What we're doing wrong and the muslims are doing right in Iraq
Not since WW II do I remember the United States declaring war on anyone (except for the "War on Drugs", "the War on Poverty", etc. which are proven failures). We haven't declared war on any other sovereign nation.
We engage troops in other nations and areas around the world under the guise of "advisors", "police action", etc.; but never DECLARING WAR. Are we at war in Iraq? Not yet… Create a sense of urgency. There isn't anyone that can convince me that the United States cannot eliminate any nation in the world in as little as a weekend. We have overwhelming air power and weapons that no one can match. There is no reason to have troops on the ground other than to collect "the spoils of war".
The only reason to prolong a war is economic interests that are realized by corporations and not governments. We have not created the sense of urgency to win this "war" as soon as possible. Avoid the snares of Groupthink. The enemy has only one concentrated thought that is dictated by their leader. We, on the other hand, have debates, call in advisors, vote on details and really accomplish little to nothing in winning the war. During WW II there was only one Commander in each theater of conflict and all efforts to win came directly from him, not voted on by hundreds of people, thousands of miles away with no interests other than political.
We must have one person in charge regardless of whether we agree or not. Segment your forces. Break your forces into independent groups that can act on their own. This gives them great flexibility, speed and adaptability to prevail. The enemy is well aware of this strategy, yet we stay concentrated, making ourselves a large target. Transform your war into a crusade.
The enemy has done this and yet we persist in having a "mission" of forcing our politics on the enemy. With the way that we are operating in this most recent conflict, the enemy has the greater advantage. Pick your battles carefully. This is an economic strategy that the enemy uses very skillfully. We, on the other hand, are not picking our battles, but letting the enemy determine where and when we should fight. They have us "looking over our shoulders" rather than we having them "on the run".
Create a threatening presence. Our troops are trying to make friends with the enemy rather than terrorizing the entire population. The enemy has everyone scared, including our troops. Turn the tables. Instead of trying to stop the enemy's attacks, attack first and unmercifully. This strategy hastens the end to any conflict. Know your enemy. We are fighting a people that come from a different MINDSET than ours.
Not only do we expect them to "play by our rules", we make no effort to understand their way of thinking. We don't understand why they don't want our form of government and persist in trying to "shove it down their throats". We have no idea of their concepts of property and ownership. We condemn their lifestyle without wondering how it works for them.
We are arrogant to the point of never considering who or what our enemy is. Hardly any of our leaders has researched anything on the subject of Islam or Arab life. We go about assuming that the enemy is just a bunch of "bad guys" and are very much like us. All peoples are not the same. Overwhelm resistance with speed and suddenness.
We did it right in the first few days of entering Iraq with our program of Shock & Awe. We totally ran the enemy over…and then we stopped. If we kept up with our original attempt, the war would have been over in another week and we would be in command of the entire country. The enemy would have retreated into surrounding countries and the non-combatant population would be back to business as usual. Very few lives would have been lost and we would control the oil flow, paying back the expenses of this war.
I wonder how much political correctness got in the way of our continuing the way we started… Hit them where it hurts. If we "did our homework", we would have known that the main things that make up our enemy is money and their belief system. By cutting off all supply lines (attacking any supporting country) of money and arms, as well as outlawing their "religion", we would have broken their spirit and willingness to fight. Again I question how much of a role political correctness plays here.
Expose and attack the enemy's soft spots. Attack the smallest and weakest fringes of the enemy while working your way to their heart. The enemy knows this strategy well, as they attack us with suicide bombers and road bombs that we are very vulnerable to. When we attack their fringes, our troops have to worry about being tried in a court of law for their actions. Envelop the enemy. Why don't we surround any hostile groups and eliminate them instead of attacking from one front so the enemy can retreat into "safe havens" such as mosques. We always leave the enemy a back door so they can fight another day. They attack us in our midst, which is proving very effective for them. An "Exit Strategy" is unnecessary.
If you plan on winning any conflict, there is no need to leave after it's over. Over half a century after WW II, we still have troops in both Germany and Japan. An exit strategy is the plan of the LOSER. Weave a seamless blend of fact and fiction. Make it hard for the enemy to know what you are doing or planning. Instead of allowing the "Press" into the theater of battle, feed the media information that will be confusing and misleading to the enemy. This strategy worked very well during WW II, bringing it to an early conclusion. The enemy constantly is feeding our "intelligence" misinformation that we in turn act upon, while we debate and publish our plans in the media. Is it that the enemy is so much smarter than we are?
Take the path of least expectation. We never know when or where the enemy will attack. They know where we are and where we're going at all times. Our media is one of their best intelligence sources for our enemy. How stupid can we be? Deny the enemy any targets.
Our troops are constantly exposed like ducks in a shooting gallery. The only time we are aware of where the enemy is when we're engaged in battle with them. The colonists in America learned quickly from the Indians to hide behind trees and rocks when in battle and thus defeated the large British forces.
Why don't we learn from this enemy? They blend in with the population, wearing ordinary attire and casually going about their business until it's time to strike; while we are standing out in patrols, guarding perimeters, driving around in convoys and marching down the middle of their streets unprotected.
How stupid are we? Take small bites. Instead of trying to take an entire city, by taking very small sections at a time will eventually take the entire city before anyone realizes it. It's the "boiling a frog" strategy…you put the frog in the pot of water and very slowly increase the heat until the frog, not realizing it, is being boiled. The enemy is using this strategy by killing off our troops as little as one at a time each day. Destroy from within. Strategically plant information within the enemy's ranks that will cause them to fight amongst themselves, thus weakening their entire core. They have done this with us…notice that Congress cannot agree on anything about this conflict and is constantly fighting with each other.
Is it any wonder that we've been fighting all these years instead of taking over the entire country in 2-3 weeks? Practice terror tactics. Terror is the ultimate way to paralyze a people's will to resist and destroy their ability to plan a strategic response. The goal in a terror campaign is not battlefield victory but causing maximum chaos and provoking the other side into desperate overreaction. See how well this is working for our enemy? Have you noticed that all of the above tactics are being used by the muslim radicals against the rest of the world. These tactics work very well. Why isn't the United States fighting to win ?
more in Politics
This time your life may depend upon it.
Is David Hicks a terrorist just waiting to get out of jail and wreak havoc on his native country or is he a young man easily led into saying the above as he sort adventure? We will soon know, but I'm not quaking in my boots at the thought of him being released into the community where I live.
With the costs of the war in Iraq and the multiple people in both Parties running for the office, who SHOULD be the next President and will they be able to handle the job amd the mess left behind by the presnt President?
Piracy is still alive and kicking in the world and we need to work on it!
John Howard's Government was seen as old and tired. New kid on the block Kevin Rudd has led his Labor party to resounding victory. Another of Bush's friends bites the dust.