January 8, 2005, Some perspective
In this week's visit to Pravda, we get this good old assault on Western values, noting not without bitter irony that the cost of our butchery in Iraq (I may use that term more regularly) hovers at around $200 billion (it's really much more, of course), whereas the entire Western world got together for a mere $4 billion in relief aid for tsunami relief (and less than 10% of that is from the American government, the one that committed hundreds of times their aid package for the purpose of murdering swarthy people in Iraq (for some still unexplained reason that did NOT include American self-defense). Well, while I personally made my tsunami related contributions, all I can say is "ouch". When asked what he thought of Western civiliation, Mahatma Gandhi put it best: "I think it would be an excellent idea."
Pravda also treats us to this report you won't see anywhere else indicating that terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been arrested by the Kurds. Zarqawi, as you know, has been substituted as public enemy number 1 for the long-forgotten Osama bin Laden, though the two now seem affiliated. Of course, the Pentagon has vociferously denied that Zarqawi has been captured. If he was, of course, it would too much like the capture of Saddam story line: the capture of the big fish did absolutely nothing re: the intensity of insurgency.
I have no idea if he has been captured or not, of course.
The Pentagon, like the government as a whole, is in no position to admit that their entire model of warfare is hopelessly flawed: the enemy is NOT subject to a rigid command structure, as we are. Even capturing 2/3 or 3/4 or 90% or whatever the popular figure is of the leadership of Al Qaeda or the insugency or any other such group means nothing: the field guerrillas can operate on their own, with minimal oversight. As I've said before: our forces resemble the British redcoats trying to line in orderly rows as more flexible guerrillas (be they American irregulars in the Revolutionary war or Mohawks, Iroquois, et al. in the French and Indian War), and are no match, doctrinally. But alas, our Pentagon remains a top-down structure, and will not learn. Sadly, the public at large really doesn't care. (Them gay-boys gettin' hitched? THAT it cares about.)
Well, a dismal weather day here in the New York area. Just some more happy thoughts for such a day.
Comments
Talking Dog: The irony here is that Rumsfeld, early in the first term, wanted to substantially reform the military to make it more nimble and designed to fight insurgents and smaller campaigns. It was the one thing that I thought Rummy had going for him. But he handled it so poorly that none of what he wanted to accomplish was accomplished.
Still, it is not the Pentagon's fault we went in without a way out - no political or infrastructure planning, no thought on how to get out quickly.
God Bless George Bush!
Posted by Tweed at January 9, 2005 3:14 PM
I don't really understand how making the military more "nimble" could effectively fight a popular insurgency. Seems to me it's an essentially political fight, which requires (a) enough properly trained culturally-sensitive boots on the ground for enough years to provide the kind of security that the population needs to side with the invader for stability, and (b) a really smart diplomacy in order to arrive at a political solution that satisfies the population.
A "nimble" military that can get in, kill the hell out of some people, and get out again is hardly going to do the job.
Now if Rumsfeld had been interested in enlarging the ground forces, and training them for counter-insurgency work, and nation-building security work, that would be different. But I don't recall that being his goal.
Posted by paperwight at January 11, 2005 12:51 PM