Idiots, idiots, idiots.

There's no excuse for how flat-out stupid the Allies are being. The strategy being employed in Iraq (bomb first, then send in ground troops) is designed to fail. I just can't believe that US military planners are this stupid. For whatever reason, this action is designed not to work.

Let me recommend three classic books that help illustrate:

The overwhelming message in all of those books, which explain in simple terms how an underfunded underequipped and minimally trained force can best large advanced well funded militaries, is this:

For grass-roots guerrilla action to succeed, the people must understand your political mission, and must relate to it. If the people do not support you, no matter how just your cause, you will fail. But with the people's support, no matter how great the enemy, you will be victorious.

Everyone agrees I think that Baghdad may be the “defining” battle in Iraq… And the people are the real wildcard. Saddam may have a lot of troops (outnumbering the US forces potentially), but Baghdad is no mud-hut village — it's a modern metropolis of four million people. Change the writing in the advertising billboards and shave everyone's mustache and you'd think it was Miami.

So what does the US do? Launch missiles into civilian markets. Do you really think that the people who's family's bodies litter the streets are cheering for American-style freedom? Do you really think they understand that this is just “unfortunate collateral damage”? Maybe they'll see that in twenty-five years, but they're not going to believe that lie any time soon.

So what is the US doing? It's taking a giant population of people who could easily have swung politically toward the US, and instead guarantees the opposite… Whereas they should have sent in ground troops first (into civilian areas). Yes, more US troops might have died, but the Iraqis would not be shown the dishonor that it means to be part of the American military, and would not be living with the proven belief that Americans will never improve their lives.

It's a very basic strategical failure.

Everyone in the military knows that. Guerrilla forces have been a significant part of mainstream warfare for the last fifty years. Which means that logically, this was a reasoned decision.

Now ask yourself, why would the US make military decisions, that, no matter what the end outcome (I'm not saying the US can't eventually pound Iraq into submission — it's got probably a hundred thousand times the assets to throw at this), will guarantee civilian hostilities and a deeply destabilized region? I offer you two potential overlapping answers:

  • The more damage that's done, the more money will be spent. That is, the corporate interests will reap rewards directly in relation to the damage. These corporate interests are not only the largest contributors to the Bush/Cheney regime, but they are personally involved as well. These attacks go a long way to guaranteeing that those companies, as well as key figures in the regime, will become outrageously wealthy.
  • Iraq was on the cusp of having sanctions lifted, its tourism was way up, and its population was largely Westernized (look at pictures of Iraqi's urban centres if you don't believe me; the picture above really is Baghdad). It was literally on the verge of becoming a “first world” nation with the same ideals of freedoms as places like America (well, maybe not America, but you know what I mean). These attacks go a long way to guaranteeing that won't happen.

Maybe you have another answer…. But the only other answer I could come up with is “the people making the plans are morons” and we know that's not true…

Wow Shannon, that's really annoying! What is it, 1997 on Geocities? Retroweb is NOT cool!

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *