Why We Can?t Fight Nice (C&P)
BY RALPH PETERS
We sent the world's best military. We spent an enormous amount of money. We "stayed the course". And now it's an open question as to whether we'll lose to savages or pull of a messy compromise success. What went wrong?
The strategic errors of the administration, the pernicious effect of media and factional hatred within Iraq all played their parts. Corruption and al-Qaeda's remorseless bloodlust made everything worse. Poor leadership plagued Iraqis and Americans alike.
But the subject presidents, pundits and professors all avoid is what it would take to win militarily, because the answer is ugly. We prefer to sidestep reality in favor of comfy fantasies that negotiations will persuade blood-drunk murderers to all just get along.
With the last-ditch troop surge in Baghdad, we're half-heartedly trying an approach we should have applied with everything we had in 2003. We no longer have the numbers to do it right - and our leaders, in and out of uniform, may not have the resolve to behave with the ruthlessness required to turn things around.
Even with the surge, our numbers in Baghdad will be bare bones. We've finally moved our forces down to the neighborhoods, instead of obsessing about "force protection" and bunkering ourselves inside hermetic bases that severed us from Iraq's reality. We finally recognized the need for "precinct stations."
But what we still don't have - and won't - is a constant presence in the streets.
As one patrol returns, another should be heading out, with a third roaming the zone to cover the overlap. And that's the absolute minimum for a one-square-kilometer area.
The problem in this kind of conflict is that the initiative inherently lies with the terrorists and insurgents. We're looking for a limited number of targets: our enemies themselves. Their targets can be anything - a clinic, a school, a marketplace, a roadblock, a gas station or even a mosque. Anything they hit counts as a win.
Our best shot is to keep them on the run, to keep them off balance. But crippling their freedom of action requires that our troops seem to be everywhere at unexpected times. That takes raw numbers.
If, on the other hand, you let the terrorists and insurgents set the tempo, you lose both the support of the population and the war.
Executing such a policy also demands far better intelligence than we've produced in the past. Our tactical intelligence has improved notably under the stress of war, but we still have a long way to go.
Above all, we have to maintain a strength of will equal to that of our opponents. War demands consistency, and we're the most fickle great power in history. We must focus on defeating our enemies, brushing aside all other considerations.
At present, we let those other considerations rule our behavior: we overreact to media sensationalism, which our enemies exploit brilliantly; we torment ourselves over the least mistakes our troops make; we delude ourselves that mass murderers have rights; we take prisoners knowing they'll be freed to kill more Americans, and the politicians and Green Zone generals alike pretend that it's not whether you win or lose, "it's how you play the game."
That's the biggest lie ever told by a human being who wasn't a member of Congress.
Winning is everything. Fighting ruthlessly may not please the safe-at-home moralists, but it's losing that's immoral.
Consider just one of the many issues about which we're insistently naive and hypocritical: torture.
Earlier this month, our Army released the results of an internally initiated survey of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. The results showed that almost half of our troops would condone torture in specific instances if it saved their buddies' lives.
The media were, of course, appalled. I was shocked, too - surprised that so few of our troops would condone any action that kept their comrades alive.
Torturing prisoners should never be our policy, both because it's immoral and because it's usually ineffective. But it's madness to declare that there can never be exceptions.
Forget the argument about the "ticking bomb" and the terrorist who might have information that could save numerous lives. Let's make it personal.
Whether you're left, right or in between, ask yourself this yes-or-no question: if torturing a known terrorist would save the life of the person you love most in the world, would you approve it?
If your answer is "no," you're not a moral paragon. You're an abomination. And please make your position clear to your husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter. Just tell 'em, "Sorry, honey, but I'd rather see you dead than mistreat a terrorist. It's a moral issue with me."
There are countless other ways in which we elevate the little immoralities of losing. Leftists loved My Lai - they just adored it - but they were never called to account for the communist atrocities after Saigon fell. Pol Pot's butchery was never laid at the feet of the self-righteous meanies who shrieked, "Give peace a chance."
And no one on the left will discuss what might happen if we fail in Iraq. The truth is that they don't care.
We face merciless, implacable enemies who joyously slaughter the innocent with the zeal of religious fanaticism. Yet we want to make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings.
We've tried many things in Iraq. They've all failed. It's a shame we never really tried to fight. _
Retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters' most recent book is "Never Quit the Fight."
AUGUST 2007 | THE AMERICAN LEGION MAGAZINE
Reprinted with permission of The New York Post.
We sent the world's best military. We spent an enormous amount of money. We "stayed the course". And now it's an open question as to whether we'll lose to savages or pull of a messy compromise success. What went wrong?
The strategic errors of the administration, the pernicious effect of media and factional hatred within Iraq all played their parts. Corruption and al-Qaeda's remorseless bloodlust made everything worse. Poor leadership plagued Iraqis and Americans alike.
But the subject presidents, pundits and professors all avoid is what it would take to win militarily, because the answer is ugly. We prefer to sidestep reality in favor of comfy fantasies that negotiations will persuade blood-drunk murderers to all just get along.
With the last-ditch troop surge in Baghdad, we're half-heartedly trying an approach we should have applied with everything we had in 2003. We no longer have the numbers to do it right - and our leaders, in and out of uniform, may not have the resolve to behave with the ruthlessness required to turn things around.
Even with the surge, our numbers in Baghdad will be bare bones. We've finally moved our forces down to the neighborhoods, instead of obsessing about "force protection" and bunkering ourselves inside hermetic bases that severed us from Iraq's reality. We finally recognized the need for "precinct stations."
But what we still don't have - and won't - is a constant presence in the streets.
As one patrol returns, another should be heading out, with a third roaming the zone to cover the overlap. And that's the absolute minimum for a one-square-kilometer area.
The problem in this kind of conflict is that the initiative inherently lies with the terrorists and insurgents. We're looking for a limited number of targets: our enemies themselves. Their targets can be anything - a clinic, a school, a marketplace, a roadblock, a gas station or even a mosque. Anything they hit counts as a win.
Our best shot is to keep them on the run, to keep them off balance. But crippling their freedom of action requires that our troops seem to be everywhere at unexpected times. That takes raw numbers.
If, on the other hand, you let the terrorists and insurgents set the tempo, you lose both the support of the population and the war.
Executing such a policy also demands far better intelligence than we've produced in the past. Our tactical intelligence has improved notably under the stress of war, but we still have a long way to go.
Above all, we have to maintain a strength of will equal to that of our opponents. War demands consistency, and we're the most fickle great power in history. We must focus on defeating our enemies, brushing aside all other considerations.
At present, we let those other considerations rule our behavior: we overreact to media sensationalism, which our enemies exploit brilliantly; we torment ourselves over the least mistakes our troops make; we delude ourselves that mass murderers have rights; we take prisoners knowing they'll be freed to kill more Americans, and the politicians and Green Zone generals alike pretend that it's not whether you win or lose, "it's how you play the game."
That's the biggest lie ever told by a human being who wasn't a member of Congress.
Winning is everything. Fighting ruthlessly may not please the safe-at-home moralists, but it's losing that's immoral.
Consider just one of the many issues about which we're insistently naive and hypocritical: torture.
Earlier this month, our Army released the results of an internally initiated survey of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. The results showed that almost half of our troops would condone torture in specific instances if it saved their buddies' lives.
The media were, of course, appalled. I was shocked, too - surprised that so few of our troops would condone any action that kept their comrades alive.
Torturing prisoners should never be our policy, both because it's immoral and because it's usually ineffective. But it's madness to declare that there can never be exceptions.
Forget the argument about the "ticking bomb" and the terrorist who might have information that could save numerous lives. Let's make it personal.
Whether you're left, right or in between, ask yourself this yes-or-no question: if torturing a known terrorist would save the life of the person you love most in the world, would you approve it?
If your answer is "no," you're not a moral paragon. You're an abomination. And please make your position clear to your husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter. Just tell 'em, "Sorry, honey, but I'd rather see you dead than mistreat a terrorist. It's a moral issue with me."
There are countless other ways in which we elevate the little immoralities of losing. Leftists loved My Lai - they just adored it - but they were never called to account for the communist atrocities after Saigon fell. Pol Pot's butchery was never laid at the feet of the self-righteous meanies who shrieked, "Give peace a chance."
And no one on the left will discuss what might happen if we fail in Iraq. The truth is that they don't care.
We face merciless, implacable enemies who joyously slaughter the innocent with the zeal of religious fanaticism. Yet we want to make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings.
We've tried many things in Iraq. They've all failed. It's a shame we never really tried to fight. _
Retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters' most recent book is "Never Quit the Fight."
AUGUST 2007 | THE AMERICAN LEGION MAGAZINE
Reprinted with permission of The New York Post.
0
-
ask yourself this yes-or-no question: if torturing a known terrorist would save the life of the person you love most in the world, would you approve it?
Hell, Id condone it. Good read, spot on.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
BY RALPH PETERS
We sent the world's best military. We spent an enormous amount of money. We "stayed the course". And now it's an open question as to whether we'll lose to savages or pull of a messy compromise success. What went wrong?
The strategic errors of the administration, the pernicious effect of media and factional hatred within Iraq all played their parts. Corruption and al-Qaeda's remorseless bloodlust made everything worse. Poor leadership plagued Iraqis and Americans alike.
But the subject presidents, pundits and professors all avoid is what it would take to win militarily, because the answer is ugly. We prefer to sidestep reality in favor of comfy fantasies that negotiations will persuade blood-drunk murderers to all just get along.
With the last-ditch troop surge in Baghdad, we're half-heartedly trying an approach we should have applied with everything we had in 2003. We no longer have the numbers to do it right - and our leaders, in and out of uniform, may not have the resolve to behave with the ruthlessness required to turn things around.
Even with the surge, our numbers in Baghdad will be bare bones. We've finally moved our forces down to the neighborhoods, instead of obsessing about "force protection" and bunkering ourselves inside hermetic bases that severed us from Iraq's reality. We finally recognized the need for "precinct stations."
But what we still don't have - and won't - is a constant presence in the streets.
As one patrol returns, another should be heading out, with a third roaming the zone to cover the overlap. And that's the absolute minimum for a one-square-kilometer area.
The problem in this kind of conflict is that the initiative inherently lies with the terrorists and insurgents. We're looking for a limited number of targets: our enemies themselves. Their targets can be anything - a clinic, a school, a marketplace, a roadblock, a gas station or even a mosque. Anything they hit counts as a win.
Our best shot is to keep them on the run, to keep them off balance. But crippling their freedom of action requires that our troops seem to be everywhere at unexpected times. That takes raw numbers.
If, on the other hand, you let the terrorists and insurgents set the tempo, you lose both the support of the population and the war.
Executing such a policy also demands far better intelligence than we've produced in the past. Our tactical intelligence has improved notably under the stress of war, but we still have a long way to go.
Above all, we have to maintain a strength of will equal to that of our opponents. War demands consistency, and we're the most fickle great power in history. We must focus on defeating our enemies, brushing aside all other considerations.
At present, we let those other considerations rule our behavior: we overreact to media sensationalism, which our enemies exploit brilliantly; we torment ourselves over the least mistakes our troops make; we delude ourselves that mass murderers have rights; we take prisoners knowing they'll be freed to kill more Americans, and the politicians and Green Zone generals alike pretend that it's not whether you win or lose, "it's how you play the game."
That's the biggest lie ever told by a human being who wasn't a member of Congress.
Winning is everything. Fighting ruthlessly may not please the safe-at-home moralists, but it's losing that's immoral.
Consider just one of the many issues about which we're insistently naive and hypocritical: torture.
Earlier this month, our Army released the results of an internally initiated survey of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. The results showed that almost half of our troops would condone torture in specific instances if it saved their buddies' lives.
The media were, of course, appalled. I was shocked, too - surprised that so few of our troops would condone any action that kept their comrades alive.
Torturing prisoners should never be our policy, both because it's immoral and because it's usually ineffective. But it's madness to declare that there can never be exceptions.
Forget the argument about the "ticking bomb" and the terrorist who might have information that could save numerous lives. Let's make it personal.
Whether you're left, right or in between, ask yourself this yes-or-no question: if torturing a known terrorist would save the life of the person you love most in the world, would you approve it?
If your answer is "no," you're not a moral paragon. You're an abomination. And please make your position clear to your husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter. Just tell 'em, "Sorry, honey, but I'd rather see you dead than mistreat a terrorist. It's a moral issue with me."
There are countless other ways in which we elevate the little immoralities of losing. Leftists loved My Lai - they just adored it - but they were never called to account for the communist atrocities after Saigon fell. Pol Pot's butchery was never laid at the feet of the self-righteous meanies who shrieked, "Give peace a chance."
And no one on the left will discuss what might happen if we fail in Iraq. The truth is that they don't care.
We face merciless, implacable enemies who joyously slaughter the innocent with the zeal of religious fanaticism. Yet we want to make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings.
We've tried many things in Iraq. They've all failed. It's a shame we never really tried to fight. ?
Retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters' most recent book is "Never Quit the Fight."
AUGUST 2007 | THE AMERICAN LEGION MAGAZINE
Reprinted with permission of The New York Post.
Man, what a lot of reasonable thinking. I especially liked the part in red and would like to see that example used a lot when debating the leftwing liberals.0 -
Featuring the M16, "The Gun that Lost the East." 0 -
Dateline: Vietnam. Late 60's. (First person account).
I walked into a Special Forces dispensary to pick up some meds. (Navy/USMC corpsman). While engaged in my "scrounge" I noticed three table-top cots, with NVA's (I think they were NVA..they were almost naked) lying on them, strapped down.
What got me, is they were engaged in peaceful, casual conversation with the VN/SF interpreters.
It was an enemy intelligence interrogation. Looked so peaceful. I had to ask.
.....Come to find out the SF would shoot-up captured NVA with thorazine/compazine/pentothol, etc. to make them sing like a bird.
It was damn quick. It was absolute. It was what in lay terms is called truth serum. The SF got the info they wanted almost immediately.
The VC/NVA's would then be turned over to the VN Chu-Hoi program for the trip to, I think it was Saigon, or Danang for imprisonment.
Clean. Neat. No fuss.
The SF weren't being humane by not torturing-out information. They were being expedient. And it worked all the time, every time.
.....Just a personal tidbit for you all to ponder. Joe0 -
That's a nice bit of excuse-making. I believe the Germans during World War I also perpetuated the "knife in the back" excuse for their loss, saying that it had been politicians, and not their own shortcomings, that lost them the war.
The myth that we are not "fighting hard enough" supposes that killing massive amounts of people would get the job done. The partisans of Yugoslavia and Russia, on the other hand, would thank you for such a strategy as all it does is increase their recruiting numbers.
There is also the homoerotic fantasy floating around that torture would save lives - when in fact many professional interrogators state, unequivocally, that torture is the least reliable method of gathering information. When you torture someone, they will say whatever it takes to make the pain stop - and they will throw out A, B, and C until D shuts the pain off. Morality aside, it is a $#!t-stupid way to do things. There are no exceptions because it supposes a set a preconditions so outlandish as to be pure and utter fantasy. No one will encounter a Jack Bauer-esque scenario where "the clock is ticking" and if only they torture the right suspect, who just so happens to be right in their hands at just the right moment, will they get there in time to save the children. That's Hollywood for you.
We are not getting anywhere because it was the wronf war at the wrong time in the wrong place - Americans, for all of our faults, have perfectly intact BS detectors that may not always work on time, but they do work eventually. And when the excuses for the war run out, so does our patience for being played like fools.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments