Who is winning in Iraq ? Le me throw some wild cards in here – at some possible risk perhaps to my own liberty and personal security in the present edgy national security climate in Australia. So I will preface this piece by saying firmly that I do not support terrorism of any kind from any source in Iraq or elsewhere. And that what follows is pure speculation.

Fallujah, October- November 2004 was as I have said on my website, a major US-led coalition crime against humanity. It killed thousands of innocent civilians, razed a living city, and turned 200,000 people into internal refugees. It outscales Guernica, Oradour, Lidice, Warsaw 1944, and even Grozny in Chechnya as a crime against humanity. It was an attempt to use massive destructive force against a civilian city to intimidate the whole Iraqi Sunni community into cowed submission. It seems to have failed in that aim.

So far the US-led coalition has avoided a similar level and intensity of lethal violence against the majority Shia community in Iraq though they came close to it when they went after Al Sadr in Najaf last year. They blew up a lot of holy places.

Now we see an alleged upsurge of Sunni –based terrorism against Shia people (not against US forces – US casualties seem to be down) in Iraq. While US forces stay in safe bases, all this anti-Shia bloodshed is, we are told, being masterminded by the Sunni Al Qaeda terrorist leader Al Zarqawi.

I wonder. Are all these Sunni atrocities against Shia really being perpetrated by Sunni Al Queda extremists? Who is Al Zarqawi ? Does he really exist at all, or is he an American special operations invention ? What do we really know about him except that US intelligence keeps telling the Western media that he is appearing on Arab websites ? What do we really know about him ? Are things being attributed to him that are being carried out by others? (End of part 1)

(Start of part 2) These reported Sunni atrocities – yes, Shia people are certainly dying now in large numbers from terrorist bombings - would be a good way to keep the Iraqi Shia scared and dependent on US military presence and “protection”. And thereby keep the US access to Iraqi oil. And lessen risks of the Shia falling into the Iranian sphere of influence. Actually these Shia deaths suit present US interests well.

I think it is quite possible that a lot of the present alleged Sunni Al Qaeda violence against Shia Iraqis is a result of US covert operations, framed up as alleged Sunni terrorist operations. It would fit the Bush administration script well – remember how we kept being told last year that if the US forces left Iraq, there would be Shia – Sunni civil war there. Now here we are and it is happening – or is it ?

Two books to read as reality checks if you think such things are impossible of our great and powerful friends: Greene’s “The Quiet American” and Le Carre’s “Absolute Friends”. Truth can be stranger than fiction. And the world’s superpower certainly now has the resources and mass media influence to create whatever terrorist reality it wants.

I cannot prove this. But it is a possibility worth bearing in mind

Ah Vietnam - a war waged by soldiers but lost by politicians.

Westmoreland might have got some strategies wrong but the biggest error was to restrain the military opportunity.

War waged should be waged absolutely.

The only way you can win any war is to use all the resources at your disposal to achieve your objective - anything short of this level of commitment points to the sort of fiddling and meddling which politicians undertake in the name of diplomacy. Hence, Truman was absolutely right to release the atom and hydrogen bombs over Japan to end WWII.

I would further recall, prior to Vietnam, another insurgent communist uprising was defeated in Borneo. The fighting was most severe toward the end as the communists realised the inevitablility of defeat. That war was waged with far greater control over supplies - even to the point that the entire rice harvest and subsequent food distribution system was requisitioned and regulated by the British military who allowed only boiled rice to be distributed - ensuring the "shelf-life" of food was severely limited and thus denying it as a sustainable resource to the insurgents.

Ultimately, the resolve and determination of the combined Allied and Iraqi forces will overcome the Muslim terrorist insurgents. Not today - maybe not tomorrow - but eventually - provided the military is left to do what the military do best - fight, crush and/or kill the enemy without meddling politicians getting involved.

Col I respect your attempt to bring a little history to your arguments, however, I need to clear up 2 points.

One – there were no hydrogen bombs used over Japan in 1945. Hydrogen bombs only became operational in the 1950’s. If a hydrogen bomb had been used over Hiroshima or Nagasaki perhaps 100 times more deaths would have occurred – stretching to other cities in Japan.

Two – re the insurgency in Borneo. You are confusing the Malayan Emergency, 1948-60, against ethnic Chinese communists, with Confrontation, 1962-66, fought in Borneo between “British Commonwealth forces” and non-Communist Indonesia forces.

Your attempt to compare the communist insurgency in Malaya with the coalition insurgency in Iraq doesn’t hold up. In Malaya the insurgency was overwhelmingly against a small number of Chinese in the jungle. The Chinese formed a small and identifiable portion of the population and so could be easily identified, cordoned off and starved out. There were no over-border supply lines to these ethnic Chinese.

In Iraq its more like Vietnam but with deadlier terror weapons. It consists of Iraqi Muslims (Sunni’s and Shia’s) and Kurds who all look the same (or similar) and all fighting amongst themselves or the coalition. They come and go across several open borders and receive $ billions in cash and arms from Muslims in the Middle East (mainly in Saudi Arabia).

So the Iraq insurgency is about the most difficult, complex and unmanageable insurgency you can possibly get. Just killing until there is no more war is no solution. Best that the coalition goes home and the UN comes in.

plantagenet "So the Iraq insurgency is about the most difficult, complex and unmanageable insurgency you can possibly get. Just killing until there is no more war is no solution. Best that the coalition goes home and the UN comes in."

Suggesting something is the "most complex and forces should, therefore, come home" is simple defeatism.
The exact same stuff which prompted Chamberlain to sign the Munich Pact - as in - Hitlers German Aggression was just "the most difficult"
and too hard.

That attitude is what makes the difference between defeat and success - If a military force believes it cannot win, it will not. If a military force believes it is invinvicble, has the right training and most important, has the total and absolute commitment of the politicians etc. it will - almost certainly win.

Certrainly, if you were leading them, they would have lost before they arrive - such is the difference between a natural follower and a natural leader - the leader "leads" and can instill faith and commitment.
Its all psychology really - and as we all know from Reagans Star Wars initiative, the psychology of invincibility matters (even when the weaponary does not exist).

Oh as for the UN - that diplomatic talkfest of non-effective nobodies. It lacked the will to distribute food for oil without corruption. It lacked the will to act in Rwanda. It lacked the will to act on Iraq - Hence the coalition, fedup and tired of the incompetent vascillation of the UN decided to do something. The UN is on the precipise of its own collapse - if it does survive, it will only survive by radical changes to its structure and the demise of the entire upper levels of its executive and management tiers - a change too long overdue!

Col

Your "up and at em lads" arguments pales when your band of diggers are plowing into Iraqi neighborhood full of possible targets.

Anyone in that neighbohood could be concealing a weapon or bomb. What do you do, shoot em all?

I note that you didn't address the corrections I made to your "H bomb over Japan" and "communist insurgency in Borneo" errors.

Your resort to Chamberlain, a precursor to a Conventional European war should not delay the day until you have to think about conditions in Iraq.

As in Vietnam (with Chinese and Russian support) the Iraq insurgents (with unlimited Muslim world support) are fighting a war of attrition. What is our interest in barreling into the Iraqi population when we could be fighting the 9/11 terrorists in their hidouts in Afghanistan and Pakistan?