“ General War Analysis Number 3 – Conditions for Victory “

by S. Jovian Radheshwar for Radheshwar.com

Huntington Beach, California, April 6, 2003

This week’s thoughts on war in Iraq will begin with a call for solidarity with Eddie Vedder, the lead singer of Pearl Jam, who is now at least as well known to the Bush administration and their Clear Channel cronies as the Dixie Chicks. Of course, look to the Bushies and their head-in-the-sand conservatism to be unaware of Pearl Jam’s many years of platinum-selling protest rock. At the same time, look at them to be likewise more aware of the Dixie Chicks because (a) they were, until recently on Clear Channel, (b) those girls are from Texas, and (c) because the Bushies just plain old suck. Anyway, harangue aside, Vedder this week placed a George W. Bush mask on a microphone stand, and then proceeded to beat the mask into the ground with the stand, then following that up with some old-fashioned stomping-on-face. Apparently, some people who went to the concert were even stupid enough to assume that Pearl Jam wouldn’t be “unpatriotic”, and upon Vedder’s ceremony, they left the show is disgust, their sensibilities having been offended. After the release of “Bushleaguer”, on their new album, I can’t imagine anyone being ambivalent about their politics. It is, after all, really more of a love or hate kind of thing. Anyway, before I turn this into an album review, props to Vedder, rock on.

Along a related line of thought, regarding war, this week has seen what many are quickly terming the confirmation of the shortly-envisaged inevitability of the victory of the US/UK alliance over Saddam Hussein and those remaining forces loyal to him. On the face of it, this appears to be more or less true, although it is worth noting that there are numerous scenarios which may still result in the final attack on Baghdad, including possible heavy urban combat and high civilian casualties. The self-congratulatory nature of some of the commentators on certain cable news outfits is rather premature, as there is no concrete evidence that anyone other than Ali Hassan Majid (a major Iraqi general and Baath Party Senior, exclusively referred to as “Chemical Ali” on at least two of the three cable news channels) has been killed. That means Saddam Hussein, and his sons Uday and Qusai are still unaccounted for, possibly in control of large numbers of guerrilla fighters scattered throughout Baghdad and underneath it where such complexes exist. Certainly, we will see more tactics involving irregular forces disguised as civilians. So things are certainly far from over.

I wish that this war would end tomorrow with the final collapse of the Baath regime occurring quickly, that would minimize loss of life, however, I am convinced that there really is no way of accurately predicting what will occur in the next few days. We have heard of raids on palaces and the information ministry, but very few dead Iraqi troops in the capital as of yet, which suggests that this is likely an analysis phase of operations, on both sides, with both sides all the while probing the other with small incursions (in the case of the US/UK forces) and various small-scale guerrilla engagements (in the case of the Iraqi/Islamist Volunteer forces). I am inclined to believe that the majority of the Republican Guard units have been rendered ineffective as Tank and Infantry-style forces, however, there is plenty of evidence that the Iraqi soldiers have not been annihilated in the desert but have done one of two things, instead. Either they deserted the Iraqi army, or they have gone to Baghdad or Tikrit for a final defense against the US/UK invasion. I am tempted to say that what will be the case will be a little bit of both, which means that at least some street-fighting in Baghdad and Tikrit will occur.

Under these murky circumstances, the US/UK propaganda machine has delivered yet another bewildering announcement: that the US and UK will begin to administer Iraq shortly, within a few days, regardless of the situation in Baghdad, regardless of the capture and/or death of Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusai. This struck me as rather odd, as it reminded me of what occurred when the US was allied with South Vietnam while that nation was politically divided due to the Cold War from 1954-1975. During the Vietnam War, the US purported a domino-theory of international politics, whereby each nation was reduced to being a domino to be pushed in one direction or another by the US or the USSR. Of course, like the enjoyable game, when the domino is pushed the following one falls, and momentum gains, and the cycle continues until all the dominos have fallen. This seems remarkably similar to various conceptions of Middle East politics in the Bush administration’s members and “ideologues”. Kill the Islamists, the terrorists and the pan-Arabists, and you’ll push the dominos in our favor before they defeat us in the game. Maybe the US wanted to play dominos with an easier opponent, and chose Iraq. Another comparative potentiality, which I hope doesn’t come to light, is the US finding weapons, suppliers of insurgents in Iraq against a US military governor, and even “base-camps” for insurgents in neighboring countries like Syria or Iran, much like the US found in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War. This will likely result in an expanding conflict, which has been hinted at by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in blustery talk recently. This is a very real concern we should all have, and it would do the administration well to refrain from excessive trumpeting with yet so much hard work ahead. The “model for democracy” that Afghanistan is intended to be for Iraq is incoherent if indeed it is intended as such, and certainly the emergence of new attacks on US troops there recently is not comforting. Certainly, it wouldn't be too impudent to suggest that our "victory" in Afghanistan is not yet complete, despite the placement of a puppet regime there, as it would be similarly foolish to suggest that Iraq has been stabilized. Doing so opens us up to surprise attacks in the future and the expansion of the domino theory into Syria and Iran when Saddam shows up in Damascus and Mullah Omar shows up in Estafan, much like our incursions into Cambodia and Laos were justified in the Vietnam War.

It is seemingly not appropriate to discuss Osama bin Laden these days, I may even be branded unpatriotic, however, his initial prophecy of doom remains, in that the September 11^th, 2001 attacks were intended to draw the US into a new World War against the muslim faith, and while it may not be yet, ten years of occupation may paint us as a macro-political Israel, with strategic colonies (Golan Heights for the Israelis, Diego Garcia for the US), and a reputation for oppression built through years of checkpoints, low-intensity conflict, accruing civilian casualties, racial profiling, and imperial designs. This will surely result in more violence in the Middle East, and more hatred, with perhaps an ever-increasing risk of suicide-attacks in the US and against westerners. I saw a sign in a picture of a demonstration in San Francisco against the war recently, which said “war is so last century”, but I suppose that is not enough of a reason for the Bushies. What they want to do goes way further, at least it will through entanglements and imperialism in the muslim world as these become doctrinally-required to continue their simpleton’s game of dominos. They actually want this all to result in a sweeping imperial crusade, go to their newamericancentury.org website, they want a crusade, which, of course, is “so middle ages” its really not even funny. What will become of America?