Enemies in Iraq seek psychological, political victory

Scripps Howard News Service ^ | July 06, 2005 | CLIFF MAY

[jmc1969]

Our enemies in Iraq have never won a battle against American forces. They hold not a single province, city or town. In fact, militarily they have achieved virtually nothing. So why is there a debate over who is winning?

Here's why: Our enemies in Iraq are not aiming for a military victory. They are aiming for a psychological victory, to be followed by a political victory. By littering the streets of Iraq with bodies, they mean to demoralize Americans and cause politicians in Washington to begin to accept the prospect of retreat and defeat.

To accomplish this, our enemies must rely on the Western media to broadcast the havoc they wreak. The media have been cooperative. "If it bleeds, it leads" is a rule that applies not only to local news. Encouraging developments out of Iraq are seldom photogenic.

While hardly admirable, this may be unavoidable. More difficult to fathom is why so many journalists have fallen into the habit of viewing suicide bombings, assassinations, hostage-takings and decapitations not as savage and unpardonable atrocities, but as symptoms and symbols of American failure.

In some instances, it's worse than that. On the "Democracy Now!" program broadcast on more than 300 non-commercial radio and TV stations, host Amy Goodman recently interviewed British journalist Patrick Cockburn. Both agreed that Iraq had become "the most dangerous place in the world."

Both placed the blame for that squarely on America shoulders - there was not a word of criticism for those doing the killing. On the contrary, Goodman and Cockburn referred to the killers as "the resistance," suggesting a comparison between the terrorists in Iraq and the Frenchmen who went underground to fight for their country in World War II. Implicitly, they also were comparing Americans to Nazis.

It is a bizarre interpretation of Iraqi reality. There was never a Kurdish insurgency against either the Americans or the Iraqi leaders the United States has supported. On the contrary, the Kurds were among those Iraqis who welcomed American intervention with waving flags and open arms.

The Shia insurgency led by Muqtada al-Sadr has been effectively pacified for some time, and no new Shia revolt has taken its place. The Shia and Kurds together constitute about 80 percent of Iraq's population.

As for the 20 percent Sunni minority, their insurgency appears to be waning, too. This week, several senior Iraqi Sunni clerics were reportedly gathering support for a fatwa, a religious edict, calling on the faithful to participate in the political process - to vote in upcoming elections and help write a new constitution.

What remains is al-Qaeda. To characterize fanatical foreigners under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a "resistance" is beyond ludicrous. And the suggestion that al-Qaeda's suicide bombings are great victories in decisive battles is ... well, it may be correct, if such terrorism is having the intended psychological and political impact on American audiences.

Zarqawi is confident that it matters little whether, on a given day, he wipes out an American Marine battalion or brings down a Baghdadi restaurant. Either way he gets film at 11. And many Americans will react not by being repulsed and outraged, not by reaffirming their commitment to defeat such barbarians, but rather by being sapped of their will to fight and by succumbing to defeatism.

Zarqawi is literally betting his life on Osama bin Laden's perception of a pattern in American behavior in such places as Lebanon and the Horn of Africa. "We have seen ... the decline of the American government and the weaknesses of the American soldier, who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars," bin Laden said in a 1998 interview. "This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions ... and this was also repeated in Somalia. ... After a few blows, they ran in defeat."

The purpose of war, according to the Prussian military philosopher Karl von Clausewitz, is to compel your enemy to accede to your will. To achieve that, Zarqawi doesn't need to win any military victories. He just needs to keep the blood flowing and to manipulate the media to broadcast the bloodshed, while judging the killers less harshly than those who fail to prevent the slaughter.

By so doing, Zarqawi can exert a powerful psychological and political influence and perhaps succeed in bending America's actions to his will. That would mean that al-Qaeda could claim, not without justification, that it had become the Islamic world's first superpower.

[NJ_gent]

First rule of guerrilla warfare: you don't have to win, you just have to not lose.

[Wolverine]

I always mean what I say...I'm doing my part....

                            Senator Dick al Jazeera contributor Durbin

[popdonnelly]

I got bad news for our enemies. We're going to win.

[M. Espinola]

"First rule of guerrilla warfare: you don't have to win, you just have to not lose."

Very interesting point. Sounds like shades of the French in Algeria.

French troops with captured Algerians

[NJ_gent]

Look at the Russians in Chechnya. They've been fighting for the past 11 years. The Russians have been driven out of Chechnya once already, and they're really no closer to victory now than they were in '99. The Russians in Afghanistan are another example. The Russians pounded them left and right, but all it took was a guy with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher to bring down an aircraft or blow up a tank.

[Leo Carpathian]

What enemy, "insurgents"?
Worse than savages, scum of the earth and they want to rule us? Fuggetaboutit!!!
Time to dust off Fat Boy and send some mushroom there if they don't stop their savagery!

[Leo Carpathian]

The Russians in Afghanistan are another example. The Russians pounded them left and right, but all it took was a guy with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher to bring down an aircraft or blow up a tank.

Yea, but then came Uncle Sam with his warriors and cleaned Talibanskies to their virgins in hell. So wassaaap?

[Ethyl]

What enemy, "insurgents"?
Worse than savages, scum of the earth and they want to rule us? Fuggetaboutit!!!
Time to dust off Fat Boy and send some mushroom there if they don't stop their savagery!

I agree, glass parking lots are cool.

[Leo Carpathian]

Zarqawi is literally betting his life on Osama bin Laden's perception of a pattern in American behavior in such places as Lebanon and the Horn of Africa. "We have seen ... the decline of the American government and the weaknesses of the American soldier, who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars," bin Laden said in a 1998 interview. "This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions ... and this was also repeated in Somalia. ... After a few blows, they ran in defeat."

Yea, under rapist in chief. Now your sorry asses are blowing themselves up and soon you will run out of "blowers" and your own, decent people will have enough of savagery. God bless W, Iraqi and Afghani people! May they achieve freedom and live in peace!

[NJ_gent]

"Yea, but then came Uncle Sam with his warriors and cleaned Talibanskies to their virgins in hell. So wassaaap?"

Well, first of all, we didn't fight a traditional war. Using special forces was a very good move to combat the type of warfare we knew we were going to face. On the other hand, did we not just lose a special forces recon team in Afghanistan? Did we not just lose the team sent to rescue that team? Are the Taliban not fighting anymore?

I'm not saying we can't win, that we shouldn't fight, or that we're "doomed". I'm saying that guerrilla warfare is insanely difficult to defeat because the other side doesn't have to win.

[FlingWingFlyer]

In other words, they are hoping to defeat the U.S. by turning Iraq into "another Vietnam" and are counting on the DemocRATS and their toadies in the Liberal MSM to help them do it just as they helped the Vietnamese Communists and Red Chinese.

[bayourod]

"First rule of guerrilla warfare: you don't have to win, you just have to not lose. "

As far as I am personally concerned they can "not lose" for as long as they want as long as we are drawing in terrorists from around the Muslim world and killing them.

We may not be able to win the war but we can sure kill all of the enemy.

[steel_resolve]

You know, whenever I hear about a chopper full of soldiers going down or a bunch of Iraqi police being blown up in a restaurant and hear about talking heads questioning this war's worth, I only have to think of one thing - the tie on the guy who jumped from the WTC, fluttering in the rushing air.

And I get F-ing insanely MAD all over again.

NO retreat NO surrender No capitulation NO ground given until complete and utter victory.

It is that simple.

[M. Espinola]

"Look at the Russians in Chechnya. They've been fighting for the past 11 years. The Russians have been driven out of Chechnya once already, and they're really no closer to victory now than they were in '99. The Russians in Afghanistan are another example. The Russians pounded them left and right, but all it took was a guy with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher to bring down an aircraft or blow up a tank."

All true. In the case of oil rich region of Chechnya & Dagestan, even the invading German armies along the Eastern Front were pushed out & denied victory.

In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan if Coalition forces were to pack up and depart, within hours the jihadists would once again be setting up scores terrorist training camps, and instead of blowing up oil pipelines in Iraq, they would be utilizing profits to further terrorist goals, just as Iran has been doing for years.

[CyberAnt]

"They are aiming for a psychological victory"


And .. because of that .. they look for any crack in the united front of America. That's why they lunged at Durbin's statement to spread rumors; same thing for Newsweak.

A caller to Rush today said the very same thing. If we would just present a united front to the enemy .. THE WAR WOULD ALREADY BE OVER .. and the enemy would have surrendered and laid down their arms - AT LEAST IN IRAQ.

That doesn't mean the WOT would be over .. it just means that we would be way ahead of where we are now if the stinking democrats would just shut up - or they can join in supporting the war.

So that's their choice .. put up or SHUT UP.

[pterional]

I agree. It is about who has the will to win. There can not be a time line. We finish this war when the job is done. This way the enemy won't wait it out.

[gogipper]

I think you have bad examples. Afghanistan was a terrible graveyard for Russians. They didn't do the pounding at all especially after the Afghans got modern weapons from a large Western power.

At least several years ago they were similarly tactically inept in Chechnya, though I haven't read many analyses of the current situation.

You are comparing a ragingly ineffective, conscript army with a historically cruel approach to civilian relations (rapes in Berlin) with our forces which actually have historical experience successfully fighting insurgent warfare. And if you read here often you also get a feel for the hearts and minds that we are winning in Iraq.

[NJ_gent]

"Afghanistan was a terrible graveyard for Russians. They didn't do the pounding at all especially after the Afghans got modern weapons from a large Western power."

They carpet-bombed cities and towns, leveling virtually every man-made structure.

"At least several years ago they were similarly tactically inept in Chechnya"

They shelled Grozny with artillery and carpet bombed the mountains.

"You are comparing a ragingly ineffective, conscript army with a historically cruel approach to civilian relations (rapes in Berlin) with our forces which actually have historical experience successfully fighting insurgent warfare."

No, I'm providing just one example of how a sustained guerrilla campaign by a drastically inferior force can wear down and eventually defeat a vastly superior force through shear tactical advantages. The best example involving the US would be, of course, Vietnam. The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese lost every major engagement with the United States, yet managed to wage a very successful guerrilla campaign that led to our vastly superior forces being pulled from the warzone in a hurry. In all of these cases, with enough resources and enough time spent, the guerrilla forces would have been eventually destroyed. The fact that they won simply evidences just how difficult it is to ultimately defeat such tactics.

You drop American forces into a guerrilla war in the forests of a place like Columbia and you'd see casualties like nothing since Vietnam, or perhaps WWII. We have superior numbers, superior technology, and superior firepower. Then again, so did the British. It was the use of unconventional tactics that helped turn the tide in favor of the colonies in that war as well; which led to 13 colonies of farmers and lawyers defeating the most powerful and feared military in the world.