Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 06/23/2005 View Wed 06/22/2005 View Tue 06/21/2005 View Mon 06/20/2005 View Sun 06/19/2005 View Sat 06/18/2005 View Fri 06/17/2005
1
2005-06-23 Iraq-Jordan
BelmontClub: Who's on First?
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 3dc 2005-06-23 17:10|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Interesting points - this "insurgent" force is trying to subjugate the majority of the country.

They have little territory under their control, no save havens, like other guerilla groups.

They have to control territory to win, not just kill people. Nathan Bedford Forrest formed the KKK in 1866 to continure the fight again the North, but we do not refer to the American Civil War as a "quagmire."

Read the whole thing. As one commentator says, "lucid".
Posted by Bobby 2005-06-23 17:51||   2005-06-23 17:51|| Front Page Top

#2 Gotta put a quote in here; this is too good:

. . . Seizing state power over a definite territory is the explicit objective of nearly every guerilla armed force in the world today: if they can achieve that, they win. If they cannot achieve that and have no realistic prospect of ever achieving that, they are defeated, however long they may continue to exist.

Guerilla leaders themselves know this and invariably attempt to create a state-in-waiting in the course of their campaign based on an armed force, a united front of allies willing to support the guerilla's political objectives and a hard leadership core in firm control of both. They also attempt to create micro-states in the course of insurgency usually styled "base areas" or "liberated zones". Political influence, combat capability and territorial control are the real metrics of a successful guerilla campaign. The argument that mere existence or avoidance of defeat constitutes victory is hogwash: . . . Even Al Qaeda, which some claim to be a creature of pure thought has sought to control territory in Afghanistan and spread its influence through Islamic "charities" while under the control of a central group of militants. It was, in other words, no different from any other classic guerilla organization.

While the Iraqi insurgents still retain the capability to kill significant numbers of people they are almost total losers by the traditional metric of guerilla warfare. First of all, by attacking civilians of every ethnic group and vowing to resubjugate the majority ethnic groups in the country they have at a stroke made creating a national united front against the United States a near impossibility. Second, there is a battle for supremacy among the insurgent leaders. . . .

In that context, the battlefield victories of the US Armed Forces and its coalition allies are not the empty triumphs the press sometimes represents them to be but expressions of the complete strategic bankruptcy of the insurgency. No national united front; no united hard core of leadership; no victorious armed force. This in addition to no territory and increasingly, no money and what is there left? Well there is the ability to kill civilians and to avoid being totally exterminated by the Coalition; but that is not insurgent victory nor even the prospect of victory.

Posted by Mike 2005-06-23 18:14||   2005-06-23 18:14|| Front Page Top

#3 at the risk of being called a Clinton, much depends on what you mean by the word 'win'

what if the Jihadis keep the suicide bombing up for 10 years and the Iraqis lose 10,000 people per year (including, say, 3000 police/guards/soldiers).

who has won in that case

maybe not them buy maybe not us either
Posted by mhw 2005-06-23 18:28||   2005-06-23 18:28|| Front Page Top

#4 We won in Iraq the way we won the war in Viet Nam:
When we left, aprox. 99% of the original Viet Cong had been killed. Hanoi had been forced to import village chiefs and tax collectors from the North.

We won the battle against the Viet Cong. We did not win the conventional battle against the NVA. We lacked the will to keep them from using the Ho Chi Minh Trail and we lacked the will to intervene when they sent dozens of divisions with thousands of cannon in the final offensive.

We are in the same position today. the LOCAL resistance is just about over, but we are doing nothing about all the foreign fighters pouring over the borders, and the Iraqi army is too weak to fight a conventional army.

If we leave before they're ready, we could have another Viet Nam here too.

Al
Posted by Frozen Al">Frozen Al  2005-06-23 18:32||   2005-06-23 18:32|| Front Page Top

#5 It's an Arab Guerilla, we win by default. Inshallah and PBU Mike Martin.
Posted by Shipman 2005-06-23 19:16||   2005-06-23 19:16|| Front Page Top

#6 FA,

I agree, but you have left out the most important parts. The Democrats and MSM have turned anti-war.The one big difference? The American people see through their BS far better than in Viet Nam and remember the consequences of letting the Vietnamese down. It aint going to happen again.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-06-23 19:27||   2005-06-23 19:27|| Front Page Top

#7 Another big difference is that this time, the troops are very, very aware of who's supporting them and who is not-- and why they are not.

I wonder how many of them will be permanently soured on the Democratic Party because of it?
Posted by Dave D. 2005-06-23 20:15||   2005-06-23 20:15|| Front Page Top

#8 ..but we are doing nothing about all the foreign fighters pouring over the borders,..

[...]

The American people see through their BS far better than in Viet Nam and remember the consequences of letting the Vietnamese down. It aint going to happen again.


In a Vietnam comparison then, the Prez needs to ratchet up the pressure on Iran and Syria to a point of pain in a short period of time with less restriction, in the vein of the Vietnam War's Linebacker campaigns, as opposed to the more gradual and hamstrung Rolling Thunder.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-23 20:59||   2005-06-23 20:59|| Front Page Top

#9 I'd go for even briefer "Hammer of Thor" campaigns....about 5 hrs, seems 40X as long and takes out hot pursuit routes - to the Med
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-06-23 21:41||   2005-06-23 21:41|| Front Page Top

#10 To figure out the state of the insurgency, I use what I call the "L.A." standard. I contrast this with what some liberals use, which I call the "Canada" standard. I believe that when Iraq is close to Los Angeles as far as violence, employment and a few other standards, Iraq will have been pacified. However, liberals insist that Iraq must be a mirror image to Canada, or else all is lost, the insurgents have one, and Iraq is a quagmire.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-06-23 22:42||   2005-06-23 22:42|| Front Page Top

00:12 11A5S
00:04 .com
00:00 Zhang Fei
23:48 11A5S
23:48 .com
23:33 Frank G
23:29 .com
23:25 Frank G
23:22 Frank G
23:22 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 Barbara Skolaut
23:16 .com
23:16 Barbara Skolaut
23:14 Barbara Skolaut
23:06 CrazyFool
23:02 Fun Dung Poo
22:59 mmurray821
22:45 Robert Crawford
22:42 Anonymoose
22:41 Frank G
22:37 Seafarious
22:31 Frank G
22:30 Frank G
22:25 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com