NOT JUST SEMANTICS
Steven Den Beste of USS Clueless has one of the best analyses of war and how to win it that I've ever read. It's about 20 minutes' worth, but it makes a complex subject very understandable.
One of the things that he mentioned that piqued my interest was when he contrasted terrorism and guerilla warfare:
**********
I've written at length about the basic theory behind terrorism here, so I will only briefly summarize it. The strategy is to motivate the uncommitted to join the fight or to support it, and the tactic is to engage in acts against a much more powerful enemy which will provoke reprisals from that enemy. Usually the goal is to cause the enemy to make massive reprisals against the large mass of the uncommitted, angering them. Some of them may then join your cause; many others will at least become more sympathetic to it.
Violent attacks against enemy targets, especially civilian targets, are one way to do that, and that's what most people think of as being "terrorism".
But sometimes, in very special cases, peaceful demonstrations of resistance can win directly by bringing about a loss of political will by the enemy (which is how Gandhi won in India).
That's relatively rare, and is only possible against unusual enemies. Gandhi was able to win because of British sensibilities; if the occupiers had been Russian and the enemy leader had been Stalin, Gandhi's campaign would have been a failure, and Gandhi would have been executed early on without a trial.
What is far more common for successful terrorist campaigns is that they gradually transition into guerrilla war as support builds up. There's a distinct difference between the two. According to the doctrine, terrorist attacks are primarily designed to provoke reprisals, but guerrilla actions are directly intended to harm the enemy militarily. [emphasis mine]
**********
and he comes to this conclusion as to how to label what the Baathist leftovers are doing in Iraq:
**********
All of the preceding discussion is intended to lead up to Wretchard's post about Iraq titled "Follow the Money". Though the insurgency in Iraq has used low level tactics we associate with terrorism, it is in fact a guerrilla operation. [emphasis mine] The attacks are not intended to provoke American reprisals so as to gain sympathy among Iraqi civilians and induce them to join the insurgency or to support it. If anything, Iraqi support for the Coalition has continued to strengthen since the invasion as the Coalition continues to work to try to improve the lives of Iraq's civilians.
The insurgency is rather attempting to engage primarily in classic hit-and-run attacks on Coalition forces or on other foreign bodies, hoping they'll lose heart and pull out. In some cases they've been successful; one bombing attack caused the UN to pull out, and several other NGO's have curtailed their operations in Iraq.
**********
Which made me think of the discussion that's going at Angelweave, wherein a liberal opined:
The bad guys attacking our soldiers are not terrorists--they are guerrillas, engaged in an insurgency.
And Heather's response:
Take your classification of guerillas. I disagree, and I'll take to the dictionary.
Guerilla - A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids. (from dictionary.com).
Okay - suicide bombings - yeah, it fits either way - terrorist or guerilla. You believe one way, and I believe the opposite? Is one of us lying? No, I don't believe so. It's merely semantics.
Well, I guess I'll have to disagree with Heather on the analysis of that single point. The liberal is right - it's guerilla warfare, not terrorism. However, Heather's right the the conclusions drawn by the liberal in question are [my term] blithering asshattery.
Nor are they a direct threat to the American people--or is this an admission that the neo-con's beloved "flypaper strategy" is a failure? I'll further note that we created the current violent environment in Iraq through an illegal invasion and inept occupation.
Regardless, these statements are proof positive that Bush offers only fear to the American people.
Knee-jerk anti-war liberals are funny that way. Even when they finally get something right, they quickly cannonball into the deep end of the short-sighted idiocy pool.
posted by Harvey at 9:49:25 PM permalink HOME
|
