From a Position of Strength
Published April 09, 2004
....Harris, who writes with considerable clarity and erudition, provides an antidote to the empty claims of some that if we change our behavior in any significant way, then ''the terrorists win''; or that if we become more aggressive toward terrorists by moving away from a law enforcement model toward warfare, we have abandoned any claim to legitimacy; or that we can successfully defeat Al Qaeda if only we have better intelligence.
....Our own people, to say nothing of the allies we must have in order to wage a successful war against terrorism, have to be persuaded that the violence we use will in fact result in a safer, more humane world.
....Confidence can be undermined when some Westerners — read ''Americans'' — are held in the contempt that invites aggression or excuses it by those who envy our success and feel powerless to dislodge us from our ever-growing heights of influence and willfulness, [NYTimes] concludes book reviewer Philip Bobbitt. In other words, we must confront the enemy with confidence and calm, honorable ruthlessness. Where mercy is viewed as weakness, we must first remove any possible thought of weakness before we can be merciful.
Our forces appear to have learned this lesson:
- In Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad and the scene of bloody fighting with Sunni insurgents this week - Marines called a halt to offensive operations at noon, while a delegation of city leaders met with Marine commanders, said Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne, commander of the 1st Battalion 5th Marine Regiment.
But 90 minutes later, Marines were given the go-ahead to resume operations, Byrne said. U.S. forces were heard firing into the city soon after. The reasons for the end of the suspension were not immediately clear, but it appeared negotiations never took place.
The heavy siege of the city, a bastion of anti-U.S. Sunni guerrillas, has angered even pro-U.S. Iraqi officials.
"These operations were a mass punishment for the people of Fallujah," Adnan Pachachi, a senior member of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, told Al-Arabiya TV. "It was not right to punish all the people of Fallujah and we consider these operations by the Americans unacceptable and illegal." [AP]
- Five days of heavy fighting using tanks, warplanes and helicopter gunships in residential areas of the city of 200,000 has killed more than 280 Iraqis and at least four Marines.
Insurgents, armed with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, have put up stiff resistance, but Marines have said they are winning the battle, holding at one point around a quarter of the city.
Scores of Fallujah residents tried to leave the city during the brief pause in fighting, said Byrne. Troops used loud speakers overnight to tell people that old men, women and children would be allowed to leave, but not "military-age men."
- From a Position of Strength
- Published: April 09, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Books: History, Books: Politics and Affairs
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
The invasion of Iraq is a continuation of the war of terror, the mere fact that we have found Iranians and Palestinians sneaking into Iraq to fight US forces and to try and prevent the creation of a democratic government is proof of that. The fact is, hard-line fanatics understand the impact that a democratic government will have in undermining their efforts everywhere else. Terrorists know that they have a short window to disrupt this process and, if they don't stop it, everything they do in the future will be less effective.
These folks are desperate and, now that their offensive is beginning to crumble, are taking hostages to try and bully the coalition partners into leaving the country. What does that say about these folks? Should we turn and run?
Not if you ever want to feel safe again in your life.
David
"...only violent men of honor can save us from the violent thugs who beset us."
"Men of honor" like mercenaries...er, I mean "contractors"?
Yes, absolutely, we should turn and run. Iraq is like one of those Internet start-ups multinationals ventured into during the late 90s. After a while, you realize you made a mistake, cut your losses, and get out.
The invasion of Iraq is a continuation of the war of terror, the mere fact that we have found Iranians and Palestinians sneaking into Iraq to fight US forces and to try and prevent the creation of a democratic government is proof of that.
That's so illogical that Karl Rove would be proud of you and I am frankly breathless.
To fight terrorists, American resources should have been used where the terrorists were, rather than in invading a country to set Americans up as more accessible targets.
And the neocons were warned by many that this ideological invasion, which had nothing to do with terrorists or terrorism, would act as a terrorist magnet. Worse, it is now creating more radical Islamists, faster even than Rumsfeld posited a while back.
It's time to stop blindly echoing ideology - stark reality is here and it looks far different than the picture painted last year by Cheney and Wolfowitz and Kristol and ...
Yes, absolutely, we should turn and run.
In military history, there is a general finding that more people die when retreating from battle than from the actual battle itself. While probably not true in every case, it is true on a general level.
If we cut and run from this fight, we are going to pay dearly later. If we show these terrorists that, as soon as they put enough pressure on us, we crumble, despite the fact that we are militarily superior in every way, then there'll be no place on earth that you can run and hide afterward.
If we run now, then we have given terrorism its greatest and clearest victory since 9/11. President Bush knows that, even if it means he won't be reelected in November, there is no running from this battle.
Thanks.
David
Turning and running would literally be suicidal and equal in infamy our failure to complete the first Gulf War, our failure to support the Kurdish uprising after the Gulf War and our failure to deal with Islamist terrorists prior to 9/11.
And David is right: this is EXACTLY the war on terror, and establishing a constitutional democracy in the middle of the Middle East is something that all of our terror foes fear and abhor. That is exactly why they are drawn to Iraq: to do all they can to thwart this effort. Even if you don't recognize that this is the same war, they do.
C'mon, guys. You can't still be working the Flypaper Theory, can you? Wasn't that the defense of the day like, two month's ago?
"Flypaper" isn't a philosophy for a course of action, just an explanation of what is happening on the ground and how to best take advantage of it.
That "flypaper" didn't do much good for commuters in Madrid, which last I checked is a couple thousand miles from Iraq.
I don't believe anyone has said that all of the terrorists have been drawn to Iraq, but some have.
One main reason we need to get out is that we can't afford it. The war is sapping the country financially. One more such great victory, as the saying goes, and we are ruined.
Mike,
Sorry, thats a lame excuse. When terrorists struck on 9/11, the cost to our economy was over 1 million lost jobs, tens of billions of dollars, and a plunge in the stock market, further enhancing the nation's losses.
That was ONE attack on our soil. If we run in Iraq, we'll see no end of such attacks in this country.
The money we are spending now in Iraq is a pittance.
David
I don't see any drop off in terrorist attacks to indicate that we're making inroads against terrorism. I guess we're supposed to believe that things would be worse if it weren't for Bush and his Iraq adventure.
Sorry, not buying it.
It is completely unrealistic to look at the increase or decrease of terrorism in the short run: this is a very long war that must be viewed as such. Would there have been "less terror" in the last year if we hadn't invaded Iraq? I don't know, but iraq was NEVER going to go away - it was only going to get worse.
When Iraq is a functional democratic nation, it will be a major victory for the war on terror.
I call this financially ruinous:
"But for the United States, Iraq was at best a pyrrhic victory. Invading and occupying Iraq has proven to be a financial disaster. The invasion cost $105 billion US in direct expenses - the price of five complete carrier battle groups, or one million low-cost apartments.
Occupying Iraq costs $9 billion monthly.
Pre-war neo-con plans to finance the occupation by plundering Iraq's oil have been frustrated by sabotage. Congress estimates the overall cost of "pacifying" and "rebuilding" Iraq for fiscal 2003 and 2004 at a staggering $200 billion.
This money will have to be borrowed by the empty treasury, which, thanks to Bush's reckless "war" spending, is running huge deficits heading toward $400 billion, risking an explosion of inflation that threatens to undermine the long-term bond market and further weaken the dollar."
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/03/26/397414.html
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/14581)
Troops may indeed have to "be ruthless" but that isn't going to show anyone that Western democracy is something that they, the poor benighted Middle Easterners, should aspire to.
I think what "the current struggle in Iraq proves" is that the neoconservatives didn't have a clue as to what they were getting into when they decided to invade Iraq instead of continuing the "war on terror."
Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice et al. need to be held accountable for this and other of their actions and inactions.
It's a totally incredible Bush adminstration screw-up, with massive consequences for the future. Even kicking Bush out of office isn't going to fix this one. Ever.