Comments on: Change policies, not states

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:09:23 +0000

To Ymarsakar: it’s possible to defend the law in the absence of laws. Providing general security does the trick. Thereotically, that was the British policy in colonies, particularly in the Mandate Palestine: to prevent major clashes between Jews and Arabs, whatever are their beliefs and legal systems.You say, “Shock troops can’t be trained from thugs who have been more or less used to brutalizing civilians.” But that’s how shock troops of every army operate in urban combat, there’s just no other way.You are again correct that bringing in more Sunnis didn’t work out. If Iraq is democracy, then the power should be with Shiites. If it’s a Sunni dictatorship, then why bother replacing the Baathists?Again, I agree with you about avoiding guerrilla wars. In fact, that’s not a twenty-first century doctrine, but military commonsense. But then the logistical base of Iraq proves not so important for the punitive air raids against Syria and Iran.

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:02:45 +0000

To Sharon: But the article does not compare Japanese occupation of Asia with American occupation of Iraq; it rather compares the US occupation of Japan and Iraq.Changing policies refers to changing the Iraqi government, not the US policy in Iraq. Obadiah argues that the US successfully changed policies, rather than government (bureaucratic systems) of Germany and Japan.

By: Sharon

Sharon — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:00:49 +0000

My family comes from a country in Asia liberated by the US from the Japanese. My father was born an American in Asia. I am well versed with the history of Japanese occupation in Asia at that time, and it is no comparison to the US invasion in Iraq.Bush’s objective is quite questionable whether this was profit or for liberation of an oppressed nation. Changing policies will not work.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:22:40 +0000

How you are going to enforce the “law” when there is no enforcement and there is no “law” is an interesting semantical argument, of no benefit.The first thing a defender who plans to go on a guerrila campaign does, when he sees the invader coming into occupy, is to setup local intel networks and to sabotage the infrastructure system. The police being one of them. The plans were already there, there was no need for Saddam to “give them out”. That’s the whole point of having 6+ months to plan, you don’t need to know the exact moment of the invasion, you basically have contingency plans upon contingency plans given out to your local thugs in this or that Sunni Triangle province, telling them to do this, do that, if this, if that.It’s no problem to train the Iraqi shock troops; Baathist police was reasonably well-trained,“Shock troops” can’t be trained from thugs who have been more or less used to brutalizing civilians. That’s not a real military unit. In point of fact, you would have to purge more than 50% of the police, simply to get to those Sunni officers that were worth their weight. The US already found those officers for the Special Commando units, it hasn’t solved any major strategic questions about Iraq, yet however.But how would you make them loyal to the American values?You don’t, which is why if you can’t use them, kill them or get rid of them.You don’t fight guerrila wars in Syria and Iran, you raid them. There’s a difference. You’re the guerrila in a raid, not them. People got to think outside the box in the 21st century.

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:29:40 +0000

To Ymarsakar: Right, Saddam ostensibly ordered the police to disperse on the eve of the invasion. Thus, the state disintegrated because of the invasion or a credible threat thereof.Obadiah says that America enforced the law in Iraq, not the laws. American troops conduct essentially police missions for four years. They don’t oppose petty criminals – for most part – but otherwise do the work of the state security police.I agree with you on the “The Iraqis believed that America in our omnipotent might” paragraph. But note that the American ideology is democracy, and America actually enforced its ideology on the Iraqis by demanding democracy rather than the potentially safe dictatorship.It’s no problem to train the Iraqi shock troops; Baathist police was reasonably well-trained, satisfactorily for the local needs. But how would you make them loyal to the American values? Imagine Iraqis invading the US and training the American troops to be loyal to Islamic values. Both won’t work.America unescapably lost the guerrilla war in small Iraq. How would you expect to fight guerrilla wars in Iran and Syria? Punitive expeditions is the only mode of dealing with those states. Fly in, bomb the targets, fly out.

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:19:38 +0000

To Benjamin: what was the last war fought by the US soldiers against the USSR? Vietnam, full twenty years before the dissolution of the USSR. Soviets won the war in Vietnam but never actually cared of it much.What would be the US victory in Vietnam? A friendly anti-imperialist regime? A Viet Suharto?WWII is generally considered a continuation of WWI.It’s *only* several thousands US soldiers died in four years of urban war. That’s a very, very low count. Compare that to the guerrilla wars in Belorussia in 1942-43, or Latin American wars.If your intention is to balance and handicap the Arabs, then you have to support Shia – they are non-Arab Muslim minority in dar al Islam and majority in Iraq. But they are coming to power, anyway.You argue correctly about the Iranian threat to Iraq. How could Iraq be possibly kept demilitarized?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:58:22 +0000

Total war could do a lot in Iraq, as elsewhere, but the issue is, why do we want a victory in Iraq?I’ve had this goal in mind for Iraq since about 2003. Basically, Iraq is there so we can get local shock troops trained under American trainers, loyal to American values if not the American nation, and thus have a local force of 300,000+ soldiers as well as Iraq the logistical base, to carry the war to Syria and Iran. Logistics matter, especially in guerrila wars.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:56:09 +0000

Contrast the American policy in Iraq. The US destroyed the institutions such as the strong government and police which cemented the multi-ethnic religiously diverse Iraq.Saddam had already given orders for the police to disperse, in preparation for guerrila warfare. Ignoring the enemy's contribution to war, is not a good idea in analyzing past plans or planning future ones.merica made the situation still worse by directly enforcing the law and pushing for the unwelcome political changes like democracy and Westernization. America didn't enforce any laws. Even in Maine, the President would send troops to stop the looting, but in Baghdad they just sat around cause they were told not to be "heavy handed". Ya, like not sending in National Guard to New Orleans was being "light handed". Enforcing law and order will give you good cred on the street. Being soft and puddy like, will make people despise and hate you. Not shooting looters in Baghdad, is only one example of American unenforcement of local and American laws.No people would accept new ideology force-fed to them by hostile outsider.The Iraqis believed that America in our omnipotent might, would provide an exact ideology and rulset for the Iraqis to live by. They were waiting for the Americans to do this in fact. They waited so long, that they simply substituted America, in their minds, for Saddam. Recall how Iraqis desribed Bremer, the "dictator". They expected us to maintain law and order, to provide the rules that the Iraqis should follow. When we didn't, when we "expected" the Iraqis to rule themselves, communication problems occured. And then here comes the terrorists to take advantage of it.

By: Benjamin M. M

Benjamin M. M — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:35:41 +0000

The USSR was defeated by lots of proxy wars where thousands of Americans fought and died. It was defeated absent of a declaration of war.”There was just no way for the US to win in Vietnam”Patently false. There were many, it is not the first time a far superior army has surrendered.”Total WWI did not prevent Germany from launching the WWII.”A perfectly gratuitous statement. Total WWI and total WWII did not prevent the Balkans War decades after, even if Sarajevo was the city where it all started. You fight one war at a time.”Iraq, it appears, was militarily inept even under Saddam.”Are you sure?, in the last decade more than 2,000 American soldiers have died at the hands of those “inepts”, just counting American soldiers here, and more than 20,000 have been severely wounded. By military inept I mean an army that cannot invade Kuwait, nor inflict those casualties to the US. Perhaps your measure is somewhat haughty here.”What are the desirable results of civil war in Iraq? A Shia state? Sunnis are too few to win, and in the end they are no better.”In the end, they will be awfully primitive, let’s face it, as all Arab states are by Western standards. For all we care, let’s have awful Sunnis in power while we weaken the others, even if they are a minority. We are Machiavellian aren’t we? It is not about making them better, that thing never crossed my mind, it is about handicapping them. I thought that was the essence of defeat. It is not conversion.”Demilitarizing Iraq without installing a pacifist regime won’t help; no such regime is in sight.”I hold the contrary, demilitarizing Iraq without installing a pacifist regime will help. As long as their army (including secret service) is kept in check. Installing a pacifist regime in the Middle East, nowadays, is something ranging between the chimera and Thomas Moore’s uthopic island, no, it is not real, a Machiavellian heresy. The real thing is that no pacifist regime is in sight, specially with Iran messing around.Anyway, thank you for this opportunity to meditate, wonderful website.

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:48:03 +0000

“defeat is not just a working option, defeat is the only option”There are two cases to consider: the USSR was defeated absent of a total war; total WWI did not prevent Germany from launching the WWII. Sometimes, total victory is impossible: there was just no way for the US to win in Vietnam, and likewise in Iraq.What are the desirable results of civil war in Iraq? A Shia state? Sunnis are too few to win, and in the end they are no better.Iraq, it appears, was militarily inept even under Saddam. And on the contrary, Egypt showed that a country could re-militarize in a few years, 1969-1973, and Germany likewise before the WWII. Demilitarizing Iraq without installing a pacifist regime won’t help; no such regime is in sight.