Interestingly enough, the couple instances I know of, when our guys caused the defection of an insurgent, US forces simply exposed that his "cell leader" was criminal scum. The insurgent's "sense of honor" led him to make a change.
In another case, it was a pair of sunglasses and a uniform.
I lack the cultural background to fully interpret the results, but I'm just calling them like I see 'em.
Back to the subject at hand: Do you not think that two honorable people can serve on opposing sides in a conflict? ESPECIALLY an Insurgency/Counterinsurgency?
Personally I think this has happened many times, and will continue to do so. Both sides are typically based on ideas, and will thus attract warriors. The true warrior is an honorable sort. All too often they are missed in the bloodbaths created by the losers and nutjobs that cling to the fringes of many insurgent movements (and lurk within the ranks of some government forces, although I would argue that their numbers there are far less in most cases).Originally Posted by 120mm
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Sorry, life to live you know.
Once the americans leave, AND the puppet government and puppet securit aparatus they left behind is annihilated. Then Iraq can decide it's future free from the foreign influence of an occupier. The fighters having nothing to fight, will go back to their lives. I know my grandfather did. People don't ussually enjoy killing, unless their demonic mercinaries. They might go into government (or lurk as you put it), go into a new military, or go back to teaching or famrming.what will they do when the Americans leave? Put down their arms?
Hardly a suitable example steve, the occupation of Ireland and Palestine never ended for them to be given a chance to stop fighting.the resistance who LIKE killing and don't want to stop. We've seen it with the IRA, the PLO
I'm not sure what it is your trying to say, that there will be some 'rogue' elements that just won't be content living out their lives not killing you?
Well i can safely tell you, you have made life long enemies of the majority of the Iraqi population, you won't get a pro-US government out of there in your wildest dreams. And the people, their children, will hate you for what you've done to them, and at this point there is nothing you can do to change that.
As for "rogue' elements who you say would be 'addicted to killing', (or maybe they just don't belive you deserve to be allowed to cut and run to fight another day perhaps in 30 years with another poor country). Are you affraid they'll come seek out your military in america? Thats just not likely. Take Vietnamn, a more suitable example since the occupation actually ENDED there. Did the resistance continue the war, where there any 'rogue elements' read to kill americans? no.
But if it makes you feel better, perhaps you should consider signing a surrender and paying repartations. Then there would be no legitimacy in continuing a war once occupation is over.
How do you expect them to act or plan to act on a hypothetical and unrealistic situation? Relax, that bridges will be crossed when they are reached.How does the insurgency intend to deal with the rogues within its ranks?
And in future, try not to make so many enemies all over the world and maybe you won't have to live in fear. If i was you though, id be more concerned about 'rogue' americans soldiers who continue killing civilians once they return home. I've heard of several such cases.
Last edited by Thepartisan; 06-04-2007 at 04:03 PM.
Vietnam actually went through a period of "reeducation camps" designed to deprogram certain members of the Viet Cong cadre. Some were also killed. I'd really suggest you do a bit more research into the internal workings of most insurgent groups before you make broad statements regarding the group psychology of some elements within those groups.
You WILL see elements that do not stop fighting. They aren't all "demonic mercinaries"[sic]. They will transfer their hate from one group to another, or continue to see enemies everywhere. There will always be blood debts that need paying for those people. All you need to do is look at the history of European terrorist groups, or many of the groups that have been active in Africa. In the end they all transfer their hate from outside groups to those closer to home.
But you also seem comfortable with your generalities. Enjoy them.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
I thought those re-education camps where from the south Vietnamese army traitors. And some of those where killed for sure.
There will not be a civil war in Iraq. If that's what your suggesting.
Sadr's already expelled 600 men that where accused of secterian killings. And if it does happen, that's iraq's business. No matter what will happen, the occupation must end.
Murders will be dealt with, the same way you, would deal with your murderers. The crazed soldiers returning home.
It's not about what you want, it's about how to achieve what you need.
Unfortunately, you, like everyone else in history, must fight the war you have, not the one you want. As much as I hate to say it, there are very few Americans who are going to countenance -- for the best of intentions, no matter what you'd like to believe -- leaving Iraq before something stable is established to take its place. It's going to take a lot more loss in the way of casualties and treasure for people to just throw up their hands and quit -- we're a stubborn lot, which is going to mean time, which is going to mean a continuation of the dismal situation for the Iraqis.Once the americans leave, AND the puppet government and puppet securit aparatus they left behind is annihilated.
In war, you must be effective. It may be satisfying to kill Americans and their supporters, and it may seem that it is only just to demand that the new Iraq get set up on your own terms in the way that you want. But pursuing that as a goal is not effective to your policy objective, which is an Iraq free from foreign interference. In the short term, you may have to alter your desired sequence, get something stable and amenable to the largest number of people established. And then ask -- or tell, I don't really care -- the Americans to leave. The public/political sentiment in this country will be overwhelmingly in support of such a thing, and there won't be a damn thing any administration will be able to do to argue that we must maintain a presence there. If you want to go back and tinker with the system established, go for it -- these United States were originally established under one set of governing principles (Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union), which were discarded and replaced with the Constitution we now have.
So, the question is, is it more important to kill Americans, to dictate a timetable that's just not likely to work, or to be effective to your policy goals, to have a good strategy that achieves most of your aims in the shortest amount of time with the least damage to the Iraqis?
At this point, I'm one of the few people who believes that America can "lose" in Iraq and still walk away just fine, who's suggested a plan for admitting defeat, offering a reparations package, moving out, and getting on with being a better and more productive force for something positive in this world. However, it's not likely I'm going to be elected president any time soon. Thinking like mine isn't common, so you need to come up with a plan that takes better account of your enemy.
You're quite mistaken here. Reeducation camps were used for a variety of purposes, including the consolidation of power for the northern leadership. That included a "weeding" of VC cadre who might have ideas that were different than the direction given by Hanoi (and there were many of them). And before you tar the SVN as traitors, I suggest you take a look at the history of Vietnam. The north did not have a deadlock on nationalism.
Now maybe we should get back on topic for the thread....
Last edited by Steve Blair; 06-04-2007 at 06:14 PM.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
All that is interesting. But I wasn't speaking primarily of defectors whose testimony might be suspect. I was really speaking of insurgents who were once allies of ours in past wars or at least not adversaries.
I mentioned "exodus/casablanca". Are there many still alive who were resistance fighters back then who could give a lecture at the CIA? Or any from the Cold War-admittedly we weren't as good at subversion as they were but we did a bit.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks