Ian-Excellent post. It lacks conclusions, like what to do about Iraq. Your comment states you see Iraq as lost. I assume you favor immediate withdrawal of American troops. I disagree with you about Afghanistan. I see that as lost as well.

I wonder if your analysis of guerilla warfare can be adapted to American politics. Being non-violent, I do not suggest armed attack anyplace. I wonder if we can’t do something more meaningful than writing blogs or comments-boycotts, strikes, things like that.

Lots of food for thought.

I wanted people to draw their own conclusions from principles. I think Afghanistan is lost, but that’s based on what I think NATO will and won’t do. Based on theoretical capabilities and the current preferences of the population (most of them don’t much like the Taliban) it is theoretically winnable. That’s what makes Afghanistan so sad.

Let me get this straight. We are in Iraq, based upon lies, and are responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and as the Speaker said the other night on “Hardball”, that 70 percent of the American people are against the occupation of Iraq, and to want the troops out, and that supporting the Iraqi’s for wanting us out and fighting us to that end is bad?

I think supporting the Iraqis who are fighting to get the occupying armies out is a noble sentiment. Unfortunately, in order to get us out, they will have to kill relatives and friends of many of the people posting here. It should not surprise you that you will be the target of anger by those who have a loved one at risk. I agree with you – U.S. troops should not be there, and we should all work to bring them home NOW. What a horrible situation!

I guess gwb doesn’t have enough Feng in his shui for such wisdom.

Air in his water? (puzzled)

Rick’s front page Washington Post article is a mass of contradictions; like the haze from drinking to much moonshine. Iraqis will stop resisting an alien Christian occupation. American troops can draw down to a token force.

The Pentagon follows the first rule of the neo-cons; lie to the American people. Corporate media parrots the Pentagon propaganda. The US troop numbers in Iraq are always increasing. Big Oil cannot give up all that petroleum in the ground. The Military Industrial Complex needs to keep the money flowing. The Israeli lobby is pushing to keep the forward bases occupied in Iraq.

The USA is fighting a Forever War; until global warming, economic collapse or a political revolution ends America’s colonial adventure on the other side of the world.

When I was in the Army, we had a MOUT site (military operations in urban terrain) that was patterned after a ‘typical’ european town layout – densely packed buildings, narrow streets and dominant observation of the land around it.

Over the course of two years, and two different units, we would take turns attacking and defending against each other. The Company Commanders and Platoon Leaders would make bets on outcomes, and after it was over we’d have a ‘prop blast’ (ritualized drinking from an artillery shell casing.)

In those two years – the attackers Never won.

We tried everything. A buddy of mine had a plan to stage a diversion, and blaze in with a Ch-47 attack to the ‘off side’ – in the middle of the night, of course – but the defense was prepared in depth and the diversion was easily stopped (often the ‘defense’ would leave an ‘outlying’ building approachable – wait until the attackers filled it – and then ‘rubble’ it with pre-placed charges, an easy trap to set.) The helicopter was ruled ’shot down.’ Attack failed.

I tunneled into the place (in the middle of the night, again) with my platoon and got nearly everyone in – but once the shooting started, we got isolated and taken out in detail.

Commonly, an ‘interior’ defense was to ’stake-in’ a concertina wire ‘belt’ around the buildings at the street level. This kept everyone – friend and foe – ‘off the walls’ and in the middle of the street – right in pre-set fields of fire. And, of course, there were always buildings, even in the interior, that were set-up as open invitations (no razor wire) to seek cover and get rubbled in.

So, if you control the town AND have the support of the populace – it’s impregnable, short of the ruthless, ruthless strategy.

For a great read, on point with this article, I recommend McDonough’s “Platoon Leader” -

http://www.amazon.com/Platoon-…..amp;sr=8-1

McDonough is charged with protecting a vietnamese hamlet and occupies a patrol base just outside the town. He patrols aggressively, keeps up good relations with the village headman and doesn’t allow any interference with the locals by his guys. The VC keep getting ambushed by the patrols before they can concentrate for an attack on the patrol base, despite some small successes.

The VC resort to a war crime, killing and mutilating a much loved village woman who lived outside the village, in an attempt to pry the villagers away from the Americans. The headman survives multiple attempts on his life, being wounded multiple times, but he stands unwavering with McDonough.

Finally, rather than continue fighting a costly fight with the Americans, the VC bring in the NVA, by-pass McDonough’s position, and destroy the entire town.

I wonder if your analysis of guerilla warfare can be adapted to American politics. Being non-violent, I do not suggest armed attack anyplace. I wonder if we can’t do something more meaningful than writing blogs or comments-boycotts, strikes, things like that.

Lots of food for thought.

The quote from Mao enlightened me as I first heard the sentiment expressed by Dr. Ernesto Guevarra who said; “guerrilla warriors swim through the population as fish through the water”. He also noted that he envied, most of all, the people of the United States, as, living as they do in the belly of the beast, they (we) have the most important job of all…….

This war we are currently engaged in is nothing more or less than an attempt to capture a dwindling resource, thus depriving our economic competitors from obtaining it. As a sidebar it also reaps huge profits for the military industrial complex. It is only possible to engage in such a war as we the people are become disinterested in the details of our governmental decisions and workings. When first suggested, by PNAC spokespersons Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle, James Baker immediately quashed it and our allies expressed great outrage about the hubris of it. So times have changed greatly since then, and not in any sort of good way at all.

‘the laws of war are designed to prevent utter barbarism’? and war isn’t utter barbarism?

No 60yoh war it isn’t. It’s vile, it’s evil, peeople do bad and cruel things but it’s not utter barbarism. Utter barbarism is when you wage what Hobbes called “Bellum ominium contra omnes” – “The war of all against all.”

The last such war in Europe was called the thirty years war.

I’ve seen it twice now once in Lebanon, the aftermath of it in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and now for the second time in Irak.

Hobbes described it thus:

“Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short. … …

To this warre of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice. Force, and Fraud, are in warre, the two Cardinall vertues. Justice, and Injustice are none of the Faculties neither of the Body, nor Mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his Senses, and Passions. They are Qualities, that relate to men in Society, not in Solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition, that there be no Propriety, no Dominion, no Mine and Thine distinct; but onely that to be every mans, that he can get; and for so long, as he can keep it. … …”

This article recaps recent days talk of “the Korean model” for American long-term presence in Iraq with the curtain of anonymity in full force. Speaking thus evidently seen as being the better way to avoid future accountability or need to clarify or retreat from. Profiles in courage in stated opinion/viewpoint with a name/rank given evidently seen as foolhardy or as a tactical flanks exposure risk.

The goal line is being moved/set out to Jan.2009 plainly enough. September will be lots of smoke and mirrors,more string-a-longs and useless WashDC dithering and non-spinal
posturing. The DC DEMS are proving themselves fully unable to put up any meaningful,stiff push-back or fight. Expect that to be the DC DEMS general order of battle from here on out.

Clearly the U.S. military is thinking and doing plan-outs for a long-term American stay in Iraq. Last November 2006 election’s results and turnouts plainly seen as being beside the point–a small speed-bump for American imperial intents and desires in Iraq. The U.S.military clearly gaming the system just as the Bush/Cheney regime does. The new guy coming in to replace Gen.Pace will very likely be looking for “ramp-up time” and plainly will game the Iraq left/right and up/down focus lines all he can to buy time. And more time.

The suggested undercurrent of this article then being American military troops will be in Iraq for decades to come with the number(here it is again) leveling around 50,000 troops.

The money quote goes to this expressed view in the sixth paragraph from the top–

‘Also,officials think any Iraqi government will prefer to keep a small U.S.combat force to deter foreign intervention.’

Questions—??

Does this mean the Americans who are in Iraq are not a foreign intervention?

Does this mean that any Iraq government that prefers all Americans leave/get out will find itself suddenly at risk of being branded as “a victim of undesireable foreign intervention?”

Do Americans in Iraq see themselves as not being a foreign force in Iraq?

That would be/is an odd and curious construction if so.