Yesterday, George W. Bush said that we could not pull out of Iraq because it "would send a terrible signal to the enemy." This begs the question — 'who is the enemy?'
In Iraq, the enemy is elusive. For the past two years, the U.S. military has chased so-called insurgents through the vast deserts of western Iraq and up and down the Euphrates River valley. But to little avail. According to military leaders, we still know very little about the "enemy"-- Who are they? Where are they? What will they do next?
"Sunni Muslim insurgents — some angry about the downfall of Saddam Hussein, others fighting for a Sunni theocracy — have joined with Muslim extremists coming across a porous desert border looking for the glory of international jihad. The guerrilla fighters often leave a rearguard to fight advancing U.S. forces, while moving the majority of their men to other towns where the Marines have no presence and the police forces have disbanded." Detroit Free Press, August 8, 2005
So when the President says that he doesn't want to send a bad message to the "enemy," whom is he referring to?
Yeah, I've heard that the enemy is a "terrorist." But can you please tell me what a terrorist looks like in Iraq? Yeah, I've also heard that the enemy is an "insurgent"? But could you please tell me what an insurgent looks like?
The truth is, our enemy has no head, takes no definitive shape, and does not manifest any locus of power. In essence, the enemy is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The enemy in Iraq is, for all intents and purposes, unknowable.
"We cannot recognize the enemy because he dresses like a civilian and he drives in a civilian car. He looks like everyone else." Detroit Free Press, August 8, 2005
Can the President tell us how this non-existent enemy will be found or how it will be defeated? Does he think we will simply wear out this elusive enemy on its home turf?
In Sun Tzu's The Art of War, the oldest military treatise in the world, the great Chinese warrior stated:
"When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength." Art of War, at II:2.
But more importantly, Sun Tzu stated:
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." Art of War, at III:18. (Emphasis Added.)
Unfortunately, our President does not know his enemy. Yet, like a child, he is stubbornly trying to outlast and defeat the unknowable ghost in the closet. And similar to Vietnam, without ever losing a battle, for every victory gained, we are bound to suffer a defeat. Moreover, unlike Bush, our elusive "enemy" does follow the Art of War game plan.
"You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked." Art of War, at VI:7.
Is this not the definition of guerrilla warfare?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Ah, the defeatism. Does it taste sweet? Hey, did you see there's a new Disney film coming about Chicken Little? Bet that will be some fun stuff to watch.
Dave
2 - alienboy
Dave, I know you don't agree with this guy but it's too easy, too bait'n'switch, to mock him for being defeatist when that isn't really what he is saying.
It seems fair comment to me that Bush's strategy is to try and outlast the enemy there, seemingly in the belief that there is a limited supply of them that can actually be defeated in the normal sense of the word.
I don't think that is an achievable strategy as it is based on such a flawed premise. Alas, only time and many more deaths, on both sides, will prove whose analysis is correct.
Just because you disagree with these views is no reason to be so dismissive towards people who think differently. You should have a little respect for people who feel things just as deeply as you do, just different things, and not deliberately distort what they are saying. We have politicians for that and we should aim for higher standards here! :-)
3 - ss
Dave Dave Dave
Is al-Sistani the main power broker in Iraq, and is he still pushing for a constitution based on Islamic law?
Why ask so many people to die to spread democracy in a place where that democracy stifles freedom?
4 - Dude
Dave,
Did YOU hear, there's a new book out called "the Emperor wears no clothes"
Check it out, I think you'll like it
5 - Aaman
Good post in general, no opinion on the conclusion - I wonder if Sun Tzu and Guderian and von Claueswitz are still required reading for generals and leaders
6 - 1Potato
First of all, not that many have died. By standards of a major war that is. A country of 280 million invades a country of 25 million, defeats its military and then stays 2 more years fighting a guerilla war. All that and under 2,000 soldiers die. The left said tens of thousans of US soldiers would die in the initial invasion alone.
Put aside the left wing indoctination force fed you at your university for a moment (and don't say you went to a conservative school unless you went to Oral Roberts University). Do we sit around like Clinton and shrug while the attacks get worse every year? Or do we do we fight as best we can?
Cops don't know who all "criminals" are, but that doesn't mean they should give up. They have a rough idea who the general criminal element is and they and they take action on that basis and on evidence as it comes up. Maybe the war is more like the war on the mafia or innercity crime, where not eveyone has a uniform on. But that doesn't mean we should give up.
Other than to cut and run, what is your solution?
7 - NC
Good call, Bulldog. When faced with guerrilla tactics, we should fold up our tents and go home. In fact, I'd take it a step further: whenever we're weighing our options about whether to go to war, we should phone ahead and ask them. "Listen, uh ... you guys aren't going to wage guerrilla war if we come over there, are you? You are? Aw, fuck that." If only we had sophisticated strategists like yourself at the top, instead of "neophytes" like Bush.
8 - billy
"When faced with guerrilla tactics, we should fold up our tents and go home."
no actually we should spend 1/2 trillion dollars, stay there for years, let countless americans die, then fold up our tents and go home.
that appears to be the republican plan, no different than this poster except the extra death and cost to the US.
bush simply has no plan to win a guerilla war because we are in their backyard. they have time and nowhere to go. we have limited time and no plan.
thanks bush.
9 - ss
Why are we there again?
The reason we finally settled on is, what, democracy?
Not because the right (mistakenly) believed Hussien was somehow connected to global terror?
Who cares why, really.
If you just like a good war, why does it need to have a point or purpose.
10 - 1Potato
Billy, that is not defeatist? You basically say we are definately going to lose the war to the insurgents? Why? Because Iraqi's are idiots and can't handle democracy?
Or because you want us to lose for political reasons?
11 - billy
"You basically say we are definately going to lose the war to the insurgents? Why? Because Iraqi's are idiots and can't handle democracy?"
that is the most hairbrained string of questions i have ever seen in my life.
No, Sun-Tzu said we will lose 6000 years ago, if only Rumsfeld and you had read the book, maybe thousands of americans wouldnt have died and you wouldnt be asking hair-brained questions.
our soldiers continue to die. bush has no plan. and our enemies have obviously read this book.
democracy has nothing to do with it, never has, you are a fool who buys bush's crap hook line and sinker. wake up. guerilla wars in the enemies backyard never can be won and never have been won.
name one that has ever been won in history?
12 - billy
"Do we sit around like Clinton and shrug while the attacks get worse every year?"
Thats just plain dumb, clinton shot a cruise missile at osama while you cried no blood for monica, clinton foiled the milennium bombing.
bush bungled the worst attack in american history then attacked a country that had nothing to do with it, where we are stuck today, and osama is still at large.
why dont you think through these things before you spout off nonsense?
13 - 1Potato
How about Afghanistan?
14 - Temple Stark
Politics Editor Lisa Iannucci picked this for an Editor's Pick of the Week. Go find out why HERE and grab a button.
Thank you.
15 - Dave Nalle
>>Thats just plain dumb, clinton shot a cruise missile at osama while you cried no blood for monica,<<
And what actual use was that cruise missile?
>> clinton foiled the milennium bombing.<<
And he did this, how, excactly?
why dont you think through these things before you spout off nonsense?
Dave
16 - Dave Nalle
>>Thats just plain dumb, clinton shot a cruise missile at osama while you cried no blood for monica,<<
And what actual use was that cruise missile?
>> clinton foiled the milennium bombing.<<
And he did this, how, excactly?
why dont you think through these things before you spout off nonsense?
Dave
17 - zingzing
people seem to spout off that "less than 3000 americans have died" shit pretty easy. less than that died on 9/11 and yet it was a national tragedy. iraq is america's tragedy.
and then there's the tens of thousands of iraqis who have died. some of you (mmmhmm) might say "so what? the want to kill us!" whatever. lots of them are innocent and no one deserves to die.
if some of you were in a room with me, we might want to kill each other. doesn't mean you deserve to die.
18 - Crocodilian
"Oh, the folly and arrogance of George W. Bush. He speaks like a child and wages war like a neophyte. How will we know when the last enemy is gone, when he can't be sure where the first enemy is hiding?"
This is extremely well said.
The sad truth of this "war president" is that he is a pathetically bad strategist. America has had great strategic minds, but this blunderer has walked into every trap that can be set. He is an absolute zero of reason, and somewhere Generals Marshall and Eisenhower are weeping at who leads their country now.
Asked another way-- if you were in Osama bin Laden's shoes, could you have imagined that a terrorist attack, undertaken by 19 men armed with knives, could have caused a great nation to blunder so disastrously?
We have given him --our enemy-- more than he could have ever done for himself.
19 - jonathan
great article, well said
20 - bliffle
Everybody KNOWS that the enemy are the Sunnis, because they backed Saddam. So we allied with the Shiia, our old friends, and because they are the majority.
But Wait! the Shiia are backed by the Iranians, part of that "Axis of Evil"!
So the Shiia are our enemies! The Sunni are our good friends.
But Wait! OBL is a Sunni! We can't be on the same side as OBL!
So the Sunni are our enemies.
But wait! The saudis are Sunni and we need them for oil.
So the Shiia are our enemies.
When we send soldiers to Iraq, who do we tell them to shoot at?
OK OK OK. Maybe we don't know who our enemies are, but we certainly know that the Kurds are our FRIENDS, don't we? Their province is peaceful and they like Americans. So that's easy.
But wait! Our old allies the Turks hate the Kurds and fear their independence.
So the Kurds must be our enemies, too!
Who oh who is our friend?
21 - Eddie
Your article is interesting but certainly biased. Your basic premise is wrong. It is not factual that we do not know the enemy is. That is your opinion and it is misleading to state it as a fact. We know who the enemy in Iraq is. Simply because you can not easily identify them as compared to other past conventional wars does not mean we do not know who they are. Nor does it mean that our president is somehow doing his job improperly. There are many people who do not want to know the enemy. However, I believe that you truly do know and I feel your obvious talent would be better spent on describing them to the general public as opposed to your current tact.
22 - Tom
You original post was sometime ago. 4000 US Troops Killed as of yesterday. Currently we are fighting a Shia army paid by Iran. We are now paying the Sunni fighters that were fighting us to help us. We're calling it a success and must keep it going. So we have Shia fighting Sunni and Tribes against Tribes but it isn't a Civil War because if we left a Civil War wold break out??????
23 - Dave Nalle
It's not a civil war if it's Iraqi Sunnis fighting Iranian Shia. That's called repelling an invasion.
Dave
24 - STM
Big problem though, Dave ...
Iraqi shia have a habit of siding with their Iranian brethren, seeing them as the lesser of two evils compared to the Iraqi sunni, who have had a habit going back centuries of treating their shia countrymen with contempt.
25 - Dave Nalle
Well sure, Stan. Plus Iran is funneling money, arms and even fighting men into southern Iraq to back up the Mahdi army. Who, BTW, seem to have provoked a final showdown today which may end with their elimination in the next few days.
Dave