Asymmetrical Information

I think you may have inadvertently left an HTML tag open...

Jihadis believe that Islam, their form of Islam, should be transcendent in the world. Islam should be the military superpower, the economic superpower, the political superpower, all under the umbrella of a religious superpower. Anything less is just, just, just blasphemy.
And since Saudis are paying for the entire religious crusade against the rest of the world, young men will sublimate their frustrated sexuality into mass murder of infidels. As long as wealthy muslims pay the bill, fanatics and people who are simply evil will continue to commit murder and mayhem.

Goal: get Americans out of the country.
Problem: Americans plan to stay in the country until things are sufficiently stable.
Solution: blow things up.

Is there a system of logic under which "blown up" is equivalent to "stable"? I suppose that if you blow up everything, it will reach a sort of stasis, but that presumably creates problems with any further goals requiring a non-detonated country.

Three motivations, running in parallel:

1) Advertising

2) General anti-USA sentiment

3) Aimless, pissed-off, young male hatred in the face of an inability to turn back time.

I think it was Michael Howard's little book a year or two ago on the invention of peace (that was the title, in fact). The idea was that the modern idea of states, being the legitimate voice of large groups of people, could establish a more stable peace than before. The terrorists, not being or representing a state in any way shape or form, are not to be seen or interpreted as having a plan, or program, or even a clue. We tend, I think, to try to impose a state-like plan (not that states are always so coherent) on a number of small bunches of pissed-off, desperate young men with guns and explosives, because we're used to thinking that way. I don't think it's so complicated, and I think Jane and the brilliant Tyler Cowen (read his books, folks) have it right. When the media try to make this stuff out to be some sort of coherent, intelligent plan, I think they are, in addition to the usual bias, showing evidence of this habitual line of thinking.
Frightened young men with weapons, gang.
Occam's razor. Don't leave home without it.

"My theory: the Baathists still have a lot of money and armaments, and they're furious, plus they have zero chance of regaining power in a democracy. Angry hopeless men + money + guns = Big Problem. Lots of other would-be insurgencies have had the anger, but this may be the best funded effort in history."

Among those who are seriously messed up... there is the common idea that if I'm going down, I'm going down fighting. Or if you will... "If I'm going down, I'm taking the rest of you with me." They're not trying to win hearts and minds... that game is over. They just want to go out with a bang. It's sad... its meaningless... it's tragic that so many will die because of it... and there may be very little that can be done about it except stay the course. I wish I were smarter about these things so I could suggest something that nobody's thought about to do more to prevent it.

As a practical matter, one of the key objectives is to have enough Iraqi troops trained to secure the borders to a much greater extent (they will unlikley ever be completely secured) than is currently the case, so as to allow much less manpower and material to enter the fight from outside. I have no idea as to how close, or how far off, that day is.

I saw an interesting comment over the weekend (which I can't find now - sorry) suggesting that people looking for historical parallels to the insurgents are looking in the wrong place.

The suggested parallel was the Aztecs - who killed people not in support of any strategic goal or pragmatic purpose, but because they believed that, in and of itself, the killing pleased their gods.

It would seem difficult to negotiate with those who believe that your death will be pleasing to God...

500 quatloos to the guy who finds the word that is conspicuously absent from the article. It's quite revealing.

AT: Terrorist

Note: As usual, I will be policing the comments and ruthlessly deleting those that propose such theories as "arabs/muslims/middle-easterners are stupid/evil/violent-by-nature".

Anyone who belongs to a culture that maligns our canine friends is surely some of these things.

I'm intrigued by cyclical violence throughout human history. My guess is that it boils down to a surplus of young men who become warriors out of boredom. With this in mind, it seems to me that we didn't create the cycle - we just jumped in to keep it localized.

The solution;

1. The cycle of violence will die out as its participants die out. This could take decades.

2. It is necessary to create a work ethic in a culture that now has primarily a religious-militaristic ethic. The purpose is to vanquish boredom.

3. And Television of course...

I agree that the insurgents have no hope of gaining power in a democracy so they're doing what they think is their only hope, given their ignorance of say, Adam Smith.

However, there is a rationality of a sort. There's only one way to defeat America. John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Frank Church.... And they have to know, thanks to global communications, that Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, Hollywood et al are traveling that route.

Is it possible that we are seeing the results of all those Euros that Italy gave for Segrena?

The Baathists think they can just wait out the Americans, and when they leave, waltz back into power by dint of their guns. In the meantime, Terror must be Maintained, so they blow up civilians and anyone remotely connected with the new government, just to remind the populace who really rules there. Classic bully tactics.

I believe that Parker is on the right track. The jihadi element of the insurgency actually believes that they have an invincible superweapon on their side: Allah. Allah could smite the evil occupiers and sweep them away and put true believers into power anytime He wished.

However, because they have not been faithful enough, because they have not been true to Allah, because they have not done His will, Allah has not yet chosen to destroy the occupiers on the behalf of the faithful.

So they continue, endlessly, to try to please Allah and regain His favor. Once they have done so, He will win the conflict for them. So the bombings and assaults continue despite the fact that they now appear to have not a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything.

I know it sounds crazy to non-religious extremists like ourselves, but this was actually Osama Bin Laden's strategy when he made the assault on the US. Osama genuinely believed that he caused the collapse of the Soviet Union -- he believed that the faith and belief demonstrated by the mujahadeen in Afghanistan first caused the Soviets to pull out and then caused Allah to destroy the Soviet empire. He honestly thought that with a similar act of "faith", Allah would do the same thing to the US. One element of the insurgency in Iraq, the religious extremists, believe that enough demonstrations of "faith" -- i.e. bombings -- will cause Allah to defeat the US and the new Iraqi government.

arabs/muslims/middle-easterners are stupid/evil/violent-by-nature

I think that Tyler's "small numbers" idea may be correct in a few different ways.
1. Due to increased pressure on the network, the terrorist cells have gotten disrupted and are out of touch with each other. Their only contact is indirect, by seeing each other's actions on TV, so are striking out in as spectacular a fashion as they can, imitating each other.
2. Due to increased pressure on the network, there are very few of them and the new recruits are all foreign Jihadis that are ignorant of tradecraft and urban terror tactics. But they can sure drive a car bomb.
3. The last few Jihadis have drunk the car-bomb flavored Kool Aid and are going out in a blaze of glory, Jonestown style.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, we (the U.S.) are also playing in this game. How logical, rational or comprehensible has our "strategy" been?

We committed too few troops to secure major weapons depots, as well as other institutions and infrastructure, against looting. We compounded that error by disbanding the Iraqi Army, which might have secured much of the country. We allowed reconstruction money to be squandered in corruption, failing utterly to complete infrastructure repairs, which would be fundamental to moving the Iraqi economy: i.e. no improvement in electricity generation, water or sewage treatment, and no improvement in petroleum production (!!!).

We have clearly not committed the resources necessary to create a capable security force for Iraq. Whether any security force could cope with the insurgency is not even an operative question; simply providing ordinary civil police in large areas of Iraq remains an unsolved problem.

It is fine and dandy to speculate about game theoretic analysis of the insurgent's behavior, but what's the game theoretic analysis of U.S. policy?

Goal: get Americans out of the country.
Problem: Americans plan to stay in the country until things are sufficiently stable.
Solution: blow things up.

Not so simple.
Firstly, you need to believe the publically stated American goals. You cannot assume that universally.
Secondly, the Americans want to leave a government friendly to America when they leave.
Thirdly, the Americans cannot stay longer than two or three years, whether the country is stable or not. That much of the army at such expense cannot be sustained. Then it's either withdrawl or crackdown.

arabs/muslims/middle-easterners are stupid/evil/violent by _learning_, not by nature,
But precious little difference it makes.

And that goes for the rest of y'all, too!-))

Oliver, have you noticed that the US still has soldiers in Germany and Japan---after 60 (!!!) years? So how is it that we "must have to" pull out of Iraq in 2 or 3?

Bruce, since when has it been the responsibility of an invading army to secure museums, prevent looting, restore electric, water, and phone service, etc.? As I read most of history, the conquered people generally ended up pillaged, raped, and killed.

"the game theoretic analysis of U.S. policy?"
Here's where neither Bush nor anyone else can speak the Real Truth. The US doesn't really give a rat's ass about whether Iraqi's have freedom and a democratic government or not. Basically, our minimum bottom-line goal is that they cease being a treat to us. If they get freedom, etc. that's a bonus, but no skin off our nose either way.

We could have achieved this bottom-line goal much quicker, cheaper, and easier than what we did. We could have just killed Saddam and his sons, left immediately, and said to them, "Whoever takes over for Saddam--remember what we did to him, we'll do it to you, too, if you are unfriendly to us." And then keep whacking the successive dictators until eventually one of them gets the message. Pretty much the same end result for us, but not so good for the actual Iraqi people.

Ford made Ray's suggestion illegal by Executive Order 11905. The section reads:

(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

No way to do it without whoever gave the order ending up in front of the Senate or in court for high crimes and misdemeanors. Bush could rescind that part of the order, but it's politically impossible, and also very dangerous foreign policy.

That the Sunni’s are just plain mad suits me just fine I suppose. I’ve argued on my own site as to the impossibility of such a group (if such a fractious gathering can rightly be called as such) projecting the plans and goals that the “experts” are looking for.

Also, that the very term ‘insurgent’ as the MSM wants us to understand it, is not correct. The Sunni’s are a minority, those Islamists who are believe vehemently enough to pursue this kind of war (as opposed to those who are simply willing to follow them) are a smaller minority, and these two sub-groups are largely led, grudgingly so, by foreign religious leaders. Witness the purported “tribal” clashes in Qaim over the last week or so.

So the “mystery of insurgency” is largely created by the initially false notion that there exists some organized group of fighters intent on forming a new system. This is not their intent per se, but – as the “simply-mad” hypothesis puts forth, they are bent on the destruction of the new system.

Um, this IS the same Enemy that destroyed the World Trade Center, remember?
What exactly was THAT supposed to accomplish?
What grand strategy did it serve?
I know our friendly neighborhood Bush-haters like to pretend the enemy in Iraq is wholly distinct from the enemy of 9/11.
But the shared M.O. of insane, psuedo-religious hatred fueling an incoherent, incompetent strategy (together with certain cultural and geographic similarities, not to mention overlapping lists of hostile personnel) WOULD suggest, to candid observers, some non-trivial connection, some common cause....
It's a pity nature suffers such murderous filth to draw breath.
But it's a back-handed blessing for Americans if our only enemies are such: diseased of spirit, and franticly eager to meet their damnation.

My working theory is that the insurgents are trying to make Iraq an example of the horrors of democracy.
That is, I think that the meta message isn't aimed at Iraqis at all, it's aimed at the 150 million or so Arabs living in other countries:

"Dear Arabs! Look at democracy in Iraq. What do you see? Anarchy and havoc. Understand? Democracy means fanatics blow things up and nobody's safe - having a strong leader and/or strong mosque means security! Get any funny ideas about democracy and the same thing'll happen to your country! - yours truly, Arab elites"

B's Freak, temporal correlation is not causation.

But I'll listen if you'll produce some hard proof.

So how is it that we "must have to" pull out of Iraq in 2 or 3?

No bombs or ambushes in Germany and Japan. That is not to say that it is physically impossible to occupy Iraq for a long, long time. It just takes ressources nobody will be willing to commit, among other things, the draft and serious budget cuts in all other spending.
If you allow the enemy to make you inflict more damage to yourself than you inflict on the enemy, you lose. And note that the insurgents' job is inherently easier.

oliver,
"It just takes ressources nobody will be willing to commit, among other things, the draft and serious budget cuts in all other spending."

and rising taxes...

also: why do we assume that the insurgent strategy is to get a creative constructive solution? if the aim is to start a civil war. then i think they are well on the way to succeeding. the question that interests me is why they want another lebanon? is this the only hope that sunnis have for a leverage on power?

"So how is it that we "must have to" pull out of Iraq in 2 or 3?

No bombs or ambushes in Germany and Japan."

But there were in Germany for a while. The Germans that continued guerilla warfare after what was left of their government surrendered were called "Werewolves".

I don't think this was as bad as Iraq, and I'm pretty sure it didn't go on for three years. But maybe that's because, after the horrors inflicted by Germans during WWII, we didn't mind blowing up a whole neighborhood and killing hundreds of German civilians to get one Werewolf cell. And the Germans understood that, and generally understood that the rest of the world thought that their treatment at American hands was too soft...

But I don't see why there's puzzlement over the insurgent's strategy. It's "Make as big a mess and kill as many people as you can, so the American media can send back gory pictures and blame it on Bush." It's the best chance they have of getting American troops pulled out before the job is finished, and it's also aimed at keeping the Iraqi people terrified so as to make their takeover after we pull out easier.

My hope is that the terror campaign might backfire, since it's against people that regard full-auto AK-47 rifles and RPG's as appropriate weapons for home defense and sporting purposes. They just might realize that the terrorists would be far less terrifying after being shot dead.

"My theory: the Baathists still have a lot of money and armaments, and they're furious, plus they have zero chance of regaining power in a democracy."

I think it is because the insurgency has little to do with Iraq. They are being supported with funding and, increasingly, with fighters, from outside of Iraq-- because outside elements want to make it more difficult in the future for America to gain sufficient backing to attempt to intervene militarily elsewhere.

Every time the terrorists in Iraq turn on their TV's and radios and here Sen. Reid call Pres. Bush a "loser" and Sen. Kennedy call him a liar that concocted all of this in Texas to make money, and Michael Moore and his like doing their things, they are emboldened. Every time somone in the press likens this to Vietnam and calls it a "quagmire" they are emboldened. They belief, because of historical precedent, that all they have to do is keep producing dead bodies for the American oppositional press and the critics of policy to point to and, eventually, we will pull out and they will win.

I don't think Sen's Reid and Kennedy are purposely trying to hurt our effort, as some have suggested, but they must realize that there are more of our troops and Iraqi citizens dead because they are encouraging the terrorists.

But there were in Germany for a while. The Germans that continued guerilla warfare after what was left of their government surrendered were called "Werewolves".

IIRC, that finally dissipated when a key leader -- some former SS general or something like that(?) -- was finally killed. Leading to an interesting question, what happens to the Iraqi insurgency if Al-Zaraqwi is finally pinned to the wall? To how many resources and to how much oragnization does he actually have access?

As for the insurgents themselves -- killing Americans is Good, killing Iraqis makes America look bad, which is Good, and if by some chance the Americans leave before a stable government and national defense force fully coalesces, then the thugs may be able to regain power. Which is Even Better.

Does it need to be more complex than that?

A question for those questioning the rationale of the insurgents:

If the United States was ever invaded and occupied by a foreign power, would those Americans who gave their lives fighting in a resistance movement be regarded as heroes, or simply "stupid, evil and violent-by-nature?"

The history buffs out there already know the answer to this, because there is an historical record. In fact, it inspired Francis Scott Key to pen the "Star Spangled Banner." Sing along to this rarely sung FOURTH verse of our NATIONAL ANTHEM, and then come and talk to me about nationalism, pride and religious fervor.

>>>O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"

--Cobra

Cobra,

The United States -- or a large part of it -- WAS once invaded and conquered by a "foreign" power. In 1865.

Robert E. Lee is widely thought to have acted wisely and nobly in recognizing that further resistance after Appomattox was futile, and that dispersing the Army of Northern Virginia to fight as guerillas would accomplish nothing more than pointless suffering.

Unless you think that a majority of Southerners think highly of the Ku Klux Klan, those few people who continued to resist ARE thought of as ""stupid, evil and violent-by-nature."

Yeah, Robt. E. Lee fought for the wrong side, but at least he fought honorably.
And your whole "What if America was invaded" routine conveniently skips over the part about "what if Americans were ground into submission for decades by an evil overlord?" The Iraqis, sadly, didn't get to skip that part.
Apples to apples, my friend....

McClain writes:

>>>And your whole "What if America was invaded" routine conveniently skips over the part about "what if Americans were ground into submission for decades by an evil overlord?" The Iraqis, sadly, didn't get to skip that part."

Not really. The invasion I referenced was the War of 1812, where England actually invaded and occupied American cities. As a matter of fact, they took over Washington D.C. and burned the capitol building to the ground.
England, run by King George III for that time period happened to be the SAME folks who controlled the American colonies for more than decades in a manner that prompted a group of folks to form an INSURGENCY. Looking at some of King George's deeds, you see why the Revolution took place.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/rev-prel.htm
Former President Carter sees the similarities between the Iraq War and the American Revolution.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6281513/

--Cobra

Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

The insurgency has two purposes.

1. Give the Americans a hard time.
2. Get potentially destabilizing elements killed or other wise neutralized (hunted).

B's Freak,

The Italian government did not pay a ransom for Sgrena or at least there is no proof of it! Or at least that's what the US report and the Italian authorities said! And even if they it is understandable. How could Berlusconi keep on supporting Bush if Ms. Sgrena, a powerful left-wing journalist, would have died? Remember: Berlusconi and Tony Blair, sadly enough, are Bush's greatest and strongest allies.

"Cobra" (is that a reference to G.I. Joe's notorious toy enemy?)
There is, in fact, a large difference between fighting for the Declaration of Independence and fighting for Osama/Saddam. If you sit down and think about it long enough, I'm sure you'll be able to puzzle it out for yourself. Might help to lay off the crack pipe for a while.

Early reports from the field said that the insurgents seemed to get their tactics (like eschewing cover and firing wildly) from movies, so maybe their inchoate goals are likewise a product of Hollywood. Perhaps "Rebel Without A Cause," or "Network" ("I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore.")?

'Anyone who belongs to a culture that maligns our canine friends is surely some of these things.'

Bob Dob - I couldn't agree more. If you don't know man's best friend how can you be a best friend?

I would agree with those who find the aims of the Iraqi insurgents "non-strategic", but I have been troubled as well by the dearth of media reporting about exactly who the insurgents are. To say that they are isolated cells representing disparate disaffected groups, such as Baath party members, Sunni,the employed etc. certainly cannot be correct. While the aims of the insurgents seem unclear, the fact that suicide bombings occur on an almost daily basis argues for some form of organization and ability to plan on an almost nationwide scale. The generally "disaffected" do not have access to explosives, bomb technology or even the apparently simple (to us) bomb delivery system of an automobile. If the insurgency is random cells of unconnected groups, why are there not, say, five coincidental bombings on one day and then none for, say, three or four days? On the other hand, we have been hearing about at least one major attack (with some minor ones) every day for weeks on end. Surely this cannot be random and coincidental?
This suggests to me a rather unpleasant possibility: that, in fact, the insurgents may not be home-bred "rebels" but rather Iraqis (if they are indeed Iraqis)who are funded, organized and directed from outside Iraq. What practical purpose does it serve for Iraqis to continue to disrupt the process of rebuilding their country even after a domestic government has been formed? Well, none. However, jihadists, Al-Qaeda partisans (whoever they might be,but that's another issue)from outside Iraq would not ultimately have the welfare of the Iraqi people as their first priority. Senseless killings, in the mode of the 9-11 attacks, without warning, without a program, without responsibilty claimed or demands enunciated seems to be more in keeping with "new school" of international "terror". It is even difficult to apply the word "terrorist" to such attacks. Terror, to me, implies the creation of fear before the act itself. In the most recent wave of terror attacks worldwide (since 9-11)there is no fear beforehand because the attacks are so disparate, random and infrequent that no pattern can be discerned that can set fear for future attacks in motion. Their effects are only the purposeless murder of innocent persons without the slightest advancement (much less clear definition) of any cause.

McClain writes:

>>>"Cobra" (is that a reference to G.I. Joe's notorious toy enemy?)
There is, in fact, a large difference between fighting for the Declaration of Independence and fighting for Osama/Saddam. If you sit down and think about it long enough, I'm sure you'll be able to puzzle it out for yourself. Might help to lay off the crack pipe for a while."

First, ignorance of American history is no excuse for maligning fellow posters. Second, there is no one disputing the fact that in 2003, President Bush invaded a sovereign nation, deposed its elected leader, took control of the nation's natural resources and has plans to install 14 permanent millitary bases.

>>>A year ago, President Bush boldly said: "Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America." Yet Congress is posed to finalize the president's $82 billion request for the Iraq war that includes a half-billion dollars for permanent military bases and another half-billion for building the world's largest embassy. Despite the president's assurances, the United States is preparing for a lengthy stay in Iraq.

Open-ended deployment in Iraq is bad news for the brave soldiers fighting the war and their families at home. And adding permanent facilities will actually decrease their security as they present a powerful recruiting tool for insurgent groups.

As the U.S. presence has escalated, so too has insurgent recruitment.
In November 2003, there were an estimated 5,000 insurgents. Today there are an estimated 18,000 insurgents and Iraqi officials estimate up to 200,000 additional supporters. The overwhelming common element between the 43 insurgent groups is resentment about the U.S. military presence...
...Adding new and larger facilities will serve as a daily reminder that Iraq is under a foreign military occupation. The U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia was Osama bin Laden's chief recruiting tool there, and the same dynamic appears to be working for Iraq's insurgents."
...A January 2005 Zogby poll in Iraq found that 82 percent of Sunnis and 69 percent of Shiites favor U.S. withdrawal either immediately or after an elected government is in place. A clear majority of Iraqi voters interviewed in exit polls after the Jan. 30 elections cited their desire to see an end to the military occupation as a major impetus for voting. Building permanent bases directly violates the will of these Iraqis."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/224055_iraqbases.html

Now, unless you believe that somehow, American colonists, subject to King George III's occupation had some "inalienable rights" that the Iraqi people, subject to George W. Bush do not, what is your answer to the vast majority of the Iraqi people who want U.S. Troops out of their country?

--Cobra

Cobra, 1812 falls down on so many fronts it's not even funny:

1. Saddam had no internal legitimacy outside the Sunni Triangle. 80% of the population hated him and his oppressive regime and wants him and his followers dead. In contrast the Government and US forces had strong legitimacy, and the New England secessionists were viewed as traitors.

2. The US fought conventionally, and decisively defeated the British at New Orleans, Baltimore, and Lake Champlaine. There was no guerilla warfare.

3. The War of 1812 was over commercial and political rivalries within each country, not perceived existential threats after a provocative mass casualty inducing attack. Like it or not 9/11 changed American policy to one of deterring threats by pre-emptively removing them. No President could afford to wait for an attack and then respond AFTER the dead were counted. This is so massively different it's not even funny.

A more accurate analogy would be Pearl Harbor, a surprise and duplicitous attack when we were at peace that aroused a formerly isolationist and "end of history" nation into one determined to kill all the vipers in their nests no matter what.

Post 9/11 the status quo, an armed truce with American planes flying combat missions to "contain" Saddam and enforce a shaky embargo would not last. Saddam would either get with the program ala Musharref or the Saudis (mostly) and stop opposing us and provoking us (by having inspections and providing intelligence and not openly harboring terrorists) or he would be removed. Everyone in this country understood that and the rest of the world figured it was another Clinton 98-99 Desert Fox re-run.

Cobra's forgotten to mention that it was the US that declared war on England in 1812, not the other way around. (They were kidnapping our sailors and supplying Indians who attacked frontier settlements -- interesting parallels to Middle Eastern regimes sponsoring terrorism, that.)

To call Saddam Hussein the elected leader of a sovereign nation reveals an odd conception of democracy. A regime in which a bloodthirsty dictator wins "election" after election with 100% of the vote may have the form of democracy, but lacks the substance thereof.

Sovereigns derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. A sovereign that does not govern consensually is not a legitimate sovereign. Disregard of such a regime's sham sovereignty should not elicit howls of woe from true liberals who respect the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence.

If Jimmy Carter truly does see parallels between the American Revolution and the civilian-targeting Iraqi insurgents, he ought to be kicked.

Jim Rockford writes:

>>>1. Saddam had no internal legitimacy outside the Sunni Triangle. 80% of the population hated him and his oppressive regime and wants him and his followers dead. In contrast the Government and US forces had strong legitimacy, and the New England secessionists were viewed as traitors."

America in 1812 was a SLAVE nation, oppressing blacks and treating the Native America population with little reguard. Any slave, or Indian not complying with the rule of law as recognized by the white male land owners in charge were usually met with the business end of a musket, bayonnet or horsewhip. Not withstanding the fact that the American Revolution, only a generation earlier was a minority movement, with only a third of the adult population supporting it.
My question to the blog regarding the War of 1812 was the fact that it was the ONLY War where a FOREIGN power invaded this country and occupied it, thus the only example where a comparison to the Iraqi situation can be applied.

>>>2. 2. The US fought conventionally, and decisively defeated the British at New Orleans, Baltimore, and Lake Champlaine. There was no guerilla warfare."

The US used "privateers" (non-military ships and crews) to balance the huge disparity of Frigate warships.
"The Royal Navy paid particularly close attention to the Chesapeake Bay region. In early February 1813, four ships of the line, six frigates, and several other smaller warships dropped anchor in Hampton Roads. This force was commanded by Admiral Sir George Cockburn, who in late April ordered his captains to begin raiding, burning, and plundering towns and flour depots along the bay...
To thwart these raids, Captain Joshua Barney, who had served in the Continental Navy during the American Revolution and in the French Navy in the years thereafter, proposed the creation of a "Chesapeake Flotilla." This force would consist of shallow-draft gunboats and barges that would attack British ships in the shallow, near-shore waters of the Chesapeake. Acting as a maritime GUERILLA force, the flotilla would endeavor to stay beyond the range of the batteries on larger British warships. The Navy Department approved the plan, and Barney became commodore of the nascent flotilla, which eventually consisted of 18 gunboats and barges and 900 men."
http://www.exwar.org/Htm/8000PopB2.htm
The "decisive victory" at Baltimore happened only after...
"With U.S. defenders swept aside, the British advance to Washington continued. British forces entered Washington proper later in the day on 24 August. While they occupied the capital, Admiral Cockburn (who was traveling with the ground forces) and General Ross ordered British soldiers and a Royal Marine detachment to BURN the WHITE HOUSE, SENATE, and many other public buildings. After a brief but destructive stay in Washington, the invaders retraced their route back to their ships, re-embarking at Benedict on 30 August. The force then proceeded north to attack Baltimore. After a mid-September attack failed to capture that city, the British expeditionary force sailed back to the lower Chesapeake and resumed their raiding."
http://www.exwar.org/Htm/8000PopB2.htm

The most infamous of these "privateers", (more aptly pirates) was Jean Lafitte, whose guerilla tactics were crucial for victory in New Orleans.

>>>It was a solid plan in conception, but flawed in execution. The force on the west bank was delayed crossing the river and did not reach its goal until well after dawn. Deprived of their misty cover, the main British columns had no choice but to advance across the open fields toward the Americans, who waited expectantly behind their mud and cotton-bale barricades. To make matters worse, the British forgot their ladders and fascines, so they had no easy means to close with the protected Americans.

Never has a more polyglot army fought under the Stars and Stripes than did Jackson's force at the Battle of New Orleans. In addition to his regular U.S. Army units, Jackson counted on dandy New Orleans militia, a sizable contingent of black former Haitian slaves fighting as free men of color, Kentucky and Tennessee frontiersmen armed with deadly long rifles and a colorful band of outlaws led by Jean Lafitte, whose men Jackson had once disdained as "hellish banditti." This hodgepodge of 4,000 soldiers, crammed behind narrow fortifications, faced more than twice their number.

Pakenham's assault was doomed from the beginning. His men made perfect targets as they marched precisely across a quarter mile of open ground. Hardened veterans of the Peninsular Campaign in Spain fell by the score, including nearly 80 percent of a splendid Scottish Highlander unit that tried to march obliquely across the American front. Both of Pakenham's senior generals were shot early in the battle, and the commander himself suffered two wounds before a shell severed an artery in his leg, killing him in minutes. His successor wisely disobeyed Pakenham's dying instructions to continue the attack and pulled the British survivors off the field. More than 2,000 British had been killed or wounded and several hundred more were captured. The American loss was eight killed and 13 wounded."
http://www.danielhaston.com/history/war-1812/neworleans-battle.htm

Guerilla tactics are successful because they utillize the familiarity of terrain and built in support systems of the homeland fighters.
Tying this all into the Iraq situation, think about it. Here we have the most technically sophisticated and advanced millitary in history. It is an exercise in futillity to engage the US Millitary with tanks, ships, jets or open field infantry. The insurgents aren't beating the technology...they're working around it.

>>>. The War of 1812 was over commercial and political rivalries within each country, not perceived existential threats after a provocative mass casualty inducing attack. Like it or not 9/11 changed American policy to one of deterring threats by pre-emptively removing them. No President could afford to wait for an attack and then respond AFTER the dead were counted. This is so massively different it's not even funny."

As with many pro-Iraq war folks, the conflation of 9/11 with Iraq, (as opposed to Saudi Arabia, homeland of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers) is old, tired and so beyond disproven it doesn't even merit further discussion.

--Cobra

Dear Cobra,
"maligning fellow posters"
Sorry, didn't mean to malign ya, bud.
If the 1812 thing makes sense to you, well...that makes one of us.
Re: "conflation of 9/11 with Iraq"
Since 9/11, the middle east IS OUR problem.
Not someone else's problem.
Not something we can safely ignore.
Iraq is right smack in the middle of the middle east, right?
And Saddam was definitely not part of any solution.
Ergo: he was part of the problem.
As for the Saudis, well...yeah, good point.
Just like you - given your remark about the 15 out of 19 hijackers - I too wish we could've taken out Saudi Arabia first.
But proper strategy dictated a start in Afghanistan, followed by a move on Iraq, then Syria and Iran. Only after all those are in the bag can we successfully pull off a checkmate against Mecca and Medina.
Have patience, son: Rome wasn’t sacked in a day.

But realpolitik dictated a start in Afghanistan, followed by a move on Iraq, then Syria and Iran. Only after all those are in the bag can we successfully pull off a checkmate against Mecca and Medina.

Eh...getting sloppy with my editing.

Oh, by the way, you're right: the 4th verse of the national anthem IS very cool, but I especially like the 3rd...

'...their blood has wiped out their foul footsteps pollution
No refuge can save
the hireling and slave
from the terror of flight
or the gloom of the grave
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave.'

'Then conquer we must for our cause, it is just.'
is a great line too, though.
I've been known to sing all 4 verses in the shower.
Along with all 5 of 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic' - another excellent paean to the American martial spirit.

McClain writes:

>>>I too wish we could've taken out Saudi Arabia first.
But proper strategy dictated a start in Afghanistan, followed by a move on Iraq, then Syria and Iran. Only after all those are in the bag can we successfully pull off a checkmate against Mecca and Medina.
Have patience, son: Rome wasn’t sacked in a day."

Perhaps you misinterpret my point,here. You're suggesting an American Empire, sweeping through the Middle East in a war upon "Mecca and Medina". You're suggesting an endless unwinnable war, at an unpayable price, with a thinly-stretched military hard pressed to attain 60% of their current recruitment goals. As a matter of fact, this is the exact type of rationale that helps foster anti-American sentiment in the world.

--Cobra

"Oh well, whatever, nevermind...."

Cobra,

What exactly are you trying to say by pasting in a description of Pakenham's defeat at New Orleans?

Are you trying to point to that battle as an example of successful guerrilla warfare? If so, do you even know what guerrilla warfare is?

The Battle of New Orleans was a conventional battle between two armies, one of which screwed the pooch badly with the result that its commanding general went home pickled in a barrel.

Among many of my law school classmates who'd supposedly been educated in history, there was a widespread perception that the American revolutionary armies won by fighting as "guerrillas," defined by their shooting rifles from cover rather than using classic 18th-century linear musket tactics. Actually, that kind of fighting was only a small portion of the Revolution's battles, and in any case, shooting from behind a tree isn't "guerrilla warfare." It's just light infantry tactics, which the British, Tories, and German jagers used as well.

Guerrilla warfare depends on fighters' mingling with a civilian population, essentially hiding behind noncombatants and either (A) intending to gain a tactical advantage by their opponents' humane reluctance to get civilians killed of (B) actively trying to get civilians killed, so as to increase resentment of the conventional army. As Jane's pointed out, the Iraqi insurgents aren't even doing this -- they're cutting out the middleman and slaughtering Iraqi civilians themselves. How you could see any connection between that despicable and pointless tactic and the American colonists' successful combination of line and light infantry tactics is miles beyond me.

ProudDuck writes:

>>>As Jane's pointed out, the Iraqi insurgents aren't even doing this -- they're cutting out the middleman and slaughtering Iraqi civilians themselves. How you could see any connection between that despicable and pointless tactic and the American colonists' successful combination of line and light infantry tactics is miles beyond me."

It depends on what your objectives are. The objective of the Iraqi insurgency is to destabilize Iraq and prevent a successful US installed Democracy from existing there. The goal may be the same, but the insurgents vary in background, from fundamentalist jihadists, to foreign terrorists to disgruntled Baathists.
Not all of them are suicide bombers, either.

>>>Military officials say that insurgents seem to be getting only savvier. Improvised explosive devices, typically rigged on roads used by U.S. military convoys, are bigger and better placed than before. The fighters themselves are adapting changing tactics, becoming better organized and equipped. When marines launched Operation Matador last week near the Syrian border, they were surprised to find fighters in uniforms and body armor. As Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, remarked to Pentagon reporters last week, "This is a thinking and adapting adversary." -Ilana Ozernoy
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050523/23iraq.htm

What do our leaders say their strategy is for defeating the insurgency?

>>>The frequency of attacks is one measure of the strength of the insurgency in Iraq, and the success of the efforts of the U.S.-led coalition to combat it.
But Myers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disputed a suggestion that the figure demonstrates a lack of progress in Iraq. Rumsfeld said the focus of U.S. forces has been training Iraqi security forces rather than directing counterinsurgency operations.
"The United States and the coalition forces, in my personal view, will not be the thing that will defeat the insurgency," he said. "The people that are going to defeat that insurgency are going to be the Iraqis. And the Iraqis will do it not through military means solely, but by progress on the political side and giving the Iraqi people a sense that they have a stake in that country"
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_attacks_042705,00.html

>>>Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, was less upbeat. Asked on Tuesday whether America was winning the war, he said: "Winning or losing is not the issue in my view, in the traditional, conventional context of using the word 'winning' and 'losing' in a war. The people that are going to defeat that insurgency are going to be the Iraqis."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1471894,00.html

The insurgents don't have to openly engage Coalition forces to complete their objectives.

--Cobra

Comments are Closed.