Targeting of Civilians by Insurgents Must Stop.

Seekerof,

>>
Do not 'blur' the lines and differences here, k?

Having served in Pararescue for 6 years, having been in the 1st Gulf War, and having been involved in a couple of classified or deemed unknowns, my answer would be flat out no. Neither would I commit an act of suicide bombing against innocent civillians.
>>

Same to you.

Your service is not the hallmark of your right to judge others or the condition of others fighting techniques. You have the advantage of killing for the overwhelmingly favored side. Only the pragmatism of having been there _under the same conditions_ of being a MODERN DAY guerilla warrior states whether or not irregular tactics and targeting works or is justified for THEIR goals.

>>
My fight is with the occupying forces, not the innocents.
You do realize that during the whole of the American Revolution, the revolutionaries never blatantly targeted innocent civilains, never blatantly targeted innocents with suicide bombings, even if they collaborated with the enemy.
>>

This is actually false. A recent documentary on the History Channel-

www.history.com...

Highlighted, quite specifically, how casualties among our own /from our own/ were greater in the last half of the Revolution than the beginning. As old personal debts were settled under the auspices of 'total war'. And political positions were solidified by a process of elimination.

The Sons Of Liberty tarnished their escutcheons quite a bit, whether it be attacking Torry/Wig loyalists or engaging in acts of piracy and pillage on the frontiers nominally to scavenge 'for the war effort'. Quite a few were shot. Quite a few more were not.

Furthermore where you are looking at a 60/20/10/10 split among Shiia, Sunni, Khurd and 'Other' ethnic groups (Christians, Turkomehn etc.) in Iraq, it inevitably comes down to spoiling what you lack the strength to take outright. The only way to put a stop to that is to simply make it clear that for every Shiia who dies or Shiia Property damaged, a given number (say 500) Sunni will be butchered. No questions asked.

And since the Shiia are without doubt closer to Iran than the Sunni, it can also be stated that simply allowing them to 'clean house' until utter terror forces the Sunni to accept subjugation or become extinct is equally unbelievable.

Because then the Shiia would most assuredly ask us to go.

i.e. It benefits the U.S. to /allow/ the bloodshed to continue, X against Y. Because the alternatives would make us look like the Israeli's did at Sabrah and Shatilla while invalidating our presence shortly thereafter regardless.

>>
An enemy invades and occupies the US, be assured, just as the American revolutionists did, leaders would be selected, armies or units would be created, etc. You see, terrorists or insurgents that have to resort to the use of suicide bombings or who resort to blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains are fighting against the spread of freedom. The proper fight, utilizing the civilized rules or codes of war, allow true and real freedom fighters and revolutionists to fight an oppressive force while spreading freedom. There is a distinct difference here, if one looks carefully.
>>

Blah blah blah. REALIZE that the first responsibility of any given revolutionary or insurgent effort (from their point of view) is to survive long enough to keep the dream alive.

Now, instead of playing head games with a historical comparison to the late 18th century; ask yourself what happens when 'leaders are popularly elected' in a world dominated by Electronic Surveillance. Airpower Overhead. Radios and Automatic Weapons. And Explosives.

If one of you are caught ONE TIME, you and your entire organization die like dogs as X lasts for maybe an hour. Maybe 24. Maybe even a week. But is inevitably broken by torture, interrogation, drugs and worse (splattering your newborn babies brains over a wall. Opening your wife's belly and then asking if you would like to have your daughter raped and impregnated or executed just like the others...).

Now your populist as much as popular revolt is exposed in every name or face X identifies to save one more kid of his.

Winning an irregular conflict by means of nation wide revolt is _IMPOSSIBLE_ if the ruling force knows what they are doing and have no care what the outside world thinks of their tactics.

OTOH, if you keep your groups small and adopt what I have advocated for 10-15 years as _Contempt Of Engagement_ tactics; you end up in a situation where remote detonated and leave behind booby traps do as much if not more damage in spoiling the governments ability to _do business_. While the activities of any given cell are minimally exposed through cutouts (bomb maker to placer).

All because the amount of damage any 4-5 amateurs can achieve with IED is equal to or better than what you would expect an SOF team to enjoy. And thus the civvies are REPLACEABLE at the same level of effectiveness.

>>
The use of terrorism, by means of suicide bombings targeting innocent civilains, never gains real freedom, it surpresses it.
>>

These people are savages. They view war as a chance to exploit weakness and gain position and respect within their communities. Whether by butchering each other while one side is distracted or by cheering as an external force becomes the free coup-monkey for a day.

'Freedom' exists for them in the form of massive unemployment and age old vendettas between families, tribes and regions which allows them to live a life of mafia like piracy or nepotism among their own.

NONE are interested in our definition of 'freedom' because it will mean more work than they have done in a century or more.

>>
Contrast and compare the above mentions with the actions of insurgents and so-called "freedom fighters" in Iraq, and ask yourself are they spreading freedom or are they against the spread of real freedom....? And after you answer that, compare your answer to what the majority of Iraqis think and feel. Have not the majority of Iraqi leaders, be they sect leaders or government, condemned the targeting of innocent civilains? True insurgents or freedom fighters fight the occupying military force, never blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains. The insurgents and so-called "freedom fighters" in Iraq are doing the opposite: they are mainly going against the innocent civilains and rarely squaring up against the US-led Coalition military forces.
>>

Cheerleading aside, the victimization of X by Y doesn't mean diddly dip to the nature of 'Freedom' or the worthiness of those who espouse it.

The only way to defeat the Iraqi insurgency is to treat them like the animals they are and put them through the equivalent of Martial Law Boot Camp.

Whereby everyone is radio-tag marked (family/work residences, biometrics and DNA) and everyone is mutually responsibility for the behavior of their fellows as a function of being punished as an associate of a group.

The day you start the mass hangings will be the day the Iraqis pick a side and stay on it.

VICTORY then coming when you realize that there can be no more rotations. No more kindness to our own forces needs and wishes to come home before the mission is done. For we will need 300,000 men on the ground until it's over over there. To make sure that the Iraqi's understand the realities of choosing the wrong side with a boot on every neck and a spear at every throat.

The 42nd and 43rd clauses of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare allow and indeed /require/ U.S. to do this very thing.

And if we don't, we had better leave. Because right now it's a game of whackamole between Baghdad, Anbar, The North and The South. And the jolly ol' Brits, our 'Stalwart Allies' are leaving the latter after having made friends with Iranian Intel.


KPl.