On Soldiering, and Soldiering On.

Larry Anderson's take on Iraq:

[...] The men and women in the Middle East are frontline soldiers in a conflict that has been going on since the end of the cold war and probably before then. I have pretty much quit reading the pundits who talk about Vietnam. Now I am deleting those who write about the "guerrilla" war that has now started in Iraq. Of course it is a guerrilla war. The Baathists and Islamic terrorists do not have an army with which to fight a conventional war. Low intensity conflict is all they have available. The problem with the Vietnam analogy is the US military destroyed the Viet Cong during Tet, 1968. Post Tet, the opposing force in Vietnam was primarily the North Vietnam Army, not the Viet Cong and the US forces soundly defeated the NVA each time they met. The war in VN was lost at the political level, not on the battlefield, and worse for those who expect American defeat in Iraq, I know of no one who believes the US Army during Vietnam was remotely as effective as the Army of today.

Guerrillas must have support from the population to continue to fight and today, they really need the support of a government to provide supplies. The problem for the Iraqi resistance is they have little of either since it appears from reports written by soldiers on the ground (as opposed to "journalists"), that the majority of Iraqis are quite happy to have Saddam gone. They may not be happy to see the USA there, but at least Saddam is gone.

Something I learned growing up and which was reinforced during my first tour in a foreign country, is that most people are not particularly political or religious. Most people are looking for as comfortable a life as possible. They want food, clothing, shelter and diversion.

I think that we will find that the Iraqis are no different. [...]

Well, we might find them like that, but that doesn't make for good copy, now does it? Who wants to read about people trying to put their lives back together after living a thirty-year-long nightmare? Who wants to see pictures of mass graves? It's much better to play to the sensibilities of people who would rather believe Saddam spent twelve years only pretending to be hiding something.

It might be worth remembering something the President said about Iraq:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. [...]

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. [...]

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. [...]

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now. [...]

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. [...]

These excerpts were part of a speech given by the President on December 18, 1998. Funny, but I don't seem to recall the host of Democrats now braying about being 'misled' in our 'rush to war' saying too much back then.

UPDATE: Dr. Joyner's take on the subject from last evening.
posted by Terry at 9:50:00 AM