'It Isn't War'

[Barrett808]

'It Isn't War'
By Richard Hart Sinnreich
Sunday, August 22, 2004; Page B07

Watching the gallant but doomed charge of the British light cavalry brigade against the Russian guns at Balaclava during the Crimean War, French Gen. Pierre Bosquet commented acidly, "It's magnificent, but it isn't war." The same might be said of recent military operations in Iraq.

Observing them, Americans might be pardoned for wondering just what we think we're doing. One week our troops are clearing Fallujah of Baathist insurgents. The next week they aren't. A month later they're clearing Najaf of Shiite insur- gents. Then, a few days later, they aren't. Meanwhile, casualties and insurgents alike multiply.

Somewhere behind all this, there must be some coherent strategic intention, but for most of us it isn't easily visible. As far as we are able to judge, the war in Iraq has become a sort of military perpetual motion machine, producing plenty of activity but not much evidence of progress.

On Iraq's borders, infiltration persists apparently unchecked. In the heartland, the only month-to-month change seems to be which town or city will erupt in rebellion next. In the meantime, even Iraqis who heartily detest each other are daily more unanimous in detesting our continued presence.

Not long ago, preparing for a history workshop, I found myself rereading U.S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs," widely regarded as among the finest such recollections ever penned by a professional soldier. Reviewing his account of his army's operations in Tennessee and Mississippi, I was struck by the change they gradually wrought in Grant's attitude and that of his troops.

(more)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20338-2004Aug20.html

I was alarmed and disappointed at the direction Mr. Sinnreich takes...

[MichiganVote]

1. Its real enough to the loved one's of dead soldiers

[ixion]

2. sounds to me like he's applying the 'bomb the hell out of them' theory

to Iraq, which is disturbing.

We know they don't want us there, and because of that, we should bomb the hell out of them. This seems to me to be what this clown is saying. :crazy:


He's right though. This isn't war. As Terry Jones put it (per my sig line) "it's a Turkey Shoot." :-(

[Larkspur]

3. US Civil War and the 2002 Iraqi War are 2 very different wars

The US Civil War was fought over slavery and state's rights to deny some human beings their liberty because it was economicly feasible to do so. This war was also fought to preserve the Union against future foreign involvement. Great Britain was tempted to help the South so as to weaken the US for re-colonialzation, but Lincoln dispelled Britain's pipe dream quickly. The Civil War was also fought close to home and the North had a 2-to-1 minimum supply of men than the South had. Also, the North could manufacture and supply it's troops itself, whereas, the South's industrial base was weak, thus their attempt to lure the British to their side. The Southern troops had passion and competent leaders early on, but the North's geographic position, supply of men and arms and eventually finding competent military leaders made the South's defeat inevitable.

The 2002 Iraq War was fought to protect American addiction to fossil fuels and to reward campaign contributors of Bush's campaign. It is also fought in a faraway region, alien to our culture and world view. The Iraqis may not have turned against the US, had the US really helped them first with providing security and economic assistance immediately after the invasion, but the ransacking of Iraq's treasure, along with racist and brutal treatment of the Iraqi people, and importing foreign labor to help loot the natural resources would turn any native people against an invader/occuping power.

The comparison this author should have made was between our 2003-2004 occupation of Iraq and the British occupation of Iraq in 1920. The Brits got the Sunnis and Shites to join forces against them in the Great Iraqi Rebellion 1920-21. The Brits, after public pressure from home, made a deal with the Sunnis and the rebellion quieted for a while. This deal is still in the Shites memory banks and that is why, I think, the Shite leaders were more hesitant to engage US Troops directly. Of course, Sistani, is not a native Iraqi, and would have a slightly different view than natives, like al-Sadr.