Defeating a Superpower

[Tigermike 3,052]

Defeating a Superpower

By Clifford D. May

Scripps Howard News Service

May 31, 2007

To those who see the world through a partisan prism, last week’s congressional vote to continue funding American troops in Iraq looks like a loss for Democrats. On the contrary: Those Democrats who refused to legislate an American military defeat -- despite intense pressure from a well-financed, well-organized campaign on the left -- deserve great credit.

No serious person doubts that America is at war with Islamist movements that seek the West’s destruction. Among those movements, none is more threatening than al-Qaeda. And al-Qaeda’s most active and lethal combatants are in Iraq.

Recently, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s second in command, sent a letter to Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, the leader of Al Qaeda forces in Iraq. In it, Zawahiri reassures Muhajer that a great and historic victory is close at hand, that soon America will be driven out of Iraq. Among the tactics that both Zawahiri and Muhajer believe are proving effective: murdering innocent women and children to fuel sectarian strife.

Let’s stipulate that had President Bush not toppled Saddam Hussein, most of these al-Qaeda terrorists would not be in Iraq, they would be somewhere else. The fact remains: They are in Iraq now. They are there because they regard Iraq – an oil rich capital of the Arab world -- as the most important theater in what they say is a global power struggle.

They believe they are eroding our will to fight them in Iraq. And perhaps they are. But if they can achieve that goal in Iraq, is there any reason to think they won’t be able to achieve it in other parts of the world as well?

Iran’s rulers also are America’s enemies. After nearly 30 years it should be obvious that “Death to America!” is not just a catchy slogan: It is a long-term goal. And it is a goal toward which they believe they are progressing because we have done nothing over the past three decades to shake their confidence – not when they seized our embassy and took our diplomats hostage, not when they assigned Hezbollah to slaughter our Marines in Beirut, not when they killed our soldiers at Khobar Towers.

And as they move toward acquiring nuclear weapons, aid and abet those killing our troops in Iraq, and take visiting American scholars hostage, we do next to nothing. To them, it looks like the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Iranian Islamist revolution, was spot on when he stated: “America cannot do a damn thing.”

The history of warfare is marked by innovations: the saddle and stirrup, the long bow, gunpowder, the cannon, mechanized cavalry, aircraft and missiles among them.

America’s enemies are now testing an equally revolutionary innovation. They are attempting to discover whether it is possible to defeat a superpower with little except suicide-bombers, roadside explosives detonated by cell phones, and a ferocious will to power. They use these weapons to kill whomever the can: infidels or Muslims, combatants or non-combatants, men, women and children alike.

One might have thought that such indiscriminate slaughter would evoke outrage and defiance within the international community. But the international community is selective about what evokes its outrage: reports (later proved to be false) of American guards at Guantamo mishandling Korans? Absolutely. Beheadings and illustrated al-Qaeda instruction books on torture? That gets a yawn.

Congress has authorized four months of funding for Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq. By September, he will need to show that he is making headway with his new strategy of bringing in reinforcements and moving troops out of big bases and into the mean streets of Baghdad and al-Qaeda-infested Anbar Province. While he does that, Ryan Crocker, the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq, must push as hard as he can to get Iraq’s leaders to make risky compromises and assume heavy responsibilities.

Was it a mistake to invade Iraq? A majority of Americans now think it was. Some charge that Bush misled us; some believe he was misled. Others believe that Bush underestimated our enemies, and overestimated the abilities of his intelligence gatherers and analysts, Pentagon planners and State Department nation-builders.

That issue will be debated for generations. Right now, the more pressing question is this: How do we prevail in Iraq, understanding that failure would be a body blow to America’s security and vital interests? The answer, at least in part, is by giving Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker the support they require – not signaling to al-Qaeda and Iran that they are only a few more suicide-bombings away from a great and historic victory.

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

link

[otterinbham 0]

Gotta love this article.

I would argue that, yes, we need to stay in Iraq and finish the job.

But what amazes me is how the author of this article, in an amazing sleight of hand, gives us this quote:

"Was it a mistake to invade Iraq? A majority of Americans now think it was. Some charge that Bush misled us; some believe he was misled. Others believe that Bush underestimated our enemies, and overestimated the abilities of his intelligence gatherers and analysts, Pentagon planners and State Department nation-builders."

Actually, the truth was that Bush ignored Pentagon planners and State Department nation-builders. Across the board there was a very pronounced internal consensus that the troop levels were incredibly insufficient, that the occupation strategy was flawed, and that our casus belli was very flimsy. Wargame after wargame showed that Iraq would collapse into total chaos and civil war, and were ignored. People were fired, demoted, or marginalized by this administration for speaking the truth.

And, lest you think that conservatives turned on Bush only when things started going awry, think again. People such as Buckley, Will, et al, all weighed in against the necessity of the war in the first place.

Does anybody really think at this point that Bush knows what the hell he is doing? Can you honestly in your heart trust this president to make a rational choice. If you do, I'd really like to know the reasons why.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Across the board there was a very pronounced internal consensus that the troop levels were incredibly insufficient

Without getting back into the squabble I had with TT about this a few weeks back, this point is not exactly correct. The military commanders felt they had enough troops available to topple Saddam, and they did....more than enough.

the occupation strategy was flawed

Agreed. The insurgency was underestimated by a lot of people. This came about because we shifted from our wartime OM and locking the country down to being orphange painters and patty cake players. You have to be rough with the Arabs and not lose face. By putting down our guns, and guard, too quickly after the statue of Saddam fell, we opened ourselves up for what has happened.

[otterinbham 0]

Across the board there was a very pronounced internal consensus that the troop levels were incredibly insufficient

Without getting back into the squabble I had with TT about this a few weeks back, this point is not exactly correct. The military commanders felt they had enough troops available to topple Saddam, and they did....more than enough.

the occupation strategy was flawed

Agreed. The insurgency was underestimated by a lot of people. This came about because we shifted from our wartime OM and locking the country down to being orphange painters and patty cake players. You have to be rough with the Arabs and not lose face. By putting down our guns, and guard, too quickly after the statue of Saddam fell, we opened ourselves up for what has happened.

You're right. There was never any question that there were ample troops to conquer. But at no time did planners ever believe they had enough troops to occupy Iraq. All you have to do is look at what happened to Shinseki after he expressed grave doubts on this matter.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Yeah, sort of. Back then, the major concern after we accomplished the mission was that if we had too many troops in country, the Iraqis would see us as occupiers rather than liberators and resent us. This is the reason more troops weren't immediately rushed in to button the place up. Not Bush's fault at all. These recommendations came from Bremmer and some of the other reconstruction folks, with signoffs from some of the major DoD planners.

Bush always asked the military commanders if they had everything they needed....supplies and manpower. As I told TT, I am living proof of this. Heard it with my own ears several times.

[otterinbham 0]

Thank you for that, TIS. I respect your opinion on that. But there were lots of dissenting, credible voices in the Pentagon who said that troop levels were wholly insufficient for occupation, and were methodically silenced by Rumsfeld, who seemed to think we could run this war on the cheap. So I would offer that the Bush administration encouraged a culture of Yes men by punishing anybody who didn't automatically toe the party line.

[CCTAU 3,342]

Thank you for that, TIS. I respect your opinion on that. But there were lots of dissenting, credible voices in the Pentagon who said that troop levels were wholly insufficient for occupation, and were methodically silenced by Rumsfeld, who seemed to think we could run this war on the cheap. So I would offer that the Bush administration encouraged a culture of Yes men by punishing anybody who didn't automatically toe the party line.

But didn't TIS JUST say that we were not there to OCCUPY but to liberate? So maybe there was not a plan for OCCUPATION and there should have been one. I had no problem with locking the joint down and shooting anything with a gun and no uniform. Still don't.

[otterinbham 0]

Thank you for that, TIS. I respect your opinion on that. But there were lots of dissenting, credible voices in the Pentagon who said that troop levels were wholly insufficient for occupation, and were methodically silenced by Rumsfeld, who seemed to think we could run this war on the cheap. So I would offer that the Bush administration encouraged a culture of Yes men by punishing anybody who didn't automatically toe the party line.

But didn't TIS JUST say that we were not there to OCCUPY but to liberate? So maybe there was not a plan for OCCUPATION and there should have been one. I had no problem with locking the joint down and shooting anything with a gun and no uniform. Still don't.

Well, shooting people seems to be your answer to everything.

The Liberate/Occupation matter is semantics. In order to have a stable sovereign government, there has to be public order first. No government can form in anarchy, and we did not have anywhere close to the number of troops to achieve this, nor did we have any coherent plan. What's more, if all you do is rule with the barrel of the gun, explain to me how you maintain order outside the range of an automatic rifle?

Look, we have successfully occupied countries before. Germany and Japan are two notable examples. However, both were successful because we had a very well-considered plan for doing so. It is painfully obvious to everybody that there was absolutely no plan for what happened after the American tanks rolled through Baghdad.

[CCTAU 3,342]

Look, we have successfully occupied countries before. Germany and Japan are two notable examples. However, both were successful because we had a very well-considered plan for doing so. It is painfully obvious to everybody that there was absolutely no plan for what happened after the American tanks rolled through Baghdad.

By equating the two scenarios above to Iraq, you have just entered the delusional world of TT.

You are so right. We should use the knowledge gained by the successful occupation of Germany and Japan as a perfect model of how Iraq should be handled. I guess if you just took out Islam, and terrorism, you could do that since those countries are SOOOOO much like Iraq.

Now you too can go back into your 55 gallon drum and yell about the Medicare prescription drug plan to yourself some more.

[otterinbham 0]

Look, we have successfully occupied countries before. Germany and Japan are two notable examples. However, both were successful because we had a very well-considered plan for doing so. It is painfully obvious to everybody that there was absolutely no plan for what happened after the American tanks rolled through Baghdad.

By equating the two scenarios above to Iraq, you have just entered the delusional world of TT.

You are so right. We should use the knowledge gained by the successful occupation of Germany and Japan as a perfect model of how Iraq should be handled. I guess if you just took out Islam, and terrorism, you could do that since those countries are SOOOOO much like Iraq.

Now you too can go back into your 55 gallon drum and yell about the Medicare prescription drug plan to yourself some more.

Look. Germany and Japan were two utterly different cultures. If you actually bothered learning anything about history, rather than just make explosion noises while looking at battle maps, you would realize that Douglas McArthur used profound insight into Japanese culture to develop an occupation strategy--a culture that you evidently don't realize was far more alien to Western mindsets than Iraq is today.

And, quite frankly, there were large portions of the Japanese military prepared to fight to the end, the Emporer be damned. Given how the Japanese pioneered suicide tactics and typically fought to the death in the Pacific, I would offer that the Japanese, if anything, were even harder to subjugate. However, McArthur did a great deal of groundwork before the occupation to ensure that the introduction of American troops was peaceful and constructive.

But you're really not interested in facts. You'd just prefer to parrot whatever baloney the party line feeds you.

[AUman43 5]

Otter, you are right on and you are in danger of getting banned from this PRO-Republican board! (Repubic whether right of wrong)

I readily admit that we are in Iraq for whatever reason (whether it be for ego for not getting Saddam in the first conflict for Dad or for oil) I believe that we should support our troops as long as they are there! ( hopefully, won't be too long) Personally, I am deeply concerned with our presence in Iraq since I sincerely believe that we cannot leave without at least insuring that the Iraqi's have a stable government and a chance at democracy. However, I will preface that comment with the additon that I also belive that the Iraqi's MUST demonstrate that they want freedom and democray for themselves as much or more than we have said we want it for them! If this is not the case................and sectarian violence continues on the scale it is at now, then I say we cut and run or withdraw (whichever suits your vocabilcary) and I defy anyone who can say we shouldn't do the same thing IF this is the case....... Get real people!

[Guest Frank Burns]

Otter, you are right on and you are in danger of getting banned from this PRO-Republican board! (Repubic whether right of wrong)

Yeah, because we ban so many people that have leftist views.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

We're Hitler

[otterinbham 0]

Otter, you are right on and you are in danger of getting banned from this PRO-Republican board! (Repubic whether right of wrong)

I don't know. I think we typically have respectful exchanges of views on this board. The only time I was nearly banned was because of the majorette thing.

The key here is to have a reasoned argument. Not an incoherent rant. You might try it sometime.

[CCTAU 3,342]

Look, we have successfully occupied countries before. Germany and Japan are two notable examples. However, both were successful because we had a very well-considered plan for doing so. It is painfully obvious to everybody that there was absolutely no plan for what happened after the American tanks rolled through Baghdad.

By equating the two scenarios above to Iraq, you have just entered the delusional world of TT.

You are so right. We should use the knowledge gained by the successful occupation of Germany and Japan as a perfect model of how Iraq should be handled. I guess if you just took out Islam, and terrorism, you could do that since those countries are SOOOOO much like Iraq.

Now you too can go back into your 55 gallon drum and yell about the Medicare prescription drug plan to yourself some more.

Look. Germany and Japan were two utterly different cultures. If you actually bothered learning anything about history, rather than just make explosion noises while looking at battle maps, you would realize that Douglas McArthur used profound insight into Japanese culture to develop an occupation strategy--a culture that you evidently don't realize was far more alien to Western mindsets than Iraq is today.

And, quite frankly, there were large portions of the Japanese military prepared to fight to the end, the Emporer be damned. Given how the Japanese pioneered suicide tactics and typically fought to the death in the Pacific, I would offer that the Japanese, if anything, were even harder to subjugate. However, McArthur did a great deal of groundwork before the occupation to ensure that the introduction of American troops was peaceful and constructive.

But you're really not interested in facts. You'd just prefer to parrot whatever baloney the party line feeds you.

But the Japanese were an honorable society, not a terroristic one. They were not driven by religion. TWO TOTALLY different scenarios that are not like IRAQ. Now, there should have been more thought put into it, but you cannot equate the Japanese with the terroristic muslims in ANY way. It's apples and oranges. Nice thought process, but won't work. We are in a position that we have never been in before. We are fighting an enemy that is not associated with a nation, just a religion. We are entering the crusades all over again. When you fight a religion you must be thorough in your victory. God said it best when he told his people to kill everything that moved. His people did not listen then, and we will not do it now. Therefore many people will have to die before anything really happens. You cannot occupy an ideal. Japan and Germany were defeated nations that were ready to get back on track. Iraq is a defeated nation that is under the evil that is islam. The only thing we can hope for is a government where the people have a choice other than rule by imam. But make no mistake about it, no occupation plan would have worked. The total destruction of Iraq and its people would have been the only way to avoid what we have now.

[otterinbham 0]

So, CC, your basic theory is to slaughter Muslims by the million. Oh, and you also conceded that occupying Iraq was a really, really badly thought-out enterprise.

[CCTAU 3,342]

So, CC, your basic theory is to slaughter Muslims by the million. Oh, and you also conceded that occupying Iraq was a really, really badly thought-out enterprise.

Yes. Kill them all. They want YOU dead. And the rest of us too. Unless you are Dhimi?

And yes, it was an unknown that was not thought out quite as thoroughly as it should have been. But it was a step that had to be taken now. Or it would have cost more in the NEAR future.