← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Rudel
Thread ID: 8212 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-07-18
2003-07-18 08:44 | User Profile
I think it's a mistake to compare the Iraq conflict with Vietnam. A better comparison would be the war fought and lost by the French in Algeria (1954-1962). This is not jungle warfare but urban guerilla like the battle of Algiers, with (for now) small scale attacks after which the fighters quickly disperse among the population. The question of supply and external sponsors is less critical then it seems - such low intensity, high media impact war does not put strain on the logistics. It was probably planned from the beginning, with the Iraquis hiding small weapon caches all over the place, while some critical supplies can always be obtained by smugglers or from simpatetic officials in Iran or Siria (not directly from these governments). In other words, it can go on for a very long time without major problems with the current guerilla infrastructure, just as it went on for 8 years in Algeria, a territory that was not bordering with any strong sympathetic country (as it was the case in Vietnam). To fight such a war, the occupying power must be ready to act ruthlessly and indiscriminately against the local population, kill 100 innocents to get 1 culprit, torture those arrested for intelligence, perform massive and ruthless hose by house searches etc. All this plays in the hands of the guerillas because it puts a giant wedge between the population and the occupiers and works as a wonderful recruiting ad for ever more fighters. Frankly, I don't see today's US military acting in such a way without incurring into serious morale issues. Also, considerable indignation in the US and abroad will arise. A guerilla war is a political war par excellence - it does not go for a decisive military victory but primarily for a political one. At the end, the French won militarily (by 1958 the military situation was more or less under control), but the methods employed, the continuous casualties and the stories of the conscripts returning from the war caused widespred disillusionment and anger at home as well as international isolation. The Fourth Republic fell and at the referendum that put an end to the war more than 75% of the French voted to relinquish territory. Moreover, the French had some advantages and were more motivated to fight there then the Americans in Iraq - after all, Algeria was French teritory (overseas department), not a colony; more than 10% of the population (1 million) were French and a considerable percentage of the local population fought on the French side. To no avail. Methinks something similar will happen with the American occupation of Iraq. When the last French paratroopers left Algiers, they defiantly sang Edith Piaf's song "Je ne regrette riens" ("I dont regret anything"). Somehow, I dont see Americans exiting so cerimoniously. However, it is nothing to be ashamed of. In this shameful war where its military is used as mercenaries for Ariel Sharon and his slimy ilk, America has everything to gain from defeat, everything to loose from victory. Time for a second republic?
2003-07-18 10:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Rudel@Jul 18 2003, 08:44 * *I think it's a mistake to compare the Iraq conflict with Vietnam. A better comparison would be the war fought and lost by the French in Algeria (1954-1962). This is not jungle warfare but urban guerilla like the battle of Algiers, with (for now) small scale attacks after which the fighters quickly disperse among the population. **
Good analogy.
The best comparison I can see is that in Iraq, being a consequence of neocon imperialism is like the French in Algeria actually trying to remake a foreign (muslim)land and incorporate it into the home country's empire, for reasons of stupid ideological dogmatism.
One wonders, could the aftermath of Iraq possibly mirror the aftermath of Algeria in France?
2003-07-19 09:06 | User Profile
All the rags need to continue the conflict in the (successful) way they're doing it now is bullets & RPGs, not tanks & planes. They probably have both in great abundance, so the need for a sympathetic neighbor is greatly exaggerated. They won't try any Ia Drangs or Tets, if they have any brains at all.
2003-07-19 15:31 | User Profile
I guess this war in Iraq further proves the theories of military historian Martin Van Crevald, that modern warfare as we know it(big massive armies fighting titantic battles) is going to be replaced mostly by low-intensity warfare(often in urban areas). The army of the future will not be the ultra-high tech cyborgs of movies, but will be more like rag-tag irregulars with guns.
We've seen this in Bosina, Somalia, Colombia, East LA(during the riots), Palestine, and now in Iraq. The units giving the most resistance in Iraq were not the Republican Guard as predicted, but the Fadayeen and Baath party militias.
I don't agree 100% with Crevald(hes also an Israeli) but I do find many of his theories interesting.
2003-07-19 16:08 | User Profile
Guerilla warfare is very old. The Roman Empire frequently faced guerilla resistance in their colonies. And typically the Romans dealt with such resistance in a very harsh manner. Crucifying thousands of the locals was not out of the question to make a point. However, even such harsh tactics did not totally eliminate the resistance.
Every empire will face some sort of guerilla opposition. And such opposition can only end when either the empire or the opposition loses heart.
In Vietnam the French and the Americans both lost heart. The Americans did not lose a single battle, but the Americans lost the war. The American people eventually did not see the value in protecting South Vietnam. The concept of ââ¬ÅVietnamizationââ¬Â became popular - meaning that the war to protect the people of Vietnam from Communism needed to be fought by the Vietnamese people, not us.
But if the Empire does not lose heart, the guerilla movement will eventually die. In the 19th century the Americans fought a long term guerilla style war with the American Indians. Eventually the Indians lost the will to carry on with the fight and proceeded to collaborate with their former enemy.
The current Iraq war is a public relations war. The Iraq resistance can not militarily defeat the United States. The only question is how long will America tolerate troops occupying Iraq. The answer to this question depends on the amount of American casualties and the reaction of the American media.
If the causalities are perceived to be low eventually the Iraqi resistance will dissolve and America will be able to establish a puppet government that is somewhat stable. If the casualties are perceived to be high, the American troops will withdraw. Iraq will then have an Islamic government that will be hostile to the US and Israel.
2003-07-19 16:44 | User Profile
*Originally posted by nikolai@Jul 19 2003, 10:08 * ** Guerilla warfare is very old. The Roman Empire frequently faced guerilla resistance in their colonies. And typically the Romans dealt with such resistance in a very harsh manner. Crucifying thousands of the locals was not out of the question to make a point. However, even such harsh tactics did not totally eliminate the resistance.
**
The American Empire is specific in asmuch as it does not content itself with being an imperial power and acting imperially, it actually pretends to be loved by the peoples it subdues. It must build an edifice of moral rightness that will satisfy a certain childish idealism most of its population (especially its white European element) is imbued with. If this edifice is left standing with whatever means (as it was in WWII Germany with high tales of 'nazi atrocities' etc.) then the occupation will work, and it will be proclaimed a 'good war'. If, however, it comes crushing down, like it happened in Vietnam, than defeat is certain, followed by years of soul searching and trashy Hollywood fantasies ala Rambo.
2003-07-19 20:34 | User Profile
Rudel,
You may have something
I think it's a mistake to compare the Iraq conflict with Vietnam. A better comparison would be the war fought and lost by the French in Algeria (1954-1962). This is not jungle warfare but urban guerilla like the battle of Algiers, with (for now) small scale attacks after which the fighters quickly disperse among the population.
We now have news stories of Iraqi kids stoning US troops. Also Iraqis are flasing porch lights to tell guerilla where US troops so they can move and attack. It is becoming more and more like the West Bank or Algeria.