Squeeze, Release, Watch, Repeat

Regular correspondent Fingers - an old friend with extremely extensive knowledge of military matters, left a great comment earlier today.

Since John Kerry and the Dems seem to want to make an issue of Iraq, it seems especially appropriate.

Fingers said:

A number of months ago the military tactic of "squeeze, release, and watch" was outlined to the press (and actually talked about). While not the most decisive method possible to stop the insurgents, the 'squeeze and release' method does allow a chance for a diplomatic solution meanwhile buying time for the Iraqi defense forces to grow and train to be able to eventually assume responsibility for their own internal problems.

The press, through malice or ignorance, inevitably misses this.

There are several concentric goals going on:

1. Kill terrorists
2. Build a stable, democratic, small-l "liberal" nation to shake the roots of Islamofascism and Pan-Arab authoritarianism
3. Build goodwill toward the west and democracy in Iraq.
4. Build the infrastructure to allow the Iraqis to see to their own security
5. Have a base of operations against other terrorists in the region (Iran, Syria), as well as to influence events in nations that are on the knife-edge (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan)

Of course we could carpet-bomb Fallujah - it'd solve #1, but that'd undermine #3, which'd endanger #2 and #5. The Marines could do the whole job themselves, solving #1 again, but retarding #4 and #2.

For people who obsess over "nuance" and "sensitivity", you'd think Democrats would have less trouble twigging to these sorts of things.

Fingers continues:

The downside is that it gives the terrorists a chance to infiltrate more insurgents into the disputed areas. The good news is....it also tends to draw them like flies to dung so we can kill more of them in a centralized location when we 'squeeze' again.

Which is a vital distinction.

The Democrats are spinning the situation like this: "There's been no victory parade, ergo we haven't "won". Since we haven't "won", we're in a quagmire, just like Vietnam!"

Huge difference; in Vietnam, the Viet Cong and the NVA were able to control huge swathes of the country, and seriously impede our ability to move troops, to say nothing of things like commerce and civilian traffic, around the country. Ambushes of small units were frequently incredibly bloody affairs - entire patrols, even platoons (30-40 men) were not-infrequently wiped out to a man in Vietnam, in ambushes not that far from "secure" areas. They were able to seriously contest control of significant geographic areas in the country.

Not so in Iraq. Troops are getting killed, but not entire patrols; if we want something to get somewhere, it'll get there. The fedayin are not in control of any place, and they have no safe haven within Iraq that isn't subject to being overrun without notice.

Which isn't to say they aren't operating, and causing mayhem; they are. But mayhem is all it is; they are in no danger of winning anything - the war, any significant city, anything that they can raise a flag over and proclaim out of Coalition control.

Their only goal is to cause us, the people, to lose heart - or do something irredeemably stupid, like elect John Kerry.

Fingers continues with a vital point that is usually forgotten, and hard to keep your mind on in any case:

Counter-insurgency operations by their very nature are not immediately decisive, and do tax the patience and constitution of the forces (and that their home country's populace) performing them. The key is RESOLVE.

That, indeed, is the big lesson of history; insurgents only win when they can see a light at the end of the tunnel, and the light is near enough to make their (often ghastly) sacrifices worthwhile. Look at some famous insurgencies:

• The American Revolution: The insurgents suffered terribly - and the revolution nearly stalled at some points - but once the British started to waver on the cost of keeping us under the crown (remember, there was a significant pro-independence faction in Parliament at the time), it was all over. It took seven years for it to be official, although the Brits' real will to conquer ended at Yorktown; from that point on, victory was basically inevitable.
• The Chinese Revolution: The light was always there - as was an iron will on the part of Mao Zhedong, which quashed any dissent, flagging, or documented pessimism on the part of his guerrillas. Their will was vastly greater than that of the corrupt Kuomintang, which eventually capitulated.
• The Malaysian Emergencies: Britain fought two insurgency wars in the jungles of Southeast Asia in the fifties and sixties, against Indonesian-backed insurgents and the Indonesian military itself. The Brits wrote the book on counterinsurgency warfare; special forces and intelligence found the enemy among the locals, backed by judicious use of the RAF and crack British infantry when things got hot. The rebels, seeing no light at the end of the tunnel, gave up.
• Algeria: The French and their proxies in Algeria fought an incredibly brutal counterinsurgency in Algeria, the worst of modern times. Then they cut and ran. At the risk of oversimplifying, the French fought hard for a while - and then lost the will to fight the war.
• Vietnam: The US defeated the insurgents - the left keeps losing sight of that fact. But the rise of the anti-war movement in the US gave the insurgents an end-goal that they couldn't win in the field, and they exploited it masterfully.
• The Troubles: The carnage in Ulster defies easy explanation - but when the IRA started bombing British targets outside Ulster, the Brits resonded with strength, determination - and enough subtlety to avoid things like rolling artillery barrages in Londonderry. The war was at home, of course, for the Brits, who endured many bombings and other outrages in London and other Brit cities - there was little question of capitulation while car-bombs were rocking The City.

So Fingers is right - staying the course until the war is really won is vital.

So what will we do? Keep killing the terrorists? Or elect a President whose only consistent position (at all) seems to lead, through one circumlocution or another, to "surrender with honor?"

Option 1 will only go on until the terrorists realize that they will never, ever win. Kerry, like George McGovern, is their light at the end of the tunnel.

Statements like the one made by the sister of the latest 'beheading victim' that "we should bring everyone home," when disseminated widely by our media merely help fuel the resolve of our opponents and make our job that much more difficult.freedoms, I feel it is important to point out that during a time of conflict such as we are in, relatively poorly funded foes need not devote much coin to intelligence gathering when they merely need a satellite dish and internet modem to let our free press do the job for them.

That's why the alternative media - talk radio and the blogosphere - need to stay on this story.

The Captain is actively seeking the stories of servicepeople in Iraq, to try to counteract the relentless, cynical drumbeat of pessimism from the left. There's still much more to do, including the big kahuna of them all - pounding a pike through the heart of the terrs' big hope, a Kerry Presidency.

Let's all get on that.

Posted by Mitch at September 23, 2004 09:59 AM | TrackBack