Why we're gonna lose in the long run

Status
Not open for further replies.

longrifleman

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
849
Location
western Missouri
Vengeance
by Charley Reese



Here's a story from Arabic folklore. A man returned to his village after an absence of several days. He met his best friend, and they sat down to drink tea.

"Do you remember the man who offended me 25 years ago?" the man asked his friend.

"Sure."

"Well, I killed him two days ago."

"Why were you in such a hurry?" his friend asked.

Now here is a true story reported in the news some months back. An American officer went to the home of a family whose young son had been killed by American soldiers who mistook him for an enemy.

"What compensation would you accept for your son?" the American officer asked.

"Ten dead Americans," the father replied.

I tell you these anecdotes to point out something that apparently a great many American government officials haven't quite grasped: When we operate in an Arab country, especially Iraq, we are operating in a culture that places a very high value on vengeance and honor. The significance is that when we kill an Iraqi, if the death is perceived by his family as unjust, then the dead man's extended family assumes an unavoidable obligation to avenge it. The family might not try to avenge it the next day. That is the point of the first story. People in that part of the world perceive time in a different way than we do. But the passing of time will not lessen, much less eliminate, the desire and intention to avenge the death.

The object of the vengeance need not be the particular person who committed the original act. Any representative person will do. In our case, any American will do.

When a mob mutilated the bodies of four American mercenaries in Fallujah, a majority of the people there felt shame. Mutilating the dead is against the teachings of Islam. They didn't regret the killings, but they were shamed by the mutilation.

Had we been smart, we would have played on that shame, and no doubt the people would have helped us identify the culprits. But smart is not what the occupation government in Iraq is. In fact, it is dumb. It made the decision instead to punish the entire city and all of its residents.

The battle is going on as I write, and already we have killed women and children in the course of it. This is a guarantee that we will lose in the long run. Oh, we can take the city. We can kill or capture a lot of people. We can blow up a lot of houses. But instead of solving the problem, we will be enlarging it, because we will create more enemies than we kill. After this is all over, Fallujah will not be pacified. It will be more dangerous than it is today.

This is precisely the problem that has so frustrated the Israelis. They have done a competent job, if you want to call it that, of killing Palestinians, blowing up their homes and uprooting their olive trees, but all they've accomplished is to produce more hate and more violence. Now we are following the exact same path in Iraq, and we will reap the exact same results.

Just because generals are good at moving around tanks, airplanes and troops doesn't mean they know squat about the country or the culture in which they are fighting. Most of our generals are neither intellectuals nor scholars. That ought to be obvious from the inane and stupid names they apply to even the smallest tactical missions.

There are some people who can be beaten into submission by brute force. Iraqis and Palestinians are not among them.

I'm sure we have some Special Forces people who understand the Arab culture and could call the right shots. Unfortunately, they are kept out of the loop as far as being able to make the big decisions. They are treated by the brass as gofers. Iraq might not be George Bush's Vietnam, but it's certainly his tar baby. I predict a day will come when Bush will wish he had never heard of the place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been observing the world and reading history all my life, and although I don't have any direct experience with Arabs in their own countries I figured this out about them a long time ago myself. Why are our leaders so ignorant about the people we are trying to conquer? (let the flame war begin)
 
IMO you've nailed down a very important part of what is wrong with the way the west tends to fight wars. The west is so ethnocentric that it tends to believe that what works for it will work for others.

In the case of the west we place such a high value on life that if you kill enough of us then we lose our will to fight. Unfortunately our leaders project our values on our enemies. Eastern cultures however aren't subject to the restricitions that placing an overwhelming value on life entails.

Values like revenge and getting into heaven are way higher up on the totem pole for the east than they are for the west. Thus our way of fighting won't work on them. Hell our way of fighting just makes it easier for them to get to heaven.

Until we grasp that and change our method of war with them accordingly we are doomed to defeat.
 
Are you saying that we have only two ways to end the war over there?

#1 surrender

# 2 Turn Iraq into a sea of glass?

I agree that they have different values. The biggest is that if they die fighting infidels they have a ticket to heaven. There is no way to beat a man in combat if he thinks that.

What we have to do is keep him from being willing to enter combat, and go to his version of heaven.
 
If we do lose in the long run, the responsibility for our loss will sit squarely on the shoulders of all those folks who are spouting leftist anti-war drivel. This does nothing more than destroy our will to fight, demoralize our troops, embolden our enemies, and force our politicians to back down. If we lose this fight, it will be because of weak little leftist b....I better stop there. :banghead:
 
Then again, having family members "wrongly killed" and being unable to do anything about it was the cultural norm in Iraq for at least the last 35 years. I wonder if that means the Iraqis are resigned/conditioned to not seeking revenge or if they are like a pressure cooker long past the need to release steam and we're standing in the way.

We're dealing with people who've had dozens (even hundreds) of extended family members killed by the pro-Saddam people and maybe only one killed by us (well, there is GWI).

Yes, I understand that we're outsiders and that xenophobia is a pretty big trump card.

And, yes, I understand that it's not as simple as the U.S. versus pro-Saddam.
 
The city with the world's second largest Iraqi population is Detroit Michigan.

US military forces, corporations, and diplomats have been successfully operating in the middle east in a large way since the middle of the 19th century.

The premise of "why we're going to lose" i.e., that there is a huge gap in cultural understanding, or behavior patterns, between Iraqis and Americans just ain't so. That argument is a lot like the one the leftist defeatists constantly repeated during the Vietnam war, i.e, that we Americans were too culturally different to understand the Vietnamese peasant farmers who were all skilled jungle fighters operating on their home turf to repel the latest "invader." The truth however, was that the average N. Vietnamese soldier was a conscript from one of the Urban areas of the north, with little more experience in jungle fighting than the average American has in living in the swamps of Louisiana.

The Iraq war is turning out to be somewhat like the Vietnam war mainly in the way in which the leftist defeatists and their amen chorus in the news media are mischaracterizing the enemy and the progress of the war.
 
Hell, I don't care if we turn Iraq into a sea of glass, in fact I would rather do that than occupy it and let the SOB's over there take cheap shots at our soldiers for the next ten years.

What would be so bad about just leaving Iraq? Just pull back into Kuwait and wait.

The bloodbath that would take place between the various sects would be a good thing, and leave less Iraqis around to worry about later.
 
There are two possible solutions to this problem we find ourselves lost within:

#1. Burn our Bibles and buy Korans, or
#2. Reduce the Muslim population of the world to a level which will no longer threaten us.

Neither solution is acceptable to most civilized people.

As Christians, we generally do not trust Muslims or their religion, so it's unlikely we'd convert. But our Christian background would also keep us from initiating suggestion #2. So we are now between the proverbial 'rock and hard spot.' I don't know what we will eventually do, but I think the rapid bastardization and eventual balkanization of our country will have a tremendous impact on the kind of world our grandchildren live in. I'm glad I won't have to.
 
Assuming the original poster's assessment is correct then it give us a clue as to the naure of the conflict.

--Not over national goals and objectives
--Personal fight
--Multi-generational
--Racial as opposed to specifically designated
--Based on an ethic which is the anthesis of that in the west

Every point listed is the exact opposite of how the west views the conflict.

So what about the view that the aggressor determines the nature of the conflict?

Asymetric warfare will force us to do things in sharp conflict with our derived social ethic.
 
We are going to lose if and only if the leftists win.

We had the debate about Iraq 2 years ago. The leftists endorsed it then because of the national will. We had unity in this country for about 3 weeks after 9/11, and it took about 3 months for the venomous left to get back into the I hate America mode.

Just as you can not negotiate with terrorists, neither can you negotiate with leftists. For them, aquiescence is only the beginning. If you want a familiar insight, look at gun control. We give a little, they take. But they are always back for more. Always. Relentless. It never ends.

The leftists have been attempting to derail this action since its inception. At every turn we must renegotiate the conditions. At every turn we must re-examine, re-define, re-visit to satisfy their insatiable need to hate America.

We are now seeing the same developments in this country that we saw during Vietnam. It took 5 or more years in that old struggle for the leftists to mobilize the hate America crowd. The left is now so self-loathing after 30 years that we have insta-hate in a cup.

If we lose, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy for the left.

Every time we re-examine, re-debate, re-evaluate and the leftists such as The Swimmer and the Flip-Flop come out and say "We Hate America and We Support the Baathists" another soldier of marine dies. They die because the Baathists are emboldened by the We Hate America leftist politicians in the US. They are hoping and holding on to see if America will lose her will to fight. They are hoping and praying the the Flip-Flop carries the day so that the Baathist Butchers can return to power.

The blood of American soldiers and marines are on the hands of the left. But they will never accept the blame. After all, the "resistance" is justified in fighting the "imperial occupier." Is that about right? Yes, the blood is on their hands and they must be held to answer for it.

Not only will American blood be on their hands, but the innocent Iraqis who believed in America. When the Baathists resume power there will be a massive purge of freedom. That Iraqi blood will also be on the leftist's hands.

Here's to not losing
 
7.62,

Agree with you, of course. If Flip-Flop wins, my worry is that we will see "Baathist Butchers" here. And they will be coming after us.

I've been listening to Air America the last day or two. It is, of course, the Hate America contingent in microcosm. This is more than an outlet for failed and wanna-be comedians who suffer from logorrhea and enjoy bashing, in packs, like the cowards they are, everything that this country stands for. This is the angry face of the American future, all the people who, like Jacko, refuse to grow up. America's got a serious Peter Pan complex, I'm afraid.

I just wonder how many of us are left and how long we'll last. Even this estimable Forum is showing the signs of America's increasing division.
 
I kinda touched a nerve, maybe

I started this to bring up some different perspectives that I got out of the nuke Falluga(sp) thread. It worked.

I'm not a leftist and thems fightin words to put me in with them@#$%$%&
I do think we will eventually take the Vietnam approach and declare victory and go home. Not that I may agree with it, that is just what I think will happen.

The folks that are so determined to fight still haven't given me any options other than to kill em all and let Allah sort em out. That's not going to happen short of a major attack on US soil with lots of dead - then all bets are off - and I wouldn't want to be an Arab.

Another big problem with Iraq are the goals we are trying to accomplish. Democracy? give me a break. It ain't working here and we've had a fair amount of time to work on it. Shiites are 60% of the population so any free election held will probably be the last free election held until the NEXT civil war. If the goal is to stop them from getting/using WMD's then we don't need to occupy the country and put our troops at risk. If the goal is to stop terrorists we are in the wrong country. We should move south and west. Mostly west. If the goal is to stop the terrorists attacking Israel then go east.

As far as Saddam not having to deal with this kind of reprisal, why do you think he killed the families of his enemies? He understood the culture. One of the ways the press/admin demonized him was to point out how he killed a lot more than just his immediate enemies and we weren't smart enough to ask why. We just saw the evil and went along with the easy solution.
Only it's not turning out to be so easy.
 
Debate and independent analysis is not "division." And blind allegiance to the leader in power is not "unity."

The post that began this thread raises good points, even if one does not agree with the conclusions drawn.

We have to consider that the enemy may not see the world the way we do, and that tactics that would surely work in our culture may not work in theirs.


There are lots of evil, oppressive dictators in the world. Our president figured he could win against this one, so he pretended that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Iraq was no picnic under Saddam, but there was stability of a sort.

When we invaded, we got rid of an evil bastard who killed and exploited his people, but we also threw things into chaos.

Thus, whether we were right or wrong to start this, we have a moral obligation to finish it, and not to pull out and leave a total disaster in our wake.

Personally, I doubt that Iraq is culturally ready for a western-style democracy. That kind of thing takes years and years of cultural change.

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that either we (or our allies or the UN) will have to be there for decades, or things will descend into tribal feudalism.

Only history will be able to judge whether, in the end, we did more good or harm.
 
Describe chaos.

If you want to focus on Falluja during their last hurrah, then so be it. Ignore the rest of the country, ignore the democratic elections taking place locally, ignore the economic growth that is occurring, the schools, the universities, the banking system, and the independent judiciary. None of that matters. As always, the mouse that roared gets all of the attention.

This fallacy that every Iraqi has blood lust to avenge the evil satan is pure hogwash. I have been to several ME countries and talked to the locals and even to the military. The average guy is just trying to find water, food, shelter, hope. Hope has been hard to find for 35 years.

The Islamic extremists that we see in Fallujah are exactly that: extremists. They are a very loud minority egged on by the Mullahs. They can be suppressed, and the normal people can take charge, only so long as we finish the job.

The average guy/gal (comprising 90%of the country) are normal human beings seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For all of you ethnocentrists, this is not an "American" thing or western civ thing. It is the embodiment of human ideals.

There is a very vocal religious component here as well. The mullahs see it as a "now or never" issue. EIther they get the power now, or the civil/secular powers will have it.

Do not sway. This is the last stand. If we fail ourselves at this time of trial, we also fail the peoiple of Iraq, particularly those that just want to be free.
 
Charlie Reese is a conservative in the same sense that Americans for Gun Safety is a pro-gun organization or Sen. John Warner is a conservative.

And if he is spouting the same innaccurate anti-war drivel as the the leftist-extremists then he deserves to be called on it regardless of how he describes himself.
 
The post that began this thread raises good points, even if one does not agree with the conclusions drawn.

No, it doesn't raise any good points.

Reese starts out with some crap he made up out of thin air about Arab folklore and a non-existant interview supposedly conducted by a US Officer with an Iraqi family whose son had been killed during US military operations.

Reese goes from there to make this genius-like observation: "There are some people who can be beaten into submission by brute force. Iraqis and Palestinians are not among them." Exactly what the hell does Reese think Saddam did to the Iraqis for 35 years?

Reese then mischaracterizes the resistance in Iraq as systemic, when in fact it's virtually non-existant in the Kurdish areas, and perpetrated by a small minority of Shia funded, armed, and directed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and a small minority of Baathist Sunnis elsewhere. Senior Shiite Clerics have already begun to condemn the hostage taking and violence committed by their fellow Shia.

The only thing Reese managed to do was whine like a leftist and demonstrate a genuine lack of insight about the conflict in Iraq.
 
When the handover of power is complete mid-year we will not pack up and leave. The US is settling in for a long, long stay in the region. We are building bases out the ying-yang outside the populated area of Iraq. The biggest ones are listening posts created at the behest of the National Security Agency, listening posts. Military bases designed to keep US soldiers in the area and somewhat comfortable are being built. Numerous airfields are under construction. Centcom move its operations HQ forward to Qatar where significant construction is in progress.

It is the policy of the US to establish and maintain a strong military presence in the heart of the middle east. Iraq is merely the beginning. We will set up a military presence to eventually establish a dominant economic presence.

My biggest grip with "Free Trade" is it ain't. It is "Managed Trade" for the purpose of managing access to US markets in support of US foreign policy goals or as a reward for supporting US foreign policy. We are letting every country get a slice of our pie, not because it is the wonder of the invivible hand, but because that is how we purchase good behavior. Well strap in because we will use Iraqi oil to bust up OPEC. We will then be able to begin the preferrential treatment to corporations wanting to locate in Iraq. Plans are already afoot in some company to move to the middle east when things settle down. As Mexico did to the US, as Korea did to Mexico, as Taiwan did to Korea, as Korea did to China, as different provinces of China are doing it to other provinces of China, as the Carribean is doing it to China, so Iraq will do to the Carribean.

Lot of talk about the evil contractors in Iraq. Many a press report equates contractors with mercs. Well, reality being what it is, ALOT of those contractors are nothing more dangerous than teachers. I just found that my best friend is headed to Baghdad as a contractor. His sinister job? Teaching members of the Iraqi National Congress accounting and finance principals. . . . .something necessary when business drives into town.

If you want a go-by of what were are up to in Iraq, take a look at western Europe after WWII. We helped to rebuild their society and had a military presence for 50+ years to keep the badguys guessing. So it is with Iraq.
 
The jury is still out

Reese is a right-libertarian by my way of thinking. Most libertarians had a problem with Iraq from the start, me included. That pesky non-agression principle thing.

I think it is too early to tell if the fighting is the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning.:D

The Kurds have wanted a separate homeland for about a thousand years and may see this as a chance to get it if they play nice with us. It won't work-Turkey is a much more valuable ally and they won't tolerate a separate Kurdistan and we will sell them out just like we did at the end of GW1. The only hope they have is if we decide to use them as a threat against the Iranians and Syrians. The Great Game BS.

So far the fighting is localised. If it stays that way it can be contained. If it spreads into a general uprising our conventional army will loose. No insult intended to anyone in the military but tanks and jets don't count for much in this kind of fight, unless you just do want to kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

The numbers of Iraqis who want us gone NOW don't have to be that huge for us to have trouble controlling the country. In our own revolution about a third of the people actually supported independence and that was enough to carry the whole country.

The Israelies have had soo much success with their tactics that thats the first place I'd go for insight on how to deal with occupying Arab countries. I sure don't want to start debate on that subject, just commenting on tactics.

As for his point about revenge that isn't just an Arab thing anyway. If the situation were reversed I bet most of the folks around this board would be digging spider holes and putting fresh foliage on their ghillie suits. Why do you think the Iraqis would react any differently. I wouldn't. You kill my family you better kill me too.:fire:
 
You can bet your boots that if a foreign power invaded the US that many of us (excluding the NAPs and leftists) would fight and defend.

I think your attempt to get into the mind of the Iraqis is clouding your thinking. The US is an Army of liberation, not imperialism. We defeated what they were unable to defeat: the Baathist regime.

We have made it clear that we are returning the governance of the country to Iraqis.

The only Iraqis who do not appreciate this logical course of events are radical islamists and Baathists (and leftists in the US).
 
The problem with the Palestinians is they haven't been beaten yet. They have just enough atanomy to let the radicals call the shots. Drive them out or install a goverment, give them decent jobs and hope for the future and the radicals will be dealt with by there own people. As it is now there living in UN refugee camps for the last 30 yrs & the radicals have an easy time pointing at the jews & saying "its there fault". H_ll if we lived in a UN camp for 30 yrs we'd be blowin ourselves up to:banghead:
 
We should have obliterated Baghdad at the outset, then accepted unconditional surrenders from Iraq and the rest of the Islamic terrorist states.

We don't seem to have learned better than to fight land wars in Asia.
 
my two pence,

As someone who leaned towards being against the war in Iraq (a view which has hardened as time has gone on), I also feel that since we went in, we at least have a moral obligation to sort out the mess that has been created there, as well as to protect those Iraqis who we claimed to have saved from Saddam from the next leader that would do harm to them.

I have also stated on numerous occasions that I felt the only way to deal with this would be to poltically separate, as much as possible, the Sunni, Shia and Kurdish populations, and deal with them accordingly (we owe the Kurds and Shia after 1991, and they were friendly at the start, and the Sunni wont respond to the US, so a middle eastern power should have been brought in to control Baghdad and the "Sunni Triangle").

Since the end of the war, a different policy has been followed, and this has been a disaster. The Shia have been left unrewarded, with the much calmer al-Sistani sidelined, which has allowed Sadr Jr. (and, if rumours are to be believed, Iran) to step in and promise the Shia communities the Earth in return for their support. The Shia are starting to believe him.

The same thing - lack of reward for previous support - is in danger of happening to the Kurds (dont forget, although Iran oppressed many Kurdish groups, it cultivated some others) unless the Coalition start either advertising their good works much better, or making some radical steps towards stealing Sadr's thunder and promoting (and being seen to promote) the more amenable Shia leadership. The current attempt to demonize Sadr - and Bremmer and elements in the US command in Iraq must hold the lions share of the blame for this - is rapidly going downhill, and its difficult to see (short of coming to terms with Sadr) how this can be settled without further alienation. Can anyone say that the actions against his movement have been a success?

Its worthwhile casting your minds back to the deaths of six RMP's in Amara in June of last year. The men were killed after confronting a mob, and the press and politicians here demanded action against the guilty. However the decision was left to the men on the spot, and the situation was calmed, while the community was reminded that from then on British forces would arrive in a mob and would respond to any incident with firepower. Since then, Amara has been quiet (with one firefight, and that was this week).

Falluja has been mad since the end of the war, and it should be obvious to all that further fighting is unlikely to either end the insurgency or improve the lot of its citizens. Whats needed is a rethink of the whole occupation, otherwise this is either going to turn into a morass, or (and this is almost as bad), we are going to see the Coalition up sticks in June, and turn Iraq into the type of place that we allegedly saved it from being.
 
If we would have split the country into 3 pieces it would have been a diaster. The turks would have swooped in & whacked the Kurds as fast as I can type " JUMPIN JACK FLASH" :D . I think the vast majority of Iraq's people want to live in one Greater Iraq. But a few thousand aholes are trying to derail things, not to mention Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Breaking it up into 3 smaller countries also would have made the place much easier for Iran & the neighboring countries to interfere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top