Go read Tacitus “In Search of Lost Time,” about events in Iraq. Now.
I pretty much agree with everything he’s saying, especially this:
“In fact, fellow American, there are only two things in the world that can stop them, and make their earnest sacrifice for glory or for naught:
You and me.
UPDATE: I’ll add a comment from Clint Smith that seems somehow appropriate as well: “A gun isn’t a magic wand that will make your problems disappear when you wave it.” The same is true of armies.
And this part, “Think, then, when you hear “Tet,” that Tet was a victory.”
The only thought I would add is that the Tet Offensive was launched during a Cease Fire.
Great post. I think it was Roger Simon that said “5 minute politics”. The Left has gotten so deep in the conspiracy tent they can’t get out, and they have to keep playing the “gotcha” card, hoping against hope they will win a pot.
Has everyone read the email from a Marine in Fallujah that Andrew Sullivan has? Do so!!
OT:
Joe and AL, I am proud of you recent referee-ing of some recent threads- 480+ comments!!! Holy F***ing S**T!!
I couldn’t wade through them all, but did look at a sample, and of coursa visited LGF.
Long Live the Blogoshpere!!
Forget the old slanderer of Emperors. Read this instead.
Horseshoe nail questions:
If we have an election in Iraq a few months from now, who wins?
If they are our enemies, how can we risk an election?
If we cannot risk an election, how can we bring democracy?
Is “getting tough” enough, merely? What good does it do to dig in our heels if we must stay like that till our kneecaps crack, out calves collapse — in other words, has there ever been a hardcore, full strength military occupation that did not cause resentment and hatred among the population under it?
The idea that leaving to early will be cause disaster does not refute the thesis that staying too long will be a disaster.
Just the devil’s advocate, as usual.
obliw.
Ultimately, it will be up to the people of Iraq to take and make their country. Leading a horse to water.
In the meantime, these people coming in from other countries who strongly oppose a non-dictatorship rule need excessie force, and personally, I feel the countries where these people originate should be held responsible as well, and invaded as well.
Tacitus thinks we made a mistake by setting up a situation that invited our enemies to concentrate and attack.
I’d say we set up a situation that encouraged a tactical loss and a strategic win.
Tacitus has lost his nerve. Most of the left never had a nerve. Let us not loose our nerve.
In response to this attack let us start clamoring for an attack on Iran. That would be an effective grand strategic counter stroke.
What nonsense you say, M. Simon. A couple of pointers: If you read the post that AL links to, you’ll see that I discuss at length the near-certainty that this revolt will be a “tactical loss and a strategic win.” Second, no one gets credit for “setting up a situation” if they never intended for that situation to occur. Unless you’re arguing that CPA wanted a Shi’a revolt, the loss of several cities, Sunni-Shi’a anti-American unity, etc. Which I’d sort of like to hear.
Lost my nerve. How absurd. I am calling for more troops, more effort, more money, and more of an occupation than has hitherto been seen. I’m at a loss as to how you miss that.
“Unless you’re arguing that CPA wanted a Shi’a revolt, the loss of several cities, Sunni-Shi’a anti-American unity, etc. Which I’d sort of like to hear.”
I dont know what CPA wanted, and i probably wont know for some years, till the memoirs come out, and the historians critique them. Partly this is due to the nature of politics and war where the truth must be protected by a bodyguard of lies – this applies to Americans, but also so Shiite Grand Ayatollahs, IGC politicians, British Prime Ministers, palestinian moderates, and even French diplomats. Its aggravated by the fact that the current US admin is apparentely deeply split over the conduct of foreign and security policy, and this split accounts for much of what happens, yet the split can (obviously) never be acknowledged in public by the admin.
Tacitus,
I have to admit that I didn’t read all you wrote. Just skimmed it. So if I took what appeared to be hysteria out of context my apologies.
====================================
How would any one know if this was planned or not except at the very highest levels?
1. It would be bad to let our enemies know our strategy.
2. Politically Bush would never hear the end of it from mothers of dead soldiers.
On the enough troop question I’d have to say that we probably have enough. At least so far none of the commanders on the ground have called for more. Despite the fact that they have been authorized to ask for anything they need.
We must be like Grant and not scare worth a damn.
If we can handle this problem with available local strength it will give our enemies even more pause.
If our goal is the handover on 30 June then what we want is less occupation. Since the hand over is our will what you suggest is that the enemy dictate our strategic response to a tactical situation.
Not my idea of a good time.
=====================================
The history of the Battle of the Bulge is instructive in regards to the current battle. Our losses in the Bulge were tremendous. Did we intend those losses? Well maybe not at SHAEF but Patton thougt an attack by the Germans in a weak American sector would be a good thing to deplete German strength.
Now I would bet our generals have studied that battle and more. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if a strategic decision wasn’t made to appear weak to invite our enemies to unite and attack.
Shias and Sunis can unite for battle. Why not for democracy?
Also the fact that they have united undercuts a lot of what goes for thought on the left.
================================================
In any case I expect that militarily this will be the enemy’s Tet. The question now is how the American people will react.
I am not dismayed at all. Whether current events were planned or accidental. They serve our purpose.
We must keep in mind that we have some of the very best generals the world has ever produced running this war. Given the race to Baghdad in 3 weeks I’d have to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
A quote:
This kind of fight is exactly what our forces are trained to do. This is the kind of fight we should be glad to have. There is nothing more we can ask of Iraq than that the enemies of stability should be out in the field, engaged in battle with us. They are now a clear military problem, one for which the officers in the field have studied and the men in the field have trained. They are engaged in a stand-up fight with us. They can’t hope to prevail, and in fact are breaking: witness today’s shift on the part of al-Sadr’s forces to hostage taking. Having gotten them into the field, we shall clear the field. Iraq will enter its successor government with a whole lot fewer insurgents, and witnessed memories of the abject failure of insurgency against US forces.
To those who report without understanding, however, this looks like bad news. It’s scary, like the Tet Offensive was scary; there are fires and angry men with guns who hate us. The news crawl startles them–US forces engaged in fourteen cities across Iraq! What they forget, or rather never knew, is that the US forces were designed for simultaneous engagement on up to three continents. The instability won’t last. The wave will break, the Coalition will bind these insurgents in fourteen rings of steel, like the one cast already around Fallujah. In a few days those who have not been captured or killed will be hiding in fear. We will be flush with victory, and in possession of a great deal of new intelligence information on who is backing these groups–whether it is official government aid from regional powers, or factional aid from folks like al-Sadr’s cousin, the leader of Hezbollah.
from:
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/
8 April 04
BTW I got my tags wrong. The above is all quote.
Let me add another:
There is always hope, even in darkness: but there is never better reason to hope for victory than while the United States Marines are still deployed in the field. The Eagle, Globe, and Anchor is a very sign of hope, hope for victory, and for liberty.
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/
As a former Marine, I can state that the last quote is absolutely f***ing correct.
Anyone here read any of the Falkenberg’s Legion books by Jerry Pournelle? His combat descriptions re guerilla warfare are eeriely(?) similar to what’s going on today in Iraq.
The key thing is, the insurgents don’t have a Laos or North Viet Nam to retreat to and resupply from. Nor will the Russians bail them out.
Semper Fidelis
How to tell if there are enough troops:
As far as I can tell no one believes this eruption of guerilla warfare will last more than a few weeks and no one thinks massive American reinforcements will be required to fix the current problem.
Thus there is great belief that there are enough troops to restore order.
To have enough troops to prevent this kind of disorder in my opinion would require 10X the current level or more. Plus secret police to watch what is going on.
Is that really what we want?
the insurgents don’t have a Laos or North Viet Nam to retreat to and resupply from
They’ve got Iran. They’ve got Syria. These will serve if need be. It isn’t as though this were strictly an internal-to-Iraq thing.