The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Case Not Closed

7.6.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 6)

Wittman has suggested outline of an effective counteroffer: we reject the asymmetry demanded by the enemy and instead restore the symmetric engagement in which we are, in fact, much better than the enemy is. The spinal image of this kind of engagement would become one of pistol rounds into the heads of sleeping terrorists, rather than gun camera footage of $500,000 munitions striking mud huts from 15K feet up.

There's one more ingredient in this prescription. In Iraq, the behavior of the population at large makes it plain that the presence of terrorists among them is not yet painful enough. The Iraqis have to come to perceive that the costs of harboring terrorists are higher than the costs of getting rid of them. The current distribution of pain is evidently such that the Iraqi population prefers the present situation to one in which they, the people, force the terrorists to surrender, leave or die. They're still more afraid of confronting the terrorists than they are of random bombings or collateral damage from Coalition actions.

That calculus must be changed. People are responsive to incentives and disincentives. We've got to re-order the incentives in Iraq so that every Iraqi calculates that his least-bad alternative is to do whatever he can to rid his country of Islamic terrorists.
-- Paul Kotik
Plantation, Florida

I just finished reading Mr. Wittman piece, entitled "We Can Do It." He has a novel approach to unconventional warfare. But I have to take exception to several of his premises.

First, it is largely impossible to wage a "terrorist campaign" against terrorists, Why, simply because they have no infrastructure or civilian population to exploit. Both the Americans and the British conducted terrorist actions during the revolution. But, that conflict was settled by conventional troops, though sometimes using unconventional tactics. Mosby's Partisans had no noticeable effect upon the outcome of the Civil War. Philippine guerrilla action caused minor problems for Japanese commanders during WWII, but the disruption of naval supply lines by conventional naval forces doomed the Japanese. Vietnam was being won, handily, by conventional military forces when President Johnson decided to give the NVA time to rearm and rebuild after their disastrous Tet Offensive. The point is, that terrorist or even guerrilla activities have never decided a campaign or war.

Secondly, Mr. Wittman tries to lump perfectly legitimate and respectable special operations in with terrorist acts. Terrorist acts are simply actions that are designed to cause terror through indiscriminant acts of violence which are illegal. Assassinating enemy leadership, destroying military targets and mounting guerrilla raids behind enemy lines against legitimate targets are not terrorist acts. Attacking non-military (civilian) targets and personnel that have no military connections is illegal and is terrorism.

Now, does Mr. Wittman advocate United States forces attack innocent civilians and civilian targets? And what exactly is meant by the phrase "selectively coercing" local leaders? Perhaps he would suggest US troops start breaking the kneecaps of local politicians if they do not follow our instructions. How do you utilize "terrorism" to defeat terrorists?

The answer is, you don't. Special operations are very effective, but they can only do so much. Large numbers of conventional troops are used for two things, in this type of campaign, to deny the enemy (the terrorists) control of an area and for force protection. If an enemy can establish a safe haven, then he has someplace to re-arm, relax and replace his lost manpower. Deny an enemy a safe haven and the superior force will wear him down and destroy him. All that is necessary is time and the will to continue.

That is one of the reasons for the large number of US troops in Iraq at the moment. There are other reasons, most notably that of force projection into the region, but that is another story altogether. These are some of the reasons why the war can not be won by removing our conventional forces from the theater. The only way to win a war against terrorists is to destroy (kill) all of the terrorists. When terrorist acts cease, then the war is over. Simple, yes?
-- Michael Tobias
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

In a perfect and abstract world where all parties behave in accordance with a certain set of assumptions, the use of military force would not be required in Iraq or any other dark corner of the globe. I wish we lived in such a world. The truth is we do not.

The notion that we can pull our troops out of the fight and thereby stymie the terrorists and their evil plots because they won't have our troops to target is absolute nonsense.

What about mainland America? Could the terrorists attack us here at home?

Is it better to fight a war on the soil of our enemy or on our own soil? Is it better to fight a war with the best trained, best equipped, best lead military machine that ever existed, or is better to fight a war with domestic emergency responders like police and fire rescue workers?

The reason terrorists attack our troops is because it is convenient for them. The US military is on their soil. To get close enough to attack our troops the terrorist travels through adjacent countries where the native people share similar appearance, language, customs, etc. To enter Iraq, a terrorist can get in the back of a pickup truck and drive across the border. In many cases no identification, no passport, no visa, no money is required for the terrorist to make this journey.

Contrast this with a terrorist attack in the America. To attack America a terrorist has to travel halfway across the planet. The terrorist needs money, decent clothes, some understanding of western culture, training, and a base in the US where he can plot his treachery and accumulate the explosives or other devices required. Remove our troops from the Islamic world and where will the focus of the Islamic fascist fanatics turn? America. Remove our troops and the threat does not diminish.
-- Doug Santo
Pasadena, California

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Islam, Environment, Movies, Constitution, Law, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, NATO, Immigration, Energy, Oil