Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Fallujah, Najaf and Southern Lebanon
We dealt with similar issues in Najaf, complicated by the balancing act of The Sistani - Al Sadr divide. By equivocating, we gave the enemy an opportunity to strengthen itself, supply, gain confidence and ultimately kill more good guys. There is no reason to tolerate Al Sadr and the Badr Brigade in Iraq. They must be forcibly disarmed.
Today, in Southern Lebanon, Israel faces the same vexing dilemma. But it must draw the same conclusion. It must win; it cannot allow Hezbollah any breathing room. Their cabinet arrived at this conclusion yesterday, it seems, and the ground assault has been expanded. In many respects, the US needs to pick up on the same theme and decimate Sadr in Iraq. It is the same war, against the same Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Sadr is a less eloquent Nasrallah. If possible, Nasrallah must be killed or captured. So should Al Sadr.
None of this is new. McClellan, Burns and a host of other lackluster Generals during our own Civil War failed to decimate Lee's army and follow up partial battle success. Ultimately, Lincoln trusted in the brutality of Grant, Sheridan and Sherman to bring the enemy to heel. It helped to burn everything down to Atlanta, and follow Lee's Army through the wilderness.
War requires ruthlessness. Our enemy observes 7th century treatment of women, executes homosexuals, forces conversion to Islam and engages in a series of barbaric customs which we all would agree are simply repulsive. Furthermore, the enemy is committed to our destruction. they are ruthless. They will use anything in their possession to hurt Americans or Israelis. Anything - a knife, a tire iron, you name it.
If this broader war isn't becoming clearer to people -- well, I should be fair here -- certainly our mainstream media isn't helping to communicate it.
9 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Tue Aug 01, 06:02:00 PM:
And the children. Don't forget the children. We'll need to kill them as well. Otherwise they might turn their hatred on us when they become adults.
Or will they greet us as liberators from their parents?
One could just nuke the desert into a sea of peaceful glass.
We create more terrorists every day with our kill them all mentality. Iraq is a hotbed of terrorism now. Afghanistan is rebooting, and we crushed the bejesus out of those guys.
What, we didn't crush them enough?
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Aug 01, 06:18:00 PM:
Screwy - read Ilario Pantano's new book called Warlords. I am not talking about politics, strictly warfighting. It is a war you know.
By 
, at
Tue Aug 01, 06:28:00 PM:
So, Screwy, in your opinion, if we were just nicer and gently disengaged from them, then our enemy will love us and leave us in peace? I DON'T THINK SO. There is no choice but to reduce the armies of our enemy. Sorry, but dialog will not resolve the issue, never, ever. Regarding the children, can you deny that many of them will grow up to be fanatical suicidal jihadist (mass?) killers? However, I cannot advocate targeting them now, as they are still innocent and we cannot say for certain how they will turn out. (But if we had a crystal ball, and knew with 100% certainty that a particulat child would become a terrorist, then I say why allow him to kill first? Protect the innocent life this kid would certainly kill!)
By Escort81, at
Tue Aug 01, 06:51:00 PM:
Screwy has (deliberately or inadvertently) captured the essence of how the nature of warfare and politics has changed significantly over the last century. Those countries with the most lethal weapons based upon advanced technology also have developed non-tribal societies that don't believe in slaughtering civilians, even if it is a result of collateral damage. My father fought in a war during which the U.S. military inflicted horrible casualties on the civilian populations of Germany and Japan -- sadly, that's what was necessary to reach a point of unconditional surrender by the governments of those countries, a goal set forth by our elected leaders. That kind of clear victory may no longer be possible in the world today, since images of the horror of war can be broadcast instantaneously. Even Screwy would probably say that the crushing loss the Confederacy experienced -- and all of the collateral damage that went with it -- was worth the elimination of slavery and the preservation of the Union. Sometimes it's about choosing the least worst option.
By , at
Tue Aug 01, 07:00:00 PM:
Excellent post. There is one note that I would make, related to your comparison of generals in the WNA and today. Based on my reading, particulary Bing West's "No True Glory", it seemed that the generals wanted to move on Fallujah the first time and were held back by political considerations, partly in Baghdad and less so in Washington. The lesson was learned by the President, who gave the Marines the green light for the second operation. And a lesson was learned. The only thing lacking in this fight is, from day to day (or news cycle to news cycle), the concentration of political will to enable our potent military to do the job. Najaf was a lost opportunity to eliminate Al-Sadr, but even then the Army hit the Mahdi Brigade very hard in a very focused battle. But I completely agree that we have before us an opportunity to confront Hezballah and the Mahdi Brigade in a most hurtful way, and we should take advantage of the opening.
By , at
Tue Aug 01, 07:04:00 PM:
As for Screwy's comment about the children, perhaps he has not seen the various Hezballah mouthpieces stating that they start the indoctrination/education process with the children at a very young age, so as to assure a steady stream of recruits for the future, properly trained and ready to die. I would argue that the sooner organizations like Hezballah are eliminated, the sooner the children can get back to the playground, where they belong.
By Jeremiah, at
Tue Aug 01, 09:10:00 PM:
"And the children. Don't forget the children. We'll need to kill them as well."
Why don't the apologists for Hizb'allah ever talk about the children who are killed by rockets and suicide extremists? Are they any less dead? Are their lives of any less value? Are their deaths any less heinous?
The answer to all these questions is that there is a war of defense and not aggression being fought by Israel. They are not always right, but in this case they are justified. The children who may die in collateral damage in what is a justified response are an entirely different category of victim than children who may die in acts of blind aggression with untargetable weapons and brutal tactics.
This is a time for looking at root (radical) causes. Muslims alone, among the major religions, condone the loss of life. It is not the religion of peace, it is the religion of death and it will reap what it has sown.
By sunguh5307, at
Wed Aug 02, 05:24:00 AM:
It's healthy, even if disheartening in the realization that our humanistic ideals are lacking, to see us rediscover the art of war. The modern controversy over human rights seems to exist in the post-modern bubble of the impotent European consciousness which only seems to have learned to surrender- Screwy seems to have a good handle on that, but I digress....
I just got back from Iraq. Just a casual consideration of events in Lebanon and an awareness of the Middle East in general, let me tell you: it's nasty out here. But, and this is something I share with more than a few people out here, we could be in a place, a short 10 years from now, where it could be a lot worse. That is my fundamental consideration when I think about the problems here, trying to provide peace and stability.
Unfortunately, you have to fight for peace. The people causing all these problems out here know the words we speak- human rights, democracy, economic development- as points of propaganda rather than some kind of ideal or improvement. And they would prefer them not to take root. It will take time, effort, and yes blood as well, to see the day when the differents groups and nations out here can come together and work it out for themselves. Unless, you trust Iran and Syria's farsighted policy to do a much better job...
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Aug 02, 12:10:00 PM:
It is nasty in Iraq. But you know what? It was nasty before we were there. It's been nasty for 2000 years. The whole damn region is nasty. What was Israel before the Jews built it? A nasty tract of nothing land.
Only by taking the steps we and the Iraqis are taking now does it have any chance of becoming less nasty. Why? Representative political institutions, the chance for relative economic prosperity and the development of a middle class -- these things will dilute the "nastiness". but it takes years. The society will then have a reason to disarm.
