| Abandoning Iraq � Abandoning Bush By Antonio C. Abaya April 12, 2004 The first six paragraphs below were written on Nov. 16, 2003 but were not developed into a full column. The Americans are making plans to abandon Iraq. Not immediately, as they did in Somalia after suffering only 18 dead and only one Blackhawk helicopter down in October 1994. Or as they did in Lebanon, after suffering 241 dead in one single terrorist blast in October 1983. But over a decent period of time � say, six to 12 months � long enough to set revised and more limited goals for themselves, after which they can then declare that they had won and thus exit with their honor arguably intact, though with their tail still between their legs. And the reason for the new is strategy is all too obvious. The Americans are facing a nastier guerilla war than they had anticipated. In September, they suffered 16 dead; in October, 33 dead. As this is being written, only midway through the month of November, their death toll has already reached 60. Plus five helicopters shot down in three weeks. Even if this rate does not increase but merely holds steady, George W. Bush is not going to be re-elected in November 2004. The parallelism with Vietnam is often denied by official Washington. And the scales are really not comparable. In Vietnam, the Americans had a maximum force of 500,000 troops in active service, in Iraq �only� 130,000. In Vietnam, the Americans suffered 58,000 dead and 7,000 aircraft, fixed-wing and rotary, shot down or destroyed on the ground. In Iraq, that nightmare will definitely not be allowed to recur. But the Tet Offensive of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese in February 1968, in which some 70 towns and cities all over South Vietnam (plus the US Embassy in Saigon) were attacked simultaneously by an enemy that the US military had grossly underestimated, soured American public opinion against the war and forced President Lyndon B. Johnson to abandon plans to seek a second term in the November elections. Fast forward to April 10, 2004. If the situation was bleak for the Americans in November last year, it is even much bleaker now. The mutilation of the bodies of four American civilian security guards, killed in an ambush in the fiercely anti-American Sunni city of Fallujah, drew an understandably harsh response from the Americans, triggering a bloody battle that has killed an estimated 450, mostly civilian, Iraqis. At the same time, a simultaneous uprising in eight Shia cities, triggered by the closure by Paul Bremer, the US pro-consul in Iraq, of a newspaper loyal to the firebrand Shia cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, and the demolition of his mosque by a US helicopter missile strike, has taken the Americans completely by surprise, as they had been by Tet in 1968. In only six days of fierce fighting, they lost at least 47 dead. In the first 15 days of April, the US has lost 87 dead, the highest for any month since the start of the war in March 2003. More importantly, this latest development seems to have united the heretofore politically dominant Sunnis (who make up only 20% of Iraq�s population) with the formerly docile and suppressed but now resurgent Shias (who make up 60%) into a loose nationalist alliance to drive the foreign occupiers from their land. As if this was not bad enough for George W. Bush, the Iraq Governing Council, whose members were handpicked by the Americans to form the quisling civilian government to whom they would �transfer power� when they retreat (gracefully, they hope) from Iraq on June 30, has suffered some defections. Two Council members, including the human rights minister, have resigned. A third has threatened to follow suit in protest against the US �genocide� against the rebellious inhabitants of Fallujah. A fourth called it �illegal and totally unacceptable� while a fifth member characterized it as �counter-productive.� And it is not just the Iraqi collaborators who are abandoning Bush. After the March 11 railway bomb attacks in Madrid, which the Aznar government at first blamed on ETA Basque separatists (I told my wife the attacks bore the signature of al-Qaeda, not ETA), the Spanish public, who were 90% against the Iraq war even before the invasion, threw out the Aznar government. They voted in a socialist government, whose first act was to announce the withdrawal of the 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq by June 30, unless the United Nations took over command from the US, which is unlikely. Subsequently, the Netherlands also announced the withdrawal of its 1,200 troops, and so did Honduras its 430-man force, just in case no one has noticed that they are there. Last April 10, Thailand announced that it may withdraw its own 500-man force if the situation continues to deteriorate, as did New Zealand its 60-man token force. The Coalition of the Willing is becoming less willing by the day. In the last few days, the Iraqis have introduced a new tactic: the kidnapping of foreign nationals. In quick succession, they kidnapped and held hostage three Japanese, seven Koreans, one Palestinian, one Canadian of Syrian descent, four Italians, one Briton, two American civilians, possibly two US soldiers, a Filipino, and lately seven Chinese and eight staff members of a Russian energy company. While the insurgents have since released the Koreans and the Chinese and several others, the new tactic seems calculated to accelerate the withdrawal of all foreigners of whatever nationality and to further isolate the Americans in their crusade to impose American-style liberal democracy on Iraq (so as to facilitate their control of its oil). To add insult to injury, George W was also abandoned last February by his chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, who after months of diligent search by his 1,000-man team concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the supposed existence of which had been the main rationale for invasion and war. Bush was also abandoned recently by his chief counter-terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, who claimed, among other things, that the invasion of Iraq was planned by Bush and his neocon Mafia right after Bush�s inauguration in January 2001, long before 9/11. The sky is indeed falling on George W. Bush who, like Johnson after Tet in 1968, may be forced to abandon plans to run for a second term in 2004. ***** The bulk of this article appears in the April 24, 2004 issue of the Philippines Free Press magazine. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Abandoning Iraq � Abandoning Bush� (Through the CebuPolitics egroup) elr: its about time Eben Ramos y Lopez, [email protected] April 16, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Through the CebuPolitics egroup) It is about time, is probably right, Eben. Would it be "righter" if we say, it's now "soon time?" Messages like "abandon" during campaign periods are mere politician promises. Even if true the will be looked at with raised eyebrows, knowing perfectly that the final proof of truth usually comes only after election, if ever. Bush, having sensed the backlash in his own turf, naturally would, for votes' sake, tell his people, "Not to worry, we'll get out SOON." How soon? Watch what happens when the next bomb blows. It's terrorism war once more and unto Saudi Arabia! Then that SOON will fade into "later," or "much later" until the oil is near dry or it's election time once more. But Tony Abaya is probably right when he puts the withdrawal mode as the result of the apparent successful guerilla war the Iraqis are waging. Tony's analogy of Iraq as a new but better Vietnam guerilla war reminded me of the rumored "real" reason for the American's adamant attitude (very determined and not influenced by decent and reasonable appeals to reconsider) toward Vietnam. They were there to mine uranium in the "black mountain" of Vietnam. They can't leave any of it for the communist to use against the free world. So they stayed until the ore ran out. This is probably sound reasoning but politically very costly. Johnson, the hapless war expansionist architect, could not run for reelection and hope to win. Vietnam was ravaged, almost to extinction. But the good Lord has graciously rewarded the winner of the war. Ironically, the loser bounced back to wind up getting the most coveted prize - the supreme power in the world, the greatest ever in history; the nation to be feared. I keep wondering. Why should we fear Iraq or Saudi Arabia more than the USA?. Vietnam's alleged uranium, applied to Iraq's oil, we find not a world's view of interest but of only those Saddam were heavily indebted to, mostly G-8 nations with non-G South Korea included, the reason for Sokor's immediate war support against Iraq, and of course Cheney's businesses that greedily feed on the structural needs of the USA war machine and reconstruction process of Iraq. What is the real reason for the war? It still puzzles me but I know that history, long coming in the future and west controlled, will record that the war were the Iraqis' doing, as the USA would want it to look like. What is the reason for ending the war? Surely, as Tony wrote, history books will put it as Bush's magnanimous humanitarian doing. Never will it be written that the end were of the Iraqi's doing because the ending will come before the world sees another humbling lesson is earned by the Americans from a lowly enemy. Speaking of reasons, I am not quite clear for our GMA's participation. Would someone enlighten me, please? Ogie Reyes, [email protected] April 16, 2004 MY REPLY: The 2004 World Almanac and Book of Facts does not list uranium as one of the natural resources of Vietnam. The Americans were in Vietnam, not to mine its non-existent uranium, but �to draw the line in the sand,� to prevent its fall to the Communists, which event, the Americans believed, would cause the other dominoes to Southeast Asia to fall to the Communists: Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, the Philippines. Which, of course, did not happen even after Vietnam �fell� in 1975. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Through the CebuPolitics egroup) Hi Eben, If it's about time for George W. Bush to abandon plans to run for a second term in 2004, what do you think about his most gung-ho supporter in Malacanang who loyally stood beside him when virtually the rest of our Southeast Asian neighbors were totally opposed or at best lukewarm about Dubya's pre-emptive war? Johannis Dihayco, [email protected] April 16, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww And the most �willing� � next only to Blair � is posed to abandon Bush. GMA is reported to have ordered contingency plans for the withdrawal of our non-combatant soldiers there. A Madrid-type of bombing here could conceivably have incalculable consequences to the administration. Vicente C. de Jesus, [email protected] April 16, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Honestly I don't want America to lose. I want Bush to lose the election. I demonstrated against Nam. Do you recall that Ninoy Aquino was even, in his roundabout way, supportive of Johnson then. Hahahahah. I don't recall a major political figure now who was opposed to Nam. Saguisag was just a sacristan of the Benedictines then as he is now. Only Nemenzo do I recall even much as I often disagree with him on globalization. Parallelism between Nam and Iraq is not helpful. Maybe Bush shuld not have invaded because it drew away resources to tackle Bin Laden but there are pluses for removing the vile dictator. To live in a messy world is the lot of the intellectual. True Believers like Brother Eddy, Poe-Poe have easier time living with their puny brains. Ross Tipon, [email protected] April 16, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Kuya Tony, With the rising death toll and increasing fear that the United States lacks an effective plan for success in Iraq, lawmakers were opening a series of hearings in which some hope to talk about how America got into the dangerous predicament and how it will get out. It was unclear how many administration officials will show up at the hearings, which begin during one of the worst months of the yearlong Iraq campaign. The Pentagon also had not agreed to attend the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on how it intends to transfer politicall power on June 30th to an as-yet unnamed Iraqi government. US lawmakers are just too anxious to investigate details of the impending handover. Allies are losing trust in the Bush administration, even top officials who led the 1000 man investigative team to search for weapons of mass destruction. Guess what? None found up to this date. So why hasn't GMA ordered our Filipino troops to come home? Our people have no business there but to get pogi points for the Arroyo administration. We can't even scratch our own backs my goodness! The Filipinos' presence in Iraq would only trigger attacks on our people by the Iraqis who refuse a transition government. Democrats will probably focus on mistakes they say got American forces to this point. Their criticisms include: too few troops sent over in the first place; a lack of planning for postwar operations; unilateral action that has left the United States bearing the bulk of the financial and human toll; and overly optimistic predictions on what it would take to oust Saddam Hussein and build a new democratic government in his place. Time is rapidly running out on getting it right in Iraq and it is very obvious who the next US president will be. Truly, Bong L. Sempio, [email protected] April 21, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Through the pilipinasforum egroup) Abandoning Iraq? Unlikely in the near future. Below are two articles, one a news story and the other a commentary, that focuses on what exactly are the US Army and Marines doing in Iraq. Their objective is to try to train and set up a workable Iraqi Army so they can eventually be rotated home. The upsurge in the number of guerrilla attacks probably represents the influx of a fresh batch of imported foreign "mujahideen" or locally trained Iraqi replacements. But basing on the current kill ratio in the last few weeks of some 50-something American soldiers killed versus the 600+ "Iraqi guerrillas" terminated by the Americans, such an upsurge would probably not last long. However, the Pro-Saddam and Anti-American Iraqis (especially the Pro-Iranian Shiites) have scaled up a massive guerrilla campaign as they try to reprise the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam. What people need to realize is that the Tet Offensive was a public relations victory for the North Vietnamese and at the same time a massive tactical defeat which resulted in several guerrilla units destroyed in battle by the American forces who just hunkered down in their bunkers as they bled the Vietnamese attackers. It was the American media who played up the initial paralysis of the surprise attack but who never followed up the main story to show the weeks-long mopping up operations that led to the deterioration of the Vietnamese forces infiltrated for that attack. If the American government and public hadn't become panicked by the media frenzy, they would not have taken the drastic step to speed up "Vietnamization" and the transfer of American combat roles to unprepared South Vietnamese units. It was the ill-advised rapid Vietnamization and the rapid withdrawal of US military forces from the country by 1970 which eventually led to North Vietnam's victory by 1975. For the moment, the Media/Information Warfare aspect has risen to a crucial weight as the Iraqi guerrillas and terrorists have focused on kidnapping and hostage-taking of foreign nationals. They have done this while mounting a full court press in the media, using videocameras and any TV camera crew they can coopt into their campaign. Thus by taking a handful of hostages every day and releasing their pictures to the media, the guerrillas try to maximize the psychological impact to the whole world. Guerrilla warfare is by definition a weakling's attempt to win over a massive opponent by inflicting thousands of tiny wounds over an extended period. By a mixture of stealth, surprise, backstabbing, humiliation, and media-enhanced propaganda, an opponent that can't win on the open battlefield will try to win points in the negotiating table. This method is the one also being used by the NPA and the MILF here in the Philippines (they also try to distract the AFP+PNP from its attempts to destroy the Abu Sayyaf). The timing of the ambushes, sniping, and hostage-taking is also indicative of a well-conceptualized guerrilla strategy. It occurs just a couple of months before the arbitrarily announced turnover date when the US military was supposed to hand over governance to the interim Iraqi government and the combat and pacification role to the half-trained Iraqi army. However, that might have been a bit premature on the part of the guerrillas. A better strategy would have been for them to wait until the experience US combat units had already left for home before they played their hand. As it is, these units will be now be ordered to stay for three more months while newly arrive units try to learn the lay of the land. Even if the guerrillas and terrorists manage to scare a few more countries into evacuating their military contingents from Iraq, it doesn't look as if the really determined countries like the UK and Poland, and of course the USA, will withdraw anytime soon. The anti-American attacks just makes the American soldier in Iraq become more determined to finish the job. Over time, the American troops will eventually get better at counter-terrorism and counter-guerrilla work just as the UK's troops learned how to win against the Provos of the IRA in Northern Ireland. Guerrilla warfare on an extended tiimeframe often results in a gradual improvement of the quality of the troops on both sides. Similar to the co-evolution between predator and prey in wildlife systems, the soldiers of the two contenders tend to improve in quality as the stupid or unfortunate ones are killed off or rotated out of the theater. Thus, the thirty-year-long war between the NPA and the AFP has resulted in troops on both sides that are very experienced and very dangerous (compare Ka Roger Rosal and Col. Buan). As long as the democratic side doesn't lose its nerve and retreats precipitously (like the US did in Beirut and in Somalia), guerrilla wars often just wind down and become part of the background noise while the rest of the population adjusts and learns how to live with an intermittent war zone. For the US military, even though Iraq represents a drain and a strain in its combat resources, it also represents a marvelous training ground and free-fire-zone where its troops can train and learn how to operate in a foreign environment. Training with MILES laser tag simulators in the California desert is not as effective for training a cadre of experienced warriors as weeks-long live-fire "practice" on the streets of Iraqi towns. As for the US Marines, they now get a chance to take off their kid gloves and set aside their Arabic cultural training while they slap some terrorists and guerrillas according to their famous motto: "No better friend, no worse enemy." Selwyn Clyde M. Alojipan, [email protected] April 16, 2004 MY REPLY. Take it from then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Considering the imbalance in resources available to each side, �for the Vietnamese not to lose is equivalent to winning. For the Americans not to win is equivalent to losing.� War does not happen in a vacuum. In fact, as a wise man once said, �war is a continuation of politics by other means,� or words to that effect. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |