Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[Tripledoc]

Felch:

One cannot be 100 percent sure that the Iraqi resistance is not getting support from the outside.

"Killing a bunch of Iraqis", will mean that someone will actually have to do the killing. Since the Iraqi are not unarmed, they will very likely respond in kind. This would mean that more American soldiers will get killed.

In the latest Intifada, which is still ongoing I think Israel has lost 600 civilians and soldiers, and the Palestinan have lost 3000. Considering the fact that Europe was quite recently the target of a terrorist attack, a lack of restraint might mean further reprisals.

There is also perhaps the most important factor, and that is that many of the Iraqi are actually cooperating with the Americans. Indiscriminate killing and brutalization of Iraqis will mean that the US will loose their Iraqi supporters.

Playing Sunnis and Shi'as against eachother might have worked before, but it seems their nationalism is strong.

[Felch]

I agree it's problematic. But imagine one particular scenario.

The US and Iraqi forces are encircling Fallujah right now. Hypothetically, the air force could drop leaflets on the city promising to spare it in exchange for several hundred specific hostages, men from prominent families, and offer the city one week to comply. If the hostages are handed over, then they will be killed in the event of future problems. If not, then B-52s can carpet bomb the city, with a mixture of high explosive, incendiary, and possibly chemical munitions. I'm not an expert, but I'm sure people in the Pentagon know how to destroy cities.

Then you leave. You never have to enter the city. You don't have to mop up. You just need to show them who runs the show. If there are any further problems, you repeat the procedure.

As far as areas that are friendly you can reward them. Money and resources that would have gone to uncooperative cities can be shifted to cooperative ones, and make it clear that there is a connection between cooperation and the rewards or punishment.

There could be degrees of punishment, but you need to make it clear that atrocities committed against the Americans will be responded to in kind.

I understand that this is evil and sick. But so is war. Anybody who thinks wars can be waged without this sort of brutality is kidding themselves.

[Felch]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
War is political and strategic, combat is tactical. No matter how many of their asses we stacked, we got whooped in Tet. Not as bad as the VC, who got screwed by the northern political leadership, but we lost the meaningful issue in Tet - the political one.

I agree. But the political and strategic ends can be handled successfully in a Tet style offensive. It just so happens that those aspects were disasterously mishandled in 1968.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Felch


It just so happens that those aspects were disasterously mishandled in 1968.

Well no - the problem was, as it is now, that no amount of spin was going to stop voters making up their own mind about what they were seeing on their TV screens - the occupation of the US embassy, the summary execution in the street of VC prisoners by the Saigon police chief, the battle for Hue, the utter destruction of that ancient beautiful city by bombing and napalm, the troubled faces of the marines in that terrible street battle, the refugees streaming out of towns once considered safe, left an indelible impression on all people who saw it. It's some of the most compelling television footage ever shot. I'll never forget it.

Then as now the really damaging thing was noone could say when victory would be achieved and troops could come home. That freaked out voters, who had been told before Tet that the war was all but won.

Any of this sound familiar?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Felch


I agree. But the political and strategic ends can be handled successfully in a Tet style offensive. It just so happens that those aspects were disasterously mishandled in 1968.

There's no handling the popular perception that what happened in some little peanut country in Asia wasn't worth tens of thousands of American KIA's. And once the di... er, um, VC ran amok up one side of the country and down the other, even if just for hours or days, then three years of claims that we were successfully "pacifying" the country went down the toilet.

Ultimately, it comes down to what the American people are willing to accept as a minimim cost/benefit ratio.

[Felch]

Yeah it does sound familiar. But I still think that adequate spin control can handle the situation. Especially if events like the Fallujah mutilations are responded to with sufficient brutality.

Also, strict censorship would be needed. It's not easy, and it's not democratic, but I wasn't exactly keen on the war to begin with so I don't feel too guilty. I just want to win, now that we are in it.

[Felch]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ultimately, it comes down to what the American people are willing to accept as a minimim cost/benefit ratio.

True. Do you think the American people would object to carpet bombing cities that dance on the corpes of American civilians though?

[Ramo]

Oh man, carpet bomb Fallujah! That's gotta be the worst idea I've ever heard of. That sure will convince the Sunnis that they have a place in a future Iraqi gov't. Felch, you'd fit in perfectly in this Defense Dept.

[Tripledoc]

The problem with the Shock and Awe Rinse and Repeat method is that it will not only show the Iraqis how the game is played, but very likely the entire World Community. It will further undermine the 'soft power' of which the US has already lost some. I can imagine that the Democrats will be outraged by indiscriminate bombings, because very likely they will have to take over fairly soon.

Awarding people who coorporate is perhaps a good idea. But I believe that the problem is essentially political, and not a question of financing the right people. In other words, the handover of power must be a real one.

As far as I understand Rumsfeld has said, that numerous people from Falluja have already been detained. But I doubt that the insurgents who did the actual killing have been detained. No photographs were taken of them. Only of the ones who mutilated the corpses.

It still strikes me as strange that so much emotion could be worked up over the bodies of four mercenaries. One of whose identity has not been revealed yet, as far as I understand. Very likely many American soldiers, young and not well paid, and who are still alive, have been mauled beyond recognition by various bomb-blasts. I don't see them being shown on the news.

Falluja has always been against the occupation, since they were bombed and lost the single most number of civilains during the First gulf War in one day. 200 dead and 500 wounded. April last year 15 demonstrators were killed by American troops. And 50 wounded, after the Americans were fired upon. The day before the killings of the 4 mercenaries, one Iraqi civilian was killed. The group that did the ambush against the mercenaries, said it was in revenge of the Israeli assasination of Sheik Yassin, leader of Hamas.

So a lot of different factors go into explaining the problem with Falluja.

[Felch]

Who says they have a place? I'm not interested in making them like us. They don't. And I'm not interested in letting guys my age die so that some former Baathist torturers and rapists can enjoy the fruits of American intervention. They can just as soon die.

It's evil, but so are they. I honestly think it would work.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Felch
Yeah it does sound familiar. But I still think that adequate spin control can handle the situation.

Well you are kidding yourself.

The real problem is the spin that is given before the outbreaks of fighting. Politicians have this almost irresistable urge to gild the lilly and say things are going better than they are. This is what comes back to bite them when things go wrong like now. It's very hard unwind once those genies are out of the bottle.

That liberation, freedom and democracy rhetoric was always a big mistake, as many of the critics said at the time. They should have said stuff like a tough road ahead, we don't want to go there but we have to etc.

[Ramo]

What's evil is to say that every Sunni Arab is a Ba'athist torturer or rapist. And it's not practical, unless you're willing to eliminate a 8 million people, which is far more evil than anything the Ba'athist state ever did.

[Felch]

Shock and Awe fails because it doesn't frighten people. Shock and awe are by their nature temporary. Death is permanent.

I honestly don't care what their motivations are. They could be nice guys who love their wives and children and just want to live in peace. In fact they probably are. But if they genuinely want peace they should be willing to stop killing Americans. Otherwise we should make an example of them.

The reason I care about the mutilation is because it was publicized. If Iraqis start to think that this sort of rebellion will go unpunished, more Americans and more of our allies will be coming home in bits and pieces.

The World Community means nothing. The Democrats control neither the White House, nor either the House or Senate. So they don't matter either. All that matters is winning with the least number of dead Americans and friendly people.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Felch
All that matters is winning with the least number of dead Americans and friendly people.

Others would say the winning part is not essential and probably in conlfict with the second part.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Ramo
What's evil is to say that every Sunni Arab is a Ba'athist torturer or rapist. And it's not practical, unless you're willing to eliminate a 8 million people, which is far more evil than anything the Ba'athist state ever did.

Well, even if they are innocent, I don't care. Evil is nothing to me. And I doubt you'll have to kill 8 million people. But I'm willing to support a President who does. I'm an American, not an Arab, and the only people I care about are Americans and people that are friendly to or at least don't kill Americans.