UNPUBLISHED DRAFT
What we have to change about how we fight wars lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan.
byThings Come Undone
War is a bad thing but its twice as bad, costly and kills our troops more when we fight stupid. When we don’t learn change our tactics when they don’t work. When we ignore what has worked for other cultures quite well when our own ideas have proven to be failure's. When we are ignorant of the cultures we attack.
Yes we should all work for world peace first but until we win on that issue we will have wars some just, some unjust.
If we avoid lying to make the case for war how many unjust wars can we avoid?
If we work to improve the lives of people after we conquer them we won’t need torture and death squads to keep control of conquered lands.
We like to fight army to army and do well but we suck at fighting people who use Guerilla Warfare why unlike the Romans when we win a fight we do not provide good government a rise in living standards, jobs, or needed infrastructure. Rome built the Jews a temple, a new port, roads this increased trade and provided jobs and still they had problems with Israel but given the length of their empire their approach worked quite overall quite well.
Instead of doing that we prop up puppet governments that enriches themselves by exploiting their own people and make their rulers dependent on us for weapons to keep their rule. That approach has worked so well/s that in a few decades most of South America has now gone Left.
But lately well we can’t even beat Libya despite Obama’s promise of a quick victory or Bush’s Mission Accomplished Speech about Iraq how many years ago?
We need new tactics for Guerilla Warfare on that subject I have no idea what to do.
But after we defeat an enemy we can use Roman tactics to keep the population on our side we create jobs, improve living standards, create good government heck if we fixed the canals the Mongols destroyed in Iraq and built water treatment plants using Iraqi workers instead of bringing in foreign workers we probably would still not be in Iraq now.
Next tactic target the leaders forget diplomacy instead of attacking their army. We instead attack the leader's power base, the rich, the elite,etc for as long as the leaders, the rich and elite feel safe they won’t care if their solders die.
Leaders the rich and elite love money and power so take it from them. Make them feel unsafe, destroy their symbols of power their personal symbols of power attack their homes.
We fly in bomb the President’s palace then we tell the neighborhoods that support the President they are next and have one week to move. Threaten the wealth of the President’s backers their homes banks etc and we remove THEIR support network.
Yes its a war crime to target Civilians but if we warn them ahead of time give them a week to move and don’t target hospitals, schools, churches just luxury homes and Condos with our smart bombs well aside from their anti aircraft defenses and airforce we can do this with a minimal loss of life plus it might not be a war crime if we give them a weeks warning to move. I will leave that question to the lawyers here since I have no legal background.
This is a variation on the tactics the Assassins used quite well in the Middle East.
They were unique in that civilians were never targeted. The assassinations were against those whose elimination would most greatly reduce aggression against the Ismailis and, in particular, against those who had perpetrated massacres against the community. A single assassination was usually employed in favour of widespread bloodshed resultant from factional combat. The first instance of assassination in the effort to establish an Nizari Ismaili state in Persia is widely considered to be the murder of Seljuq vizier, Nizam al-Mulk.[Willey 1] Carried out by a man dressed as a Sufi whose identity remains unclear, the vizier’s murder in a Seljuq court is distinctive of exactly the type of visibility for which missions of the fida’is have been significantly exaggerated.[Willey 2] While the Seljuqs and Crusaders both employed assassination as a military means of disposing of factional enemies, during the Alamut period almost any murder of political significance in the Islamic lands was attributed to the Ismailis.[Daftary 8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/....
Next we understand our enemies what they want what they fear etc we study their culture the Mongols welcomed merchants and listened to their stories. They sent spies to Russia and planned that invasion for 10 years.
The Mongols carefully scouted and spied out their enemies in advance of any invasion.For instance, prior to the invasion of Europe, Batu and Subutai sent spies for almost ten years into the heart of Europe, making maps of the old Roman roads, establishing trade routes, and determining the level of ability of each principality to resist invasion. They made well educated guesses as to the willingness of each principality to aid the others, and their ability to resist alone or together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/....
Can anyone doubt the success of the only country to ever successfully invade Russia in the winter time. Can anyone doubt that if we understood Iraq and Afghanistan more before we attacked we would not be in the mess we are today? Heck we might not even have invaded either country.
Compare the Mongol's 10 years of spying to the the (rolls on the ground laughing) understanding of Iraq and Afghanistan that the Bushies, Right wing Media, and Thomas Friedman evidenced in their comments about those two countries over the years.
Just for once I wish America if we have to invade a country (not that I want that ever again) had an edge and understood that country and what makes the people and leaders tick.
First step in that direction stop outing spies like Valerie Palme because the truth about Niger Yellow Cake Uranium does not go along with the lies needed to sell a war.
Rule 1) If you need to lie to sell a war then you risk defeat.
Next rule understand the people and leaders
Next rule how can we make their lives better? Jobs, infrastructure, respect their culture etc after we invade so we don't need torture, death squads or to kill thousands of civilians.
next rule no more puppet governments dependent on us for support that exploit their own people.
Its Obvious Westpoint needs new teachers and lucky for them I need a job:)
Outside of ex General Eric Shinseki all the generals who agreed with Bush need to be replaced by generals with new ideas.
We need Men/Women as officers and Generals Men/Women who can say No! When the President has a bad plan who will resign rather than carry out a bad plan.
I suggest Eric develop a course to build character like he has we don’t need more Yes men like General Petraeus.