Sunday, November 12, 2006
How to win in Iraq
Iraq is not a quagmire - unless we want it to be.
by Ferdinand III
The Republicans however offer very little in the way of intelligent options on Iraq. They maintain that to win the Iraqi war we need to limit our casualties; politically appease the various Iraqi militia; redeploy troops to thwart incursions in various parts of the country; rapidly train Iraqi troops to improve security; and help the Iraqi government broker a political settlement with vested interests including revenue sharing and maybe a partition of the country. While all that might be necessary they are certainly not enough nor even the top priorities. What needs to be done is not even being debated publicly but involves fighting the war to win and this mandates a completely different mind-set and approach.
In times past Americans produced effective, aggressive leaders. Sherman destroyed the South in the civil war because he perceived that annihilating the infrastructure, communications and spirit of the anti-modern Confederates, by waging war in their own territory, was the only way to end the conflict. Similar attitudes can be found in the Spanish-American war; Polk’s invasion of Mexico; the Great War; and with Patton, Macarthur and US efforts in the Second World War and in Korea. Sadly the spirit of waging war to win; to destroy the enemy; to eradicate his spirit and capability; is non-existent in today’s sensitive, feminized; careful and deeply politicized US military. Does anyone really think that the men running the US armed forces today would fight at Okinawa and lose 12.000 men or drop atomic bombs on Japan? Hardly.
The new sensitive US military has the following constraints. Don’t hurt civilians. Appease CNN and the BBC. Ensure that all war plans are discussed on network television. Only shoot when given an order to do so from above, even if you are under enemy attack. Install public toilets. Hand out candy. Smile and win hearts and minds. Don’t act like a soldier but more like an ambassador. The bonds that prevent the US from waging an effective war are so legion and tight, that victory is impossible.
So what are the results of the sensitive, feminized approach to war? Women who can’t see into heavy gun sights are riding on top of humvees unable to aim properly. The borders remain unsecured. Equipment, supplies, and logistics become secondary considerations to civilian comforts and using soldiers to construct public spaces. Civilians hide militias and engage in rear actions disrupting supplies and troop movements knowing that no reprisals will be forthcoming. Militias some 20.000 strong roam openly contemptuous of the US military and its Iraqi partners. A corrupt Iraqi government misuses hundreds of millions of dollars even as it is infiltrated and compromised by fascists, militia spies and terrorists. Such is the feminization of war and its costs.
War has nothing to do with altruism; hearts and minds or building public spaces, or civilian ‘comfort’. It is about destroying the enemy. Period. As American generals of wars past understood, war is a hellish business, with goal to destroy the enemy; its infrastructure and morale in as short as time as possible. Once the opposing forces are eradicated, then nation building can commence. It is only after the enemy is annihilated and defeated that the the long process of social and civilian repair can begin. Put it in another way. In modern Iraq not only must the terrorists be killed en masse, but the militia as well. However in order to limit losses; effect political comprises and buy time, the US military ignores the key areas of unrest, militia development and terrorist sanctuary. In effect they are hoping that magically the problems will disappear.
They won’t and they will only magnify in terror and proportion to the weakness and soft approach that is official US policy. US weakness in prosecuting this war means the following: more US casualties; more civilians killed in the long-term; and once the Democrats win control of the house, a victory for terrorism as the US winds down its commitment and leaves Iraq in chaos. The widespread contempt for America in the Middle East is the result of the American unwillingness to utterly efface those who are fighting against US forces in the region. This includes border infiltrations by Iranian, and Syrian arms, money and jihadists. As any worthwhile general knows, one’s enemies take ‘compassion’ as a sign of weakness and submission.
The US’ inability to pacify Iraq signifies something deeper as well. The Americans are unsure of what they are doing, because they don’t know if their system; their views or their way of life is superior or worth defending. They are terrified of being labeled oppressors; imperialists or war mongers. Hesitation in properly prosecuting the war affirms the lack of American will and clarity of purpose. What needs to be done is obvious and should have been done from the start: destroy the militias and terrorists with utmost ferocity; kill their leaders; go door to door in troublesome cities and exterminate those suspected of supporting terror; seal off the borders; cut-off funding to the incompetent and corrupt Iraqi government until transparency and reform are introduced; stop wasting soldiers time with public vanity projects and hearts and mind nonsense; and send a clear rebuke to the Arab-Islamic world: ‘we are not your friends, we are here to win, to conquer and to subdue.’
Sadly for US aspirations in the cess-pool of the Middle East no Macarthur or Patton is present to manufacture a victory. For that the US will pay a horrible future price.