Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this 
message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0115-21.htm

Published on Monday, January 15, 2007 by Truthdig
War of Shadows
by Chris Hedges

I have spent most of my adult life as a reporter covering insurgencies,
from the five years I covered the wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua and
Guatemala to seven years in the Middle East and nearby regions, where I
covered the two Palestinian uprisings and the civil wars in Algeria and
Sudan, and finally to the three years I reported on the wars in the
Balkans, including the rebellion in the Serbian province of Kosovo by the
Kosovo Liberation Army.  Some of these wars were fought with skill, such
as the U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign in El Salvador and the
French-backed counterinsurgency in Algeria; others were not, such as the
war in Kosovo, fought by a Serbian government whose stupidity and
brutality rivaled our own in Iraq.

The plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq will be accompanied by a
subtle, but disastrous, change in the way the war is fought—a change that
will almost assuredly increase the monthly tallies of American dead and
wounded.  The president warned that “deadly acts of violence will
continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties.” In his
version of the war, these losses will allow us to climb from the sinkhole
we have dug for ourselves to the sunlight of victory.  Unfortunately, for
Iraqis and for us, what the president proposes is a mistake of
catastrophic proportions.  It defies basic counterinsurgency doctrine and
will leave American troops more vulnerable, more exposed and in greater
danger in this war of shadows.

A counterinsurgency war is, first and foremost, a political war.  It
requires a deftness, as well as cultural and political sensitivity, that
American troops and commanders, most of whom do not even know enough
Arabic to read the road signs in Baghdad, do not possess.  Military
strikes must always be very limited, infrequent and surgical—a tactic
foreign to the terrified 19-year-old kids who unleash 1,000 rounds per
minute with their M249 SAWS in crowded Iraqi neighborhoods moments after
an improvised explosive device goes off.  The greatest failure in Iraq—a
war I always opposed—was to use American forces to occupy the country and
then, after sectarian blood lines had been drawn and American troops had
killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, set out to try to build a proxy army
of quisling Iraqi nationals.  It was doomed from the start.  We lost the
war, and in Iraqi eyes it was defined as our war by the time our invading
forces blasted their way into Baghdad.

Conventional armies, such as ours in Iraq, come equipped with inherent
strengths that rebels cannot match.  These strengths include massive
firepower, air support and an integrated intelligence and communications
infrastructure that permits rapid and effective responses, as well as the
ability, in a fixed firefight, to usually obliterate a rebel band.  But
conventional behemoths, especially when they seek to occupy hostile,
foreign territory, have serious and often fatal weaknesses, weaknesses
that have been deftly exploited in Iraq and especially Baghdad.  Most of
the new troops will go to Baghdad, doubling the number of combat troops in
the Iraqi capital.  Four thousand more Marines will go to Iraq’s western
Anbar province, where U.S. commanders admit that the 30,000 current U.S.
troops have lost control to Iraqi resistance fighters.  There are now
about 140,000 American military personnel in Iraq, of whom about 50,000
are combat troops.

American forces, because they control the country’s infrastructure, must
often remain in fixed, static positions.  And troops in static positions
are easily targeted by small, mobile rebel bands.  During the war in El
Salvador new guerrilla recruits, for their first kill, were often sent at
night to attack one of the many small bridges held by government troops. 
The immobile targets were so vulnerable, the newly minted rebel soldiers
were almost always assured of success.

Soldiers and Marines in Iraq are bottled up in heavily fortified and
protected compounds, although even these are hit by periodic mortar rounds
and suicide bombers.  Troops make forays out of these forts in armored
convoys that move very swiftly down the middle of city streets in a show
of force or to protect supply lines.  It is constant and rapid movement
that ensures survival.  The occupying forces have learned the hazards of
remaining in static positions.  But now President Bush, who knows as
little about warfare as he does about diplomacy, wants to take away this
vital mobility.

“In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many
neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on
to other targets, the killers returned,” the president said. “This time,
we’ll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been
cleared. ...”

“Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons:
There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods
that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents,” Bush explained. “And
there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.”

But the president and the few generals willing to swallow their pride and
probably their integrity to support him have failed to explain or grasp
the realities of occupation.  The presence of more troops on the streets
of Baghdad, troops who only understand how to impose their will by force,
will fuel the rage most Iraqis feel toward their American occupiers.  It
will heighten the tension and increase the strikes on American forces,
which, tied down, will be more easily targeted.

The insurgents—Shiite and Sunni—have done what we failed to do.  They have
built a vast and effective support network within their communities,
communities we were never able to reach from Humvees or the fortified
walls of the Green Zone.  Most of the insurgents are Iraqi.  They speak
Arabic.  They worship in the mosques.  They buy vegetables in the local
markets.  They love their country.  And many have paid a terrible price
for their patriotism and their faith.  These neighborhoods are secure. 
They are just not secure for us.  They will never be.  And sending in new
batches of Americans from Texas or Ohio or New York to patrol these
streets will not make Iraq or America safer.  It will ensure that even
more mothers and fathers, American and Iraqi, will be ushered by George W.
Bush into the long night of bitterness and grief.
_____________________________

Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of 
articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc. 
 If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this 
message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list, 
send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or you 
can visit:
http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news  Go to that same 
web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe.

E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few 
days will become disabled or deleted from this list.

FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the 
information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have 
expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes.  I am making such material available in an effort to advance 
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, 
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair 
use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.

Reply via email to