kcredden
October 9th, 2005, 05:55 PM
On LiveJournal, there are many friends whom I read, and there is ones I admire, or like to read, etc. But arn't friends. The following is an admired person, who had a really long, but interesting post. With his permission, I've copied and posted it here for you. Thought it'd give everyone a bit of fuel for some tongue wagging. If you want to read the comments (which lead to about 80+!) I can give you the URL in a private mail, upon request.
In the meantime, enjoy!
--
I'm reluctant to spend resources writing this, because I doubt it'll be taken with the seriousness it deserves. And I don't want to confuse earnestness with seriousness. I haven't really discussed or essayed about political or global matters, lately. Mostly because I've been so busy with other things that I don't spend a lot of time getting wrapped up in useless arguments and back-and-forth with the likes of a generation that's lost the ability to extrapolate and think rationally. I'd wasted many hours sparring with people who shun intellectual expression and wrap themselves up in fashion and adopt the opinions of their friends, the media, and their popular culture icons, simply because those opinions are the most prevailent in their lives. This isn't everyone who disagrees with me to be fair, but they meerly compose the vast majority of the noise one can get drawn into contending with.
This isn't a place where I'm going to entertain noise. I'm going to sort of codify my thoughts and views on the ongoing global war against Islamic fascism and the current foreign policy initiatives regarding our more technically capable sworn enemies. This is the first time I've done into depth and detail about this on my journal in a long time, and it'll probably be an equally long time before I go into anything like it again into the future. It takes a lot of time away from my business and pleasures, but I think it'd be at least good for me to give my opinions some structure.
If it's going to upset you, don't follow the cut. If you can't contribute without resorting to condescention and snide insults, don't bother. If you don't like reading a lot, avoid it. Anyone who can't discuss things in detached, rational tones, will be soundly ignored.
I suppose the best place to start is to define the overused and misunderstood word "terrorism". I've never liked the term "war on terrorism" simply because terrorism is a tactic. It's a method of warfare and it's confusing to say you're at war with a method of warfare. To be more accurate, I guess we should interperate it as a war on those who use terrorism against us and our allies. Terrorism is a form of assymetrical warfare that specifically targets non-military personell and infrastructure in order to exact a favorable political or policy change in the enemy government or society. Assymetrical warfare refers to non-standard forms of fighting, often used by organizations and nations that aren't as powerful as their enemies, where a direct confrontation with their conventional military assets would lead to a sure defeat. Western societies are especially vunlerable to terrorism because its policy makers are subject to the whims and opinions of their populations. Most nation's populations aren't educated in political science or history, and don't have the daily time to absorb the intricate details of every particular issue they may cast judgement on. As a result, they're reliant on media outlets that compress information into columns of text and soundbytes, and decide which information to report and omit, arbitrarily coloring the representation of the material (intentional or not). Terrorism takes advantage of this achilles heel in Western societies by cultivating images of popular uprising - accurate or not - and exacerbating the inevitable schisms in popular opinion to attempt to alter the policies of Western governments to those more favorable to the terrorists. They create a perception that a nation's policies are too difficult to enact and the goals of a policy are too costly to acheive, intending to reverse that policy. The difficulty in enacting a policy suddenly becomes a justification for abandoning it, and it divorces the necessity or benefit of enacting a difficult policy from the people's judgement. This results in the political pressure necessary to alter the positions of policy makers in Western societies.
One thing I'm going to avoid doing is to use the opinions of generals and politicians in an effort to validate my views. History is full of disagreements between generals. It's also full of politicians responding to political pressure instead of a concise, reasoned examination of the situation. General McArthur wanted to use atomic weapons on Chinese cities during the Korean War, and was dismissed by his President for his very vocal and public dissent, despite being more qualified and intimate with the conflict in hand. General Montgomery thought General Patton was reckless and risked encirclement and casualties. Everyone's going to find generals and politicians that agree with them, and disagree with them.
Q. Are Islamic terrorists motivated by an opposition to US foreign policy, instead of our decadent Western lifestyle?
This is a simple question, and I guess the simplest answer is "yes and no". Even on the "yes" portion of the answer, it doesn't necessarily indicate that the particular US foreign policy that's hacking off the Islamic terrorists is particularly a bad policy. Osama bin Laden's original greivance with the United States, and his subsequent declaration of war released in a fatwa that was published in 1998, where he cites the US "occupation" of the Arabian peninsula and subsequent attack on another muslim country as reasons for jihad. This is all within the framework of defending Saudi Arabia against possible attack from Sadam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the coalition ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait (a muslim country) in 1991. Also mentioned are the economic sanctions on Iraq imposed after the Gulf War in an attempt to contain Hussein. Also mentioned is the "crusader-Zionist alliance" which is a reference to traditional American support for the state of Israel. Whether the US should support the only country which has managed to carve out something resembling a Western culture with the highest standard of living in the region (for both Jewish and Arab citizens within it), which extends the most rights to its citizens of any government in the region, including to women and minorities, is a debate that could fill volumes. I've studied the history of Israel and Jewish people in Palestine quite a bit, and I can revisit this subject in the future.
I guess the answer to the question is, sure, some policies result in terrorism, but that doesn't mean those policies aren't necessary or reflective of our Western culture. I'm of the mind that I don't feel Western culture is on a level of moral equivalence to the oppressive secular fascist, and theological, mysoginistic cultures of the Arab and Persian Middle East. We shouldn't compromise ourselves for the promise of "leniency" from a violent group of religious zealots and Arab fascists. Terrorism will use current policies as an excuse in an attempt to alter them. Long before Iraq was an excuse, they committed terrorist acts for reasons hardly justified.
Q. Bush lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, yes? There were obviously no WMDs found.
For the "lie" accusation to have merrit, we have to beleive the following:
1,) The President knew that there was nothing of the sort to find there, but he floated it as the most public and prominent reason for the war in Iraq.
2.) He knew that after the war, his big lie would be uncovered on the eve of an election year.
3.) This lie was used publicly and openly without any plans to falsify weapons "finds" in Iraq as a means of covering up the inaccuracy of their assertion.
4.) We have to believe that Saddam did in fact, simply decide to be nice and acquiesce to UN demands and decide not to persue contraband weapons.
5.) During the very long, slow, and public tit-for-tat run up to the invasion in 2003, Iraq couldn't have possibly moved evidence of their weapons programs and/or the weapons themselves to foreign countries.
From http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Biological/3889_3894.html a timeline of inspections:
"25 January 2004
There are suspicions that the Iraq's CBW materials may have been moved to Syria. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." There is no physical evidence to support this contention. (no evidence other than testimony of Iraqi officials - ed.)
— "Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief," The Telegraph (UK), 25 January 2004, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/>."
It's always been my belief that the administration, as well as every other foreign nation, believed there was a clandestine program to circumvent UN restrictions on Iraq's weapons arsenal. Before the war, no foreign intelligence service claimed they didn't. Not France, not China, Russia, Israel, Germany.. nobody. Hussein's administration could have halted the coalition's plans for invasion in 2003 by fully cooperating with weapons inspections, if they indeed, had no weapons.
Security Countil resolution 1441 spells out what the UN thought of Iraq's behavior toward it's sanctions and it's inspection requirement. You can read it here (requires Acrobat Reader).
Given this information, the whole "Bush lied" argument is extraordinarily simple, demonizing, and inaccurate. But it is very easy for someone who is already predisposed to dislikeing the President.
What other possible justification was there for invading Iraq?
This deserves exploration. I've always been disappointed with the Administration's inability to express these matters. I imagine the reason they haven't been on the forefront is that they're very politically volatile and they don't fit well within a news story or a two-minute byte. First of all, it's important to keep Iraq within the context of the larger, global war against Islamic terrorists, which really encompasses an entirely new US foreign policy that includes pre-emption. The global war encompasses three elements: 1.) Domestic law enforcement, including counterintelligence from the FBI and the coordination of law enforcement agencies to stop terror cells that are attempting to, or have already infiltrated the US. 2.) Overseas intelligence operations, including coordinating special military operations with intelligence, conducting intelligence gathering, assassinations, and maintaining foreign spies. And 3.) Conventional military operations, either directly attacking, or indirectly pressuring nations that are possible havens or enablers for terror organizations, or that have the ability and inclination to give terror organizations resources and assistance. Iraq (along with a few other nations nearby) fell under this element of the global war. Iraq was the most obvious choice to allow the US to insert itself into the Middle East militarily, because:
- Iraq was already in violation of UNSC resolutions 10 years and running.
- Iraq was in repeated violation of the cease-fire with coalition forces by firing on coalition airplanes on a weekly basis.
- Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions (with the assistance of many coalition countries, later to be discovered)
- Iraq was a technically proficient country with experience in producing chemical toxins which could be passed to terrorist organizations
- Iraq had a long running program to develop atomic weapons, as well as the technical personell to manage the Mosul nuclear power plant before it was destroyed by Israel. It was suspected that they would resume an atomic weapons program again once sanctions were lifted.
- Iraq's administration was a sworn enemy of the United States and had declared it's desire for revenge.
- Iraq borders six highly strategic Middle Eastern countries (http://www.pnm.my/mtcp/images/maps/Iraq-map.jpg). These include Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. A presence in Iraq arms an American administration with a huge number of options in dealing with these countries.
No other country meets all these criteria. The American presence in Iraq has already resulted in the Saudi Arabian government actively persuing terrorist elements within their own country, and Lybia abandoning it's own admitted WMD programs and forging better ties to the West. Iran is strategically encircled between American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The conclusion was that, along with all these other reasons, the replacement of the Ba'ath party regeme in Iraq, with a government more friendly to the United States (and it's own people) was beneficial for the long-term security of the US.
Hasn't the terrorism in Iraq itself created a quagmire and bogged down the process, turning it into a huge folly?
In order to better understand the terror campaign taking place in Iraq, we have to divide it into two distinct factions. There are the indigenous Nationalist Sunni elements, with largely secular motives, who were the beneficiaries of the Ba'ath party's reign. Then there are the foreign jihadist, religious elements lead by Abu Musab Zarqawi. The goal of the Sunni Nationalists are:
- To disrupt the formation of a federal Iraqi government with a large Shiite representation. Shiites are the majority in Iraq and along with the Kurds, recepients of the Ba'ath party's wrath during Hussein's administration.
- To cause enough US casualties on a regular basis to alter public opinion and cause the US to shorten it's operation, allowing them to enforce their own government.
The goals of the jihadists are:
- To disrupt the formation of an Iraqi government.
- To create the perception of American impotence by causing enough American casualties to trigger a US withdrawal (as in Lebanon and Somalia).
- To create a civil war in Iraq, a situation of relative anarchy to allow a terrorist organization to operate and train with impunity, free from observation and regular raids by US and allied Iraqi forces.
Where the two groups have goals that overlap, there is room for cooperation. The achilles heel of the terrorist movement is the softening stance of Iraqi Sunni elders, leaders in the non-Kurdish Sunni muslim communities that previously boycotted Iraqi elections, but are realizing they are becoming powerless to stop the implimentation of a new Iraqi government. Realizing they'll either have some, or no, representation in the government if they continue, many are electing to take part in the government, abandoning their initial goal and cutting their losses. This would not have been possible if Americans had abandoned the nation early. It's resulted in a rift in the Sunni community that threatens their cooperation with the foreign jihadist elements in their country. It's this rift which has allowed American forces to focus less on policing the cities, and more on launching raids against the jihadist insurgent elements conducting cross-border operations from Syria, which have recently made the news.
To maintain the appearance of a total lack of progress, the terrorists meerly have to set off a bomb that makes the news once in a while. They meerly have to survive and occassionally demonstrate a vile act. They've been turning their attention on civilian targets more and more, deeming them less risky, and in the case of the jihadist elements, attempting to trigger a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. They're not valid comparisons to an armed resistance to an oppressive, occupying dictator, backed by a popular uprising. It's killing people, but it isn't stopping progress. Thankfully.
Isn't it accurate to compare the Iraq insurgency to the Vietnam War?
Let's look at the characteristics of both conflicts:
Vietnam - An invasion by North Vietnam of South Vietnam in effort to unify the country under a communist government after the departure of French colonial forces. North Vietnamese forces supplied a South Vietnamese communist insurgency and occassionally invaded with conventional military forces. North Vietnamese forces were supplied, unhindered, by the United States' competing superpower, the Soviet Union. Most of the Vietnam conflict was riddled with political considerations that hindered the reach of US military power into parts of North Vietnam as well as neighboring countries used to move communist troops and material into South Vietnam. American involvement was concluded by concessions during peace talks between officials of North Vietnam and the United States, securing the gradual US troop withdrawal. American official involvement duration: 1964-73. Total US KIA according to the DoD: 58,177 (monthly average: 539).
Iraq - An insurgency by foreign religious terrorists and inidgenous nationalist Sunnis against the US sponsored reconstruction of a nation after deposing its hostile government. The insurgency doesn't enjoy material support from a world superpower, but is supplied as best as it can be by sympathetic regional players, most notably, Syria. Insurgents are incapable of launching military assaults and confine their actions to suicide bombs, roadside bombs, and the occassional sniper, to preserve personell. US forces are unrestricted in their ability to launch military operations and raids within Iraq. Duration of American involvement: 2003-present. Total US KIA to date: 1,951 (montly average: 65).
To many who oppose the war, I understand that Vietnam represents a template. A template is a way of thinking that's held over, usually from a prevailent experience in your life, or on the news, that made a tremendous impact in the way you view the world. It's natural for a lot of people who have a tendency to oppose wars to see things through the template of Vietnam, and bend every modern conflict they can to fit that template so they can extrapolate the same conclusion: We should leave, it's hopeless. Just like generals often apply an incorrect template to a war, so do people who oppose those wars. I fault the Bush administration for failing to recognize the insurgency for what it was earlier, and I fault the Rumsfeld doctrine for applying the wrong military force necessary for quelling it early on. I fault the press for dwelling on negativity, and I fault the peace activists for their earnest imbellishments, and the zeal with which they jump at the chance to blame their own country for the ills of the world, without applying objective reason to their observations. We often can't help but apply these templates and ways of thinking. The human mind is an associative thinker, and we naturally associate things we see with things we know. It takes an extraordinary effort to view them for their unique, scenario-specific qualities, and make judgements based on their differences, as well as similarities. Lastly, it's not a good thing to meerly tie the success or failure of an operation to the presence of casualties. The sad part of war is that if you're not taking casualties, you're not engaging the enemy. If you launch operations against the enemy, your casualties will increase. By tying the presence of casualties to the determination of an operation's success or failure, you essentially render your military elements unusable.
In the meantime, enjoy!
--
I'm reluctant to spend resources writing this, because I doubt it'll be taken with the seriousness it deserves. And I don't want to confuse earnestness with seriousness. I haven't really discussed or essayed about political or global matters, lately. Mostly because I've been so busy with other things that I don't spend a lot of time getting wrapped up in useless arguments and back-and-forth with the likes of a generation that's lost the ability to extrapolate and think rationally. I'd wasted many hours sparring with people who shun intellectual expression and wrap themselves up in fashion and adopt the opinions of their friends, the media, and their popular culture icons, simply because those opinions are the most prevailent in their lives. This isn't everyone who disagrees with me to be fair, but they meerly compose the vast majority of the noise one can get drawn into contending with.
This isn't a place where I'm going to entertain noise. I'm going to sort of codify my thoughts and views on the ongoing global war against Islamic fascism and the current foreign policy initiatives regarding our more technically capable sworn enemies. This is the first time I've done into depth and detail about this on my journal in a long time, and it'll probably be an equally long time before I go into anything like it again into the future. It takes a lot of time away from my business and pleasures, but I think it'd be at least good for me to give my opinions some structure.
If it's going to upset you, don't follow the cut. If you can't contribute without resorting to condescention and snide insults, don't bother. If you don't like reading a lot, avoid it. Anyone who can't discuss things in detached, rational tones, will be soundly ignored.
I suppose the best place to start is to define the overused and misunderstood word "terrorism". I've never liked the term "war on terrorism" simply because terrorism is a tactic. It's a method of warfare and it's confusing to say you're at war with a method of warfare. To be more accurate, I guess we should interperate it as a war on those who use terrorism against us and our allies. Terrorism is a form of assymetrical warfare that specifically targets non-military personell and infrastructure in order to exact a favorable political or policy change in the enemy government or society. Assymetrical warfare refers to non-standard forms of fighting, often used by organizations and nations that aren't as powerful as their enemies, where a direct confrontation with their conventional military assets would lead to a sure defeat. Western societies are especially vunlerable to terrorism because its policy makers are subject to the whims and opinions of their populations. Most nation's populations aren't educated in political science or history, and don't have the daily time to absorb the intricate details of every particular issue they may cast judgement on. As a result, they're reliant on media outlets that compress information into columns of text and soundbytes, and decide which information to report and omit, arbitrarily coloring the representation of the material (intentional or not). Terrorism takes advantage of this achilles heel in Western societies by cultivating images of popular uprising - accurate or not - and exacerbating the inevitable schisms in popular opinion to attempt to alter the policies of Western governments to those more favorable to the terrorists. They create a perception that a nation's policies are too difficult to enact and the goals of a policy are too costly to acheive, intending to reverse that policy. The difficulty in enacting a policy suddenly becomes a justification for abandoning it, and it divorces the necessity or benefit of enacting a difficult policy from the people's judgement. This results in the political pressure necessary to alter the positions of policy makers in Western societies.
One thing I'm going to avoid doing is to use the opinions of generals and politicians in an effort to validate my views. History is full of disagreements between generals. It's also full of politicians responding to political pressure instead of a concise, reasoned examination of the situation. General McArthur wanted to use atomic weapons on Chinese cities during the Korean War, and was dismissed by his President for his very vocal and public dissent, despite being more qualified and intimate with the conflict in hand. General Montgomery thought General Patton was reckless and risked encirclement and casualties. Everyone's going to find generals and politicians that agree with them, and disagree with them.
Q. Are Islamic terrorists motivated by an opposition to US foreign policy, instead of our decadent Western lifestyle?
This is a simple question, and I guess the simplest answer is "yes and no". Even on the "yes" portion of the answer, it doesn't necessarily indicate that the particular US foreign policy that's hacking off the Islamic terrorists is particularly a bad policy. Osama bin Laden's original greivance with the United States, and his subsequent declaration of war released in a fatwa that was published in 1998, where he cites the US "occupation" of the Arabian peninsula and subsequent attack on another muslim country as reasons for jihad. This is all within the framework of defending Saudi Arabia against possible attack from Sadam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the coalition ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait (a muslim country) in 1991. Also mentioned are the economic sanctions on Iraq imposed after the Gulf War in an attempt to contain Hussein. Also mentioned is the "crusader-Zionist alliance" which is a reference to traditional American support for the state of Israel. Whether the US should support the only country which has managed to carve out something resembling a Western culture with the highest standard of living in the region (for both Jewish and Arab citizens within it), which extends the most rights to its citizens of any government in the region, including to women and minorities, is a debate that could fill volumes. I've studied the history of Israel and Jewish people in Palestine quite a bit, and I can revisit this subject in the future.
I guess the answer to the question is, sure, some policies result in terrorism, but that doesn't mean those policies aren't necessary or reflective of our Western culture. I'm of the mind that I don't feel Western culture is on a level of moral equivalence to the oppressive secular fascist, and theological, mysoginistic cultures of the Arab and Persian Middle East. We shouldn't compromise ourselves for the promise of "leniency" from a violent group of religious zealots and Arab fascists. Terrorism will use current policies as an excuse in an attempt to alter them. Long before Iraq was an excuse, they committed terrorist acts for reasons hardly justified.
Q. Bush lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, yes? There were obviously no WMDs found.
For the "lie" accusation to have merrit, we have to beleive the following:
1,) The President knew that there was nothing of the sort to find there, but he floated it as the most public and prominent reason for the war in Iraq.
2.) He knew that after the war, his big lie would be uncovered on the eve of an election year.
3.) This lie was used publicly and openly without any plans to falsify weapons "finds" in Iraq as a means of covering up the inaccuracy of their assertion.
4.) We have to believe that Saddam did in fact, simply decide to be nice and acquiesce to UN demands and decide not to persue contraband weapons.
5.) During the very long, slow, and public tit-for-tat run up to the invasion in 2003, Iraq couldn't have possibly moved evidence of their weapons programs and/or the weapons themselves to foreign countries.
From http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Biological/3889_3894.html a timeline of inspections:
"25 January 2004
There are suspicions that the Iraq's CBW materials may have been moved to Syria. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." There is no physical evidence to support this contention. (no evidence other than testimony of Iraqi officials - ed.)
— "Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief," The Telegraph (UK), 25 January 2004, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/>."
It's always been my belief that the administration, as well as every other foreign nation, believed there was a clandestine program to circumvent UN restrictions on Iraq's weapons arsenal. Before the war, no foreign intelligence service claimed they didn't. Not France, not China, Russia, Israel, Germany.. nobody. Hussein's administration could have halted the coalition's plans for invasion in 2003 by fully cooperating with weapons inspections, if they indeed, had no weapons.
Security Countil resolution 1441 spells out what the UN thought of Iraq's behavior toward it's sanctions and it's inspection requirement. You can read it here (requires Acrobat Reader).
Given this information, the whole "Bush lied" argument is extraordinarily simple, demonizing, and inaccurate. But it is very easy for someone who is already predisposed to dislikeing the President.
What other possible justification was there for invading Iraq?
This deserves exploration. I've always been disappointed with the Administration's inability to express these matters. I imagine the reason they haven't been on the forefront is that they're very politically volatile and they don't fit well within a news story or a two-minute byte. First of all, it's important to keep Iraq within the context of the larger, global war against Islamic terrorists, which really encompasses an entirely new US foreign policy that includes pre-emption. The global war encompasses three elements: 1.) Domestic law enforcement, including counterintelligence from the FBI and the coordination of law enforcement agencies to stop terror cells that are attempting to, or have already infiltrated the US. 2.) Overseas intelligence operations, including coordinating special military operations with intelligence, conducting intelligence gathering, assassinations, and maintaining foreign spies. And 3.) Conventional military operations, either directly attacking, or indirectly pressuring nations that are possible havens or enablers for terror organizations, or that have the ability and inclination to give terror organizations resources and assistance. Iraq (along with a few other nations nearby) fell under this element of the global war. Iraq was the most obvious choice to allow the US to insert itself into the Middle East militarily, because:
- Iraq was already in violation of UNSC resolutions 10 years and running.
- Iraq was in repeated violation of the cease-fire with coalition forces by firing on coalition airplanes on a weekly basis.
- Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions (with the assistance of many coalition countries, later to be discovered)
- Iraq was a technically proficient country with experience in producing chemical toxins which could be passed to terrorist organizations
- Iraq had a long running program to develop atomic weapons, as well as the technical personell to manage the Mosul nuclear power plant before it was destroyed by Israel. It was suspected that they would resume an atomic weapons program again once sanctions were lifted.
- Iraq's administration was a sworn enemy of the United States and had declared it's desire for revenge.
- Iraq borders six highly strategic Middle Eastern countries (http://www.pnm.my/mtcp/images/maps/Iraq-map.jpg). These include Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. A presence in Iraq arms an American administration with a huge number of options in dealing with these countries.
No other country meets all these criteria. The American presence in Iraq has already resulted in the Saudi Arabian government actively persuing terrorist elements within their own country, and Lybia abandoning it's own admitted WMD programs and forging better ties to the West. Iran is strategically encircled between American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The conclusion was that, along with all these other reasons, the replacement of the Ba'ath party regeme in Iraq, with a government more friendly to the United States (and it's own people) was beneficial for the long-term security of the US.
Hasn't the terrorism in Iraq itself created a quagmire and bogged down the process, turning it into a huge folly?
In order to better understand the terror campaign taking place in Iraq, we have to divide it into two distinct factions. There are the indigenous Nationalist Sunni elements, with largely secular motives, who were the beneficiaries of the Ba'ath party's reign. Then there are the foreign jihadist, religious elements lead by Abu Musab Zarqawi. The goal of the Sunni Nationalists are:
- To disrupt the formation of a federal Iraqi government with a large Shiite representation. Shiites are the majority in Iraq and along with the Kurds, recepients of the Ba'ath party's wrath during Hussein's administration.
- To cause enough US casualties on a regular basis to alter public opinion and cause the US to shorten it's operation, allowing them to enforce their own government.
The goals of the jihadists are:
- To disrupt the formation of an Iraqi government.
- To create the perception of American impotence by causing enough American casualties to trigger a US withdrawal (as in Lebanon and Somalia).
- To create a civil war in Iraq, a situation of relative anarchy to allow a terrorist organization to operate and train with impunity, free from observation and regular raids by US and allied Iraqi forces.
Where the two groups have goals that overlap, there is room for cooperation. The achilles heel of the terrorist movement is the softening stance of Iraqi Sunni elders, leaders in the non-Kurdish Sunni muslim communities that previously boycotted Iraqi elections, but are realizing they are becoming powerless to stop the implimentation of a new Iraqi government. Realizing they'll either have some, or no, representation in the government if they continue, many are electing to take part in the government, abandoning their initial goal and cutting their losses. This would not have been possible if Americans had abandoned the nation early. It's resulted in a rift in the Sunni community that threatens their cooperation with the foreign jihadist elements in their country. It's this rift which has allowed American forces to focus less on policing the cities, and more on launching raids against the jihadist insurgent elements conducting cross-border operations from Syria, which have recently made the news.
To maintain the appearance of a total lack of progress, the terrorists meerly have to set off a bomb that makes the news once in a while. They meerly have to survive and occassionally demonstrate a vile act. They've been turning their attention on civilian targets more and more, deeming them less risky, and in the case of the jihadist elements, attempting to trigger a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. They're not valid comparisons to an armed resistance to an oppressive, occupying dictator, backed by a popular uprising. It's killing people, but it isn't stopping progress. Thankfully.
Isn't it accurate to compare the Iraq insurgency to the Vietnam War?
Let's look at the characteristics of both conflicts:
Vietnam - An invasion by North Vietnam of South Vietnam in effort to unify the country under a communist government after the departure of French colonial forces. North Vietnamese forces supplied a South Vietnamese communist insurgency and occassionally invaded with conventional military forces. North Vietnamese forces were supplied, unhindered, by the United States' competing superpower, the Soviet Union. Most of the Vietnam conflict was riddled with political considerations that hindered the reach of US military power into parts of North Vietnam as well as neighboring countries used to move communist troops and material into South Vietnam. American involvement was concluded by concessions during peace talks between officials of North Vietnam and the United States, securing the gradual US troop withdrawal. American official involvement duration: 1964-73. Total US KIA according to the DoD: 58,177 (monthly average: 539).
Iraq - An insurgency by foreign religious terrorists and inidgenous nationalist Sunnis against the US sponsored reconstruction of a nation after deposing its hostile government. The insurgency doesn't enjoy material support from a world superpower, but is supplied as best as it can be by sympathetic regional players, most notably, Syria. Insurgents are incapable of launching military assaults and confine their actions to suicide bombs, roadside bombs, and the occassional sniper, to preserve personell. US forces are unrestricted in their ability to launch military operations and raids within Iraq. Duration of American involvement: 2003-present. Total US KIA to date: 1,951 (montly average: 65).
To many who oppose the war, I understand that Vietnam represents a template. A template is a way of thinking that's held over, usually from a prevailent experience in your life, or on the news, that made a tremendous impact in the way you view the world. It's natural for a lot of people who have a tendency to oppose wars to see things through the template of Vietnam, and bend every modern conflict they can to fit that template so they can extrapolate the same conclusion: We should leave, it's hopeless. Just like generals often apply an incorrect template to a war, so do people who oppose those wars. I fault the Bush administration for failing to recognize the insurgency for what it was earlier, and I fault the Rumsfeld doctrine for applying the wrong military force necessary for quelling it early on. I fault the press for dwelling on negativity, and I fault the peace activists for their earnest imbellishments, and the zeal with which they jump at the chance to blame their own country for the ills of the world, without applying objective reason to their observations. We often can't help but apply these templates and ways of thinking. The human mind is an associative thinker, and we naturally associate things we see with things we know. It takes an extraordinary effort to view them for their unique, scenario-specific qualities, and make judgements based on their differences, as well as similarities. Lastly, it's not a good thing to meerly tie the success or failure of an operation to the presence of casualties. The sad part of war is that if you're not taking casualties, you're not engaging the enemy. If you launch operations against the enemy, your casualties will increase. By tying the presence of casualties to the determination of an operation's success or failure, you essentially render your military elements unusable.