Thursday, November 11, 2004

In Mosul Insurgents attacked the Iraqi city of Mosul today.  At least five police stations were overrun and looted for weapons,  ammunition and body armor.  They have attacked in numerous parts of the Sunni Triangle. "Violence surged through the so-called Sunni triangle in central Iraq, with ambushes, bombings and mortar attacks jolting Tikrit, Kirkuk, Hawija, Samarra and the provincial capital of Ramadi, 30 miles west of Falluja, which is 35 miles west of Baghdad.",  This from an article by Edward Wong of the NYTimes. The response of the Iraqi government was to impose a curfew on selected cities, presumably cities where they think they can enforce it. In terms of the American need to create order in Iraq and the conditions under which elections can be held,  it appears we are making no progress.  In a few days we will declare victory in Fallujah.  We may even pull out leaving Iraqi forces to guard the city.  It is unknown if they will be able to defend against insurgent attacks. It is probable the insurgents will not attack them directly, but continue with their pattern of ambushes, roadside bombings and suicide attacks.  It does not matter if the Iraqis hold the city. The insurgents will continue to attack places that are not adequately defended. I saw pictures of Marines blowing up weapons caches. The insurgents, given their attacks of today don't appear to be running out of weapons and ammunition.  They have enriched themselves at the expense of the Iraqi police. Our strategy in Iraq is one of repeated failure. We are losing the war.  We need new leadership with a new strategy for winning.  Time is running out.  The timetable of our own creation is dominated by the elections.  If the elections cannot be held in reasonable calm, then we will have failed, perhaps irrevocably. Contemplate the consequences of failure in Iraq, given the commitment we have made, is frightening. We may not be considered a superpower any longer. The world will realize that we only dominate in certain situations and we will have taught our enemies how to defeat us.  There the weakness and confusion we are demonstrating will invite attack. Melvyn Polatchek   9:44:10 PM    comment []

In Response to In Fallujah Below is a comment from Andrew Clarke on my article of Friday 11/9/04 title In Fallujah.  All comments are appreciated and will be published with the author's permission. (Mel) In your posting from November 9, 2004, you wrote: "I have never been in combat and I can't imagine the discipline and courage it takes to do their job." Stop there. Any further discussion that you engage in regarding military tactics, methods and training for battle and the attendant strategies are outside of your experience and expertise. They also have little to do with politics. The war itself is all about politics, but the methods and strategies to carry it out are not. There are clearly political implications and repercussions that come out of military operations, but you would do well to separate these realities from a discussion on the strategies and methods employed to fight a battle or a war. This superimposed binding of the political agendas to execution of military operations is the very thing that limits our effectiveness. Is it a possibility that the advanced notice of an offensive on Fallujah was intentional? Is it a possibility that this is intended to minimize civilian risk/casualty and therefore minimize (not avoid, but minimize) the severity of the Iraqi public response? Is it possible that the main objective is to gain control of the city by any means, even if that means that many of the insurgents actually scatter and leave the city? Is it possible that the capture and elimination of the insurgents themselves is a secondary objective that we always knew would be largely unsuccessful? Is it possible that, while not the preferred result, the scattering of the insurgency is as effective as the corralling of large numbers of insurgents? Is it possible that the US Military will suffer fewer casualties and injuries from a reduced insurgent force? The answer is yes. All these things are possibilities and may, in fact, have always been part of the plan with respect to Fallujah. Fewer insurgents mean a less bloody offensive. Once the city is occupied, it will be simpler to defend and protect against the massing of forces that had clearly developed and was threatening and taking the lives of Iraqis and US Military on a slow and steady basis. The condition in Fallujah was also allowing for more cohesive planning and communications between insurgent forces. Undoubtedly, this would be a huge roadblock to holding any sort of “democratic” elections. Your final comment: “The insurgents are melting away as they always do. We do not know how to stop them”, is not accurate. They are not melting away. They are scattering and they will regroup and continue on their quest. This quest will last through our lifetime and will be carried out all around the world. Time will tell if you are correct about not knowing how to stop them. I believe that there is a plan in place that is being executed to the best of our ability. To “stop them” is a difficult undertaking. It is particularly difficult under such adverse conditions: new terrain, hostile climate, ignorance of language, ignorance of culture and an inability to “blend in” and compete on the same terms with the enemy. What we see as the modern trend in warfare is the “street fighting” scenario. Law enforcement has been struggling with this in our big cities for a century, but it has gotten more difficult in the last few decades. Our military trains for this. Nobody has the answer or the formula to “stop” an opponent on these terms. The best approach is to secure an area and then maintain a stabilizing presence. Once the insurgency is scattered, they are less effective due to major logistical and communication constraints. As hotspots become apparent, they can be dealt with more precisely and persistent security enforcement will be required to keep a critical mass from developing again. What do you think that any government does to combat such a terrorist approach? The oldest military strategy in the book- divide and conquer. Our biggest problem, in my view, is how to actually get an effective enforcement body in place and functioning that is comprised of and operated by Iraqis themselves. No one should be foolish enough to believe that any single move that is made right now in Iraq is without downside or negative repercussion. Any single move is unquestionably not an answer or a solution. The question is, as with our own political system, which course of action or choice will result in the least damage. Where is the path that leads to lesser evil? That is “lesser” evil, not “no evil”, let alone “good”. There is still an abundance of evil on both sides. There has always been. War is fundamentally evil and has been a reality of human existence for all of recorded history. You may not like it (I certainly do not), but you cannot deny the truth of it. Your recent postings about the technical and strategic merits of the Fallujah offensive sounds like more like an attempt to focus on any war-related event and find fault in it any way you can than an educated, well-founded argument about the military strategy involved with the offensive. And to answer two of your questions (I am not sure if they were hypothetical or not): First, the American leadership will learn to fight this kind of battle one at a time and with some degree of failure. This is how all creatures learn (some animals actually die before the lesson is learned). Second, we will never again have one battle where we actually “get the bad guy”. There will always be required numerous battles on many fronts. The notion of the “bad guy” is no longer valid. It is an old concept that has been replaced by the many men, women and children who are deemed to be bad at a certain point in time. In fact, we may very well be the “bad guy”, so we should hope that nobody “gets” him!! My final note is a statement of my own opinion based upon intuition and limited international and cross-cultural experience. Your statement that “…their [the insurgent’s] tactic is less military than political” is a good example of the misunderstanding our culture has of other, non-western cultures. In theory, we have separation in these matters. At least we attempt to distinguish between military and political tactics (in practice, it is difficult to find clear separation). What we, as Americans, fail to recognize is that politics, military force and religion are all just integral parts of life and survival for the so-called insurgents. They do not make a distinction. If they claim to, it is only on the highest levels and is often presented as an appeasement to Western governments in return for support or aid. This cultural misunderstanding will be most evident when a “democratic” election is held in Iraq and it either does not work or is fraught with controversy. We will seem to be puzzled at why this is so hard. Don’t these people see that democracy is the best way for them (or anyone)? Even if it were so, democratic process has never been a part of most cultures throughout the world. Families have not been operated based upon democracy. Communities have not been operated based upon democracy. Governments have not been operated based upon democracy. Why on earth would we presume that this would work in a part of the world that has NEVER embraced anything democratic? We are fooling ourselves and have established these ethno-centric conditions for failure in every possible way. What we are carrying out now is no more than modern imperialism. We are military missionaries (crusaders?) pushing “Democracy” and “Freedom” instead of Christianity. At least this is the cloak that is worn to disguise the real objective in Iraq (Oil? Establishment of power base? Scapegoat for 9/11? Simple revenge?). Seems pretty thin to me. Andrew Clarke • 11/10/04; 12:46:15 PM # 4:47:19 PM    comment []

Part Two - How to win Having described in part one (http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/11/05.html) how poorly our efforts are going in the Iraq war and the War on Muslim Extremism, I have the hubris to suggest that we can still win. Are we lost in the face of this Muslim Extremist enemy which uses the tactics if terrorism? I don't think so. We can adapt. The war against Muslim Extremism has been muddied in concept by the war in Iraq which many Americans thought was a separate issue. Since the U.S. Government is treating it as all one war I have no choice but to do so as well. Otherwise, recommendations are of little value. If I am permitted, at least for this discussion, to assume one war on Muslim Extremism with a number of fronts, then the most fitting model from our past is not Vietnam, but WWII. In Vietnam, debate was about policy abstractions. We were told we must continue the fight because if we abandoned Vietnam all of Southeast Asia would fall to the communists – the domino theory - . We were fighting for American honor. We were fighting for American credibility. Yet, even though we eventually lost in Vietnam, regardless of how we beat ourselves up, we did not suffer in the world as a defeated nation. Indeed we went on to win the larger Cold War. In WWII we were fighting for our existence. We had been attacked by one Axis power, Japan and faced the possibility of a completely Nazified Europe and even Russia. We could not have survived alone in a world dominated by the Axis Powers. The nation made that decision when it declared war on the three Axis Powers of Japan, Germany and Italy. Today, we are also fighting for our existence. But, as a nation, we have not made up our minds that this is the nature of the struggle. We still think of it largely as an abstraction. We must continue so we can bring democracy to the Mideast. We must prove that we have the power to move American policy forward. We must lead the world.  IT is better to fight them there than here. We see this war as an activity we can afford as we live our lives normally. We are wrong. We face an implacable foe, one which has been waging total war since the 1980’s. They are ruthless and have no rules of engagement. Their version of war includes the wholesale murder of innocents. the kidnapping and execution of anyone in their way. They attack at will. They have actually affected the foreign policy of some governments, such as Spain. And yes, we have played into their hands in Iraq. We must come to the conclusion, and more importantly, act upon that conclusion, that we are fighting for our existence and that means total war. That means the active participation of the entire population. It means: 1. We pay for it. If we continue to go into debt to finance the war, our opponents know there is a limit to how much we will invest. If we don’t charge ourselves the bill, but pass it on to our children then only our soldiers are participating and we are not. 2. We must change our tactics. While it may be necessary to go into cities like Fallujah and Samarra, that does not create order. We must configure our military and intelligence services to pursue the insurgents into their real backyards, where they live, where they hide. I don’t want to be too specific, because I am not expert, but some things seems obvious. We should be unafraid to destroy the religious sites in which they hide. And we must create our own propaganda which puts the burden of protecting holy sites upon the locals and the onus of their destruction on the insurgents.. We must attempt to arrest the families of known insurgents. We do not behead and we must not torture, but these people cannot be allowed to attack innocents with impunity. For instance, we should demand that Jordan arrest members of the family of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the insurgent leader who has taken responsibility for so many killings. Even the attempt, which would meet resistance in Jordan, would begin to have a salutary effect. We have to be willing to put enough troops in to assure at least the protection of the Iraqi government and those working on reconstruction. (Relatives of the Prime Minister have recently been kidnapped) This goes back to being willing to pay for the war. 3. Above all we must launch a total effort to achieve energy independence. If humanity is to live more than another hundred years we are going to have to wean ourselves from fossil fuels anyway. For the immediate future, a small reduction in the dependence on Mideast oil would go a long way to break the political stranglehold on us. A stranglehold which has meant we have had to be allies with people, like the Saudis, who hold us in contempt. It is impossible to list all the ways in which we have been wrong, practically and morally in the Mideast. We are responsible for many mistakes in our treatment of the Arab populations, particularly the oil producers. We were childish in supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran because we were so angry at that nation. We tried to practice balance of power politics straight out of the British imperial handbook and it came back to haunt us. Yet, for all that we did wrong we still have the right to live, to aspire to prosperity and to defend ourselves. We are now attempting to impose democracy. That is because we believe democracy will result in a less belligerent Arab world. It may be a fool’s errand or it may be a real future. Only time will tell. One thing is sure. They are attempting to enforce their way of life upon the Western world. We must fight back. There is no evidence that they would be beneficent victors. Melvyn Polatchek 6:50:58 AM    comment []

The Great Divide I read column after column bemoaning the fact that the U.S. is dangerously polarized.  Some are even toying with the idea that the present division rivals that of pre-civil war days. I don't agree that it is that bad, but the polarization is there.  It is self defeating and it was predictable.   We have two parties that have been seeking to defeat each other completely for a very long time.  This level of competition may have started when Robert Bork was defeated in his appointment to the Supreme court., maybe earlier.  Maybe it started with Goldwater or with the landmark Kennedy legislation or with the Earl Warren Supreme court.  Maybe it just evolved.  However it happened, we have two parties locked in battle to defeat each other.  Since Bill Clinton, we have no politicians trying to reach compromise.  He may have been a last aberration.  Certainly his compromises on big government and welfare were the result of political realities in a time when the division was less completely formed.   Certainly his personal behavior in office helped fuel the forces of division.   In letters to the editor, in email from my contacts in the recent campaign, in the words of pundits I hear two strains. The first is Karl Rove's desire to have republican majorities for a generation and the second is "What can the democrats do to regain ascendancy?"  I don't hear anyone discussing what we can do to form a more United - United States of America.    Everyone blames the politicians and many scorn the media, I don't know exactly where the fault lies, but it seems to me there is the possibility of compromise on a number of issues that seriously divide us and I hear no one proposing such compromise.   For instance.  Separation of Church and State.   There is a serious effort on the part of religious groups to revisit many aspects of religion in public life which are held by many to be harmless, but have become forbidden.  When, "Under God",  was added to the pledge of allegiance many thought it was the beginning of a wave of intense religious pressure.  We always do and with good reason, if we know European and early American history.  But, the wave did not happen. In fact it went the other way.  School prayer was banished. There needs to be compromise and some politician needs to propose it.  No religion can be proposed or pursued by the government.  But to erase all references to the Creator from public discourse denies our history.  It denies that this nation was founded largely by Christians who created a constitution whose extraordinary attempt at fairness sprung largely from religious conviction.  Those references must be made or the very constitution which limits the power of individual religious groups loses some of its stature.   This feeds into the raging abortion issue.  Both sides refuse to acknowledge that the other is driven by religious notions.  I have not personally met a pro-choicer who acknowledges that pro-life is a principled religious conviction and not a form of bigotry.  I have not met a pro-lifer who acknowledges that pro-choice is anything but the work of the devil.  I believe it is the dissension which is the work of the devil.  There is room for compromise on these and many other issues  We  need leaders willing to look past partisanship to say it out loud, to demand that we look for those compromises and demand that we give each other the respect due all in a civil society.  The present battle simply defeats us all.   Melvyn Polatchek 5:44:02 AM    comment []