Hi IQBAL LATIF; Thanks for the reply.
Re: "In this 24 million take out the Kurds and the Shiites and the Sunni family members of the families mercilessly persecuted by Saddam."
Vietnam also had its ethnic minorities. I could translate your statement into the Vietnam version: "In this 20 million take out the H'Mong, Thai, Khmer, Cham &c., as well as the Catholics and the Buddhist members who were mercilessly persecuted by Ho Chi Minh and the communists." What's worse, the religious leaders of both the Shiites and Sunni are influencing their followers to fight against us. It's the same ball of wax. The difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam we had the assistance of a much larger percentage of the population.
But if you want to count the ethnic groups in a slanted way so as to minimize our problems in Iraq and maximize our problems in Vietnam, go ahead and work out the numbers. You will have to conclude that Iraq will cost at least half the 58,000 US deaths that Vietnam did, (and still be a failure). The reason this administration got into so much diplomatic trouble with this war is that they looked at the rosy version of every analysis they could make.
Also, your analysis relies on the fact that Saddam is such an evil person, but this argument goes away in, at most, a few months when he is out of power. Will the locals love us then? After we've bombed them for more than a decade and made their lives miserable with ineffective sanctions? How about after we fire 25mm cannon shells into their passenger vans? If that isn't enough, will they hate us when we prevent them from running their own government? For if anything is clear, it is that the Arabs hate the Israelis, and by extension, the Israeli's protector, and a democratic government in Iraq will be no friend of the United States.
But I also disagree with the assessment that the people of Iraq hate Saddam. All American gun owners know that the first thing that Hitler did in Germany (or that the Communists did in Russia) was to collect up the people's weapons. But Iraq has one of the highest numbers of guns per capita of any country in the world. The Iraqi people have demonstrated that they know which end of a gun is the dangerous end, and if they had had such a hatred for Saddam, he never would have lasted as long as he has. What I'm saying here is that the usual analysis of Saddam as a hated ruler is incompatible with the plainly observable facts.
Re: "General Giap or Ho Chi Minh the leadership of the north had not used chemical weapons against their own people."
Maybe the history of Vietnam is better known in Pakistan than in the US, but our version of the Communists is that they were absolutely brutal to their people. Hell, it's well known that the Cambodian communists killed millions of their own people. So while your argument probably has some truth in it, in that American notions of how bad the Vietnamese people were treated are probably exaggerated, the same thing could be said about Iraq. And in any case the question is not "how are the people treated", but instead, "do the people shoot at us when we show up". On that point, the fact is that our soldiers have been in Iraq for two weeks and we still do not have a single population center under any kind of control.
Re: "Policing North of topographically much more problematic due to natural contours that encourage hit and run missions, in Iraq short of urban battle the opportunities for a guerrilla like campaign are negligible."
You can't ignore the urban battles because that is exactly the problem. To imagine that the enemy is going to fight us on our terms (like they did in the first gulf war) is to ignore the incredible power of war as a teaching mechanism. That is, the first Gulf War taught the Iraqis to fight in the cities.
It's easy for us to conquer empty desert. The Israelis have done this several times against Arab armies. What's impossible is to assert control over the enemy civilians. In this, the Israelis have had nothing but abject failure for many decades. As the principle ally of Israel, we will suffer the same result. The difference is that our backs are not up against the wall, so we're not going to keep our pecker in that particular hornet's nest. This is a diplomatic, military and political disaster.
And as far as saying that Vietnam has jungle and that guerillas require jungle to defeat more advanced foes, well the example of the Russians in Afghanistan is proof against this. There is very little jungle in Afghanistan, but the Russians, despite their advantage in arms of all sorts, were thrown out with heavy casualties. Of course you can say that the US isn't Russia, but if you want to look for an example that is identical to Iraq you will not find it in history, as our human society has insufficient history to find an identical situation. For instance, Russia was fighting on its border, and therefore cared a lot more about Afghanistan than the US cares about Iraq, where we are a full half planet away.
Re: "Afghanistan was and is a 100% US operation that has been successfully designed around local Afghan recruits and US friendly warlords who have been bought to serve the interests of US on the ground."
This is true, but what does it have to do with Iraq? We have no Iraqi recruits, and there are no US friendly warlords. It's just us. The basic problem is that the US is a sea/air power; to fight in Asia we have to team up with a land power (which supplies the cannon fodder).
Re: "Who could have imagined that what was suppose to be the graveyard of British Empire influence in Indian sub-continent during last century Afghan wars and turned out to be final nail in the coffin of USSR in the 80’s could have fallen so fast to US meagre ground resources. Afghanistan if we could recall the predictions of these Monday morning quarterbacks was suppose to be the quagmire that never materialised."
The result in Afghanistan was obvious to those of us who understand human nature and the history of war. Our relationship with Afghanistan was always one of an ally and a friend (similar to our relationship with Pakistan). Before we went into Afghanistan we had already given them plenty of food aid, as well as military aid that helped them get rid of the Russians. In addition, the Taliban were looked on as a foreign oppressor. By contrast, our relationship with Iraq is one of our dropping bombs on them and arranging for debilitating economic blockades, and Saddam Hussein is himself an Iraqi. (It's a fact of history that people support home grown dictators more than foreign ones.) Let me quote you my own prescient comments from only 4 days after the WTC attack:
Bilow, September 15, 2001
...
I wouldn't worry too much about Afghanistan. Like I said, all indications are that it will not be bloody at all. It is possible that you will see a happy mob scene similar to the one when US troops rolled into Kuwait. The Taliban has been running the country into the ground, and there's a lot of indications that they're tired of it. We'll probably let the Muslim countries take care of overseeing elections and replacing the Taliban with something democratic. Heck, Turkey is a Moslem country, and they've been in NATO for decades. You could be booking a vacation in Kabul summer after next. #reply-16357787
Re: "The technological advantage of US that includes aerial superiority along with accurate pinpoint elimination of leadership command and control has entered a new dimension in wars of 21st century. Bogging down is a real possibility for any power but US supremacy based on tech advantage of the 90’s on land, sea and air in helpful regional theatre like Iraq makes it a very opposite case strategic studies ot that of North Vietnam."
Israel has all the aerial superiority etc. that the US has, but they're bogged down.
Re: "Saddam dreams of ‘Stalingrad’ type of urban warfare are unrealistic and logistically not possible for the entrenched diehard zealots."
This is probably debatable, but it doesn't matter. Our meta problem is that after Saddam is gone, the locals will still be shooting at us. If it were possible to pacify a people by killing their leaders, the English would have pacified the Irish 500 years ago, the Israelis would have pacified the Palestinians 50 years ago, the Indians would have pacified Kashmir 40 years ago, etc. These things go on whether the leaders are around or not. To win one of these wars you must either win the hearts and minds, which is very difficult for someone who speaks a different language, prays to a different God, doesn't wear the same clothes, eats different food, in short, is a foreigner. This is true for foreigners that are as close as next door countries. For foreigners from the direct opposite side of the planet the problem, once shooting starts, is insoluble. (Historically, there is another way of solving it, but it requires killing so many civilians that the survivors submit completely. This is no longer possible due to our improvement in standards of humane treatment of humans.)
Re: "The example of Basra in recent conflict is an eye opener, the Brits desert rate are wearing the enemy entrenched in the city of 1.2 million ot level where they have no where but ultimate surrender to consider."
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This war was sold to the American people as a quick conflict where the Iraqi people would cheer us madly in the streets. And Basra was supposed to be a hotbed of anti-Saddam feeling. Instead, the war's been going on for two weeks and still no movement into Basra. What's worse, you can forget about the people of Basra being starved into submission (a tactic that works quite well but is unacceptable in 2003). They're getting food and water now, so there's less reason for them to give up.
I'm not saying that Basra will not fall. What I'm saying is that when it does, it will still be impossible for US/UK soldiers to wander around the place safely. In that kind of situation, the local people will choose their own local leaders (warlords or whatever you want to call them). Our problem is that these warlords will not be friends of the US. If anything, radical Iranian influence in Iraq will grow much stronger.
Re: "I have very bizarre feeling that a cabal is ruling Baghdad."
This may be true, I don't know, but you're avoiding my point. The problem is that Iraqis hate us. We've been dropping bombs on them from untouchable airplanes for 12 years. All the hotheads in Iraq, Baathist or not, is pissed off with us from this, and when our soldiers march by they will take revenge for how we've treated Iraq for 12 years. Saddam's departute gives the average guy, who hates Saddam and Bush, one more reason to come out and shoot at Bush's soldiers. And besides, if Saddam is gone, the fact that Iraq hasn't rolled over is about as depressing a viewpoint as you can espouse.
Re: "There is no love lost between Iran and Iraq, Iran is gleefully looking at elimination of the tyrant, although they would for sake of greater Islamic unity not openly profess it."
I agree, but the problem is what happens after that tyrant is eliminated. There is also no love lost between Iran and the US.
Re: "This Arab nation and Islamic nation unity is a biggest myth."
From the point of view of governments, it is a myth. But from the point of view of the peoples themselves, it is very much true. Take a look at the guys who did the WTC attack. Arabs every one of them, and from a variety of Arab nations. That's the unity that we have to worry about. Yes, of course I know that the Arab governments are not united. The reason for their disunity is that their people have very little control over their governments.
Let me try and compare this to the situation for the "English nation", that is, the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and (more or less) Canada. These nations are also not united. But if you mess around with one of them, the others will support the victim, and if the war lasts long enough, the others will eventually come around to direct assistance, if they think it is at all morally justifiable. This is something that the world has seen in the World Wars especially, but is especially noticeable in this Iraq war.
So before we conclude that the other Arab nations will not give military aid to Iraqi rebels (note that I did not write "Saddam supporters") we should at least wait as long as the US delayed its entry into WW1.
Re: "The will to dissent is some thing that his ruling cabal has most earnestly destroyed with keenest of efforts, if the Arab Street today is bunch of political eunuchs it is not because they have no power their power to demonstrate and dissent has been systematically destroyed by people like Saddam, he cannot rely on power of street if he has not come through one in power."
First you say that we are safe from the feelings of the "Arab street" because the Arab street has no real power, and now you say that the reason the Arab street has no power is because of Saddam Hussein, the guy we're getting rid of. Unless you propose that we replace Saddam with a dictator that crushes the "Baghdad Street" with the ruthlessness of Saddam, I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that we're in trouble, at the very least in Iraq, and possibly in the other Arab countries as well. It seems like your whole treatise is based on the assumption that if we can get rid of Saddam, our problems will be over. No, that is when our problems begin.
Re: "... I run my life with street wise conventional wisdom and my passion is to understand logic and Socrates sort of search of truth thorough enquiry."
Here's a very short Socratic dialogue that applies to the Bush administration's hubris (read 111c through 112c):
praxeology.net
I should not suppose that experience with human nature comes from reading. I am not a violent person by nature, though I have designed weapons for a living. Because of this, I understand their uses and their limitations. I've also been in numerous fist fights and three knife fights (only beaten once), and I should note that I've avoided far more fights than I've fought. The way one learns to survive in fights is to understand what it is that the other people involved are thinking, and to figure out what they are likely to do in the future. Not just your immediate opponent, you must also be aware of the "innocent bystanders", as they will sometimes jump in, either for you or against you. And it is not enough to conclude what the other person "should" do, or what you would do if you were in their shoes, you must understand how they think, and why they think that way.
The administration's main failure is one of failing to see the world through the eyes of the Iraqi (or French, Russian, or Turkish) people. (Their other error was in failing to have a back-up plan.)
The Palestinian issue is probably the best touchstone for determining whether or not someone understands the Arabs. For example, if a person says "I don't know why the Palestinians keep on attacking the Israelis even though it doesn't do them any good", then you can be sure that the speaker doesn't have a clue as to what makes the Palestinians "tick", and therefore will be unable to make predictions as to what the Palestinian response will be to his own actions. Unfortunately, this description fits the Bush administration very well.
-- Carl |
