Iraq War changes: maybe it’s a Civil War in more ways than one (see 1864)
Recommended reading on a Sunday: this article by Barry Casselman, comparing Bush and his new proposals for the Iraq war to the situation Lincoln faced in the spring before the 1864 election.
Bush, Lincoln–huh? you say.
Well, read it. Casselman is clear that Bush lacks Lincoln’s eloquence, and even much more basic communication skills; those are certainly not the similarities he’s suggesting between the two. But he points out that, even as late as 1864, many in the North considered the Civil War a lost cause, and the antiwar movement was strong and included violent draft riots.
The opposition candidate in the election, McClellan, was a “peace now” advocate. And the peaceniks of the time had a lot more to complain about than today’s in terms of bloodshed; the casualties in the Civil War (all of them, of course, were US casualties, like it or not–and the Southerners didn’t like it) were far greater than today, both in actual terms and compared to the smaller population of the time. Follow the link if you’re not familiar with the figures; they are shocking.
Lincoln changed course with a new Supreme Commander in the West, General Sherman, who was promoted to that post in the spring of 1864 and began the relentless campaign that resulted in Union victory. Sherman was:
…ordered by Grant to “create havoc and destruction of all resources that would be beneficial to the enemy.”
A year later the South had surrendered, roundly beaten in one of the first total wars.
We look at history from the viewpoint of–well, of history. We have the advantage of the passage of many years and the knowledge of where events were leading. But if a history of the Civil War and evaluations of Lincoln had been written in early 1864, they would look awfully different.
A good recent example of the perspective that comes with time are the lovefests that attended the deaths of Presidents Reagan and Ford, with appreciations galore of administrations that had been excoriated by many in their own time (and are excoriated by many still, to be sure, especially Reagan’s).
Whether or not Bush’s new Iraq campaign will be successful remains to be seen, of course. Whether or not General Petraeus will be the turn-around general that Sherman was also remains to be seen (he certainly is no advocate of total war, however).
Whether Congress will allow us to find out remains to be seen, as well.
Link
News from Iraq is that the enemies are moving out of Baghdad because they don’t want to get caught in a jam and crushed by the US military.
The military knows that they are doing so, namely because they already have hard data on the structure of our enemies in Baghdad, if only because political orders had been given not to attack certain people and factions.
Both the Sunni and Shia are giving orders not to engage American forces, to wait for them to leave so that they can resume the fight against the other. Sadr and Al qaeda benefit through war, and the civilians who want security get shafted.
This was why they used car bombs in the first place to get the US media to portray this “sectarian violence” thing. It was a way to demoralize the US and get us to leave. Fighting against the US is a losing proposition, namely because we don’t pay ransom nor can you loot our supplies nor can you really bribe one of our guys to sell you munitions. But as mentioned here, money is as much an aspect of Iraq as war is.
Link
The idea is really to put overwhelming and crushing pressure on our enemies. Fallujah 2 is a good model. But the problem is if you let terrorists evacuate, then they are going to start problems elsewhere, like they did in Mosul after Fallujah.
The military should be prepared for this already, because they’ve seen it before. This is just speculation of course, but if they do allow enemies to move to other provinces, then perhaps the military is tracking these people as they move. And when they believe that they are “hiding” and “undercover”, we will strike.
I don’t want to contribute too much deception to Bush, but there at least is some possibility of it, if not under Bush then under Petraeus. Because how I would like things to be seen, is if you tell the terrorists that you are going to attack Baghdad and they believe you, thus moving out of Baghdad to other provinces. However, you already calculated for this and are already moving ahead by using the added reinforcements to raid terrorist safehavens outside of Iraq. This is the kind of step, counter-step, that if you become good at, it will annihilate the enemy.
Predicting the enemy’s moves ahead of time, is very useful. Because you don’t have to react. You don’t have to wait around for the “news” to do a “scoop” on the “new wave of violence”. You are already there, with counter-propaganda, press releases, and troop mobilizations.
But this is a top leadership responsibility, the junior officers and the company level officers in Baghdad do not decide the overall strategy steps used.
I don’t attribute much deception capabilities to Bush, because a deceptive person would use the fog of war against our enemies in Iraq. Basical
Basically telling them in a speech that we are going for Baghdad, when we really aren’t. This is the kind of dance of death that is required to outsmart our enemies, not just get a bigger hammer to crush them.
And besides, if Bush really and honestly micromanages the ROE such that most of the limitations on our soldiers are removed, then it doesn’t matter what strategy he has because the small unit commanders on the ground will have the freedom to adapt to any new changes seen.
If Bush does what he has always done before, which is to sit back and let other people do it for him, then it is going to go slow. Maybe slow and bad, if not slow and good. It is rather ironic. For Bush to get the benefit of the military’s flexibility, Bush has to step in and tell the military to do it his way and not the lawyer’s way. Usually micromanagement from the top means less flexibility at the small unit level, but for Bush, it is rather inverted in a paradox.
Most people may look at the terrorists trying to run away from Baghdad and complain about Bush being slow and giving away secrets to his plan. But it doesn’t really matter. What matters is where the river flows, not where it once flowed. A million years ago a glacier might have carved a path here, but it really doesn’t matter anymore as you plot a course of zig zags.
Attack, defend, counter-attack. The variations are endless. So long as you attack the enemy, you can afford to make mistakes. But if you sit around defending, then you can never afford to be mistaken.
There’s a lot of similarity with the Copperheads, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads
Unfortunately.
Diplomacy and public relations are wasted on this battle. Muslims are a primitive people without sophistication or intelligence. One must go down to a very basic level.
Arabs cannot learn without pain and death. Since the arab/muslim world is built upon deceit, to communicate with them one must use the tools that are communicated unmistakably.
At the risk of sounding like a bit of a nitpicker, McClellan was not himself a “peace at any price” candidate. He repudiated the peace platform of the Democratic Party which had nominated him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan#Politics
For “Al Fin” It is not that Muslims are primitive, stupid, or unintelligent. It is merely that in the Middle East bombs and assassination *are* the tools of diplomacy. To judge by the state of public opinion, our enemies are using those tools very effectively against us. In fact, I suspect they think we are stupid and unsophisticated for drawing the line that we do between diplomacy and violence.
Diplomacy and public relations as we understand them are necessary, increasingly necessary, to deal with the growing number of frightened waverers.
I don’t think it matters what McClellan tried to paint himself as, he was the General that purposefully delayed taking Richmond because of his sympathies with the enemies of the Union (at that time).
This was rather a little bit earlier in the timeline, Neo, than when you started your post on. 1861, I believe. McClellan decided that if just sat around Richmond instead of taking advantage of Southern recoil on the battlefields, that he could make a “peace deal” with the South. This resulted in a war that was much prolonged, and in why Lincoln kept firing his generals. He kept finding enemy sympathizers, that just happened to be the Democrats that were opposing him. Why does this seem not like a coincidence?
So it doesn’t matter what McClellan tried, he was a wrench in the cog of war, and prolonged the war by his actions, to the detriment of many families.
It’s really too bad we don’t have a Sherman in our command structure. He seems to have been a man continually haunted by his own violence, even convinced of his own spiritual doom, and at the same time convinced that he was doing what was morally required. I don’t think there was an ounce of hatred in his makeup. Nevertheless, he made himself into a monster because only a monster could inspire enough terror in the enemy. His men were able to advise the opposing forces that “We’re Cump Sherman’s boys, and you’d better git!” The hint was often as effective as a volley of rifle fire. With all his fearsome reputation, though, fewer than 1,000 were killed on both sides in his march to the sea. He preferred to make a great bonfire of property rather than a sacrifice of lives.
It is more like our civil war than most people think. The only difference is we are fighting terrorist at the same time we are fighting half the citizens of this country. So many dhimmi traitors and so few firing squads.
And the peaceniks of the time had a lot more to complain about than today’s in terms of bloodshed
Good grief, what about the Iraqi dead?
GC:
Do you really think the “Iraqi dead” will stop because the U.S. leaves?
Zeno wrote: he problem is not so much the “barbarians”, but those Westerners who do not believe in their own system, or, actually, in anything at all… Everything is “relative”… There is no evil and no good… Terrorists are the same as those who fight against them…
Yeah, like the Mujaheddin in Afganistan. They were considered alright as long as they were fighting on our side against the Russkies. President Reagan even praised them as “freedom fighters”, while considering Mandela and the African National Congress as terrorists.
Or consider a certain gent by the name of Saddam Hussein. He was considered alright when he was gassing Halabja but was on our side. We even voted against a resolution at the UN condemning him for using chemical weapons.
Yeah, everything is relative.
As US Secretary of State Cordell Hull said of the murderous Dominican dictator (and ally of the US), Trujillo: “He [Trujillo] may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch.”
So yeah, it’s all relative. Terrorist or “freedom fighter”? If he’s on our side, we’ll call him the latter, thank you. (Did you notice that the administration refuses to call Luis Posada Carriles a terrorist?)
Time to break into song:
“You’ve changed.
“You know, something’s happened
It ain’t the same
“Started out as friends, no doubt we’d be to the very end
One thing lead to another
Then we fell in love with each other
Oh how beautiful things were between us back then
It was so sweet,
Use to send roses to my job in the middle of the week
One thing lead to another
Now we hardly speak to each other
It’s so strange, soooo strange
“You’ve changed.
I miss the conversations,
Miss the stimulations,
Miss communicating.
You’ve changed.
Miss the lovey-dovey,
Feeling way you hugged me…”
Juan Cole provides a link to a McClatchy Newspapers report:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16454939.htm
It describes how the Sadrists are taking a low profile and hiding their weapons and dismantling their road blocks so as not to provoke the American soldiers. There seems to be gneral agreement that the first target will be the Sunnis.
What to make of all this? Bush has probably decided that he should go for broke.
This means that the disaster in Iraq will likely be followed by disaster in Iran. As if one quagmire were not enough…
The entire region will be even further “destabilised” than it is now. Ah… “the birth pangs of a new middle east”, no doubt.
If there’s going to be a Sherman in Iraq, it’ll probably be a Shia or a Kurd acting against the Sunnis. This might be the only path to domestic tranquility in Iraq. The Saudis won’t like it but they can’t do much. The Americans won’t like it for emotional reasons and because it might build up Iranian influence.
On the other hand, it’s always possible that the surge of 20,000 troops is really headed to Iran.
Charlie: The entire region will be even further “destabilised” than it is now. Ah… “the birth pangs of a new middle east”, no doubt.
Exactly. A malignant “stability” in that region was what lead directly to 9/11 in the first place, and Charlie here is a good example of the sort of querulous fool who would have us accept more of the same, forever. Sometimes it’s just the case that things have to get worse before they can get better.
(And the tired old “argument” that the US has supported dictators in the past and therefore — what? It should be condemned for not doing so now? — just reveals the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the leftist remnant.)
Down with stability! It is poisonous and leads to terrible catastrophe. Only removing of the cancerous growth of Islamic Republic of Iran bears some hope of normalizing Middle East.
Charles and their Imperialistic agenda focused on Blame America first, they never do stop do they.
Do you really think the “Iraqi dead” will stop because the U.S. leaves?
Hardly. Nor do I think my point is lost by your attempt at misdirection.
Today (MLK Day) we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
A year before he died Dr. King gave his most powerful speech: “A Time to Break the Silence.”
It is online here:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html.
Substitute Vietnam for Iraq, and the speech remains very current and contemporary.
Best wishes.
Good grief, what about the Iraqi dead?
Yes, a good question. And a “good grief” is totally appropriate as we all observe the Iraqis slaughtering each other wholesale in frenzied religious fanaticism.
Why, oh why, can’t the Muslims stop killing each other? Is it a basic violent flaw in the religion that causes them to murder each other?
Some say yes. They behead apostates, after all. Is it the fact that Middle Eastern societies are steeped in a violent culture of honor and shame? Maybe.
They stone, STONE, mind you, the VICTIMS of rape in many parts of the Muslim world. But the rapists don’t just get off scot-free – oh no – the rapists are severely verbally chastised by the local Imam in VERY punishing sessions remindful of the worst of that terrible Gitmo place in their psychological damage. After one of these the rapists are very humbled and will certainly think twice before their next rape, eh?
This cruel and casual misogyny enthusiastically encouraged by Islamic societies, could very well be a contributing factor according to some.
Me? I don’t know, I just don’t know. Could be the religion, the shame culture or the cruelty that abounds in that part of the world. Not to mention the ignorance. But a “good grief” about the Iraqi dead is perfectly appropriate. I might even go so far as to add a ‘gosh’ and a couple of ‘good heavens.’
We can all understand that in the post-colonial chaos of the developing world, only the United States is to blame. If there is tragedy it must be laid at the feed of the US. If there is death and disease anywhere, the US has brought it to pass. If there is climatic disruption, the US has caused that too. There is really no need to think about anything, anymore. Down with the US, is all you need.
Why, oh why, can’t the Muslims stop killing each other?
Don’t forget that the US too had a civil war not so long ago.
And plenty of Europeans (Christians, most of them) killed each other as recently as the Second World War. And it was non-Muslim Europeans who persecuted Jews, and killed so many of them as late as sixty years ago.
Our own history is bloody and murderous enough, and so we should exercise a little humility before we point fingers at others for their supposed murderousness.
Grackle, clearly now, clearly: the reason the region is steeped in blood is that, when you get down to it, muslims are evil. This is what the sociologists and anthropologists and the rest of those wankologists don’t get. It’s simple. Look, the US is objectively good and its enemies are objectively evil. It’s obvious.
So whoever doesn’t get it is not only as dumb as rocks, but is a dhimmi traitor who deserves to be shot.
“So whoever doesn’t get it is not only as dumb as rocks, but is a dhimmi traitor who deserves to be shot.”
Well not shot, maybe, but forced to listen to Britney Spears albums 24/7.
DQW, yes humility is a good thing. Were we brought up in their societies we would likely be no better. But that should not prevent action. If that were so, then only the perfect could ever restrain even the slightly misguided.
I would say that our Civil War was quite some time ago, actually. Human nature may not have changed much, but the fact that we can go 140 years with it reigniting suggests something of an improvement.
As to WWII, your sketch of the events would suggest that Christians started killing each other for little purpose. There was, in fact an aggressor in the mix. The Nazis drew strongly on religious imagery at first, and many believing Christians were drawn to them. But they became increasingly and openly pagan, persecuting Christians.
I don’t think you can make much of an argument that the English, for example, were a murderous tribe which easily descended into barbarity.
And I recall the Japanese were involved as well…
Charlemagne, situations do not remain stagnant internationally. Nations have need of various alliances, neutralities, and treaties. The avoidance of irony is not a stable basis for foreign policy.
when you get down to it, muslims are evil
Evil? I don’t know about that. Evilness is a very tricky concept. But they are certainly fanatically busy killing each other In Iraq. In the name of religion – “the religion of peace” is their constantly used phrase. I’ll let the readers decide about whether murder driven by religious fanaticism is “evil.”
So whoever doesn’t get it is not only as dumb as rocks, but is a dhimmi traitor who deserves to be shot.
No, not shot but they should be made to wear Murtha’s dirty underwear over their face for at least a week.
I don’t think you can make much of an argument that the English, for example, were a murderous tribe which easily descended into barbarity.
If you look at the barbarity with which England ruled places like India or Kenya, then you may have to revise your opinion. It is true, though, that they didn’t behave with such barbarity towards fellow europeans.
The most admirable and enviable trait of British colonialism was their ability to determine exactly what level of barbarity is needed to achive their political goals and strictly maintain this level. They never overdo it, and when understood that reqired level is unachievable to them, just skiped the adventure, as in Afganistan, for example.
Actually they did overdo it in America. That’s why Britain isn’t as strong as America right now.
In October, 1861, Sherman relieved Anderson. Filling quotas for Kentucky volunteers was extremely difficult. The State was split on their beliefs and where their allegiance should be placed. Later that month, Sherman told Secretary of War Cameron that if he had 60,000 men, he would drive the enemy out of Kentucky, and if he had 200,000 men, he would finish the war in that section. When Cameron returned to Washington, he reported that Sherman required 200,000 men. The report was given to newspapers and a cry of indignation arose from the public. A writer of one of these newspapers even went as far as saying that Sherman must be “crazy” in demanding such a large force. The public accepted this insinuated statement as a valid one, thus writers have always declared that he was crazy. Due to the pressure of the press and politicians that believed the insinuation, on November 12, 1861, Brigadier-General Don Carlos Buell relieved Sherman of his command, and Sherman was assigned to the Department of the West, in St. Louis, Missouri under Major-General Halleck. After moving to Missouri, newspapers and gossip continued to harass him with reports that he was insane and that he was not fit to command, demanding his recall. He was in a state of depression from all the harassment, but not mentally incompetent. Halleck, in a letter to Sherman’s foster father stated, “I have seen newspaper squibs charging him with being “crazy”, etc. This is the grossest injustice. I do not however, consider such attacks worthy of notice.”
That is an interesting portion from your link on Sherman, Neo. It seemed that the great Total War generals, including MacArthur, was always belittled by the ignorant and the weak. Nothing much has changed, Neo. (Remember Matthis?) That may seem depressing and a justification for cynicism, but it is also a justification for optimism. Because if nothing has changed, then it should be easy to predict the problems and correct them, correct? Or not, as the case may be. You still need the will. No will, no solutions.
DQW – but it was Europe you were talking about, to make a specific contrast. If you want to go into historical barbarities in general, then there is no tribe in the world which comes out clean. Some few groups have been able to briefly, and let us hope not temporarily, been able to rise above that. I don’t see how insisting that they aren’t really any good after all moves us forward.
The comments about General Sherman were insightful. It was after over two years of slaughter on both sides that Sherman came to realize and put into words what war actually is and should be. We aren’t there yet in Iraq. In war after war generals and politicians fiddle around until they come to understand what war is. Unbeknownst to us we are still fighting North Korea. President Truman insisted that MacArthur keep the gloves on. Now it is this country that is getting anxious about possible nuclear attack. Don’t get me started on Vietnam. Thucydides’ History of the Peloponesian wars was the first thorough treatment regarding what war is and how long it takes people to learn the lesson.
Just as interesting was Sherman’s evolving discovery of the tactic of misdirection. Since his troops were pillaging supplies from the old people, women and children, they had no dire need of secure supply lines. Since his major assignment was to create havoc and deprive the Confedrate soldiers of the security of their families, he had no need to attack secured enemy towns etc. He just went around them. He could go anywhere and hence the Confederacy had no idea where he would go next. So it was useless to fortify towns.
Sherman had his New York Times as well. Media sympathetic to the South were already to leak his plans. Its just that in Sherman’s case his planning could be so ad hoc and on the spur (literally) of the moment that he might as well have not even had any specific plans. Lucky Sherman. I am trying to think about how we could learn from Sherman’s experience.