We Love You, Milt, But...
The New York Times has an article today from Milt Bearden, CIA "quartermaster" to the Afghan mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation. Milt's an Iraq pessimist, and he argues that the Iraqi insurgency follows Sun Tzu's principles of war.
Now, Milt, we here at Grim's Hall love you for everything you've done for the cause of freedom. I have to say, though, that your assessment of the Iraq situation is off. There are several problems with the analysis:
The insurgents' strategy could have been crafted by Sun Tzu, the Chinese military tactician, who more than 2,500 years ago wrote, in "The Art of War," that the highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's strategy.So it was probably no accident that as American forces approached Baghdad, expecting tough street fighting, the bulk of the Iraqi forces melted away.
I agree that it was no accident that their forces melted away. But I would think it too far a leap of faith to say that they planned to do so. It seems to me much more likely that the thing that caused this "no accident" was the sudden descent of 3 ID and I MEF on Baghdad, and the repeated slaughters of Fedayeen Saddam irregulars in the
chevauchees of early April.
Is there any evidence that Saddam intended his forces to melt away? The best reports I've seen suggest that Saddam thought there wouldn't be a war at all, and if there were one, that he would win. Take this interview, for example, from one of Saddam's bodyguards, who held that Saddam was shocked by the fall of Baghdad and met with his sons to plan the resistance after the Marines were encamped in the Summer Palace. But you're ex-CIA, so maybe you know something I don't.
Next, according to Sun Tzu, you attack his alliances.This, again, is what the Iraqi insurgents did. Presumably acting on the assumption that the Jordanians were being too helpful to the United States, insurgents detonated a car bomb outside the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad on Aug. 7, killing 11 and wounding scores. Less than three weeks later, as an increased role for the United Nations was debated, suicide bombers attacked the organization's headquarters in Baghdad, killing 22 people, including the United Nations special representative to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.
Then, in mid-October, as proposals for an expanded peacekeeping role for Turkey were argued, a suicide bomb detonated outside the Turkish chancery in Baghdad, killing one bystander and wounding a dozen others.
When Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, began in late October, Baghdad was rocked by a series of suicide bombings that killed dozens and wounded hundreds, including an attack on the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In addition, there have been countless attacks against individual Iraqis viewed as allied with the United States, whether police recruits, members of the Iraqi Governing Council or figures in the judiciary. A pattern of attack against American allies seems clear.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this claim. On the one hand, terrorists usually do hit soft targets--say, ones that refuse protection. On the other, the insurgents have been hitting hard targets too. If there's a pattern, it doesn't seem to be one of 'hit their allies,' so much as 'hit whatever we can hit.'
Additionally, it's not clear to me that some of these are allies in any meaningful sense. The Poles are our allies. The Brits are allies. The Aussies--allies. The ICRC has repeatedly referred to us as an occupation force, and refused any protection on the grounds that it didn't want to be associated with the effort to liberate Iraq. Meanwhile, they've issued statement after statement harshly critical of US and Coalition efforts. An insurgency that drives such a group out of the country isn't acting on a brilliant plan--they're removing a source of friendly propaganda, while convincing those outside the battle zone of the relative moral purity of the Coalition.
Consider the following: Since the focused attacks began, most Arab League missions in Baghdad have distanced themselves from the coalition; the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, has withdrawn his international staff from Baghdad; the Red Cross followed suit, prompting other international aid organizations to pare down in Baghdad as well. The Turkish government, for a number of complex political reasons, has now reconsidered sending troops.
OK, I -do- know what to do with this. The Arab League has "distanced" itself from the Coalition, but while making room at the table for the Coalition-backed Iraqi Governing Council. Kofi Annan is no friend to the Coalition, but he never has been. The UN Security Council, however--that is to say, "the UN that matters"--voted unanimously in support of the rebuilding efforts, and to legitimize the "occupation," or reconstruction. The Red Cross we've discussed--their departure is a blow to the insurgency's information war, and the attacks on them a propaganda victory for the Coalition. We'll miss their practical aid--but not all that much. As for the Turks, those "complex" reasons boil down to a pretty simple one: the Iraqi people refused to have them.
Now, take a minute to focus on that last point. The Iraqis refused--and the Coalition--who, we are told, is "desperate" to give the impression of a multinational force--bowed gracefully to their wishes. We are making a free society in Iraq. That means we have to honor their wishes--and we have. As, in fact, we have in Afghanistan, whose new constitution makes clear that it is going to be an Islamic republic, with a legal system founded on the principles of sha'ria.
"So what did we achieve in Afghanistan?" mutter the anti-warriors. We achieved this: we turned a theocratic government into a republican one, restored the loya jirga, and turned a haven for terrorists into an ally in the terror-war. If we can do as much in Iraq, it will be a positive victory--and a free republic, not a puppet on America's string.
Where Milt Bearden sees failures, I see shining success. But then, I'm not a former CIA man--maybe he knows better.
Next, Sun Tzu prescribed, attack their army.This is occurring with increasing lethality. To misread these attacks as desperation is dangerous. In the last two weeks, there have been multiple attacks on the coalition headquarters in Baghdad, with mortars and rockets landing inside the secure green zone. Shoulder-fired missiles have brought down a Chinook helicopter, killing 16 soldiers. The crash of a Blackhawk helicopter, killing an additional six, is still under investigation, but according to some reports a rocket-propelled grenade may have brought it down. One or two casualties are logged almost daily.
Shooting down a helicopter with an RPG is not especially difficult--the Vietnamese learned, quickly enough, that you lead it just like you lead a bird with your rifle. Based on the tilt of the rotor, you can tell how much you need to lead it. This is something the Coalition is going to have to keep in mind.
It's true that attacks are becoming more dangerous. On the other hand, our counterattacks--and non-military counterinsurgency techniques--are also improving. That is part of the theory of war as well: refer not to Sun Tzu, but von Clausewitz. War tends to escalate, and enemies, as they learn each other's ways, become better at killing each other.
Even so, we're winning this one, and are going to have the victory. As you will see below, in northern (Kurdish) and southern (Shi'a) Iraq, the populace is fighting a counterinsurgency of its own. The Sunni Triangle remains dangerous, but there is not any shortage of Iraqis ready to put these insurgents down. They just need the time and training to do it--and we've got people providing both. Iraqi police figure in more successes every week--just last week they stopped a suicide bombing, for example. The Iraqi army is being trained in US methods by US corporations, and will soon be able to be integrated into operations.
For every mujahedeen killed or hauled off in raids by Soviet troops in Afghanistan, a revenge group of perhaps a half-dozen members of his family took up arms. Sadly, this same rule probably applies in Iraq.
The difference being that the vast majority of the Iraqi people are on our side. That was never true for the Russians, as you know: most of the Russian allies in Afghanistan were mercenary, and swayed by the passing about of cash.
There were two stark lessons in the history of the 20th century: no nation that launched a war against another sovereign nation ever won. And every nationalist-based insurgency against a foreign occupation ultimately succeeded. This is not to say anything about whether or not the United States should have gone into Iraq or whether the insurgency there is a lasting one. But it indicates how difficult the situation may become.
Sorry, but on this point we part company entirely. Nations launched successful wars on sovereign nations repeatedly in the 20th century: the Soviet Union swallowed nations like boiled eggs. Japan took China and Korea without real difficulty. The Nazis took Czechoslovakia, and the rest of the world said, "Well, OK." China, in turn, took Tibet.
What happened repeatedly in the 20th century was that nations, having taken one nation, moved on to take another. At some point this forced a response from the other great powers. In the Soviet case, it was the Cold War, and even so, it took fifty years to set those nations free. In Japan's case, it was us that finally knocked them about; and you'll remember what happened to the Nazis. China, by contrast, still has Tibet, and probably will have Taiwan pretty soon--we've passed the point at which we can afford, diplomatically or as a matter of force, to defend Taiwan in the face of a Chinese military assault.
What the Coalition allies are doing in Iraq, though, is not like the Soviet conquests or the Japanese, or the Nazi, or the Chinese. It is like--well, like the Allies' conquests of the Second World War. We have destroyed a fascist state, and will now rebuild it, and then we will set it free.
Which brings us to the other "every," that "every nationalist-based insurgency against a foreign occupation ultimately succeeded." That doesn't work, unless you count the end of the Allied occupation of Germany as a victory for the Werewolves.
"Know yourself and know your enemy," you counsel, with Sun Tzu. Very well, then, know this: we are the breakers of tyrants, and tyrants are our foes.
Tomorrow is the Marine Corps birthday, Milt. Drink deeply--but not of the cup of despair.
