Is This Hussein's Counterattack?

Washington Post ^ | 11/13/03 | Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks

[lizma]

"I believe Saddam Hussein always intended to fight an insurgency should Iraq fall,"

I’ve read recently that for many months after the end of WWII dozens of our soldiers were killed daily by the “insurgents” for months and months.

This is just history repeating itself. When the elite throughout our past loose power, they use desperate and despicable measures. We don’t have to look any farther than the DNC to see this is so.

[spunkets]

"how is it that the Iraqis are the "insurgents" here? Which government are they trying to overthrow?"

Any. They were a criminal gang before and they still are. Their methods are murder, extortion and general terrorization. They used them to come to power, to rule and now as a tantrum.

[Filibuster_60]

Nothing the enemy does is militarily significant, but the main point of guerilla warfare against a democratic Western nation is to inflict psychological and political defeats, with military objectives only secondary, in this case very remotely so. The insurgents know our tolerance for casualties is so low that every soldier they kill chips away at our confidence, and it simultaneously boosts their own confidence.

Welcome to the world of 4th-generation warfare as practiced by militants of the Islamic world.

[aristotleman]

Any opinion about how this will play out?

[squidly]

Yeah, I know, it's just that sometimes I get pissed off that I live in a nation full of wusses.

[thulldud]

I know what you mean, but I suspect that the Johnson Administration, or at least some within it, DID know what would be required to win the war--they just didn't have the resolve to apply it. They wanted to fight a war and "make nice" at the same time--mutually exclusive goals. Trouble is, the ones who had to pay the price of the Administration's policy were not consulted.

There was a definite turning point when Walter Cronkite went on the air and gravely announced that he considered the war "unwinnable". We should note that at that point, the Viet Cong had been eliminated, and North Vietnam was stretching its resources to keep any sort of presence in the south. The Tet offensive, suicide attack that it was, resulted in the loss of practically all the assets used in it, but it found its mark in the American media, which then spread a message of despair to the grassroots of America. Johnson saw the writing on the wall and gave up his run for reelection the next month.

Thankfully, we have a different sort of Administration now, one that lets the military decisions be made by military experts, and is willing to get out in front and let the leftist media gibber in infantile rage over their newfound impotence. In every conflict, there is somebody who insists on fighting the "last war". That's the bunch that's gonna lose. This time, it's the Ba'athists and company. Bully for them.

Was that better?

[weegee]

The recent string of high-profile attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Iraq has appeared to be so methodical and well-crafted that some top U.S. commanders now fear this may be the war Saddam Hussein and his generals planned all along.

Hmmm. I thought some of these attacks are now being attributed to Al Qaeda/Al Qaida. If this was Saddam's strategy all along then it means that he's been partnered with Al Qaeda, something the antiAmericanWar protestors have continued to deny.

[Filibuster_60]

Johnson didn't prepare the US public for the long struggle that was Vietnam, but do you think Bush has adequately prepared the public for the long struggle that is the war on terrorism? At the end of the day, the American people haven't quite accepted the ugly nature of this fight. When Baghdad fell back in April, many of us envisioned glorious marches to enemy capitals, vaporizing enemy divisions with high-tech wizardry and demonstrating the invincibility of our armed forces at a rather stingy price tag. Well, reality's now set in and we realize how that 21-day drive to Baghdad was but one short phase in our war. Has Bush even dared articulating to the public that ultimate victory over the terrorists - i.e. tackling the threats of Iran, Syria, North Korea - will probably require even greater sacrifices than the final bill in Iraq, that it may impinge on things we take for granted? I don't think so.

[SAJ]

''Seventh-century raghead idiots'', as a description, comes to mind also.

[Riemann]

I may be all wet on this, but didn't we confound the experts on Afghanistan by using local warriors to do a lot of the ground fighting while we provided air power and special forces, thereby defeating the unbeatable Afghan tribesmen with low casualties on our side.

What if we said to the Kurds and the Shias, hey remember those guys that gassed whole villages, raped your women, tortured and murdered your fathers, brothers and children, well they're holed up here, here and here. Now this is basically your country to run, but we think it would be in your interest to "deal" with these guys. You can keep whatever you capture and deal with your prisoners anyway you like. We will provide ground and air support at no cost to you.

It would be better to have Iraqis do the nasty, close in fighting, because they will not be held to ridiculous standards of conduct (Col. West) like we would be I also think it would be good for the Iraqis to significantly contribute to the process of creating a shiny new and free country for themselves. Nothing like a little bloodshed to a sense of ownership.

[EGPWS]

Vietnam is a poor analogy, and is only considered because most people including our politicians are historical illiterates.

It would be a very good anaology however if the bombing of Hanoi would have continued, instead Nixon went to France for peace talks AFTER NV had no other choice but to politically finagle their way out of a very tragic loss in a war they couldn't win after seeing the effects of the massive formations of "the Buff" over Hanoi.

This would have been a turning point in the outcome of the "Vietnam Conflict" if it weren't for the "peace at any price" anti-American rehtoric that changed Nixon's agenda with the conflict politically.

[lainde]

Very sound tactic! Hope someone is listening...

[carl in alaska]

There's one big difference between this guerilla war and Viet Nam. The North Vietnamese had unlimited resupply capabilities provided by the Soviet Union. But it's difficult for Saddam to get supplies smuggled into Iraq, so eventually he will run out of ammunition. At that point it's game over. So it's critical for us to seal off the borders and starve the insurgents of supplies. War is ultimately a logistical battle. The army that can continue to resupply its troops eventually wins the war.

[carl in alaska]

That's not a bad idea, except that we're trying to prevent warfare between the competing factions in Iraq so that the country will be more united as we phase out our involvement. Another thing to keep in mind is that we already have vastly more firepower than Saddam's insurgents. But the insurgents are few in number and difficult to find. We need much better intelligence, not more soldiers on our side.

[Dajjal]

BTTT

[thulldud]

When Baghdad fell back in April, many of us envisioned glorious marches to enemy capitals, vaporizing enemy divisions with high-tech wizardry and demonstrating the invincibility of our armed forces at a rather stingy price tag.

I didn't.

Has Bush even dared articulating to the public that ultimate victory over the terrorists - i.e. tackling the threats of Iran, Syria, North Korea - will probably require even greater sacrifices than the final bill in Iraq, that it may impinge on things we take for granted? I don't think so.

In view of this statement, I don't think I can imagine, in my turn, what you would consider an acceptable articulation. He has stated many times that we're in this for the long haul. It seems to me that the only ones who have trouble with this concept are narcissistic boomers. The "greatest generation" are too old to fight now, but they've been there, and they understand. The ones who are in the field now understand it also.

This is not Vietnam. Vietnam was the low point of the pernicious influence of liberalism in the government. One commentator (I think it was Gary Allen) saw it this way: "In WWII the USA gave away victory; in Korea it retreated from victory; in Vietnam it could not even define victory." Ronald Reagan reversed the slide when he put his foot down and declared, "We can't ask people to die for 'global equilibrium'!" The Clintons caused an irrelevant blip in the graph, but now the adults are back in charge.

Nobody enters a long war hoping that it will be long.

Nobody enters a long war knowing how long it will be.

The only way we can enter any war, once we know that there is no alternative, is to say with the Founding FATHERS, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

And so we have done.

[Semper Paratus]

It would be better to have Iraqis do the nasty, close in fighti

Success needs the Iraqi's to go in and clean the scum out of their country or exterminate them.

The quicker an Iraqi security infrastructure is put in place the better.

[Filibuster_60]

I hate to say it, but many Americans aren't as sophisticated as you and I, have very little tolerance for death and sacrifice, or both. Let's face it: we're trying to win a major war where victory isn't easy to define, where our stated objectives haven't matched our admission of costs. I am, of course, referring to the Bush administration's refusal to concretely lay out the anticipated financial overhead of occupying Iraq last spring and the overall impression they gave that we wouldn't have to keep so many troops on a high op-temp months after major combat ended. The victory in April definitely lulled many Americans into a false sense of ease. Many thought the hard part in Iraq was over and we could move on to yet more rogue states. Some of us were gloating that the whole world now realized the uselesness of challenging us, and countries like North Korea and Iran would naturally stop their weapons programs and beg to be spared. In a nutshell, the nation was drunk with the taste of victory and since then, as the reality of "muddling through" came back with a vengeance, we've shown our enemies and detractors the severe limits of our national willpower. Am I confident we'll eventually tackle the problems of Korea, Iran, Syria, etc? The blunt answer is no. Those countries now spit in our faces with the knowledge that we don't have the stomach for starting a war with them.

[thulldud]

I am, of course, referring to the Bush administration's refusal to concretely lay out the anticipated financial overhead of occupying Iraq last spring...

Don't know how anybody could have done that. Or why they should have. The way to win a war is to convince the other guy that you are definitely going to smash him, and that he cannot prevent you from doing it. Sometimes, this does not even require military action. The Mongols were adepts at inducing enemies to surrender simply on the basis of their fearsome (and justified) reputation.

When you telegraph to the enemy "this far I shall go and no farther" then you encourage him to dig in just beyond that limit and hunker down until you reach it. This would be heinous irresponsibility, because part of that "limited" expenditure includes the lives of your neighbors and kin who must advance into enemy fire. Presto! Another Vietnam!

we've shown our enemies and detractors the severe limits of our national willpower....

The Founding Fathers faced much the same situation, in that only about a third of Americans actually supported the Whig side in the Revolution. A third were active supporters of the Tories, and the rest were just such jellyfish as you describe, willing to shelter behind whichever side seemed likely to win, but not willing to risk anything in aid of it. They made themselves irrelevant then, just as they are irrelevant now.

Nothing has changed. Nothing will change.