S. O. Damocles wrote:
Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz
Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently
deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am
I some politically idealistic and nave young soldier, I am
an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20
years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier
with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and
as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events
occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a
number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump
history and reality.
When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers
to beware of the "political solution." Just when you think
you have the situation on the ground in hand, someone will
come along with a political directive that throws you off
the tracks.
I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional
invasion of Iraq and possibly pulled off the even more
un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation of this
sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist
democracy on these people who seem to have no desire,
understanding or respect for such an institution. True the
possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and
would have required several hundred billion dollars and
even more casualties than we've seen to date but again it
would have been possible, not realistic or necessary but
possible.
Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.
First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla
war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare
it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective
guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists,
criminals and dead-enders."
This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we
can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is
over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately,
this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and
those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the
guerillas.
The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy
its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by
day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla
warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.
So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one
you kill two more rise up to take his place. More
importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision
guided munitions, raids and other acts that create
casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the
support for the guerillas and undermine the support for
yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a
casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the
math.)
Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi
was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We
came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all
ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the
streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in
the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time
there may have actually been support and respect from the
locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces
have turned the formerly friendly into the recently
hostile.
Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in
vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact
that the locals are not only disliking us more and more,
they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly
hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals
are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians
in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that
are devoid of any semblance of reality.
We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a
hostile, aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation.
We are told that they are not upset at the police state we
have created, or at the manner of picking their
representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are
upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and
dead enders in their midst have made them upset, that and
of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media
bias."
Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than
we can create them. This is almost always the case in
guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling
the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of
eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a
"smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and
create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and
anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and
less support for us.
We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over
again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian
casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that
these same casualties create waves of hatred against us.
These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more
recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support
of the guerilla army.
Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much
shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import
everything we need into this place; this costs money and is
dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by
truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those
brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of
the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet
and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.
Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and
are showing every indication of developing a very
sophisticated network for obtaining them. Further, they
have the advantage of the close support of family and
friends and traditional religious networks.
Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his
capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to
fight exactly the wrong war here.
Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are
falling behind.
Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a
remarkable resiliency and adaptability.
Because the current administration is more concerned with
its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to
substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and
crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our
elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our
nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and
treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and
un-Constitutional.
It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional
mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as
myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the
commander in chief himself has sworn.
September 20, 2004
