Winning the battle, losing the war
I once saw a documentary on asymmetrical warfare. In one scene the makers interviewed a marine of the side playing the occupier’s role about how the exercise was going. He said it was going well and that he was confident they’d find those rebels soon. The camera crew then went upstairs and ran into… the ‘rebel’ headquarters. Another example is an exercise conducted before the war in Iraq. The general playing Saddam won (that is, the people in charge reset all the ‘pieces’ and continued the exercise following the scenario that said the superpower should win). These examples show that low-tech warfare can be effective. But they’re only exercises. They don’t show the true strengths and weaknesses of this kind of warfare. In order for guerrilla warfare (or variations on the principle) to be successful, they must have the support of the people. That’s the one factor that decides between failure and success. When guerrilla forces are isolated, regular armed forces can seek them out and destroy them. But when they have the support of the people they can just disappear into the population and reappear whenever it suits them best. The strategy of the rebels is to force the occupiers to make mistakes, to lash out against civilians or inadvertently kill innocents. The job of the occupiers is to show the people that their interests are not linked to those of the rebels. This is a war of PR or, to use the current phrase, hearts and minds. Once the population is against you, you can apply as much force as you want but you will never win. One factor rarely mentioned in military analysis is the media. There may be a lot of consolidation going on, but that’s only relevant for the home front. Take for example Iraq. CNN transmits the famous green images from a journalist embedded with the American forces. Al Jazeera has a reporter inside Falujah showing picture of dead and wounded women and children. Who are you going to believe? You can’t control the media. You could close down newspapers and jam any tv or radio station that doesn’t do what you want. But that would never work. The Americans are supposed to be the good guys, bringing democracy and freedom. The best way to handle it is to prevent such incidents and to actually be the good guy. You don’t just have to say you want the best for the Iraqis – you have to prove it. The US has made a number of mistakes in that area already, from appointing the corrupt and out of touch Ahmed Chalabi, to excluding Iraqis from the rebuilding efforts to the behaviour of individual American soldiers. Americans driving their tank over an Iraqi’s car or simply torturing/humiliating Iraqis will not win any hearts and minds. These may be incidents (let’s hope so) but these are the things that influence the image the Iraqis have of the Americans. The way it’s going now, the Americans are the ones that are being isolated from the population. And that’s how this war will be decided. No amount of extra soldiers or new weapons can change that.
(very good analysis, though a bit outdated, with a slightly different angle here)
1:43:42 PM 
|
|
