If you're wondering why innocent Western women are seized in Iraq

[Colleen Thomas]

That's not a bad little summary, esp. if it's the result of just a year or so or research.

This thread is not a tutorial on "insurgency' or 'counterinsurgency,' but I'll make a couple comments.

Classic expositions of guerrilla warfare are found in Mao, and Gen Giap, both of whom were on the winning side.

Your point three about 'victory' is generally a good one.

3. Vicotry conditions are so variable, that both sides might legitimately claim victory from the same encounter. This is best illustrated by the Tet offensive in Vietnam, where the US scored a crushing military victory, but the VC and NVA claimed the political victory they had long sought. An insurgency force does not claim many victories in military terms, it isn't trying to. If th Ci force iss till looking for victory in military terms, they will eventually lose.

It is not quite true that both side can 'legitimately' claim victory. As you suggest the larger goal has to be considered. Hence the US 'military victiory' at Tet is part of its LOSING war effort. You imply this in your last line, in that a string of 'military vilctories' may result in a loss. Indeed this was the case in Vietnam: there were, if you looked at battles, mostly instance where the US soldiers were said to 'win.' Yet the overall effort can only be called a loss.

Mao's famous summary is apt, and it flies in the face of the Western 'macho' approach eptomized in Gen Foch's famous line J'attacque, meaning in all cases. Mao said "When the enemy advances, we retreat; when the enemy is stationary, we harass; when the enemy retreats, we advance." He also said the well known line, "the guerrilla is to the population as the fish is to water."

This last line does suggest one way to win. Drain the pond, elimiinate the water. Yet unless you ruthlessly kill most civilian in an area, 'draining' is not going to work. Relocating villagers to 'strategic hamlets' (concentration points) is not that effective, for they resent it.

Mao, in a historical view, looked at the end of coloniialism as a victory for 'the people', meaning the majority in such places as China, Vietnam, Algeria, etc. Your point 8 is correct, yet you don't seem to realize its implications:
8. In CI, the population's allegance is the goal.

You imply a kind of symmetrical tug of war, waged for the people's allegiance. But it is asymmetrical. A colonial army or an occupying one is generally NOT welcome. In Vietnam and Iraq, the Westerners talk of 'hearts' and 'minds' and think that candy bars and some medicine are going to win them. It is not too much to say that, given the people's rising awareness and 'national spirit', it was impossible for either the French or Americans, even if Colly herself were at the helm, to win the people's hearts. Nationailism is a very strong force in the 20th century.
In the Iraq case, it may not be much of a nation, yet, ironically, the US is making one-- a hostile one.

This brings us to your points 6. through 8.

6. Ci is ugly, it's brutal, and it is not for the sqeamish. This isn't Kansas, there is no toto, and if you plan to win, you toss your moral and ethical concerns aside and operate as the insurgency does, on a bottom line loss/gain scale. You cannot fight Ci with lofty ideals and high moral tone. You can't because the people you are fighting are not going to play by the rules, any rules, except the bottom line rule of winning at any cost. If your morals and ethics are too strong for you to over come, then you should never get involved in a CI war.

7. An insurgency will try to squeeze the population, between two forces.[...]
8. In CI, the population's allegance is the goal. They are the ones who know who the insurgants are. They are the ones who know when an IED is going to go off. they are the ones providing the enemy with intel on the occupation forces. It is all about intelligence and the side that has the population's support will win the intelligence battle.

That's Ci the clean way, for the long haul, if any kind of Ci warfare can be said to be clean. There is a dirty way to do it, that is much more effective in the short run, but it requires a level of ruthlessness that few governments have nowadays. This wasn't the case in times past. And the dirty method was the method of chocie, because it worked. The clean way is always iffy.

Your last line betrays the problem. This ideal clean, Pentagon-inspired way is in fact 'iffy.' One reason, aside from the historical fact that peoples like to control their own countries, is stated in your 6. You seem to suggest to 'toss one's moral and ethical concerns aside.' That means your hands are dirty, with lots of blood on them. How then do you stand in front of the 'people' and win 'hearts and minds.'

In fact the opposite is true, as the Abu Ghraib scandal showed. Funny how the Iraqis did not applaud the jailers who tossed asided their morals. They hated them more, are more resolved to get rid of them.

The Battle of Algeirs, used by the Pentagon, shows this issue nicely. Yet you and the Pentagon try to extract a victory formula from it.
The French paras exactly 'tossed aside morals' and torture as much as they liked, and broke number of terror cells, and got low level people to name the higher ups. The effort, for a while, seemed to succeed. But the end of the movie (reflecting history) shows the entire Algerian populace up in arms. New recruits are found. Alferians 'won,' and France lost, leaving after they said, "Algeria is part of France. One cannot leave."

This brings us back to the thread theme colly. You want the wife of the terrorist in for a couple days questioning, and put a very civilized veneer on it. In fact humiliation or rape may well 'work' to get her to betray her husband or brothers, at least in part. So, following your advice, morals are 'tossed aside.' If she emerges, not after a day or two, but a month or sxi months, her family is dishonored. Her story is on Al Jazeera and Iraqui and sobsister US liberals are horrified.

It's not hard to see what the upshot is going to be. Counterinsurgency by the book, be it Colly or the Pentagon's, is most likely a failure.

I could continue, with the issue of the 'home front', which you raise. Indeed it's key, as in Vietnam. Here the 'toss aside' approach is particularly deadly. But enough for now.

Nice dialoguing with you. Your knowledge is impressive.

CI, by the book, can work. It has worked int he past. That goes for the ruthless kind, like the Brits vs. the Boers or the "wining of hearts and minds" kind, Hatti or the Phillipenes would be good examples. What will never work is mixing and matching.

It's kind of like this, if you are doing it the ruthless way, you can never show kindness. You are ruling through fear and kindness will be seen as weakness.

If you are trying to do it the kind way, you can't have an Abu Grahib or soldier's blasting crowds of demonstrators.

In iraq, there is also the wild card of Islam.

My point, in the main though, wasn't that we could or couldn't win a ci war in Iraq. It was just that you can't really understand what's going on there, if you don't recognize the "ground rules" of the war that is being fought.

If you recognize what is happening, you don't need a flimsy little exercise in hypocracy with a sexist flavor to get riled over. There is plenty there to get upset about without such. Of course, if you are anti war, the real problem is, nobody seems to care about the real failures and problems. So maybe I just didn't give the proagandists who are making it a big deal enough credit. If it takes unsubstantiated allegations of hostage taking to get the publics interest, maybe this was the way to go.

 

[Pure]

Hi RR,
I did look at the material, which does seem to romanticize the Werewolves.

But reading it carefully, we see mainly incidents of sabotage. In your docs, I see only a reference to 5 US servicemen killed in Germany after its surrender. The other widely cited case, the Mayor of Aachen is *before* surrender; it's not a US citizen; it's a German one assassinated by Himmler's orders.

In all, you have nothing to sustain a figure of 1000 American army (even including dependents) casualties in post surrender Germany.

The US Army has a definitive history of the occupation, and entire book on the web. The parts I've read substantiate the position I've taken.
Virtually no casualties. You will note there is explicit talk of the werewolves, but the writer does not seem upset, and can find little evidence of their success.

It might also be mentioned that the troop number imply a disanalogy with Iraq. From what I have read in the material below, the US had a million men in Germany on VE day (ca. May 1945), and this was drawn down to 300,000+ in the few months after surrender--for as you are aware, the Pacific War was still going until the atomic bombs were dropped in August.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/other/us-army_germany_1944-46_index.htm

ARMY HISTORICAL SERIES


THE U.S. ARMY IN THE OCCUPATION OF GERMANY, 1944-1946

by
Earl F. Ziemke


--------
excerpt on werewolfs, etc., chapter 19.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/other/us-army_germany_1944-46_ch19.htm

Except for black marketeering, some thefts of food and firewood, and petty violations of military government ordinances, the German civilian crime rate was low, sometimes almost disconcertingly low for the Army agencies charged with ferreting out and suppressing resistance.

In October, after five months of occupation, Seventh Army G-2 believed Germany to be a "simmering cauldron of unrest and discontent" and claimed to have detected a "mounting audaciousness in the German population"; but as concrete evidence G-2 could only cite some illicit traffic in interzonal mail (then still prohibited), a "strongly worded"
[354]

Werwolf threat to one military government officer in the Western Military District, and a protest against denazification from the Evangelical Church of Wuerttemberg.38 Patrols occasionally found decapitation wires stretched across roads, ineptly it would seem, since no deaths or injuries resulted from them. Military government public safety officers from scattered locations reported various anti-occupation leaflets and posters, some threats against German girls who associated with US soldiers, and isolated attacks on soldiers.

Although not a single case was confirmed, possibly the most talked about crimes against the occupation were the alleged castrations of US soldiers by German civilians. When the commanding officer of Detachment E3B2, in Erbach, Hesse, was asked to investigate one such rumor, he reported that not only had there been no castration but that there had not been a single attack on US military personnel in over four months of occupation.39

 

[Purple Sage]

Hi RR,
I did look at the material, which does seem to romanticize the Werewolves.

But reading it carefully, we see mainly incidents of sabotage. In your docs, I see only a reference to 5 US servicemen killed in Germany after its surrender. The other widely cited case, the Mayor of Aachen is *before* surrender; it's not a US citizen; it's a German one assassinated by Himmler's orders.

In all, you have nothing to sustain a figure of 1000 American army (even including dependents) casualties in post surrender Germany.

The US Army has a definitive history of the occupation, and entire book on the web. The parts I've read substantiate the position I've taken.
Virtually no casualties. You will note there is explicit talk of the werewolves, but the writer does not seem upset, and can find little evidence of their success.

It might also be mentioned that the troop number imply a disanalogy with Iraq. From what I have read in the material below, the US had a million men in Germany on VE day (ca. May 1945), and this was drawn down to 300,000+ in the few months after surrender--for as you are aware, the Pacific War was still going until the atomic bombs were dropped in August.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/other/us-army_germany_1944-46_index.htm

ARMY HISTORICAL SERIES


THE U.S. ARMY IN THE OCCUPATION OF GERMANY, 1944-1946

by
Earl F. Ziemke


--------
excerpt on werewolfs, etc., chapter 19.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/other/us-army_germany_1944-46_ch19.htm

Except for black marketeering, some thefts of food and firewood, and petty violations of military government ordinances, the German civilian crime rate was low, sometimes almost disconcertingly low for the Army agencies charged with ferreting out and suppressing resistance.

In October, after five months of occupation, Seventh Army G-2 believed Germany to be a "simmering cauldron of unrest and discontent" and claimed to have detected a "mounting audaciousness in the German population"; but as concrete evidence G-2 could only cite some illicit traffic in interzonal mail (then still prohibited), a "strongly worded"
[354]

Werwolf threat to one military government officer in the Western Military District, and a protest against denazification from the Evangelical Church of Wuerttemberg.38 Patrols occasionally found decapitation wires stretched across roads, ineptly it would seem, since no deaths or injuries resulted from them. Military government public safety officers from scattered locations reported various anti-occupation leaflets and posters, some threats against German girls who associated with US soldiers, and isolated attacks on soldiers.

Although not a single case was confirmed, possibly the most talked about crimes against the occupation were the alleged castrations of US soldiers by German civilians. When the commanding officer of Detachment E3B2, in Erbach, Hesse, was asked to investigate one such rumor, he reported that not only had there been no castration but that there had not been a single attack on US military personnel in over four months of occupation.39

A really critical difference between the occupations of Germany and Japan, on the one hand, and Iraq on the other, is that Germany and Japan were defeated in long, bloody struggles that affected the civilian population directly, whereas the Iraqi army pretty much vanished in a few days. This kind of lightning war may seem very clean on one level, but it doesn't do anything to reduce the desire of the population at large to resist occupation. The people, as well as the militaries, of Germany and Japan, were thoroughly beaten by the time the army-to-army fighting stopped. Their governments surrendered. None of this is true of Iraq.
Another significant difference is that Germany and Japan were both the aggressors- the initiators of war. While Iraq did invade Kuwait, that has little to do with the recent war and occupation. Possibly if we had occuppied the country at the end of Gulf I, there might have been substantially less resistance. In the current conflict, it's easy for Iraqis to make a case for themselves as freedom fighters and resistors of an unprovoked foreign occupation.
Finally, in Germany and Japan there had been legitimate bodies of anti-fascist resistance with significant support before the war from which draw post-war leadership, another threat which seemed even less attractive than U.S. occupation looming on the horizon (The USSR and later the PRC), and hence an environment in which the occupying forces were actually willing to let something pretty close to democracy work. In Iraq, half the population sees their most powerful neighbor as more or less preferable to U.S. occupation, the government they actually want to elect is anathema to the U.S., and there were few organized democratically oriented resisters to Saddam before the invasion- in part because the U.S. allowed a lot of the resistance to be slaughtered after Gulf I. None of this is likely to engender much popular support for the occupation. (and all of it was known before the invasion).

 

[R. Richard]

From the material you quote:
"The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers -- perhaps even that of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945. Buildings housing Allied and Soviet staffs were favourite targets for Werewolf bombings; an explosion in the Bremen police headquarters, also in June 1945, killed five Americans and thirty-nine Germans."

However, it would seem that the large numbers of American casualties I had attributed to the Werewolves were indeed WAY overstated. I apologise if I spread inaccurate information.
R. Richard

Hi RR,
I did look at the material, which does seem to romanticize the Werewolves.

But reading it carefully, we see mainly incidents of sabotage. In your docs, I see only a reference to 5 US servicemen killed in Germany after its surrender. The other widely cited case, the Mayor of Aachen is *before* surrender; it's not a US citizen; it's a German one assassinated by Himmler's orders.

In all, you have nothing to sustain a figure of 1000 American army (even including dependents) casualties in post surrender Germany.

The US Army has a definitive history of the occupation, and entire book on the web. The parts I've read substantiate the position I've taken.
Virtually no casualties. You will note there is explicit talk of the werewolves, but the writer does not seem upset, and can find little evidence of their success.

It might also be mentioned that the troop number imply a disanalogy with Iraq. From what I have read in the material below, the US had a million men in Germany on VE day (ca. May 1945), and this was drawn down to 300,000+ in the few months after surrender--for as you are aware, the Pacific War was still going until the atomic bombs were dropped in August.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/other/us-army_germany_1944-46_index.htm

ARMY HISTORICAL SERIES


THE U.S. ARMY IN THE OCCUPATION OF GERMANY, 1944-1946

by
Earl F. Ziemke


--------
excerpt on werewolfs, etc., chapter 19.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/other/us-army_germany_1944-46_ch19.htm

Except for black marketeering, some thefts of food and firewood, and petty violations of military government ordinances, the German civilian crime rate was low, sometimes almost disconcertingly low for the Army agencies charged with ferreting out and suppressing resistance.

In October, after five months of occupation, Seventh Army G-2 believed Germany to be a "simmering cauldron of unrest and discontent" and claimed to have detected a "mounting audaciousness in the German population"; but as concrete evidence G-2 could only cite some illicit traffic in interzonal mail (then still prohibited), a "strongly worded"
[354]

Werwolf threat to one military government officer in the Western Military District, and a protest against denazification from the Evangelical Church of Wuerttemberg.38 Patrols occasionally found decapitation wires stretched across roads, ineptly it would seem, since no deaths or injuries resulted from them. Military government public safety officers from scattered locations reported various anti-occupation leaflets and posters, some threats against German girls who associated with US soldiers, and isolated attacks on soldiers.

Although not a single case was confirmed, possibly the most talked about crimes against the occupation were the alleged castrations of US soldiers by German civilians. When the commanding officer of Detachment E3B2, in Erbach, Hesse, was asked to investigate one such rumor, he reported that not only had there been no castration but that there had not been a single attack on US military personnel in over four months of occupation.39

 

[zeb1094]

"If you're wondering why innocent Western women are seized in Iraq"

Not anymore!

 

[ozymandiask]

What soldiers do and think.

PS Ozy, very interesting, very frank. Thanks for the input. Was it Vietnam? If so, is it not relevant to point out that your actions ('occasionally' shooting the women and kids) based on 'military necessity' contributed to the lack of success of your side?

I was not Vietnam. We succeeded militarily and politically. Much as it may surpise you, front line troops do not tend to discuss or even consider moral philosopy when in action!

The prime considerations are the military objective, survival, the next meal , comrades and getting home- roughly in that order.

 

[matriarch]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How anyone could glorify the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, or any dictatorship that abrogates basic human rights and then criticize, out of hand, those who come to set them free, is almost beyond belief.

But then ideologues seldom see the forest for the trees.


amicus...

'those who come to set them free...'...........I never knew you were a fan of irony.

 

[Pure]

Rr

you're showing yourself as a scholar and a gentleman.

 

[Scipionyx]

I have to ask a question of those of you participating in this thread ......

How many of you have Been There, Done That ?

I know that I am not known around here, but I read the Lit Board everyday. I'm just curious if there is anyone here who has Eaten Dirt for a living ?

 

[R. Richard]

I have to ask a question of those of you participating in this thread ......

How many of you have Been There, Done That ?

I know that I am not known around here, but I read the Lit Board everyday. I'm just curious if there is anyone here who has Eaten Dirt for a living ?

Yes, although not in Iraq.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have to ask a question of those of you participating in this thread ......

How many of you have Been There, Done That ?

I know that I am not known around here, but I read the Lit Board everyday. I'm just curious if there is anyone here who has Eaten Dirt for a living ?

I haven't. Excluding the Carribean and Mexico, have never been outside the U.S.

 

[amicus]

I have to ask a question of those of you participating in this thread ......

How many of you have Been There, Done That ?

I know that I am not known around here, but I read the Lit Board everyday. I'm just curious if there is anyone here who has Eaten Dirt for a living ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Welcome to the active participation in the forum....perhaps you could explain just what you mean by 'eaten dirt?'

amicus...

 

[zeb1094]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Welcome to the active participation in the forum....perhaps you could explain just what you mean by 'eaten dirt?'

amicus...

Probably crawling around trying not to get killed by the enemy! Going where your told too, doing what your told, to accomplish the mission! Maintaining the security of the United States of America at any number of bases around the world.

Being on night patrol in the jungle not able to see more than five feet in front of you. Trying to creep through a marsh without making a sound. Laying down cover fire for you fellow warriors while they drag a wounded commrad to safty. Sitting at an entry contol point trying to stay awake for 12 hours. Standing at attention for 4 hours, without makeing a move, to guard the tomb of the unknown soldier. Being first behind enemy lines to set up a beacon for more troops to follow. Making a field safe by finding and disarming all the mines that had been placed there by the enemy.

I could continue but I think I've made my point!

Sargent, United States Air Force (Retired)

 

[amicus]

You could well be correct, Zeb, could be Scipionyx is referencing military service, the thought crossed my mind that it could be agricultural labor, in the fields, or even the bottom rung of physical labor to earn a living.

Perhaps Scipinonyx will clarify...


amicus...

 

[Scipionyx]

Joined the Marine corp at 18 in 1975. 8 years Corp duty as Marine Sniper 1st Recon. Cross over to Naval CRT Teams in late 83. I have been inside 28 different countries, most of the time not invited. I have experienced and seen things that I sincerly hope that all of you never have to experience personally. I think the point I am trying to make here is that the Politically Correct War they are trying fight these days just is not going to work. It gets people killed. I have been to Iraq, both the first gulf war and several periods before this one was even a thought on a board. To the Islamic world this is not a war as we know it. It is Jihad. Most Islamists do not feel or think the same way as the Islamist Extremist. They feel threatened themselves by these fools. They stand no chance against them if they speak out and they know it. Don't let any one fool you, the extremist does not fight for religion, this is a struggle for power and money. I'm sorry but I have no feeling for the adult family members of the extremist. The children are all that matter, and the sooner that they could be removed from the influence of the the radical teachings, the better. I could keep going for hours, but I have found that most of the time this is a fruitless endevour. The people of the United States and a lot of the world are protected from all but a very few glimpses of the horror that incurs. Maybe if they saw some woman tied over a barrel and gang raped reapeatedly and left to die in the desert they might begin to understand what it is we are dealing with now. If any one thinks Iraq is bad, they should have been in Bosnia and Kosovo. I have to admit that some of what I experienced there bothers me to this day. Again in the name of religion, but really for power and money.

I sincerly hope that I have not offended any one here, especially the ladies, for I did not mean to do so. And if I have I apologize now. If you haven't Eaten Dirt, you really don't know the workings of war.

As far as some women being held for a short period to possibly get the attention of some fool ...... If no harm came to them and they were treated well ..... I have no problem with that. If it also keeps one of my Brother's out of harms way, if for only one day, this is a good thing. If I have missed anything that any of you might be thinking, or if what I have stated does not seem to answer your question as to why I felt the need to ask this, please feel free to come right at me and fire away. There are a bunch of good people on this board, but I just don't have much to say sometimes. I'm going to try to change that habit. I like intelligence not BS, and have found a lot of intelligence here.

Your Humble servant .....

 

[dr_mabeuse]

8. In CI, the population's allegance is the goal [my bolds--dr.M]. They are the ones who know who the insurgants are. They are the ones who know when an IED is going to go off. they are the ones providing the enemy with intel on the occupation forces. It is all about intelligence and the side that has the population's support will win the intelligence battle.

That's the problem with rousting innocents. The moral and legal aspects of detaining female family members of suspected terrorists is one thing. I'm concerned about it from a tactical point of view. If it saves lives, then do it. But if it just outrages and alienates the people you're trying to help, then you're playing into the insurgents' hands.

The idea of an insurgency like this is not to defeat the US Army militarily. There's no way they can do that. The idea is to provoke a response from the US that's so extreme and unpopular that it rallies neutral Iraqis to the terrorists' cause, until the whole country is radicalized, at which point we've pretty much lost.

Personally, I think that was the whole idea behind the 9/11 attack. They were trying to provoke a response that would radicalize the Islamic world against the USA. In that sense, we did just what they were hoping we'd do.

 

[amicus]

Scipionyx ...thank you for taking the time to reply and clarify.

Mine was US Navy at age 17 and then US AIr Force for the last 4 and I guess I didn't have to 'eat dirt' as you did, just played with electronics and encryption devices.

But I don't dispute the horror of war as you describe it.

Nor do I dispute the very difficult circumstances you found in Bosnia or Iraq.

Most rational people, not even up close and dirty, don't want anything to do with the actual boots on the ground aspect of war.

Since you sound a little disillusioned and perhaps even bitter, I might ramble a little and see if I can't say something that might raise you above your feelings.

I think part of the reason the United States did not continue on to Baghdad in the first Gulf war was for the reasons you stated. We wanted no part of the Jihad and the terror that Israel has been through for nearly half a century.

And I think we would not be there now if it were not for 9/11.

We, as Americans, are not suited for occupation or nation building. By nature, we are not cruel enough to eliminate the root of the opposition.

Stopping the inhumane aspects of Islam would mean the destruction of all the Mosques and schools run by religious zealots. It would mean destroying most of the culture of Iraq and rebuilding anew.

That could be done in Germany and Japan becaue most of those countries were destroyed and starving and ready for peace and change of any kind.

It most likely cannot be done in Iraq unless Iran or Syria initiates a nuclear attack that solidifies world opinion.

I ache in pain when I see and read about the thousands of devastating wounds our young men and women are coming home with, it is a terrible sacrifice.

However, that being said, I think there was little choice about pre empting any further attacks on American soil. I think it had to be done.

It could have been done differently, certainly, in a dozen different ways. Better ways? I don't know.

It is sometimes difficult to see the larger picture when you are following orders and 'eating dirt'. I personally accept that the policies of the United States are the product of the best we had to offer.

amicus...

 

[Scipionyx]

Amicus, thank you so very much for your reply and concern. It is truly apreciated. My bitternes stems from all the times told to Stand down when you knew for a fact that it "Would" make a difference. The politics of war SUCK that is where my bitterness stems from. The people running the game, and I do not mean the military as per say, are the ones responsible for such FUBAR's. When you have some one who has not been there done that and only answers to those who don't know anything about a situation other than what they are told just burns my ass. I really try to not be bitter but it is a hard row to plow at times. Thanks for your trying to understand where it is I'm coming from.

And Doc, one thing you have to understand. Once someone is singled out, especially in Iraq, that they are part of the insurgents, they might as well put a gun to their head as far as the rest of the imediate population goes because they are rejected by those who want nothing to do with such extremists. That is a very bad situation for them to be in. It is just how it works there.

Thanks again .....

Hoo Ahh ..... Semper Fi

 

[Pure]

Hi Scipio

Nice posting.

I respect the 'dirt eaters' and even some of the 'higher up' persons. It was Patton who said, "The object is not to die for your country, but to make the other fellow die for his."

Dirt eaters are not usually eager, in absence of a threat to hearth and home, to go 'adventuring' oversees, trying to establish the "American Century" or even "plant democracy." They are especially not eager to be in fixed positions as occupiers, and become sitting ducks.

As stated earlier in this thread, it is one thing for a soldier to be in Germany or Japan after WWII and help keep order while a new govt is being set up. But that fellow isn't getting blown up by roadside explosive devices. He's not having to take sides in a civill strife/war. The populace is passive, if not grateful, or friendly.

It is mostly those who've NOT served, the neocon 'chicken hawks' (Cheney) children of deferrment, who dream of a world empire, a US dominance secured with its armed forces as necessary.

I think too, if you are soldier, youre quite sensitive to the pretexts that politicians offer, for wars and adventures. Hence I would hope you do not agree with amicus:

//I think there was little choice about pre empting any further attacks on American soil. I think it had to be done.//

He apparently means the Iraq war, and as you know, it's entirely unclear if that 'pre empts' attacks by folks like al qaeda (who didn't hang out in Iraq). It's just an official 'line' justifying the Iraq enterprise.

Indeed, there's something to the argument that the US presence in Iraq provides recruiting potential for al qaeda and at best diverts attention and manpower from actually defending the homeland.

 

[amicus]

Pure said: "...It is mostly those who've NOT served, the neocon 'chicken hawks' (Cheney) children of deferrment, who dream of a world empire, a US dominance secured with its armed forces as necessary..."

Most everyone here knows that Pure has an agenda which he is loathe to clarify and defend.

The Military has a long history in the United States, and although I served as an enlisted man, I did consider the Officer ranks as a possibility.

The history of Military schools, such as Annapolis and West Point and to a lesser degree the Air Force Academy is a laudable one. Whether it is Billy Mitchell or George Patton.

There is a reason General Eisenhower was not a particularly good President and also reasons why politicians or statesmen are not proficient in military matters.

there are both bad military commanders and public representatives, but by and large, as our history indicates, there is a reason the Military takes orders from the Government and not the other way around.

Perhaps General McCarthur, who was hell bent on using nuclear weapons on China during the Korean conflict is a good example. It might well have resolved Chinese Communist intervention in Korea, it might also have triggered a Nuclear war with the Soviet Union and Truman shut him down.

Things to ponder...


amicus....

 

[Scipionyx]

Pure thanks for input. Let me give this some thought and I will be glad to answer ......

 

[Scipionyx]

This discussion is so pure and honest that I must take the time to delve into myself before I can begin to answer anyting else ..... Thanks gang .....

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That's the problem with rousting innocents. The moral and legal aspects of detaining female family members of suspected terrorists is one thing. I'm concerned about it from a tactical point of view. If it saves lives, then do it. But if it just outrages and alienates the people you're trying to help, then you're playing into the insurgents' hands.

The idea of an insurgency like this is not to defeat the US Army militarily. There's no way they can do that. The idea is to provoke a response from the US that's so extreme and unpopular that it rallies neutral Iraqis to the terrorists' cause, until the whole country is radicalized, at which point we've pretty much lost.

Personally, I think that was the whole idea behind the 9/11 attack. They were trying to provoke a response that would radicalize the Islamic world against the USA. In that sense, we did just what they were hoping we'd do.

From a tacticle standpoint, we don't have enough information about the situation to do more than guess. On a general basis, you need to remember we are dealing with Psyops.

So, seizing a woman, would be bad, in that it would provoke a strong reaction among neutral, but devoted muslims. However, the population's general idea of feminity, will work for you, if you produce a significant body of evidence she was involved materially in the insurrection. She might become a martyr to the insurrection, but to your average muslim, she is wrong to be poking her nose into the province of males.

On a more small scale tactical level, the command NCO may have felt she was a danger, either to take action against his force herself, or more likely, to let her husband know a concerted attempt was being made to round him and his asscoicates up. In that case, leaving her free would, in all probability, provide her with the means and time to wan him and allow him to make himself real scarce. Insurgents use the popuolace for cover, and a great many of them will have a "day job" as part of that cover. If her husband was Hakim, the local bus driver, and you missed him at home, you might still catch him at work, or at the hoookah parlor where he is known to hangout, or at the mosque he frequents to keep up his daytime cover, if he isn't aware his cover has been blown. In that case, maintaing the secrecy of your round up, will probably take precedence over long term concerns about the populace's reaction. Holding her incommunicado, for a couple of days, may well net a significant enough strategic aim to justify the potential fall out. We just don't know from the information given.

If the local force netted eight insurgents, fingered by a paid informaer, then the cost was well justified. If they netted nothing, then it was a disaster. But without significant infor,all we can do is wonder about it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

And Doc, one thing you have to understand. Once someone is singled out, especially in Iraq, that they are part of the insurgents, they might as well put a gun to their head as far as the rest of the imediate population goes because they are rejected by those who want nothing to do with such extremists. That is a very bad situation for them to be in. It is just how it works there.

Thanks again .....

Hoo Ahh ..... Semper Fi

Well, you have the insurgents blowing up their fellow Iraqis in an attempt to destabilize the new government, and then you have the insurgents fighting to get the US out of their country altogether. I imagine that sometimes the two groups are the same, but quite often they're different. I'm sure the average Iraqi citizen hates the first type with a passion, but I'm not sure how he feels about the second.

I keep thinking of a recent poll I saw where some large majority of Iraqis (70-80% as I recall) felt that violence against American troops was "justified" in order to get them out of their country. That's a frightening statistic.

You were there and would know better than I, but I don't understand how insurgents can go out at night and plant roadside bombs and not be seen by a whole bunch of people, none of whom seems willing to come forward and turn them in. Colly's right that insurgents hide among the people, but they do so with the people's complicity.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, you have the insurgents blowing up their fellow Iraqis in an attempt to destabilize the new government, and then you have the insurgents fighting to get the US out of their country altogether. I imagine that sometimes the two groups are the same, but quite often they're different. I'm sure the average Iraqi citizen hates the first type with a passion, but I'm not sure how he feels about the second.

I keep thinking of a recent poll I saw where some large majority of Iraqis (70-80% as I recall) felt that violence against American troops was "justified" in order to get them out of their country. That's a frightening statistic.

You were there and would know better than I, but I don't understand how insurgents can go out at night and plant roadside bombs and not be seen by a whole bunch of people, none of whom seems willing to come forward and turn them in. Colly's right that insurgents hide among the people, but they do so with the people's complicity.

That's part of the squeeze I was talking about earlier doc. Sombody has to see them buring roadside IEDs. But what does that person do? If you go to the authorities, the insurgents are likely to tkae reprisal on you or your family. If you don't and some marines get killed, they are likely to put pressure on you because the know you probably saw something.

The "neutral" population gets squeezed between the two op fors.