tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9993293.post110503636507238540..comments2023-10-20T04:06:30.225-07:00Comments on Major Mike: Welcome to Major Mike Blog/Winning Asymmetric WarMajor Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13672097330797736028noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9993293.post-1162240618214466242006-10-30T12:36:00.000-08:002006-10-30T12:36:00.000-08:00I think the book "For WHom the Bell Tolls" identi...I think the book "For WHom the Bell Tolls" identified the problem. You cannot expect a conquered people to accept the conquering unless they are made to feel that they have more of everything that people care about as a function of being conquered. How can we do it? Religion is so important to these fanatics that the normal feel good characteristics sought by others pales in comparison. They cannot be passified - they can be killed - and separating those fanatics from the rest of the people is the difficult task. The people who are getting their needs met must be made to feel that the religious fanatics are going to be responsible for having the better life taken away from them. "no worse enemy - no better friend" is a motto that I think makes sense. If a person is belligerent - then he should feel the wrath of all that God has placed in our able hands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9993293.post-1158792131792771112006-09-20T15:42:00.000-07:002006-09-20T15:42:00.000-07:00Check it ou homes siding if your building homes go...Check it ou homes <A HREF="Http://siding11.com/side.pl?y=helper" REL="nofollow">siding</A> if your building homes go to Http://siding11.com/side.pl?y=helper. butt if you want to learn to install siding then..... What are you waiting for..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9993293.post-1154705091000091052006-08-04T08:24:00.000-07:002006-08-04T08:24:00.000-07:00While improvements in basing, force mobility and l...While improvements in basing, force mobility and logistics would be a step in reducing casualties, I don't believe they would result in success in an asymmetrical war.<BR/><BR/>Why? Consider the entities involved.<BR/><BR/>The US Army is an immensly powerful fighting force, fighting for a nation, in uniform and typically following the Geneva convention. They are a 3rd generation military.<BR/><BR/>On the Iraqi side there are a number of Sunni and Shi'a militant groups. They are largely drawn around ethnic divisions and are largely supported within their ethnic groups. They are, in contrast to the US Army, ununiformed, organised by ideology rather than a state, and unbounded by the Geneva Convention. They use secrecy, terror and confusion to overcome the technological gap. These groups are largely integrated with the population and it is largely impossible to distinguish between a militant and a regular Iraqi civilian.<BR/><BR/>The Iraqi militias are 4th generation militaries.<BR/><BR/>3rd vs. 4th Generation conflicts have resulted in either stalemate or victory for the 4th generation military. An early 20th century war, featuring promonent use of assymetrical warfare was won by a superpower; the Second Boer war. They did, however use 450,000! troops to deal with 20-30,000 Boer guerrillas, use internment in concentration camps and a scorched earth policy. I doubt that we could use the same "any means necessary" approach in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>The aims of the militias are complex. The Sunni militia's aims are three-fold.<BR/> (1) To disrupt and disorganize the country to the point where the US will decide its unsalvagable and thus leave. It also uses assymetric tactics, such as IEDs (in increasing technical sophistication) and sniping to directly kill US servicemen.<BR/> (2) To kill Shi'a Iraqi's, precipitating a civil war, changing the current political status quo of parlimentary rule by the Shi'a majority. They target soft civilian targets, aiming to not only kill but terrorise.<BR/> (3) Providing perceived security within their territory.<BR/><BR/>The goals of Shi'a militia's are<BR/> (1) To kill US troops, who they view as unwelcome occupiers within the country, using assymetric attacks.<BR/> (2) To kill Sunni's in reaction to Sunni attacks on Shi'ah's, targeting civilians rather than other militias in large part.<BR/> (3) To provide security within their territory. Also, in some cases, to enforce Sharia law within their communities.<BR/><BR/>Complicating matters, their are a number of al-Qaeda cells operating within Iraq, actively destabilizing the country too. They don't favor one side or the other, per se, but will attack to provoke the cycle of violence, causing the country to destabilize with the general goal of an Islamic calliphate in the region.<BR/><BR/>If open civil war happens, then the situation of the US within Iraq becomes untenable, and its likely that the country will be very unstable. Other countries such as Iran may openly intervene in the civil war.<BR/><BR/>The major cause of the move towards civil war has its roots in Iraq under Saddam, a Sunni nationalist. He imposed a dictatorial and repressive regime over the entire country, and brutally put down a Shi'a rebellion, causing massive resentment by that ethnicity within the population (much like ethnic backlash in the '92 Yugoslavian conflicts.)<BR/><BR/>There is a cycle of attack and revenge which is practically impossible to stop, without a complete and constant martial law, (which has been attempted, without success - attacks have continued unabaited.)<BR/><BR/>Given the nature of Islamic societies congregating to pray, there will always be ample and easy targets for covert attack.<BR/><BR/>A lack of a viable economy, and in some cases a lack of infrastucture and utilities (which were widely targetted during the invasion,) has caused a deep level of despair in the Iraqi people which has significantly exacerbated a move towards militant action.<BR/><BR/>There is no sign that the Iraqi government, comprised of a Shi'a majority is reconciling with the Sunni's within the government; indeed increasingly sectarian rhetoric is becoming commonplace.<BR/><BR/>The economic reality for Iraqi's which in part, fuels the popularity of the militias, will take a lot of time to turn around. Instability is inherently bad for the free economy, and the lack of a free economy makes the country more unstable.<BR/><BR/>You pointed out that all we needed to do is stay the course, become more nimble and the situation will resolve itself.<BR/><BR/>I don't see that as true. US troops cannot protect civilians against asymmetric attacks and thus cannot stop the spiral of violence. No amount of mobility or flexibility will enable a GI to distinguish a good guy from a bad guy.<BR/><BR/>If we solved the economic and political issues we'd have a chance, but the politics are largely intractible, and the army isn't suited towards economic development beyond contruction projects.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com