I thought I’d offer up a piece from the guys who had to learn why they lost a guerilla war — after their government worked real hard at ignoring our own example in VietNam.
Some of the most significant events of the outgoing year were in the military sphere – the defeat of the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, the Israeli army’s setback in Lebanon, and the return of the Taliban to Afghanistan despite the presence of 20,000 NATO troops there.
Paradoxically, semi-guerilla units, armed at best with Kalashnikovs, grenade launchers, and explosives they plant in cars or use in suicide bombings, are winning wars against regular armies, equipped with state-of-the-art military hardware and high technologies.
The latter have the most sophisticated satellite systems of control and communication, thermal imagers, radars, which can detect any moving or fixed objects, and even individuals, and means of radio electronic warfare.
Regular armies have super modern tanks, fighters, bombers, and cruise missiles – everything the great designer minds of the late 20th–early 21st centuries have managed to develop; they are also equipped with most advanced military ideas, tactics and operational skills, and have amassed the experience of all the past wars; these armies have top professionals whose training and education costs astronomical sums.
For all that, regular armies, on which more than half a trillion dollars are spent every year (that is, more than on all other armed forces put together) cannot do anything against the mujaheddins, armed with 50-dollar weapons.
I realize it’s tough to confront the tactical and political disaster Litovkin discusses. But, many of the folks who pass through these cyber-corridors order their lives and living within disciplines bounded by science and engineering. Some of that sense of order and logic certainly rubs off. The skills required to analyze real situations, quantifiable facts, might encourage an understanding of history and geopolitics.
I hope.
Uhhh this guy states we are getting beat in Iraq , THATS JUST WRONG!!!! there are problems but we are not loosing
I am offended that you would post such blather (there are definite problems ) but we are winning . The terrorists don’t control a single province and can only fight with terror tactics.
The press is trying so hard to make this a second Vietnam but it isnt
shame on you
For many, I guess the study of history can be as non-exciting as studying economics. If you hope to have a useful grasp of politics, both are necessary — with the emphasis on history, I guess.
For that reason, I really have a tough time accepting the kill-the-messenger response so typical of Right-wingers. And I make an especial point of exempting conservative thinkers from that criticism. There have been conservative historians as likely as progressives to reject revisionism and the meaner, foolish analyses founded in a preference for ignorance.
Of course, neither are employed by the present crew on Pennsylvania Ave.
#1, #2:
Some people (usually wingnuts of various kinds–right, left, and lib wingers are all guilty) will look at a situation and state as fact the way they would like things to be, and not look at things as they are. They get clued in eventually–see Vietnam.
In Iraq, the guerillas (that’s basically what they are, even though they call them militias) are waging a war of attrition, until we leave and they can start a full fledged religious war.
I just worry about the Kurds, which have basically stayed out of the fighting…so far.
And the #1 set back in Iraq?
Ms cut and run – Nancy Pelosi
We’re not losing! We’re STAYING THE COURSE!
[Actually, only 2-3% of our ground troops have died in the war so far. We’ve got a long way to go]
In propaganda value, the coalition troops are the losers.
In combat casualties, the insurgents are the losers.
In overall casualties, the civilians are the losers.
I guess Halliburton is one of the few winners… except for their employees.
This reminds me of a few weeks ago when I fixed my lawn tractor. A $1,300 machine useless because of a $0.25 nut came off the clutch arm.
So the military can also have these $50 million airplanes down because a teaspoon of sand destroyed the hydraulics. Or $25 worth of IED and there goes a $250,000 Hummer or a $45 million tank. Or a $0.50 bullet takes out a soldier that cost $50,000 to train (then another $15,000 just to evacuate).
I think the smart ones are those that take advantage of this cost benefit ratio in their tactical planning.
Donald Rumsfeld in particular, although joined by many others, wanted a small military based on high tech. A great idea if you are facing off against another technologically advanced nation. Not so great when the enemy has lots of disposable bodies willing to fight with makeshift arms. Similar to Vietnam, Israel, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.
I don’t see how a “resurgence” of the Taliban in Afghanistan marks any kind of failure for the Nato operation. Maybe this author should be solving Russia’s military woes first than work on the international communities second.
How many people remember that Al Qaeda defeated the formidable Soviet military machine in Afghanistan from 1979-1989? It took them 10 years but they eventually wore them out. We’re only going on our 4th year in Iraq and doing about as poorly as the Soviets did in the same amount of time. Do we cut our losses after four years or wait another six?
The *defeat* of the coalition in Iraq? The Iraq War ended in a couple of months. We won. Reconstruction of the Iraq nation on the other hand may fail if the Iraqi people don’t figure out that they have to be the ones to make it happen. Most of the people dying in Iraq are Iraqis at the hands of other Iraqis.
#8 How many people remember that Al Qaeda defeated the formidable Soviet military machine in Afghanistan from 1979-1989?
Sorry, but Osama bin Laden’s role in the defeat of the Soviet forces is greatly exaggerated. Maktab al-Khadamat, the predecessor to Al-Qaeda, was active, but didn’t have a major role in the conflict. And btw… the U.S.A. supported the Afghan terrorists… sorry… freedom fighters… with arms, funds and training.
Sigh!
We went in and trashed the Iraqi government, that while it was a despotic mess, at least had control of the country.
We went in without ENOUGH troops to secure the country, so the social and governmental infrastucture was trashed in the first weeks after the invasion.
Now, we are just getting the government rebuilt enough to the point that they may have a chance to restore order. Do we cut and run now and leave the mess that we created just swinging in the wind?
I’m not saying we should stay there forever, but we must make an extended effort to clean up our mess. I would give Bush at least till the end of his term to make things right. If things do not work out by then, it may be the time to pull the plug on it then.
Don
I can’t tell if some of you guys are being serious in your posts or not.
Regardless, it is interesting that history seems to prove over and over again that guerilla forces fighting on their home ground can defeat vastly superior invading forces. Hell, the US used guerilla tactics to defeat the British when they formed their nation. They’ve either forgotten about that or they just think that the rules are somehow different now.
The problem isn’t the equipment so much as it is the will to win. The media makes every coalition death a victory for the guerrillas by blowing it out of proportion. Imagine if the 24 hour news cycle existed during the Battle of the Somme.
you know I find it interesting when people say we aren’t losing. and depending on you look at it, I suppose you could be right. after all, the insurgents can not dislodge our troops by force. so in that respect yes we are not losing.
however, the aim of the insurgents is not to move the opposing troops by force, it’s to prevent proper functioning of the government and the people. and by any measure they are doing a good job of that. the oil industry is no where close paying for the war(isn’t that guy running the world bank now), beaten and shot bodies are found almost daily around Baghdad.
this is getting long, but two final points. if American troops were to just leave on a Friday(I know it’s not possible, just saying), the Iraqi government would be done by the following Tuesday or Wednesday.
lastly, for those who say we aren’t losing, look at it from another point of view. what if a major American city were suffering the same number of civilian deaths day after day. how confident would you be of how well the war is going? but hey since it’s not American people dying, I guess the standards of winning are a lot lower.
you know I find it interesting when people say we aren’t losing. and depending on you look at it, I suppose you could be right. after all, the insurgents can not dislodge our troops by force. so in that respect yes we are not losing.
however, the aim of the insurgents is not to move the opposing troops by force, it’s to prevent proper functioning of the government and the people. and by any measure they are doing a good job of that. the oil industry is no where close paying for the war(isn’t that guy running the world bank now), beaten and shot bodies are found almost daily around Baghdad.
this is getting long, but two final points. if American troops were to just leave on a Friday(I know it’s not possible, just saying), the Iraqi government would be done by the following Tuesday or Wednesday.
lastly, for those who say we aren’t losing, look at it from another point of view. what if a major American city were suffering the same number of civilian deaths day after day. how confident would you be of how well the war is going? but hey since it’s not American civilians dying, I guess the standards of winning are a lot lower.
#12″ I’m not saying we should stay there forever, but we must make an extended effort to clean up our mess. I would give Bush at least till the end of his term to make things right. If things do not work out by then, it may be the time to pull the plug on it then.”
Huh. So the military cycle in Iraq should be dictated by the political cycle in the US? The Iraqi government itself has noted that there is no military solution to the Sunni-Shiite civil war in that country. I am not sure why we should assume that there is.
The primary realist reason for staying in Iraq – so that Anbar Province will not become a base for AQ can export terror – is belied by the facts on the ground. If the US leaves, its best allies in the fight against AQ in Iraq – the Badr Brigade and Mahdi Army – will be turned loose to expunge AQ in Iraq.
of course, much of Sunni Iraq will also die, but that is an outcome that the political leaders of Sunni Iraq chose when they decided not to participate in the political process.
And under the “we broke it we bought it” theory – we are responsible for turning Iraq from a Titoist tyranny into a Milosovic-style religio-ethnic hellhole. How many times must we “buy it,” before we can say we are done?
The only winners in this conflict will be the Iraqi people when they are given their country back so they can set up a government of their choosing. The war was over for the USA when Saddam was toppled.
Why aren’t the normal Iraqis just as motivated as the militias? Are we sure the US is fighting on the right side? As long as the militias fight for their peace, the US will not make progress in rebuilding infrastructure.
#14, … The media makes every coalition death a victory for the guerrillas by blowing it out of proportion. Imagine if the 24 hour news cycle existed during the Battle of the Somme.
Comment by James — 1/6/2007 @ 12:41 pm
Then maybe the Somme Offensive would have stopped. How many soldiers were mowed down by machine gun fire, only to have another wave follow them. The Somme, as most WWI bbattles, were simply a waste of lives for no gain. Most of WWI consisted of disposable troops. Americans don’t understand the impact the carnage had on the home front in the countries that actually fought the Germans / Austrians.
Maybe the best way to explain it would be from an American WWI veteran. He later stated that the object isn’t to die for your country, it’s to make the other son of a bitch die for his.
The Allies and Germans understood this concept during WWII. The Soviets didn’t and as a consequence suffered horrendous casualties.
So yes, every death is a loss for America. Bush claimed we won, “Mission Accomplished”. So there should be absolutely no reason for our guys to die.
#19. And it was noted recently (and correctly, IMHO) that the American public does not flinch at casualties but has a rather low tolerance at futile casualties. thus, once there was no point for the US to remain in Beruit or Somalia, relatively light casualties were enough to raise a demand that the US withdraw.
so yes, at the Somme, a public subject to the 24 hour news cycle as the US public is today would likely demand an end to the pointless slaughter.
It is interesting to watch the behavior of the neocons through the war in Iraq. contempt for the troops (“they volunteered” ergo, they are cannon-fodder) and contempt for the US public (“they are too squemish!”, ergo Main Street America is unworthy of their transformational vision).
and all this from the side that claimed that liberals were elitist and out of touch …
#20, Some excellent points I hadn’t thought about.
The trouble is that the US actually expects that if they throw enough billion dollar machines at the enemy, they’ll win. And if wars were decided by adding up the body counts and declaring the side who killed the most people the winner that tactic might work. On that basis the US won in VietNam.
Real life is more complex and its’ problems rarely yield to such simple minded strategies.
The other main problem is that a war quickly won wouldn’t make Bush and his friends quite so ridiculously wealthy as a long drawn out war.
Can we win in Iraq?
Yes we can, if the definition is the elimination of the Islamic Religion or if we are willing to accept Dhimmi status in a Pan-Islamic World.
If you define winning as bringing peace to the Middle East or to where ever Muslim live, you know ie. the United States now that we’ve imported the same desease here, then no we are doomed to continued conflict and war, including Terriorism.
This is the traditional method for Muslims to carry out their conquests and it’s been successful. Now that the West has lost is prejuidices, or it’s lost it will to survice as a culture, there is no reason for the Muslims to stop. If you are one of those that doesn’t believe in good versus evil and think about the world in terms money and power then look at what the Muslims have to gain by taking over. Their dreams of a Pan-Islamic World means also entails the recreation of the Sultans and traditional Muslims countries, if you didn’t get this point then start digesting it now.
Between Globalism and Pan-Islamic the new Dark Ages are fast approaching. It’ll be interesting to see how all the little petty secularist cave in before Islam. They are today in Europe and in the U.S. Education system, where Muslims are allowed to pray in school, unlike Christians. Where Christians children are forced to participate in Muslims weeks and take on Muslim names and pray to Allah like Muslims, where’s the ACLU on this what a bunch of Hypocites and dirty little liars.
#23, traax,
They are today … in the U.S. Education system, where Muslims are allowed to pray in school, unlike Christians. Where Christians children are forced to participate in Muslims weeks and take on Muslim names and pray to Allah like Muslims,
Where? Can you post a link or is this O’Really’s diatribe of the week?
23
‘Can we win in Iraq?
Yes we can, if the definition is the elimination of the Islamic Religion or if we are willing to accept Dhimmi status in a Pan-Islamic World.’
Sweet shades of Auschwitz!!
Imagine if the 24 hour news cycle existed during the Battle of the Somme.
The idiocy would have stopped and there would have been no Hitler.
The power of the truth is so great that it makes people like Traax spill out their whole delusion in defiance of it. But, as is usually true to people betrothed to falsehood, the logic is faulty. If the pan-islamic state is the true aim, by force or otherwise, why is it nearly always converts rather than people who are born into Muslim families in western states who go all explosive on us? Could it be that these individuals had a bone to pick before they converted, and did so as an act of rebellion? Of course such people would gravitate towards radicals. If, on the other hand, you mean that the muslims will simply convert us peaceably, then will we all be Shiites, or Sunnis? And how, for that matter, does this differ from the great commission of Christian faith?
Further, the “infiltrate, undermine, and invade” method of conquest is as old as the sun. The Romans would regularly destabilize neighboring states before taking them by force, as did the Chinese in their Imperial period. Even Spain and Portugal might be said to have used these tactics in taking South America more recently than the last expanding Islamic empire. Would you propose we eliminate all of these people as well, due to the sins of their fathers? After all, Spain has the Basque terrorists, so they are a terrorist harboring state after all. . . .
Your final point is that of a single school district that was being to explicit in their education of the students. It was outrageous, but it was isolated, and the effort to educate people about other’s customs and faiths is far too important to be just abandoned in any reasonable education.
“The next six months are going to be crucial.” — you can’t bet the bank we’re going to hear this, once again, on Wednesday.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! Mr. Bush!
NOT ANOTHER SIX MONTHS!
Fish or cut-bait, Mr. Bush…. NOW! Not six months from now.