Bush's emphasis on using military force a folly?

Remove all ads!

In response to the latest post by NonSequitur that is leading the 'last straws' thread astray, I have collected a few articles about Iraq, Afghanistan and Colombia and the formidable problems the US face there.

Iraq
Iraq is a bloody no man's land. America has failed to win the war. But has it lost it?
Trigger-happy US troops 'will keep us in Iraq for years'

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, the Taliban rises again for fighting season
Karzai warns heavy-handed US troops as riots spread

Colombia
Plan Colombia
America's drug plan collapses in chaos

From the articles above I found these two quotes most remarkable:

and

I added Colombia there because the problem of eradicating drug trade there mirrors Afghanistan, except for that there still is a state in existence in Colombia, even though he doesn't control a good percentage of his territory.

There are forceful US advocates for using force on drug trade in Afghganistan, too, and it is unlikely to expect the US to be extremely innovative there. They will refer to their Colombia 'standard procedure': Raids, crop spraying etc. The resistance of the Afghans, the war lords especially, who have no cash cow, that is a cash crop rather, except poppy is predictable - for them it is a question of economical and political survival.

That is, the US elites in their D.C. Ivory towers forget that in the areas where they want to put into action their grandiose stretegic schemes there live people with their own culture, history, needs, interests and their own ideas.

You can't reform a region in a durable without talking to the people, by just relying on force. You need an anchor in the people (and elite exiles don't count) you aim your strategies on or you will not be able to overcome the resistances.

 

Yes thats very true about Londonderry, or 'Derry' as the only acceptible anglicanized term of this particular city.

Well Britain never did apologise for Londonderry, and even if they did, its always going to be a sore point, that will be brough up for countless decades, and the same will happen in Iraq. Though the N.Irish had support and sympathy (considering how few people died), the Iraqi's will not have such luxury.

My point is that Londonderry is still the IRA's best recruitment tactic, and those 100,000 civillians in Iraq will have even more effect.

The fact that the US troops laughed at this, shows how little they care for civilian life.

 

This is such a good point. It plays along with the thread "Cracks in the Wall" and the links I posted there. For some Americans, especially Bush people, the war in Iraq is a symbol of the war on terror. But for the people who live in Iraq it is a war OF terror. Some Americans need a good dose of this reality by the media, but the media would have to let go of its propaganda making before that can happen.

 

Er...I seriously doubt anyone would haul a howitzer to a disturbance for the express purpose of quelling it. If that was was the point of having the howitzer along, doubtless it was for intimidation alone; big machines with gigantic cannons are scary.

 

The intimidation part actually is just the very point of the comment.

Where the brits wear their berets to signal the population 'look we don't fear you' and put themselves into a position of vulnerablitity on purpose - the US troops don't take any risks and dress up like Robocop and take their tanks with them wherever they go, in order to scare those savages - and still expect trust from the Iraqi population they only encounter over the barrels of their guns.

The US are mere guests in Iraq, the sort of uninvited guest that just doesn't seem to want to leave.

 

Well, I didn't really think that was the point of the comment; he was saying the US military was overarmed, and illustrated that by saying "look, they took a howitzer to quell a riot omgwtf" when that misses the point of taking the howitzer along. It wasn't there to actually shoot anything, it was there just to be there.

This sentence is what gave me the impression he was saying "omg, they wanted to shoot at the disturbance with a howitzer". But hey, maybe I'm off base. This is a tangent anyway

Well, all wars are wars of terror. I think at some point, we lost sight of that. We knew it during Vietnam, we knew it after Vietnam...was it Desert Storm that taught us otherwise? Kosovo? Unfortunately, we don't seem to be learning from Iraq. Probably because the war doesn't have any visible impact on the average America.

Every day I have to remind myself, "oh yeah, we're actually at war," because my god, you'd never think it from the way our society is operating right now. The war doesn't really get all that much coverage in the media, either. Certainly isn't dominating the headlines the way other wars have.

 

Well, when you're being fired on you take what you have to fight the attack off.

The US have no problem calling in airstrikes for that purposes, and the 155mm's excellent ability in blasting houses has been proven by the german army in WW-II over Israel in Lebanon and then again in Iraq. That is, coning under attack they would have used it, be it only to save their hides.

The use of massive firepower on the US side unavoidably kills bystanders, too, thus makes the resistance's claims ring true and aids their recruitment.

Considering this simple mechanisms the decision to allow the M-109 at all was stupid. One can hardly blame the soldiers for possibly using it, but instead the officers allowing them this unsuitable piece of equipment for the role.

The background is the question of what combat philosophy you have. The Brits have internalised minimum force peacekeeping from their years in Northern Ireland, an experience the US troops and commanders lack.

I guesstimate the US philosophy rotates about 'killing all the bad guys' while maintaining minimum casualties, with a distinct emphasis on force protection.

Ironically, considering the US superior military strength, in Iraq it is probably so that the US have to lose to win.

 

I agree that Bush's approach is not perfect, but as far as I'm concerned, if the American soldiers over there want to stay alive, I'm not going to blame them for that. If anything, in my opinion, they should be significantly harsher and more brutal in dealing with insurgents; better the terrorists do their suicide missions over there than on North American soil, which we KNOW they'd just love to do more of. Backing down to these zealots will not make them America's friends; any show of friendship is perceived as weakness by them and also provokes attacks. So if you're going to be attacked anyway, I say keep your armour on and remind the attackers that they'll pay for their stupidity.

 

Funny, isn't it? They invaded a country and now they are "just trying to stay alive?" That's... Wow. Lacks reality. I'm pretty certain that someone needs to take that war on their continent and teach them how it feels to be under the heel of a foreign invader. Perhaps after that they would consider again of funding another invasion-trip.

 

It's not merely about 'staying alive'. The US troops seem to be as alien in Iraq as in they were from Mars, with a grain of salt.

And as for "We're here to help, take cover" - a tell-tale article about how the US military was asked by Iraqi tribal sheiks to help against Islamists roaming their territory - and yet managed to screw up so badly in their unique hamfisted style that the Sheiks wished they had never asked.

Kaboom! and the story to that comment: Iraqis Lament a Call for Help.

As I hear, Rummy is still searching 'metrics for victory'. I don't have any. The story above clearly falls into category 'metrics for defeat' and is yet another example of alienating allies.