Why We Cannot Win

[freedomburns]

Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz
by Al Lorentz

         

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

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

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq...

Dude, your source is a hack

[nomorelies]

This thread will be hammered by RNC talking points.

If you criticise bush you are irrelevent.

[12th Doctor]

This man stands more or less alone among the oppinions I have heard from most Iraqi vets.

[NYGOP]

This man stands more or less alone among the oppinions I have heard from most Iraqi vets.

 I was just about to say something to that effect. Every soldier I know, and I know at least twenty, were all for this war. I haven't even met a soldier that was against the Iraqi invasion.  

[© tweed]

This man stands more or less alone among the oppinions I have heard from most Iraqi vets.

That invalidates his opinions?

[The Duke]

This man stands more or less alone among the oppinions I have heard from most Iraqi vets.

That invalidates his opinions?

FBs purpose was to undermine the war by claiming that troops are not for it, so pointing out that there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary does indeed refute that general thrust.

[Citizen James]

Firstly, active duty soldiers are supposed to avoid making public statements on policy.  That goes both for this, and the various pieces conservatives toss around the net.

I only have a few contacts in terms of millitary personel, only one of whom has served in Iraq, and according to his mother, his private views on the situation are rather pessimistic.  Admittedly, he wasn't exactly delighted when he had completed his tour of duty as a reservist, was boarding the plane home (via Germany), and got called back for a second manditory tour - but since we're back door drafting our reserves, I suspect things may be worse off than are generally known.  In any case our whole church is praying for his safe return.

Stepping out of the complaints about authorship as to the analysis of the piece, I think it has some valid points.    We cannot defeat the insurgents by raw body count - we must win over the people in general.   Unfortuantely, we have at least two groups of opponents - The terrorists who we have taken full advantage of the new instability, for whom the pictures of dead and mangled civilians all over Al-Jezzera TV has been a spectacular recruiting tool, and wish to continue to keep things unstable and goad us into taking more rash actions which lead to more mangled and maimed civilians, which further drives their recruiting efforts.  Then we have the insurgents, who for some odd reason don't like the idea of a foriegn power controlling their country.   If we are to succeed, we must find a way to seperate these two groups - encourage more self-determination to deflate the fears of the insurgents, and make strong efforts to improve our general reputation and undermine any sympathy for the terrorists, followed by careful survelence and highly selective removal or elimination of the terrorist elements.

However, until we recognize the nature of our enemies and the dynamics of the conflict, we are at a great disadvantage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[freedomburns]

This man stands more or less alone among the oppinions I have heard from most Iraqi vets.

That invalidates his opinions?

FBs purpose was to undermine the war by claiming that troops are not for it, so pointing out that there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary does indeed refute that general thrust.

John, I think it's out of line for you to presumptuously decide you know what my motives are.  I am not so partisan as all that.  I really think the war is wrong.  I think the vet has valid points.  I think that people who see his as a lone voice among Oil War II vets need to get out more.  I know of many, many vets who are against the war.  My motivation is to show the people who only get information and opinions that are consitently reinforcing one side of the issue that there are other sides to consider, and other opinions that deserve respect.  This is a voice that deserves to be heard.  He is a thoughtful writer, with valid points.  

I think these opinions on the war have a lot to do with the quality and the content of the "news" that is seen in different parts of the country.  My analysis tells me that this war is destined for failure and the sooner we get out the less of a catastrophe will take place we when finally do exit.  

Kerry and Bush both want to attempt win an unwinnable war to benefit their corporate benefactors.  Their policies on Iraq are virtually identical.  As far as I can tell, Kerry is to the right of Bush on this issue.  Both candidates suck really bad IMHO.  Kerry is the lesser of two evils, nothing more.

freedomburns

[The Duke]

I didn't say you were a partisan or anything.  All I said was that you picked this article by this aperson for the simple reason that his status as a soldier presumably gives him a kind of additional authority on the subject that a Washington based columnist would not be able to claim.

[A18]

So why is every part of the country 100% peaceful except for, like, two precincts?

[The Duke]

So why is every part of the country 100% peaceful except for, like, two precincts?

3 of 15 provinces are in chaos.

Imagine the equivalent here, which would be 10 to 11 states unable to hold elections and controlled by Al Qaeda backed insurgents, and that those provinces included part of the capital city, its most populous city, and the rest of the country's traditional economic and political centers.

Imagine the Blue is peaceful and the Red is violent.

[A18]

I know that. The point is, the rest of the country is peaceful. How can we NOT win? If nothing else, those three provinces will try to secede.

Yes, that'd be civil war, but the point is that no matter what the outcome, a peaceful democracy is emerging in the middle east.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Its nice of you to post the musings of the former chairman of the Texas Constitution Party.

Look forward to your posting his views on immigration, gay marriage, etc.

[freedomburns]

LOL. Touche Carl.  No, I think I will refrain from posting his views on those issues.  I suspect that I might not agree with him so readily on those subjects.

[mddem2004]

My edited and expanded points from an earlier post on this subject:

1) To get to our end objective - a legitimatly elected democratic Iraq - we must have security.
2) To get security we must destroy or diminish the Insurgency.
3) To destroy or quell the insurgents we must either - A. Train Iraqi security forces to take over, yet they won't be capable in the near term - possibly a year or longer....

OR
B. Take the offensive as never before with our military, yet that will certainly further unify disparate groups against us or even drive more moderates against us because the civilian toll will be intolerable. That would likely only fuel insurgent recruitment.
4) Reconstruction, the means to bring stability and progress, jobs, income and the like..... is of course a joke until we can achieve security, which again leads us right back to point #1.

For those who post here that doubt the seriousness of the situation.....
From last Sunday:
Sen. Richard Lugar:  'This is the incompetence in the administration.' referring to the fact that only $1 billion of $18.4 billion allocated by Congress has been spent on reconstruction to date.
Sen. Chuck Hagel: 'The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq...and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy,'
Sen. John McCain: 'We made serious mistakes,'.......and Mr Bush had been 'perhaps not as straight as maybe we'd like to see' on Iraq.

What our mistakes were that in all likelyhood has closed our window of opportunity for success in Iraq:

1) Not enough troops. Its well known that Gen Zinni and others have said that we would need AT LEAST 250,000 troops to properly secure Iraq AFTER the shooting stopped. Looting and wide spread crime was the result. There are now more troops per capita in Bosnia than in Iraq.

2) Not allowing other countries to participate in the reconstruction effort.Wanting the lucritive contracts and the reconstruction to be awarded only to those countries that participated in the war, the administration blew a chance to get more investment faster into the country and a chance to smooth over the rough relations with some of its allies. Even begging won't get countries to invest in there now......

3) Not Risking the Bloodshed When It Was Necessary  - We've seen it twice now - once in Falluja and once in Najef. Each time we have confronted the insurgency in a large stand up fight, we don't destroy the enemy, resulting in embolding the Insurgents and putting off to another day the inevitable fight when they are only stronger.

THE WAR IS ESCALATING - NOT DIMINISHING
- In March of this year we were facing an average of 700+ attacks a month from the insurgents. In August that number rose to 2500+ and September is well on its way above that number.

- In March the average insurgent cell consisted of 3 to 12 members. Today they average 15 to 25 and there are estimated to be many, many more active, organized, coordinated, and well financed cells. More striking, they are being equiped in many cases its being found, with brand new hardware (probably from Iran or Syria or both) - not Sadaam era leftovers.

- The past 5 months (April- August) has seen more American wounded 3900 than the 13 months prior to that (March 03 thru March 04) - 3300.

- The past five months we have averaged 75 Deaths a month, the previous 13 months before that we averaged 46 Deaths a month.

Yet dispite this near doubling of our casualty rate in the past 5 months the insurgency, even according to the pentagon, is getting much stronger - not weaker.

ELECTIONS IN IRAQ

The administration is sticking by its long held goal that elections will occur by mid January and a fully sovereign democratic Iraq will emerge.

Not Likely.......

- The UN, which is in charge of organizing and carrying out the elections, estimate there will have to be betwwen 2500 to 3500 polling places across Iraq for a fair and undisputed election to occur.
We Can't Even Secure The Green Zone.....much less the ques for new Iraq police recruits!

 - The UN estimates that it needs to register a daunting 12 million eligible Iraqis for the election. That amounts to approximately 102,000 Iraqi's A DAY from now till mid January. That would be daunting even by western standards........with security. The UN began that process this week......

- There has been talk of late in the administration that they may 'side step' hot beds like Falluja or Sadr City for the election fearing the polling places will be too unsecure. They cite our own experience during the Civil War as an example of how an election can occur and still be legitimate with only half the country voting.

I can think of no quicker way to de-legitimize a government, and hence strengthen the Insurgency, than to have only 'parts' of the country participate. Especially when that election took place while proped up by the point of the bayonet of a foreign power.

This leaves us with the all too glaring fact that Mr. George W. Bush will not talk about and Kerry has only begun to touch upon.

We have passed the point at which our stated policy objectives can be achieved

We can, and likely will, begin intensive military operations after our own election to clear these 'No-Go' zones of insurgents. That is still six weeks away and with each passing week the Insurgency gets stronger making it much more likely it will cost more American lives once its begun. This is a purely political calculation on the part of Mr. Bush that Will Cost More Lives.

If you doubt me......then please provide me with ONE military reason why we won't do it now.......

This Catacomb of Catch -22's is all the more alarming when one considers the findings of the recently completed National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.......potential Civil War in Iraq.

I recall all too vividly in November of last year, at the height of the first dramatic increase in Insurgent activity, that it was pretty much a unanimous belief among our nations national security experts (both inside and outside the administration) that we had AT MOST 6 months to secure Iraq or our window of opportunity for success would be closed. That was 9 months ago.......

The new Intelligence Estimate has now stated that, belatedly, our window of opportunity for success is rapidly closing and the likely result if that happens is.......Civil War in Iraq. A result that, in my view, is not a mere possibility - but a probability.  

If these elections are not seen as legitimate (indeed ARE legitimate), if they take place with mush of the country excluded because we can't secure the place, if they produce a result that will further diminish Suni power, or if they result in a strong centralized government that wants to impose Islamic Law onto the Kurds.......the likely result will indeed be Civil War.

[ATFFL]

Having elections in Iraq now would be similar to having elections in the US during the civil war.