posted on May, 1 2008 @ 07:22 AM
It seems like only yesterday that I was a teenager, sporting my so-called leftist fashion ware, such as my Che Guevara shirt, my olive green military
style hat, sitting at a coffee shop having a discussion with a good friend of mine since, well, middle school.
This kid was uber smart, never even went to college, his Dad got him an internship with an extension of NASA working specifically on lasers while he
was still in High School. As a 10th grader in the 1990's, he was making $8.50 an hour part time. Needless to say he rakes in about $80,000 a year now
and hes turning 28. He is an expert with computers and all types of programming languages, I've seen the man do any number of things. You know
someone is for real when they can show you their entire custom-made Linux kernel, or shell or w/e the heck it is called, your own "version" of Linux
with your own choices of what is presented, the art used, essentially building your own graphics operating system.
So we were having a friendly discussion on who would win in a war, the U.S. Military, or the entire U.S. population of citizens, no holds barred,
everything goes, urban warfare. I'd explain that the Military could not destroy the entire resistance or rebellious forces without inadvertently
killing their own loyalists mixed into the population thoroughly, and destroy the infrastructure for the various cities and towns, as well as the
homes and buildings. I'd explain the U.S. would be in a no-win situation because in order to win they'd have to sacrifice their entire country in
Enter Iraq: My .. does this not seem to be a textbook example of how not to fight a war when faced with multiple independent guerrilla
operations, backed financially and with manpower from just about every country in the region? Guerrilla warfare in the desert.. at first it doesnt
sound the most effective, but we have certainly seen it used effectively against us. The most "guerilla" elements have been urban guerrilla
elements.. due to the "wideopen" terrain it is a bit hard for them to work the countryside like an archetypical guerrilla movement such as .. Fidel
Castro's Cuban revolution. This is fine, because they fell back onto one of my own staple arguments: That the government will not kill its entire
country, to the point where there is no victor, no emerging winner, nothing left but disaster everywhere, just to claim victory.
What does this mean for Iraq? That the U.S. backed Iraqi Government will fail in a one on one against the Insurgents, because they will not kill all
of their own people, everyone, and everything, just to win, because that victory is hollow, you gain nothing but words and corpses. The United States
on the otherhand? Regrettably .. we have been known to resort to killing civilians to push the envelope.. just look at WWII Japan. We dropped two
Atomic bombs on their mostly civilian populace, at the target areas at least.
So really, it seems as though the big question of the day, which has always been guerrilla 'internal' movement versus Government military, is being
played out right now in the fields of Iraq. It seems as though the sides have been picked and the lines drawn in the sand. The U.S. cannot superimpose
our destruction over their entire population to the point of desolation, because their own Government, even though our ally, would protest. Sadr would
protest.. everyone would protest. Then covert actions taken by Iran and Syria become overt actions.. and new "wars" start. I do not
think the supporters of the Insurgents, the haters of America, will allow America to win, even if they have to sacrifice all of their countries, all
of their armies, all of their civilians. I'm mainly talking about Iran, the slumbering giant, whom if awakened, could rush that damn Iraqi border
overnight. You'd wake up to news reports of a major battle taking place in the East. It would be that quick, the Iranians would use human wave
tactics until securing some sort of town, and work from there with fully internal guerrilla help from all the shiite insurgent groups working loosely
When this takes place .. it will appear as a popular revolution, a popular Shiite revolution against Occupiers, Zionism, and the Western
The Iranians will be welcomed by non-violent Shiite civilians, the majority of the population, and will be assisted hand-in-hand, side-by-side by
Shiite militant groups, those under the Mehdi Army al-Sadr umbrella confederacy that is falling apart anyways as well as those groups outside
of it, such as the "Badr" affiliated Shiite paramilitary groups. The Coalition forces would be under attack from all sides, and would have to make
for a Saigon style departure.
The Shia were okay with us desolating the Sunni, but we have reached a Nexus in Iraq that is not good at all. From here it seems, we can go one of two
ways. Peace, and back out of the country, or War, and allow Iran to become a full fledged official participant in the War, turning it quickly into
WWIII and our favorite doomsday scenarios all become likely, including those involving Russia and their nuclear arsenal, the same goes for China.
So to go back to the original point, who was right in that debate, me or my friend? So far, the Iraq war, which was a pipedream at the time of the
debate, has no end in sight, and we cant completely draw on the lessons learned yet, as victory has not been achieved. From here to victory is a
tightrope walk which will be more difficult politically than militarily by far. But I must say .. if the U.S. Military is seemingly not aloud to blow
up any ole families' house just because armed men were there, because of the women and children in that home, then certainly they'd have even more
reservations over killing their own citizens.. U.S. citizens, in my fictional scenario? So this tactic of human shields.. this tactic of fighting from
positions inside residential areas, smuggling people and arms through residential areas .. all of this, yes it is dastardly, but point blank .. it is
effective and it works. And to think it would be done any differently by anyone else under similar situations would be an incorrect thought!
So, I feel in the end guerrilla warfare does indeed trump conventional, and even counter-insurgency tactics, as ultimately, the civilian population
becomes the chip to bet on .. and nobody wants to lose the entire civilian population, full of loyalists for their own country? Your thoughts?
[edit on 5/1/2008 by runetang]