Aohell

It's a War, Not a Football Game

I am sick unto mental death over how people in America insist "the US is gonna win in Iraq" by beating down, obliterating, stomping, etc. on the insurgency there. They treat Iraq like a football game. It's not. It's a war. W-A-R, war.

They tend not to talk about Afghanistan, though. Afghanistan's two years older than Iraq, has an elected government with the backing of what seems to be most everybody there, and they still have to deal with an insurgency - one fiercer than the one last year, or any year before that. The president of Afghanistan recently made a statement that all but implicated Pakistan as a supporter of the Taliban.

As Pakistan is to Afghanistan, so Iran is to Iraq. But what about the men on the ground? What's happening to them? Can history provide a guide?

OK, first you need to go read this article:

http://www.diacritica.com/sobaka/2005/smack.html

Read that. It's a memoir from a veteran of the army that went into Afghanistan before the US one. And here's a section of the last part I'd like to emphasize:

*****

ARMY OF ADDICTS

In the staff history and other histories of the Soviet-Afghan War, they do not discuss this very much as a cause of the Soviet defeat. I've read some of these books though and they don't mention a lot of things. We did not become an army of addicts but in our army we had a lot of addicts. Sanatoriums even ten years after the end of this war receive men who became addicted to drugs in Afghanistan, in the army. They have never been able to overcome it. They may stop for four or five years but it creeps back into their life. Like me when I did opium the first time it helps them to go numb, to escape.

In Iraq and in Afghanistan today there are the same temptations, and though the pay for the American soldier is better than ours was it is still not much by their country's standards. Addiction is not a Soviet disease. In an army, the only sign that I know of for sure that it is happening is that your enemy begins to shoot you with your own guns.

*****

I know in Colombia, the FARC and AUC already shoot at police and US advisers with US weapons. Same thing happened as US forces became heavily addicted to heroin in Vietnam. I wonder aloud if the Iraqis and Afghans are shooting at the US soldiers with their weapons. It's been 5 years in Afghanistan and 3 in Iraq. Surely, their initial supplies of ammo are depleted and they're using munitions acquired recently. Who from? Where is the story on that?

Now back to Iraq. In a football game, the winner improves his record and possibly goes on to the Finals. There's a parade, t-shirt sales, and bragging rights. What happens if the US completes its military mission of defeating the Iraqi insurgency?

Time for another link:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2459

While not pessimistic in its assessment of the US ability to deal with insurgency, it is pessimistic about long-term stability in Iraq and how it stands to become an extension of Iran in the region.

To all the cheerleaders out there, I want you to understand this: If the US actually does bring about an end to the insurgency in Iraq, it will be to create an ally for the sworn enemy of the US, Iran.

How would that be victory when the successful completion of a military campaign results in a massive benefit for a sworn enemy? The other alternative, complete civil war in Iraq because of the failure of the military mission, is unacceptable to all.

Attack Iran? The Saudi oil ministry predicts a tripling in the price of oil should that happen. That may be truth, that may be threat, but one way or another, it'll be reality. It's a nice way of saying to Bush, "Hands off, cowboy!"

So the US can't attack Iran. It's stuck trying to make Iraq safe for Iran because the alternative is beyond contemplation, it's so bad.

Projected time frames for the occupation of Iraq put the US forces in there for 8-13 years. Assuming casualty rates remain constant, that's about 2000 in the first three years (I'll round down for a conservative estimate), with 4000-6000 yet to die in Iraq, about 6000-8000 total by the time the operation is finished in 2011-2016. Monetary cost aside, how are we going to tell the families of the fallen... their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters... how are we going to tell them that their loved ones shed their blood so Iran could exert more control on the price of oil than Saudi Arabia? And that's in a best case scenario.

Please, no more sis-boom-bah. This is a war, let's view it as one in all its terrible sophistication.