I've really got a ton of work to do still today, so I can't post too much, but I wanted to mention two headlines. First, from the Independent (link), “War is not over yet, warns US – Fresh wave of military fatalities as deteriorating security situation threatens aid programme“, and second, from the Washington Post (link), “US Soldiers Face Growing Resistance – Attacks in Central Iraq become more frequent and sophisticated“.
The stories note that the war in Iraq has moved from the US/UK troops being confronted in (losing) firefights by Iraqis, to classic guerrilla style attacks — quick ambushes designed simply to kill and demoralize the US soldiers (already desperate to come home). The dumb-ass response that's coming from the US is to do things like house-to-house searches and fatal attacks on uninvolved civilians — an act which totally plays into the hands of the guerrillas. Have none of the people planning this war ever read Mao or Guevara? You can bet “the enemy” has.
I'd also like to point out that in Vietnam, only a tiny percentage of the population actually opposed the US — you don't need that many people to stage a guerrilla war effectively (that's the whole beauty of it). Hell, the French Revolution actively involved only about 1% of the population and they toppled an empire and a society… And they had a lot less to be angry about than the Iraqis (and perhaps the American people too, but the big question is what does it take for 1% of the US population to reach that breaking point?).
PS. Also worth a read (thanks Ferg): Rage. Mistrust. Hatred. Fear.
Post a Comment