Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Quagmire
Terrible news from Iraq this morning.
A lunchtime attack on a U.S. military mess hall in northern Iraq on Tuesday killed 24 people, including Americans and Iraqis, said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings at Camp Marez.
I argued before this disastrous war started that it was a huge mistake. I was convinced that not only would the war lead to the deaths of thousands of innocents but that we would in fact lose the war. People were dumbfounded that I would suggest that the all powerful US military could lose. They were prepared to counter arguments about civilian deaths but were amazed that I thought we would actually be defeated. How could some backwater, third world people defeat us?
Last year near the beginning of the invasion I read Daniel Ellsberg's terrific book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. This book should have been read by every member of Congress and by President Bush and then maybe we would not be in this mess.
Ellsberg started out as a hawk on Vietnam. His position evolved over time as he learned first hand about both the facts on the ground and the flaws in decision making at the highest level of our government. One of the key early indicators to him that the war could not be "won" was that US forces were never able to decide when and where to confront the enemy. Unlike In WW2 where enemy forces controlled certain areas and allied forces drew up plans, massed troops and attacked them in Vietnam we were not at war with a country but with a domestic nationalistic insurgency living among the very people we were ostensibly trying to liberate. This insurgency would initiate attacks, then we would react, and they would disperse and blend in.
In Vietnam this lead to the labeling of certain areas as friendly to the insurgency. These areas were therefore bombed into oblivion - "destroy the village in order to save it" - sewing the seeds of hatred and resentment and swelling the ranks of the insurgency. Faluja is the modern example of this philosophy. Since the heady days of the "liberation of Baghdad" in May 2003 Faluja is the one example of us "confronting the enemy". The story of this war since last May has been they attack us, when they want and increasingly even in areas that we thought we maintained some level of control over. How does one "win" such a war?
We could launch more Faluja style attacks but remember the shock of Vietnam was that no matter how many times we bombed these people they never lost their will to resist us. More bombs were dropped on that undeveloped country than in the entire European theatre of war during WW2 and they still kept fighting. Domestic nationalistic insurgencies are like that. They will never give up because they have no where to go. They believe they are defending their homeland.
The lessons of Vietnam should have taught us something but our national memory is incredibly short and our vanity knows no bounds. I am so sick of having people scold me that we "have to win" in Iraq. What does this even mean? Right now our troops number one job is to try not to get killed. We cannot confront the enemy and attack him first because the enemy is everywhere and no where. The enemy decides when and where to attack. We are helpless short of declaring specific areas "free fire zones" and killing anything that moves there. Training Iraqis to take over security sounds like a great idea until you stop and think that a significant number of these trainees harbor deep resentments against us and given the chance will blow up our mess halls to kill as many of us as possible. Chances are high that this is what occurred near Mosul this morning. What will the inevitable response of our troops be? Fear, mistrust and hatred of all locals leading to understandably itchy trigger fingers. This will swell the ranks of the insurgency even more. The insurgency will never stop resisting no matter the cost. We will grow tired of the carnage and at some point we will leave, trying to disguise our defeat. Our military will be weakened for a generation because of this insane war.
We are the problem in Iraq not the solution. We need to get out, the sooner the better.
Another parallel with Vietnam - accepting the inevitability of defeat and cutting our losses is considered weakness - lying to the American people and painting rosy scenarios while the costs pile up is called leadership. Are we protecting America or protecting our leaders reputations? You decide.
Terrible news from Iraq this morning.
A lunchtime attack on a U.S. military mess hall in northern Iraq on Tuesday killed 24 people, including Americans and Iraqis, said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings at Camp Marez.
I argued before this disastrous war started that it was a huge mistake. I was convinced that not only would the war lead to the deaths of thousands of innocents but that we would in fact lose the war. People were dumbfounded that I would suggest that the all powerful US military could lose. They were prepared to counter arguments about civilian deaths but were amazed that I thought we would actually be defeated. How could some backwater, third world people defeat us?
Last year near the beginning of the invasion I read Daniel Ellsberg's terrific book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. This book should have been read by every member of Congress and by President Bush and then maybe we would not be in this mess.
Ellsberg started out as a hawk on Vietnam. His position evolved over time as he learned first hand about both the facts on the ground and the flaws in decision making at the highest level of our government. One of the key early indicators to him that the war could not be "won" was that US forces were never able to decide when and where to confront the enemy. Unlike In WW2 where enemy forces controlled certain areas and allied forces drew up plans, massed troops and attacked them in Vietnam we were not at war with a country but with a domestic nationalistic insurgency living among the very people we were ostensibly trying to liberate. This insurgency would initiate attacks, then we would react, and they would disperse and blend in.
In Vietnam this lead to the labeling of certain areas as friendly to the insurgency. These areas were therefore bombed into oblivion - "destroy the village in order to save it" - sewing the seeds of hatred and resentment and swelling the ranks of the insurgency. Faluja is the modern example of this philosophy. Since the heady days of the "liberation of Baghdad" in May 2003 Faluja is the one example of us "confronting the enemy". The story of this war since last May has been they attack us, when they want and increasingly even in areas that we thought we maintained some level of control over. How does one "win" such a war?
We could launch more Faluja style attacks but remember the shock of Vietnam was that no matter how many times we bombed these people they never lost their will to resist us. More bombs were dropped on that undeveloped country than in the entire European theatre of war during WW2 and they still kept fighting. Domestic nationalistic insurgencies are like that. They will never give up because they have no where to go. They believe they are defending their homeland.
The lessons of Vietnam should have taught us something but our national memory is incredibly short and our vanity knows no bounds. I am so sick of having people scold me that we "have to win" in Iraq. What does this even mean? Right now our troops number one job is to try not to get killed. We cannot confront the enemy and attack him first because the enemy is everywhere and no where. The enemy decides when and where to attack. We are helpless short of declaring specific areas "free fire zones" and killing anything that moves there. Training Iraqis to take over security sounds like a great idea until you stop and think that a significant number of these trainees harbor deep resentments against us and given the chance will blow up our mess halls to kill as many of us as possible. Chances are high that this is what occurred near Mosul this morning. What will the inevitable response of our troops be? Fear, mistrust and hatred of all locals leading to understandably itchy trigger fingers. This will swell the ranks of the insurgency even more. The insurgency will never stop resisting no matter the cost. We will grow tired of the carnage and at some point we will leave, trying to disguise our defeat. Our military will be weakened for a generation because of this insane war.
We are the problem in Iraq not the solution. We need to get out, the sooner the better.
Another parallel with Vietnam - accepting the inevitability of defeat and cutting our losses is considered weakness - lying to the American people and painting rosy scenarios while the costs pile up is called leadership. Are we protecting America or protecting our leaders reputations? You decide.
Comments:
Post a Comment
