Posted on 02/02/2007 11:34:22 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
[Essay by Edward Luttwak is available in the printed edition of Harper's, but not yet in an online version. But I read the essay yesterday and thought it presented interesting argument and assertion, namely, that the U.S. must "out-terrorize" the terrorists in order to defeat the Iraqi insurgency. Portions of the essay are typed below for perusal and comment]:
**** "Dead End: Counterinsurgency warfare as military malpractice"
Luttwak reviews a new US "counterinsurgency" manual being prepared by two US generals, James N. Nattis of the Marines and David H. Petraeus of the Army. The manual is titled "FM 3-24DRAFT".
Luttwak asserts that the Iraqis will never believe that foreigners are unselfishly expending blood and treasure in order to help them. He also states that "faced with superior firepower, insurgents strive to be elusive and to disappear into the civilian population". He also asserts that "the essentially political advantage of the insurgents cannot be overcome by merely technical means".
He also gives two historical examples of how insurgencies were suppressed:
"...the Romans knew how to combine sticks and carrots to obtain obedience and suppress insurgencies. Conquered peoples too proud to accept the benefits of their rule, from public baths and free circus shows to reliable courts, were 'de-bellicized' (a very Roman idea). It was done by killing all who dared to resist in arms--it made good combat practice for the legions--by selling into slavery any who were captured in battle, by leveling towns that held out under siege instead of promptly surrendering, and by readily accepting as peaceful subjects and future citizens all who submitted to Roman rule....A few tribes and nations had to be reconquered after trying and failing to overthrow Roman rule. A few simply refused to become obedient, and so they were killed off. 'They make a wasteland and call it peace', was the bitter complaint of a Scottish chieftain (as reported by Tacitus)."
"Terrible reprisals to deter any form of resistance were standard operating procedures for the German armed forces of the Second World War, and very effective they were in containing resistance with very few troops. As against all the dramatic films and books that describe the heroic achievements of the resistance all over occupied Europe, military historians have documented the tranquillity that the German occupiers mostly enjoyed, and the normality of collaboration, not merely by notorious traitors such as the incautious French poet or the failed Norwegian politician but by vast numbers of ordinary people. Polish railwaymen, for example, secured the entire sustenance of the German eastern front. As for the daring resistance attacks that feature in films, they did happen occasionally, but not often, and not because of any lack of bravery in fighting the routinely formidable Germans but because of the terrible punishments they inflicted on the population."
"Occupiers can thus be successful without need of any specialized counterinsurgency methods or tactics if they are willing to out-terrorize the insurgents, so that the fear of reprisals outweighs the desire to help the insurgents or their threats..."
"Likewise in the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were skilled in using terror to secure their pervasive territorial control and very ready to use any amount of violence against civilians, from countless individual assassinations to mass executions, as in Hue in 1968. The Communist cause had its enthusiasts, 'fellow travelers', and opportunistic followers, but Vietnamese who were none of the above, and not outright enemies, were compelled to collaborate actively or passively by the threat of the violence so liberally used. That is exactly what the insurgents in Iraq are now doing, and this is no coincidence. All insurgencies follow the same pattern. Locals who are not sympathetic to begin with, who cannot be recruited to the cause, are compelled to collaborate by the fear of violence, readily reinforced by demonstrative killing of those who insist on refusing to help the resistance. Neutrality is not an option."
"By contrast, the capacity of American armed forces to inflict collective punishments does not extend much beyond curfews and other such restrictions, inconvenient to be sure and perhaps sufficient to impose real hardship, but obviously insufficient to out-terrorize insurgents. Needless to say, this is not a political limitation that Americans would never want their armed forces to overcome, but it does leave the insurgents in control of the population, the real 'terrain' of any insurgency....During and after the Second World War, after very detailed preparations, the U.S. Army and Navy governed the American zone in Germany, all of Japan and parts of Italy. Initially, U.S. officers were themselves the administrators, with such assistance from local officials they chose to re-employ. Since then, however, the United States has preferred both in Vietnam long ago and now in Iraq to leave government to the locals."
"That decision reflects another kind of politics, manifest in the ambivalence of a United States government that is willing to fight wars, that is willing to start wars because of future threats, that is willing to conquer terroritory or even entire countries, and yet is unwilling to govern what it conquers, even for a few years. Consequently, for all the real talent manifest in writing FM 3-24DRAFT, its precriptions are in the end of little or no use and amount to a kind of malpractice. All its best methods, all its clever tactics, all the treasure and blood that the United States has been willing to expend, cannot overcome the crippling ambivalence of occupiers who refuse to govern, and their principled and inevitable refusal to out-terrorize the insurgents, the necessary and sufficient condition of a tranquil occupation."
To anyone who's been in, yuo just gotta love them FM's and TM's. They lterally tell you how to do handle everything.
Ya know, I've been advocating the Roman method from day 1. Anything else was stupid and an unnecessary risk to our troops.
Unfortunately, we're governed by stupid people and out-right traitors. These folks insist that the best military in the world has to fight stupidly.
Did you finish the history book to see how the 'Roman method' of turning from a republic to an empire worked out in the end?
Terrible reprisals to deter any form of resistance were standard operating procedures for the German armed forces of the Second World War, and very effective they were in containing resistance with very few troops.
This is patently false. The Germans did engage in harsh reprisals, and were forced to maintain large garrisons across their conquered lands. Read about the Sutjeska offensive for just one example. Not everyone rolled over like the frogs.
The American people have been brainwashed since birth. Public schools and the MSM have made sure that our democratic government can never wage total war again. Now the insurgent/terror strategy is proven to defeat Western powers. Vietnam, Algeria, etc were not anomalies. Without a fundamental chang ein our culture the US and the West will win no more wars.
bttt
We are dealing here with brainwashed people who are happy to die and who mingle in a larger population.
The Romans were dealing with towns and tribes who collectively refused to cooperate.
The Nazis were dealing wioth decent human beings who cared about their families and communities and did not want to risk reprisals against their loved ones and friends.
The US Army is not dealing with discrete population targets like towns or tribes, but a number of mobile individuals scattered across a hundred towns.
The US Army is not dealing with Polish railwaymen. It is dealing with Arabic maniacs.
Any discussion regarding the "Roman method" of turning from a republic to an empire.....
Must consider how long they lasted.
Worked out in the end??? Well, Pax Romana was pretty good, and only bad for those deviants that didn't believe in multiple gods.
Good thing we don't deify our leaders....oops, appologies to Liberals....at least not the effective ones.
Consider the Roman Empire/Republic & combine it's effectiveness (which we've, as a society, incorporated into our administrative & governmental structures) with the freedoms that have a direct, lineal derivation of Christianity (specifically from Anabaptist conventions) of freedom of speach/religion & right to self-protection..... what would be so bad?
When the British were running the Arabian lands (I don;t recall which one(s) in particular, they were harsh as well. When they caught a man, they'd hang him and all the immediate male members of his family.
Yup. They had a empire that lasted for thousands of years.
Like your response as to why the Roman methods might not work.
I still think that we can destroy villages that provide troops and kill the families of jihadis. We should also hunt down their money people, and recruiters, then wipe them out, along with their familes.
We also need to go after Syria and Iran - allowing the enemy refuge there means we can never win. I think parts of Pakistan should probably be on the list, too.
Once of the worst moments of this war was when we had Osama's women and children and their bodyguards in our sights. And the Pentagon lawyers said "Don't shoot." That was stupid beyond belief.
If you engage in war, victory is your only concern. Whatever is necessary, whatever it takes, you do it. Rules of Engagement belie a lack of committment to victory.
Absolutely, and these PC warriors who demand safe, compassionate wars are going to be our downfall.
In the words of Gen. Sherman (the sob) "Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.