Dropping the bomb

The 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing came and went without a hitch. No poetic terrorist stupidity that would cost lives. It was just a remembrance day, with old Japanese and US vets talking about WWII and the usual pundits doing their TV rounds. The war in Iraq is still in full swing, the confirmation process for Judge Roberts is only heating up, Brits are recovering from the previous month's attack, and New Yorkers are squabbling over security screenings.

Saturday before the anniversary, I was talking to my martial arts teacher, John, and a few other students about the war. One guy named Tony was quite outspoken and was very pessimistic about the war and continually compared it to Vietnam. He claimed to be a conservative, but for the most part, he was spewing liberal garbage that you hear on CNN, MSNBC, talk radio, and the like. I'm glad he knew his history or else I would've dismissed him without further thought. Thing is, even with his knowledge of the Vietnam war, he lumped the two wars together using the similarity of the possibly long time it would take to finish the task. He didn't even acknowledge the huge differences between the two wars other than one is in the Mideast and the other was in Asia. Even then he tried to bridge the two saying that we entered a conflict that was already going on for years. His conclusion: Pull out while we still can and leave them alone to kill themselves. John is conservative as well and simply said the US should just bomb the areas with the most terrorists. Col. Al, John's most talented student, now out in Iraq, told him in a recent e-mail that 85% of Iraq is normal and are rebuilding. The other 15% are the terrorists who cause all the trouble and are being beaten back, slowly but surely. I don't call them insurgents because they're not Republican Guard holding on to the last vestige of Saddam's rule. After Hitler was killed, the Nazis who continued to fight were insurgents. These guys killing the Marines (an average of 1 Marine killed for every 25 terrorists killed I might add) don't even have the dignity to be called insurgents.

I read an opinion that said the US military should capture and destroy Mecca to teach terrorists a lesson. No, I'd have to dismiss that because it's strategically unsound in an asymmetrical war (instead of just a small number of Muslim terrorists as WMDs there will be millions more created because of that action) and besides, the force vs. force principle should be used sparingly.

In an asymmetrical war, tactics are drastically different from WW II battles and a whole different world from Napoleonic battles. It is guerilla warfare on steroids. There is not only no walls but there are no boundaries, which means the US is vulnerable. (I’ll talk about the extremist Muslim mindset another time.) The enemy can enter the US and blend in easily. I agree that there are similarities to the Vietnam war in the terrorists’ tactic: soldiers that look like civilians. Except this time around the terrorists are not soldiers, they ARE the civilians. And in Iraq, there are civilians from other countries helping the extremists in that country. There are no more clear lines.

Also, the other similarity to the Vietnam war is the media coverage. Although, in this type of war, especially with the communications technology we have, the terrorists have figured out a variation to their one main strategy, one they always use: strike fear into the hearts of your enemy. The terrorists know they can’t win against US Marines. They’re being beaten back daily and methodically by the US. The terrorists also know that American news will always focus on bloodshed. So their only way to beat the US is to beat the American citizen in a mind game. Their strategy is to bomb and kill consistently and almost always, the media will faithfully cover it. This news will dishearten American citizens who will then influence politicians into pressuring Bush to pull the US military out of Iraq. Beautiful strategy, incorporating a simplified psy-ops and using your enemy’s strength (US citizens) against them. Of course, Bush and his team are well aware of good strategy and as he has said many times before, will stay the course. Pulling out now will spell victory for the terrorists and will leave a vacuum for something worse later on. The whole “clean the house of one demon only to find it occupied by seven more” principle.

That’s one big lesson to learn from Vietnam – we do not leave until we’re done. It took ten years for Germany to become a sovereign nation again after World War II and that was after millions were killed. Leaving Vietnam was a huge mistake and cost the lives of more people than if we had stayed and rethought our strategy (as in let the military make the decisions, not politicians from the other side of the world). If people really want Iraq to be like Vietnam then we leave now. If not, then we should stay. The rebuilding of Iraq is moving faster than expected. Yes, it will take time and lives will be lost. Staying the course is the best decision. Bush didn’t have to focus so much on the WMD in the very beginning. If anything, he should have said that the terrorists themselves were the WMD and that Saddam was paying people to kill Americans. Then he could have emphasized the freedom of the Iraqi, since the war is called Operation Iraqi Freedom, not Operation Get the WMD. One thing is certain, this is definitely different from World War II and the Vietnam war and to compare it exactly to either one is ignorance.