A Soldier On Why We Cannot Win In Iraq

Posted on Monday, October 04 at 12:04 by sthompson
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: alorentz@truevine.net] 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

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

Note: Why We Cannot Win alorentz@truevine.net http://www.lewrockwell....

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:35 pm
    This is the first intelligent thing I have read on the "war", which on the Reservation we refer to as the Massacre. Mr. Lorentz says unConstitutional. I wonder if he means only Congress is allowed to declare war? Absolutely. Then maybe Congress could end this little war. But, that's not going to happen. This is beginning to look more and more like Viet Nam. Remember how that ended? The Army refused to fight anymore. Maybe that's a solution here. You don't have to obey an order that is illegal. Maybe a few soldiers with conjoes and a strong sense of values could do that. I think that would indeed be an act of true heroism.

  2. Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:43 pm
    It is most unfortunate that this situation cannot be acknowledged by the political leaders prior to the US elections. The consequences of this look rather scary.
    But as they often say: "ignorance is bliss".

    ---
    "We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

  3. Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:51 pm
    He offers no solution to the war in Iraq, perhaps he would just hand over government to the guys who cut people's heads off. That would be an easy out, but that's unfair to the vast majority of Iraqis.

  4. Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:02 pm
    Maybe if John Kerry wins the election, he'll get France on board and they'll come in and save the day! I'm sure the mighty French army will have those 'freedom fighters' shaking in their boots.

  5. Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:18 pm
    Don't think the French could possibly do any worse than what the Americans have done so far to "solve" the terrorism problem.

    Would it not be the perfect irony if the French that were the first ones to bail out of Vietnam came and save the day under the UN in Iraq controlling the oil tap to fund rebuilding by Iraqis themselves? I think the Americans need to just get out of there at this point, go lick their wounds and clean up their own house. Iraq is far beyond repair now. Rebuilding Iraq is clearly not going to happen under the current regime. And neither will eroding the terrorism support.


    ---
    "We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

  6. Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:33 pm
    soldier boy says the word "we" 27 times

    who are 'we'?

    the bagholders? lol

    seems to me the 'free sovereigns' who run the joint (earth) are pinning the mess on the 'we' people.

    sorry, but gotta cut and run, important date with Rothschild on Bora Bora. ;~}

  7. Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:13 pm
    I don't expect to see France to jump in anytime, unless there is clearly something for them to gain. Their population is cemented in their opposition to this war, and their opposition to taking any casualties.

    ---
    Zachary Whalen

  8. Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:42 pm
    The USA surely must get out! They went for the oil, and got more than they bargained for. And democracy and freedom must come from within, not imposed by especially an undemocratic foreign power. But since the US has meddled where they don`t belong, (again), the Iraqi people will find it much harder to evolve into a free, democratic state.

    ---
    Dave Ruston

  9. Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:16 am
    "But since the US has meddled where they don`t belong, (again), the Iraqi people will find it much harder to evolve into a free, democratic state."

    As opposed to what? The real fighting chance they had at a representational democratic government they enjoyed under Saddam? More 'elections' where Saddam gets 100% of the vote?

    I can understand people opposing the war, but to say that they have less of a chance to 'evolve into a free, democratic state.' now than they did under Saddam is extraordinarily absurd. Please tell me how Iraq was going to evolve into a free democratic state with Saddam in power. Come on, give it a shot, humor me.

  10. by gina
    Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:54 am
    It seems to me you know what has to be done to end this horror show. Find other soldiers who feel the same - organize yourselves - GET OUT - find a way to make it public! Others will follow. All it takes is courage. You must already have some courage if you are a soldier. Just redirect it to a greater cause. We are building a monument in Canada (amid some controversy mind you) honoring the draft dodgers who wouldn't fight in the illegal Vietnam war. Your decision.

    ---
    gina

  11. Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:10 am
    can't win in iraq? is that so? Captain Carlyle plays all sides. They, of course, plan to 'win'. Lorentz story is a diversion, a hoax.

    www.linkthing.com/screed/carlyle_group_cluster.html

    ain't technology wonderful
    ain't pyschology grand

    cognitive disonance anyone?

  12. Tue Oct 05, 2004 4:34 am
    One needs ot also remember that under Saddam Iraq was the most
    progressive Arab nation in the Middle East. Women had more rights then
    women in say Saudi Arabi, Iran and Syria. In the Middle East Region, the only
    nation that beat Iraq in progressive reforms was Israel.

    What has happened since the invasion? Women being oppressed by radical
    Islamic groups rising up in Iraq. Terrorist killing people and soldiers daily
    where no terrorisit killings took place when Saddam was in charge.

    Oh sure, I won't deny that Saddam oppressed, killed and tortured people, but
    he was a strong leader that did what he saw as best for his nation, moving it
    forward socially and technologically despite UN sanctions against it and
    obvious US agression. He maintained the security of life for the average Iraqi
    on the street, ensured that his people had power and water(something the US
    can't do due to rising terrorist actions).

    Saddam had to go one way or the other, but the way the US did it is wrong.
    Instead of making the reformation of Iraq an international affair which would
    have eased the burden on all invovled, the Bush administration was
    determined to move forward under a deception of the American public.

  13. Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:56 pm
    Email Captain Lorentz and ask him if he's a hoax.<p> <p>---<br>"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill <br />

  14. Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:54 pm
    How on earth would any of us in the "Western World" know what it was like over there? CNN? (that's "PRAVDA" in English)

    Much of the Arab world looked UP to Saddam Hussein and considered him to be almost the reincarnation of king Nebuchadnezar (poor spelling, I know), leader of the greatest empire in Arab history. He was a symbol of HOPE for the Arab world. His lack of servitude to the United States made him the hero of all Arab nations. Students from all over the world came to Baghdad universities and Iraqi women were more free than in any other Arab nation. Saddam's "regeim" created a huge middle-class for the first time in Arab history, eradicated disease and poverty.

    It is hard for us over here to realize that nobody on EARTH wants the American brand of "FREEDOM" or "DEMOCRACY" rammed down their throats.

    Go watch Star Trek ONE MORE TIME and learn about the Federation's policy of NON INTERFERENCE.

    You and I don't understand how the Arab world thinks. Their culture is DIFFERENT from ours. They have lived for thousands of years by the sword and consider this to be an honorable lifestyle. They crave powerful leadership that they can both fear and respect. They consider Democracy as the tool of cowards and weaklings. AND IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO FEEL THIS WAY!!!

    Regardless of how good or bad life was in Baghdad, it had NOTHING to do with AMERICA and thier bombs and their guns and their HALIBURTON's and the OIL that Bush wants so badly.

    We can all go into Iraq when they ASK US TO. We can do it under the auspices of the UNITED NATIONS (assuming they get over their fear of the U.S. long enough to do their job).

    Why are there terrorists? Because "YANKEE GO HOME" posters just didn't work.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news