Senator McCain’s conventional tactics do not work in this urban guerrilla scenario
During his visit to Baghdad Senator McCain announced that, in order to win, we need another 20,000 to 30,000 troops in Iraq. Senator, that is not the way I see it. We don’t need another 30,000 troops in Iraq because they cannot tip the scales in our favor. About 3 years ago, when the terrorists were coming to life and foreign terrorists were streaming across the borders everyday to cause mayhem, we needed, at least another 100,000 and possibly as many as 300,000 troops in addition to what we had already deployed. With those numbers, we might have been able to stop the terrorists dead in their tracks.
To send 30,000 troops now is pure folly. To send 300,000, if we could find them, is also without merit. All the terrorist groups have had time to train and organize, are well armed and have found zealous, vocal leaders. They are a new threat and because of them, Iraq is in a civil war. Senator McCain’s conventional tactics do not work in this urban guerrilla scenario. It is being proved to us daily. Sir, we need unconventional fighters and we don’t have them trained in the numbers required to move in quickly. An additional 30,000 troops, prepared or not, in the face of this threat is ridiculous.
Unfortunately ladies and gentlemen, our representatives in Washington missed the train. It left the station long ago on this issue and is well down the track. So please, all of you folks in charge, evaluate what is really going on and do not throw good money after bad.
Did we really go to war?
Look at it this way----we never really went to war in Iraq. Think about it for a moment. The rationale for the war was shaky, and the threat to our national interests was never actually proven. We, the people, never saw the Iraqi’s threatening our shores with invading forces. But we went to war anyway without mobilizing the country and all of its citizens. We didn’t mobilize industry. We didn’t institute the draft. We didn’t sell war stamps and war bonds. We tried to make 9-11 into our new Pearl Harbor. Yes, it was a tragic event but we should have examined it and its implications very closely before we made the choice to invade Iraq.
Washington is playing at war like a bunch of little boys in the backyard. And like the back yard boys, they have not learned a damn thing from history. The lessons of 9-11, and all that it represented, were not assimilated. We went into combat with the best fighting force in the world. We quickly took out the Iraqi conventional ground forces. We are also fully capable of taking out the terrorists when they come out to fight. And here is the problem. We are too good at conventional war. That is why terrorism, as we know it today, was born. No one can handle us on the battlefield. David couldn’t handle Goliath so he found a new solution to take the big guy down. He chose not to close with his enemy. No, he held him off at a distance and, using unconventional tactics, killed him with a rock right between the eyes. Terrorism and urban guerrilla warfare is neutralizing our advantages just as Goliath’s size was neutralized. I plan to discuss this in future writings that will appear at this address.
The terrorists are no longer looking to fight the US military
Furthermore, the terrorists are no longer looking to fight the US military---they are battling each other for control of the country and the fight is internal. We can’t change the battle that is raging but we can easily end up losing out in Iraq.
The terrorists on both sides are now well armed, trained and killing each other-- as well as members of the current Iraqi government – in record numbers. Our troops get caught up in these events and we continue to take casualties. Our military elements do not know how to handle the situation. It is not their fault. They are superior fighters of conventional war, but they are not equipped and armed to take on the current problem and solve it. Possibly some of the Special Forces elements could do so, but there are far too few in number.
What does history say?
What can history tell us? Consider the revolutionary war. Can you see those long straight lines of infantry approaching each other on an open field with musket volley after musket volley and artillery barrage after artillery barrage resulting in people dead and dying all around? That is what it was like---pure stupidity. But we evolved. The military developed machine guns and trench warfare. However, the battlefield was static and a stalemate prevailed. Subsequently, the tank and airplane provided mobility, air support and blitzkrieg bringing us into the modern era. The big bomb was the ultimate weapon.
Then came Vietnam. It was a challenge for which we were not prepared because we did not evolve to meet the unique threats facing us in Southeast Asia. Remember Mogadishu and the fight in the middle of the city? It was another powerful lesson. These lessons should inform our approach to Iraq.
Vietnam and the fight in Iraq have clear parallels
What is apparent here is that the military did not evolve as the threat changed. Vietnam and the fight in Iraq have clear parallels. But Americans must know that, even if we had expanded our thinking, changed tactics, developed new equipment for this type of war, another 30,000 troops added to with our current deployment levels would still result in failure.
The very basic problem is---we do not have enough soldiers with the right training in place to save Iraq. The shortfall is at least 100,000 and maybe as high as 300,000--but certainly not 30,000. In fact, we cannot field enough troops to fight this new civil war between terrorist groups unfolding war in Iraq.
This is not a political matter. It is a military issue.
During his visit to Baghdad Senator McCain announced that, in order to win, we need another 20,000 to 30,000 troops in Iraq. Senator, that is not the way I see it. We don’t need another 30,000 troops in Iraq because they cannot tip the scales in our favor. About 3 years ago, when the terrorists were coming to life and foreign terrorists were streaming across the borders everyday to cause mayhem, we needed, at least another 100,000 and possibly as many as 300,000 troops in addition to what we had already deployed. With those numbers, we might have been able to stop the terrorists dead in their tracks.
To send 30,000 troops now is pure folly. To send 300,000, if we could find them, is also without merit. All the terrorist groups have had time to train and organize, are well armed and have found zealous, vocal leaders. They are a new threat and because of them, Iraq is in a civil war. Senator McCain’s conventional tactics do not work in this urban guerrilla scenario. It is being proved to us daily. Sir, we need unconventional fighters and we don’t have them trained in the numbers required to move in quickly. An additional 30,000 troops, prepared or not, in the face of this threat is ridiculous.
Unfortunately ladies and gentlemen, our representatives in Washington missed the train. It left the station long ago on this issue and is well down the track. So please, all of you folks in charge, evaluate what is really going on and do not throw good money after bad.
Did we really go to war?
Look at it this way----we never really went to war in Iraq. Think about it for a moment. The rationale for the war was shaky, and the threat to our national interests was never actually proven. We, the people, never saw the Iraqi’s threatening our shores with invading forces. But we went to war anyway without mobilizing the country and all of its citizens. We didn’t mobilize industry. We didn’t institute the draft. We didn’t sell war stamps and war bonds. We tried to make 9-11 into our new Pearl Harbor. Yes, it was a tragic event but we should have examined it and its implications very closely before we made the choice to invade Iraq.
Washington is playing at war like a bunch of little boys in the backyard. And like the back yard boys, they have not learned a damn thing from history. The lessons of 9-11, and all that it represented, were not assimilated. We went into combat with the best fighting force in the world. We quickly took out the Iraqi conventional ground forces. We are also fully capable of taking out the terrorists when they come out to fight. And here is the problem. We are too good at conventional war. That is why terrorism, as we know it today, was born. No one can handle us on the battlefield. David couldn’t handle Goliath so he found a new solution to take the big guy down. He chose not to close with his enemy. No, he held him off at a distance and, using unconventional tactics, killed him with a rock right between the eyes. Terrorism and urban guerrilla warfare is neutralizing our advantages just as Goliath’s size was neutralized. I plan to discuss this in future writings that will appear at this address.
The terrorists are no longer looking to fight the US military
Furthermore, the terrorists are no longer looking to fight the US military---they are battling each other for control of the country and the fight is internal. We can’t change the battle that is raging but we can easily end up losing out in Iraq.
The terrorists on both sides are now well armed, trained and killing each other-- as well as members of the current Iraqi government – in record numbers. Our troops get caught up in these events and we continue to take casualties. Our military elements do not know how to handle the situation. It is not their fault. They are superior fighters of conventional war, but they are not equipped and armed to take on the current problem and solve it. Possibly some of the Special Forces elements could do so, but there are far too few in number.
What does history say?
What can history tell us? Consider the revolutionary war. Can you see those long straight lines of infantry approaching each other on an open field with musket volley after musket volley and artillery barrage after artillery barrage resulting in people dead and dying all around? That is what it was like---pure stupidity. But we evolved. The military developed machine guns and trench warfare. However, the battlefield was static and a stalemate prevailed. Subsequently, the tank and airplane provided mobility, air support and blitzkrieg bringing us into the modern era. The big bomb was the ultimate weapon.
Then came Vietnam. It was a challenge for which we were not prepared because we did not evolve to meet the unique threats facing us in Southeast Asia. Remember Mogadishu and the fight in the middle of the city? It was another powerful lesson. These lessons should inform our approach to Iraq.
Vietnam and the fight in Iraq have clear parallels
What is apparent here is that the military did not evolve as the threat changed. Vietnam and the fight in Iraq have clear parallels. But Americans must know that, even if we had expanded our thinking, changed tactics, developed new equipment for this type of war, another 30,000 troops added to with our current deployment levels would still result in failure.
The very basic problem is---we do not have enough soldiers with the right training in place to save Iraq. The shortfall is at least 100,000 and maybe as high as 300,000--but certainly not 30,000. In fact, we cannot field enough troops to fight this new civil war between terrorist groups unfolding war in Iraq.
This is not a political matter. It is a military issue.
