Article

2004-08-17 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-08-17 10:38:37 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 If you count Fallujah, this is actually our third backdown.

Posted by virginian 2004-08-17 11:52:38 AM|| 2004-08-17 11:52:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Spot-on, virginian - it's 3 if Sadr walks.

Ralph Peters hits the nail squarely on the head. Of course he laments the fact that we are actually "playing by the rules" that came into force with the handover. The fact that no one inclined to criticize / villify the US believes this fact is a double-whammy. Our military's hands are tied, we are limiting military action to that which Allawi / Ghawar / et al approve, and we are suffering for it. The situation does suck. But that's our tradition: play by the rules, when almost no one else does, and still win.

Someday we will decide, "Aw fuck it." - and the whole lot of asshats had better pray that day is far, far in the future. The gloves will come off, the rules will match up with reality, and a shitload will get one hell of a quick trip to Parafuckingdise.

Posted by .com 2004-08-17 12:02:37 PM|| 2004-08-17 12:02:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Please, I beg you, don't fall prey to that worst of all militaristic failings: thinking that victories aren't victories unless they are clear, easy to understand, *emotional* victories.

"Ah-hah, we didn't just beat you, we humiliated you, we degraded you and made you eat dirt. Your children and grandchildren will have to live with your shame and degradation and always know that we are better than they are. We kicked your ass and we feel good about it. Nyah-nyah, you are girly men!"

The difference between a militant and a militarist is that a militant wishes to accomplish a goal, to efficiently accomplish a mission; whereas a militarist craves a "glorious struggle" with a winner and a loser--victory and defeat--and handsome uniforms with young men proving their masculinity.

Najaf or Fallujah as case in point. From a militant's point of view, staggering victories, not just of a battle at hand, but as a trap to lure troublemakers throughout the region into a valley of death, killing them in places away from civilians and to the optimum advantage of the US.
The "peace" then surrendered is instead a less violent war against the militant's supporters--the women and children and old men who cheer the militant and curse the US. The militant cannot fight them directly, nor win them over with bribes, so he leaves them to be ruled over by their precious fanatics--let them enjoy the lash for their foolishness. Once they have tasted King Stork, will they cry out for King Log?

But from a militarists point of view, Fallujah and Najaf are crushing defeats. "Kill them all and level their city" goes the cry. Unfortunate that so many women and children had to be slaughtered, but they HAD TO BE. And yes, it IS what they would have expected, wholesale massacre at the hands of their hated enemies. And that is the rub. The militarist has only the tools of flight or fight. If they resist, then kill them. Or to leave in disgust when everyone hates them, when there are no friends left.

So please, we armchair generals all, let us not assume that our military are fools, or that our political leaders are naive, but instead be patient. Remember that what you hear and see is only a slight fraction of the whole truth, and much distorted by the inked wretches of the media.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-08-17 12:34:39 PM|| 2004-08-17 12:34:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Anonymoose--I'm definitely not in the "flatten Fallujah, flatten Najaf" camp, but letting Sadr walk away only to pop up again is absurd policy! His militia may get gutted and splattered all over the walls, but he himself has stood up to the mighty US and survived to be a pain-in-the-ass another day--a moral victory in the eyes of the disgruntled--so the morons rush in to refill the ranks.

Sadr needs to be eliminated before his exploits gain any further notoriety in Iraq. Each time he stands up to the US and walks away his legend grows. If the insurgents see Tater obliterated and succeeded by Spudder, who is subsequently obliterated and succeeded by Tuber, who is subsequently splattered and succeeded by Legume, etc. they will see there is a distinct disadvantage in taking up arms against the Coalition and the new Iraqi government, and they won't have any legendary leader of Robin al-Hood proportions to exhort them. We need to decapitate the movement instead of amputating its limbs.

Posted by Dar 2004-08-17 2:40:42 PM|| 2004-08-17 2:40:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 And how effective is "potato boy"? An important axiom is, if ever possible, to choose your enemies. To the typical Shiite, Sadr is immature, unlovely, arrongant, obnoxious and ugly. To follow him, they first have to hold their noses. But how easy would it be if they followed someone even marginally older, wiser or smarter?
Right now, the dummy is a magnet for the worst of Iraq--individuals who would always be looking for an excuse to attack the US. He is also a money pit for Iran, his masters, wasting both what they give him and the talent they send.
Besides the overt culling we're doing, we also have (according to the Israelis) one or two hundred SOG killers in the area, quietly exterminating anything that speaks Farsi. We are also feverishly working behind the scenes both at the Iraqi congress and supressing the Fallujahns and their ilk up north. AND engaged in hostile action along the Syrian border and the western zone. AND watching the Iranian border. AND keeping an eye on the rebel Kurds fighting the Turks.
So what does one potato mean in the balance of things? Not a whole lot. While to the American public it looks like we're being wimpy, the Iraqi on the street is utterly amazed at our goodness compared to that pig. If you read the Iraqi bloggers, they sound like Americans: why don't they go in and kill that idiot? But that is an ideal. We want to convince the vast majority of Iraqis that first of all, killing should be the LAST resort, and second, that democracy runs circles around anything potato boy or Zarqwari could possibly offer. It is not an easy lesson to teach, but we are teaching it.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-08-17 3:52:37 PM|| 2004-08-17 3:52:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Well said, Dar. Peters hits the nailhead with these passages:

"And then there is the bogus issue of mosques, which our leaders approach with superstition, not sense. While Najafâs Imam Ali shrine truly is a sacred place, the fact is that there are mosques and there are mosques.

Our unwillingness to target even a derelict neighborhood mosque packed with ammunition, weapons and terrorists is not only militarily foolish â itâs based upon the assumption that Muslims are so stupid that they donât know the rules of their own religion. Thatâs nonsense. They know that mosques arenât supposed to be used as bunkers. But theyâre not going to shout it from the rooftops to help us out.

Were we to destroy a series of local mosques used by terrorists throughout Iraq, there would be an initial outcry â which the media would exaggerate. But it would blow over with remarkable speed. The only lasting effect would be to put the terrorists on notice that we wonât let them make the rules any longer."

I've been saying the same thing for some time now and we need to get down to business in a hurry. Hit the Imam Ali shrine with sleep gas and drag out Sadr for a trial so that he can twist in the breeze next to Saddam.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-17 4:01:43 PM|| 2004-08-17 4:01:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Anonymoose--Good points, although I do disagree with you on a couple. Let me also say how thankful I am to have a civil debate with someone after all the BS with Gentle, Antigum, Murat, etc.!

I still feel Sadr should be eliminated, and the sooner the better. Yes, we do want to convince the Iraqis that democracy is their best alternative and we don't go around killing people indiscriminately. I think our excellent military has demonstrated that with their strict adherence to the RoE and judicious, almost surgical application of our overwhelming power.

However, I don't think killing should always be the last resort when you're dealing with someone who has demonstrated they're more than eager to kill and will not work within the system. In that case, making it the first resort could have saved us a lot of trouble by not only ending Sadr's reign of terror early but also discouraging similar aspiring thugs.

Remember, we're not talking about different political parties with opposing views--we're talking about a thug who is killing and terrorizing innocent Iraqis and shooting at our men and women in uniform. When lives are in the balance, it's time to take the gloves off.

Posted by Dar 2004-08-17 4:51:40 PM|| 2004-08-17 4:51:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 While reasonable people can differ on the best tactics in this situation, think of it from the point of view of the Marines. Tater has now had a second opportunity to kill Americans.

Posted by virginian 2004-08-17 6:55:52 PM|| 2004-08-17 6:55:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Dar--I still have to give credit where credit is due on this. I truly believe that there are people in the US military and government who really *can* get a handle on both history and the byzantine scheme. Now ordinarily, I am first to cast aspersions on incompetence in the foreign service, aka the State Department--except *this* time.
A four-star general is the Secretary of State. The implications of this are staggering. This is the man who *directed* General Schwartzkopf in the last war. I cannot imagine a more dangerous diplomat than one skilled in the arts of war and realpolitik.
He is confident enough that he doesn't even visit Baghdad, and I would hazard to guess that his subordinates are managed much like a command staff. Screwing up is not optional, and the spider web covers the entire world.
I have also seen monumental changes taking place on the world stage that are so carefully managed that they almost don't make the news radar. For example, the creation of a US military Iraq *command*, a peer of CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM, etc. To create such a command implies that Iraq is to become the new Germany as far as the US military is concerned. And yet, it was done so smoothly that it barely made a ripple. Astounding.
Right now, Najaf and Fallujah have probably been "gamed" into unimportance, along with a thousand other potential trouble situations, and the *real* attention is being paid to such things as the Iranian nuclear problem.
This does not mean that Najaf and Fallujah are being ignored, however. I can imagine enormous yet invisible assets being directed to insure that the outcome is not just good, but the best possible, by dozens of criteria.
Remember when Bush, Sr. referred to "linkage" in international affairs. It was rumored that the Chinese were terrified of Sr., as they believed he knew more about the Chinese "way" than they did themselves. They saw *him* as "inscrutable."
I also suspect it runs in the family.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-08-17 7:00:00 PM|| 2004-08-17 7:00:00 PM|| Front Page Top

19:46 Emarati
13:57 .com
13:51 Bulldog
13:47 .com
13:43 Bulldog
13:32 Salahuddin
13:19 Bulldog
13:12 Bulldog
13:02 Salahuddin
10:36 Howard UK
10:34 Robert Crawford
10:31 Salahuddin
09:06 Trolling for Allan
09:05 Howard UK
09:02 Salahuddin
08:48 Frank G
08:37 Howard UK
08:34 Salahuddin
04:26 GreatestJeneration
02:36 Anonymous6110
14:35 danking70
14:27 True German Ally
14:26 Anonymous6104
13:37 Bulldog