Mogadishu, Revisited
You’ve probably read this already:
Iraqi teenagers dragged the bloody bodies of two American soldiers from a wrecked vehicle and pummeled them with concrete blocks Sunday, witnesses said, describing a burst of savagery in a city once safe for Americans. Another soldier was killed by a bomb and a U.S.-allied police chief was assassinated.
As Ralph Peters has noted in several columns and articles (collected here), many Arabs fear their culture is simply unready for decent government. It’s a case of cultural low-self esteem — they see the West and all its marvels, while they, for all their oil wealth, can’t compete with even Thailand. Outbursts like yesterday’s barbaric atrocity (let’s not mince words; it was a barbaric atrocity), are manifestations of their fear of failure.
In Iraq, Araby now has a chance to gain a little confidence, a little experience, a little self-esteem. Iraqis have lost their fear of Saddam, but they have yet to lose their fear of failure.
Unfortunately, we’ll see many more events in Iraq (and elsewhere) like yesterday’s, before we see a civil society. If ever.
So would an Iraqi failure to build a decent society mean our invasion was a failure? No, I don’t think so. Our goals, among others, were to get rid of an old enemy, rattle our other enemies, and set the stage for decratization in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world. All we can do is set the stage — they have to put on the play themselves.
Then again, that scene could have easily come from south central LA.
Every American death in Iraq and Afghanistan feel like a punch in the stomach. I’m one of those who know intellectually that we cannot afford to be soft and let casualties keep us from fulfilling our ultimate goal. However, it’s frustrating because I can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. At least the World War II generation had a sense that they still had to get to Berlin or Tokya, and casualties along the way were part of reaching the end. Now that we are in Baghdad and the maneuver phase of the war is over, what constitutes progress? Do these soldiers deaths mean anything.
I support the war, and know that running isn’t an option, yet I am upset be each death. How can we win when people like me have doubts?
How would I feel if one of my children were stationed in Iraq? Very angry right now.
I am sure that a lot of steps have been taken to safeguard the troops from belligerents, and I understand that these steps cannot be made public.
But if these sacrifices are being made for the benefit of the Iraqis, it would be nice if the Iraqis at least tried to appear as if they deserved them.
Why can’t we just keep out soldiers in garrison? If there is trouble they can react to it, but let the Iraqis figure out how to deal with their countrymen. If the everyday Iraqi can be made to feel that the Baathists are out to harm them, maybe they will do a better job of policing ther country. As it is, I think most Iraqis are just sitting back and waiting for our guys to get killed. Thinking as long as they are killing GIs I guess it really doesn’t affect me.
Finlay:
Because that’s the method of LOSING a guerilla war. You’ve effectively ceded the initiative to the enemy (who doesn’t have to be that numerous).
Read Bernard Fall’s histories of the French experience in Indochina, especially “Street without Joy.” Yeah, you lose forces when you’re pro-active. You lose a LOT more when all you’re doing is being REactive.
Defense has retracted the report about the mutilations.
Dean is right, staying in garrison is being a sitting duck.
Moving forward to engage the enemy means there will be less enemy next time. Units that enage and kill attackers get bypassed next time. Units whose commanders have ordered breaking contact on engagement let them get away to attack tomorrow.
We need more drones in the air, that makes escape so much more difficult.
Our troops moving and completing objectives also keeps their morale up and since (well trained) troops will take out decent portions of the enemy, aggressive is the way to go.
Even if we settle for a new Iraqi ruler who is a sonofabitch, but our sonofabitch (FDR’s felicitous phrase, by the way) occupation of Iraq achieves another aim. We now have an army in the central position between Syria, Iran, and the Wahhabist Entity. These are the three leading supporters of terrorists. We can threaten or strike them, covertly or overtly, from bases now in their immediate vicinity.