JOURNAL: Surge?

The latest US "strategy" for Iraq, a small increase in manpower focused on controlling sections of Baghdad, has generated substantial debate/commentary in the US. The reason for this has vastly more to do with domestic political issues than anything substantive in the military sphere. To wit, almost nothing in the current plan -- from troops to tactics -- has changed in any meaningful way. Further, the general situation of country-wide chaos will not change due to any efforts to pacify select Baghdad neighborhoods (and even the ability of US troops to do that is questionable given the dynamics of the current war -- see the brief "Clear and Hold" for more).

Of course, the failure of these periodic efforts may be due to an inability to revisit a key assumption upon which the present US effort is based: that strong states tend to form naturally if provided the right minimalist conditions. I believe the opposite is true: that states, once broken, tend to remain hollow and in perpetual failure. The reason is that in the current environment minimalist conditions yield social disintegration (we see will this minimalist/disintegration paradigm repeated world-wide, even in the absence of war, as globalization continues to rapidly grow and spread -- which fatally undermines any argument that the success of globalization means that "we win," if "we" means the US and nation-states in general) and the ascendent military power (copiously documented on this weblog) is in the hands of those would disrupt the state rather than form it. If this revised assumption is correct, it is safe to conclude that building a stable Iraq would require a level of effort that is beyond our ability to provide (see the brief "Playing with War" for more).

Note: every US action in Iraq should also be analyzed within the context of a war with Iran (see the April 2006 brief "Collapsing Iran" for why).

Comments

[pm2075]

"The reason for this has vastly more to do with domestic political issues than anything substantive in the military sphere."

Iraq has been most if not all about political decision(it was revealed)... One more is not surprising. It is EXPECTED!
(Americans might at this point be finding the answer by asking themselves "Does he really care?)

Syria's vice president says the plan would only "pour oil on the fire."

http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=5924957&nav=menu134_2

Politicians are claiming we are losing. The fact remains we never did win it in the first place. Politics and politicians have made American virtues AN UTTER EMBARASSMENT. The curtains have lifted by mistakes, the truth is revealed and the moral high ground wasn't really there just a mere guise for self-interests. For a war that shouldn't be fought and a country that values its lives of citizens more so than any other humans of any nationality in this world... IT IS A WASTE OF GOOD LIVES. JUST AN ABSOLUTE WASTE!

... and the "meat grinder" continues... churning albeit at a much faster pace i noticed recently. The counter is moving at a much faster pace i wonder if it lends credence to the fact that control is within grasp of the enemy if they don't have it already or it is the result of desperation on our part by increased military chalk patrols or activity

[adam]

John,

Agree completely. I note with some interest that the "surge" (or Escalation as people old enough to remember Vietnam would call it) includes provision of Patriot Missile batteries. Pretty useless against guerillas, but just fine for war with Iran.

Anyway the new plan of "clear and hold" was tried in 2004-5 and 2006 (twice, I think). Its not clear how the addition of a very few soldiers will make this any more effective.

I would point out that a weak government was at the heart of the US-written Iraqi constitution and I know that people commented at the time that this was going to cause a lot of problems. Your point about strong government being an aberration is true, but do bear in mind that the US did everything possible to ensure that any future Iraqi government would be weak; constitutionally, militarily, socially, economically. Neo-cons talk a lot about drowning the goverment, and in Iraq they got to give it a try.

Anyway I guess we'll either be at "Surge 2: The Draft" by mid-Summer, or Bush will be leaving the entire mess for his successor.

[Syn Diesel]

John, you never did take my comments about a positive Emergent Property, did you? That a tech-nerd like yourself doesn't preach the Words of Bucky Fuller is sad indeed.

The way we stop War in Iraq is the same way we stop War in America. We speak Truth. When was the last time you spoke Truth, my brother John? Why not send 1 million cell phones, and 10,000 floating cell towers, to Iraq. We give them to every adult female and tell them to "call us" with whatever they want to talk about. Do they want TACTICAL ADVANTAGE or do they want theire kids safe from kooks?

Fucking iPhone the revolution in man. When did you ever design a solution to the problems? Who cares if they use it to kill us? Atleast they'll use it to stop the killing forever.

- Mark

ps Dare you to lable me as a "dreamer."

[John Robb]

Syn, not sure what you are talking about. Transparency is key. I've said it numerous times before.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/12/journal_radical.html

[Syn Diesel]

Mother + Child precedes even "family," let alone tribe.

But then again I'm safe here behind the Empire's Great Wall... so how about some poetry?

The Procession of Simulacra/Map Precedes Territory

[Syn Diesel]

Btw John, have you ever discussed this young lady with your peers?

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/index.autism.world.html

Sue is a very interesting cybernetics subject. Just like Daniel is.

http://science.discovery.com/convergence/brainman/brainman.html

When are you going to put your own pineal gland where those dead Iraqi little girl's pineal glands are? You feel the territory, go exploring already.

[Syn Diesel]

Syn, not sure what you are talking about. Transparency is key. I've said it numerous times before.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/12/journal_radical.html

John, you didn't answer my questions. YOU didn't answer these questions. You KNOW that "IRAQ" is a HUGE system, beyond the knowledge of any singular conciousness. But you KNOW AT THE SAME TIME that Iraq is 100% knowable, even if it's that it's not fully knowable. Information science and technology allows us to not only stop a War - here and Now - but for all time.

1,000,000 cell phones for 1,000,000 mothers of the New American Revolution in Iraq. The victory of Ideas over Brutality; the victory of Reason over Superstition.

What's your idea to stop this and every new war? It's not that we need to "get it together" (transparency) is it? I just told you how to do THAT. Cell phones. Individual communication. Mothers protected their babies to the exclusion of husbands and tribes and religions. How many smart bombs were just imported into Iraq the past hour? How many DUMB bombs?

[Syn Diesel]

John, I take it you are not one of those corporate culture critters that can get away with acting "crazy," are you?

;-)

You should take a break from this horror and study black silicon technology; or maybe the new cold fusion stuff (great source of sustainable helium for scientific research). ;)

[Syn Diesel]

How many Feminists have been exploited in this War (for "US")? Don't recall any at all. Wow, that's rather odd considering the massive issue of SEXIST RELIGIOUS THEONOMY in Islam.

[Eric_P]

Syn Diesel, the problem with giving all Iraqi women cell phones (and thus empowering them) is that they may not be able to keep the phone if it really threatens patriarchy. For example, sometimes microloans that are targeted to women in developing countries (in allow them to be self-employed and thus have more financial independence) are taken and spent by men, and then women are stuck with paying the interest. Also, who will they call, other men, right? Either the US forces or Iraqis. Assuming we are benevolent, do we have enough troops on the ground to be cop for all these people?

Also cell phones have and other communications tech have increased in the post-war period (at least in some places) and they can be used against us, and they have as John has previously written about. Just like deputizing militiamen, the recipients of the cell phones may have many loyalties, Woman-Child -> Nuclear Family -> etc -> Tribe. Only if all women could be united into one group with loyalty to each other against male aggressors would this work. Otherwise they may perceive the violence as caused by the other groups, and protect their own males who may also be aggressive toward others and perpetuating violence.

John, what would you think of a "clear and hold" scenario as Lind describes in this article, http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_12_19_06.htm Ignoring that this would just allow the insurgency to move outside of Baghdad (I remember someone described fighting against a 4GW insurgency was like pushing against water, it just flows away and comes back), do you think this would work? Perhaps coupled with “Development-in-a-Box” as Barnett suggests http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/01/the_new_iraq_strategy.html Naturally, shutting down every street and neighborhood, would cripple commerce in the city and make everyone dependent on American forces for public goods provision (perhaps if we co-opted smugglers we could begin employing some of the people involved in providing these goods through militias.) But perhaps building up from the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in our “model city” could have an effect. I am skeptical of any nation-building effort, and I don’t think anything like this could happen, but I was just wondering what you though about Lind’s suggestion for a last “last throw of the dice.” Could anything be done when a 4GW insurgency reaches this level of violence other than pulling out and hoping the insurgency will collapse without a rallying cry against Western forces?

[Walter]

@Eric P: "Could anything be done when a 4GW insurgency reaches this level of violence other than pulling out and hoping the insurgency will collapse without a rallying cry against Western forces?"

You sound as if you think the insurgency is the main problem in Iraq, but it is not. A majority of the violence now is simply sectarian hatred and competition (sectarian and even intra-sect) for power; it has nothing to do with the presence or absence of Americans in the country. The comparatively few Americans who are being killed in the comparatively little American-directed violence is understandably over-reported in American media, but the distorted coverage should not obscure the fact that the American vs. Insurgents conflict is a mere sideshow to the Iraqi civil war/anarchy.

Even if a clear-and-hold strategy could succeed in driving insurgents out of Baghdad (it couldn't really, especially not with the few thousand extra combat troops being sent in the surge, but speaking theoretically), that would not stop the sectarian violence, except to the extent that the insurgents are mostly Sunni and there would therefore be fewer Sunnis around for the Shia to kill. That in fact seems to be the Shia -- and now perhaps the American -- strategy: cleanse Baghdad of Sunnis altogether (over the next 6-12 months, most Sunni neighborhoods will be reduced entirely to rubble, all in the name of "engagements" and "returning fire" with "insurgents").

[adam]

Walter,

I agree with what I think you're saying but a few minor points.

"You sound as if you think the insurgency is the main problem in Iraq, but it is not. "

Perhaps then its the mass love-ins filled with nubile teenage nymphomaniacs with limitless supplies of viagra, vaseline and durex to hand. Or maybe not... its probably the insurgency (or insurgencies, or complete civil war...).

"A majority of the violence now is simply sectarian hatred and competition (sectarian and even intra-sect) for power; it has nothing to do with the presence or absence of Americans in the country."

Hmmmm. Lets see. Major street battles occurring between warring factions was a theme in Iraq prior to the invasion? Really? When Colin Powell mentioned the "you broke it, you bought it theory", what precisely do people think he meant? The US invaded Iraq, set the internal politics to US concerns, and now its complaining that its all "nothing to do with Americans"? That seems a little easy on the Americans. A generous view would be that Americans are, as a nation, incompetent muppets. A less generous view would be far harsher - after all almost everyone likes the muppets.

"The comparatively few Americans who are being killed in the comparatively little American-directed violence is understandably over-reported in American media,"

Hm... Here I have real problems. The number lost in 3 weeks of invasion against a field army with tanks and guns = 122 dead (between March the 19th and April the 9th). We'll be excessively nice and call that a month. No - actually we'll be nicer than pie and give you until 1st May - 140 US dead in 7 weeks (and 33 British, but who cares?). We'll call that 1 month rather than 2.

In December 2006 the US lost 115 dead. You'll note that Iraqi tanks and guns are missing here. Even so the insurgency are roughly 80% as effective as the 2003 Iraqi military, and have been consistently so for month after month.

By comparison Malaya (1948-1960) cost the British around 500 dead in 12 years. Alternatively the British invasion and occupation of Iraq from 1941-7 saw 1200 casualties (dead, wounded etc.). US casualties today don't appear to be low compared to either a counter-insurgency or to an invasion of Iraq. Sure, its low compared to D-Day, but a 3rd world nation isn't an industrialised nation.

So I would suggest that on the numbers that doesn't count as comparatively few. Actually what reality says is that the Iraqi insurgents are doing as much or more damage against their enemies than the Iraqi army managed every month; and that's after nearly 3 years of the US having every advantage.

[Walter]

@Adam:

The earlier poster expressed a hope that if the US withdrew the insurgency would wind down, and I was making the point (perhaps badly) that while it might be true the anti-US insurgency would peter out, given the lack of US targets, that would not lead to any significant decrease in the level of violence in Iraq, because most of the ongoing violence in Iraq does not directly involve US troops.

I did not say (and I can't imagine how you could misread my statements to say) that the current violence in Iraq isn't the result of the US invasion; what I said was that the current violence in Iraq is mostly between Iraqis, not between Iraqis and the US troops, therefore...well, see above, and re-read the original.

When I was talking about comparatively few American casualties, I wasn't comparing it to other counter-insurgency operations or other wars in the historical record (why in the world you would think that was the comparison I was drawing is beyond me), I was comparing the number of American casualties to the number of Iraqi casualties, and no one can dispute that the latter are vastly greater than the former, and I don't think anyone can correctly believe that the number of Iraqi casualties would decrease if the US withdrew. Granted, I did not explicitly state that that was the comparison.

[adam]

Walter,

Don't forget I agree with you :-)! I suspect that we disagree on the seriousness of this, and whether, at this stage, there's a lot we can do about it. I come at this from a politics (revolutions and terrorism) background so I'm pretty phlegmatic about people dying; better them than me. I simply think its going to get worse.

I was partly taking issue with this argument in your post: "it has nothing to do with the presence or absence of Americans in the country."

That was the sentence that leap out at me (probably mistakenly) as a cop-out. For that I do apologise. I think that we agree that the current violence has everything to do with Americans in Iraq, its just that the current and future US troops aren't going to be able to do anything about it. The Americans are the ones that set the scene for the current Iraqi Civil War and did almost everything possible to ensure that it would happen, so any Americans saying that its now the Iraqis fault seems a little unfair on the Iraqis.

Any US withdrawal will result in more violence for a time as the various political parties jostle for position. Its sometimes called in the literature "the post-revolutionary reign of terror" which has the advantage of being a pretty snappy headline. Generally these things bubble along for a time; people get dead; an amusing method of public execution is used (say, purely for example, hangings videoed via mobile phone which is, I have to admit, pretty neat. In 1979 Tehran they used cranes to dangle people over the city which is limited); social, political and economic lines get (re-)drawn in line with revolutionary theory; and everyone is happy. Except the dead, the dispossessed, the survivors, the people who aren't in the new government... But there's really no helping some people.

That's the delights of a real full-on Civil War that appears to be turning into only the second Islamic Revolution in history. As Bertrand Russell said: "Wars don't tell you who's right, only who is left". Right now, what'll be left in Iraq will be a number of Shi'ite political parties.

Anyway Iraqs looking more like the savage English Civil War (10% of the population dead) than the fluffy nice 'we're friends really' American Civil War (3% of the population). Personally I prefer the image of the 30 years' war (25% of the population dead) as it includes cartloads of foreign interference making it a better match. That said 25% of Iraqs population is a nice solid 6.25 million which is rather close to a certain other figure from history. Its probably best not to think that way, so we'll call it 10%.

Please note that I think that its pretty much unavoidable at this stage, sooner or later the US will leave Iraq - Bush has now said so - and then there will be a post-revolutionary reign of terror. At this stage everything else is just using soldiers as speedbumps to slow down the steamroller. Stealing a quote from Douglas Adams: "Do you know how much damage that steamroller would suffer, if I just let it roll over you? None at all..." The steamroller doesn't mind, but sooner or later the soldiers are going to think its a bad thing.

Even so civilians always get killed a lot more than soldiers these days, usually in the ratio of around 10 to 1. With 650k Iraqis dead thats not something to dismiss, but its early days yet and I personally fully expect us to hit the 1 or 2 million mark before theres any prospect of a peace settlement (10% of the Iraqi population is about 2.5 million, but a lot of Iraqis have now fled to outside Iraq). Who knows - we might be lucky and only another 100,000 or 200,000 or so Iraqis will die. I'd be surprised if its that few as the current US plan is to invade Bagdhad all over again. But then what today is the purpose of worrying about Iraqi civilian casualties? The current White House barely cares about dead American soldiers. Dead foreign (mainly British) soldiers are in the list of concerns somewhere after used toilet roll. Iraqi civilians aren't even on the list.

As for the military casualties I normally try to compare apples with apples. We're either comparing thrown-together invasions of Iraq, or we're comparing other historical counter-insurgency. In neither case is the US military looking competant; another reason to suspect that its not going to be able to resolve the Iraqi Civil War.

[Kataphraktes]

Mr. Robb and Others,

This Surge/Escalation seems to be about the best place where I can ask this question: How did we get here?
By this question I mean, how have gotten to that similar place where we've always wound up historically after half-assing another war? I guess history truly counts for little except amongst academics and hobbyists.
Why do we consistently believe in handling wars as lightly and bloodlessly as possible? Was WWII an anomaly, where for one of the few times we saw a war through to its absolute conclusion. Every military action since then seems like half-hearted efforts to me. Iraq is yet another: everything hyper-politicized and our armed forces playing with one hand tied behind their backs while our enemies break every rule gleefully and get results.
Haven't we been here before? Why does nothing change? Anybody have any reasons, and better yet--any possible solutions. I apologize in advance if this is the incorrect forum for such a question. I find this site very interesting, with both articles placed and reader comments.
By the way, the "surge" is more like a last and weak (political) lash-out before the whole Iraq plan (whatever it was)finally gives out.

[Walter]

Adam,

We are in agreement on most things, it seems. Certainly I agree with everything you just wrote. That the disaster in Iraq was caused by America (although the Iraqi individuals who are kidnapping, torturing, and murdering their fellow Iraqis bear full responsibility for their own actions, of course), and that the disaster will become even larger once (if?) America leaves, is obvious.

An interesting and somewhat related article from today's Guardian:

'The jihad now is against the Shias, not the Americans'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329684808-103550,00.html

[pm2075]

That value-neutral thing called "technology."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/13/wgoogle13.xml

Should we nationalize Google?

The Revolution Is Here!!

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/invest_mavin/

No response needed. Just passing through.

[gmoke]

To take a preliminary stab (sorry) at answering Kataphraktes' question, WWII was a war of survival. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor and hurt badly. Hitler was rolling up Europe into a fascist empire that was hell-bent on racist extermination of subject populations. We knew we were in a fight for our lives.

Korea was a political war, far away against an enemy that never directly attacked the US. Vietnam was similar and more so. We fought in Vietnam to keep the dominoes from falling not for national and personal survival.

Iraq is purely a war of choice. Bush/Cheney and their minions may want to portray Iraq as central to the war on Al Qaeda but clearly, from the git go, it was not.

Our actual war of survival is Afghanistan, if we would only recognize it. Success in Afghanistan would have been the beacon of hope that the neocons professed a "democratic" Iraq would be. Yet, we've wasted years low balling our involvement there and massing our strength to fight shadows in Iraq. Bush/Cheney have done their best to make the fallout from Iraq into the existential struggle they advertised in the first place.

[adam]

How did the US get here? One step at a time. OK cheap answer.

There are lots of causes for US military and political failures in the past few years. Despite having the most expensive and advanced military in the world it appears that the US military is not terribly able; neither is the US political system.

So I am going to come at this from 2 angles - American militarism, which stops people questioning the military and American education which stops people questioning the politicians.

I accept that this is a different position to the norm, which is to blame the neo-cons (they deserve blame too, its just a different angle). Actually I am reminded of a line from Trotsky about being worse than the worst to bring down the whole system - the neo-cons were originally Trotskyites. Makes you think.

Anyway American education I would suggest is partly at fault for American military and political failures. Lets take Iran, the most likely next beneficiary of US bombs. Most Americans know that in 1979 the Iranians had a revolution and occupied the US embassy. Very few Americans know that the preceeding 21 years had seen a British / US-backed military dictatorship rule Iran savagely. Prior to the arrival of the military dictatorship Iran had been a democracy, a democracy which the Shah and his generals overthrew when the elected officials wanted to nationalise Iranian oil that British and American oil firms said that they owned (they hadn't paid the Iranians for the oil, they had paid colonial officials - Iran was the only neutral country invaded by the allies in WW2).

Anyway the reason for the overthrow was the ever popular "its to stop communism" yet strangely few Americans ever get told that Mossadegh (the man overthrown) led the Iranian resistance to the Soviet invasion from 41 -46 - how Communist does that sound? As such Mossadegh remains an Iranian national hero in the Churchillian mode. In short its quite possible to complete an education in America, covering Iran, without hitting any of these issues; yet they're not secrets, merely awkward for American self-image.

Its awkward because the story of American education is one of American success and how everyone loves America. Its actually a little creepy that Americans need to be told this all the time. Yet by removing all contextal information it means that Americans can be told things by their politicians - "Iran is filled with bad people" - that leaves America blithely unconcerned with the real world and provide them an image of good and evil.

This would, of course, bite them firmly on the behind in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq and helps explain why Americans always look for villains and heroes (in the US Hero-myth education is also a heavily emphasised theme; Helen Keller leaps to mind - strangely her story normally stops at college as for the next 60 years she became a radical socialist campaigning for industrial safety. Its considered best not to mention that).

In fact, when you think about it, its remarkable how so much US history starts in 1979 - Nicaragua, Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East. Is it the arrival of Reagan? Or merely the awkward bits before hand?

To put it another way do most Americans know why the Russians invaded Afghanistan? In 1973 a Pakistani / US-backed coup overthrew the brother of the then Shah who had ruled since 1933. He declared himself President and got rid of those annoying democracy things preferring to hand-pick his Loya Jirga, which approved a one-party system of government run by him in 1977. Despite that he was annoyingly independant, annoucing that he liked to "light American cigarettes with Soviet matches". Anyway, in 1978 the KGB successfully organised a coup against him (pun alert: it take coup to tango). In April 1979 Carter and Pakistan would begin creating Mujahedeen, and shortly after that (December 1979) the Soviets would begin to bring in large military forces. In short, its a lot more complicated than "1979, Russia invades".

Now we'll jump to your point about the rules, which is partly a disguised point from Vietnam - if only the US had used more explosives then we would have won, but its also a point about militarism. The logic goes that: "the US military is wonderful, it cannot fail, it is currently failing, therefore the fault must be outside of the military". It isn't true. The US military hasn't been at all skilled in dealing with Iraq, the nicest term would be blunderingly amateurish.

The first point is, of course, that the US hasn't been terribly gentle in Iraq. We could ask the people of Fallujah for a start, which was a disaster for the US on every level. Fun fact: Fallujah was once the Rebel City against Sadaam. It took the US less than 2 weeks (and the occasional machinegunning of a crowd) to turn it into a Rebel City against the US. Well done there.

Amusingly Fallujah, when the US turned up, had a functioning rebel government that had been elected. The US military quickly decided that they couldn't have that either - it wasn't US approved! This is also complete amateur hour - the general rule in any occupation is that if all the locals turn up wearing nothing, get naked right now. If you don't like a particular form of locally supported government you can still use them temporarily - your secret police can round them up later as "terrorists".

But the levelling of Fallujah is a sign of US incompetance, rather than skill. Counterinsurgency operations rely on not shooting. In Northern Ireland if a soldier fired a shot there would be an inquiry; in Iraq if a soldier machinegunned a family of four no one would care. How effective was that? Try this - according to the US Marines of 1,000 Iraqis killed at checkpoints only 40 had weapons. In short US over-reaction led to a 96% failure rate. I wonder how many of those 960 had other family members (answer - all of them!) who wanted revenge (all of them!), and who are connected to one tribe or another (guess!).

After that the US decided that its soldiers couldn't "fraternise" with local girls. This was simple insanity. Comparatively rich Western lads and no real ties that cannot be solved with easy divorce laws, being dropped in a poverty stricken 3rd world nation full of girls looking for money and a US/ UK passport. There were massive advantages to the US there in allowing marriages, it would have quickly seen US troops being connected to the local tribes and would have eventually provided interpreters with very good reasons to be trusted by the US. Instead the rule went out "no dates!"; to the US military it was a) important that decnt Christians don't marry untermensh local girls and b) abstinence is important.

Whores were allowed, and the Green Zone ran a brothel for about a year (amusingly it was the one area where Iraqis had no problems with getting ID Cards, it was far simpler for the whores than for the Iraqi government) but frankly I'm not convinced that the US soldiers could say "our platoon banged your daughter for a dollar apiece, whats happening out there?". It seems to lack a certain son-in-law family friendliness.

For the ultimate in overreaction we have to go North of Bagdhad - weeks after the end of the fighting in Bagdhad the US 4th infantry division were using 155mm artillery pieces for H&I fire on local crossroads. Why? Were they expecting Iraqi armoured divisions? No, it was to "stop insurgents moving around" (!) The fact that locals might be at the crossroads was of no never-mind. Admittedly the 4th ID were the US's second-team, and created many of the problems of Abu Ghraib with a policy of arresting all military age males (14-64+). One neat little torture method the 4th ID came up with was strapping an Iraqi to the front of their Humvee so that the hot engine would sear the flesh off their backs. You'll note that this means they rounded up people and tortured them for no reason. Unsurprisingly the 4th did manage to get a resistance movement against it really fast.

And we haven't even mentioned what happened at Abu Ghraib. The US government still has not released all of the pictures - particularly those relating to the women and children (those under 12) - but given what happened to the men its unlikely to involve happy Sesame Street cuddliness. We know of at least 7 women who managed to smuggle letters out of there, begging their familes to kill them. This does not sound like they were enjoying the spa facilities.

The depressing fact isn't that the US military didn't try in Iraq, they tried very hard. What limited them was a lack of training, general lack of competance, bad basic education, a view of politeness being wasted on non-whites, an overly Muscular Christian view of the world - all combined with a casual willingness to commit crimes such as murder and torture on a daily basis. Funnily enough its hard to like foreign troops who occasionally kill your family.

Perhaps if the American military issued tapes of "Red Dawn" it might help (Great movie for Iraq - the Iraqis are the teenagers, the pilot is probably Al Quaeda or a Saudi financier, the US military are the Russians).

[Kataphraktes]

Gmoke & Adam,

Thank you for some great food for thought, although it is a sadly depressing dish. The whole bit on education in the U.S. is a refreshingly new angle to me. It is amazing the things you don't learn.
Agreement on the Afghan theatre being the biggest. It's like OBL is nonexistent. Most news coming out of such policy journals like Foreign Affairs and National Interest portray both U.S. diplomacy and military action in starkly negative light.
This current generation of enemies seems to understand the nature of the conflict. We refuse to look at it as a conflict, 5 years into this and the American public is only now grumbling about Iraq. Well, this is a more specific thread than generalized rumblings. Thanks for the fresh ideas.

[Syn Diesel]

"We Are Family" by Jeff Wells

http://rigint.blogspot.com/2007/01/we-are-family.html

Surge my ass.

[Syn Diesel]

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/
http://yannone.blogspot.com/2007/01/will-plainfield-be-another-waco.html

Hey look, domestic ter'rists. Maybe this is how the data point modifies the whole system John. Remember the 90s? Didn't have the internet like we do now.

[Syn Diesel]

Eric_P,

Why didn't John answer with such an intelligent response?

Yes, "they" can use the tools we give them against us.

"Who cares if they use it to kill us?" I wrote. And I meant that.

What if the females give up the cellphones you asked?

I say we use the embedded GPS to see where those cellphones go. And if the cellphones just go "dead" we send a recon team to see why it went dead, and where.

RECON done by: United Nations Civil Rights Enforcement Team

[Syn Diesel]

Cell Phone: Civil Rights. Witnessed to the World.

[Syn Diesel]

John keeps saying the ragheads are using cellphones to kill people. Why doesn't he tell his corporate friends that cellphones can be used to save lives?

John, spend 2 weeks coming up with a model to provide the top Civil Rights Organizations a way to contact every corner of Iraq and it will involve cellphones. There, I just saved you 5 days work. 9 days to go. Babies are dying, and it's not sexy anymore.

[adam]

Syn,

I have to admit that I'm a bit confused here why you think that the women of Iraq are going to be any more pro-US than the men. Assuming that you mean Iraqis when you say "Ragheads".

Back in the pre-US invasion days Iraq was fairly progressive in terms womens rights in the Middle East - especially in the areas of personal rights, work and education. A surprising number of Iraqi women had degree level educations and even those without top-notch formal qualifications had access to some form of telecommunications. Of course the US invasion knocked that for six when it turned out that the main beneficiaries weren't secular Westernists. Bit awkward that.

So what, precisely, are you expecting the women to say? How precisely will these phones save lives? What are you expecting to happen? How on earth do the US have the resources to coherently view a million GPS transmitters?

John has excellent reasons to suggest that cellphones were instrumental in organising operations in Iraq. After all carrying one after 8pm is a reason to be shot to death by US troops in Iraq. According to Ricks, in Fallujah during the second invasion Polish snipers were allowed to shoot anyone with a mobile phone at any time. Even someone as cynical as me doesn't think that the US military created rules like that because they're psychotics, they had a reason.