Posted on 12/14/2006 11:07:27 AM PST by SirLinksalot
What to do in Iraq
"And your strategy is?” asked one reader, who had read my recent, rather discouraging columns on Iraq, in which I condemned the Baker-Hamilton “Iraq Study Group” -- that proposes a smooth retreat before the West’s mortal enemies -- more warmly than I could ever condemn U.S. Democrats (and many Republicans) trying to find the vocabulary with which to “cut and run”.
Or here is how the question was asked by an old-fashioned liberal with whom I correspond: “Mr. Warren, the question now is how to win the war. Even its proponents are in despair, and I don't believe it is because weak-kneed liberals are in the ascendant. If there is a way ahead the support will be there. With the utmost respect: if you see the way ahead, in the name of God tell us.”
Over the years since 9/11, I’ve hesitated to say “what should be done”, from two motives. First, there is a war going on. I took President Bush for the legitimate captain of the allied war effort, and wished to avoid second-guessing him. But the mid-term election in the U.S. confirmed publicly what was already happening behind the scenes. Mr Bush was successfully demonized by his domestic and foreign foes, and his authority as President is now undermined. The direction of the war effort has thus been opened for general discussion.
Second, in my heart, I know many even of my fondest readers have not the stomach for “what should be done”. Political correctness has penetrated so deeply into the soul of Western man, that even people trying to resist it, readily succumb to the fantasies it engenders, and instinctively avoid looking reality in the eye. I have hesitated to prescribe because, if I say what I really think, people may shriek inconsolably.
For I don’t think we have any serious problem in the availability of resources. The number of U.S. and allied troops on the ground in Iraq, and the arms they carry, are sufficient unto the day. U.S. and allied deployments in the region are a little thin for the larger purpose of dealing with e.g. Syria and Iran. But they are formidable.
It is the “strategy” of counter-insurgency in Iraq, that is all wrong. There and in Afghanistan, the idea of “winning their hearts and minds” -- which ought to have been buried during the Vietnam War -- still governs all military decisions. The world media stand ready to give U.S. and allies a very black eye, the moment the slightest mistake is made in distinguishing between armed jihadis and their sometimes-unarmed sympathizers. Forays into the “Sunni Triangle” were, from the beginning, conducted with a caution and delicacy that is simply incompatible with victory in war.
To put this plainly: the “strategy” in Fallujah should have been to make it into a parking lot, and build a Wal-Mart at one end. There would have been great loss of life, but the message to our enemies and their supporters everywhere would have been, “We will not be toyed with.” Civilians whose sympathies are with the enemy cannot be won over, and have not been, by the “candy to children” approach. They must be taught that sheltering the enemy -- even involuntarily -- means sharing the enemy’s fate. (The distinction between what is voluntary and involuntary soon changes under those conditions.) And this, in the longer run, is what saves millions of lives.
The strategy against the insinuation of foreign jihadis and supplies, into Iraq across international frontiers, should have been -- should now be -- extremely hot pursuit. And the chief reason to build the allied force structure in the region is to prepare, and be seen to be preparing, for a much wider conflict. For the war in Iraq cannot be isolated.
As important as military might, is the consensus behind its use. What can I say?
That this is why wars must be fought quickly. We could never afford to have Iraq drawn out for longer than the U.S. stayed in WWII. Nor did we defeat Nazi Germany by “winning their hearts and minds”. It was done by insuperable violence and intimidation: the way wars have invariably been won in the modern world. And “bombing Dresden” was (for more reasons than I have space to expound) a necessary part of that mix.
What worked on the Nazis, would be not less but more immediately effective on an enemy conditioned to methods of war in which he feeds exclusively on weakness of will, exploitating our fear, hesitation, and cowardice; who reads every pulled punch not as decency but as a confession of allied weakness.
My instinct at the beginning, before the invasion of Iraq had begun, was, “Split it into three governable pieces -- majority Kurd, Sunni, and Shia -- and install three pro-Western strongmen with secular, democratic aspirations. Then come heavy-handedly to their defence whenever they need it. By all means pour in aid, but make every penny of it conditional on unambiguous local cooperation. Do not be shy about imposing Western values.”
This is still what I would recommend, summarized in a few hundred words. It is the only “strategy” I can imagine, that could end in victory instead of a defeat that will most certainly come back to haunt us, where we live.
What NOT to do would be more accurate.
Russians followed this dogma in Afganistan. How did that work out for them?
There seems to be a desperation around here to cling to ignorance of how Counter Insurgency differs from Conventional War. This is one of the political aspects of the problem that Conventional Military thinkers find so hard to deal with.
For example Al Sadr. Al Sadr is a clever little thug. He walks right up to the line but he does not cross it. He is typical of the sorts of messy little problems that crop up in a Counter Insurgency. NOT exactly an enemy not exactly an ally. So how you deal with him is troublesome.
Since Malki and Al Sadr are both Shia, Malki cannot squish him without splitting his own power base. So he keeps trying to negotiate with the twit. Frankly, I think with the terrorists mostly broken now is the time to break the militias. Maliki is simply making a mistake here. What we need was the excuse and Al-Sadr's threats to launch a coup would of been the perfect excuse we needed to kill him and break his "Mahdi Army".
Unfortunately as usual the Arab way kicks in again. Talk,talk,talk,talk,talk,talk and more talk. Someone needs to sit Maliki down and speak truth to him.
Here how Counter Insurgency done the Dinocon way would look.
-
Americans: Yo, all you Iraqis. Now we know you all have been oppressed and terrorized by Saddam and his goons for about 40 years so we came over here to show you a better way. So gather round and we are going to teach you this thing called Democracy. We want to teach you this cause we figure if we get can get enough of you following this ideology you will not follow the ideology that preaches it is a good thing to fly airplanes into buildings full of our Civilians.
Now the first things you need to learn is this part about the Rule of Law. Study the sub chapters on Innocent until prove Guilty, Trial by Jury, Right to Legal Representation and really important, the chapter on outlawing Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ok, now while you do that, we are going to arbitrarily round up and kill any Iraqis who we think maybe have ever talked mean about us.
What? No we are not going to bother with any of that messy Democracy stuff cause we are at war. And according to our Holloweird Movie guide to Military Action flicks any time you are at war you can waste anyone who pisses you off for what ever reason you want any way you want to do it. According to Hollyweird, we don't need nothing like proof or nothing we can just go wack that little Al Sadr freak cause he pisses us off. Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence. Our action movie heros never bother with any evidence. In the Movie we watch on TV says we are just suppose to go kill him because he pisses us off so that what we want to do here. Now quit talking back and learn our lessons on Democracy.
Iraqi 1. Hey Mahmoud, why are we helping these clowns?
Iraqi 2. What do you mean Achmed, they got rid of Saddam!
Iraqi 1. They did? Looks to me like they just took his place.
Iraqi 2. Well ya so?
Iraqi 1. Well at least the old thugs were from around here. These guys are not only from out of town they are not even Muslims. We may has well have Muslim thugs if we got to have thugs.
Iraqi 2. You right, time to join the Jihad!
That is what this "Counter Insurgency doctrine as learned from watching TV dramas" would produce. It is utter stupidity but forget trying to penetrate the Dinocons welded shut minds. They are too busy screaming their group think on Iraq to actually LEARN anything about Iraq.
I think the Democrats will eventually come up with an alternative strategy -- "run and cut."
I mostly concur. Hearts and minds will take too long for the Press to allow victory. Like it or not, the unregulated press has enormous power.
And so what would work?
"To put this plainly: the “strategy” in Fallujah should have been to make it into a parking lot, and build a Wal-Mart at one end. There would have been great loss of life, but the message to our enemies and their supporters everywhere would have been, “We will not be toyed with.” Civilians whose sympathies are with the enemy cannot be won over, and have not been, by the “candy to children” approach. They must be taught that sheltering the enemy -- even involuntarily -- means sharing the enemy’s fate. (The distinction between what is voluntary and involuntary soon changes under those conditions.) And this, in the longer run, is what saves millions of lives."
This is what won't work. There is a 70% swath of people that just want safety, security and a little freedom. Unfortunately you have to be seen as sacrificing for these people, not persecuting them. Then they catch on that the Christian way is the right way to live one's life. The ME needs Christ more than ever. I saw a bumper sticker on the back of a Muslim's (presumably) Suburban at lunch. It stated "Jesus is in the Koran. Read about at at www.koransomethingornother.com."
Is Mohammed a more important prophet than Jesus to muslims? How can they reconcile the "do not make friends of Jews and Christians" with "Jesus is in the Koran, read all about it"? Bottom line is you are simply advocating making a parking lot of the place. Personally I think we are going to go more toward the diplomacy side with the option to flay a few more despotic regimes if anything bad happens in our country or to our assets overseas.
Yes- I always believed that a brutal takeover was the right way to go, with total capitualtion followed by mercy and some limited rebuilding. Perhaps install a pro-west strong man, or just make it clear that any government that is not pro-west will be eventually smoked just like the one before it.
But we are in way too deep for that now, it seems. A switch to this type of methodology would be seen as bizarre. It might be effective, but it's radical departure from current strategy makes it impractical.
BushCo really blew their opportunity to make this thing work right out of the box.
I am very curious to see what "new" COA Bush will adopt after the holidays.
To put this plainly: the “strategy” in Fallujah should have been to make it into a parking lot, and build a Wal-Mart at one end. There would have been great loss of life, but the message to our enemies and their supporters everywhere would have been, “We will not be toyed with.” Civilians whose sympathies are with the enemy cannot be won over, and have not been, by the “candy to children” approach. They must be taught that sheltering the enemy -- even involuntarily -- means sharing the enemy’s fate. (The distinction between what is voluntary and involuntary soon changes under those conditions.) And this, in the longer run, is what saves millions of lives.
We shouldn't have build a Wal-Mart.
Man, I wish I had time to stick around for this discussion. The Black Knight "Stay the course, it's just flesh wound" versus the "Nuke Iraq, then nuke it again!!!" arguements are always fascinating.
I have thought that for a long time, but didn't have the wit to coin a phrase that explains so well. The Iraqi people understand the Koran and the Old Testament. They don't understand our actions as being humane, but think we are too weak.
Take out those that are killing each other and those that are killing Americans. At that point let them vote for what government they want and don't be afraid that they will pick a dictator. If they do, he will remember the lesson we have taught them.
Adopt the phrase: "Don't tread on me." They will understand!
FREE SADDAM!!!!
Well I'm not a military stragist but I have read the Art of War by Sun Tzu.
Since 80% of Iraq is doing well and almost all the trouble is in Bagdad here is what I would do.
fence off Bagdad, flood with flyers saying get out. Check everyone who tries to leave, disarm, and then bomb that place to rubble.
This is a culture that wants to behead each and every one of us and they only understand strength. Show them strength and they will respect us more for it and in the long run, many more lives will be saved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.