"The Islamic Way of War"

The American Conservative ^ | September 11, 2006 | Andrew J. Bacevich

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

In Iraq, the world’s only superpower finds itself mired in a conflict that it cannot win. History’s mightiest military has been unable to defeat an enemy force of perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 insurgents equipped with post-World War II vintage assault rifles and anti-tank weapons.

In Gaza and southern Lebanon, the Middle East’s mightiest military also finds itself locked in combat with adversaries that it cannot defeat. Despite weeks of bitter fighting, the IDF’s Merkava tanks, F-16 fighter-bombers, and missile-launching unmanned aerial vehicles failed to suppress, much less eliminate, the armed resistance of Hamas and Hezbollah.

What are we to make of this? How is it that the seemingly weak and primitive are able to frustrate modern armies only recently viewed as all but invincible? What do the parallel tribulations—and embarrassments—of the United States and Israel have to tell us about war and politics in the 21st century? In short, what’s going on here?

The answer to that question is dismayingly simple: the sun has set on the age of unquestioned Western military dominance. Bluntly, the East has solved the riddle of the Western Way of War. In Baghdad and in Anbar Province as at various points on Israel’s troubled perimeter, the message is clear: methods that once could be counted on to deliver swift decision no longer work.

[Elbows Unique]

"If Israel killed both Hezbollah fighters AND their civilians in mass, as she suffered Hezbollah's rockets upon her own homes and civilians, the Arabs and Persians would not run to the streets with arms to help their "comrades" in Lebanon. "

if israel did that, it would be only marginally morally better than hezbollah. there's no point in winning the war if we abandon what we're trying to win it for.

[Eagles Talon IV]

Stalin said it best. (Paraphrased) "When people become a problem, remove the people and you remove the problem."

If this action causes some people who are not the problem to be inadvertently "removed" then that will come under the heading of not being able to make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. A simpler way to put it is "Oh well"

[sgtbono2002]

***In Iraq, the world’s only superpower finds itself mired in a conflict that it cannot win.****

Sure we can win, but we have to adopt new tactics.

1.Fight them where the supplies are coming in. In Iran and Syria.
2. Stop this PC crap and take no prisoners.
3. Stop locking up American soldiers, turn them loose and let them do their jobs.
4. Fight them where they are. If they hide in a Mosque, destroy it, dont send in troops just blow the
damned thing down.
5. If there are cities that are insurgent strongholds, dont waste men, carpet bomb it.
6. Guard the borders, anything that isnt coming down the main road is destroyed. no questions asked.
7. people caught planting IED's are dead meat on the spot./

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

Well, the methods we are using now were PRECISELY the methods we used to defeat an Islamic enemy in the Philippines from 1900-1910. What is fascinating is that the % of land forces we deployed then, and today, as a share of total U.S. ground forces was . . . almost identical. Then, and now, the enemy's goal was to win a political victory at home by provoking overreaction that would turn the entire population against the U.S. forces. It didn't work then, and it ain't working now.

=========================================================================

Good observation, but it fails to consider a few differences.

1. The Internet/communication age allows the enemy to put it's message directly into or citizens homes. The Filipino guerrillas could not do that in 1900.
2. The stakes in 1900 were nothing like today. The Philippines was a side show. In the age of NBC warfare, any guerrilla force as a chance to join the "big show". They can hit us hard at home. If not destroying the country, such a hit could leave us vulnerable to our many enemies world wide. We cannot afford to lose; we cannot afford "hit bravo" on home soil.
3. The Filipino guerrillas were not supported by a worldwide, internet-connected Islamic support group, with $Billion's of petro-dollars available to further their cause.

Yours is a good observation, but I believe we need to treat the war Islam has brought to us as nothing less than a desperate war of live and death, of national survival. Nothing less than a WWII level of national resolve and effort will defeat Islam. It means doing things like destroying Iran's oil facilities and terminals, and then maybe Venezuela's too, eliminating their ability to "threaten" the world. That would send oil to $100+ a barrel, and allow Russia to dominate the oil market, unless we take draconian steps at home to free our economy of foreign oil dependence. That means pumping oil at home from all available sources, and developing Nuclear and renewable (ethanol, etc.) energy sources. Take energy out of the equation, and the Arabs and Persians are back to being nobody-goat herders, choking on sand in their own deserts.

This is stuff we need to do; we can't treat this like a 1900 Philippines guerrilla campaign.

SFS

[BigBobber]

This guy has a funny definition of winning a war.

I thought the same thing. The Islamists have not won anything in a military sense.They have figured out how to kill their own civilian populations and use that for propaganda purposes. That is all.

Anyone who needs to know how far America has come in fighting this type of war only needs to compare the disastrous Soviet campaign in Afghanistan and our own.

Also, the IDF was adept at beating the Arabs not because they were Arabs but because they were using Soviet and French weapons. Desert Storm showed the total ineffectiveness of Soviet weapons and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union a few months later. The timing was not a coincidence, yet I almost never see anyone point this out. Prior to Desert Storm the media had story after story about how powerful the Iraqi war machine was, how many tanks, planes etc, how our stuff was too pricey and complicated, and wouldn't work in the desert because one grain of sand would shut down the high tech gear, etc.

Those critics were dead wrong and so is this one. The current Islamist tactics rely totally on support of a leftist Western media to spread propaganda and rthey feed off of hand-wringing articles like this one. They think they are winning because the NYT says they are.

Ultimately the Islamists will lose the propaganda war because even Western societies have a limit to how much they will take. We have reached a point of "Islam-fatigue" and one more big act of terror is going to push us over the edge. It won't matter who is in the White House then. There will be a massive response.

[Doc91678]

If you stop and think. Just one minute, you will find that they are still using the hit and run tactics given to them by Lawrence. The only addition to these tactics are the propaganda that was adopted from the Nazi's of WWII.
In order to combat the terrs, what we must learn to do is to use our asymmetrical tactics against them. Sure bunker busting bombs are great when you've cornered them. But we have to be quick mobile and hit them when they least expect it. Just as they are doing to us. The Stryker brigades are proving the tactics as we speak. Since deployed in Baghdad they have have been able to reduce attacks and they have picked up over 200 insurgents. The next thing is to get into Sadr City. Take on the Mahadi militia and al-Sadr himself. That is the only way to end the insurgency.

[chesley]

Perhaps, then, we should fight war on terms,. I can guarantee that they won't like it when we start to fight a "colonial" style war.

[chesley]

Whoops, I meant to say "their terms.

[DJ Taylor]

"I wondered about this author, i.e. “who the h-ll is this guy?”. He’s an academic, of course, who knows nothing of war or the real world beyond his Ivy covered walls."

I wondered the same thing, so I "Googled" his biography and found him to be a USMA grad. The fact that Andrew J. Bacevich is not only a professor of history and international relations but he was also an officer in the United States Army explains why he so miserably missed the obvious in this writing. The good professor is just too civilized to understand exactly what the Civilized World is facing in the barbaric Middle East.

When countries such as the United States and Israel become too civilized to do whatever is required to win and survive in a conflict with savage barbarians, the civilized armies will surely be defeated. It does no good for a civilized country to have the ability to, if necessary, kill every man, woman, and child of the enemy, if the civilized country does not have the will to use its weapons. As soon as barbarians sense their civilized enemy does not have the will to kill them all, they will use this weakness to their advantage, and that is exactly what is happening in both Lebanon and in Iraq.

Believe me, if these Middle Eastern barbarians believed Israel and the United States would simply kill them all without hesitation if they didn’t behave, we would have no more problems with these savages. As it is now, we just don’t speak to them in a manner their uncivilized minds can comprehend.

We did not hesitate to speak to Germany and Japan in a language they could comprehend in 1945, and we will get nowhere with Islamists until we start speaking to them in a language they understand.

[chesley]

Whoops, I meant to say "their terms.

[x]

By the way, half way into this article, I wondered about this author, i.e. “who the h-ll is this guy?”. He’s an academic, of course, who knows nothing of war or the real world beyond his Ivy covered walls.

From his bio in Wikipedia:

Bacevich graduated from West Point in 1969 and served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War from the summer of 1970 to the summer of 1971. Afterwards he held posts in Germany, the United States, and the Persian Gulf up to his retirement from the service with the rank of Colonel in the early 1990s.

Some of the things Bacevich has written and places he's published lately are pretty atypical for a retired career officer, but he knows more about war than I or a lot of other people do.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

if israel did that, it would be only marginally morally better than hezbollah. there's no point in winning the war if we abandon what we're trying to win it for.

=====================================================================

Israel would survive. If she loses, she doesn't survive, period. If she loses, her people DIE, period.

Israel can choose to be a merciful victor, and so too, can the U.S.A.. I did not say that WE need to resort to the tradition of medieval warfare, but only that the Muslims who the author so admires have done exactly that.

However, we cannot "nation build" while the locals are still killing our soldiers. Israel cannot "avoid Lebanese civilian casualties" because Hezbullah has spent 6 years building missile bunkers under homes, schools, and hospitals, KNOWING that Israel would be reluctant to attack these strong points, or that if she did, the world would support Hezbullah and Iran against Israel.

This is not playtime; it is war. Mercy is for the victors to dispense, on the terms of the victors. The U.S. did not "rebuild" Africa, Italy, or France, before we finished the war in Europe. And the U.S. and Britain did not hesitate to kill millions of enemy, and even innocent civilians, because the alternative was visitation of the same upon it's own peoples.

The problem with Americans today is that in our own, civilized world, we have forgotten how really nasty the rest of the world can be. We haven't had enemy troops on our soil for a least three or four generations - we have no collective memory of such an event. We simply can't imagine it. We'd better start.

Israel, for example, should declare (a) she the wants peace, and is willing to be at peace her neighbors, (b) that any land which an Israeli soldier must die for in the defense of Israel, is Israeli terroritory forever, (c) state that it will hold countries who support terrorist armies attacking Israel accountable, and (d) give Lebanon a week to disarm Hezbullah to the satisfaction (and verification) of Israel, or suffer potential annexation. If attacked by Hezbullah again, Israel should not stop until it's reached (or decimated) Damascus, and undeterred by civilian casualties.

Cruel? Yes, that's what war is. Necessary? Yes, for Israel's survival. There are 350 million Muslims surrounding Israel, and she had few friends world wide. She cannot allow herself to be bled to death by Iran or her proxies. SFS

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

Regarding the author, I stand corrected. I did not do my research on his background.

SFS

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I used to make the mistake of attributing much more to the Soviets, Chinese, and Cuban communists than was warrented. Our own American leftists are simply our own American nuts.

They are the progeny of the Communists who populated our society, labor unions, and government beginning back in the twenties. Be they hard core or useful idiots they spring from the same loins. Using the many tricks of their psychopolitical tactics they have even made the use of the term Communist one that causes derision.

The American left aren't doing the "commie's" bidding; they're just a corrupt people, and their corrupt ideas threaten the security of America indirectly, by giving aid and comfort to our very real enemies.

Funny how the goals, methods, and tactics are the same. Funny how a fellow like George Soros appeared out of the old Communist eastern Europe with billions to spend in the USA to further Communism, under another name of course. Funny how the Gore family is so closely tied to Armond Hammer and Occidental Petroleum since Hammer's dad was sent by the Communists from Russia to America in the early 20th century to spread Communism. Strange how Bill and Hillary's early studies, writings and travel were in lockstep with Communism, Russian Communism, and have all been hushed up now.

They are all connected and you ignore that at your own peril.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

That is the only way to end the insurgency.

=======================================================

As I first wrote in 2002 or 2003, the end to the insurgency is through Syria and Iran. They insurgents aren't using Sadam's old munitions to conduct their war; they are being resupplied. Remember that logistics wins wars. What kind of logistics are required to support an ongoing campaign by 20,000 or 30,000 insurgents? The Madi army is just another proxy. Beat the Hezzie's and Madi's, and there will be others. Beat the states which sponsor the terrorism, and it ends, now.

SFS

[10mm]

"if israel did that, it would be only marginally morally better than hezbollah. there's no point in winning the war if we abandon what we're trying to win it for."

Rubbish. Enemy civilians are valid targets in warfare, just like the trigger-pullers for whom they provide aid and comfort.

I'll take my lessons from Patton, MacArthur, Eisenhower and Von Clausewitz, thank you. Not today's crop of wilting-dhimmis.

It looks like we'll have to lose a city or two before we re-learn this lesson.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

When countries such as the United States and Israel become too civilized to do whatever is required to win and survive in a conflict with savage barbarians, the civilized armies will surely be defeated. It does no good for a civilized country to have the ability to, if necessary, kill every man, woman, and child of the enemy, if the civilized country does not have the will to use its weapons. As soon as barbarians sense their civilized enemy does not have the will to kill them all, they will use this weakness to their advantage, and that is exactly what is happening in both Lebanon and in Iraq.

Believe me, if these Middle Eastern barbarians believed Israel and the United States would simply kill them all without hesitation if they didn’t behave, we would have no more problems with these savages. As it is now, we just don’t speak to them in a manner their uncivilized minds can comprehend.

============================================================================

I would not suggest we become medieval and indiscriminatingly kill civilians to make a point; we are not the Soviets. However, the terms of peace are determined by the victors, and we are far from victors in the war. In fact, the U.S. will not even acknowledge the nature of the enemy we face, which is a unified, Quran inspired Islam.

We can be merciful, and will be. My problem is the "nation building" we are attempting prior to victory and the end of the war. Our resources are not limitless. I'd prefer to have wiped out Iran, Iran's military and oil resources, and Syria's too, before we built one school, hospital, or power plant in Iraq. I'd very much regret the starving people in Iraq, but the blame falls to Saddam, not those who dispatched him. Ditto for the Mullah's; what comes upon Iran is upon their head, not ours. The guy who coined the saying "If you break the greenhouse; you own it", or something to that effect, was a liberal.

Mercy, and credibility in that mercy, comes after the war. Mercy during the war is a weakness that the Muslims will gladly exploit. It's not a question of whether we kill civilians to make our point, it's about victory and priorities. Our priorities are muddled, mainly due to the incessant political attacks of the Democrats. America cannot unite against our common foe, because half of the country thinks the other half is the real enemy. So, to keep the left happy, and asuage our conscience, we "nation build" while our troops pay the price, and America's belief in the war is shaken. Which, of course, is precisely the goal of the American political leftwing.

SFS

[reformedliberal]

Are you familiar with the alt history novels of Harry Turtledove? In "Days Of Infamy", he postulates how the Japanese could not only have taken the Hawaiian Islands, but used them to launch an offensive against the mainland. Sobering to realize just how "close-run", as you said, things really are. Sometimes I have to put one down in the middle so I can come back to our reality before continuing with the novel.

Also, no one should have any illusions on how our opponents would treat us if they win. No rebuilding, no Marshall Plan, just oppressions, killings and tribute for as long as they could hold our land.

[DJ Taylor]

"there's no point in winning the war if we abandon what we're trying to win it for.

I beg to differ with you here. There is plenty of point to winning when you are fighting for your very existence.

[glaseatr]

While it's unclear if he actually did it, Pershing TOLD the Muslims in the Filipino Insurrection that he had coated his bullets in pig fat.

The story I heard was that Pershing then took 3 prisoners, shot one in the head and told the other 2 to tell everyone what will happen if the insurrection continues. I have no idea if it's true but I'd love it if we did it today.