I think we have reached a point in Iraq where the supposed advantage of the "insurgents," that they are fighting with guerilla tactics, has become their greatest liability.
Despite the endless "quagmire" talk in the Western media, I suggest that it is the insurgency that is stuck in a quagmire. In their own way, they are caught in a Vietnam in reverse.
In Vietnam, the U.S. was fighting a war where it was difficult to find hard targets. Our massive edge in weaponry and equipment offered little advantage because it was so hard to put them to use effectively. Attacks on civilians who were mistaken for targets generated nothing but ill-will towards the Americans.
In Iraq, the insurgency has the exact same problem in reverse. What do they hit without losing the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people? What do they blow up without killing the same people they are purporting to protect?
They do try to target U.S. troops, but they clearly know that is a fight they can never win. So, they target Iraqis, which does nothing but turn most people against them. And every week, the forces protecting the civilians become more and more Iraqi and less and less American.
Iraqis are not stupid. Despite all the bleatings of the Hate America First media, they recognize who is protecting their ability to vote for their own government and who is blowing them up in their streets.
That's not a winning strategy. Sounds like a "quagmire" to me.
Is there a Wahhabi Joan Baez?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I absolutely share your pespective. I'm afraid you and I are in the minority amongst this particular blogging community though.
The most ridiculous moment came the day before the recent Iraqi constitutional referendum. The networks were talking about the "sophistication" of the insurgents because they had caused a blackout.
Here's the problem - the vote happened during daylight and it wasn't impeded at all.
What's so damned sophisticated?
It's hard not to feel like CNN wants the insurgents to win so they can fulfill their personal Vietnam fantasies.
(On Vietnam:) "Attacks on civilians who were mistaken for targets generated nothing but ill-will towards the Americans."
This has also happened in Iraq, and Afghanistan. It's been accidental, sure, but it was in Vietnam as well.
I'm nut sure that I'm arguing for or against any "side" in this, but I do believe the US is caught up in something. There is no formal Iraqi army commanded by the old regime, so by definition anything the insurgents do is "guerilla." I don't think it's an advantage, more of a last resort.
From Wikipedia, the source of all my knowledge:
"(In guerilla wars) civilians are primarily attacked or assassinated as punishment for collaboration. Often such an attack will be officially sanctioned by guerrilla command or tribunal. An exception is in civil wars, where both guerrilla groups and organized armies have been known to commit atrocities against the civilian population."
I submit that Iraq is involved in something more like a civil war. I don't believe the Iraq insurgents are looking for the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people; I think they are sending a message that to support the American effort is to be a target.
The thing is, the insurgents have no time table, nothing to lose, and no reason to stop. We'll never allow another Vietnam to happen (as much as the liberal media may fantasize about this), but that doesn't mean we can't be involved in an unpopular war with unclear goals.
The goal of the insurgents is to spread fear and undermine the rebuilding process.
The goal of the US military is to... well...
When will we know we've won? Anyone?
The only way to 'win' is to stay there for a couple of decades at least. This type of intervention cannot be resolved without long term occupation. To think that it can is to ignore both history and human nature.
The point of my blog was to force my point of view on everybody here, not learn from opposing viewpoints.
I'm deleting all comments that don't agree with me totally by 6 A.M.
Post a Comment