Ignorance Is Bliss
As the Senate awaits General Petrarius' Iraq Report come September, I'm reminded daily by almost everyone how little people know about military operations in general. I have to say its appalling. Nearly all of the liberals/progressives/socialists have got it wrong and yet, even conservatives seem extremely ignorant of the lessons of history when it comes to waging war. Conventional wisdom I'm afraid is the modus operandi when it comes to understanding which battles were won and which were lost as well as the reasons for both in achieving victory and suffering defeat and conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. This is the unfortunate side-effect of having a "all-volunteer" army instead of a draft: not enough of us have served in uniform. Not to say that if you never have served you can't figure out what's going on but it makes it harder to comprehend the ramifications of military operations.
Let's begin with the so called "surge" in Iraq. This is a tactical operation which we will win, no question about it. We have the superior quality and quantity of troops to take charge of the situation. However, I would like to remind everyone we are fighting "insurgents" or "guerrilla forces" not conventional armies by any stretch of the imagination. This does make a difference on the battlefield as far as military operations are concerned. We will win and have won. I wish to repeat myself: we will win and have won. However, this is a tactical maneuver which will result in tactical victories. This is not a strategic movement resulting in strategic victory. Therefore, we will be victorious tactically in Iraq, however the strategic victory still eludes us. Its the strategic victory that ends wars not tactical ones. A case in point is Vietnam. Here we were victorious in all of our encounters with North Vietnam and her proxy, the Viet Cong. Yet, though we were victorious tactically in South Vietnam, our refusal to invade the North was the strategic defeat that we inflicted upon ourselves. After 10 bloody years of tactical victory, we packed up and went home.
Will Iraq also end up the same way? Ah, good question. At first, under the aegis of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, both Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq were outstanding successes. Both of these evil regimes fell within weeks after we unleashed the dogs of war. We not only achieved tactical victory but also strategic victory because we invaded the enemies strongholds instead of just jousting with them on the hinterlands of the battlefield in the give and take mentality that was so pervasive throughout the Cold War between 1948 and 1989. After September 11th, 2001 we decided to take no prisoners and initiated the so called Doctrine of Pre-emption: we went on the offensive. The defensive mentality of the Cold War Era no longer applied. As a result, our casualties were so incredibly low, thank you Donald Rumsfeld, that now we will expect all of our conflicts in the future to be just as "painless" due to the success of our military victories in both the tactical and strategic realms. Is this a "Revolution in Military Affairs"? No, of course not, its simply a return to common sense.
However, the mid-term election of 2006 apparently has changed the dynamic of this strategic position in America. Since the Democrat Party has returned to power we have returned to a defensive position strategically in spite of the clear and present success of strategic offensive operations. This is a Cold War mentality that ignores the reality of the 21st Century. Too many people, both liberal and conservative, are trying to secure strategic victory from a tactical position. This ultimately will result in strategic defeat even though we will win on a tactical level such as we are currently pursuing in Iraq under General Petriaus.
Often this War On Terror is compared to World War II. In one sense this is true, the War On Terror is global in scope much like WWII. However, in the other sense, its not like WWII because we are being way too nice to our enemies in that collateral damage is viewed negatively and thus we refrain from "bombing them to Kingdom come" as we did during WWII against the Germans, Italians and Japanese. More importantly, the War On Terror is not like WWII precisely because we are not on a strategic offensive against our enemies. We are fighting defensively from our secured positions in Afghanistan and Iraq. We must go on the offensive into Iran, Syria and any other Muslim wasteland that dare raise their hand against us and take the war directly to their homes. This will mean a Declaration of War by Congress, this means we will need to call up the Draft, this means collateral damage will become a fact of life for Muslims who oppose the United States of America. Are we anywhere near this outcome politically, militarily and mentally?
The stakes are very high in the War On Terror. It is the height of arrogance and naivety to think we can simply "walk away" from Iraq. The Islamic Jihad being waged by Syria, Iran and other miserable regimes in the Middle East against the West will gain so much political momentum from our "retreat" that Vietnam is going to look like a picnic in comparison. Perception in many ways is more important than reality when it comes to Islam. We cannot afford to operate in a defensive mode. We must engage the enemy on the strategic plane of the Middle East in its entirety not just the tactical plane in Mesopotamia. Mere missile bombardment will not due. We must invade these nations with boots on the ground and the US Navy and Air Force supporting them all the way to the capitol of the enemy. Anything less will ultimately fail and the West, not just the United States, will suffer for its lack of vision.
Let's begin with the so called "surge" in Iraq. This is a tactical operation which we will win, no question about it. We have the superior quality and quantity of troops to take charge of the situation. However, I would like to remind everyone we are fighting "insurgents" or "guerrilla forces" not conventional armies by any stretch of the imagination. This does make a difference on the battlefield as far as military operations are concerned. We will win and have won. I wish to repeat myself: we will win and have won. However, this is a tactical maneuver which will result in tactical victories. This is not a strategic movement resulting in strategic victory. Therefore, we will be victorious tactically in Iraq, however the strategic victory still eludes us. Its the strategic victory that ends wars not tactical ones. A case in point is Vietnam. Here we were victorious in all of our encounters with North Vietnam and her proxy, the Viet Cong. Yet, though we were victorious tactically in South Vietnam, our refusal to invade the North was the strategic defeat that we inflicted upon ourselves. After 10 bloody years of tactical victory, we packed up and went home.
Will Iraq also end up the same way? Ah, good question. At first, under the aegis of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, both Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq were outstanding successes. Both of these evil regimes fell within weeks after we unleashed the dogs of war. We not only achieved tactical victory but also strategic victory because we invaded the enemies strongholds instead of just jousting with them on the hinterlands of the battlefield in the give and take mentality that was so pervasive throughout the Cold War between 1948 and 1989. After September 11th, 2001 we decided to take no prisoners and initiated the so called Doctrine of Pre-emption: we went on the offensive. The defensive mentality of the Cold War Era no longer applied. As a result, our casualties were so incredibly low, thank you Donald Rumsfeld, that now we will expect all of our conflicts in the future to be just as "painless" due to the success of our military victories in both the tactical and strategic realms. Is this a "Revolution in Military Affairs"? No, of course not, its simply a return to common sense.
However, the mid-term election of 2006 apparently has changed the dynamic of this strategic position in America. Since the Democrat Party has returned to power we have returned to a defensive position strategically in spite of the clear and present success of strategic offensive operations. This is a Cold War mentality that ignores the reality of the 21st Century. Too many people, both liberal and conservative, are trying to secure strategic victory from a tactical position. This ultimately will result in strategic defeat even though we will win on a tactical level such as we are currently pursuing in Iraq under General Petriaus.
Often this War On Terror is compared to World War II. In one sense this is true, the War On Terror is global in scope much like WWII. However, in the other sense, its not like WWII because we are being way too nice to our enemies in that collateral damage is viewed negatively and thus we refrain from "bombing them to Kingdom come" as we did during WWII against the Germans, Italians and Japanese. More importantly, the War On Terror is not like WWII precisely because we are not on a strategic offensive against our enemies. We are fighting defensively from our secured positions in Afghanistan and Iraq. We must go on the offensive into Iran, Syria and any other Muslim wasteland that dare raise their hand against us and take the war directly to their homes. This will mean a Declaration of War by Congress, this means we will need to call up the Draft, this means collateral damage will become a fact of life for Muslims who oppose the United States of America. Are we anywhere near this outcome politically, militarily and mentally?
The stakes are very high in the War On Terror. It is the height of arrogance and naivety to think we can simply "walk away" from Iraq. The Islamic Jihad being waged by Syria, Iran and other miserable regimes in the Middle East against the West will gain so much political momentum from our "retreat" that Vietnam is going to look like a picnic in comparison. Perception in many ways is more important than reality when it comes to Islam. We cannot afford to operate in a defensive mode. We must engage the enemy on the strategic plane of the Middle East in its entirety not just the tactical plane in Mesopotamia. Mere missile bombardment will not due. We must invade these nations with boots on the ground and the US Navy and Air Force supporting them all the way to the capitol of the enemy. Anything less will ultimately fail and the West, not just the United States, will suffer for its lack of vision.
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 3:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home