Tactics Of The Crescent Moon

[Al Kufr]

By William S. Lind

U.S. forces have taken Falluja. Were we fighting a war in the Spanish Netherlands in the 17th century, and were Falluja the fortress city of Breda, the victory might mean something. Caught up as we actually are in a Fourth Generation war in Iraq, the event is almost meaningless. Most of the guerillas fled before we attacked, as guerillas are supposed to do (“When the enemy attacks, we retreat.”) U.S. forces are finding few dead resistance fighters; the 1,200 to 1,600 “body count” the American command is claiming will prove as phony as those in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the resistance is hitting us elsewhere. When U.S. forces leave Falluja, they will return there too. And the U.S. military has again destroyed the village in order to save it, giving its enemies a victory at the moral level. Will we ever learn?

READ THE REST.....

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_11_16_04.htm

[AisA]

I read the entire thing. I couldn't disagree more. Consider these statements:

As in his other books, Poole stresses small-unit tactics and techniques. Seeing clearly the moral disadvantages that massive use of American firepower brings, he notes how good small units – true light infantry, which America sadly lacks – can win without the vast collateral damage and civilian casualties that work against us.

Wrong. It was vast collateral damage and civilian casualties that eventually convinced Japan and Germany to surrender.

Consider this statement:

In the 21st century – as it was at the end of World War II – food, water, clinics and jobs will do infinitely more to secure the ultimate victory than bombs.

This is appeasement dressed up to look like some brilliant new military strategy.

This writer's premise is that support for Islamic terrorists in Iraq is rooted in the resentment created by American power. The truth is that support for Islamic terrorists in Iraq -- what little of it exists -- is primarily driven by fear of those terrorists. To counter that, we need to make them fear us more than the terrorists. What we need is greater firepower and destruction, not less.

[Oakes]

Lind also says that the 1200-1600 enemy body count will "prove as phony as those in Vietnam." He offers no evidence for this, but unwittingly shows us just how much he relies on his theory that Iraq is just another Vietnam.

But this again brings me back to my criticism of Lind's ideas in general. Even if Lind is right to say that civilian casualties work against us, this is essentially saying that we should pander to the moral code of the world and sculpt our foreign policy with their reactions in consideration. This is the pragmatist's way out; long-term victory can only be achieved by sticking to your principles through thick and thin.

And it should be clear why Lind takes this way out. At the bottom of that article, he is identified as the Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation: "Will America return to the culture that made it great, our traditional, Judeo-Christian, Western culture?" (http://www.freecongress.org/about/index.asp) His moral code is the moral code of the world.

[Inspector]

Oakes and AisA,

Glad to see that others are discovering just what this Lind is made of. I agree fully that he is a compromising pragmatist whose ideas will only make things worse.

Not that they are entirely without merit, but he attaches way too much importance to them.

[gadfly]

My idea of better tactics would be the U.S. keeping its trap shut about where it's going to attack next. Hello!?! They should have just loaded the insurgents on buses and shipped them out to their next ambush...

If the interim government really can negotiate to get fighters to give up arms, then by all means, do it. But at this point, I think we are down to the hard-core fighters and that's not an option, and we are simply being duped into paying money for out-of-date weapons and into giving the insurgents more time to regroup. We're being played. Enough negotiation.

On the issue of collateral physical damage, there is no question that not wrecking infrastucture is a good idea; people left without homes and/or electricity (not to mention family members) are not going to be happy, and aren't going to be inclined to be our ally. That's why we're using more guided weapons instead of carpet bombing entire cities.

[Toolboxnj]

On the issue of collateral physical damage, there is no question that not wrecking infrastucture is a good idea; people left without homes and/or electricity (not to mention family members) are not going to be happy, and aren't going to be inclined to be our ally. That's why we're using more guided weapons instead of carpet bombing entire cities.

Actually, I just came back from Dr. Brook's lecture The Morality of War and he thinks just the opposite. He said the pivotal point in the Civil War was Sherman's destruction of the South's infrastructure which destroyed the soldiers' morale. He didn't kill many civilians, but instead razed the farms, trains and anything that could support the war effort. I totally agree with him on this point. Also, the US has no obligation to "repair" Iraq. Actually, we can incite a civil war and let the damn terrorists kill themselves.

[gadfly]

Actually, I just came back from Dr. Brook's lecture The Morality of War and he thinks just the opposite.  He said the pivotal point in the Civil War was Sherman's destruction of the South's infrastructure which destroyed the soldiers' morale.  He didn't kill many civilians, but instead razed the farms, trains and anything that could support the war effort.  I totally agree with him on this point.  Also, the US has no obligation to "repair" Iraq.  Actually, we can incite a civil war and let the damn terrorists kill themselves.

I don't think sacrificing the housing/earthly posessions/infrastructure etc. of the non-insurgent populace, then leaving them to fend for themselves against all the competing groups, is a moral or practical approach. Destroying insurgent infrastructure, and that of those who assist them, is. If we leave that country in a mess, I guarantee there will be hell to pay. I can't think of a better breeding ground for thousands upon thousands of enemies. Yikes. The only reason we are there in the first place is to do precisely the opposite: eliminate it as a terrorist ally and haven.

Besides, from what I have read, many insurgents are jihadists from other countries who have no vested interest in Iraq, other than as part of their bizarre Muslim world order. Destroying Iraqi homes would mean nothing to them. They simply need to be found and killed/captured, along with anyone who helps them.

The stated plan is basically for Iraqi oil to pay for repairs in Iraq.

[Al Kufr]

Lind also says that the 1200-1600 enemy body count will "prove as phony as those in Vietnam." He offers no evidence for this,

Actually I think he writes about that subject in one of his books, dont know why he didnt explain that. I guess he thiks his regular readers allready know that, i did.