In Response to:

Second, could you point me to another example in history in which this type of war strategy has worked? Arguments from history sort of stink because you always have to make arguments by analogy, but useful examples seem to be the American Revolution, American Reconstruction, American-Filipino War, Soviet-Afghan War and the Algerian War of Independence. Unfortunately, these examples seem to demonstrate that the insurgencies are eventually successful. So, I was curious if you could point to some counter examples where the perceived “occupational” power is victorious in establishing the victory result described above while maintaining conservative values of life, individual liberty and freedom for the people. Germany and Japan are not good example because they didn’t develop the types of resistance movements that we are currently seeing in Iraq to sabotage progress, or at least to the degree that we have seen. This might be controversial, so you don’t have to just take my word for it, you can look at a report put together by the Congressional Research Service called “U.S. Occupation Assistance: Iraq, Germany and Japan Compared” which concluded:

“The existence of an insurgency in Iraq which deliberately sabotages the economy and reconstruction efforts is an important consideration in comparing Iraq’s economic reconstruction requirements with those of post-war Germany and Japan, which had no resistance movements.”

codesmithy

————————————————————————-

<Special thanks, for the engaging comment!>

First off, I’d like to say; I am in no way a Military expert. Having said that, this is what I have learned and what I believe to be true.

A little generality to begin:

There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II.

For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight. And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East. But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along–if admirably–in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that cannot stop us even as we seem unable to stop it. Yet no one–including, very likely, the insurgents themselves–believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly it is America that determines the scale of this war. It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency.

Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.

We’re the United States of America. What do we need to put up with this insurgency and these IEDs and these car bombs? We could win this war inside of two weeks to a month, but we refuse to, and that’s why this is so important, because we do fight these things in a minimalist fashion, and all the while even while this is happening we are told what a bunch of brutes and how unfair we are by the leftists in this country and the mainstream Media.
…

“In Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and another against the past — two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.”

Dr. Shelby Steele

I could not have said that better.

Can you win a war in which the populace is aiding the insurgency?

GENERAL ABIZAID: If everybody in Iraq was in the resistance, Prime Minister Allawi would not be trying to lead us — his nation — forward to a better future. If everybody in Iraq happened to be part of the resistance they wouldn’t be volunteering for the armed forces. We’ve got over a hundred thousand people that are trained and equipped now. That number is going up higher. There’s more people that are coming forward to fight for the future of Iraq than are fighting against it. So the constant drumbeat in Washington of a war that is being lost, that can’t be won, of a resistance that is out of control simply do not square with the facts on the ground. Yes, there is a resistance. Yes, it’s hard. But the truth of the matter is that Iraqis and Americans and other members of the coalition will face that resistance together — will, through a series of economic, political and military means, figure out how to defeat it and will move on to allow the elections to take place and a constitutional government to emerge.

I’d suggest you visit my “Good News from Iraq” post, to view how General Petraeus, who is now leading the fight, is making progress. As I stated earlier, I am not a Military expert, but I do believe in the US military. We are being led to victory by General Petraeus, a man with the experience and ability to accomplish the mission. In this new type of war, I trust the military to protect us.

Gen. Petraeus’s awards and decorations (too numerous to list all) include:

• Defense Distinguished Service Medal
• Two Distinguished Service Medals
• Two Defense Superior Service Medals
• Four Legions of Merit
• Bronze Star Medal for Valor
• State Department Superior Honor Award
• NATO Meritorious Service Medal
• Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm
• Master Parachutist wings
• Air Assault wings
• Ranger tab
• Combat Action Badge
• French parachutist wings
• British parachutist wings
• German parachutist wings

… and so many more.

As I said this is a New Type of global conflict. Difficult to give more examples. The world has changed as it always does, and military conflicts are no different. We must adapt, or parish. I believe Gen. Petraeus is adapting,

I understand the impatience, but is defeat an option?