Why We May Lose the War in Iraq
Posted By John Moore on August 7, 2005
The war in Iraq, improperly called an insurgency, is a complex kind of war – one which allows the enemy to achieve greater effect with fewer combatants. In a guerilla war, the tactic is to overthrow the government with the support of a significant part of the populace. Democracy’s enemies in this war have instead a two-stage goal of first driving out foreign protectors with terrorism. and then triggering a conventional civil war. Because of this, competitors for the spoils – Iran, Iraqi Baathists in Syria, Al Qaeda and the Syrian regime all have the same goals for the first stage, with each hoping to win or gain spoils when their proxies fight each other in the second stage.
Their first stage tactics are primarily terrorist, with some small unit ambushes and attacks. They seek to drive out the democratic protectors of Iraq (primarily the US) by causing a continuous stream of casualties, even at a relatively low level. They seek to demoralize, confuse and enrage the Iraqis, triggering anarchy leading to civil war. Thus they using terrorist attacks against coalition forces, government officials, security forces, and reconstruction personnel, while killing large numbers of civilians.
Terrorism is unusually effective as a tactic because it is a cheap but significant force multiplier. Small numbers of readily replaceable terrorists, often not even trained (in the case of car bombs) or with minimal training (in the case of IED installation and detonation) can kill a much larger number of their enemy. Thugs can operate as assassins and kill important individuals, disrupting reconstruction efforts and the new government.
By using small weapons such as powerful mines, small numbers of terrorists can kill many Americans (i.e. they have a remarkable “force multiplier”). The new Iranian engineeried IED’s – now a misnomer – is an example of how the enemy strategy is evolving. Almost impregnable (to IEDs) marine armored troop carriers are death traps when attacked by the new weapons. One of these devices killed 14 marines last week. Some have been intercepted at Iranian border crossings, and the weapons are not improvised – they have machined parts and are engineered by experts specifically to attack armored vehicles. Notably, it is likely that these Iranian produced weapons are being supplied to Sunni and perhaps Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, even though the Sunnis are Iran’s proxy enemy in the second stage.
While comparisons with Vietnam are always dangerous, there is are at least two important lessons that should be applied to Iraq. Although we won the war in South Vietnam at least twice militarily, it was at great cost. This was because we failed to cut the supply lines from the base of the enemy – North Vietnam, and failed to adequately wage war against the enemy base. General Giap, overall enemy commander, later said that cutting the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos would have quickly defeated the communist side because of the vast amount of material needed to support a guerilla war). The second victory was achieved by removing most restrictions on attacks against the enemy base, blockading their sea supply routes with mines and bombing them into submission. This took only 12 days.
In Iraq, we have a much worse enemy interdiction problem. Terrorists and increasingly lethal weapons are arriving from two neighborint enemy bases via long, porous borders – Syria and Iran. The enemy logistical lines cannot be cut by patrolling the borders because the material and personnel that must get through are much less and the borders much longer.
The malefactors listed above are all at war with the coalition and Iraq, using terrorism in Iraq and in coalition countries. Syria and Iran are allies, in the first stage of the Iraq war, with those who attacked the heart of the United States on 9/11 and on 7/7 the heart of England. The latter was clearly an extension of the Iraq war, with a stated purpose to drive Britain out of Iraq.They are this war’s equivalent to North Vietnam, except we haven’t attacked them at all.
In this age of asymmetrical warfare and terrorism, they should be treated as wartime enemies, with all the measures that implies. Not to do so may lead to the loss of war in Iraq and ultimately an ever increased threat of nuclear megaterrorism in our homelands which could literally destroy our economies, kill tens of millions of our citizens, and perhaps cost the west forever its preminent economic and military position, while an undamaged China gains hegemony.
Nice to see you blogging again, our major problem in Iraq right now is time, the longer we let this carry on and seep vital lives from us the more unpopular this will become. There still is no easy way, we’re kicking butt but we still can’t take our eye off the ball or everything will fall to the wayside. Believe me I don’t want to be there any longer then I have to.
Thanks, Sean.
I’m still not blogging regularly due to lack of time, but I think it will get more frequent in time.
Very inciteful comments above considering when they were written. But we are now beyond those very astute predictions, with Iraq in a full blown civil war. We can go on for hours about the shoulda, coulda, woulda when talking about how we got into the mess we are in. The current problem is “Now what do we do.”
First – we need to get out of Iraq as fast as possible. This is not cut and run. I’m talking about redirecting our efforts to make the utmost use of our strengths and play to our enemies’ weaknesses. Let the Suni’s and Shi’ia kill each other off.
How did we ever get into this nation building thing anyway. When 9/11 hit the American people were crying for blood. Punish the bastards. So, what does “W” do? He spends billions of dollars from our treasury and sacrifices almost 3000 American lives while maiming thousands of more Americans in an attempt to turn an ancient tribal society into a modern democracy.
Second – We need to define our enemies. That would be any country who wishes us harm or harbors organizations that wish us harm including international corporations such as those found in the oil industry whose spokemen include George Bush and Dick Chaney.
If we really wanted to punish someone for 9/11 all the fingers point to Saudi Arabia. Punish them. Target Mecca and Medina with missles. Blow every Wahobbie Madrassa and Mosk off the face of the earth. And, then increase our border security, kick the United Nations out of the United States; cut off ties with all Muslim countries; and send every Muslim who is not an American citizen home and watch the rest like a hawk with all kinds of electronic intrusions.
Third – Imprison George W. Bush and Dick Chaney for the rest of their natural lives, after a fair trial of course.
Fourth – Nationalize the oil industry. And, seek out cheap alternative fuels with the same urgency as we entered into the Space race with the USSR.
Fifth – Update our nuclear arsenal and our nuclear submarine fleet and resort to the same nuclear deterrent strategy, against Muslim countries and any other enemies, that got us through the cold war.
Then, sit back and relax.
In the opening sentence above I meant to say “insightful”, not “inciteful”. In the future I will wirte my comments in “Word” with spell check and copy them to usefuel fools.
See. I just did it again. I meant to say “Usefull Fools”, not “usefuel fools”. It must have been a Freudian slip because heaven knows we need some useful fuels to replace oil. That need is at the core of this whole Iraq thing.