How Do You Know You've Lost a War

I saw a video documentary the other day. Iraq war vets saying there's no honor in this war. Amazing statement to have to say. No soldier would ever want to have to admit that. Marines saying this is not the Marine Corps I want to be part of. Soldiers filled with remorse saying all that's left for us is to prevent the next generation from being betrayed into war. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5188599301918606321

1. Your government loses its Will to continue the struggle.
2. Your military is no longer capable of continuing the struggle.
3. Your economy and infrastructure is incapable of supporting the military.
4. Your enemy deposes your government and occupies your territory.

Folks tend to confuse the loss of a battle with the failure of a campaign, and are unable to distinguish between campaigns ant wars. One can lose a battle or even a campaign; yet in the end achieve victory. This can lead to the loss a loss of Will, and de facto surrender even though a nation remains capable in every other way of continuing to fight. This attack on our nation's Will has been an important tactic since Vietnam, and our enemies have become very adept at it.

Well-trained and armed sophisticated professional military organizations are difficult to beat if your forces are lacking discipline, arms, and professional leadership. During most of the 20th century traditional, uniformed and equipped military forces existed as a formal arm of the their national governments. The Rules of War that had evolved since the Congress of Vienna promoted military professionalism and constrained armies from the sort of looting, ravaging, and rapine that characterized armies well into modern times. We are now involved in a war with an enemy who has no clear connection to the governments who provide them with sanctuary, logistics and encouragement. These enemies do not wear uniforms, nor are they a part of a recognizable military formation. Our enemies today do not feel bound by any of the conventional Rules, and more often than not direct their terrorism purposely against children and other non-combatants. To defeat these radical Islamic fanatics is a great challenge that we still struggle with. They are neither soldiers, nor criminals. They aren't controlled very much by any government, though they have influence over several (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, and various East African States). This makes it difficult to destroy the Will of their leadership to continue, and they avoid conventional battle that they would surely lose.
They have no economic infrastructure to attack, and they have no single territory that can be occupied effectively. Victory over such rogue religious nuts isn't easy, and it will certainly take a long time. Their resources are limited, and their C-cubed systems vulnerable. Attrition works against them. Their hopes of eroding the Will of the United States continues to be their most important asset.

Losing a war has always been one of the greatest disasters any nation could face. You lose and your territory is taken from you, your property stolen and looted by the victorys, your people reduced to slavery, and your way of life destroyed. In the past, the possibility of losing a war was almost by itself enough to motivate every citizen to endure major sacrifices. The loss of 30 or 40 thousand soldiers in an afternoon might have left the population in mourning, but scarcely reduced their willingness to fight on. In modern times, losing a war to the United States was the next best thing to winning it. Americans don't loot or impose punishments on the populations of defeated countries. Hell, we tend to do more for the defeated than for our friends and allies. A number of years ago there was an interesting comic novel, "The Mouse the Roared". In that novel a tiny country went to war with the U.S. with the intent of losing so that it could receive the benefit of American post-war reconstruction. Americans haven't changed, but our enemies have adopted tactics to turn our humanity against us.

The war with the radical Islamic is winnable, even if the Iraq campaign is abandoned by those who have lost faith and bought into our enemies propaganda.

Strangely enough, when we lose the Iraq war, none of this will happen at all.



Those who claim this is the struggle of our times are the ones who have bought into the enemies' propaganda.

Cycloptichorn

Iraq isn't properly a war. It is one campaign in a larger war directed at Western values and materialism by an extranational movement dedicated to imposing radical Islam on the rest of humanity.

Iraq was militarily crushed and defeated a long time ago. If the U.S. only wanted to depose Saddam, we could have left the country to recover as best it could. Instead, this Administration saw deeper than that. Rebuilding the country around a more democratic government representative of the Iraqi People would strike a blow against the radicals who regard the whole region as their own. Success in Iraq would blunt the radical movement's attacks on the West and the continental U.S. Unfortunately, building a viable Iraqi government hasn't been as quickly accomplished as was hoped. Secretary Rumsfeld's faith in the latest incarnation of U.S. military doctrine and capabilities was well founded, even though old-line soldiers didn't agree. Rumsfeld was mistaken in the magnitude of chaos that followed the military victory over Iraq, and we didn't fully appreciate how deep the hatred between the Sunni and Sheia was. Al Queda operatives concentrated inside Iraq, and they have lost many more effective "soldiers" than we have, and it is much harder for them to replace casualties. Iran and Syria continue to foment terror and disorder inside Iraq and work diligently to keep the country unstable. Iraqi citizens are targeted and killed by the militias maintained and supported by religious fanatics and Iranian/Syrian opportunists.

They can not defeat us directly, but they can undermine our Will to support a secular democratic government in Iraq.

If we pull out of Iraq, that will not be the end of the War. The War that was forced upon us will continue, and other campaigns will be necessary. The radical clerks who control Iran are determined to destroy Israel and Western values. The Taliban would love to retake Afghanistan so that they could resume their oppression of the people. The Al Queda and other radical groups will fan out from Iraq to instigate trouble through out the region, and we should expect more attacks on the continental United States. Ultimately, we will have to again take the field against these would be dictators who would love to see the world return to the 7th century CE.

You have been completely co-opted by the enemies' propaganda, and that's sad, Walter. You give them legitimacy that they don't have.

You say,



But, here's the thing - they didn't see deeper. They didn't look deeper and come to a conclusion which was startling and changed the Middle East. They made a mistake.

It will be better for you when you admit that the original mission was an error, not just that 'mistakes were made along the way.' People resent when you meddle with their societies and lives from the other side of the globe.

Cycloptichorn

The radical Islamic movement isn't legitimate. They are not fighting a war according to the conventions of civilized naitons, but instead rely upon mass murder to achieve their ends. The terrorists are not soldiers in any sense of the word, yet they are more than mere criminals whose only purpose is satisfying a personal greed. The radical Islamic movement is closer to old time piracy than any legitimate organization.

I don't believe that the Administration's renewal of the Gulf Conflict was a mistake. Saddam's removal was necessary, and had promising potential to transform the region in a positive way. Warfare, like jury trials, is filled with imponderables and uncertainties. War is a bit like controlled chaos, and ultimately all wars are destructive of property, and the loss of many lives. I don't believe it was a mistake to attempt bringing a secular democratic government to Iraq. I do believe that most Iraqis would prefer a secular democratic government to the little hell that outside "freedom" fighters belonging to radical Islamic terrorist groups have made of their sad country. It isn't American forces who are causing the trouble, but radical Islamic clerics and terrorists.

And just how will things be better for me if I were to accept a bunch of assertions that I don't believe in? I think we are in a noble fight to protect not only our own citizens from religious totalitarianism, but to extend the benefits of a free and open society with humanistic values to all those oppressed by totalitarian regimes.