanic ritual urge to torture in the name of their ‘god’, but with modern medical support to prolong the life of the victim almost indefinitely.
Such was the fate of William Francis Buckley, a US army officer who was ritually tortured by Muslims in the name of Allah continuously and unremittingly for 444 days before death finally claimed him.
William Buckley must have endured more suffering than any other human being in history, for despite agonising 24/7 torture for more than a year, the best doctors in Iran were on call to give life support to prevent his escape through death.
Buckley was captured in Beirut By Hisbollah on March 16, 1984. and was smuggled to Tehran via Damascus aboard an Iranian plane and taken to the cellars of the Iranian Foreign ministry, where he was tortured without respite or mercy until he died of a sudden heart attack despite best attempts at resuscitation. This abomination was carried out with the full support of the demonocratic Iranian government and the vile Islamic pedophile-worshipping ‘clergy’.
Buckley’s remains were then sent back to Beirut and dumped in an unsuccessful attempt to hide Iranian involvement. However during his torture numerous videos of the kaffir’s suffering and ‘humiliation’ (very important to the Muslim male) had been made and these eventually found their way into Mosques worldwide, where they were (and probably still are) used as propaganda to inspire youthful Jihadists.
Buckley’s appalling fate illustrates the Satanic nature of Islamic tribalism. He wasn’t tortured to extract information. Like the prisoners of the Iroquois, he was tortured to appease a sadistic ‘god’ - Allah, aka Satan.
Thanks for some great comments, guys!
I couldn`t agree more, William! Sherman was a ruthless SOB, but he understood the nature of the coming style of warfare, and ultimately he was correct; a popular rebellion such as the Civil War could never have been won by ``winning the hearts and minds`` of the South.
As an interesting side-note, when Grant was closing in on Lee at Appomatox, a proposal was made to the General to disband the army, sent them into the bush and have them wage a guerrila war like Quantril was waging in Missouri. Lee pondered the proposal, then rejected it because he did not want to sentence the entire Nation to such a bitter and bloody experience. Of course, our current enemy has no such qualms...
Rosecovered, I have no doubt that what you say is true, at least to a degree; consider the trouble Bush has had with his attempts to reform the CIA. The Plame Game was clearly a case of the CIA running an op on the President, and I suspect many other dirty tricks have undermined his authority. Bush clearly caved on the issue, which suggests he realized he couldn`t fight these people. Now, the DOD is far larger than the CIA...
Anonymous, I agree; slavery and cannibalism were the purview of warfare in primitive societies, as well as ritual torture (I don`t remember if it was the Iriqois or Illinis, but I read once a narrative about a ``foreign`` Indian adopted into the tribe; they were unfailingly kind to him, and an elder gentleman adopted him as a son. Unfortunately, times got hard and his adoptive tribe dismembered him, starting with the tip of one finger and progressing till he was dead. They would slice a chunk off the guy, then ask if he needed anything, since they really did like him. But the gods demanded a sacrifice, and so this poor schlub had to be bodily, painfully disassembled.
Of course, the Aztecs would cut the hearts out of captives, who would die while watching their own organ beating in the hands of the Aztec priest.
Your point about Buckley is (sadly) well taken.
Post a Comment
<< Home