June 25, 2003
Iraq and Guerrilla Warfare
There's a lot of ominous talk in certain circles about Iraq being a new Vietnam quagmire because of the outbreak of Guerrilla Warfare. Well, I admit to being an optimist by nature. But I do think there are a few things to keep in mind.
First, it isn't clear that the attacks in Iraq are being carried out by new organizations or remnants of Hussein's regime. To me, the former is far more troubling than the latter, because it indicates a new opposition to America among the Iraqi people and not just the continuing resistance of a defunct and discredited regime.
Second, the guerrillas in Vietnam (the Viet Cong) were destroyed by 1968 as a meaningful force. It was the regular forces of North Vietnam that fought the US for the final five years of our involvement and eventually overcame the South. Guerrilla warfare shouldn't hold any special terror for the United States, although it does tend to frustrate our desire for quick solutions.
Third, Vietnam was a quagmire because of the quality and leadership of the US Armed Forces, most importantly in the earlier stages of the war when opinion turned against it and became set. General Westmoreland picked a strategy of attrition, and tried to fight large battles. The experience of Vietnam sparked a host of reforms that have become ingrained and have led to the current outstanding quality of our Armed Forces and current leadership. Consequently, the US hasn't fought battles of attrition since, and understands that small actions can be as important as large ones. There is always room for improvement, and that is something that is understood throughout the ranks.
Wars can always be lost. While I feel that the United States is a special place, that doesn't mean that we always do the right thing, or that we can't be beaten. Iraq still hangs in the balance, and will for some time. There are many troubling reports, and there are many reassuring reports, and the situation is confusing. Certainty comes more from people's prior views than anything that is happening in Iraq. But as I said, I'm an optimist by nature, and while failure in Iraq would be bad for us, it would be far worse for the Iraqi's.
Posted by Kevin Murphy at June 25, 2003 12:42 PM | War On TerrorWe also aren't facing an area that we can't attack. While I'm unsure if we could have 'won' Vietnam in any meaningful sense even if it wasn't the case, we refused to commit ground troops to the North. No such similar problem exists in Iraq--well unless Iran wants to start supplying fighters and I'm not sure they do. And I'm not sure we wouldn't react.
Afghanistan is a bit diffferent with both Iran and Pakistan essentially having pourous borders over which we can't really attack (difference being the type of border in along Afghanistan for Iran).
I'm generally positive about our position. I'm still wary of democracy popping up, but that is because establishing a functioning liberal democracy isn't easy under the best conditions.
Posted by: ArchPundit at June 25, 2003 02:23 PM