On 13 Mar 2006 16:53:40 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:
How would you approach this problem...any thoughts?
TMT
U.S. Spending Billions to Stop Iraq IEDs By CHARLES J. HANLEY,
snip
==========================
George Santayana built his career as historian on his
observation "those who will learn nothing from history are bound
to repeat it."

There are several good historical monographs available about the
German attempts to control the partisans in several areas they
"liberated," many of which were *NOT* under soviet/communist
control. Indeed after the Germans were driven out (and in some
cases while the Germans were ther), the first order of business
in several countries such as Yugoslavia and Greece was the
settling of accounts between the various national and
soviet/communist partisan groups, as their only point of
agreement was they did not like the Germans in their country.

One of the best is a study published by the Center for Military
History of the US Department of Defense. This was written by a
committee of high ranking German officers "who been there and
done that." This study offers penetrating insight into the
insolvable problems of attempting to control huge areas of
territory populated with warlike peoples, with insufficient
forces and unsuitable equipment, where all problems are
continually being exacerbated by arbitrary changes in policy and
endless counter-productive directives by the "High Command." In
the last analysis "pacification" was rendered insolvable because
of the contradictory requirements of an endless supply of passive
slave labor and the need to exterminate those who could/would not
be assimilated into this "new order" (which turned out to be the
majority of the population).

Ignoring questions of ethics the foundational problem in Iraq is
that Iraq is a geographical area and not a country. The British
spent 20 years after WWI attempting to create an "Iraq" country
and eventually declared victory and came home. Saddam Hussain
knew this vital fact and acted accordingly.

This is an important difference and not logic chopping because if
you have an actual country such as France or Czechoslovakia, the
people are more or less pacified, and not particularly restive.
The odds are good that you can "conquer" the country by simply
occupying the capital and using the existing governmental
structures to rule.

A geographical area is far different in that occupation of the
[nominal] capital, and especially if any reliance is placed on
the decorative appendages such as parliament, and the coercive
elements of government such as the party, secret police and armed
security services that were the actual "glue" that kept things
together and under control are disbanded.

From the historical record, pacification/"civilization" of a
geographic area *CAN* be accomplished, but the tactics required,
such as deliberate genocide by starvation and disease, are so
abhorrent to modern sensibilities that this is no longer an
option. It is also a slow process. For example, it required
about 200 years for the original people of North America to be
"pacified," and some Indian areas in rural Mexico are still only
marginally controlled by the "government." Unless the original
culture is totally erased, problems are sure to again arise, e.g.
Ireland and Wales.

Until and unless the US is willing to take traditional
pacification actions such as eliminating mobility and
communications such as the confiscation of automobiles, draconian
fuel rationing, elimination of civilian telephone and wireless,
draconian rationing of electricity, and food rationing to about
1,000 calories a day the problems will only get worse.

Additionally, severe reprisals must be imposed such as the
execution of random hostages from the incident location and the
demolition of their houses, and temporary reductions in
deliberately marginal fuel/food rations for every American/Allied
service person injured or killed, possibly on a sliding scale
based on rank and severity of injury. Say 5 for causing a
hangnail on a private to 100 for killing a general.

Given that the US people will not permit these historically
necessary actions, and even if the US government was willing,
implementation would prevent the economic exploitation of Iraq
and require the importation of "safe" labor for the petroleum
fields/refineries.

While the technology appears to be different, i.e. precision
guided munitions and pilotless drones v suicide bombers and IEDs,
in reality the asymmetry is totally different. The U.S. troops
are there because they were sent there, and are trying to impose
a foreign culture/economic structure while the "Indians" are
fighting for their lands and "way of life." As long as there are
suicide bombers there is no answer, short of a general
pre-emptive massacre, to the threat of IEDs.

The least bloody (and costly) "solution" is for the U.S. to
declare victory and come home after establishing three successor
states with good boundaries, and possibly arranging for the
exchange of populations. One for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis,
and one for the Shiites. Almost immediately, The Shiiets
[religious fundamentalists] will closely align with Iran, The
Sunnis [modernist/secular/fascist] will closely align with Syria,
and Kurdistan will be a major pain for Turkey.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen until the president
after next [next one won't want to appear "soft" on terrorism no
matter which party wins], so we must anticipate at least another
6 years of carnage unless a foreign exchange/trade catastrophe
resulting in a hyper-inflation/depression intervenes.

The big winner will be the PRC as it will provide the consumer
goods and arms the new states want and it needs the oil. Look
for a gas pipe line. Counter-trade [direct swap of so much oil
for so many anti aircraft missiles] is likely, with the Euro
being used where required. Brasil is another likely winner with
lots of production capacity, big need for oil, and no historical
baggage in the area.

German philosophical insights / bon mots may prove more
explanatory of the current problem.

"How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against
an enemy. -- Friedrich Nietzsche"

"The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from
history." -Hegel (1770-1831)


Unka George
(George McDuffee)

What a country calls its vital economic interests are not
the things which enable its citizens to live, but the things
which enable it to make war. Petrol is more likely than wheat
to be a cause of international conflict.
Simone Weil (1909-43), French philosopher, mystic.
«The Power of Words», in Nouveaux Cahiers (1 and 15 April 1937;
repr. in Selected Essays, ed. by Richard Rees, 1962)