Me hanging my ass in the wind

[pecunium]

Iraq:

An Najaf

Sadr (who bothers me, he bothered me when he was a new face on the block, and nothing I saw while I was in Iraq made him look any better, nothing I've heard of him since has done so either) has tried to give himself a win/win situation (for certain definitions of win).

If he gets killed, he's a martyr and gets some of what he wants. This presupposes a sincere religious belief in behind some of his aims. I think this much is true.

If the US/Iraqis back off, he's pulled an Hussein and lost a battle, but since he's still at large (a la the outcome of the Gulf War, where we stopped when we said we would, did what we promised and he claimed victory because we didn't break the rules and chase him out).

If we attack the Shrine of the Imam Ali, all hell breaks loose and we probably reap a whirlwind of our own sowing.

Can it be fixed?

Maybe. I think I have a solution, but I'm not there and I have a rocker, not a bird, on my shoulders, so the odds are slim I'd be listened to.

Invest it. Go back to renaissance type war.

Clear all the houses in An Najaf which are in 60mm mortar range of the Shrine, take photos of the condition, give a copy to the owners. Promise to pay them if they are damaged (we do this in Germany all the time. If Reforger chews up a guy's field, Finance pays for, cash, on the spot).

Invest the shrine.

Offer an amnesty. If they walk out, right now, we take their picture, fingerprints and parole.

If they wait, they get tried when they come out.

And then we wait. They get hungry, they get thirsty, they can come out. They get arrested, they get tried, and they end up in jail.

Sadr, he gets arrested and then he gets tried. Rebellion, treason, whatever the appropriate charge is. He gets convicted. And he gets prison, so he can't be martyred.

It would be expensive, and it won't be quick, nor all that satisfying, because they will kill Marines. They will destroy houses, and markets and schools and all sorts of things.

But if anything happens to the shrine... they will have done it, and the whirlwind will be less.

Comments

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

i didnt know they still had reforger.

[insomnia.livejournal.com]

A prolonged siege may work... but most likely it would be broken when Sistani came back to Iraq.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Maybe, but if the object is to defuse the power of Sadr, having him bailed out by Sistani might do the trick.

And we can bargain. The murder rap gets waived (though I was there when it happened, and there was always the niggling suspicion that Sadr was involved. That is, if you ask me, part of why he chose to retreat to the Shrine, because the murder took place near there, and he is, by proximity, trying to make certain those who might follow him see him as less likely. If he were guilty, goes the logic, he'd be taunting God to go so close to where the deed was done, but I digress), and he still has to face charges of civil insurrection.

Sistani doesn't want Sadr in play. Sadr, unable to get himself out of his own mess, and unable to get himself killed, and not able to blame the US/Allawi's gov't for the deaths of non-combatants, is a weakened Sadr.

It would also strengthen Sistani, who is about the best thing going for a stable Iraq.

I don't think we'll be willing to pay the price. It would be dear in American lives (a close investment means being within rifle shot, and care for the mosque means not shooting back. Basically we need a trench, all around the area) and not cheap.

Lots of people would call it weakness, to not shoot back, but it seems to me that shooting back is the worst of all possible options.

Better to let Sadr go, than to waken hatred in the breasts of waffling Shi'a

tk

[lahermite.livejournal.com]

A (somewhat) peaceful resolution. If only you were in charge...

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Hey... I am, as an ex-g/f of mine once said, A pacifist, but I'm not non-violent.

That said, war is force, not killing. The idea is to make the opponent give in to your will, with the minimum of harm to either side.

Since his desire is to play the martyr, or the victor, denying him that chance is the force needed. If we are out to gain our ends, sometimes we have to sacrifice our troops.

It comes with the oath (one of the reasons I oppose a draft... there are some other reasons I might support one, but like taxes, it has to be crafted very carefully).

The important thing is that the troops we send out to become casualties, not be squandered.

I think waltzing into the vicinity of the Shrine, and laying waste (which is our legal right) is damn foolish.

And a squandering of troops, some of whom (in that area) are friends of mine. I'll pull the honor guard if I have to, but it sure as hell better be a justified death.

TK

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Good plan. I wish I knew someone who could make it happen. My contacts at USMC Studies and Analysis aren't in a position to push something fast enough to get this plan serious consideration soon enough. Damnit...

[averros.livejournal.com]

Tear Gas. Even if they have respirators those won't last long.

[libertango.livejournal.com]

I don't think using chemicals would play very well in the global press (or our own), given our public justification for being in Iraq in the first place.

[averros.livejournal.com]

Well, of course, bullets and mortar rounds are better than the non-letal irritant approved for civilian use. Another victory for political correctness over reason, sigh.

[libertango.livejournal.com]

War is a political act. It is both bad solidering and, well, unreasonable, to think that military actions take place in a political vacuum.

After all, it's not the non-lethality that's at issue here. We could, like the Belgians in the Congo, start lopping off arms. You'll note the Belgians aren't in the Congo any more.

If the mission is to peaceably hold Iraq, tactics that lead to a short-lived "military victory", but also lead to even more resentment locally, and even more condemnation globally are worse than ineffective, they actually put completion of the mission further off. Tell me how, aside from your own personal preferences and apparent unconcern for the opinion of other people -- people on whose opinion the success of the mission depends -- just why pursuing a counter-productive tactic would be "reasonable".

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Not to be rude, but you're wrong. Twice.

In the first place, Tear gas isn't a gas. It's an irritant micro-crystal. To make it airborne requires converting a solid to a smoke. This is the reason tear-gas cannisters are classified as pyrotechnics, and grenades.

Which risks damage to the shrine, as well as giving cover to anyone who damages it, or destroys it. Think of Waco. Even if the Davidians burnt the place around themselves, we'll never know.

What we got from that tear gas was Oklahoma City.

In the second. A pro-mask will last, almost, forever against tear/CS gas. It gets a little harder to breath, as the crystals clog the filter, but not much, and not for days.

The strain of living with a respirator might wear on them, but that would require hundred of cannisters and grenades; every hour, just to make it dense enough to be irritating to those inside. A whiff is an annoyance, it has to be thick as pea-soup fog to incapacitate.

But thanks for reminding me I get my annual walk through the LAPD tear gas house in a couple of months.

TK

[averros.livejournal.com]

In the first place, Tear gas isn't a gas.

I'm aware of that. I used it as a generic term for non-lethal irritants, actually.

This is the reason tear-gas cannisters are classified as pyrotechnics, and grenades.

Which risks damage to the shrine, as well as giving cover to anyone who damages it, or destroys it.

Well, having a lot of firepower trained at the shrine apparently does not carry a risk of damage. Well, well, well.

In reality, there's not much risk of the fire caused by a malfunctioning non-explosive grenade in a stone building. There's more risk from their cooking fires, most likely. Besides, there are non-incendiary irritant delivery methods.

What we got from that tear gas was Oklahoma City.

I find this chain of reasoning quite strained. The guy was nuts, and any other perceived injustice could trigger him.

The same goes for "giving cover". They can just as happily burn or blow up the mosque themselves and blame that on US forces, gas or no gas. They probably will, too, in case of an outright attack.

In the second. A pro-mask will last, almost, forever against tear/CS gas. It gets a little harder to breath, as the crystals clog the filter, but not much, and not for days.

One word: dust. It is a dusty place. Clogs filters like hell. Besides, they are unlikely to have anything better than expired Soviet respirators.

And even without dust, it that heat few hours in a respirator is sufficient to render nearly anyone unconscious. I learned that in the Army, hard way.

But thanks for reminding me I get my annual walk through the LAPD tear gas house in a couple of months.

Fun, fun, fun. I had a whiff of the stuff without any protection on, and that was quite memorable; be careful :)

[apeppermintgirl.livejournal.com]

Your idealistic war plan is great, but the US military is brutal in achieving its objectives. Already 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the beginning of this war--but you NEVER hear those numbers.

I applaud your careful, painstaking and humane philosophy of necessary capture. Excellent! But can you see the US military, or any military sitting and waiting, when they can just destroy a structure from afar?

" Humaneness" is not part of the military philosophy, unless it's necessary to achieve their ends, or in some cases they can 'afford' it and it makes good PR with the country being invaded/occupied.

I liked reading your thoughtful considerations! :)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

This is a couple of firsts.

First, thank you for reading my stuff. More thanks for commenting, and thus letting me know you read it. I always wonder how many people are taking my RSS feed; which all LJ accounts seem to have, or perhaps just paid accounts... I'll have to ask, or just popping in. I know it's more than have me on the friend's list, but I don't know how many more.

I'm also curious about the way in which people find me.

But I am amused at the tenor of your response, because that makes it plain you didn't take the time to look at who I am, before you did it, because if you had, I don't think you'd have said some of that. If you would, power to you for the strength of your convictions.

Because I am in the military, so the answer to your question, "But can you see the US military, or any military sitting and waiting, when they can just destroy a structure from afar?", is yes, because I have.

I was on the roads of Iraq in the first weeks of April, 2003, and then in May, and then in June. We didn't destroy a lot of shit that we could have, not just in the legalistic terms of Geneva, but in the cold pragmatism of not getting killed. A lot of things were bypassed, and a lot of people allowed to go into their barracks and wait. People we could have blown to hamburger. People who posed a real threat (some of whom, now, happen to be members of the insurgency.

The "military" you portray as being philosophically inhumane, is not. It is a sum of its parts, and those parts are the warp and weft of America (or Britain, or France, or, or, or...) and reflect the values of the parent culture.

Abu Ghraib, for example, happened, in part, because we have horrible prisons, here in the states. When an Oregon Guard unit found Iraqis doing such things, they liberated the prison. The civilians made them give it back.

As for the numbers I never hear... You're wrong. Not only did I hear them, I still hear them. You seem to know about them (though I think your tally is a little shy of the mark) so you must be hearing of them somewhere too.

The "military" is not a monolith, nor is it the master of its fate. It is a tool to the ends of the polity which wields it. I suspect the Marines in charge of the situation in An Najaf would be more than willing to lay siege (because it would be likely to be less costly, in lives, equipment, initiative, and local good will than an assault) but the powers in Washington won't stand for it.

Politics here, will trump politics there. Can't have the US looking like a patsy, so we go in guns blazing and avoid a Khe Sanh situation, with a long battle that seems fruitless, which wouldn't be helpful in an election year (yes, I can be as cynical as anyone, comes of being a soldier for 12 years...Journalists got nothing on us when it comes to the seamy underbelly of human nature).

As to what the "military" can afford, about the only time we tend to, "inhumanity" is when we are trying to avoid unpleasantries like getting dead. That makes us a trifle testy, and we tend to respond with the tools at hand. Which may seem less than restrained to the outside observer, but in the heat of the moment, I'll take an artillery strike to wipe out a sniper, rather than trying to creep up on him, and risk getting a slug in my head.

Call me silly that way.

TK

p.s. feel free to go back and read the memories listed, "Deployment", to see what I thought during my stay in the war zone.