Friday, November 12, 2004
Falluja Stomp
(with apologies to Burnt Toast)
Several articles worth reading on the Falluja assault. Surprisingly, the Slate news roundup is probably the place to start, since it gives as good a picture as we have of what's going around in Falluja and around Iraq. Not only do we seem to be losing this war, but the guerillas seem to be calling the shots---during our long planned, and long advertized attack on Falluja, they mount a counter-attack on Mosul and draw away a substantial fraction of our forces. They can do this indefinitely, folks.
Two posts from an ex-Marine (Bing West) in Iraq are interesting. The first presents a soldier's eye view of the battle, which sounds for all the world like a video game. Now, the marines are fighting for their lives too, and I don't mean to diminish that. But it is truly frightening how modern war works, and I worry about the long-term consequences.
The second post, a defense of US tactics in Falluja, is very telling. West winds-up with this statement:
which raises an obvious question: who are the enemy in Iraq? If it is a populace that resents occupation, and resents it more with each insurgent or bystander killed, then we will never attain this goal until Iraq itself is destroyed, or utterly oppressed. Neither end is consistent with our stated goal of establishing a stable, democratic Iraq from which we can withdraw. Clearly, if we are to retain this goal, you either must believe the insurgents are clearly separate from Iraqi society, or you must recognize that winning in Iraq isn't about winning "battles", as the Marines define them, but avoiding the need for them.
West isn't unaware of the difficulties. He selectively cites opinion polls to claim that the Iraqis are on our side, not the insurgents', but I think the same polls show deep resentment of the US, and large swaths of the country that are on the insurgents' side(s). More important, he defines the problem of Iraq in a misleading way.
It would be nice if we could blame it all on "jihadists" and nasty rabble-rousing clerics misleading those innocent poor "emotional" youths who, but for their influence, would welcome their American saviors. But this is drivel. The hatred for America and resentment of American tactics, bombing, sanctions, and demonization runs deep and wide in Iraq. The "rabble-rousers" have to keep up with the mass's anger, not the other way around. Many of the men who take up arms do so because their relatives have been killed, or their towns assaulted, and they see no hope. I would not call them "good guys" of "freedom fighters", because they aren't fighting for a free society. But they are fighting for their own conception of independence and nation, and if we underestimate that, as West does, we will someday leave Iraq in disgrace and defeat.
On this point, West relates a fascinating anecdote, but I think in his eagerness to defend the Marines qua soldiers, he fails to realize its devastating implications for our strategy
Was the Marine sniper justified in shooting the combatant? Hell yes. A soldier on the battlefield has every right to defend himself, almost anyone would agree. But that's not the point. The real point is that if we define as a "jihadist" anyone who picks up arms to defend his town against an foreign occupying army, we will lose. (As usual, a defender of the war seeks to redefine critic's barbs as aimed at GIs, when we're really sympathetic to soldiers' plight, and angry at the generals and political leaders for putting them in a hopeless situation.)
The world is not made up of evil terrorists and good liberating armies. Most people are in between, and we have convinced many, if not most Iraqis that we are their enemy. We did that, by torturing and imprisoning innocents, humiliating proud fathers in front of their families, by invading on false pretexts, manipulating their economy for profit and their lives for domestic political advantage, by holding our lives precious and theirs cheap, by sending our least qualified and most corrupt to run their society, instead of our best and brightest, by annointing as puppet ruler a CIA man, by destroying the security of their society and grinding their economy to a halt. As they take up arms against us now, our men can and should defend themselves, but our generals should never suppose that if we keep shooting the insurgents, they will eventually be purged from Iraqi society. Every step in that direction just makes them more a part of that society.
If I were an Iraqi, I would work with the interim government, not because of lofty dreams of democracy and freedom, but because of the desparate need for security. If I were an Iraqi, I would accept mild authoritarianism as the best feasible outcome, rather than throw in with insurgents who, if victorious, would likely make Iraq a hellhole. But I am glad I am not an Iraqi. We have given them no good options, and should not be surprised then that they resist our occupation.
***
Tacitus, Agricola
Several articles worth reading on the Falluja assault. Surprisingly, the Slate news roundup is probably the place to start, since it gives as good a picture as we have of what's going around in Falluja and around Iraq. Not only do we seem to be losing this war, but the guerillas seem to be calling the shots---during our long planned, and long advertized attack on Falluja, they mount a counter-attack on Mosul and draw away a substantial fraction of our forces. They can do this indefinitely, folks.
Two posts from an ex-Marine (Bing West) in Iraq are interesting. The first presents a soldier's eye view of the battle, which sounds for all the world like a video game. Now, the marines are fighting for their lives too, and I don't mean to diminish that. But it is truly frightening how modern war works, and I worry about the long-term consequences.
The second post, a defense of US tactics in Falluja, is very telling. West winds-up with this statement:
At the operational level, battle is about killing until the enemy forces are destroyed or surrender.
which raises an obvious question: who are the enemy in Iraq? If it is a populace that resents occupation, and resents it more with each insurgent or bystander killed, then we will never attain this goal until Iraq itself is destroyed, or utterly oppressed. Neither end is consistent with our stated goal of establishing a stable, democratic Iraq from which we can withdraw. Clearly, if we are to retain this goal, you either must believe the insurgents are clearly separate from Iraqi society, or you must recognize that winning in Iraq isn't about winning "battles", as the Marines define them, but avoiding the need for them.
West isn't unaware of the difficulties. He selectively cites opinion polls to claim that the Iraqis are on our side, not the insurgents', but I think the same polls show deep resentment of the US, and large swaths of the country that are on the insurgents' side(s). More important, he defines the problem of Iraq in a misleading way.
The insurgents are an amalgam of jihadists who must be destroyed, former regime elements who must be neutralized or destroyed, and unemployed, uneducated, emotional youths who are being manipulated and who must be won over. Too many Sunni imams, fearful of losing temporal power, are preaching hate and despair to the desperately ignorant. American troops can stand against those who bear weapons against them. But U.S. soldiers cannot persuade Iraqis to support a new form of government that brings a dramatic shift in the Iraqi centers of power.
It would be nice if we could blame it all on "jihadists" and nasty rabble-rousing clerics misleading those innocent poor "emotional" youths who, but for their influence, would welcome their American saviors. But this is drivel. The hatred for America and resentment of American tactics, bombing, sanctions, and demonization runs deep and wide in Iraq. The "rabble-rousers" have to keep up with the mass's anger, not the other way around. Many of the men who take up arms do so because their relatives have been killed, or their towns assaulted, and they see no hope. I would not call them "good guys" of "freedom fighters", because they aren't fighting for a free society. But they are fighting for their own conception of independence and nation, and if we underestimate that, as West does, we will someday leave Iraq in disgrace and defeat.
On this point, West relates a fascinating anecdote, but I think in his eagerness to defend the Marines qua soldiers, he fails to realize its devastating implications for our strategy
Based on his visits to Fallujah, Patrick Graham wrote that "it is the sniper the people of Fallujah fear more than anything else." Yet the sniper is the most discriminating of weapons, suggesting that the "people" Graham referred to were the jihadist fighters. I was on a roof during the April siege in Fallujah with a Marine sergeant who was a sniper. One afternoon, he told me, he saw an old man hobble out of his house, supported by his teenage son. They shuffled next door and returned with a few groceries. The son paused to look toward the Marine position before going indoors. On a hunch, the sniper kept watch, and a half-hour later, the young Iraqi sneaked out with a rifle, hid behind a wrecked car, and aimed in. The sniper shot him in the street. From the house came a sharp cry. A few minutes later, the old man hobbled slowly out and, step by faltering step, dragged the body back into the courtyard. The sniper watched through his scope as the old man began to dig a grave.
Was the Marine sniper justified in shooting the combatant? Hell yes. A soldier on the battlefield has every right to defend himself, almost anyone would agree. But that's not the point. The real point is that if we define as a "jihadist" anyone who picks up arms to defend his town against an foreign occupying army, we will lose. (As usual, a defender of the war seeks to redefine critic's barbs as aimed at GIs, when we're really sympathetic to soldiers' plight, and angry at the generals and political leaders for putting them in a hopeless situation.)
The world is not made up of evil terrorists and good liberating armies. Most people are in between, and we have convinced many, if not most Iraqis that we are their enemy. We did that, by torturing and imprisoning innocents, humiliating proud fathers in front of their families, by invading on false pretexts, manipulating their economy for profit and their lives for domestic political advantage, by holding our lives precious and theirs cheap, by sending our least qualified and most corrupt to run their society, instead of our best and brightest, by annointing as puppet ruler a CIA man, by destroying the security of their society and grinding their economy to a halt. As they take up arms against us now, our men can and should defend themselves, but our generals should never suppose that if we keep shooting the insurgents, they will eventually be purged from Iraqi society. Every step in that direction just makes them more a part of that society.
If I were an Iraqi, I would work with the interim government, not because of lofty dreams of democracy and freedom, but because of the desparate need for security. If I were an Iraqi, I would accept mild authoritarianism as the best feasible outcome, rather than throw in with insurgents who, if victorious, would likely make Iraq a hellhole. But I am glad I am not an Iraqi. We have given them no good options, and should not be surprised then that they resist our occupation.
***
Brigands of the world, after the earth has failed their all-devastating hands, they probe even the sea; if their enemy be wealthy, they are greedy; if he be poor, they are ambitious; neither the East nor the West has glutted them. . . . They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.
Tacitus, Agricola
