Wage War Correctly or Withdraw: State of the American Union
Posted: January 23rd, 2007, 5:09 pm
Wage War Correctly or Withdraw:
The State of the American Union
By Bill Isbell
The United States is great at war. We have the best trained soldiers in the world, the most accurate and deadly weapons systems, the best communications equipment, and the most advanced radar, sonar, monitoring, and intelligence technology in the world. We will most assuredly clobber any enemy army that we face. Far more of them will die.
We suck, however, at occupation. While we are great at attacking, we are terrible at defending the territory we conquer. Not because of any deficiency in our military’s training, equipment, weapons or technology, but because we constantly let political considerations prevent us from implementing the most effective military strategies.
Iraq is the latest example. In a matter of weeks, our armies marched across the desert, crushing all resistance, invaded Baghdad, dismantled the Iraqi government and military, and just for show, helped Iraqis tear down the statute of their “beloved” leader. Which left us facing the inevitable question faced by all winners: Now what do we do?
We, of course, are a democracy, … and apparently, we wish all countries were. But implementing democracy in a war zone, an occupied territory, is simply a bad idea. In the name of self-determination, and because of our Constitutionally driven belief that all citizens should have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the inherent evils of government, we allow Iraqi citizens, in occupied territory, to have machine guns, rifles, and other weapons, … to “defend” their families, business, and other interests. We allow our enemies to freely roam the streets because we are afraid of creating anti-American sentiment that would surely be caused by rounding up and imprisoning all Iraqi citizens that we are not 100% sure are not our enemies. Men and women, no exceptions.
In fact, in typical American foreign policy fashion, we broker “political” deals with faction and militia leaders who are known to be our enemies and openly announce and celebrate their hatred of America, its leaders, culture, and values. Mutqada al-Sadr. If you remember, we created the Taliban. We encouraged, trained and armed their militia to fight the Soviets. And thanks, in large part, to our support, weapons, intelligence, and special forces observers, the Taliban succeeded in keeping the Soviets from invading and occupying Northern Afghanistan. And all was politically correct, until they attacked us.
We allow al-Qaeda and their supporters to attack us from their bases in Pakistan and then retreat back across this “sacred” border. We cannot breach this “political cow.” We allow the Pakistani intelligence service to negotiate agreements with our enemies, thinking that will quell the violence, and forcing us to forgo attack, only to have our enemies break their promises to the detriment of our soldiers and their American families. The Pakistani intelligence service actively tips off al-Qaeda about our military plans, … without any American military consequence. They protect tribal leaders who actively and openly feed and support our enemies, & shelter and hide them to avoid detection.
If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. We could have won the Vietnam war. We lost not due to lack of a superior military, but lack of political will. We refused to cross the border into neighboring Laos to pursue North Vietnamese using Laos as a launching pad to attack United States forces. We failed to adequately round up North Vietnamese sympathizers in the South to the detriment of our forces safety. And, worst of all, instead of invading North Vietnam, we refused to cross the border fearing “political consequences.” China was willing to help support the North Vietnamese, but was not willing to go to war with the United States unless we crossed China’s borders. Our lack of political will cost US lives and ultimately cost us our respect in the world.
We fear that Pakistan’s government will crumble if we do what we should. We fear that our imposed “democratic” prop of a government in Iraq will fail if we withdraw. There will be chaos. Regional instability. The area will devolve into a terrorist training ground from which they will consolidate their evil plans and attack us on American soil. Typically and historically, our fears are misplaced, misguided and far worse than reality. It makes one recall FDR’s infamous words: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
If we withdraw from Iraq, there will be violence in the short-term. Sunnis and Sheites will kill each other, the Kurds will consolidate their hold on Northern Iraq, but eventually there will be a winner, eventually there will be some form of peace. To be sure, there won’t be a regime sympathetic to American interests, but there will be peace. For it is ultimately not in the interest of any government to allow open armed rebellion. Whatever entity takes control, their first and primary mission will be to suppress enemies. In our feeble attempt to impose our noble democratic philosophies on Iraqi citizens, we have forgotten the most basic principles of war and occupation, and establishing control. And here’s the kicker: there will be less Americans dead. Isn’t that our ultimate interest?
If we withdraw, perhaps Iran will invade parts of Iraq, perhaps Syria, maybe Iraq’s borders will change. Perhaps Pakistan’s government will fall or its borders change if tribal leaders are brought to bear for their support of terrorist interests. But so what?
The reality is this: that whatever new regimes emerge, our vision will be clearer. We withdraw, they kill each other, they inevitably consolidate their power, and then, depending on the outcome, if necessary, we re-attack. But this time, we allow no dissent. When we invade a territory, we systematically seize all weapons, all communications, all threats and we round up all citizens who we are not absolutely sure are on our side, and we incarcerate them and only release them once peace, safety, control and their loyalty have been firmly established. We impose marshall law. We kill anyone brandishing a weapon. We quell and expel all political dissent. And only after such measures have been implemented, do we begin to rebuild the country and efforts to foster democracy. The reality is that in the Muslim world, they do not respect any less. They laugh at our current strategy. While brutal in appearance, such complete domination is the only true and historically proven way to win a war and successfully occupy a conquered nation.
If we do not have the political or societal will to be ruthless in war, we should not be waging war. We should withdraw. We should not endanger any more soldier’s lives. The only lesson the current administration has seemed to garner from Vietnam is that they should ban all pictures of flag-draped coffins of US soldiers because such images helped foster anti-war demonstrations and helped undermine support for the war. It is interesting that we seek to impose freedom of the press in Iraq, but quell it by Executive Order on our own home front when it does not serve this administration’s interests. An administration that misled us about the existence of nuclear weapons technology in Iraq, while it continues to ignore real verifiable nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea.
The President’s plan to send 20,000+ more troops to Iraq is a recipe for disaster. There is no plan to win, only a plan to attempt to defend. Putting our troops into 20 or so neighborhood police stations in Baghdad only leaves them more vulnerable to attack in buildings which aren’t properly fortified and largely indefensible from missile weaponry. There will only be more attacks on US forces, more loss of American lives, and likely, even more instability. Until we relinquish ideas of political niceties and become ruthless, we will continue to unnecessarily endanger the lives of our brave American servicemen. We owe it to our troops, their families, and our national interests to wage war correctly.
Or not at all. We should withdraw immediately and re-evaluate our strategy. I’m betting this is not the view President Bush will espouse in his State of the Union address tonight. Perhaps it is time for Americans to rise up and finally exercise true democracy.
“Among educated men, it is well-considered dissent,
and the sincere desire to quell it peaceably,
that propels a society forward towards freedom,
dignity, and respect for all of its citizens.”
Bill Isbell, January 23, 2007
The State of the American Union
By Bill Isbell
The United States is great at war. We have the best trained soldiers in the world, the most accurate and deadly weapons systems, the best communications equipment, and the most advanced radar, sonar, monitoring, and intelligence technology in the world. We will most assuredly clobber any enemy army that we face. Far more of them will die.
We suck, however, at occupation. While we are great at attacking, we are terrible at defending the territory we conquer. Not because of any deficiency in our military’s training, equipment, weapons or technology, but because we constantly let political considerations prevent us from implementing the most effective military strategies.
Iraq is the latest example. In a matter of weeks, our armies marched across the desert, crushing all resistance, invaded Baghdad, dismantled the Iraqi government and military, and just for show, helped Iraqis tear down the statute of their “beloved” leader. Which left us facing the inevitable question faced by all winners: Now what do we do?
We, of course, are a democracy, … and apparently, we wish all countries were. But implementing democracy in a war zone, an occupied territory, is simply a bad idea. In the name of self-determination, and because of our Constitutionally driven belief that all citizens should have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the inherent evils of government, we allow Iraqi citizens, in occupied territory, to have machine guns, rifles, and other weapons, … to “defend” their families, business, and other interests. We allow our enemies to freely roam the streets because we are afraid of creating anti-American sentiment that would surely be caused by rounding up and imprisoning all Iraqi citizens that we are not 100% sure are not our enemies. Men and women, no exceptions.
In fact, in typical American foreign policy fashion, we broker “political” deals with faction and militia leaders who are known to be our enemies and openly announce and celebrate their hatred of America, its leaders, culture, and values. Mutqada al-Sadr. If you remember, we created the Taliban. We encouraged, trained and armed their militia to fight the Soviets. And thanks, in large part, to our support, weapons, intelligence, and special forces observers, the Taliban succeeded in keeping the Soviets from invading and occupying Northern Afghanistan. And all was politically correct, until they attacked us.
We allow al-Qaeda and their supporters to attack us from their bases in Pakistan and then retreat back across this “sacred” border. We cannot breach this “political cow.” We allow the Pakistani intelligence service to negotiate agreements with our enemies, thinking that will quell the violence, and forcing us to forgo attack, only to have our enemies break their promises to the detriment of our soldiers and their American families. The Pakistani intelligence service actively tips off al-Qaeda about our military plans, … without any American military consequence. They protect tribal leaders who actively and openly feed and support our enemies, & shelter and hide them to avoid detection.
If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. We could have won the Vietnam war. We lost not due to lack of a superior military, but lack of political will. We refused to cross the border into neighboring Laos to pursue North Vietnamese using Laos as a launching pad to attack United States forces. We failed to adequately round up North Vietnamese sympathizers in the South to the detriment of our forces safety. And, worst of all, instead of invading North Vietnam, we refused to cross the border fearing “political consequences.” China was willing to help support the North Vietnamese, but was not willing to go to war with the United States unless we crossed China’s borders. Our lack of political will cost US lives and ultimately cost us our respect in the world.
We fear that Pakistan’s government will crumble if we do what we should. We fear that our imposed “democratic” prop of a government in Iraq will fail if we withdraw. There will be chaos. Regional instability. The area will devolve into a terrorist training ground from which they will consolidate their evil plans and attack us on American soil. Typically and historically, our fears are misplaced, misguided and far worse than reality. It makes one recall FDR’s infamous words: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
If we withdraw from Iraq, there will be violence in the short-term. Sunnis and Sheites will kill each other, the Kurds will consolidate their hold on Northern Iraq, but eventually there will be a winner, eventually there will be some form of peace. To be sure, there won’t be a regime sympathetic to American interests, but there will be peace. For it is ultimately not in the interest of any government to allow open armed rebellion. Whatever entity takes control, their first and primary mission will be to suppress enemies. In our feeble attempt to impose our noble democratic philosophies on Iraqi citizens, we have forgotten the most basic principles of war and occupation, and establishing control. And here’s the kicker: there will be less Americans dead. Isn’t that our ultimate interest?
If we withdraw, perhaps Iran will invade parts of Iraq, perhaps Syria, maybe Iraq’s borders will change. Perhaps Pakistan’s government will fall or its borders change if tribal leaders are brought to bear for their support of terrorist interests. But so what?
The reality is this: that whatever new regimes emerge, our vision will be clearer. We withdraw, they kill each other, they inevitably consolidate their power, and then, depending on the outcome, if necessary, we re-attack. But this time, we allow no dissent. When we invade a territory, we systematically seize all weapons, all communications, all threats and we round up all citizens who we are not absolutely sure are on our side, and we incarcerate them and only release them once peace, safety, control and their loyalty have been firmly established. We impose marshall law. We kill anyone brandishing a weapon. We quell and expel all political dissent. And only after such measures have been implemented, do we begin to rebuild the country and efforts to foster democracy. The reality is that in the Muslim world, they do not respect any less. They laugh at our current strategy. While brutal in appearance, such complete domination is the only true and historically proven way to win a war and successfully occupy a conquered nation.
If we do not have the political or societal will to be ruthless in war, we should not be waging war. We should withdraw. We should not endanger any more soldier’s lives. The only lesson the current administration has seemed to garner from Vietnam is that they should ban all pictures of flag-draped coffins of US soldiers because such images helped foster anti-war demonstrations and helped undermine support for the war. It is interesting that we seek to impose freedom of the press in Iraq, but quell it by Executive Order on our own home front when it does not serve this administration’s interests. An administration that misled us about the existence of nuclear weapons technology in Iraq, while it continues to ignore real verifiable nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea.
The President’s plan to send 20,000+ more troops to Iraq is a recipe for disaster. There is no plan to win, only a plan to attempt to defend. Putting our troops into 20 or so neighborhood police stations in Baghdad only leaves them more vulnerable to attack in buildings which aren’t properly fortified and largely indefensible from missile weaponry. There will only be more attacks on US forces, more loss of American lives, and likely, even more instability. Until we relinquish ideas of political niceties and become ruthless, we will continue to unnecessarily endanger the lives of our brave American servicemen. We owe it to our troops, their families, and our national interests to wage war correctly.
Or not at all. We should withdraw immediately and re-evaluate our strategy. I’m betting this is not the view President Bush will espouse in his State of the Union address tonight. Perhaps it is time for Americans to rise up and finally exercise true democracy.
“Among educated men, it is well-considered dissent,
and the sincere desire to quell it peaceably,
that propels a society forward towards freedom,
dignity, and respect for all of its citizens.”
Bill Isbell, January 23, 2007
