“ General War Analysis
Number 1 “
by S. Jovian Radheshwar for Radheshwar.com
March 26, 2003,
Huntington Beach, California
The easiest temptation of many
liberal commentators, including myself to some degree, during the war in Afghanistan
in the fall of 2001 was to compare that conflict to the Soviet Invasion of
Afghanistan at the end of the 1970’s. This is an alluring comparison, as it
offers some convenient departure from the oft-utilized Vietnam
analogy for American military expeditions in the latter half of the 20th
century and now in this new century. While many said that Afghanistan would
pose similar difficulties for the United States as it had for the Soviets;
which indeed decapitated, unwittingly, the latter regime; most analysts at the
time sought to compare that conflict instead to Vietnam. Clearly, the early
success of the US
military there in deposing the Taliban doesn’t totally refute that view,
however, it does at least force a reassessment of the political economic lines
drawn following that conflict. The American strike and continuing operations in
Afghanistan are in my understanding somewhat anomalous militarily and seemingly
represent a prolonged mission to locate certain criminals and less a motion
towards imperialist rule of that country. Maybe some Americans will get rich,
but it doesn’t, and will never compare to the riches that are now officially up
for grabs at the door of US
destruction of Iraq.
Afghanistan,
regardless of your view of the United States,
or of imperialism, even, is easier to believe as being a necessary engagement,
to locate the purported perpetrators of 9/11. This does not apply to Iraq,
which is a fundamentally different conflict.
First and foremost, the leadership
in the United States
does not resemble precisely what they seek to be depicted as in the news media.
The administration is totally in favor of US imperialism in the Middle
East, and years of control of Iraqi resources prior to
relinquishment to an “independent” Iraqi government. This does not fit the mold
of the war on terror in the strictest sense of what that war represents, and
this war on Iraq
remains undeclared by congress and is an executive police action of gigantic
proportions. This is Bush’s brainchild (maybe “gangliachild” is more
appropriate), and represents his will to make war on Iraq.
He cloaks this in the language of vagueness and fear, making what I feel are
closeted arguments favoring a type of new white supremacy. This is very similar
to another decrepit, nepotistic, sycophantic so-called leader, and his approach
to launching a war of aggression on a portrayed security threat. I am referring
to Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet leader that initiated that dead empire’s
invasion of Afghanistan
in 1979. Indeed, he argued that the religious zealots of Afghanistan’s
warring tribes had to be civilized and that “supporting” the incumbent
nominally communist government was the right thing to do. The history of that
war began, too, with the quick capture of large swaths of unoccupied,
uninhabited land by the Soviets, utilizing blitzkrieg
tactics to cover ground. Of course, this is mirrored by the US
tactics in the current conflict in Iraq.
The US
has the benefit of not having to face large amounts of coordinated and well-funded
resistance, as there is no CIA and ISI conspiring against their designs on
Iraq. However,
that does not rule out the possibility that some damage, albeit not likely
overwhelming, will be inflicted on American and British forces, as they leave
large tracts of urban territory adjacent to the cross country highway unsecured
and creeping with Iraqi irregulars as their political pressures force them
onwards to Baghdad. This is an indication
that American military tactics now even consider particular units within its
own army as totally expendable, as pawns, although my saying so now certainly
sounds naïve. I suppose this merely unmasks the contempt for human life endemic
to an institution such as the military. The inability of the military to think
outside the political aspects of the conflict will only serve to cause American
and British military casualties in the theater. Following the anticipated
defeat of Saddam, will the US/UK troops return to the bypassed cities, hoping
that the now totally stranded elements will surrender? Maybe so, but look
for some to take the martyr’s way out.
Reports have emerged in the last few
days of possible use by the Iraqis of chemical weapons in the US/UK troops
advance to within 50-100 miles of Baghdad,
in which case the number of casualties on both sides may climb astronomically.
Certainly if the US
responds in kind or worse as promised. The reports from the US cable news
media, just emerging from round the clock, commercial free coverage for the
first four days of the conflict, are overly optimistic, it seems, as the ground
troops are increasingly coming under fire and the Iraqis are showing some
creativity with regard to Guerrilla war tactics. This does not bode well for
the coalition in the impending battle for Baghdad,
as we can expect that Saddam and those loyal to him will exploit every chance
to fight for their survival and inflict casualties on US forces. The Fox News
channel and even CNN in this war have attempted to do a great deal to mislead
the people, but I urge everyone reading this to visit any of the websites
listed at the bottom of this essay.
This week, we should watch for the
initial stages of the conflict for Baghdad.
This is indeed already underway, with the US
bombing regions surrounding Baghdad
being defended by Saddam’s more loyal troops. This concentrated focus has
been accompanied by an increase in mistakes, as just hours ago a bomb errantly
hit a market in Baghdad, resulting
in civilian casualties in the high-teens. Expect to see more civilian casualties
this week, with more bombs being dropped in tighter areas. Even if the US
takes the capital shortly, the pacification of the remainder of the country
remains difficult, and leaving it to the British will not bode well for our
final remaining alliance. Anyhow, with the perception and understanding I
have of this administration, it makes no sense for me to talk sense to them
over here, as they will undoubtedly have heard it from an analyst at the CIA
prior and will do precisely the opposite in the mad rush for imperial holdings.
Certainly, the US can win with relatively few casualties, however, the continuing
use of Guerrilla tactics and the use of suicide tactics by terrorists that
are expected leave this misadventure a story not finished as of this week
or next, or the one after that.
Please visit
the following sites for your own knowledge and entertainment:
Commondreams.org
News.bbc.co.uk
Economist.com
On balance,
these various sources should provide a reasonable array of ideological argumentation
and thorough analysis for your consumption.