Committing atrocities against their own people who cooperate with the enemy was standard practice throughout most (all?) of the terrorist (freedom fighter) wars of colonial Africa. They also all won. You should rethink your theory.
But what was the goal? Was it to win support for their cause, or to reveal the deficiencies of their own (generally authoritarian) government to defend them? They basically trying to put on display that the existing government is ineffective and incapable of governing. And as in the case of the Sandinista's, the resulting paralysis by the existing government creates instability which the guerillas/terrorists then exploit.
They are less capable of this so long as there are powerful counter-insurgent forces in place keeping the guerillas on the run until the existing government can build its resources sufficiently to restore internal order.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from Vietnam, IMO. First off, we permitted a government to come to power in the RVN that was widely considered corrupt, illegitimate, and ineffective. Secondly, we carried the majority of the battle as the implicit guarantor of RVN's sovereignty from day one, and not demanding the S. Vietnamese stand up and defend themselves to the same level of effort as the US was putting forth (yeah.. lots of difficulties involved in building the ARVN, I understand).. The South Vietnamese people, in general, had become complacent, believing no one could defeat the Americans.
It wasn't until after Tet, and the onset of the "Vietnamization" policy that the the RVN found itself faced with being fully responsible for their own self-defense. The Viet Cong has been wiped out as an effective force during Tet, 1968, and after that the NVA regulars were the primary adversary. And when the US forces completed their pullout in the mid-1970s, it opened the door to a full-fledged invasion (ala Korea) by Hanoi against the South. And the North was better armed, better organized, better equipped, and better motivated, and had the advantage of exterior lines that force the South to defend their entire border, and not just the DMZ.
One would have thought the US would have immediately acted to counter a direct invasion by the NVA into S. Vietnam, as we did in Korea. But our will had been sapped by then, and we were unwilling to act to stop it. And shamefully, the UN was also ineffective in stopping this direct and blatant aggression by the North against the South.
Now ask yourself some Neolib... If the Mahdi army is primarily an Iraqi extension of the Iranian Qud's force, do you really believe they won't attempt to fully exploit the retreat of the US forces from Iraq? And once we're gone and Iran sees its opportunity to turn Shi'a dominated Iraq into a puppet state, what motivation will we possess to re-enter a conflict that has grown in proportion far beyond what previously existed?
We won't.. so guess who will? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and probably Syria (despite their current alliance of convenience with Iran).
Hawk |
