US Soldier in Iraq: Why We
Cannot Win
Lew Rockwell.com
by Al Lorentz
September 20, 2004
Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently
deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some
politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old
and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under
my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye
view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job
to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and
specifically in my region.
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a
number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history
and reality.
When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to
beware of the "political solution." Just when you think you have
the situation on the ground in hand, someone will come along with
a political directive that throws you off the tracks.
I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional
invasion of Iraq and possibly pulled off the even more
un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation of this sovereign
nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on
these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect
for such an institution. True the possibility of pulling all this
off was a long shot and would have required several hundred
billion dollars and even more casualties than we've seen to
date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or
necessary but possible.
Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.
First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war,
but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a
guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla
forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and
dead-enders."
This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we
can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over,
mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not
the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving
to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.
The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its
every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst
the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or
destroy his base of support.
So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one
you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly,
when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions,
raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent
populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine
the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a
casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the
math.)
Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was
skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here
with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant,
mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt
us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be
eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually
been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by
our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly
into the recently hostile.
Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain;
it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the
locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing
increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of
addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and
discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us
pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of
reality.
We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a
hostile, aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are
told that they are not upset at the police state we have created,
or at the manner of picking their representatives for them.
Rather we are told, they are upset because of a handful of
terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made
them upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of
"left wing media bias."
Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we
can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla
warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas
are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support.
For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more
innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi
community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for
the terrorists and less support for us.
We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over
again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties
as a necessity of war without realizing that these same
casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi
citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla
army but also into more support of the guerilla army.
Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much
shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import
everything we need into this place; this costs money and is
dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck,
they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by
truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies
being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage
becomes infinitely more expensive.
Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and
are showing every indication of developing a very sophisticated
network for obtaining them. Further, they have the advantage of
the close support of family and friends and traditional religious
networks.
Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his
capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight
exactly the wrong war here.
Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are
falling behind.
Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a
remarkable resiliency and adaptability.
Because the current administration is more concerned with its
image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance:
soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life.
It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants
would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as
well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is
ahistoric and un-Constitutional.
It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission
is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore
an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has
sworn.
September 20, 2004
Al Lorentz [send him
mail] is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of
Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in
Iraq.
Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com
|