Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50

Thread: Why We Cannot Win

  1. #1
    Frunklemaster Optium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    835

    Default Why We Cannot Win

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html
    Why We Cannot Win
    by Al Lorentz

    Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

    Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

    I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

    When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the "political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off the tracks.

    I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties than we’ve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or necessary but possible.

    Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

    First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

    This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

    The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

    So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)

    Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

    Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.

    We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. of "left wing media bias."

    Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.

    We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army.

    Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

    Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them. Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and traditional religious networks.

    Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.

    Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.

    Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency and adaptability.

    Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.

    It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn.

    September 20, 2004

    Al Lorentz [send him mail] is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.

    Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com
    The author is facing possible charges which could lead to up to 20
    years in prison. Hope nobody is silly enough to even think about
    convicting him.

    .opt
    Last edited by Optium; 10-16-2004 at 07:52 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Well, I believe we can win this war, even when some people like Kerry say its the "wrong war, wrong time". :\ And that's just one view of a soldier out of many over there. Even if this war was started by ''false pretenses", I dont think we should pull out anytime soon and submit to defeat. Alot of peeps keep saying no connection with 9/11 2001, but Saddam had connections with the first world trade center bombing February 26, 1993.

  3. #3

    Default

    "but Saddam had connections with the first world trade center bombing February 26, 1993."

    Is that a true statment or speculation noname?

    Beware the dangers of making statements without proof because you stand to lose credibility if you cannot come up with said proof. Just a friendly warning.

    Optium, what's he being charged with?

    Take care all.

  4. #4
    Turk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    gjasogjaso;fbasjop
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noname
    Well, I believe we can win this war
    No, no you can't

    The only ones who win in this war are corporations and their affiliates (today's modern day politicians), and mercenary/private military companies such as Blackwater USA.

  5. #5
    Frunklemaster Optium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    835

    Default

    As I said he COULD be charged, hopefully they see that it would simply be
    silly to charge him but it's under consideration...

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/military_justice/index_np.html
    Sept. 29, 2004 | An Army Reserve staff sergeant who last week wrote a critical analysis of the United States' prospects in Iraq now faces possible disciplinary action for disloyalty and insubordination. If charges are bought and the officer is found guilty, he could face 20 years in prison. It would be the first such disloyalty prosecution since the Vietnam War.
    .opt

  6. #6
    2nd Protector of the Sun War Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    The Holy Land
    Posts
    2,416

    Default

    Guerilla war happens as a result of an occupation. To win, as an army, against guerilla fighters, you must do one of two things:

    1) Kill and slaughter the civilian population in such tremendously large numbers, that the cost of war for them will be too much. This is the way it was done untill the media age (i.e, just after the second world war).

    2) Gain the support the civilian population.

    Now, since the USA is a western, modern and civilised nation, it cannot and will not perform genocide. What was acceptable (or simply unknown to many, thus eliminating the chance of protest) decades and more ago, cannot work now.

    Also, given the fact Arabs don't want western influence under any circumstances, they don't want progress, globalisation, democracy, or to live a different life at all... you can assess that winning their support by giving them those things is impossible.

    So, we've eliminated those two options for victory. Now, while 'victory' in its classical meaning cannot be achieved... the loss can still be beneficiary to the occupiers. America can still bugger off, while achieving their goals, and leaving Iraq and the Iraqis to deal with their $hit - alone, like they want it to be.

    As for the charges against the soldier - he shouldn't have gone to the press without authorisation, and certainly not with this kind of material. He's a soldier, and has a certain set of rules he must follow, or he'll be punished. It's that simple.
    When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P

  7. #7
    Unpostmodernizeable Shadow Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Barcino, Hispania
    Posts
    987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by War Angel
    As for the charges against the soldier - he shouldn't have gone to the press without authorisation, and certainly not with this kind of material. He's a soldier, and has a certain set of rules he must follow, or he'll be punished. It's that simple.
    I thought everyone had the right to express their opinion.

  8. #8
    2nd Protector of the Sun War Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    The Holy Land
    Posts
    2,416

    Default

    I thought everyone had the right to express their opinion.
    Not a soldier, no. He has a right of speech within the military system, under rank etc., and is to keep his mouth shut when dealing with those outside the system. That's one of the many ways a proper army is run.
    When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P

  9. #9
    Banned nik0tine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dalmasca!
    Posts
    12,133

    Default

    In my opinion a soldier should be able to say whatever the hell he wants, and I don't care what affect it has on the war. It's BS that the military can do that to a soldier but they can, and it's detestful that they actually would.

  10. #10
    Turk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    gjasogjaso;fbasjop
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by War Angel
    Also, given the fact Arabs don't want western influence under any circumstances, they don't want progress, globalisation, democracy, or to live a different life at all... you can assess that winning their support by giving them those things is impossible.

    So, we've eliminated those two options for victory. Now, while 'victory' in its classical meaning cannot be achieved... the loss can still be beneficiary to the occupiers. America can still bugger off, while achieving their goals, and leaving Iraq and the Iraqis to deal with their $hit - alone, like they want it to be.
    This is such an ignorant assessment..Just because the Arabs don't want to be taken over by Americans you declare a whole people "don't want progress"...And guess what, a hell of a lot of people don't want globalization. And you know America is not doing Iraqis any favor. Why, for their handpicked administration in Iraq, did the Americans choose Allawi, a man who had bombed a bus full kids while working for the CIA, as its interim President?

    As for you saying Iraqis dealing with their alone, the problem is, Americans and their corporate interests are the that they must deal with.

    And really, if I offended anybody, you have absolutely no idea how much I don't give a .

  11. #11
    Unpostmodernizeable Shadow Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Barcino, Hispania
    Posts
    987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by War Angel
    Not a soldier, no. He has a right of speech within the military system, under rank etc., and is to keep his mouth shut when dealing with those outside the system. That's one of the many ways a proper army is run.
    Uh...I had no idea such rule existed. You are not inventing it?

    Well, coming from the army it would not surprise me. Nothing surprises me coming from the army.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
    Uh...I had no idea such rule existed. You are not inventing it?

    Well, coming from the army it would not surprise me. Nothing surprises me coming from the army.

    Nope, it's true. My dad used to be in the navy, for 20 years.

    I think if we wanna win this war, we need to secure the borders more so no more foreign fighters are coming in.

  13. #13
    Banned nik0tine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dalmasca!
    Posts
    12,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
    Uh...I had no idea such rule existed. You are not inventing it?

    Well, coming from the army it would not surprise me. Nothing surprises me coming from the army.
    They also are not allowed to dissagree with the president. I can understand why, but when you are out fighting a bull war I think it's totally acceptable for the soldiers to express dissent. No, it's not just acceptable, it's necessary.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
    Uh...I had no idea such rule existed. You are not inventing it?
    The military is a whole separate authoritarian society within a society, so, no matter how sad it is, it makes sense that the NCO is facing a disciplinary action. The free society rules do not quite apply to the military

  15. #15
    Ghost of Christmas' past Recognized Member theundeadhero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    In Jojee's pants x_~
    Posts
    15,567

    FFXIV Character

    Villania Valski (Adamantoise)
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight
    • Former Senior Site Staff

    Default

    A basic way to look at a soldier is like this: We give up most of our basic rights to protect all of yours. Some say freedom is free, but I tend to disagree...
    ...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •