Fighting Like Gentlemen
Think of the dumb ways that wars used to be fought. In both the Revolutionary and even the Civil War, soldiers would simply form lines opposite each other, stand there and fire point blank into each other’s ranks. They stood like idiots (of course they weren’t, it was just the way things were done) opposite each other in the open, not even crouching, not even hiding. Soldiers would fall, and the last ones standing were the winners. They fought like gentlemen. How stupid! We finally did learn the lessons of war from the Native Americans, who did the ungentlemanly thing of hiding behind trees.Insurgencies
Insurgents are causing problems all over the world, from the Philippines to Spain to Iraq. They blend in with the population, attack, then disappear back into anonymity. Guerilla warfare succeeded in the past in many places, as in Cuba and Vietnam.Insurgencies, if they are large enough, and supported by enough of the populace, usually eventually win. There is no way you can beat them, short of extermination.
The Iraqi Insurgency and Vietnam
Presently, the U.S. is facing a powerful insurgency in Iraq. It is a useless endeavor for us unless the Iraqis begin to fight for their country. Too many Iraqis, evidently, are supporting the insurgency. It is a recipe for our failure. Unfortunately, and I’ve hesitated to say this, the situation is becoming similar to Vietnam.First, because of the stubborn insurgency, and second, because of America’s unwillingness to fight to win, due to political correctness and/or fear of political ramifications.
How We Can Win in Iraq
For us to win in Iraq, I believe, we have only two choices. We fight to win, or we become the insurgents.click to show/hide the rest of the post
The option I favor is to fight to win. This would mean being ruthless, as we were in WWII —ala Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We accepted that war is hell and innocents die, and got it over with. Then, we won, relatively fast, ultimately saving lives. Fighting to win in Iraq would mean taking the gloves off. This means annihilating Iraqi villages that harbor insurgents, and so on. Bush and company don’t seem to have the cajones, nor the leadership skills to wage such a war. They are afraid of world and voter opinion, American newspapers and leftists. Where is Harry Truman when we need him?
The second alternative is my idea. I’ve not heard it expressed anywhere. It’s out of the box thinking:
We Become the Insurgents
Now, the terrorists, sometimes called insurgents by the anti-American left, which includes CNN and the New York Times, have taken the concept of “ungentlemanly warfare” to its ultimate conclusion. They don’t just blend in with the population; they don’t just hide behind trees anymore; they hide behind women and children.I think the only way to beat them is at their own game. Not by becoming terrorists, not by hiding behind women and children—but by becoming guerillas.
Again, I don’t mean terrorists. What I mean is, we retreat to safety, somewhere in the region. We watch. When we see a terrorist training camp being built, we hit it with overwhelming force, then retreat back to our safety. When we see nuclear weapons being built, we attack, destroy them, and then retreat. The same goes for warplanes, tanks, you name it. In and out. We attack their shipping, their airports, and their infrastructure. We develop a network of spies and blend in with the population.
Attack and retreat. Attack and retreat. We do not become targets. We let them be the targets.
We stop all this guerilla activity when they rid themselves of their extremists.
The Most Powerful Insurgency in History
I think it’s a brilliant idea. We keep our boys out of harm’s way, but ready to inflict maximum damage at a moment’s notice. We don’t have our boys hanging around like sitting ducks for snipers and IEDs. We don’t continue in our modern day equivalent of standing opposite the enemy and firing point blank.Think of it. We could create the most powerful insurgency in the history of mankind. I believe that we would eventually be a popular insurgency too. We’d finally be perceived as winners in the region, and we’d be still be fighting for a noble cause as we are now. We’d become the model for insurgencies instead of the whipping boy of them.
Fight to Win, or Become the Insurgents
I’m serious. I think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the American generals ought to take my advice on this one. Bush and generals, are you listening? Step up and become the victors. Either fight to win, or become the insurgents!Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
click to hide most of this post
18 comments:
I have to say, you've gotten quite creative with this one, though I have a hard time believing it would work in the slightest bit. But before I go on my rebuttal, I feel the need to call you out on something:
"Now, the terrorists, sometimes called insurgents by the anti-American left, which includes CNN and the New York Times, have taken the concept of “ungentlemanly warfare” to its ultimate conclusion. "
Tom-A-to- To-MAH-to. What difference does it make? Using your source wikipedia:
"An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, revolt, or insurrection against an established civil or political authority."
Technically, they ARE "insurgents" because the US invaded IRAQ and set itself up as the ruling government! Those fighting against the established authority are (ahem) insurgents!
Yet, the insurgents are ALSO terrorists because many of the attacks are aimed at civilians as well as the military and government. How does it make someone part of the "anti-American left" for using one term versus the other? Hell, your boys at Fox"news" use "insurgent" too! I suppose they're becoming another biased liberal network too....
Now, I have heard the idea of escalating the devastation on Iraq before- coincidently from another conservative, pro war Republican who was actually in Iraq with the Army until about 6 months ago. He says we first went in kickin ass and taking names, but have since become soft and have allowed the IN-SUR-GEN-CY to get a foothold that the US and it's ally (yes, ALLY) can't fight against effectively. But, here's a few reasons why your plan to destroy Fallujah, Baghdad, Samarra, Basra and the villages in between wouldn't work:
a. The word "Vietnam" has been in the backs of people's minds ever since the original focus of the Iraq war was lost/forgotten/removed/renamed. Eradicating the villages of innocent, unarmed civilians where terrorists/insurgents are residing brings back the memories of dead women with sacks of grain and napalmed children running naked down roads, giving further creedence to the notion that your beloved president is fucking up just like Nixon did- in Vietnam. Did you stop to think about the fact that most civilians in Iraq are helpless against armed militias and insurgents? Ratting out the whereabouts of the terrorists is probably a death sentence and using your logic, their options would essentially be dying from American bombs on their homes or dying from the Kalishnakovs in the hands of the insurgents. I know, you'll say, "They need to be willing to die to save their country" and had they rose up to battle Saddam and his henchmen, I'd agree with you, but that didn't happen and the choice to topple the government wasn't theirs.
b. World opinion DOES matter, to Bush, to me, and to you (you've said so before...) It establishes a base for global support and lack
of that support erodes national credibility. "Taking the gloves off" at the expense of innocent civilians is not only wrong, it's idiotic and the collateral damage caused by doing so would further make the cause that is Iraq less popular. How can you justify fighting a war like that when the Janjaweed are doing the same in Darfur, or the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria, or the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia? Are we no better than them? I hope we are. What they SHOULD have done (as I mentioned before in my Bush is an Idiot speech) is went in with a MASSIVE force to dominate the opposition, lessen civilian casualties and made it difficult for an insurgency to START (e.g. 1991) The plan (2003) was to use a light/quick force which lacked the sizable manpower to get the job done effectively. It seems a bit too late now to "fight to win" when morale within the military is low, domestic and international support for the war is all but faded (even your disapproval is starting to show my man), and the insurgents know that it's just a matter of time. Blame ya boys Bush, Dick and Runny, I mean Rummy for that one.
c. Iraq ain't Germany or Japan, Saddam ain't Hitler or Hirohito and there's no need to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere! Germany was a REAL threat to occupy the entire European continent (except Russia), Japan a REAL threat to occupy the whole of SE Asia. Saddam had a rock and a slingshot compared to Hitler's vast capabilities and Japan's technological advances. Saddam's army crumpled upon the arrival of US forces and the insugents aren't aiming to invade Iran or Kuwait so they aren't a threat to anyone else in the area! Besides, Bush and his crew planned on walking right through Baghdad with little or no resistance, (remember, "Mission Accomplished" 2 years ago?) They've got BIG cojones to make that assumption, and unfortunately groups of small time citizens have become big time insurgents that have been kicking your American leadership in the balls ever since.
d. WE can't become guerillas in Iraq. Saudis can, Yemenis can, Kuwaitis can, hell even ISRAELIS can- but Americans? Nope. The reason is simple, WE don't know enough about Arab culture, geography or language to mount a successful quasi-insurgency. Blame cuts in funding for foreign language education, blame American self interest, blame American ignorance about places OTHER than Hollywood California. Guerilla warfare is VERY successful (most guerilla conflicts ending at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield by the way), and unfortunately it's working against the US.
e. Pick up a world map and take a good look at the Middle East and Central Asia. What "safe" Muslim country would allow us to use their bases to launch attacks on other Muslim countries? Our association with the Saudis is purely economic, we had to bribe Uzbekistan to let us squat there while looking for Osama (wait, are we still looking for Osama???) Take another good look at that map and tell me what country our boys would be "safe" in to conduct guerilla activities to combat the insurgency? Cause it defnintely ain't Iraq....
Honestly, it's actually a good idea to fight fire with fire, but it's completely flawed logistically.
To the previous poster, that is if Rock doesn't delete it, Nixon did not Fuck up Vietnam. The democrat Johnson did. Nixon is the one that got us out of Vietnam, and with us saving a little face in the process. Check you history. Also, we do have global support. There are 27 non-US nations maintaining responsibility over the major areas of Iraq http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm I agree that we should have gone in with a massive force and never allowed the insurgency to get off the ground, but we didn't because of the idiot left, so now we are in the situation we are in right now. Fact is, we are in Iraq, and we can't leave until resolution is met. So, even though it's getting late, we can still fight to win. . . which will be difficult, but cutting and running is definitely not the answer.
OK Rock, you fired me up agian, PAZ did also but I see no way to respond that would change what he believes even though I would like to have his ability on the team. Most of the people he agrees with cannot express themselves as he can, usually they just insult you and then you stop listining, ie Air America.
The problem that Paz did not adress is that about 5000 Americans died when the WTC came down. It was an act of war, no less than attack on Pearl Harbor. What would it take to get Paz to stand the post?
Your comparison to Vietnam brings me into the conversation, being a Vietnam veteran I have strong feelings for the Vietnamese people. When we cut and ran the people that had joined the fight with us or supported us were left to face years of reeducation camps, slave labor camps, or death. For that I sill feel the heart ache.
Our military is well equipped to kill people and break things. Meals on wheels is not part of the training, many on the left believe that should be their mission.
When I look at the rules of engagement that our troops have today, my mind goes back to Hue City, Tet 1968, the VC and NVA were in the Citadel inflecting many causalities on our troops who could not return fire. It took about a week for the commander to get the authority to blow a hole in the wall for access to the grounds. When we went in the enemy had left. Today they cannot fire on a religious sites or cemeteries. If I am the enemy, I will be behind a headstone waiting for you. What would Patton do with these rules, I know, he would kill people and break things.
Why should the Iraqi people support our effort in their country?
We are still looking across the 38th parallel in Korea and they took the Peublo, we ran from Vietnam, we ran from Somalia, 17 dead 30 some wonded on the USS Cole, and we did nothing.... why should the Iraqi people join the battle with us, when we cut and run they will die.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND GIVE THEM WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO WIN.
Paz, though you are impassioned and I appreciate that, maybe we could do without some of the language. Otherwise, I disagree with you on everything. You may be right and I wrong, but I think that fighting politically correct wars is futile. It's exactly like the Americans and British, as I said, standing opposite each other in the Revolutionary War and firing point blank. It's worse than useless.
The citizens are afraid of the terrorists, true. Even more reason to be tough. Make them more afraid of us. You call them innocent. They aren't. You get the government you deserve, and they've had tyrants for years.
How do you break the mafia's hold on a territory, or a gang, or a terrorist? I guarantee you don't do it by "negotiating," as you on the left want to do. You make the neighborhood intolerable for them. You send the Mafioso’s to jail, arrest the gangs, and kill the terrorists. People cannot tolerate murderers in their midst. If they do, they are moral cowards. Freedom and liberty are not free. You must spill your blood to earn it. If you're not willing to do that, what good is life?
You're wrong too about the U.S. not being able to find a base from which to operate in the Middle East. We've got bases all over the place. Plus, we could build one in the middle of Iraq, away from all populations, and make it secure, snug as a bug in a rug.
My method would work, either one of them, but you'd rather blame Bush, and he's fighting the war the way a Democrat would, except you guys would leave. That's an option too. But what would be the consequences?
You guys on the left are full of anger and rage, but at what? At all the good guys, like Bush and me and Republicans. Your anger is misplaced. You guys live in an upside down world.
Rock
Douglas, I agree with much of what you say. I think, though, that we can fight the war more creatively, and we don't have to be sitting duck targets the way we are now.
Rock
Tom,
After careful reading of your post I agree that an infiltration would work, not by American's but Iraqi's. It would work for a while until they adjusted but it would diminish their thinking that they are winning against our current tactics.
Fine, Tom, but I think that we can use our forces in ways undreamed of. We imagine the only way you can fight a war is to go in and shoot up the place. That works for awhile, but then the insurgency starts and this shoot-em-up strategy no longer works.
We can beat them at their own game. Why not? As I said, attack and retreat. You know who used that tactic and won with it, against overwhelming odds? George Washington. He did all right, wouldn't you agree?
Rock
By the way, Paz. I don't necessarily advocate killing civilians. You can level their village without killing a soul. Would this make us hated? War is not a popularity contest. Are we loved now?
How did the Japanese and Germans feel about us after we bombed their cities into dust? They became democracies and allies of the U.S. Funny how that works, huh Paz?
Rock
Charlie, I accepted your comments, but now I don't see them. I honestly don't know what happened with them. Oh, maybe you posted them in the Archive site? I'll look, but I don't see them here. I apologize for them being missing if they are. I swear I clicked Publish.
If I can't find them, maybe you could post them again? We'll see.
Rock
Arrow up my friend.
Charlie, now I see them. Good. I agree with all your statements, every one of them. Again, though, I think we can fight intelligently against insurgencies. It just requires new tactics. As I said, George Washington was able to do this against the British. He crossed the Delaware, attacked in the middle of the night, and then retreated. Exactly the strategy I suggest.
Again, I respect your opinions and service to our country, and I agree with you that we fight this war with one arm tied behind our backs.
Rock
Good night, its 1:30 in Florida
Paz, you've got me stirred up. Let's reverse things. What if we in America were subjected to a tyrant who was torturing us, raping our women, and murdering our children. Then, some kind country, let's call it Iraq, which was a democracy, invaded America and threw out our tyrant. How would we react?
I'd throw flowers at their feet! And if there were people in my neighborhood who were killing these Iraqi saviors of mine, I'd turn them in, at my own peril. I'd even take up arms against them.
What would you do? Shut up? Close a blind eye? Tolerate the murderers to continue murdering? I hope not.
So, why do the Iraqis do these things? Why aren't they grateful the way that you and I would be? Something is wrong with this picture, Paz.
Rock
Wow Rock, be positive dude, get a few million people to read you blog and the world would change.
Tom,
Rock. Winning the war is not the problem. We could wipe it clean. But the objective was to make Iraq a democracy, Cant do that by "clear cutting".
We did it with Japan and Germany and it worked just fine. I lived in the Middle East for 10 years. My observation is that the Arab world respects resolve. It does not respect America because, rightly or wrongly, it perceives us as being weak. Liberals think the Muslims hate us because we're doing bad things to Muslims. It's the opposite. They hate us because they have contempt for us. For some reason, they respect the Osama's and the Saddam's more than they respect the Bush's. Even George Bush, who we think of as being tough on terror, they think of as relatively timid.
I don't believe in vendettas, as they can go on for centuries. I do believe, though, in overwhelming force, as does Colin Powell and some others. Never fight a war you aren't willing to lose. Never fight a war to be popular. Innocents get killed in war, unfortunately.
I'll add another dictum for a democracy. If you're going to fight a war in a democracy, make it as close to a blitzkrieg as possible. Get in and get out. The public wearies of war too soon, and then you lose their support. My strategy avoids this.
I don't think it's ever smart to keep our troops in the middle of hostiles unprotected, standing guard, behaving like peacekeepers when in reality they're plopped in the middle of a war zone. If you're in a war zone, fight a war, and win. Let the Iraqi's be the peacekeepers.
Now I believe the objective is less grand than establishing democracy, its now to train them to enforce their own constitution and get out which I support.
Yes, I agree, except that it is their choice, not ours. If they want tyrants and dictators, if that's what makes them feel comfortable and secure, they will choose that. Saddam was a strongman. He kept the violence down by being more violent than anyone. We keep our violence down in America by the rule of law. Our system is better, but Iraqis must see that for themselves. I hope they do, but this can't be imposed.
While I thinks its mans nature to live free, the underpinnings of Arab Muslim nations is educating the children to hate non-Muslims. It would have been more effective and far cheaper to kill about 250 Imams with snipers before the war. Their like Tostitos, "we'll make more".
I agree. A war against the leaders would be much like the strategy I've proposed. This is what the Israelis do. It doesn't necessarily work in the long run, but it keeps down the violence.
I actually think one way of defeating the "bad guys" in our day and age, believe it or not, is by blogging. Yes, I'm serious. We are losing the propaganda war in the world with the untruths being fostered by liberal media. Blogs can counteract this. Terrorists, for example, are quite computer literate, and they read a lot on the Internet. They will be the first ones to try and get Americans to vote Democratic. We bloggers who tell the truth might not win always, but we do have an effect.
People like you and I do get read, and do get passed on, and there is a ripple effect. The effect makes its way up, to the parties, and to the media eventually.
So, read this generals, fight this war more creatively. We are geniuses at fighting conventional war now. We can become geniuses at fighting unconventional war too.
Rock
Charlie,
Wow Rock, be positive dude, get a few million people to read you blog and the world would change.
Thank you Charlie. In case you haven't noticed, that's the plan. Traffic has been growing exponentially on this blog, and I think it's because I do try to tell the truth. Plus, people like you help clarify to the world what reasonable people are thinking. So, I salute you too for getting the message out.
If you ever want to write a post, you can be a guest-blogger for me anyday.
Rock
I see a post that was "removed by the author." Did I do that? Not on purpose. I've not deleted any post since igor stopped sending his profanities and inanities.
Anyway, let me know.
Sorry I got into this one late in the game, first, I want to thank Paz for his passion and ability to present a debate. Rock, of course, you are a credit for what you are doing here.
Now, as a member of the Armed Forces, and let me say I'm a "citizen soldier", there is no problem with morale in the military. Those that are speaking out are typically those who got in for something other than a true calling to defend this country, ie money for college, just lost and looking for an identification, and got out as soon as the other part of the agreement came to be fulfilled. Charlie, thank you for your service to this country. I wish you had the support we feel now when you were there. Are there things I would try differently if I was in charge. Of course!! But then, I think that's called arm chaired quarterbacking. Everything is easier is you know what the results were first. How many times did you stick your hand in the fire before you found out it was hot? Now that you know, would you do it the same way again? NO. But we will follow our orders out to the best of our ability. Thanks to everyone.
Sgt Dub,
Sorry I got into this one late in the game, first, I want to thank Paz for his passion and ability to present a debate. Rock, of course, you are a credit for what you are doing here.
Kudos to Paz from us all, and thanks for your kind words for me.
Now, as a member of the Armed Forces, and let me say I'm a "citizen soldier", there is no problem with morale in the military.
That's wonderful to hear. It should be on all the news.
Charlie, thank you for your service to this country. I wish you had the support we feel now when you were there.
Ditto from me too, Charlie.
Are there things I would try differently if I was in charge. Of course!! But then, I think that's called arm chaired quarterbacking.
Yeah, how right you are. I'm guilty of it myself, but I'll try to keep a lid on it. I'm a student of military history, but only a student. I've never served. Still, I know that war can be just pure chaos. If you can think in those circumstances and keep your wits about you, you can probably handle just about anything. We admire you and support you.
But we will follow our orders out to the best of our ability. Thanks to everyone.
You're a good soldier, Sgt Dub, and you're welcome. Thanks again to you and your buddies.
I hope we hear from you a lot. Keep us informed.
Rock
Post a Comment