Failing to understand guerilla war

This paragraph in an AP story on Sadr's rebellion caught my eye:

U.S. troops in Baghdad overran the firebrand cleric's stronghold in the sprawling Shi'ite slum of Sadr City with tanks and armored vehicles, meeting little resistance, witnesses said. They later withdrew to the outskirts of the area.

That is a patently ridiculous statement. "Overruning" an enemy means destroying it. If the US armored column met no or little resistance, they overran nothing. Sadr's insurgents merely melted away in the presence of superior firepower, and reasserted their authority as soon as the US pulled back out.

And the fact that US forces won't remain in the slum means that the insurgency is alive and well. The US will make its periodic shows of force, but will not try to hold territory. It cannot hold that territory.

•  our failure

  to seemingly even comprehend true, textbook, urban warfare stuns me. it simply stuns me. as I've said before, I'm almost inclined to think Bush himself is calling shots on the ground, some US tactics are so foolish.

  that said, let me remind y'all that this diary is following events and updating thoughout the day.

  Also following closely ramifications over at The Thorn Papers. Y'all come by.

  by mitch2k2 on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:01:58 PM PDT

  •  The Thorn Papers' URL is not working.

    I think you missed the "g" in "blogspot."

    by iconoclastic cat on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:16:14 PM PDT

    •  thanks for the catch

      If anyone cares, here's a working link to The Thorn Papers.

      by mitch2k2 on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:23:19 PM PDT

  •  Understanding depends on the agenda

    One would think that the purpose of a military operation is to achieve a military objective using appropriate means and tactics. It's just baffling, then, to be confronted with the actual, contrary behavior.

    Suspending any assumptions about purpose, we can ask: might there be other motives? Are they consistent with the observed behavior?

    As usual, follow the money. The industrial-scale, World War II-style military operations we've engaged in since that time reflect the origins of our present system of state capitalism.

    The military-industrial complex is the heart of our economy and state; it's what we do, and periodically we have to go do it to somebody.

    There's an interesting case to be made that "underlying the US drive to war is a thirst to open up new opportunities for surplus capital":

    The underlying problem the US confronts is the one which periodically afflicts all successful economies: the over-accumulation of capital...

    Just as it was in the early 1930s, the US is suffering from surpluses of commodities, manufactured products, manufacturing capacity and money...

    This problem has been developing in the US since 1973. It has now tried every available means of solving it and, by doing so, maintaining its global dominance. The only remaining, politically viable option is war.

    
    

    by Terry in Austin on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:54:23 PM PDT

    •  Ancient Leninists Repent

      Oh, come on!  Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov (Lenin) made this case, based on the work of an Englishman named Hobson, about a century ago.  And he was wrong then, just as the Marxist-Leninists have turned out to be wrong about just about everything.

      To take it to a simpler level, incompetence is always a better explanation than conspiracy for events we don't like or don't understand.  Rather than trying to view "capitalism" as some kind of monolithic conspiracy, why not look at the immediate activity.  The U.S. military acts the way they do because they have been trained to act in a certain way, and their equipment and weaponry support that kind of action.  The Army or Marine Corps can't stop and retrain the troops in the middle of active combat, and they certainly can't re-equip the units in Iraq with more appropriate vehicles and weapons.  So they do what they know how to do, appropriate to the situation or not.

      Moreover, especially in the midst of the campaign, the administration wants to hold casualties down, while appearing to take useful action.  Sending a heavily armed unit through an area previously infested with the enemy serves a couple of purposes:

      1.  It makes it look as if the troops are doing something, and, thus, as if the administration had a plan;

      2.  It gives the troops a task they can handle, without re-training or re-equipping;

      3.  Knowing perfectly well that the insurgents will withdraw in face of this kind of force, it allows them to appear to take territory with a minimum of casualties;

      4.  By withdrawing themselves to safer areas before sunset, they avoid the casualties that would have been incurred had they tried to hold the area.

      So, they may be incompetent to take the area on any kind of permanent basis, or to take decisive steps against the insurgency, but they can deny the insurgents a certain amount of area, possibly some communication routes, and maintain morale while they figure out how to get at the roots of the insurgency.

      I might also point out that putting much of your force into a single, known point, such as the Imam Ali Shrine, which can be cut off from supplies, surrounded, and destroyed, is really bad tactics for a guerrilla force.  The U.S. may not know what to do here, but Moqtada Al-Sadr is about as good a tactician as you'd expect from a religious leader: i.e, not particularly impressive.

      by GAKnight on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:33:13 PM PDT

      •  Sadr

        I might also point out that putting much of your force into a single, known point, such as the Imam Ali Shrine, which can be cut off from supplies, surrounded, and destroyed, is really bad tactics for a guerrilla force.  The U.S. may not know what to do here, but Moqtada Al-Sadr is about as good a tactician as you'd expect from a religious leader: i.e, not particularly impressive.

        Yes, but you're forgetting that the engine of Shiite rebellion is fueled by martyrdom, perhaps more than any other kind of Muslim extremism or nationalism.

        Continuing with your breakdown of U.S. military behavior, Sadr and his militia are not cooking up some grand geopolitical plan to defeat the U.S., although they would probably like to see that happen, by holing up in the Mosque.  They are only doing what seems like a good and inspiring choice for a Shiite warrior.

        by NYCO on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:42:47 PM PDT

        •  OT, love your sig line

          pretty much all you need to know about human nature can be learned from Watership Down.

          by Sue in NH on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 09:36:30 PM PDT

      •  Modern journalists unspent

        You come on, my newbie friend -- assuming you can resist red-baiting in response to anything analytical about capitalism. Did you actually read any of the linked article? It would be interesting to have some links to the Hobson material you mention, btw.

        Then there's the "conspiracy" straw-man: large social systems such as an economy proceed according to their own internal logic and dynamics. That they operate independently from individual wills is well-understood, if  paradoxical.

        The fact is, it's mixing up levels of analysis to suggest that the behavior of such a system is determined by individuals, be they conspirators or saints.

        Your trolling aside, I do agree with what you're saying at the tactical level. Incompetence does explain a lot, and certainly applies to the current counter-insurgency. Likewise, I'd agree about the administration's desire to put a nicely-painted face on their clumsy adventure.

        But this is to miss the point of the question, and once again, to confuse levels of analysis.

        The question concerns the strategic level, i.e., why launch a militarily dubious war to begin with, and then why insist on an industrial-scale, battlefield-oriented operation against a guerilla insurgency?

        If military success were seriously the primary purpose, the US could have easily prepared troops and equipment for the guerilla phase of the operation -- from a strictly military point of view, that's a no-brainer.

        Incompetence on such a scale may good for a partial explanation, but not nearly a sufficient one. Examining the behavior of the state-capital system is likely to be much more productive.

        Let's agree that Marx is a dead horse that requires no further beating. It's not necessary to be a Marxist to note unflattering or even hazardous traits of capitalist economies. Overaccumulation happens to be one of those traits.

        Every system has its weaknesses, and a sure way to perpetuate them is to allow the weaknesses to go unexamined.

        by Terry in Austin on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 10:43:41 PM PDT

        •  One of the Issues

          I tried to get to the link at "interesting comment", but I got an error about unable to access the page.  Oh, well.

          The point about levels of analysis is taken.  But I don't think that I was missing the point of the question as posed.  The context of the question was not the war in Iraq, generally speaking, but, specifically, the U.S. military actions in dealing with the guerrilla forces in the cemeteries of Najaf.  I don't think that global economic forces provide the appropriate level of analysis for the actions of small groups of troops in a particular tactical situation.

          On the other hand, as to why they ended up in this particular tactical situation, that's another question.

          But let's look at that higher level of analysis for a moment, in terms of its ability to explain the war in Iraq.  I see two problems with "excess capital" as an explanatory independent variable.  First, let me say, that I do see one way in which this does make a tempting variable: Since the dot-com bust of 2001, and the current recession, stocks have not looked like a great place to put a lot of investment capital (at least, not stocks in the exchanges in the developed countries), so investment capital has turned to real estate (where the Economist sees an enormous potential bust coming), and to investments in China (likewise).

          However, the first problem with the "excess capital" thesis is that a lot of that capital was sucked up by the dot-com bust and the recession, and then a lot more has been absorbed by investments in real estate and in China.  From my perspective, I see a lot more corporations up to their ears in debt and with real limits on their ability to invest in worthwhile capital projects, than companies with money to burn and a need to find an overseas fireplace.

          The second problem is that, in my opinion, "excess capital" doesn't fit well with the facts of the Iraq war.  Okay, the U.S. conquers Iraq, there are some opportunities for U.S. companies to make some investments, and, the next thing you know, they're generating tons of oil money for Iraq's nationalized oil industry.

          Now, if the first thing we had done was to auction off the old fields to Texaco/Shell and Exxon/Mobil, privatize the Iraqi oil industry, and make the Iraqi government live on taxes instead of royalties, then there would have been a lot of scope for massive foreign investment.  As it is, it's on the piddling sort of level that makes more sense viewed at the micro-level:

          e.g., Dick Cheney taking advantage of the situation in Iraq to throw some goodies to Halliburton, thus increasing the value of his stock (which, blind trust or not, he knows is out there).

          Now, if you wanted to try the other imperialist model, in which we don't want to invest overseas, but rather want to create consumers overseas for our manufactured products, because we have excess capacity on the manufacturing side, and we would hope to shut out European and Japanese rivals, that might work better.  But have Ford and GM executives been seen holding late-night meetings with Dick Cheney?  No more than Al Qaeda agents have been caught meeting with Iraqi officials.  (One good conspiracy deserves another.)

          by GAKnight on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 01:03:37 PM PDT

        •  Hobson

          http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1902hobson.html

          John Hobson, English economist, wrote a critique of imperialism in 1902.  It is cited, as I recall, by Lenin in his book on imperialism.  (I used to have a bunch of Marx and Lenin, published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, or by the equivalent press in Beijing.  Unfortunately, those books were destroyed in a fire years ago, and they weren't easy to find in the U.S.  I remember Lenin's What is to be done? (Shto eto?) and Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder fondly, but not in a lot of detail.

          by GAKnight on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 04:52:47 PM PDT

•  For Months

  I have been screaming about this literally for months.  This is a Fourth Generation War and you can't fight it using World War II tactics.  It is one of the reasons we are going to lose.  Same deal in Afghanistan.

  by Melanie on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:03:04 PM PDT

  •  4GW, etc

    Hey, I was screaming about 4GW in July, 2003 [whore], and I've been screaming about Boyd's moral conflict for months [whore]!

    Anyway, we've already lost, and now the American public is starting to realize it.  There isn't anything President Kerry will be able to do about that, 'cept remember his own words from our last traumatic lost cause:

    How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Iraq? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

    by NTodd on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:38:48 PM PDT

  •  But...but...

    Didn't our President just declare that we his detractors don't understand the reality of 21st century warfare?  (q.v. this Washington Post story about Bush's visit to a Boeing plant in Pennsylvania.)

    by Ernest Tomlinson on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:59:49 PM PDT

    •  We may not

      We may not understand 21st century war, but he doesn't understand 20th century war.  The tactics we are up against seem a lot like those in Vietnam, or in Afghanistan (USSR v. Afghanistan).  Bush and crew are too worried about Star Wars and F-27 Airplanes to actually win a war against our ACTUAL opponent.

      by Power on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:53:29 PM PDT

  •  Learning from the past

    Amen.  

    If we had paid any attention at all to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan (instead of just arming the islamic militants who now hate us), or the history of crusades we maybe could have learned this lesson.  Outsiders have never been able to "reshape" the region by force, and have always had trouble with guerilla resistance.  

    The idea that we could topple the government, take over the place, and have no trouble keeping the peace flies in the face of a thousand years of history.
    

    by jeff reid on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:18:34 PM PDT

    •  Well...

      The mongols did a pretty thorough job of "reshaping" the region...they just killed everyone, which was the end of the Caliphate.  The problem we are currently experiencing is that we have gone a conquering, but are unwilling to steel ourselves to the sorts of acts necessary to conquer.  William The Conqueror, Subutai, Cortez, Caeser, Alexander...any of them could tell us how to stop this war.  The fact that we are unwilling to impale whole families, to slaughter villages for the infractions against order of men from those villages, says something about our moral condition.  It says something different about our intellectual condition that we entered into what was clearly going to have to be a war of conquest with no clear mandate to conquer.
        I was intellectually against this war from the outset, largely because I saw no way we could act in the way necessary to win the conquest...and an unsecured conquest is worse than doing nothing.

      by TheGryphon on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 05:38:18 PM PDT

•  When

  my enemy attacks I hide, when my enemy advances I run, when my enemy rests I attack. Mao Tse Tung

  by johnmorris on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:04:47 PM PDT

  •  Beat me to it

    I was going to cite that very same quote.  Cudos for being quick on the keys.

    It sums up the insurgents' ideology of how to fight a foe of superior size and strength.  This is further proof we did not learn one thing from Vietnam.  I pray for our soldiers.

    by Just Keep Swimming on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:16:32 PM PDT

    •  We may have superior strength

      but we don't have superior size.  Total US force in theater is approx. 140,000.  Population of Iraq is approx. 25 million.  Even if only one-tenth of the population was involved in an uprising, that opfor would be 2.5 million.  I don't pray for our troops, I want them out of Iraq now.

      by lapin on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:27:39 PM PDT

      •  How much of an advantage is needed?

        How many troops do we need to win a guerrilla war? When the British beat the Boers, they neutralized folks by disarming and putting all nominal non-combatants into concentration camps. I don't know how many troops they had, but it was relatively more than we have in Iraq. Our war in the Philippines was similar. It works, but aside from Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, who would be willing to do it? I'll bet that Tony Blair will bail before he starts running concentration camps.

        by freelunch on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:09:37 PM PDT

        •  weapons parity

          I'm not a military guy at all, so discount this comment accordingly.

          But it seems to me that Iraq is a heavily armed country, and that the RPG is an incredibly potent weapon for neutralizing lots of the advantages of USian forces in urban fighting. The Iraqi counter-US forces have no plausible way to strike back at bombers or cruise missiles, but they can put up reasonable resistance to infantry incursions.  I think this is why Shinshecki said it would take "several hundreds of thousands" of troops to occupy Iraq-- and that was on the premise that the war would go quickly and the occupation smoothly.  Now that we have a guerrilla war on our hands, who knows how many troops it would take to suppress it?  

          yr frn,
          jrs

          Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Compl

          by jsundman on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:59:10 PM PDT

          •  Yes, we learned nothing from Vietnam!

            The fact that we ever allowed this to become another ground guerrilla war just proves this.

            I do not believe we have any right going into any country just because we don't like their polcies toward us, but it is just shear stupidity if we do decide to go into another country to  repeat the mistakes on Vietnam.  Namely to fight an unendable, unwinnable guerrilla war with people inside their homeland.

            Grrrrrrr, teeth clenching, Grrrrrr, stupidity!

            by truthbetold on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 05:49:15 PM PDT

            •  Talking about Vietnam....

              McNamara, said last year about the Iraq war: "It's Just Wrong What We're Doing"

              Robert McNamara breaks his silence on Iraq: The United States, he says, is making the same mistakes all over again

              He pointed to Washington's failure to appreciate the complexities of Iraqi culture, and therefore to anticipate the extended guerrilla war it is now engaged in -- a chief mistake of Vietnam.

              
              See more in my diary:

              How Rummie ignored the Pentagon Wisdom

              by lawnorder on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 03:48:34 AM PDT

        •  Counter Insurgency Requires 10:1 Advantage

          The accepted rule of thumb for counterinsurgency efforts is that the side trying to suppress the insurgents will require a 10 to 1 advantage to be successful.  This ratio was developed based on the British elimination of the Communist insurgents in Malaya in the 1950s.  The French never reached those levels in Indo-China or Algeria, the USSR never reached those levels in Afghanistan and the US never reached those levels in Vietnam.  You are aware of the results of those guerrilla wars.

          BTW, the Boer War wasn't a true guerrilla war since Boer states and governments did exist prior to the start of the war.  The British only barely managed to put down the Boer guerrilla war through establishing a totally brutal concentration camp system wherein they moved all non-combatant Boers.  In fact the British invented the expression concentration camp.  The British also marked off large segments of the South African landscape with barbed wire to hinder the Boer commando's mobility.  It was a nasty war.

          by PrahaPartizan on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 06:30:44 PM PDT

          •  Nasty as they come

            It is true that the Boer war didn't start as a guerrilla war, but after the British had destroyed the indigenous government, the locals turned to insurgency. If I remember correctly the British didn't have a collaborationist Afrikaner government, but even after they were suppressed, the Afrikaners didn't forget -- unless we do something quickly after Bush loses, we will have a country that hates us -- for decades -- in Mesopotamia.

            George Bush should never have taken history lessons from Henry Ford. Ford was wrong, so is Bush.

            by freelunch on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 08:42:34 PM PDT

    •  Maybe we learnt some things, but the big honchos

      would rather forget them, because they're more interested in getting big weapons systems programs than actually fighting wars. As William Lind noted recently, books on 4GW strategy get removed from military schools, evidently because such books distract cadets from the important stuff:

      At the end of this academic year, the Command & Staff faculty [at Quantico] simply got rid of 250 copies of Martin van Creveld's superb book, Fighting Power. This book, which lays out the fundamental difference between the Second Generation U.S. Army in World War II and the Third Generation Wehrmacht, is one of the seven books of "the canon," the readings that take you from the First Generation into the Fourth. It should be required reading for every Marine Corps and Army officer.

      by Alexander on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 05:44:19 PM PDT

      •  Thank you

        for the William Lind link. I've just read half a dozen of his pieces and bookmarked the site.

        by johnmorris on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 07:20:57 PM PDT

        •  Yes, he's quite good, isn't he?

          It just goes to show that progressives can live with true conservatives. CounterPunch posts some of his columns: that's how I learned about him.

          by Alexander on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 11:49:29 AM PDT

•  The press eats up the PR

  They seemingly have adopting many of the phrases thrust upon them, i.e. "anti-Iraqi forces."  This administration has got to be the all time leader in euphemisms.  Whenever a hear charges of the "liberal press" I cannot help but think how easily the press accepts new, favorable terminology.

  by up2date on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:10:36 PM PDT

  •  The press is LAZY

    Lazy, lazy, lazy. Most "reporters" take the copy of the press release handed out by the Administration, change the order a bit, insert some dramatic, purple prose for effect, and: BOOM! Instant story, without all that hard "investigamating" stuff.

    I am sick unto death of the quality of reportage in Big Media, especially when it comes to this war. Absolutely sick.

    by jpb on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:14:42 PM PDT

    •  Part of the press problem

      is the original "embed" thing. There are reporters who would like to be the war correspondents we used to have. The military's favorite "lesson from Viet Nam" was "You can fool some of the people some of the time", but its more efficient just to keep them in the dark. Until reporters can bum a ride in a helicopter and go anywhere they want on the battlefield, we'll have managed news.

      by johnmorris on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:52:37 PM PDT

•  Doesn't that describe the whole war?

  No resistance, enemy melting away.

  by mishimishi on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:11:40 PM PDT

•  We were debating this neocon ingnorance today

  About Neocons completely ignoring the old war lessons:

  War strategy and the neocons ' excessive trust on gadgets

  http://lawnorder.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/19/5390/02520

  A quick summary:
  

  In your post under: Competitive Advantage concept applied to Iraq War; I agree with you of the quagmire US forces face in Iraq.  What good are howitzers against insurgents that move in squad sized elements surrounded by civilians?  None.  Therefore no artillery batteries in Iraq do anything related to call-for-fire most of the time.  Same goes for armor companies- tanks do little more than cruise around cities belching fumes and rumbling around.  Meanwhile, it is the convoys of half-tons and duce-and-a-halves that are susceptible to IEDs and roadside ambushes; worsened still by the lack of up-armored trucks and Humvee's.  

  Once again, insurgents do what all good insurgents and guerilla fighters do all over the world- they do not fight fair.  They do not line up and attempt to go blow-for-blow against American forces.  Their hit-and-run philosophy keeps them alive, and more US troops dead.

  They rejected Sun Tzu (none / 1)

  I noticed this behaviour too, a while back - here's my diary post on the same subject - and there are also quotes from the New Strategists, who accept the horrendous levels of casualties and say well, this is the 21st century, everyone lives in cities, we're just going to have to get used to 75% losses.

  by lawnorder on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:13:24 PM PDT

  •  Oh, you just reminded me of something

    I've been wanting to say for a long time:

    Notice how it's always the Enemy who "doesn't fight fair" - that is, it's apparently their job to stand there and let themselves get run over by tanks, instead of oiling the streets and setting other booby traps for the better-equipped invaders.

    And yet, when WE do it - be it in the mythology of the Revolution, or in the Civil War, or the Dirty Dozen, or Rambo - it's "American Ingenuity," and still more proof of our moral superiority to all furriners.

    "Unequal Combat" is never used to apply to those who come in with tanks, bombers, choppers and napalm against hungry people in rags armed with secondhand rifles...

    by bellatrys on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:20:00 PM PDT

    •  Revolution

      Unequal Combat" is never used to apply to those who come in with tanks, bombers, choppers and napalm against hungry people in rags armed with secondhand rifles...

      Which is what Americans were a lot of the time during the Revolution...

      by NYCO on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:23:03 PM PDT

      •  but we were Plucky Underdogs

        It's okay if you're us -er, the Good Guys!

        by bellatrys on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:49:23 PM PDT

    •  They are just being better at strategy than we are

      They are attacking US in our vulnerable spot, our "heart": Our freedom, our liberties, our humanistic values.

      Does that mean US citizens should just stop using their "heart"and turn into war mongering fanatics ourselves ? Israel isn't having much success with this tactics...

      As Sun Tzu the pioneer war strategy guru said 2,000 years ago...

      About engaging in battle:
      

      .. the highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities. The one who excels at employing the military subjugates other people's armies without engaging in battle...

      
      Isn't that EXACTLY what terrorists are doing ? attacking our plans, trying to break our alliances and otherwise hitting us without actually engaging in many battles ?

      About fighting a superior army:
      

      ..in a hypothetical discussion between Sun Tzu and his ruler, the King of Wu:

      "The enemy is courageous and unafraid, arrogant and reckless. His soldiers are numerous and strong. What should we do?"

      Sun Tzu said: "Speak and act submissively in order to accord with their intentions. Do not cause them to comprehend the situation, and thereby increase their indolence.

      
      Sounds familiar ? It should since US spent the whole year of 2003 being lulled into complacency
      

      In accord with the enemy's shifts and changes, submerge our forces in ambush to await the moment. Then do not look at their forward motion, nor look back to their rearward movement, but strike them in the middle. Even though they are numerous, they can be taken. The Tao for attacking the arrogant is not to engage their advance front."

      
      Sounds familiar ?

      by lawnorder on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 05:39:16 PM PDT

      •  yes, that's *exactly* why I trancribed all that

        in my blog back on July 4-5, and unfortunately subseqent events have just given more and more credence to my claim that no, being Modern Americans doesn't confer some special wisdom that undoes the lessons of a lifetime of active duty.

        by bellatrys on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 06:02:43 PM PDT

•  more from an expert (Col. Hackworth)

  Attacking in the Wrong Direction
  

  In a conventional war, where nations are fighting nations, of course it's better to slug it out on the enemy's turf with the goal of taking a Berlin or a Tokyo and smashing your opponent's industrial base and army. In such fights, a powerhouse like the United States can unleash its superior assets and bulldoze its way to the final objective - which is the modern American way of conventional war - with little or no damage to America the beautiful.

  But as we rediscovered in Vietnam and Somalia, insurgent warfare is a fight against a different animal, frequently a hit-and-run, stateless opponent without easily identified major targets to zero out.

  William Lind, cited by Melanie (above) also publishes at the same SFTT site.

  by DemFromCT on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:15:04 PM PDT

  •  Hack's latest, btw, has more

    on the swift boat crap here

    by DemFromCT on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:17:20 PM PDT

    •  Hack founded My Lai's infamous Tiger Force

      I love Hackworth's writings but this passage on his career surprised me a lot.

      This toledoblade.com recent article about the My Lai incident is very critical of Hackworth.

      The writer ignores the fact that the soldiers NEVER did anything wrong when he was their commander. But 1.5 years after he left they did My lay.

      To me it shows what a difference a good commander like Hackworth makes...
      

      by lawnorder on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 04:06:52 AM PDT

  •  I just finished...

    reading "Steel my Soldier's hearts" and learned that Hack made his name in the US Army by thinking unconventially about unconventional guerrilla warfare.  And he was very successful at devising new techniques to fight insurgents.  

    When he speaks on this subject, everyone should listen...

    by Jsea on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:27:22 PM PDT

  •  Hack is my hero and mentor

    I want to note Col. Hackworth. Actually, I want YOU to note Col. Hackworth. this man taught me more in two months about staying alive and winning the fight than years of experience afterward. He has served in more places, and in more capacities, than any five men in have known since.

    Hack is a genuine American Hero and patriot. And the best damn soldier I ever knew. He sums up the situation about the Swift Boat Idiots for Obfuscation just right. And his criticism about Kerry is just right, too.

    Those of us who served multiple tours in Vietnam find the four month tour on the Swift Boat a bit of thorn, but the truth is He fought, he bled and he served with high honor. And his three Purple Hearts ENTITLED him to leave early. Those were the rules. You can't fault him for playing by the rules in a war in which rules mostly didn't exist.

    Go to SFTT.org and read his article. Please.

    by oofer on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:25:36 PM PDT

    •  The four months...

      were his second tour of duty, no?

      by DButch on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:42:09 PM PDT

      •  Another pet peeve

        of mine is this hairy chested thumping about who had the most dangerous job. Kerry was on the USS Gridley on the "gun line". Destroyer sailors didn't get shot at but, to my knowledge, no Marine who called for 5" fire ever failed to get his fire mission. (any one who thinks that's easy needs to spend the night on a DE in a force 5 gale) The American way of war requires from 9 to 12 soldiers carrying and counting and caring for the wounded for every guy or girl at the pointy end of the stick. There are no trivial tasks among these support troops and a grunt who tells you he was never glad to get dry socks or hot chow is flat lying.

        by johnmorris on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:04:40 PM PDT

    •  But it was his second tour of duty in Vietnam,

      so four months on top of the time he spent in Gulk of Tonkin probably is okay with you.

      abw

      by DCDemocrat on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 06:05:48 PM PDT

    •  Four months

      Yes, his four months is enough for me as are his three purple hearts.

      the fact that he served TWO tours is more than enough.

      I really don't think there is an issue here. Kerry is a hero in my book. I would serve with him anytime and any place. What they don't talk about all that much is the special operations he participated in. You have to ask your self what is a Special Forces luey, Rassmann, doing on his boat? Picking his teeth with a Ka-Bar? Don't think so.

      Kerry is bound by the same code of silence that others of us are. There are still things we can't talk about to anyone other than those invlolved. Even Jim Rassmann.

      Jim is another one of those I would serve with anywhere. He lives in the same town I do, and I know him. He is a retired police lieutenant. He is prone to telling the truth at all times, unlike John O'Neill who hasn't told the truth in years.

      I salute John Kerry. He's a man with sand.

      by oofer on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 11:56:42 PM PDT

      •  To: oofer From: Marisacat

        oofer, I have read your posts for a long time.
        I looked to see if you had an email listed with your info page and you do not... I hope you will see this.

        Please consider doing a diary about what you can write about.

        I see Rood has come forward in the Chicago Trib, Droz, the other swift boat officer on that river that day, is dead, died on the rivers and the little village has a shrine to all who died in that battle on the river, including Droz.  We won't be that lucky from this war.

        I think honest voices from our war in Vietnam are the only way we will survive. And now the loudest in the nation are the swiftboat liars. And I speak of more than Kerry's nomination when I say survival..

        by Marisacat on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 09:50:02 AM PDT

        •  I'll see if I can put in a email address

          You know, writing comes very hard for me. A diary seems like more than I can handle, but I will consider it.

          by oofer on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 01:03:05 PM PDT

•  "good news"

  I think we can expect more of this sort of fake good news as the junta becomes increasingly desperate to appear successful.  It seems the military on the ground is well aware of guerrilla warefare tactics, but the media, in giving breathless coverage to this sort of blatant silliness, is demonstrating that they do not. For half a year US troops have been pinned down in their firebases while the guerillas retain freedom of movement. The astounding thing is that there are cities that are NOT even under nominal US control.  We cannot recall when Falluja was 'lost' but there were a string of macho pronouncements about 'retaking' it.
  How many soldiers will die just making this kind propaganda event come off? Will the SCLM ever mention that this 'victory' is actually a demonstration of weakness?

  by Cache on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:21:02 PM PDT

•  Imperial Hubris nails it

  Have been reading "Imperial Hubris" and he distinguishes very clearly between terrorism as such and insurgency.  He also discusses why the "other side" always seems to have better fighters than "our side."  

  The reason for the latter (at least in Afghanistan and Iraq) is that religion, specifically a fundamentalist Islamic vision, is the main driver for fighting, with nationalism and a vision of how the country ought to be organized (that differs from ours) as a close second.  "Our guys" are always fighting to install an essential foreign system, be it  rigged capitalism or "democracy," in areas where tribalism is dominant. Both sides are fighting for power, but the other folks are motivated by a vision fueled by religion and ours seem to be fueled by greed and abetted by our own greedsters.

  What we have in Iraq is clearly an insurgency, against a neo-colonial power.  It is nationalist, and any attempt to pretend these folks are "anti-Iraqi" rather than anti-American is doomed to fail in the rest of the world, if not here.  There are also competing visions about the future of Iraq.  Conflicted as I am about the place of women in Iraq and the desirability of clerical rule, as in Afghanistan any attempt we make to force upon them a form of society that is too far off from what the majority there wants is also doomed to fail.  It may also make them more rigid, as seems to ahve happened in Afghanistan.  

  We never, never seem to learn anything serious about the countries we want to control; we see everything through the lens of our own experience, never acknowledging their separate identity; we ignore the "experts" in favor of faith-based ideas about others; and over and over we are spectacularly wrong, at the cost of thousands of lives.  

  It has to stop.

  by Mimikatz on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:22:16 PM PDT

•  they need it.

  they (the admin) has nothing to run on. just lies and attacks, baby. they need to prop up iraq. if they don't get it, they'll just lie about it.

  by garth on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:27:08 PM PDT

•  Drive-thru war

  "I'll take 10% of the world's oil reserves, a scraggly dictator, impressive television pictures, and a re-election.  To go.  And hurry it up."

  "You know, the wrath of all Muslims and the scorn of the world come free with that."

  "Oh, all right, whatever."
  

  by randompost on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:32:04 PM PDT

•  Failure

  By adopting the failed tactics of the past, our military leaders have condemned us to defeat.
  I agree with the poster above who sees the hand of Bush in the waging of the war. the neo's talk a good game, but they don't know how or when to fight.

  The problem here isn't really the military itself. It is the leadership. I am greatly disappointed in the joint chiefs, expecially, for not standing up pointing to the insanity of our tactics and strategy. Think about just the structure of the JC's. They have an Air Force General as chairman. I am sorry this is a ground war, and a guerilla war at that. What sort of filter is a guy who thinks more about satellite, rockets, and gravity than he does about logistics, ammunition, and body armor? Failure comes in interesting ways. In this case, by lack of imagination.

  For all the talk of 'asymetric' warfare, these guys have fallen into the trap of history. We don't need Stryker vehicles. We don't need offensives. Hell we don't even need troops there anymore. We've already lost the war.

  The only potent defense to a guerilla insurgency is political action. WE need the tribal chiefs, we need the populace, and we have done everything we could to, instead, piss them off. The most amazing thing is, mostly right after the 'invasion', we had the political ball. Had we had a real plan for organizing the society and securing the peace right off we would now have a different situation. But no, instead of aid and, dare I say it, SENSITIVITY towards the Iraqi, we displayed massive amounts of incompetence and greed. I ask you, what populace responds positively towards being ripped off? Ours being the exception, of course.

  The military and the State Department had done the real work of planning, only to be arrogantly dismissed by Rummy, Wolfie, Cambone, Woolsey, et all. And let's not forget Murdock and Scaife.

  Nope, we had the mojo and literally gave it away by our actions and motivations. Get out, Get out now, and don't ever let these idiots into halls of power again.

  this is all a bad, very bad dream for those of us who fought in Vietnam. We've seen this all before. Those of us who swore this would never happen again. We who helped guide the military into a prime fighting force again are devastated by the betrayal we experience.

  The betrayal of America by corporatism. That's the boil that needs to be excised, then we can heal.

  by oofer on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:35:01 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    by johnmorris on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:07:54 PM PDT

  •  As I Like To Put It...

    America is very good at warfare. What we lack is the follow-through. We always ignore the diplomats who tell us that we need to secure the support of these people or those people. Instead, we go for local talking heads or try to install puppet regimes. But this always leads us into insurgency situations, and a war fighting the people of the land you've come to occupy (as opposed to their army, a critical distinction) is unwinable.

    Well, I suppose that needs to be qualified. Unwinable without atrocities. You can employ the tactics of the Romans if you really want to win, but that'll leave you largely without allies and facing the wrath of many nations.

    The age of empires is over, for now. But it looks like we still haven't learned that.

    by RHunter on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:57:27 PM PDT

•  CNN reporting on Najaf...

  Apparently Muqtada al-Sadr's forces have now been pushed to within the Imam `Ali mosque compound and now there is a standoff with hundreds of pro-Sadr civilians (including women and children) within the compound to protect it from the US forces. The area of Najaf around the mosque compound is in ruins (CNN showing pictures of the destruction). Question now is will the US forces storm the mosque. What a mess this will be.

  by DanceboyOH on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:41:41 PM PDT

•  What did we do with all that money

  we've spent on training for MOUT since the 80s? What have we learned from Ft. Irwin's OPFOR? Hell, what are they teaching kids in the week of MOUT that was just added to Basic?

  And doesn't anyone read Che, or Sun Tzu, or are these just books that line our commanders' shelves to look nice, the way many a C-suite exec lines their offices with "e-Customers" and "Building e-Relationships" and "e-Commerce for e-Dummies" a few years ago?

  Guerrilla warfare is, by definition, simple enough tactically that peasants can employ it. Why have we still not grounded our troops in its eternal verities?

  by adamgreenfield on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:42:07 PM PDT

  •  they gave up on Sun Tzu

    and have embraced the idea of 75%-plus casualties.

    No kidding - see my diary entry on the Art of War. They're the "New Strategists" to go along with the "New Conservatives" in this "New American Century."

    Personally, I suspect the high casualty rates, along with the Forever War diplomacy, is their way of dealing with unemployment...
    

    by bellatrys on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:52:57 PM PDT

  •  Didn't Rumsfeld try to close the War College ?

    I seem to rember he announced it's closing before the war started.

    He reversed that decision in a jiffy after he got US stuck on Iraq's qWagmire

    by lawnorder on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 04:12:36 AM PDT

•  Iraqi Soccer Team to Bush: Stop the Ads

  Apparently the Iraqi soccer team just told Bush (through Sports Illustrated) to stop running ads about them, and were quoted as saying.

  "How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women?" Manajid told me. "He has committed so many crimes."

  Sports Illustrated

  by bigbay on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:48:20 PM PDT

•  from Gen. george washington to Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap

  this is guerilla war, and remember that 'standoffs' and 'showdowns' are often diversionary tactics...

  ... of course the whole 'neocon' worldview is shaped by people who haven't read a book since the Greatest Salesman In the World... they live in a world of presentations and motivational speakers somewhere between a church and a boat show all crafted carefully to disquise their ideal of racial/religious/class  superiority....

  the whole "Overruning" line in  the press shows just how deep this contempt  is... to actually acknowlege the use of Tactics by  Sadr's people would be saying they are human beings ...

  i guess nobody was at that Pentagon screening of the Battle of Algiers...

  by binFranklin on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:51:03 PM PDT

•  Re: Soccer and hell

  a) soccer, or football, is a beautiful sport and you have to respect anyone who plays it well.  
  b) george bush is going to hell probably.  if there is one.  

  by smm on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:52:09 PM PDT

  •  oh yeah

    give some cash money to rick crawford whose ad is on the right hand column.
      it was a district created for a democrat and a republican has it now.

    by smm on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:54:22 PM PDT

  •  what?

    yes bush will go down in flames. nothing can grow under a bush.

    by young james adee on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:28:29 PM PDT

•  Warsaw Ghetto

  Urban warfare can be won.  Witness the Warsaw Ghetto or Berlin.  The US can conquer the Middle East at Israel's bidding but it will take the draft and genocide.  The costs of victory will be staggering and as long as there are Muslims still living they will be in a Holy War with Christian Americans.  

  The alternative is to pull out.  Instead, the Iraq Occupation is being fought on the cheap without any leadership.  My only guess is that the White House is waiting for the next attack in the USA to empower the draft and genocide.

  by Jim S on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:57:03 PM PDT

•  you could also use "overrun"

  if the enemy fled and left their emplacements, their fortifications and materiel, for us to take and occupy, like in 18th and 19th century warfare.

  Only they don't have any, and we're not, so we can't say that, either.

  by bellatrys on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:05:22 PM PDT

•  Failing to understand

  guerilla war and national security policy

  The results of Bush's much heralded 'pre-emption policy':

  Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites

  DOHA (AFP) Aug 18, 2004
  Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned Wednesday that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

  "We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

  "America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.

  "The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

  Shamkhani, who was asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant in Bushehr, added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.

  "Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."

  Spacewar.com

  by JimPortlandOR on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:28 PM PDT

  •  Here we go

    n/t

    by oofer on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:31:30 PM PDT

    •  day-yum

      them's fightin' words. Though I expect cooler heads to prevail. Iran would be suicidal to try and send troops to Iraq, they would be slaughted by our airpower, not to mention it would piss off the Iraqis almost as much. The only way this cooks off is if Bushehr were attacked, and I think we're a long way from that.

      I'm sure this has been posted, but the proximity in  name of Iran's nuke-u-lur facility and that of our Dear Leader's is too eerie to be mere coincidence, no? duhh-duhh-duuh-duuuuhhhhhhhh!!

      by bostonmass on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:02:54 PM PDT

      •  Don't Be So Sure

        Iran's got their own airforce and our jets would be operating out of bases in what is, suddenly, enemy territory. And I think many Iraqis (except maybe the Kurds, but they just want everyone to go away and leave them alone) would welcome the Iranians. Even the sunnis probably would at this point, as their conclusion (probably rightly) would be that it would be easier to separate from or conquer from within an Iran-ruled Iraq than an American-ruled Iraq.

        If Iran invades, Iraq becomes utterly and completely unrecoverable. Iran's geography makes a strike against them unlikely to succeed, and such an attack would embolden local militias and force the US to fight on two fronts.

        by RHunter on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 05:03:15 PM PDT

      •  here's the skinny

        Iran HAS a military. Iran knows how to use force historically. Iran has resources. Iran does not flinch at taking massive casualties. Iran CAN close the entire gulf in a matter of minutes. Iran is a formidible enemy.

        They could and would sink a large number of our ships to include Aircraft carrier groups. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT SELL IRAN SHORT.

        Also, please understand that our logistics line is in shambles. We are not able to take on Iran in a war right now. We would make a fight of it, but every single advantage is on their side. They are the home team here. It would be a huge mistake, right now, to take on Iran. Let me remind you. It is WE who are surrounded in a foreign land with a demoralized and under supplied fighting force.

        God, please don't let us get into a fight with Iran. What a clusterfuck that would be.

        by oofer on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 11:08:58 PM PDT

•  Hello everybody!

  You guys keep talking about this Iraq, which sounds alot like my situation with a rock. Not any rock, this is my a-rock.

  You see, every day I push this a-rock up a hill. Yeah, I know, it's a crappy job, but like Iraq, it has been dictated to me through divine channels that this is what I'm meant to do. And so I do it, no matter what anyone else tells me.

  Like Iraq, every day I see the progress, and I haul that a-rock up to the top of the hill. I see, with each step & push, that I am overcoming the forces that hold me back. I know I'm winning the fight when I see that gravity can't stop me from pushing this a-rock all the way to the top!

  But when I stop and sit this a-rock down, I realize that even though my efforts made gravity virtually disappear, and that rock gets heavy. If I direct my attention away from this a-rock of mine, the steady, constant force of gravity pushed my a-rock back where I started from.

  What's even worse, when I finally get my a-rock to the top, it's not over. When I pause to celebrate my achievement, to bask in the glory of succeeding in my divine mission, I find that my beloved a-rock is at the bottom again.

  Maybe one of these days I'll finally beat gravity and finish the divine quest I've been fighting. Then, I can thank the heavens for calling me to duty with my a-rock, and proving my power & ability to all those who judge me.

  Alas, as I stand here celebrating how far I've carried my a-rock, my a-rock has slid back down. I have my a-rock, you have your Iraq. It's all relative.

  Back to work I go!

  Yours truly,
  Sisyphus

  by zeitshabba on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:56:54 PM PDT

•  Kaplan had a piece in Slate last week...

  where he concluded that we're f**ked in Iraq because every tactical victory (i.e., killing Sadr's fighters in the Najaf area) is a strategic defeat, because it just makes the Iraqi population hate us more, and take up arms against us.  More "victories" = more enemies.  

  by Swoosh on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 07:02:22 PM PDT

•  The "Mission Accomplished" mentality.

    In retrospect, it seems obvious now.  Why would GWB give a speech declaring mission accomplished once they had military control of the country and its oil?  That's all they wanted!  The spoils were theirs.
    Controlling the populace is just a tangential issue to them.  There is only one way out of Iraq. Give it back to the Iraqi's.

  by Bryce in Seattle on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 07:43:06 PM PDT

  •  BUT can't leave Iraq before it's secure

    1. US wants to give Iraq's Oil and territory back to Iraqis... BUT

    2. Can't leave before it's secure.... BUT

    3. To secure it try the reverse of most war winning strategies from the past 2,500 years

    Therefore US will have to stay there forever... And it's not "US' fault" that we can't return control to Iraqis.

    Sounds like a "The Producers" scheme to me: Bush's Oil buddies win when the war is going badly...

    by lawnorder on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 04:20:48 AM PDT

    •  The Iraq Catch 22

      ...there is unrest because we wont leave, so we must fight to restore security, witch causes more unrest because we are still there, so we must fight harder to restore security, witch ...
      

      by Bryce in Seattle on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 03:17:47 PM PDT

      •  Doesn't it sound perfect

        If your goal is to stay in the region forever, and keep on milking Defense Industry pork forever ?

        by lawnorder on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 03:37:32 PM PDT

•  Barefoot and patient

  

  by nedog on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 12:50:56 AM PDT

•  The never ending war SCAM

  I have been thinking about this in a very cynical way: It almost seems like Bushies WANT a long drawn out war

  What if Bush's neocon buddies don't plan on leaving Iraq EVER ? What do they have to gain with a long drawn out war ?

  • 10% of the world Oil
    
  • A strategic base in the ME
    
  • Defense industry contracts bonanza
    
  • A strong military, clean of the NG "weekender" soldiers

  What do they lose by clearly saying that they are NEVER leaving Iraq

  • Shock the moderates and liberals
    
  • Shock our allies, may cause them to band up against imperialist US
    
  • Ignite the ME against US
    
  • Not morally acceptable

  What if they found a way to look like "the good guys" ?

     1. US wants to give Iraq's Oil and territory back to Iraqis... BUT

     2. Can't leave before it's secure.... BUT

     3. To secure it try the reverse of most war winning strategies from the past 2,500 years HENCE

     4. Iraq is never secure

  Therefore US will have to stay there forever...

  They can say "it's not our fault that we can't return control to Iraqis" and get to keep Iraq's oil and US bases there. And get plenty of pork for  the defense industry,

  Do we have brilliant and evil Neocons putting a scam on everyone here ?

  by lawnorder on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 01:15:27 PM PDT