NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
June 29, 2005
Elements in Iraq
There are two sides to every war (at least two sides). In being compelled to read On War by Karl von Clausewitz recently, for the sake of some colloquium in which I was participating, I was struck by his repetition of this elementary fact. The “prophet of total war” -- who is anything but that, as one quickly discovers upon actually reading him -- is at pains to remind us why there can be no “theory of war”. It is because the enemy has free will, and need not play along with the theory.Elementary this is, yet almost impossible to explain to persons of the post-modern, “liberal” persuasion. Indeed, having once tried to explain it to someone who was teaching at West Point, I do not underestimate the challenge. War is not only hell, it is mush. “Fog,” as Clausewitz almost called it. The opposite of a “total warrior”, he could appreciate the delicate business of keeping political ends in view, while wading through carnage on the battlefront. There are, incidentally, no “conventional wars”. War may be a continuation of politics by other means, but these means are, by definition, unconventional. A country at peace is living within conventions; a country at war is going beyond them. And not always by choice, either. You do not go to war because you have weapons (“boys and their toys” as the feminists liked to say), but because you have an enemy. Hence things like the Gitmo prison camp, that countries such as the United States do not open when they do not have enemies. Hence irregularities and surprises constantly emerging in Iraq. Hence the supposed “quagmire” in Iraq, where a vicious enemy is still not entirely defeated. And it must be said that both sides in that conflict are learning, tactically, as they go along. The Islamist terrorists continue to discover weaknesses in U.S. and Iraqi defences: new ways to smuggle arms, to conceal their manufacture, to plant and deliver explosives, to exploit the alternating naivete and cynicism of the international media. Indeed, their strategy has evolved, in the last two years, from trying to prevent a free Iraqi government from being formed, to trying to sustain the impression of a quagmire, in the hope that Western public opinion will compel a U.S. withdrawal before the Iraqi government is fully capable of defending itself. That being their only prospect of ultimate victory. In the first major test of her abilities as U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice recently toured Europe to obtain broad support for isolating Bashir Assad’s regime in Syria -- which, from the repeated capture of Syrian agents in the field, is known to be the principal supplier to Iraq’s “Sunni Triangle”. The collapse of the Assad regime would not only hasten the collapse of Islamist resistance in Iraq. It would also make the reconstruction of Lebanon much easier, where the underground network the Syrians left in place when their army withdrew, continues to arrange assassinations and other acts of sabotage. Alas, without the use of force against Damascus, Assad’s regime might actually survive. In Iraq itself, as I write, the latest battalion-sized counter-insurgent action by the U.S. Marines is gathering force, under the title Operation Saif (“sword”). It is aimed at known insurgent positions in Anbar province, between Haditha and Hit, towards the Syrian frontier. In the last one, Operation Romhe (“spear”), which struck at Karabilah, and concluded only last week, at least four hostages were rescued, as well as a few dozen insurgents killed. Such operations disrupt the enemy, and yield intelligence that assists in locating cells closer to Baghdad. But again, I expect no definitive progress until the Marines are allowed to cross the frontier, and devastate Syrian-sponsored terrorist staging areas -- at the cost, of course, of incurring the wrath of the international media. The urgency in this should be more obvious. For while the Marines, and the Iraqi forces supporting them, get better and better at reading the physical and human landscape, their enemy is also improving his tactics. And not only is the Syrian regime playing for time. Its continued survival, in the face of American attempts to isolate it, is an encouragement to Islamists in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the region. President Bush spoke on TV last night, to the need for patience. The struggle for a free Iraq is not something the West can walk away from. But time is beginning to tell against the Bush administration. It must be able to reduce the U.S. military in Iraq to much smaller, more permanent, regional bases, within three years, or the next president of the United States is not going to be a Republican. That is however not my concern. It is instead that the U.S. might fail to consolidate a victory which has brought more hope to the Middle East than any event in recent history. For this, Clausewitzian ruthlessness is required. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top