We're Going to Win

Weekly Standard ^ | December 25, 2006 | Fred Barnes

[drellberg]

One guest who shook hands with Bush in the receiving line told him, "Don't let the bastards get you down." Bush, slightly startled but cheerful, replied, "Don't worry. I'm not." The guest followed up: "I think we can win in Iraq." The president's reply was emphatic: "We're going to win."

[ClaireSolt]

You have put numbers to what is called the flypaper strategy. That by fighting in Iraq we suck the terrorists out of other countries. Insofar as that may be true we are doing something for those countries that benefits them. In return they need to get their acts together and participate in the WOT. And they do.

Today there is a rumor that Saudia Arabia will mount massive aid to Sunnis in Anbar. This I've gotta see. Haven't seen any Saudi troop;s since I last watched Lawrence of Arabia. But the latte crowd will believe anything in their Park AVe penthouses.

[Youngman442002]

Hes got two years to get er done...we can..and should....if we don't ..goodbye Western civilization as we know it..

[Prodigal Son]

Even the Zulus, who valued life minimally, finally came to a breaking point vs. the Brits

I think the things you are responding to actually came from my post. He didn't put them in italics so it isn't immediately clear that those were not his words.

The thing is, the Zulus didn't have explosives or Kalashnikovs or oil money to fund them. In addition, the Zulus were relatively finite in comparison to the number of Muslims on the planet. Muslims are a pan-continental phenomenom. They are a global network. They have the internet and the liberal media at their disposal. They can be radicalised by remote via extremist websites. They do not have the same values as we do and think nothing of using women and children as fodder.

I, personally, do not think their culture is compatible with Western ideas about freedom and self-rule (democracy). I don't think they will ever be compatible with us. We will, thus, always be outsiders to them and they to us.

I see similarities between the Japanese (in their fanaticism) and the Native Americans (in occupying a geography that was coveted by a superior culture). We had to nuke the Japanese and we essentially nuked the food supply of the western natives by killing off the buffalo.

Nuke their capitals and holy places. Deny all travel to the West. Destroy their oil fields.

We could easily destroy our enemies. We developed the weaponry to do so 60 years ago. Why we are squeamish in using them is beyond me.

[shield]

bttt

[Valin]

Infoplease.com
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans

American Revolution (1775–1783)
Total servicemembers 217,000
Battle deaths 4,435
Nonmortal woundings 6,188
War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Total servicemembers 286,730
Battle deaths 2,260
Nonmortal woundings 4,505

Indian Wars (approx. 1817–1898)
Total servicemembers 106,0001
Battle deaths 1,0001

Mexican War (1846–1848)
Total servicemembers 78,718
Battle deaths 1,733
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 11,550
Nonmortal woundings 4,152

Civil War (1861–1865)
Total servicemembers (Union) 2,213,363
Battle deaths (Union) 140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097
Nonmortal woundings (Union) 281,881
Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,2972
Nonmortal woundings (Conf.) unknown

Spanish-American War (1898–1902)
Total servicemembers 306,760
Battle deaths 385
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 2,061
Nonmortal woundings 1,662

World War I (1917–1918)3
Total servicemembers 4,734,991
Battle deaths 53,402
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114
Nonmortal woundings 204,002
Living veterans fewer than 500

World War II (1940–1945)3
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846
Living veterans 4,762,0001

Korean War (1950–1953)
Total servicemembers 5,720,000
Serving in-theater 1,789,000
Battle deaths 33,741
Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,730
Nonmortal woundings 103,284
Living veterans 3,734,0001

Vietnam War (1964–1975)
Total servicemembers 8,744,000
Serving in-theater 3,403,000
Battle deaths 47,410
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000
Nonmortal woundings 153,303
Living veterans 8,295,0001

Gulf War (1990–1991)
Total servicemembers 2,225,000
Serving in-theater 665,476
Battle deaths 147
Other deaths in service (theater) 382
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565
Nonmortal woundings 467
Living veterans 1,852,0001

America's Wars Total
Military service during war 42,348,460
Battle deaths 651,008
Other deaths in service (theater) 13,998
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 525,256
Nonmortal woundings 1,431,290
Living war veterans 17,578,5004
Living veterans 25,038,459

1. Veterans Administration estimate as of Sept. 30, 2002.
2. Estimated figure. Does not include 26,000–31,000 who died in Union prisons.
3. Years of U.S. involvement in war.
4. Approximately 1,065,000 veterans had service in multiple conflicts. They are counted under each conflict, but only once in the total.
Source: Department of Defense and Veterans Administration.

[steel_resolve]

Deterrence demands a credible will to fight, or the enemy won't take your power seriously.

This is exactly the mindset of the arab world (Laden - weak horse) Good post.

[sitetest]

Dear BobS,

"No."

No what? No to the idea that the US military should kill even more jihadists and terrorists in Iraq?


sitetest

[grey_whiskers]

Could this number be above 300,000? Again, I can only guess, but why not?

This is why:

Cheers!

[Maceman]

It is disquieting that no one stops to ask the question, WHY IS BUSH SO DETERMINEDLY OPTIMISTIC?

Umm, he was determinedly optimistic about the Republicans retaining control of Congress also. How'd that work out for us?

[Obadiah]

Excellent!! I believe we can and will win!

[Obadiah]

The Keane-Kagan plan is not revolutionary. Rather, it is an application of a counterinsurgency approach that has proved to be effective elsewhere, notably in Vietnam. There, Gen. Creighton Abrams cleared out the Viet Cong so successfully that the South Vietnamese government took control of the country. Only when Congress DEMOCRATS cut off funds to South Vietnam in 1974 were the North Vietnamese able to win.

And America lost and MILLIONS of innocent people were slaughtered in the killing fields!

[LS]

We are not "squeamish." It's called "sanctity of life," and barring clear threats from non-combatants---and it is NOT apparent to everyone that "their culture is not compatible with western ideas" (the same was thought about the Japanese, and, earlier about the Poles and other cultures)---you will never get any leader to wantonly destroy Muslim capital cities just because of their religion.

[drellberg]

Wow! Thanks for your reply. Nice to know that this important question has been raised elsewhere, and that I'm not a total ninkompoop on the matter.

[LS]

I've raised these numbers in private with the President, as well as with several military people, and I think they are, if anything, low.

[drellberg]

OK, it's one thing merely to speculate; and it's another thing to have one's ruminations corraborated. So let me ask, if you don't mind, about certain "corollaries." Assuming that you are correct, and I obviously believe you are, then it would seem to follow that:

1. The insurgency isn't just 30,000 or so ragtag jihadists hanging out in Iraq, setting IEDs, and otherwise remaining invisible; rather it is a constant and HUGE flow of terrorists and insurgents from Iran and elsewhere. There would have to be coordinated and well-executed plans to replace surgents as they are killed. And so forth. Further, it would also seem to follow that the CIA etc probably have a darn good idea as to what's going on, since that kind of logistics couldn't be arranged via guys from a few desert camps driving people and stuff around in pickup trucks.

2. By the same measure, this isn't being financed by guys with a bag or two of cash being doled out $200 at a time. Rather there must be massive movements of financial capital. Again, it would seem implausible that we're in the dark as to who is funding this. That kind of dough leaves a trail.

3. And so forth.

If you are right, sir, and again I believe you are, then it has all sorts of implications that make me change the way I suspect things are unfolding behind the scenes. And this could indeed explain why the President is so bullish. Unlike the rest of us, he sees much of what the enemy is doing.

Or am I now getting carried away?

[jammer]

Let's just say that I agree with your points, as I understand them: (1) there are a lot of bad guys being killed and (2) this could be the rope-a-dope strategy that is working well. I agree with you. May I skip the calculations? -:)

[Alia]

lol. You bad.

[Steel Wolf]

1. The insurgency isn't just 30,000 or so ragtag jihadists hanging out in Iraq, setting IEDs, and otherwise remaining invisible; rather it is a constant and HUGE flow of terrorists and insurgents from Iran and elsewhere. There would have to be coordinated and well-executed plans to replace surgents as they are killed. And so forth.

Not the case. The vast majority of insurgents are Iraqi. As far as IED or SVBIED using Sunnis, there was some use of foreign fighters, and the use of foreign suicide bombers is still quite high. While al-Qa'ida in Iraq was initially staffed with a lot of non-Iraqis, the rank and file and senior leadership are increasingly Iraqi. No other insurgent group has as many foreigners in it as they did.

The Iranian Shia support is largely by professional trainers who do not fight. They bring across expertise, money, and organizational skills, and operate like our Special Forces do. Training locals to be proficient militiamen, in the Hizbullah model.

All in all, the Sunni foreign fighters were never much of a problem, except for the suicide bombers. They remain a dire and lethal threat, but not a recurring one, if you catch my drift.

The Shia foreign fighters don't directly fight us. They are laying the groundwork for dominating Iraq after we leave, by raising powerful internal militias that they can influence. They bring in a lot of know how, equipment, and organizational skills, but they refrain from bringing the heat themselves. Clever, since many of them might be card carrying members of the IRGC, which would make such attacks an act of war.

Further, it would also seem to follow that the CIA etc probably have a darn good idea as to what's going on, since that kind of logistics couldn't be arranged via guys from a few desert camps driving people and stuff around in pickup trucks.

You'd be surprised, on both counts.

2. By the same measure, this isn't being financed by guys with a bag or two of cash being doled out $200 at a time. Rather there must be massive movements of financial capital.

The money isn't staggering, and the insurgency has long been self sufficient, through criminal activities like kidnapping for ransom. There is some foreign money, of course, but it's largely icing on the cake, now.

Again, it would seem implausible that we're in the dark as to who is funding this. That kind of dough leaves a trail.

Sure it does. What does that matter, when the trail either leads to people you want to negotiate with, or "our friends"? Ain't "political considerations" a kick in the pants?

[LS]

Yep. Here's the deal. If this was "home grown" "dead-enders" as Rummy originally tought, then we should be getting pretty close to the bottom of the barrel.

If, on the other hand, we are creating a giant roach motel that is sucking in the terrorists, the supply is larger, but the good news is that it is a constant drain not only of their best, most experienced fighters, but that it (obviously) keeps them "over there" and not "over here."

I think there is a GIGANTIC implication here that everyone, including war supporters, have generally overlooked: assuming that "all Muslims aren't violent" and that most Muslims indeed want to live in peace and do not support the terrorists, then we are wiping out a generation of jihadists, and it's not just now, but 20 years down the line, that they will be evicerated.

Further, some people hypothesize that the American "Progressive" movement of feminized reforms came largely because of the disproportionate number of males killed in the Civil War. If that's the case, I think we can also expect a powerful "feminizing" of Islamic society, regardless of what the mullahs want.

[drellberg]

Thank you! This is all very uplifting to me. The poster immediately above you in this thread has a very different and more conventional opinion; and that poster is clearly well-informed.

I point this out not to start an argument but to highlight how much of a contrarian you seem to be. I really am betting that you are right.

I have bookmarked your work and will follow it going forward.

Again, thank you.