We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
I told you so A few weeks ago, I opined that the current troubles in Iraq could well be a decisive turning point. In favor of the good guys.
As to Fallujah, well, I am beginning to think we blew an opportunity, although Wretchard continues to keep a candle lit. We have managed to give the universal impression that we retreated from a hard fight in Fallujah. I doubt that is entirely true, but in this war, even the appearance of a retreat is a real defeat for us.
As to al Sadr, though, he is toast, because the other Shiite leaders have turned on him, as predicted.
Representatives of Iraq’s most influential Shiite leaders met here on Tuesday and demanded that Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric, withdraw militia units from the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, stop turning the mosques there into weapons arsenals and return power to Iraqi police and civil defense units that operate under American control.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The main reason that I can see in withdrawing the troops is that the U.S. is attempting to gently ease in the new Iraqi authorities into a situation they have well contained, and can easily control if needs be. Kind of like a T-Rex coaxing its offspring in for the kill on crippled prey (If indeed they did such a thing).
Of course, there’ll be the usual chorus of “it’s a retreat” and “Vietnam” from the antiwar and lefty brigades, but the U.S. doesn’t run from fights. It’s a testament to them that they didn’t take the “easy” way out and go at it hammer and tongs, instead taking the smarter route and letting the Iraqis clean up what will in the coming years be their own messes. These kinds of actions build confidence.
Nice to see Sadr appears to be politically isolated too.
RCD, you have a rich inner life.
I don’t think so. Most people have made their minds up by now, so as long as the Bush administration doesn’t do anything that might discourage íts supporters too badly (and the handling of the situation in Fallujah isn’t that bad) a temporary setback doesn’t matter that much.
I think that Fallujah can be handled by law-enforcement and judicial methods anyway, unlike the greater war on terror. The people who murdered the four contractors and also those who celebrated those murders and participated in mutilating the corpses were all caught on video-tape or in photographs. They can be caught one by one over the next months and years and brought to justice. It will be slow and frustrating, especially to the victim’s families, but murder investigations and murder trials commonly are like that. And any short-term propaganda-defeats that result from foregoing a full-scale attack can be made up over time, as the culprits are presented to the press in chains.
Scott, is it your impression that al Sadr’s men being hunted in the streets by rival militias is a defeat for the US? That majority Shiite leaders supporting the US and coalition against al Sadr is a victory for Iran? Just who is living in a fantasy world here?
James, I think you have succinctly put the likely coalition strategy in Fallujah, and it may have been the least bad alternative, but at a minimum the way it has been handled has allowed our enemies to claim a victory.
Scott wrote: “RCD, you have a rich inner life.”
Which is better than having none at all.
Scott sticks his head in the sand: “NO NO I tell you! There is NOTHING good happenning in Iraq, I refuse see anything good! Now I must repeat my mantra to defeat your unholy words! DISASTER! QUAGMIRE! VIETNAM 2! DISASTER! QUAGMIRE! VIETNAM 2! DISASTER! QUAGMIRE! VIETNAM 2!”
Siege warfare takes time. What the defenders want is a fight. What the offence wantsis time. The essence of a siege is time. What is wanted is for the enemy to run out of supplies and men.
It is a shame that this is not well understood these days.
A review of Grant’s Vicksburg Campaign might be instructive.
Winning and winning at low cost are two different things. Wellington’s successful siege of Badjoz (I hope I spelled that right) was a particularly gruesome victory because of a lack of a proper siege train and time.
Britain has a particularly vibrant military history. Study it.
M. Simon – excellent points. However, a siege wears down the enemy only to the degree the cordon is tight. One of my concerns is that the redeployments in Fallujah have opened gaps in the cordon. Wretchard links to a story of traffic in and out of the Golan neighborhood through Iraqi-manned checkpoints where there was, essentially, no security at all. If we let the enemy leak out of the pocket, we have lost. If we let arms leak in, we will bleed.
I would have been perfectly happy with a strategy of turning rear area security over to the Iraqis, and letting the Marines maintain a cordon sanitaire around the Golan – nothing goes in, not even food. If we shut off the water and power, the whole thing is over in a few weeks at most. We would, of course, allow women and children out at any time, and arrest and investigate any men who want to leave, . That is a proper siege, in my view, and the way to win with minimal US casualties.
RCD, is this an outrage, or is this your goal?
I agree. Even the so-called “torture photos” (Which looks more like scenes out of a Britney Spears Video than torture) are working in our advantage long-term.
Not only in Iraq, but also in domestic US politics. Which is why Bush has INCREASED his standings in the polls since this so-called “torture” broke the news.