Burningbird: What kind of war do you think we'll be fighting?

August 14, 2002

What kind of war do you think we'll be fighting?

I just couldn't leave Steven Den Beste's postings about a ground war in Iraq. While I can assume that he has a good understanding of tactics and strategy and troop movements, there was something about his postings that jarred me. Something that didn't feel right.

I finally realized what it is. Seven Den Beste talks about a war with Iraq in terms of the amount of water needed and flow of troops and preferred routes as if he assumes that the only battles will occur within Iraq, soldier to soldier. He's approaching this as a 'traditional' war, and this led me to a question: exactly what kind of war do you think we'll be fighting if we invade Iraq?

If you think this is going to be similar to the last Gulf War, think again. That war had general support even among the Arab states because Iraq proved itself to be an aggressor. It's actions were uncontestable--it invaded a relatively defenseless country, Kuwait.

Today all we have is a nebulous general threat that Hussein is a bad man and is developing terrible weapons, which he'll use against us. This is in addition to the general opinion that Hussein is supporting terrorists, which he'll again use against us.

At the same time we're discussing the dangers of Iraq our newspapers and web sites online--including our weblogs--are beginning to discuss how Iraq isn't the only country with this type of activity. After all, look at Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. These countries also support terrorists, are developing weapons of mass destruction, and so on. If I were a member of one of these countries, in fact of of any Arab country, I would be wary of any presence of the United States in the region, much less a military one.

After all, the only countries showing themselves to be aggressors at this time are the United States and Israel. Don't believe me? Take a look at the papers and see for yourselves--which are the countries rolling out tanks, dropping bombs, and talking about invasion? Just because we all consider that we're the good guys doesn't make our actions less aggressive.

Returning to the Gulf War, our position at that time was to turn Iraqi military back to its own borders; not to pursue the Iraqi into their own cities and homes. Bombing military trucks out in the desert is relatively simple--what happens when the military is threaded in and throughout schools and hospitals and homes? Drop the bombs, shoot the guns and to hell with the consequences?

With each civilian death we will weaken our own position and strengthen the resolve of the Arab people. A people that, for the most part, share a common language, heritage, and religion. And a people that can see for themselves from our publications that we in the West don't think much of them. That we don't like them. That we don't trust them. That perhaps a regime change in the different Arab countries is necessary for true democracy to flourish in the Middle East, and for peace to truly reign.

And for the United States to truly be safe.

I don't know about you but I don't hold my hand out in friendship to people who spit in my face. Do you? And I sure as hell don't hold my hand out to someone who's thinking of kicking my butt and telling me how I should manage my own country.

I said previously that if the US invaded Iraq we would be surrounded by enemies. By this I didn't mean that we would be facing hostile actions from the military of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran and so on. I meant that we would be surrounded by a people who consider us a threat, a danger, and an aggressor. We would be their enemy, but an enemy with a superior military force.

When a people are faced with an opponent possessing superiour military strength they're not going to grab a gun and go get blown away by a tank. They're not going to shoot a 22 at a B52 bomber.

They're going to develop weapons that exploit the weakness of their foe. They will find their foe's vulnerability and seek to target it with weapons designed to exploit this vulnerability most efficiently. And they won't be hindered by ubsurd concepts such as 'honor in war' and 'fair play' and only harming combatants. This is a war--anything goes.

Didn't we learn that one in Vietnam?

Almost a year ago we showed the world our vulnerable spot. We, who have fought the majority of our wars on foreign soil, literally collapsed when someone brought the war to the mainland, to our home. Less than 100 men came close to bringing our country to a complete standstill. We couldn't have demonstrated a more effective target, or a more efficient weapon.

So I ask the question again: If we invade Iraq, what kind of war do you think we'll be fighting? Something to think about when you pull out your maps and push your little toy soldiers around and talk about water supply.

(And suddenly I have lost any and all interest in debating an invasion of Iraq with the warbloggers. Wonder why.)

Posted by Bb at August 14, 2002 03:00 PM

Comments

You sound like my husband in the car this morning. "We know what a weapon of mass destruction looks like. It's a 767."

Posted by: Ginger on August 14, 2002 03:43 PM

Exactly. *Exactly.*

War ain't a game of toy soldiers on a map, somewhere conveniently 'out there': it's real, it's deadly, it involves everyone, and in every case it's utterly stupid. As you've said before, Bb, it's especially sickening to note how the fervour for war - from male or (perhaps especially?) female - is inversely proportional to the expectation that someone _else_ will take the pain. Drop the delusions, folks: in _this_ kind of war _everyone_ will suffer, and suffer greatly. It's time to stop the stupidity, right now: there has to be a better way of solving fears than this lethally childish madeness.

Posted by: Tom Graves on August 14, 2002 03:54 PM

War is in every case "utterly stupid"?

I suppose this is true if and only if the alternative is a state where there is both no war, and the things that the war was to be waged to affect are resolved nicely.

War might be "utterly stupid" compared to this utopian alternative - but here in the real world, the alternatives are not so nice and tidy. Take, for example, the recent war in Afghanistan, long since won (skirmishing and cleanup of rabble may continue, but the war itself is over) - "utterly stupid"? Well, the Afghan people rejoicing in no longer being under the thumb of their religious dictatorship don't seem to think so.

Now, which war are you talking about where "everyone will suffer, and suffer greatly"? A war on Iraq? How will "everyone" suffer? Merely wishing-really-hard for there to bne (there "has to be"!) a "better way of solving fears" will not make it so. There is no "better way" currently, and there isn't likely to be one in the imaginable future. Diplomacy doesn't work with people like Hussein, Mugabe, and their ilk (indeed, a study of histry indicates it doesn't work against anyone more concerned with power or glory than the niceties of "international law", the great chimera of our time) unless backed with the credible threat of brtue force. Sanctions? Entirely ineffective, and also "utterly stupid", according ot large numbers of people, if they have enough teeth to even *attempt* to hurt a regime.

So what do you suggest? Just letting the Mugabes and Husseins of the world continue starving and nerve-gassing people, while they look for nuclear weapons and plot invasions of their neighbors, because, well killing them *is not nice*?

You may be "sickened" and call the use of force "stupidity", but if the best you can propose as a replacement to oppose the *real evils in the world* is yor surety that there "must be" a better way (notwithstanding your conflation of "fears" and "real threats"; "fears" not-too-subtly implies that there is no real threat...) than the "childish" use of force adds up to exactly nothing.

Neville Chamberlain eventually, if I recall, learned the error of his ways - but only after it was far too late to prevent the second world war. We need more Churchills, not more Chamberlains.

Posted by: Sigivald on August 14, 2002 04:17 PM

I may pretty much disagree with you Bb, but I respect your position. I may wonder just when or of you _ever_ thought an 'agressive' action - I prefer the word proactive instead - was warranted, but you do stae your feeling very intelligently.

But you do show an unfair bias on one part that makes me say that "somthing doesn't feel right". And I will do my best to try to convince you of your error here:

"We... literally collapsed when someone brought the war to the mainland, to our home. Less than 100 men came close to bringing our country to a complete standstill."

Nope. Not even close to being accurate. Point by point:

(1) Put in it's context you are claiming that a 'vulnerable' spot was attacked. I disagree. What was attacked were two things, our societal freedoms and our naiveness. On the former you have spoke long and hard about how Bush is restricting them more and more... if that is so then how can it be a vulnerability? Isn't this a consequence of a laudable trait instead? As for the latter, yes it WAS a vulnerability. No more though.

(2) We... literally collapsed? Maybe two great structures did with great loss of life, but not anything more. Rather, our society resembles that other great structure involved in the attack. The Pentagon. I was attacked and was damaged. But while it will bear the scars of that attack for quite a long time, it still stands firm.

(3) Less than 100 men? No way. It was a planned attack, developed over a few years, involving several countries both allies and enemies of our society. It involved a worldwide network. Likely it - in one form or another - involved the conscious and willing actions of closer to 1000 terrorists.

As to what kind of war may be fought... I fear that you may be closer to the truth than I wish. And - if begun today - it will more resemble Viet Nam than Gulf War 1.

But maybe that's why things have NOT started yet. Remembering back to GW1, I recall months of drumming up support by Bush Sr. through the UN precisely because of the need for a coalition that included neighbors of Iraq. If Bush Jr. cannot achieve that level of support, then hopefully he'll moderate his desires to be 'proactive'.

Regards.....

Posted by: DD on August 14, 2002 05:44 PM

DD, this country was severely impacted by 9/11, and several companies have and are still at a point of collapse. And the air system was grounded for several days. This is significant.

I don't necessarily think something like this will happen again, but we do react strongly to terrorism. Our country is not used to be directly in the line of fire. Look what happened to Israel with the suicide bombs, and this is a country used to being in the line of fire.

Even Vietnam didn't generate a threat to the US--not directly. If we don't consider that an effective weapon in war is terrorism, then we're in for some nasty shocks in the future.

Sigivald, looks like you're addressing Tom, so will let him answer.

Ginger--smart hubbie.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 14, 2002 06:10 PM

I'll stand by my points... to use a boxing cliche, we were _staggered_ for a moment by the deliberate and well-planned actions of _hundreds_ of terrorists. Quite a bit different than melodramatically saying we _literally collapsed_ by the actions of _less than 100_ people.

The rest of your posting was extremely well worded and well put. And while we come from different parts of the spectrum, I respect the issues you bring up.

Posted by: DD on August 14, 2002 10:33 PM

Fair enough, DD. Thanks for stopping by, commenting.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 14, 2002 10:47 PM

Sigivald asks: So what do you suggest? Just letting the Mugabes and Husseins of the world continue starving and nerve-gassing people, while they look for nuclear weapons and plot invasions of their neighbors, because, well killing them *is not nice*?

When the Mugabes and the Husseins bend to our will, we have no problem with them.

Chris Floyd:

"The urgency to depose Saddam Hussein seems a bit curious. True, he's a tyrant who deals in political murder, ethnic cleansing, mass repression and aggressive war -- but the United States generally likes that in a foreign leader. Witness this week's decision by Bush to resume cozy ties to the Indonesian military, lately guilty of, well, political murder, ethnic cleansing, mass repression and aggressive war in East Timor in 1999. Not a single top Indonesian officer has faced charges for that attempted genocide: Indonesia's second holocaust in East Timor; the first occurred in 1975, with the official blessing of U.S. President Gerald Ford. But War Leader Bush likes the cut of the Indonesians' bloodstained jib, so he's opening up the spigot again, The Los Angeles Times reports."

Posted by: George P on August 15, 2002 08:56 AM

Sigvald: "the war in Afghanistan" is not 'over' - not by a very, very long way. Try thinking in decades rather than CNN sound-bites, please? All that's happened is that a temporary half-puppet and half-owned 'government' of part-time warlords has been installed, for the time being - while the real war that real people ion that country suffer - still continues with very few changes. Exactly who pulls the strings now, or why, is far from clear: though US oil companies and US importers of heroin are certainly amongst the known bidders...

Last time the US meddled in Afghanistan - to 'help' the mujaheddin push out the relatively liberal Soviet-backed regime, and then dumped them as soon as the Soviets pulled out - all they really did was create the conditions under which the Taliban looked like a blessing (for a while, at least). Exactly the same is happening now. Until we grasp the point that wars can never be 'won' - they just create the conditions for the next miserable war, and the cynical profit-taking that goes with them - we're not going to get anywhere.

You compare me to Chamberlain, and yourself to Churchill: perhaps try reading a more recent biography/history of Churchill, rather than the rose-tinted-glasses view of him still so popular in the States, and you might discover that Churchill was not quite the great hero-saviour you seem to believe...

Oh well...

Posted by: Tom Graves on August 15, 2002 07:01 PM

George P: "When the Mugabes and the Husseins bend to our will, we have no problem with them."

Um... why? Who the heck do we think 'we' are that others should 'bend to our will'? Are 'we' so much better than them? Or are we no different from them - given that they're trying the bend others to _their_ will?

An old Biblical phrase about the mote in the others' eye and the beam in ours might apply here, perhaps...?

Posted by: Tom Graves on August 15, 2002 07:04 PM