Post by barcarah on Dec 23, 2006 23:17:10 GMT
Why is no one reporting on the true subject of what the U.S. is facing: Guerrilla warfare and a Proxy war among Iran and Syria.
As far as I can remember no standing army has defeated a guerrilla/insurrection campaign when it has the support of the populous; either by sympathizing or fear of terror.
In the second Punic War (approx. 218 -201 B.C.E) Hannibal crossed the Alps and descended into Italy under the guise of a beginning a “war of liberation.” He used this in effort to gain the support of the people and secure his rear. Hannibal, certainly one of history's greatest generals, ultimately lost the quasi-guerrilla campaign after losing the support of the populace because of a scorch and burn policy he used out of desperation.
For a more recent example and on a more applicable stage we have Vietnam. The then Soviet Union fought a proxy war against the U.S. in Vietnam where we had boots on the ground. We all know the ending to this one. But when several years later the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan the U.S. seized the advantage, supplied and trained the mujahadeen ultimately forcing the Russian troops out of Afghanistan.
Now here we are back in a region that has little if any love for the U.S. with 140,000 some-odd troops on the ground fighting a guerrilla/civil war/insurrection fueled by two countries (that Mr. Bush so strategically and eloquently lumped into his axis of evil) using Iraq as their proxy. Have we learned nothing.
I believe (as an armchair general) that if we pulled our troops back to the borderlands i.e. out of sight, or into Afghanistan (where we have the moral advantage and a still unfinished job there) or Kuwait, let them get rested (some of these men and women are on their 4th tour) but keep them in the immediate region would serve a three-fold solution:
1) It would force the Iraqis to stand up to the fight (necessity the mother of invention.)
2) Remove our soldiers from being targets.
3) And finally, the reserve power of battle-hardened U.S. soldiers, rested and in the immediate region would quiet Iran and Syria and give the U.S. a stronger base from which to negotiate with all regional countries concerned including Pakistan.
This would also allow the U.S. to fight a proxy war by supporting the side of our choosing with munitions, logistics, intelligence etc. which we could no doubt carry on (economically speaking) indefinitely.
What I believe would happen under these circumstances is that another "hard-ass" like Sadaam will emerge, namely Maqtader Al Sadr. Iraq will be pacified albeit not according to U.S. standards or choice, but given our track record for backing the wrong guy (i.e. Sadaam, Khmer Rouge, Castro, et al.) maybe this time we should give the people true freedom and allow them to choose – and hold them responsible for their choice – their own leader. What other choice do we have; wait until 170 plus thousand of U.S. soldiers to die before Mr. Bush realizes he cannot win this war by occupying Iraq?
As a final part of the strategy I would argue for the use of one of Mr. Bush's favorites: scapegoating; in this case his impeachment. God knows there are enough reasons for his impeachment (his recent statement admitting he lied in that he knew before the election he would dismiss Rumsfeld but told the American people he planned to keep him until the end of his term in order to win an election. His lie affects the life of U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqis, Clinton's lie affected only his family. I firmly believe this is an absolutely necessary step to take in order to restore our credibility and reputation throughout the world.
As far as I can remember no standing army has defeated a guerrilla/insurrection campaign when it has the support of the populous; either by sympathizing or fear of terror.
In the second Punic War (approx. 218 -201 B.C.E) Hannibal crossed the Alps and descended into Italy under the guise of a beginning a “war of liberation.” He used this in effort to gain the support of the people and secure his rear. Hannibal, certainly one of history's greatest generals, ultimately lost the quasi-guerrilla campaign after losing the support of the populace because of a scorch and burn policy he used out of desperation.
For a more recent example and on a more applicable stage we have Vietnam. The then Soviet Union fought a proxy war against the U.S. in Vietnam where we had boots on the ground. We all know the ending to this one. But when several years later the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan the U.S. seized the advantage, supplied and trained the mujahadeen ultimately forcing the Russian troops out of Afghanistan.
Now here we are back in a region that has little if any love for the U.S. with 140,000 some-odd troops on the ground fighting a guerrilla/civil war/insurrection fueled by two countries (that Mr. Bush so strategically and eloquently lumped into his axis of evil) using Iraq as their proxy. Have we learned nothing.
I believe (as an armchair general) that if we pulled our troops back to the borderlands i.e. out of sight, or into Afghanistan (where we have the moral advantage and a still unfinished job there) or Kuwait, let them get rested (some of these men and women are on their 4th tour) but keep them in the immediate region would serve a three-fold solution:
1) It would force the Iraqis to stand up to the fight (necessity the mother of invention.)
2) Remove our soldiers from being targets.
3) And finally, the reserve power of battle-hardened U.S. soldiers, rested and in the immediate region would quiet Iran and Syria and give the U.S. a stronger base from which to negotiate with all regional countries concerned including Pakistan.
This would also allow the U.S. to fight a proxy war by supporting the side of our choosing with munitions, logistics, intelligence etc. which we could no doubt carry on (economically speaking) indefinitely.
What I believe would happen under these circumstances is that another "hard-ass" like Sadaam will emerge, namely Maqtader Al Sadr. Iraq will be pacified albeit not according to U.S. standards or choice, but given our track record for backing the wrong guy (i.e. Sadaam, Khmer Rouge, Castro, et al.) maybe this time we should give the people true freedom and allow them to choose – and hold them responsible for their choice – their own leader. What other choice do we have; wait until 170 plus thousand of U.S. soldiers to die before Mr. Bush realizes he cannot win this war by occupying Iraq?
As a final part of the strategy I would argue for the use of one of Mr. Bush's favorites: scapegoating; in this case his impeachment. God knows there are enough reasons for his impeachment (his recent statement admitting he lied in that he knew before the election he would dismiss Rumsfeld but told the American people he planned to keep him until the end of his term in order to win an election. His lie affects the life of U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqis, Clinton's lie affected only his family. I firmly believe this is an absolutely necessary step to take in order to restore our credibility and reputation throughout the world.