The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue.
– Mao Tse Tung
The recent offer of truces by both Al Quaeda and Muqtada al Sadr’s followers in Iraq suggests an incompetence for guerrilla warfare, or that they are losing.
There are two dangers in the weeks ahead. The first is that since the 1960s, a different sort of guerrilla warfare has emerged, which consists of sacrificing cannon-fodder until your opponent can no longer morally take it.
The first historical case of this that I can find comes from the First World War, on the second day of the Battle of Loos. It was an accident. Ten thousand British troops were lined up in ten ranks and marched slowly across muddy open terrain with range markers placed by the Germans. The German machine gunners simply mowed down rank after rank of the British, without taking any casualties themselves. The British came up to the barbed wire that was supposed to have been cut by the artillery bombardment, only it had not been. None of the British troops was equipped with wire cutters (this bit has not changed). So groups of British soldiers ran up and down the barbed wire looking for a way through. The result was virtually 100 per cent casualties on the British side.
Now it is not true that this battle left the Germans unscathed. About a dozen German machine gunners were so traumatised by the massacre that they suffered nervous breakdowns and needed to be hospitalized (the British would have shot them for cowardice).
Since the Vietnam War, it has become a deliberate tactic of the weaker combattant to make a point of losing hundreds or thousands of casualties in the belief that the West does not have the stomach for slaughtering poorly armed enemies. To return to the Mao quote, now is the time to press even more firmly with military force: “enemy tires, we attack”. Failure to do so merely confuses by-standers who consider compassion to be effeminate weakness, and encourages the enemy.
The second threat is the ‘compromise’ with the UN. Letting the UN organise the hand-over of power to an Iraqi government (which will surely be different from the one the US wants) is rather like inviting the USSR to decide who governs Germany and Japan in 1945. Except that the USSR was an ally.
“None of the British troops was equipped with wire cutters (this bit has not changed)”
While that was true at the time, it’s not true that it hasn’t changed. The modern SA80 bayonet and its’ sheath can be combined to form a scissors-type wire cutter. The sheath also features a blade sharpener and a handy bottle opener.
I think the truce is most likely a result of incompetence. Considering that the U.S. initiated an attack on an already less-equipped target, they obviously won’t be demoralized by a weakened enemy.
Alan, point taken. I was referring to the lack of proper equipment generally (body armour, boots, ammunition, tents, uniforms). It was a passing swipe at British defence spending.
Fair enough 🙂
“[…] it has become a deliberate tactic of the weaker combattant to make a point of losing hundreds or thousands of casualties in the belief that the West does not have the stomach for slaughtering poorly armed enemies.
I think that’s just wrong. Military commanders don’t deliberately waste their strength. They attempt to break the enemy’s. What Vietnam appeared to prove and succeeding US tactics have also suggested, is that democracy combined with modern communications means the Western powers do not have the stomach to let their own troops be slaughtered in any significant numbers–regardless of how many of their enemies they kill. Which is unfortunate (sort of) for generals, because, never mind technological advantages, since Vietnam the end of the draft and intensive training to make professional soldiers into conscienceless killers,) means slaughtering the enemy is easier.
Hence the guerilla leader against an invading US army can readily believe himself the stronger combattant–in will. His aim is to cause casualties, but worries less about his own because they don’t diminish his fighting power as readily. But he isn’t trying to demoralise the Western troops by sickening them with their own actions. That would seem absurd to a killer. He may well see them as bloodthirsty but cowardly monsters, which model better fits the facts on the ground. It is not necessary fully to comprehend the democratic system in order to use it against itself.
Such a guerilla is also the stronger combattant in his access to control of the local social order. Back to Mao. The US soldier is not omnipresent, and he is going home sometime soon. The local thug could be anywhere and isn’t leaving. Who has more of your cooperation?
Interesting point. The fighters in Iraq have the home-field advantage. So how do they pursue, when the US soldier leaves?
“Letting the UN organise the hand-over of power to an Iraqi government (which will surely be different from the one the US wants) is rather like inviting the USSR to decide who governs Germany and Japan in 1945.”
Comparing a free association of nations – however incompetent – with one of the bloodiest totalitarian regimes of all time is a bit cheap.
In any case, why should the aim be to hand over to a Iraqi government that the US wants? Surely the aim should be handing over to a govt that the Iraqis want? And surely this is the fundamental problem for the Americans, because any govt with a modicum of popular consent will be one that wants the US out as quickly as possible.
If the terrorists are counting on the West recoiling from slaughtering them in their droves they are making a fatal mistake. That’s our strong suite. If a nuke goes off in Chicago the response won’t be “should we retailate with a nuke” – it’ll be “how many do we use – and can I push the buttons”!
On the winning/losing point – I think the U.S. forces have the feeling they are winning. In spite of relatively heavy losses – 99 U.S. troops this month – the toll on the Fedayeen, the “Mahdi Army” (oh, spare me, please) and the foreign jihadis is absolutely devastating. They made the fatal mistake of standing up too early, in an attempt to show they were “the strong horse.” Their bodies are now being stacked like cord wood, suggesting a modification to the old saying, whom the gods would strike down, they first make ululate. This is actually a good thing – anytime you can get a guerilla group to stupidly coalesce in the open before a well armed and well supplied conventional military force, there can be only one outcome.
The other impression I get is that when the revolters sue for a truce, the Coalition forces use that operational pause as a good excuse to build up troop strength in contested areas, evacuate some civilians, get a good night’s sleep, and prepare the battlefield.
Al Qaida and its allies are winning, in some respects. French, er, Spanish Premier Zapatero, upon taking office, said “Scotch what I said about staying if a multinational UN force was deployed; we’re going to bravely run away ‘as soon as possible’.” On the one hand, I believe in national self interest. Every country should look out for its own interests – that is libertarianism writ large. On the other hand, I question whether it is in Spain’s best interest to be cowed and led around by dead men – the masterminds behind the Madrid bombing blew themselves up last week as Spanish police closed in on them. That sets a pretty low bar for a major change in course for a nation, and should suggest to Basque ETA that their fatal flaw is using moderate, targetted violence, rather than massive random terrorist violence. If it wasn’t clear before, it should be now: Al Qaeda and the Islamacists have racked up a huge victory in Spain, and now Portugal is talking about withdrawing from Iraq as well to take up AQ’s “truce” offer (i.e. “leave us alone now so we can slaughter you later.”)
Bugger. The problem with terrorism as a phenomenon is that little victories like this will prove to be the rallying cry for new recruits. A fantasy religion – and Islamofascist terrorism is just that – needs to be beaten down and given no encouragement. It cannot be allowed even a single victory, not even a moral victory. That only encourages it. Mark Steyn sums up AQ’s attitude as the attitude of adolescents in the midst of a masturbatory fantasy. That’s a good comparison – and as any hot chick can tell you, never ever wink at the creepy dude with his hands in his pockets. It only encourages him. Spain and Portugal, along with the Western European Axis of Equivocation, are winking and wagging their collective ass at Al Qaeda. No good can come of it.
Winning has also been redefined a bit. Bush and Blair came out into the open last Friday concerning their real plans for the Middle East – to “change the world” in favor of self rule, the rule of law, and fundamental human rights. I don’t think they meant changing the world in a utopian sense, rather in the sense of eliminating the totalitarian regimes that are the real root cause of terrorist violence flowing out of the region, and giving the regional anti-totalitarian groups a fighting chance. God bless us, we actually have a couple leaders in the Special Relationship who really truly do believe the idea of the universality of basic human rights. This was the cause that dared not speak its name last March; good thing they can talk openly about it now. Hopefully, this will cause more ripples like the one that upended Gadaffi’s WMD rowboat, and like the ripples of the free speech and democracy movements now rocking the boat in Iran, Egypt and Syria. Iraq is a mess we can handle, as long as the crowds yearning to be free in the rest of the Middle East can find the grit to confront a few of their own problems. And in the long run, getting the middle class in the Middle East to stand up and take responsibility for their own problems may be the hardest thing. Still, it prolly beats the alternative.
H. wrote, “…any govt with a modicum of popular consent will be one that wants the US out as quickly as possible.” This is a misconception which has been fostered by media coverage of Iraq. The polls of Iraqis I have read have indicated that the majority of Iraqis want the Americans to stay on for as long as is necessary to stabilize the country. Only a relatively small minority wants them to leave toute de suite – of course, they’re the ones making all the noise and getting all the attention.
A reminder: 20% of Iraq’s population is Kurdish. The Kurds are overwhelmingly pro-American and in favor of democratic federalism.
Al Maviva – thank you for a most interesting post.
Kid, I have a friend who has just come back from Iraq after doing some contract work out there. He told me that he didn’t meet anyone – ANYONE – out there who had a good word to say about the Americans, unless they had a direct interest (admittedly he was in Bagdhad and didn’t go to the Kurdish regions). But people feel caught between a rock and a hard place. Chaos and insecurity is at an all-time high, and yet there would be even more chaos without occupying troops. I think it would be very difficult to imagine a popular govt that didn’t commit to removing US troops, to be replaced with a less contentious multinational corps.
On the SA80 bayonet… Yes, it has wire cutters. Kind of. They don’t cut barbed wire very well, to be honest (overly soft steel and not enough leverage). If you still have your bayonet, that is, given the glee with which the damn things will fling themselves from the rifle whilst firing.
You want wire cutters in infantry, you carry wire cutters (or throw someone onto the wire so you can trample across them – so much more comfortable if you are wearing body armour).
The Americans seem to have united the whole of Iraq against them. I hate to say it, but get the UN in to deal with things and the US troops returning to local bases might be more productive. Everybody has weapons and they are aiming them at US soldiers.
Support for the civil power’s efforts to maintain some degree of law and order would be a good objective. Hand over sovereignty and hang around to deal with any hint of civil war.
Post June 30th has the makings of a real mess.
Something has to give.
I think it would be very difficult to imagine a popular govt that didn’t commit to removing US troops, to be replaced with a less contentious multinational corps
Nonsense. The Iraqis would rather not have any foreign troops occupying their country, so the notion a multi-national corps of… foreigners… is going to be less contentious is daft. Less effective, sure, but no less contentious. Sure the US and UK should (and intend to) get out when the situation has more or less stabilised (by local standards at least), but replacing them with the UN or some such would be the worst of all possible worlds… No, the mistake here is trying to idiotically impose democratic politics rather than just encourage the growth of civil and legal institutions which encourage liberty. Democracy is an absurdity in a place with no culture of liberty to restrain it from being an elective tyranny.
the mistake here is trying to idiotically impose democratic politics rather than just encourage the growth of civil and legal institutions which encourage liberty. Democracy is an absurdity in a place with no culture of liberty to restrain it from being an elective tyranny.
excellent point – but surely we can all see the absurdity of tryng to encourage a culture of liberty down the barrel of a gun?
You have a point, Perry. Any foreign troops are going to be contentious. But some perhaps more than others. And an American military occupation of an Arab country is about as contentious as it gets. Especially when they make such a balls-up of the peace, having superbly won the war. Even Chalabi has been quoted as saying: “I think that we wasted a year now. The security plan for Iraq that was put forward by the Coalition has collapsed.”
For what it’s worth, here’s at least one Iraqi who would like to see the coalition troops out and an international/Arab force in under the UN.
Perry says: “No, the mistake here is trying to idiotically impose democratic politics rather than just encourage the growth of civil and legal institutions which encourage liberty.”
But can a hated nation militarily impose liberty with any hope of success?
Ali over a Bjorn Staerk’s site posted a link from faithandfreedom.org.
The mullahs think they’re winning and tightening the screws.
London is just as much a part of the front lines as Iraq or Afghanistan.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040418/wl_nm/portugal_britain_attacks_dc_1
Sergio,
There’s only one Omar Bakri. (It should be a song.) And the man is too busy giving wild interviews to any peripheral press organ in Europe that still takes him seriously to organise anything violent. Always assuming he is what he says he is and anything more than a rentamouth and convenient marker-buoy for the naive fanatics that pass through al Majaharoun.
No buildings devastated here in the last three years; nobody killed by bombs. Our last serious bombing was in the 90s, and that was a lone nutter trying–fortunately with limited success–to injure blacks, asians and gays. I suspect some parts of both Iraq and Afghanistan would be confused and shocked by the peace, quiet, and harmony, if they got our decade’s quota of violence in a single day.
Not only are we not on the front line, but we are not even in the same war, nor the same king of war (if ours is a war) as the current turmoil in Iraq. There are strategic overlaps, to be sure, and all-or-nothing merchants like Bakri and the Pentagon spokesperson of the moment will say it is the same thing because it suits them. But that doesn’t make it true.
If I were minded to take Bakri’s word on anything as reliable, then I’d start by growing a fist-length beard. At least we have an established interpretation of Hadith to back him up there.
“excellent point – but surely we can all see the absurdity of tryng to encourage a culture of liberty down the barrel of a gun?”
Well, how the hell else are we supposed to stop the thugs from pissing all over the culture of liberty? Even in the US, someone’s got to use at least a threat of violence to keep the thugs out of our way so we can put our liberty to good use and go to the trouble of generating wealth that we’re reasonably sure won’t be stolen from us. The big difference is the number of thugs that have to be gotten out of the way.
What’s so terrible about a civil war ? I mean – if the Iraqis insist that’s what they want – let them have it.
The situation there is really chaotic, and to impose some order will take far more force, ruthlessness and resolve than the US has. The US will pull out sooner or later anyway. (Nor do the UN or anybody else have a solution). Let the Iraqis fight it out and cope the best they can.
Removing Saddam was an end in itself, a worthy acheivement. Let the next ruler know that the same fate awaits him if he has delusions of grandeur and tries to make trouble abroad, or butcher his people.
About “encourage the growth of civil and legal institutions which encourage liberty.”: social engineering is not an option. Such institutions evolve somehow, or they don’t. It’s a long term thing. Not an action plan for the next year.
> But can a hated nation militarily impose liberty with any hope of success?
Excellent point. Let’s assume Satan himself had ruled Egypt and Syria for three decades and that the Israeli army liberated the countries, offering the citizens to set up Israeli-type democracy instead. Do you think the Arabs would go along with that? I doubt it… Western “crusaders” are probably only slightly less popular than Zionists these days.
If this WaPo report turns out to be correct, it may already be too late to rectify the situation in Iraq. Anything resembling pro-American democracy will only emerge if there is law and order and ordinary citizens start to feel reluctant gratitude. This means things are getting better thanks to repaired power plants, water decontamination facilities etc.. Apparently the reverse is now happening.
Someone (de Havilland? Clarke?) predicted Falluja will be seen as a turning point for the better in the long run. Well, it’s a turning point alright, but …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4767657/
Insurgency nearly halts American-financed reconstruction effort
“The Fallujah problem and the Sadr problem are having a wider impact than we expected,” a senior U.S. official involved in Iraq policy said. In Baghdad and Washington, officials had initially concluded that addressing those problems would not engender much anger among ordinary Iraqis. “Sadr’s people and the people of Fallujah were seen as isolated and lacking broad support among Iraqis,” the official added. Instead, the official said, “The effect has been profound.”
The violence has brought the U.S.-funded reconstruction of Iraq to a near-halt, according U.S. officials and private contractors. Thousands of workers for private contractors have been confined to their quarters in the highly fortified Green Zone in Baghdad that also houses that headquarters of the U.S. occupation authority. Routine trips outside the compound to repair power plants, water-treatment facilities and other parts of Iraq’s crumbling infrastructure have been deemed too dangerous, even with armed escorts. Compounding the problem is a growing fear that insurgents will seek retribution against Iraqis working for private contractors and the occupation authority. Scores of Iraqis have stopped showing up for their jobs as translators, support staff and maintenance personnel in the Green Zone, even though there is a lack of lucrative employment elsewhere.
The security situation “has dramatically affected reconstruction,” said another U.S. official in Baghdad. “How can you rebuild the country when you’re confined to quarters, when only small portions of your Iraqi staff are showing up for work on any given day?”
“No, the mistake here is trying to idiotically impose democratic politics rather than just encourage the growth of civil and legal institutions which encourage liberty. Democracy is an absurdity in a place with no culture of liberty to restrain it from being an elective tyranny.”
So what political system do you propose for Iraq, in place of a democratically elected Iraqi government?
Perhaps a constitutional monarchy? Saddam Hussein was technically “president” of Iraq during the entire course of his rule. He rigged elections to stay in office. Hitler lost the election and used force to take charge of Germany. I think that history has shown that as long as we open the door to nearly complete freedom, we run the risk of a corrupt party taking charge of the government. The only reason that this doesn’t happen on such a large scale in the U.S. is a strong military that no political extremist wishes to face.