Saturday, March 29, 2003

The U.S. is Vulnerable to Losing the War with Iraq  The U.S. may lose the war with Iraq.  The first suicide bomber, who killed 4 Americans, is an ominous sign of things to come.   The danger to the Americans of the Iraqi tactics is seen in how furiously Pentagon spokesman are denouncing them.  While the Pentagon has virtually unlimited firepower, and in virtually all cases can destroy tanks, planes, and vehicles, at some point the Americans have to interact with the Iraqi’s.  What the Pentagon is learning is that this interaction may be on Saddam Hussein’s terms, not on American terms.   Military planners call this asymmetric warfare.  While the U.S. has unlimited military power, Iraq will adopt tactics like hiding among civilians, using suicide bombers, using false surrenders, etc., which are not “terrorist” acts, but are in reality brilliant tactical moves to defeat U.S. war plans.   Saddam has outflanked the U.S.  If the U.S. goal was to come to Iraq as liberators, and unite with the local population to overthrow Saddam, then they appear to be failing.   Saddam has designed a series of brilliant moves to highlight the contradiction of an occupying power making friends with the local population.  The result is to force the U.S. into more and more of a war against the Iraqi civilian population.  Once the U.S. regards the population as hostile, then the game is up, because they will act in ways to create even more hostility.   Given George Bush’s affinity for Ariel Sharon, it seems no accident that the U.S. is rapidly moving to adopt Israeli tactics.  In fact, this has been gleefully reported by Israeli papers.    But there is a big difference between Iraq and Palestine.  Iraq is a country of 22 million people, with neighbors who are hostile to the U.S.  The U.S. does not have the resources or the will to enforce an occupation against a hostile population 8,000 miles away.  So, as the war of attrition grinds on, once Saddam is deposed, there will be more and more pressure on the Americans to cut and run.   In Afghanistan, over a year after the defeat of the Taliban, and after the introduction of an American controlled government in Kabul, the U.S. is still losing soldiers, the Taliban is reconstituting, Afghanistan has gone back to being the principal opium supplier to Asia, women are still as subjugated as ever, and local war lords control most of the country.   If the U.S. allows a similar situation to develop in Iraq, there will be civil war.    I am sure that the U.S. will succeed in destroying Saddam’s regime, regardless whether they capture Saddam or not, but the question has always been what next?   Rumsfeld is looking more and more like Robert McNamara every day.  McNamara.  McNamara had a brilliant plan for Vietnam, that failed when he couldn’t grasp that he was fighting a nationalist movement, not a communist party.   Rumsfeld has a brilliant plan to depose Saddam and remake Iraq.  But in bringing democracy to Iraq, he neglected to think the Iraqi’s may have their own ideas such as turning  to religion and anti-U.S. feelings.   So, if the war is lost it will be a classic case of hubris and the inability to see things as they are, as opposed to seeing the world through an ideological prism.  It is too bad that the costs may be so high.  9:50:34 PM   comment []

© Copyright 2003 Toby Sackton. Last update: 4/2/2003; 11:23:16 PM.