The Unbeatable Weapon

I agree with your basic point about the need for a political will to win in combatting an insurgency but there are some factual errors here.

Among a few I`ve noted:
1 No 25 year old Soviet model RPG is ever going to knock out an M1 Abrams. The one that was destroyed, IIRC, drove over an IED, i.e., a very large landmine.

2 Turks are far from the best soldiers in NATO. That honor still goes to the Bundewehr, which while no Wehrmacht, is still nothing to sneeze at.

Insurgencies can be, and have been, defeated without killing everybody in sight. Two excellent examples, ignoring the Latin American cases for now, are Malaysia and E. Pakistan. BTW, South Vietnam fell to the invading North Vietnamese Army, not the Viet Cong (or whatever they actually called themselves). The Viet Cong was destroyed for all intents and purposes during the Tet Offensive of 1968. After that, the VC were good only for isolated terrorist acts, not full scale insurgencies.

See what happens when fighter jocks try to write about real warfare? ;-)

Mamoon C`s basic assumption that the US doesnt have the will to kill the entire population of a country is wrong...where you control the media...wiping out an entire population is not difficult...no international court would / could charge a US president with genocide...

As to how you can stop an insurgency is simple...NUKE NUKE...washington aint stupid...the US is a superpower...it isnt going to stand aroung for too long and watch its soldiers die day after day...and besides, isnt decimating half the population using conventional weapons a victory?

The consequences for all muslim countries is that whereas defiance may be good on paper, it doesnt work in practice if your enemy is capable to wiping you off the planet in a week...

Guerrila warfare is just a term coined by the Americans to take out the non-Americans...

I think the best and the cheapest way to control the insurgency and kill the insurgents is to drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq -- nu rahega baaNs nu bujegee baNsuree -- because any sovereign self respecting country wouldn`t take its naked occupation sitting down -- or by prostating itself before a foreigner`s tanks and Humvees....

all of Iraq is occupied now -- and ALL of Iraq is now an insurgent country -- insurgency against a foreign white occupier is the MORAL POLITICAL birthright of the occupied -- exactly the same way -- the occupation of United States by the Iraqis would be resisted by the Americans....

Bush has raped, humiliated pilfered destroyed enslaved a whole country -- mistreated, insulted, comitted home invasions of its women and children -- as if a poor third world country men women and children have no dignity -- have no privacy -- have no human rights...

only the White Americans have.....

Iraqis have every RIGHT to RESIST such a bloody blatant and barbaric invasion and occupation of their country -- that did not attack in any form or way......

we Americans are the foreigners, the invaders, the occupiers in Iraq .....we don`t belong there -- we have no business being there -- WE ARE NOT WANTED IN IRAQ....

EVERY Iraqi wants us to get out....and go home...

we are NOT the civilizers of barbarians in Iraq -- we are civilized people who have turned barbarian IN IRAQ...

we are the ones who are running amuck -- committing all sorts of crime against humanity in Iraqi cities, towns and villages -- and we don`t even think about it what we are doing to a people and to a country that did nothing to us

-- all because of the `leadership` of a demented, decietful, paranoid scizophrenic whose areas of brain where ethical mores reside have been irreparably burnt by alcohol and cocaine....

the world has always asked how could Germany a land of Beethoven, Brahms and Wagner invade all of Europe following the commands of a third rate illiterate House Painter --

today the same world is asking the same question -- how could a country of Jefferson and Washingtons -- has fallen so low -- following the immoral orders of a Mongoloid invader from Crawford Texas -- who cannot think even straight -- cannot even find words to express his crummy ideology -- or justify his human rights massacres in Iraq -- except parrotting -- Iraq is `hard work` `hard work` ....

...Iraq is indeed going to be the incapacitatingly `hard work` for mr Bush on November 2 2004.......he will be retired...

re: mchowdry #32

If your claim is correct that force was never applied in the measure required to defeat the insurgency, it suggests what I have been arguing all long; politics is more important and influential in a war than military force. Sooner or later one has to talk with the opposition and one has to do this, because the alternative is an endless struggle, with no clear cut end in sight.

We will disagree on this issue, because unlike your assessment, I am of the opinion that politics is a much better weapon to defeat an insurgency than a military show of force. If the idea is not to kill the entire population or the majority of it, then what is the point of continuing the war? Either you finish what you started, or you do not start what you cannot finish in the first place. It is having the best of both worlds, which causes a political-military disaster.

My idea of defeating the insurgency is based on a diplomatic nuance, which is not to defeat it, but end it immediately by instigating a process of dialogue, with the opposition. It is more of an imperative, when you analyze the situation from a political perspective, to end the violence than to defeat it. Once the violence/insurgency ends, then you can start the process of creating a table of political credit or debit, which determines who ends up with a bigger political influence and what political aims are traded, compromised or rejected in the run up to a final peace settlement.

From a purely military point of view, defeating the insurgency via use of force; and more force might seem credible, but it is not in the long term. It is a favorite military argument that suggests that the politicans ``tied its hand behind its back`` and hence, it could not win.

Consequently, it is quite clear that our definitions of ``victory`` differ; you see the war/insurgency from a military point of view and I see the same situation from a political view and thus, our methods of winning the peace, will also differ. If history teaches anything, it is that nothing is settled with the use of force. Use of force only makes the issue dormant, where it waits for another opportunity to ignite into an another crisis.

Ciao

The Flame-Throwers
Is Bush the new Saddam? Has the US completely lost the plot in West Asia?

PREM SHANKAR JHA

On September 9, almost three years after 9/11, George W. Bush was claiming that everything he had done in Iraq was right and, given the need, he would do it all over again. The war on `terror` was being won; the world had become a safer place; three quarters of the senior cadres of Al Qaeda who were at large three years ago were now either dead or behind bars.

Iraq had been liberated from the clutches of a monster, and its people were well on the way to democracy. America, he said, was at war, and America was winning. What should we make of this incredible string of brazen assertions?

Are they the desperate claims of a beleaguered president who feels the ground slipping from under his feet? Or does Bush really believe what he is saying? Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more evident that Bush has so completely lost touch with reality that he actually believes what he is saying.

As ever obedient to their master, the Anglo-Saxon media has turned a blind eye to US excesses.

And that makes one fear for the future of the world.

For the incontrovertible, damning truth is the exact opposite. The war on terror is not being won. It is being lost. And the longer the US takes the world down the destructive path it
blazed on March 19, `03, the more dangerous it will become......(Outlook)

---

-
in blind rage the the Bushys are killing Iraqis indiscriminately -- men women AND CHILDREN...are dying every day.......by their out of proportion carpet bombings of civilian populations centers -- and calling them militants hideouts.........and the immoral subservient embedded US media pushes the Party Line that all those women and children killed are the Iraqi insurgents......

and all this to impress the American voters that for every American killed by the indurgents we are killing 100 Iraqi `insurgents`.......to give an average redneck American an immoral sense of satisfaction...

......Saddam has indeed rubbed on this paranoid schizophrenic -- Mongoloid Invader of Baghdad -- who still sees Saddam under his bed -- who still debates Saddam -- instead of debating his presidential opponent -- so much so that by November he may start looking EXACTLY like Saddam -- as grotesque as Saddam minus the Saddam`s moustache....

While it is impressive in terms of figures, the article nevertheless is ignores some important factors and therefore reaches the wrong conclusions. It ignores:

1. He incorrectly makes it appear that ``Guerilla war`` is always successful. Nothing could be further from the truth. As examples, starting close home: (1) he totally ignores the bloody but ultimately ineffective ``freedom struggle`` in kashmir - the indian forces, for all practical purposes, were never close to being beaten in kashmir. All that the ``freedom fighters`` did was attack easy targets (bus passengers, villagers), and more often than not were chased down, cornered and shot or captured. (2) in afghanistan, he ignores the fact that the afghans were on the run until the US turned the tide by giving them stinger missiles which neutralized soviet air power. Also, the soviet union was already hollow inside and no longer capable of expansion - indeed, it imploded out of internal weaknesses soon after. (3) he ignores countless other examples where ``guerilla war`` has been effectively suppressed (e.g. the brits effectively put away communist guerillas in malaya after wwii. In latin america, there have been countless communist-led guerilla wars and only in one country have they succeeded (cuba). coming back to pakistan: (4) Within pakistan there have been gueriilla wars by balochi tribals, effectively suppressed. (5) india has had a number of rebellions - nagas, naxalites, and so forth.

I could go on.

2. The west has a BIGGER WEAPON than guerilla war - MORAL SUPERIORITY. This view is of course anathema to all the west haters (who nevertheless flock to the west to benefit from the rule of law and the benefits of economic security, but do not understand what lies at the root of what attracts them to the west.). Thus, despite all the criticism of the US, the fact is that the ben ladens and other mullahs have nothing to offer - when they come to power, they are clueless on what to do next. so they do some symbolic destructive acts (blasting buddha statues, burning cassettes), then settle down to fattening themselves.

Thus: the conclusion is that the mullahs are no different than a bunch of bandits who have nothing to offer. The vast majority of humanity - russians, indians, chinese, westerners, africans, latinos - have no use for them. Even average muslims - when allowed to vote freely - reject them (as happened in election after election in pakistan).

Far from taking over the world, or even individual countries like pakistan, as a result of ths ``guerilla war``, the ben ladens of the world are reduced to the same status as wanted criminals.

Feroz, with respect, you are wondering around in circles arguing points that I either did not make, or supporting points that I did.

Here are just a few examples;

``The Americans were politically defeated in Vietnam and not in a military sense, even though the American-Vietnamese kill ratios would suggest that United States was winning the war.``

No. The Americans conceded defeat simply because they could not kill enough of the right people. The `American-Vietnamese kill ratios` only suggest that they were killing lots of people, not that they were winning anything. As I have said repeatedly, this is the nature of guerilla warfare. As you can`t always tell where the bad guys are, you must kill *all* of the people to make sure that you have killed *all* of the bad guys. The obvious failure of the military to quell the insurgency, proves that a military defeat occurred… which for some reason, you deny.

``Likewise, the French left Algeria not because the insurgency kicked them out, but because Paris was not willing to tolerate the political consequences of its occupation and the same overwhelming military solution, as you suggested, did not work for France in Indo-China either.``

In neither of these cases did the French employ the `overwhelming military solution` I described. They did not kill most of the civilians in the conflict. As such, they lost. Again, this is the point I made.

You go on to give a number of similar examples, where you claim that this `overwhelming` forced was used. History shows that the force used was far less than what I described, which is why all of the examples you gave, resulted in victory for the guerilla insurgencies - exactly as I laid out in my article. Here`s another example;

``The Russians are busy following this advice of a civilian erdication to end the insurgency and despite Putin`s best attempts, the insurgency is still resisting the punishment.``

No, not really. If the Chechens truly had been eradicated, there would not be any left, would there? Again, unless you kill most of the people, you will not win a guerilla war. Putin did not kill most of the Chechens. That is why he`s still struggling.

``This argument has not worked for Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories ever after the fact that Israel is the most ardent disciple of your hypothesis: kill every one to end the problem.``

Yet more of the same. If Israel truly had `killed every one`, who are those folks pretending to be Palestinians in the West Bank? The truth is that Israel does not have the political will to do the one terrible thing that will end the Palestinian uprising i.e. kill all Palestinians.

``[…]the suggestion of killing all of the population to win a war will create a political ideology, which will be unbeatable``

Respectfully, that was not my suggestion at all.

``The withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Palestine would signify a political defeat and not a military defeat.``

Why would one volunteer a political defeat, unless you were handed a sound military defeat? The reality is war is an extension of diplomacy. Once the war has failed, so has the political inertia behind it. Note that when the US suffered it`s military defeat in Vietnam, suddenly politicians weren`t so keen on their `Domino Theory` any more.

You then proceed to quibble over a point where there is no debate;

``The reason being that once you start to create political parameters based on the idiom that ``either you are with us or against us``, you are in reality closing all avenues of political compromise by placing yourself in a confrontational pattern of ever increasing violence. This sort of approach is a dead-end, which proceeds no where except into a cul-de-sac of political rigidity, which ironically encourages the use of asysmetrical violence. ``

I feel sorry that you felt obliged to spend a further paragraph and a half laboring this bone of non-contention. I am neither the creator nor a supporter of the, ``either you are with us or against us`` doctrine. My point was that it is the standard Bush has created, by which his success must be measured. If Bush is to believed, there is no middle ground or negotiating with terrorists. Such endgames would be considered failures of his administration, simply because this is the way he has pitched the `war on terror`. However, history proves that unless you kill ruthlessly, political defeat is the inevitable end-game. This is what I have been saying all along.

``Hence, if the proposition is that military force will solve the problem and a political agreement, would be considered as a defeat, then a good explanation needs to made that suggests, why the use of force has not been successful in ending the problem of insurgency in Palestine against Tel Aviv and in Iraq against Washington?``

The overwhelming use of force has (thankfully) not yet been used to kill most of the people in neither Iraq nor Palestine. Washington, like Russia, is still constrained by a cold-war mindset. It tries to kill bad guys that it can find and locate. This works for conventional war, but not guerilla war. The only possible military solution is to kill ruthlessly. This has not yet been tried (even though you keep insisting that it has). As I have stated many times now, this is why the insurgencies are still going strong.

``Again, reverting to the example of IRA, the fact remains that Jerry Adams might be a persona non grata to many people, but his inclusion into the politics did end the problem of the IRA insurgency in Ireland against London.``

Guerilla war -> failure of the military to beat it -> political defeat -> negotiations with terrorists -> political concessions. Again, this was a victory of guerilla warfare, not a defeat.

As someone who saw first-hand the realities on the ground, I can safely say that your re-writing of IRA history does you a disservice;

``What forced the IRA to political table was the realization that it was losing the legitimacy of the public support for its aims and before it was entirely denied of that support, it sought to ``cash in its chips`` and make the most of a worsening situation.``

Perhaps you can explain why many IRA cells remained active, even after Gerry Adams entered the political process? The simple fact was that the IRA had the advantage over London, and not vice versa. Why would London negotiate with terrorists, if it was in a position of military superiority? If things really were as you claim, Jerry Adams would have been languishing in a H-block… and not sitting smugly in the Houses of Parliament.

If you ever get to see Northern Ireland, you will see that many Catholics still revile the British. The IRA always had, and always will have enough public support to carry out guerilla warfare.

You then go own to quote Ghandi and write a few flowery paragraphs that are expertly summarized with your line;

``insurgency/guerilla warfare can be defeated by allowing political participation and the denial of political participation gives cause for an insurgency/guerilla warfare to happen.``

As I have said repeatedly, giving a political voice to guerillas is in no way, a victory. When you find yourself negotiating with guerillas, it is not because you beat them… but rather because they beat you.

Gandhi said well:

``that given a choice, most people would like to be governed by a bad government of their own instead of a good government of someone else`s``

Here is what General Jay Garner (First Administrator to rebuild Iraq) said:

``It is better for them to do it imperfectly then us doing it perfectly for them`` refering to the democratic process in Iraq after Saddam.

Asfand
Sacramento CA

re: mchowdry # 26 (part II)

The withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Palestine would signify a political defeat and not a military defeat. The reason, why Israel or the United States are not willing to call back their troops is, because that would be an open admission that they have failed in their political aims. Consequently, the ever increasing use of force is an attempt to solve a political problem through a military response. The reason being that once you start to create political parameters based on the idiom that ``either you are with us or against us``, you are in reality closing all avenues of political compromise by placing yourself in a confrontational pattern of ever increasing violence. This sort of approach is a dead-end, which proceeds no where except into a cul-de-sac of political rigidity, which ironically encourages the use of asysmetrical violence.

The removal of politics from the understanding the nature of a conflict and seeking to impose an opinion or a policy decision against a consensus invaribly creates the conditions that favor the start of an insurgency. Just like governments derive their legitimacy from the concent of the governed; insurgencies derive their legitimacy from the denial of a political discourse.

Concerning the example of Jerry Adams and IRA and a former terrorist being a political representative, it should be noted that history of political conflict is replete, with such examples. The 1978 Nobel Peace prize was shared by Menachem Begin and Anwar-el-Sadat, who were both considered as a terrorists by the British. Begin for being a member of the Strum Levi organization, which was held responsible for a explosion in the King David hotel in Jerusalem that killed British members of parliament. Sadat was tried and sentenced to jail for his involvment in belonging to a group of Egyptian army officers who conspired against the British. The founding fathers of the United States were also considered as terrorists/rebels by the British and they ended up creating one of the most enlightened documents in political history. The Garibaldi and Mazzani, who spear headed the process of Italian unification in the middle to late 1800s, were also considered as ``miscreants`` by the Austrians, whose influence over Italy they were seeking to end. Mujib-ur-Rehman, who was a political leader of East Pakistan, was considered as ``anti-Pakistan`` by West Pakistan and jailed for his politics.

The point being that there should be no apartheid in politics based on a childlish and a kindergarten verison of politics, which says ``either you are with us or against us``. Hence, if the proposition is that military force will solve the problem and a political agreement, would be considered as a defeat, then a good explantion needs to made that suggests, why the use of force has not been successful in ending the problem of insurgency in Palestine against Tel Aviv and in Iraq against Washington?

Again, reverting to the example of IRA, the fact remains that Jerry Adams might be a persona non grata to many people, but his inclusion into the politics did end the problem of the IRA insurgency in Ireland against London. The reason being, that Adams was given a stake in the politics, with the realization that he would lose this privilege if he resorted to violence again. Therefore, political rationality based on the limitations of power, suggested that Adams and IRA have a better chance of advancing their political aims through a process of dicussions than through armed means. The cold Realpolitik of the IRA-British confrontation suggested to both parties that they did not have the capability to win the conflict outright on their own terms. IRA did not have the capability to defeat the British and neither could the British defeat the IRA, as long as it had the support of the Irish people. What forced the IRA to political table was the realization that it was losing the legitimacy of the public support for its aims and before it was entirely denied of that support, it sought to ``cash in its chips`` and make the most of a worsening situation.

In this sense, political compromise which you find so disdainful, ended the insurgency and not the might of the British armed forces. Politics defeated the insurgency in Ireland and this case proves that guerilla insurgency is not an unbeatable weapon as you claimed. The British created the conditions for undermining the appeal of the IRA though a process of re-engagement with Irish leaders and they used this condition to create a climate of doubt in the Irish public mind, which suggested that peace might be more favorable over a protracted conflict. Once the futilty of the struggle became self-evident to both parties, only then was it possible to arrive at a compromise.

Israel has not reached this point of truth yet, because it still thinks that it can win and it is using military might to solve a political problem and it will continue to fight the insurgency till it uses politics to end the conflict. The insurgency in Palestine will be defeated if Israel ignores the PLO and the Palestinian leadership and directly engages the marginalized Palestinian leadership that seeks a rapprochement with Israel and the Palestinian public. Once this happens, then PLO will lose its aura (which it has already to a degree) of being the spokesperson for Palestinian rights.

Similarily, the United States will have a better aim of gaining its objectives if it gives the Iraqis the right to decide their own democracy instead of telling them what version of democracy they can or can not practice. Peace is never won in a military sense, but it is always lost due to a military reason and in Iraq, the United States has more to gain by engaging the Iraqis in the process of democracy than in denying to them the right to participate in the process. The present Iraqi insurrection against the United States is not an attempt to reinstate Saddam Hussein back into power, but to demand that Saddam`s dictatorship not be replaced by a dictatorship santified and blessed by Washington.

The key to understanding and solving the insurgency in Iraq and elsewhere, lies in the wisdom of Gandhi`s words to a British general. Gandhi said and said it beautifully: ``that given a choice, most people would like to be governed by a bad government of their own instead of a good government of someone else`s``. As long as this statement of Gandhi`s is not entirely understood, people will resist the rule of a foreign power and the insurgency will continue unabated. The seeds of reason, which can defeat a guerilla warfare lie within these words and they are; insurgency/guerilla warfare can be defeated by allowing political participation and the denial of political participation gives cause for an insurgency/guerilla warfare to happen.

Thus, the hypothesis of your essay/article needs to be reconsidered, because as you have asked, history disproves your contention and does indeed offers a way to defeat a guerilla war or an insurgency.

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Which candidate was better on the issues?

18.0%
Bush (1431 responses)

82.0%
Kerry (6533 responses)

7964 total responses

Which candidate has the best plan for fighting terrorism?

18.7%
Bush (1489 responses)

81.3%
Kerry (6458 responses)

7947 total responses

Which candidate will do the better job of dealing with the situation in Iraq?

18.6%
Bush (1475 responses)

81.4%
Kerry (6459 responses)

7934 total responses

Which candidate came across as a better leader?

18.4%
Bush (1455 responses)

81.6%
Kerry (6442 responses)

7897 total responses

Which candidate was the most credible?

18.4%
Bush (1464 responses)

81.6%
Kerry (6488 responses)

7952 total responses

Regardless of your thoughts about the issues, which candidate do you think performed better during the debate?

15.7%
Bush (1253 responses)

84.3%
Kerry (6739 responses)

7992 total responses

(Newsday poll)

---

Mr. Bush`s goose is cooked...

````In Iraq what we are trying to tell the Muslims world that you can be a Muslim and you can ALSO be free.... `` (George Bush in Kerry Bush Presidential Debate)

Bravo...our beloved MORON....thanx for Bombings the Muslims to Freedom -- from this world....!

re: mchowdry # 26

You cannnot win a guerilla war by killing all the people! It is not that I am a humanist and I object to whole scale slaughter of the population. Far from it, I object to this plan of action on the grounds that it is simply a myopic reponse to a complex political problem with myriad nuances. In many ways, it is the logic behind such an argument, which suggests why the traditional military mind has been unable to comprehend the nature of a guerilla resistence movement. It always disheartening to learn that the political equation is always missing from military analysis and the military`s approach to problem solving is almost technocratic. It is the very nature of the insurgency, which provokes such a response in order to create hardships and denials, which can be exploited.

Historically, no nation has been able to defeat an insurgency by militarily destroying it. To suggest that an insurgency can be defeated by killing many people is a sure sign of frustration and the tacit acceptance that the other side is winning. It makes no sense to cure the headache by cutting off the head and that is what your counter-argument, to my original post, implies. The over all arching aim of a guerilla insurgency is not the military defeat of an occupying power directly through overtly armed means, but the discreditation of the political rationales, which are supporting the occupation. A guerilla insurgency does not need to seek a military defeat; all it needs to achieve is create an accountancy of increasing political costs for the occupying power, which it is unable to bear.

The idea that you can kill the majority of the population and win an insurgency has been disproven by the historic record. Why? The answer is simple, because the insurency is betting on this very same agrument that opposition does not have a political will to carry out a genocide to achive its aims. The Americans were politically defeated in Vietnam and not in a military sense, even though the American-Vietnamese kill ratios would suggest that United States was winning the war.

Likewise, the French left Algeria not because the insurgency kicked them out, but because Paris was not willing to tolerate the political consequences of its occupation and the same over whemling military solution, as you suggested, did not work for France in Indo-China either. The total use of military force did not work for Pakistan in East Pakistan and this was even, when Pakistani army was engaging in retributive military operations against civilian population. The Indian army in Kashmir did not shy away from this principle and still it has not been able to quell the insurgency. The Russians are busy following this advice of a civilian erdication to end the insurgency and despite Putin`s best attempts, the insurgency is still resisting the punishment. This argument has not worked for Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories ever after the fact that Israel is the most ardent disciple of your hypothesis: kill every one to end the problem.

It is really amusing to discover that after nearly 3000 years of organized human warfare, since the dawn of human civilization, the military mind is still incapable of understanding the delicate waltz between politics and war. Politics and political imperatives dominate war and to fight a war, without a political aim, is to seek a political disaster as Kargil painfully convinced the Pakistani establishment. Wars are not won by creating political causes, which can act as martyrs, but the suggestion of killing all of the population to win a war will create a political ideology, which will be unbeatable. In this sense, it is one of most self-defeating arguments I have ever heard in a long time!

Ciao

#23 by sameerJB

american public support for the war is exactly because of what sameer stated. many common americans understand this, however may not be able to articulate it. pres. bush will re-iterate the goals of this war in tonights debate. kerry understands this and supports this and hence is not able to oppose the war.

Sameer: The US did not win the cold war loosing the guerilla war in Vietnam. I would suggest that Glasnost had more to do with collapse of Communism.

Respectfully, you make a number of irrelevant and off-topic points which are factually incorrect. Namely, ``the budget deficit hasn`t balooned, trade deficit has not sky-rocketed and economy has not tanked``. We now have record budget and trade deficits as well as a struggling economy where inflation of the money supply has exploded, just to keep us afloat. From being a world creditor as recently in 1980, we are now the worlds biggest debtor. That`s hardly what I would call a healthy economy.

I would like to see your case for us wining this guerilla war. I remain convinced that we will only win by killing most Iraqis. We don`t have the will to do this (thankfully). As such, we won`t win.

If you think the best interests of Pakistan lie in a cozy relationship with the US, I believe you are sadly mistaken. Anything that temporarily distracts Pakistan from fixing it`s real problems is not a good thing. US AID is good for Pakistan in the same way that heroin is good for an addict. You might want to prolong the addiction. I think it`s time for a little cold turkey.

Ahmedm and Ferozk: The point of my article was that we can only win a guerilla war by killing most of the people.

You seem to argue that we can `win` by `removing the cause of their political discontent`. This is another way of saying, `give them what they want`. That`s not really a `win` at all.

If we `removed the cause of their political discontent` in Iraq, we would be withdrawing our troops. If the Israelis were to follow your advice, they would be withdrawing from Palestine. Neither the US or Israel would consider these `wins`. They would consider these `defeats`. Remember that in today`s political context, `you are either with us, or against us`. There is no political concession, no negotiation, no withdrawal. Such activities are symptoms of failure, not victory.

The process you describe is exactly what happened with the IRA and my native UK. Despite lots of troops, over 30 years and a billion pounds a month, we could not beat the guerillas. We ended up negotiating with the terrorists and now Gerry Adams (a former IRA terrorist), is a political representative.

You seem to class this as a victory over guerilla warfare. On the contrary, it is a victory of guerilla warfare.

The premise of my article still stands, `you can only win a guerilla war by killing lots of people`. As we don`t have the will to do this, we won`t win.

Simple really.

Rkhan: Hitler`s military attacked American shipping when it became aware that the US was supplying arms and ammunition to the Allies. This is well documented.

Asfand: Low intensity or not, guerilla warfare is still next to impossible to beat. Just look at the example of the IRA, which took most of the last century to achieve it`s goals.

The will of the people is irrelevant, if they are all dead. You can only win if you kill everyone ruthlessly. That was the point of my article. Failing that, in Iraq, the `will of the people` is obvious for everyone to see.

Kaurasach: You said;

``they don`t care if they physically stay there anyways....if they can control middle east from far...that is better.....and they will accomplish that - so they have not really lost.``

I disagree. That might have been the plan, but Washington did not know at the time how potent guerrilla warfare was. As such, it has been sucked deeper and deeper into an ever widening war. This was supposed to be over in a few months. After the post-invasion clean-up, most of the troops were supposed to come home. A year and a half later, they are still there and we are sending more.

``Millitarily America can crush this gureilla tactics. However, politically, it is a different situation....Political opposition from Europe, and to maintain middle east sensitive ties, makes it much difficult. ``

This is what I have been saying all along. `We can only win by killing ruthlessly. We don`t have the will to do so. As such, we will loose`.

``If Americans can occupy and subdue Germany - a much more disciplined fighting machine[…]````

Germany was a homogenous country with a single ethnic group and culture. Germany fought a conventional war and suffered a conventional defeat.

Whilst Iraq was militarily weaker than WWII Germany, Iraq will still break American will more than the Germans ever did.

``[…]they can certainly crush Iraqis. They had to reduce berlin to rubble; but the mission was accomplished.``

Once more, you are agreeing with me. We can only win by killing most Iraqis. There is no other solution, if Washington is to be victorious.

M.B.Z.Isphahani: With respect, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

jang

I agree. As a matter of senator McCain has even given the time frame of November right after the elections. Bush has until January to screw the middle east even more even if he loses election. But I am not sure that this insurgency can be suppressed by brutal force, no matter how brutal. Ferozk`s option is much more viable.