Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Interesting view about the current attack plan in Iraq.

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005

    Interesting view about the current attack plan in Iraq.

    Being the Target
    Jeff Huber | May 10, 2007
    During a recent Fox News interview, right-wing pundit Dick Morris made one of the most insane pro-Iraq war arguments I've heard to date. His statement was so chockfull o' nuts that we need to analyze it in two parts. First:

    I think that withdrawal from Iraq--it obviously gives al Qaeda a huge victory. Huge victory. On the other hand, if we stay in Iraq, it gives them the opportunity to kill more Americans, which they really like.

    Gee, Dick. Do you think that if their goal is to kill Americans, giving them a convenient opportunity to do so might in fact be handing them a huge victory? And would a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq not then defeat them by depriving them from their objective?

    Based on the second part of his statement, Morris apparently thinks his arguments make perfect sense.

    One of the things, though, that I think the antiwar crowd has not considered is that, if we're putting the Americans right within their arms' reach, they don't have to come to Wall Street to kill Americans. They don't have to knock down the trade center. They can do it around the corner, and convenience is a big factor when you're a terrorist.
    It's good strategy to make killing Americans convenient? They won't bother to come to America to kill Americans if they can kill the ones next door? I'd love to hear what Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would have to say about that kind of warfare philosophizing.

    Let's get something straight. The "fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here" and "they will follow us here" mantras are a hay wagon's worth of horse digestion. "They" can't follow us here in significant numbers. They can't hide themselves in our troops' luggage. They don't have a navy or air force that can haul them across the ocean, and it's too far for them to swim or jump. They might manage to dribble across our borders in small numbers the way the 9/11 hijackers did, but nothing we're doing in Iraq is keeping that from happening. That sort of thing is a Homeland Security problem, not a military one.

    By staying in Iraq, we're playing into "their" game plan, and it's neoconservative echo chamberlains like Mr. Morris who help ensure that we continue to do so.

    Bush supporters laud the administration's policies and strategies because they keep us on the "offense." But they don't understand--or don't want the public to understand--that "offense" is not the prime principle of successful warfare operations. A far more vital tenet of war is "initiative." The side that maintains the initiative dictates the time, place and nature of engagement on terms favorable to itself regardless of whether that engagement can be characterized as "offensive" or "defensive." Initiative is the principle that makes for all successful asymmetric warfare. The weaker force only engages the stronger one under circumstances in which the weaker force can inflict damage while suffering very little itself.

    Put another way, the weaker force manipulates the stronger force into becoming relatively static targets. And I'm afraid that's what we're continuing to do in Iraq. From Ann Scott Tyson of the Washington Post:

    Nearly three months after the U.S. military launched a new strategy to safeguard Baghdad's population by pushing American and Iraqi forces deeper into the city's neighborhoods, defending their small outposts is increasingly requiring heavy bulwarks reminiscent of the fortresslike bases that the U.S. troops left behind.

    To guard against bombs, mortar fire and other threats, U.S. commanders are adding fortifications to the outposts, setting them farther back from traffic and arming them with antitank weapons capable of stopping suicide bombers driving armored vehicles. U.S. troops maintain the advantage of living in the neighborhoods they are asked to protect, but the need to safeguard themselves from attack means more walls between them and civilians.

    There's the rub. If living in the neighborhoods is so dangerous as to make living behind walls within the neighborhoods necessary, are the troops actually accomplishing a mission, or are they simply putting themselves in harm's way so they can protect themselves? If they're living behind walls, they're not out in the neighborhoods winning hearts and minds, and if they're living behind walls to protect themselves, they're not really protecting the neighborhoods.

    If they're not winning hearts or protecting the neighborhoods, by placing themselves in the neighborhoods they are accomplishing little more than putting themselves within "arms reach" of the bad guys.

    The Post's Tyson reports that morale among the soldiers at the outposts is mixed. Some (mostly junior officers, according to Tyson) said they accepted the risks to live closer to the Iraqi people. Others complained of a complete lack of purpose. One senior NCO said, "What do you want us to accomplish over here? We aren't hearing any end state. We aren't hearing it from the president, from the defense secretary. We're working hard and the politicians are arguing. They don't have bullets flying over their heads. They aren't on the front lines, and their buddies aren't dying."

    "It's almost like the Vietnam War," a specialist said. "We don't know where we're going. I want to be here for a reason, not just a show of force."

    If you haven't caught on to this yet, "show of force" is a military euphemism for "mill about smartly and make a target of yourself," and there's no victory to be gained by painting a bull's eye on your back and ducking behind a cement wall, which now seems to be the crux of our "surge" strategy.,15202,135382,00.html

  2. #2
    How long will it take to establish an oil policy?( Free market or nationalized) How long will it take to make sure oil production is secure? How much longer will we be patient with the Iraqis to take control and provide for their own protection?

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726
    right-wing pundit Dick Morris made one of the most insane pro-Iraq war arguments I've heard to date. His statement was so chockfull o' nuts that we need to analyze it in two parts.
    If it's so insane, so nutty - why the need to analyze it? Hell, after that intro, I don't even want to read it.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Here is info about the person who wrote it. I guess you will consider him to be unpatriotic as well.

    About Jeff Huber

    Freelance writer Jeff Huber was operations officer of a naval air wing and an aircraft carrier, and he commanded an E-2C Hawkeye aircraft squadron. His analyses of military and foreign policy affairs have appeared in Proceedings, The Navy, Jane's Fighting Ships, and other print periodicals. Some of his essays have been required student reading at the U.S. Naval War College, where he received a master's degree in national security studies in 1995. Jeff is a contributing editor with ePluribus Media. His home website is Pen and Sword.

    Quote Originally Posted by sackdance
    If it's so insane, so nutty - why the need to analyze it? Hell, after that intro, I don't even want to read it.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Follow Us