Stoopid Stuff

Sex, Lies and Insurgency

Ok, I'm sorry the leadership of my country is a bunch of lying criminals. I wish it wasn't so, but it turns out that the American people, by a couple of percentage points, prefer a thug who doesn't tell them the truth but hates people who are not like him. Sad. But true. But some of the dishonest claptrap that comes out of Bush's mouth is so egregious that I simply have to address it. The topic today is the Iraqi Occupation in general and the action in Falluja in specific.

First, both the civilian and military leadership insist upon calling the people who are fighting us "terrorists". Let's be simple, and clear. They are NOT terrorists. Depending upon your outlook, you might call them insurgents, rebels, freedom fighters or just guerrillas. But in spite of the fact that they use some of the classic asymmetrical warfare methods, they in no way meet any reasonable definition of terrorists. What we're actually seeing here is the unfortunate end result of a trend that started on September Eleventh. The archetypical boogieman got a new name: Terrorist. From that point on, anybody that a government or law enforcement agency doesn't like is now a terrorist. It's such an awful thing to be, like "child molester", that it completely dehumanizes your enemy. You can now capture, hold, torture and murder the terrorist because, well, who's going to complain about that? They are, after all, terrorists. But wait. Not so fast. Because the very governments who want to kill these people call them terrorists, that simply doesn't make it so. But it IS convenient--The Chinese want to oppress the people of Myanmar? Call them terrorists and throw them in prison. The Russians want to bounce the rubble in Grozny? They're killing terrorists, can't you see that? And we want to run incredibly violent military operations in a city of 300,000 souls? No civilians left in Falluja, just terrorists.

Which leads us to the next stupid, specious Bush-ism. I heard him say it again as late as yesterday. Jeez, you'd think his handlers might give him a new line, maybe even one that makes a modicum of sense. Once again, he referred to the terrorists and foreign fighters (Americans aren't foreign?) as people who "hate freedom" and who want to "stop democracy". We've been hearing this utter nonsense for well over a year now. First of all, I've never spoken to an Iraqi insurgent, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't hate freedom. That's about the dumbest line I've ever heard. Everybody loves freedom. But there are a couple points that Bush and his cronies can't seem to grasp. One is that their vision of freedom and his vision just might not coincide. They want to be free to do what THEY want and he wants them to be free to do what HE wants. And I really think he doesn't get that. But the second point is even bigger. They are not fighting us because they hate freedom, or don't want a representative democracy in Iraq, or even because they are terrorists. They are fighting us because we invaded and occupied their country. They are fighting us because we are trying to force our will upon them by military means. You know, I can't think of a country in the world more in need of regime change than America, but by god if somebody comes in and tries to change the regime by force of arms, I'd fight them too. So would you. We are trashing their country's infrastructure, flattening entire city blocks and hurting and killing thousands of their citizens. And this idiot in Washington would have you believe that these "terrorists" are fighting us because they hate freedom? And if we just kill enough of them the rest of Iraq's citizenry will curl up in our laps and purr? Think, people, think!!

While we're on the topic of Falluja, it sure looks to me like th insurgency is really starting to get it's act together. They appear to have an over arching strategic plan and the coordination to execute it countrywide. They take a mid size city, like Sammara, or Falluja, or Ramadi, and hold it for all to see. Finally the Americans and their Iraqi puppets feel they need to re-take the city. In the big buildup, most of the fighters slip away. A few hundred men, in urban terrain, can pin down thousands of troops. Eventually, the Americans prevail. The city is destroyed, many civilians are hurt and killed, and more Iraqis hate us and the occupation, and they will now do what they can to help the insurgents. But now the insurgents just need to repeat the process in another city. Each time, the Americans become more hated and more of them are tied down holding these rebel strongholds. At some point, the Americans turn these cities over to the Iraqi troops, who won't fight against the Iraqis. So the rebels take the city back without firing a shot, and the Americans have to come back in. But now it's not a city--It's a pile of rubble. There is no finer environment to reduce the effectiveness of a modern combined arms force. The Russians have flattened Grozny, but they still can't occupy it.

Eventually, there's only 2 possible outcomes. In the first, The American people get fed up with the cost in dollars and lives and demand their government bring the troops home. At some point, just as with Vietnam, it becomes too politically costly to resist the will of the majority, and the president will acquiesce. In the other, oil goes past $75.00 a barrel while American troops are still in Iraq in large numbers. The American economy begins to fail. Unemployment approaches 10%. The people demand their political leadership do something, and now. And like an ancient conquering empire, we lock down the borders, brutally oppress the civilian population and confiscate 100% of the Iraqi oil production. For America. For no dollars except the cost of shipping it across the ocean. You may be saying, "No, no way, Americans would never behave like that". Uh huh. You want to see an entire population lose their kindness, compassion and civility? Take away their economic comfort zone.

All in all, this assault on Falluja is a huge mistake. I can only shake my head. Didn't any of these people in Washington ever read history? When was an insurgency or guerilla resistance movement EVER put down by force? With the exception of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, both of which were far more brutal than we could ever tolerate, the insurgents need only keep fighting in order to ultimately win. If the American leadership is not willing to use that level of brutality (and I for one would hope they are not), then actions like Falluja are actually counterproductive. They strengthen the insurgency while weakening the position of the occupying force both politically at home and among the population on the ground. When we stop killing these people and start talking to them, helping them make their lives better, and allow them to control their own destiny, the insurgency will simply fade out, for it will have become unnecessary.

posted by mikey @ 1:59 PM