Let’s set aside all the pro/con War gibberish and moral concerns and look at a couple ways that America may actually win this War, at least in Iraq. We all know that the terrorists aren’t going to follow “Rules of War” guaranteed to put the biggest, nastiest steam roll economy with the most determined soldiers on top. Hitler rolled through Europe because he turned the entirety of Germany into a War machine and lost because he made the supreme mistake of fucking with the Russians. The Russians being the only power with tougher, meaner soldiers and enough juggernaut economic power to put the Kaiser in his place, esp. with virgin Americas support. When you’ll be labeled a traitor for being captured and shot by your officers if you retreat you tend to keep going forward until those pesky Germans get out of your way.
Never mind, that is a whole other goddamn blog. I am not just pulling all of this out of thin air though. Doing some reading about the Boers, or any other tribal conflict in Africa. Look at guerrilla war history. This is how most countries win those kinds of wars.
First let’s examine the nature of the insurgent. They do not aim at military victory. They are not cowardly or stupid. They know that they can’t stand in tactical formation with home made RPGs and Kalashnikovs and hope to defeat American tanks, air support and open-warfare-savvy American troops. As already stated the “Rules of War” clearly bias those who can field the largest numbers. The Warsaw Pact was written to govern WWIII not a War on Terror. Think of insurgents as an electric grinder. It probably can’t flat out kill you, but after you have a couple of finger ground off over the course of a couple hours, bone and all, you are probably gonna start altering your views a bit.
Further, you cannot stop insurgents by killing them. That’s what they want you to do. If possible they want you to kill just enough innocents to piss off a couple more young men into the ranks. Think back to high school. Take the nastiest sociopath bully you can think off. Now tell him that he can kill cops and pretty much anyone else he wants with impunity. Now tell him that God will reward him for it. That’s what we’re dealing with. We are talking a bunch 18-22 year old males primed for martyrdom and violence without any of the pansy softness of American amenities like food and indoor plumbing.
You can’t win through technological superiority. Your brand new battle rifle isn’t a whole lot better than the 20 year old Kalashnikovs the insurgents have. They both spray hot chunks of metal very quickly in an attempt to kill people, and while your M16 is jammed with sand and requires cleaning every third patrol the AK-47 pointing at you from across the street could be shit directly into by a camel and still blast 7.62mm full metal jacked rounds into your liver, lungs and other vital organs. All those guided bombs mean shit if you don’t know where to put them, and a howitzer is just a very nice cannon. Yup, same technology as those long metal tubes we used 600 years ago to throw metal balls at each other.
“Who cares if a 1000lb bomb is within 3 feet of its target” – point made.
So how do we win? Well, what would Jesus do? WWJD my friends. Actually Jesus hasn’t done so hot in the Middle East, not too many resounding military victories under his belt. So who has had some success keeping those pesky Iraqis under control? Saddam Hussein, that’s who. So our new military mantra is WWSD, what would Saddam do.
Lets say American troops are out on patrol. A car explodes, kills two or three of them and 20 or 30 Iraqis in addition to turning an entire block into churning, bloody rubble. Even if Cheney, our most ruthless dude as far as I can tell, the soldiers arrest everyone in sight who isn’t injured or dead, maybe smacks them around a little. Probably at least a couple civvies get killed by us, and maybe even an insurgent or two.
This is all wrong. WWSD. The bomb goes off. Three dead soldiers. The remaining soldiers open fire on all moving objects. They kill any injured civilians, and then they spread through the neighborhood and kill/arrest for torture everybody. The next day they round up the families of anybody who knew anybody in that neighborhood for questioning, perhaps a quarter of these ever see sweet daylight again.
If we get intelligence that an insurgent leader is holed up in a remote village, what do we do? WWSD. We pull out the crop dusters and cover the whole village in mustard gas. Then we take a picture of the insurgent leader, or anybody really, Americans can’t tell the difference, pull out the corpse and call it a victory.
Anytime an insurgent is part of a particular ethnic/religious group we make sure to kill a couple people in that demographic. Maybe we blow up a mosque too.
That’s how you win against insurgent guerrillas. You make everybody so scared that they wear the same style shoes as an insurgent that they don’t fight anymore. The other side of this war wins on morale. We have to crush the morale of martyrs, holy men and tribal warriors. That ain’t easy. But Saddam did it, and so can we.
It would take a while, and the death toll would be astronomical because in the beginning there'd be even more insurgents, but it wouldn't take too long before the whole desert was just empty and we could have completely unhindered access to all that oil! Nobody really likes brown people anyway, especially Iraqis because they smell bad and don't use toilet paper (just their bare hand and some water, don't ever shake an Iraqi's left hand!), so there's really not a whole lot of use for them.
We should arrest a few engineers before we slaughter everyone and let them free after so they can continue to run the oil refineries (we'll pay them really well so they forget about their families and friends), because God knows no white person wants to live in the desert!! Jeez, the sand, the heat, the sand storms, the camel spiders! It's damn unbearable over there! I spent some time there, I know! I certainly wouldn't want to live there again!
But we damn sure do need the oil, and we're not getting any closer to it the way we've been trying! I'm with you, it's time to try something new!
Or, just bring the troops home, whichever.
What irony! You call Iraqis nasty because they clean themselves with water? with WATER. You are proud of using toilet paper! toilet paper that leaves your smelly ass crusty with residue? I've alwasy been disgusted by men like you at laundromats, who take out their shit-stained underwear like it's normal.
Sarcasm man, sarcasm. It doesn't come across well on the net, I know, but I was being completely sarcastic. I said that as a means of saying that Iraqi's don't really need to be alive anyway, since they don't even use toilet paper. Of course I don't think that way. But the fact remains that Iraqis don't touch each OTHER with their left hands, because it's not just water on their little ring of fire, it's their hand. And the bacteria in the poo is then on their hand, which I'd rather not touch.
PLUS, I wipe enough to get all the poo off my smelly ass. No skid marks here!
Actually, it's just bad etiquette to shake someone's hand with your left or even eat with your left hand. They do wash their hands and trim their nails well.
"PLUS, I wipe enough to get all the poo off my smelly ass. No skid marks here!"
I hope so. haha.
NO. No no no no no. First off, the Geneva Conventions destroy your plan. No tourture, killing of civilians etc. Rules of engagement have to be followed. By taking a role of a terrorist leader we would be hated more by Middle Eastern countries.
You can't subdue their morale like that. Killing civilians and making them fear us will anger them farther, nto to mention bring other countries into play. Blowing up a mosque would probably bring an attack from Iran or Syria. It would also cause Israel to be attacked in a sense of the terrorists getting at the US.
treaties with other countries like Iran and Syria are needed. We need their support for this all to work out.
Take out the leaders of the insurgents and chop your way down the ladder. That is how you win.
We need the UN's support, and we need to be in their good graces for WWIII which will start in the next 30 years.
I concur.
Also, understanding their culture and working with the 'elders' or 'wisemen' is key.
Hey, I am telling you how to win a WAR, not create peace.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
Haha.
edit: I think violence will only breed more violence. They will want revenge and the war will continue.
Man, I am just not getting through... Violence only begets more violence when you leave people behind who can fight you. Besides the goal of stabilizing Iraq is just that, to keep it stable. A little bombing now and then just means we kill another neighborhood/village. Sure there will some problems, but the country can still run pretty smoothly.
You are still thinking in a moral universe where one side stops the violence just when it looks like they're winning to spare some innocent lives. The only way to win this kind of WAR is to keep killing and killing until people won't even look a soldier in the eye, much less start rigging bombs. Saddam had his own military fightened of him. That's the kind of fear we need to generate. Everyone is scared. Not just the other side, but our side too.
I think maybe you don't comprehend the fear level we are trying to generate. This isn't about healing the giant ethnic/religious divides in the Middle East. I am fairly certain even the leaders there don't totally understand it. This is about gaining control. That's what War is for. Like I said in my giant response below, push the fear/anger ratio far enough and you get control.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
you cant put fear into the hearts of an enemy who doesn't care about their own life. They will kill either way. They believe that god will reward them for fighting and dying.
Fear doesn't work that way. You may make the villagers and Iraqi people scarred shi*less but it wouldnt do anything to the insurgents.
PLus, again, you have to obey the geneva convention and rules of engagement.
There will be hell to pay when all of the middle east rises up against the western world and vows to kill us all. WWIII is a bigger problem than IRaq
Saddam managed it just fine. You kill them before they are fighting for God. Then if they do start fighting for God you capture as many as you can and torture them so that not even 62 virgins looks real good in comparison.
Anyway, my entire point is that the tactics necessary to win militarily are so morally objectionable that the War in Iraq is doomed.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
We can chop as many leaders as we want, assuming we can find them, but a lot of these "insurgents" are little more than heavily armed street gangs. Even if you could track down every neighborhood leader, another leader will emerge. That's why you kill the entire neighborhood. Then not is there no place for a leader to come from, but there's no one to lead.
You can chop as many heads as you want friend, but fear is the fire that'll keep 'em from growing back. (Sticking with the greek hydra myth)
The Geneva Convention applies to open warfare. Open warfare was created so WWIII wouldn't turn into the nasty, brutal, tribal warfare of today. It also blatantly favors the country with the biggest army and the biggest economy to back that Army. No right minded guerrilla tries to buy a guided missle set up costing tens of thousands of dollars when he has a hundred rabid teen boys waiting to drive a stolen oldsmobile filled with MiracleGrow into the nearest tank. Same effect at a fraction of the cost. The world's cheapest fire and forget missile, because untrained Khat mad adolescents don't cost a whole bunch to replace.
The Geneva Convention obviously favors a technologically superior force on an open battleground, which is exactly why no sane insurgent follows it. You can tell a military strategy is on its way out when the people using it start crying fowl. Well thinking for a second that any of these insurgents are cowards is crying fowl. We rigged the game in our favor, so they aren't playing.
Fuck fear. All the leaders in the Middle East LOVED Saddam, and they'll love us too. Any saber rattling from Iran and we release videos on the internet of nuclear warheads being installed on our multi million dollar Patriot missles. Do you know what stops a Patriot? Whatever you aimed it at. Not that it really matters if your gigatonne hydrogen bomb is within a meter of the target... It sure is nice to see those shocked looks on the faces of school children from the comfortable distance of sattelite photos though.
Just like the usual bleeding hearts, you aren't listening. The way we are doing things right now won't work because it inspires more anger than fear. The trick is to tilt the anger/fear ratio so far towards fear that nobody fights anymore. As I said, Saddam did it, and after a couple weeks in isolation jacked up on LSD and PCP I bet Cheney will make a reasonable replacement, as long as his heart doesn't give out.
See the mistake we always make in dealing with these guys is that we wander in and kick ass on the open battlefield and do a little infrastructure building. Then we find the craziest, most ruthless, smart, fearless bastard we can, wipe the rapid spittle from his lips and prop him up in front of the cameras kissing babies for a month. Then we give a little wink, turn our backs and let him do all the genocidal work necessary to keep things in line.
Problem is these bush dictators always get too big for their britches and we have to out them. So this time we just hand the country over to the Vice Pres. or a favorite general. These good Americans will do what needs to be done for the fatherland and they won't turn around and invade Kuwait or anything. Unless we tell them to.
Iran isn't going to sign any treaties with us, because we won't sign any treaties with them until they quit their nuclear programs. Iran isn't afraid of America. They've been playing this game far longer than we have, and their army is just as well trained, if less tech savvy. Any treaty Iran signs will be nothing more than, "We will not openly support unrest in Iraq."
If WWIII does start the UN will disappear faster than cocaine around Keith Richards. We can maybe count on the EU to shuffle around and play nice with us, but China is going to play the role of the Soviets this time, and they won't be on our side. There is one reason Hitler lost WWII. He fucked with the Soviets. He and Stalin could have sliced the Western world up like an Orange.
Nobody stopped the Blitzkrieg. You can spit on the French as much as you want, but Britain would have been singing "Deutchland Uber Alles" along with everybody else if it weren't for that pesky water in the way of Germany's juggernaut. The only thing that spared Britain an invasion, operation Sea Lion if memory serves, was that Hitler decided to open up the Eastern front, and the only soldiers around tougher and scarier than the Krauts were Reds.
Now picture China's giant economy and huge population geared for war. Now picture them allied with N. Korea. In a WWIII situation their crazy buddies the South make much better allies than they do now. Now N. Korea looks like the nutty little brother trying to get out from big brothers shadow, but when the shit hits the fan and China starts marching the economic ties with the West are going to be far less important than friendly borders.
Not to mention if Bush is terminally stupid enough to invade Iran (and he might be) we will be well off our high horse and on our way to second rate world power just like Britain in the 40's and 50's. Iran is three times the size of Iraq and their regular standing Army isn't going to buckle and surrender like Saddam's fear ravaged rats did. America is too pampered and coddled to even comprehend what open warfare with a country like Iran would mean. We haven't fought in a real war since Vietnam. Not against a real army, with real tanks plus a civilian population crawling with prospective resistance cells.
Either Bush can admit that his moral highground is a pile of shit stacked high enough for him to see just far enough to get America destroyed or we can start facing up to the way people have been winning wars like this for the last two hundred years. This is how you win a war against insurgents. The Geneva Convention means shit in asymmetrical warfare.
Just throwing more troops into Iraq won't do a thing. Nothing except a complete abandonement of the justification we used for invading, or pulling out will win/end this War. You are trying to play a game that isn't being played. This isn't a Chess game of trench warfare in Europe. This is a new world, and if we want to keep playing Warhawks we are gonna have to learn the new rules. Right now we are sitting at a chess board trying to play against an opponent who moves his pieces however he likes and doesn't apologize for it.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
And it is at this point that I think even Bush is starting to wish we had never invaded. The world was simpler. The sectarian violence that has started may never end. The warfare that erupted in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90's has been brewing for 700 years, and they still hate each other. I think that some of the damage done to the other is nearly unforgivable by the average Shia or Sunni at this point, reconciliation may not ever be possible. Unless we get another dictator in there. It's funny, I always thought that it was horrible that we put Saddam, Pinochet and Suharto in power or at least stayed on good terms with them even as they were slaughtering their own people, and now I'm actually almost ready to advocate such a thing. It would probably be better than all out civil war, but I'm not sure at this point it's possible to avoid that. I think you're right about the only way to win it, and since we're not going to do that we'll pull out, and then they'll go into a civil war that'll last for a very long time.
And I did, I do hope the point of this blog has gotten through. To win this War we must resort to tactics that completely destroy any of the justifications we used to invade. We are trying to play a game we don't know with the world champions on home turf.
Just as the conservatives yell, "The time for diplomacy is over." It is abundantly clear that they can't keep their moral outrage and win this war. They are going to have to dirty themselves, and not with war-porn stories about hometown heroes being killed in street fighting. They are going to have to face wading through blood until their riduculous moral indignation comes streaming from their eyes and pours from their vomiting mouths.
Now, there are certainly people hardcore/hateful enough to support these necessary tactics, but they cannot pretend for a single second to have somekind of higher moral ground or justification. And these tactics are necessary if one wishes to win through military power in Iraq. I may get a bit flowery in my language and expression, but I am not exagerating.
Those supporting this war should understand how exactly one wins a war like this. Then they can decide which Saddam replacement they like better.
And now I will stop preaching and ask you to expound on how you think WWIII will unfold. I would love to hear it.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
it goes like this
the middle east hates us
they grow in power and wealth
eventually the whole middle eastern estremist world rises up and vows a jihad of the destruction of the western world, led by a country (my bet is on Iran).
They take out Israel first.
Move through Turkey and Eastern Europe.
We battle Around there for awhile.
Pakistan holds the Eastern flank, not advancing, but instead taking a defensive stance, holding the line.
Russia (back to communism by this time), gives/sells financial aid and military weapons to the Middle east.
The US, leading the WEstern Allies (including the UK, most european countries, China (free market by then), Japan, Australia, the whole gang), makes a seaward assualt fomr the indian ocean, while moving across the black sea to invade from the north.
we fight and fight, and as long as we can shoot down Iran's missles, we claim victory within 10 years, that is, if Armeggedon doesnt say hello.
hiphip hooray we ruin another stretch of land because humans just love war.
I think China is pretty much the deciding factor. In open warfare between armies a crazy/fierce Middle Eastern war machine fueled by Chinese discipline and extra man power would steam roll through Europe like, well, a steam roller. I have no idea how Russia's economy would react to supporting a war effort. It may become a blood profit juggernaut or may simply settle for selling overstock tanks, Kaleshnikovs and missles to the Middle East.
I think that most of the Middle East hates America more than any other nation, and none of them, even Iran, is really equipped to reach us. They don't have the world wide military presence that America and allies do. They also don't have much of a Navy. They would have to settle for Invading Europe and then quitting.
I am also a little leary of any kind of Middle Eastern Bloc cooperation agreement holding through ten years of war. Someone will pull a Hitler and blow the whole thing.
I think quick moves on the part of the Arab nations into Eastern Europe could achieve quite a Blitzkrieg. The weather and terrain are pretty nasty though, but still none of those countries has anything like a major military presence.
I bet our buddy Kim Jong-Il will want to weigh in on the gory festivities too. Assuming China lands on our side of the fence N. Korea is going to be a whole other front for them, and N. Korea isn't any military slouch.
We can't do much to invade the Middle East though. We can't even control a country that isn't technically at war with us, much less make any headway into enemy territory and expect to hold it. We would have to fight a war of containment. Certain edge cities could probably be controlled enough to be useful, but any advance inland would be harrassed by resistance fighters and constantly have the supply chains cut.
I think the two main questions are: where will china throw their chips and is Jong-Il crazy enough to use a nuke?
Frankly I think the whole buggery mess could be avoided if we tread a little lighter and aren't dumb enough to go poking Iran with our Big Stick.
I wonder where Africa will fall on all this? Some countries are Western allies, some are Muslim theocracies and some are warlord havens that couldn't care less. If certain nations fall in line with or get invaded early on they provide a good head on the Mediterranean.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
On another note: I am pretty sure the rules of engagement forbid targetting officers and leaders specifically i.e. no assassinations. I don't even think you are supposed to specifically target officers on the open battlefield, if possible they are to be taken prisoner and treated as befits their station.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
This means mass killings. Much like Hitler or Stalin.
When such despair is put upon a group of people, they actually become fearless. They find a way to thrive. Sort of like the ethnic cleansing of Chechnya... the genocides have created a fearless breed of people thriving in a military culture. Even though millions were killed during and after the Holocaust, they are still alive. And still fighting for their freedom. Tehy are such a strong and beautiful people, I have a love for them.
You know, I think the conservatives do want what you speak of... genocide, only keep it mum. If they disclose the immorality of it all, there will be inevitable uproar. If not from elsewhere in the Middle East, definitely here in America. There will be protests! Beautiful protests! Right now, the American people are being controlled by the government, by fear, accepting what is going on as if it is 'right' thing. But the limits are being pushed- already many soldiers are not coming home as they were promised. And as for the Chinese, we are indebted to them. All China has to do is demand what we owe them and our economy just crumbles. I predict that may just happen in the next 10-20 years, if everythign keeps going the way it is. Welcome to WWIII?
If China demands we make good on our debts lump sum it will be a world disaster. In fact if any major country decided to demand immediate make-good on debts there would be economic madness. Thing is that won't happen unless things start looking very bad economically and the debt is either too big a burden on the owed country, or the debtor country starts not making payments.
Any major power in this world is caught in a web of debt and payment. Just think if even a single banking chain in America decided to call in all their loans at once. Most loans have an option that can be taken by the bank to make the whole balance due immediately. It happened in the depression. Farmers in the dust bowl couldn't pay their loans and banks were losing a lot of money so they made the loans due immediately and reposessed everything or forced farmers to liquidate.
I imagine if China, or any other country, tried to pull something like that there would be conflict. America isn't a poor farmer, we spend millions on single missiles. Fucking with the repayment structure on loans of this caliber with militarily equipped entities is asking for some nasty consequences.
I really don't have any historical basis for countries suddenly calling that a debt be made good on though. Perhaps I just haven't read the right histories, but I have never heard of something like that happening, maybe raised minimum payments or interest rates, but that's about it. While I can see the definite cascade effect demands like, "pay it now," would have I think it would guarantee non-payment and destabilize the world economy. After all if one of the largest economies in the world is in so much trouble it is calling in debts there is going to be some bad financial nervousness.
It would be a great excuse to start something since America obviously can't pay. We could borrow from other countries, but I doubt even that would make the nut. Legally they can do it(I think, I haven't read the fine print on the US loans), so us refusing to pay is technically illegal, but the world community would certainly consider it anti-social to be doing things like that. Great Depression angst a la, "Grapes of Wrath," but with America and the rest of the world playing the poor farmers with armies and enough stung pride to use them against the oppressive "bank" of China...
I really can't see China destabilizing the world economy just to have an excuse to fuck with America. Perhaps I am missing some crucial developements, but I don't see any circumstances coming where China would try to call in our debt all at once.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
we will borrow money from china, but they will welcome us with open arms as an allie once they become free market. China's youth is seeing more and more the benefits of the free market, and will go to free market in the next 15-20 years.
they wont make us "pay it now"
WWIII is between the western world and Muslim Extremeists in the middle east.
cracker please
we will borrow money from china, but they will welcome us with open arms as an allie once they become free market. China's youth is seeing more and more the benefits of the free market, and will go to free market in the next 15-20 years.
they wont make us "pay it now"
WWIII is between the western world and Muslim Extremeists in the middle east.
cracker please
I agree with you because it will take a while to Iraquis to take over their homeland as the governers and peace holders of their time because they are not developed in mind yet. Their mind think only who take the power and Religion problems that lead them to another conflict. So your topic wasn't that bad , and i preciate that you take over this topic to discuss about it.
I think that it is rather easy for you to make such suggestion casually in the comfort of your own homes. Are you planning to be part of the war on terror anytime sons? Joining the military?
"Cheney, our most ruthless dude as far as I can tell"
What? shouldn't Cheney be your lord and savior. Any who, I am not sure that I should admire you for your inability to felt compassion for the American soldiers that will be dying for your stupid chicken hawk fantasy or felt pity for your sorry chickenhawkness.
There are two types of people in this world, the asshole and the bullshitters. Judging from your choice of words, I would assume that you are asshole bullshitters. An asshole: The true asshole cannot be appealed to in the name of any ideal, or in the name of the public good, or even in the name of other people he knows and presumably cares about. The true asshole is driven by one thing and one thing only, and that is to do what he damn well wants to do no matter whom else he hurts along the way.
A bullshiter: someone who believes in his or her own lies even through they knows that it is morally, fundamentally wrong. Bullshit is a lie you tell yourself in order to justify an action or belief, which, while convenient, you also know in your heart be fundamentally wrong. People generally do not believe their own lies, but they generally do believe their own bullshit.
I got to say; you are a lot more truthful and are at least up front about your belief. Even if you are a chickenhawk, I just got to admire you for it. The fact that you are able to lead other people over a clip or convince a bunch of people to drink the kool aid while charging them for it is fantastic. So, if you had time, read my blog. I think that you would be very flatter and compliment by it. You are a bullshitter but you are an asshole, and that is why I like you as an asshole.
http://www.progressiveu.org/171922-why-i-perfer-asshole-over-bullshiters
My blog is meant to be ironic and hyperbolic in order to highlight the disparity between tactics necessary to win a war in Iraq and tactics that are morally tolerable. By my standards, it did that quite well.
I did enjoy your blog there, to an extent. Frankly I find neither kind of political dishonesty appealing. The assholes are the most dangerous because they are smart to not believe their own bullshit. Bullshitters aren't as bad because their stupidity and hubris will almost always bite them in the ass. I can appreciate the sentiment of admiration for some true assholes/bullshitters (Reagan and Limbaugh happen to be some of my favorites) on a certain level.
Anyway my major point (I don't blame you for not reading all of the comments) is that the tactics I outline are probably the only way to stabilize Iraq at all quickly, and if we aren't prepared to execute then we shouldn't be there at all.
In all honesty I can't quite pin down your ideas on the war on terror. You make some positive comments about it, and then seem to be sarcastic in your support at other times...
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principals."