The Unbeatable Weapon

The Unbeatable Weapon
Why Washington And It’s Allies Are Doomed To Loose In Iraq

Since the beginning of the Iraq war, the Washington’s rhetoric has set public expectations of a winnable conflict. Washington has launched America head first into an invasion, not just of Iraq but also the Middle East where it believes America will ultimately be victorious. Unfortunately, both Washington and the majority of the American people have yet to realize that we are facing an unbeatable weapon in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world.

Historically our armed forces have always been geared towards conventional warfare between conventional armed forces. To win wars like these, one only needed bigger weapons and more solders. The side that can kill most of their enemy is declared the winner. This was case in both WWI and WWII.

Over the last two hundred years however, there has been a gradual and subtle change in the type of wars that are fought. It is a new type of war which has become Al Qaeda’s chief weapon and which Washington has yet to understand and appreciate. This very same weapon has defeated the worlds most powerful armies and is likely to change the face of the Middle East as we know it.

This devastating and unbeatable weapon is guerilla warfare. It is the use of unconventional ‘civilians’ to strike with lethal effect before melting back into the population. Guerillas are cheap to arm, easy to recruit, train and hide. Guerillas may operate individually or in small teams with loose disjointed chains of command. They can be cab-drivers, waiters and even police officers (as in Iraq) by day. However at night, they can shoot, bomb and sabotage at will before melting back into the population. They do not wear uniforms and do not march in large parades. They could greet you one minute and shoot you the next. Typically, guerillas can not stop an invasion, but they can make occupation unbearable for any occupying force.

Defeating this weapon is not easy. You cannot shoot people you can’t find. No technology exists to identify which civilians are on your side and which are not. In order to win, you must murder all of them, without exception. Hundreds of years ago, before the advent of mass media, this may have been a viable option. In fact when faced with a growing guerilla insurgency in the Philippines during the Spanish-American war, US Army General Jacob Smith told his men, “I want no prisoners. I wish you to burn and kill; the more you burn and kill, the better it will please me.”. The result was the massacre of Filipino 220,000 men, women and children… and the end of the insurgency.

In this day and age, most militaries are unwilling to massacre entire populations. As such, guerilla warfare has become unbeatable. History gives us many examples of how devastatingly effective this weapon can be, against even the largest militaries the world has ever seen.

The Swiss have the misfortune of being located in the middle of one of the most bloody and violent regions of the planet. For hundreds of years their part of Europe has been steeped in conflicts, wars, revolutions and general chaos. In the last hundred years alone, this country has managed to avoid two world wars and a cold war. How did a small nation the size of Ohio avoid being overrun by military giants on both sides?

In Switzerland, virtually every adult is a trained rifleman and is issued an assault rifle. This results in a militia of approximately 500,000 potential snipers who would be able to pick off invaders from the relative safety of the mountains. A well skilled sniper can pin down an entire company of soldiers for days. Even Hitler, who went on to attack both Russia and America, was not crazy enough to invade the Swiss. Military experts in WWII decided that guerillas were so potent, one must outnumber them by at least 6-to-1 to beat them with conventional forces. Using the 6-to-1 ratio, Hitler would have needed 3,000,000 soldiers to invade Switzerland. When he invaded France, he had only 2,500,000 soldiers in total. Whilst he could have mounted a heavily armored Blitzkrieg invasion of Switzerland overnight, trying to hold on to a captured Switzerland would have tied up his entire army in a quagmire.

In Vietnam, it was America’s turn to confront the unbeatable weapon. Vietnam veterans will tell of 5-year olds handing soldiers Coke cans with grenades inside, or of rice-farmers who greeted you by day and shot at you by night. Despite having the largest and most technologically advanced military in the world, Washington was beaten by low-tech guerillas who merged seamlessly into the civilian population. The US dropped nearly four times as many bombs on Vietnam, than were dropped in WWII by all sides. To look at it another way, Washington dropped 70 tons of bombs for every square mile of Vietnam. Yet such enormous firepower failed to quell the insurgency. Hanoi calculated that it only needed to send 20 trucks of supplies over the Ho Chi Minh trail every day to keep it’s guerillas supplied with enough weapons to keep Washington in check. For all their technological advances, Americans could not kill what they could not see. The only alternative was to kill every civilian in sight. Americans did not have the will to do this. As such, Washington lost.

The Soviet experience in Afghanistan is another example of guerilla war. The Soviets had the second most powerful military in the world, but yet they could not defeat small bands of low-tech guerillas. I recall that on nine separate occasions in the Panjshir valley, the Soviets threw at least 15,000 troops with tanks and air support against no more than 3,000 lightly armed guerillas led by Ahmad Shah Masoud. Each of these nine times, the Soviets were defeated. In one operation alone, the Soviets suffered 3,000 dead and 1,000 deserters. The Soviets, as we all know, finally withdrew from Afghanistan.

It is not beyond the realm of plausibility that having seen the American and Russian defeats against vastly smaller and technologically inferior guerillas, Muslims around the world began to see what a potent weapon guerilla warfare is. Consider that for the last 500 years, there has not been a single 5 year period where Christian boots have not occupied Islamic soil. For those seeking to ‘liberate’ their lands from foreign occupation, Guerilla warfare must have seemed like the perfect weapon.

One man who became a legend by helping the Mujahadeen to victory over the Soviets, is now the very same man we are fighting, Osama Bin Laden. In a 1996 interview with Robert Fisk of The Independent, Osama Bin Ladin said, “our country has become an American colony” and that “Resistance against America will spread in many, many places in Muslim countries”.

One of these countries was Chechnya. The fact that many Mujahadeen from Afghanistan went to aid the Chechens, should have sounded alarm bells in the Kremlin. However, the Soviets failed to realize the nature of the weapon they faced.

Together with their Afghani brothers, the Chechens found a particularly effective style of guerilla warfare. Many operated in 3-man teams with two riflemen and one man with anti-tank rockets. The riflemen ambushed groups of Russians but didn’t kill them. The Russians typically radioed for help. When it arrived the man with the rockets would hit the armored personnel carriers and tanks. Leaving a blazing inferno behind, the three would quickly disappear to another area where would they do it all over again. Totally unable to deal with these tiny, fast moving ambush teams, the Russians often struck back with overwhelming force. They once resorted to taking the capital, Groznyy, by shelling and bombing the whole city into rubble. This failed to quell the insurgency simply because they failed to wipe out all Chechens. The Russians are still struggling to bring the Chechen guerillas under control.

(Continued)

Just to put this all in perspective, Chechnya is approximately 0.1% the size of Russia.

Turkish solders are considered some of the best in NATO. Yet, for many years the Turkish government has pitted about 200,000 of their troops against 1,200 Kurdish guerillas. Even with outstanding air support and the fact that they outnumbered their enemy by a ratio of 167 to 1, all the Turks achieved was a stalemate. Israel has been fighting Palestinian guerilla warfare for the last 50 years. Despite having the most advanced American fighters, gunships, weapons, training and $3 billion a year in aid, they have failed to quell Palestinian guerillas with home-made and Soviet-era weapons. Israel does not have the will to kill all Palestinians. As such, their conflict may well continue for another 50 years.

The supreme effectiveness of guerilla warfare means that it is prohibitively expensive to fight against a guerilla insurgency. In WWII the costs of defense and attack were roughly equal. It costs about the same to attack someone as it did to defend from that attack. For example, an anti-aircraft gun cost approximately the same as a medium sized airplane. That's an offensive to defensive ratio of 1:1. As time progresses, through the advances of mass production and better technology, the offensive to defensive ratio increases it becomes more expensive to attack and similarly cheaper to defend.

In Vietnam, the Pentagon found that most of it's aircraft were brought down by small arms fire. Compare the cost of a jet bomber or helicopter to a Soviet made rifle. It's hardly an equal comparison. In fact, it became so expensive to wage war against the Vietnamese guerillas that it cost on average $400,000 just to kill one. Just one. Afghani guerillas shot down Russian helicopters and jets with US made Stinger missiles. A Russian jet can cost $50,000,000 and a Stinger $50,000. That's a ratio of 1,000 to one.

In today's Iraq the offensive to defensive cost ratio has ballooned exponentially. We now find that $4,300,000 M1 tanks are being destroyed by RPGs that have a street value of $500. That's a ratio of 8,600 to one. M1 tanks are considered the toughest in the world, yet they can be destroyed by an Iraqi kid with a cheap 25 year old Soviet-era weapon. Last March, Fox News reported that in one day, the guerillas severely damaged 30 Apache gun ships, from one unit. One was downed and it's crew captured. Several will never fly again. Each Apache costs $20 million. For Apaches alone, the ratio now becomes 40,000 to one. It was only a few months ago that a $140,000,000 Chinook was shot down by an Iraqi RPG. That's 280,000 to one. Can you see the pattern here?

Even if we divide our worst case Iraqi ratio by ten (28,000 to one), in order to defeat the guerillas in Iraq, for every $1 that the enemy spends, Washington must spend $28,000 . If there are 10,000 guerrillas in Iraq (a realistic number considering that we have 130,000 troops struggling to contain them), each with $1000 worth of weapons and supplies (only about $10 million), Washington would need to spend at least $280 billion dollars to overcome them.

In short, small weapons are becoming so cheap and potent that it costs Americans much more to attack Iraqis, than it does for Iraqis to defend themselves from Americans.

The proof is in the pudding. Last year, the Whitehouse was trying to downplay reports that the war would cost as much as $50 billion. Last April, the president said the war in Iraq would cost $2 billion a month. In July, Rumsfeld said that it would cost $4 billion plus one billion a month for Afghanistan. Then the Foreign Relations Committee said it would cost that much just to keep Iraq stable, never mind reconstructing Iraq. So far it has cost $130 billion with almost $5 billion a month going to Iraq. It is inevitable that the costs of occupation will continue to rise.

As usual, Washington is slow on the uptake. Having underestimated both the costs of the Iraq war and the effectiveness of the resistance, it thinks that simply throwing yet more money and soldiers at the problem will fix it. Washington has always underestimated what it will take to win guerilla wars. This trend will only continue.

The March invasion by the US is estimated to have killed at least 10,000 Iraqis. If just one relative or friend of these victims joined the insurgency (using the 167:1 ratio), Washington would need to send 1.67 million soldiers to quell them. Recent reports from the intelligence community indicate that there are now 18,000 insurgents in Iraq. Is it then any wonder that US Generals privately warned that the Army did not have enough soldiers to maintain an occupation in Iraq? There are approximately 135,000 soldiers in Iraq. Despite drawing on the National Guard and forcibly extending tours of duty, Washington has had to call 5600 military retirees into action. A Vietnam style draft after the elections is now inevitable.

Remember being told that our troops will be welcomed with flowers? That only 30,000 troops will be needed by last fall? That Iraqi oil will pay for the invasion? That the resistance will quickly disappear? None of these 'predictions' have come true. For this Washington can blame the unbeatable weapon.

Now we find that in one year 13% of our soldiers have been killed or medically evacuated (that's worse than Vietnam), that the road from Baghdad Airport to the city is so dangerous Americans don't travel it unless in an armored convoy, that if an American Humvee breaks down; soldiers are ordered to abandon it if they can't fix it in 20 minutes and that over a hundred thousands soldiers will be required to stay in Iraq for many years to come. There goes that unbeatable weapon again. This weapon will cost us even more than we can currently imagine.

With the handover of power in Iraq, many are led to believe that the worst is over, that we can start bringing our troops back home, that Iraq will soon be peaceful. Don't believe a word of it.

Iraq is now run by a former CIA agent and long-time Baath party official who doesn't quite see what's so bad about blowing up school busses. The new administration can't make any laws, control it's borders or order foreign troops to leave. Washington is constructing 14 permanent in Iraq. The reality is that Washington is still occupying Iraq and the guerillas know it.

As in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kurdistan, it is surprisingly easy for larger armies to invade foreign countries. However, in every case they were unable to maintain their occupation. Anyone can invade a country, the hard part is staying there. This is exactly what we were seeing in Iraq.

In watching Washington's Iraqi misadventure and it's actions to 'reform' the broader Middle East, I am reminded of a previous Islamic insurgency against a vastly superior invading force. In the 1880s the British invaded Sudan and believed that they would easily be able to kill any Muslim rebels. British-led Egyptian soldiers had steam powered transportation, the latest rifles, artillery and machine guns. The rebels had camels, spears and swords. They were led by a Mohammed Ahmed, who claimed to be the Mahdi , or 'The Guided One'.

History shows that when faced with guerilla warfare, the British stumbled from one defeat to another. Despite being better armed and technologically superior, they were no match for the tactics of the native rebels. In battle after battle, their soldiers were wiped out and their weapons were used against them. In three years the rebels re-took all of Sudan and even killed the British commander, the highly regarded General C.G. Gordon.

It is worth noting that US Marines recently agreed to turn over control of Fallujah after failing to defeat a group of guerillas. The guerillas referred to themselves as the 'Mahdi Army'.