If there is a truth to things, it is that things ever change, and yet they remain the same in their goals. War is our ever constant socioeconomic companion, war for resources, war for land, war for women, war for it's own sake. We are eclipsed in conflict, as humans seem propelled, and so we find ourselves stuck in a cycle of unproductive death and rebirth, rise and fall; ever the pendulum swings.
However, today, we find us now in a peculiar place, I always wondered what it must have felt like for the military commanders of old to realize that the rules of war that they had conducted themselves for their entire lives and those same rules that their forbears practiced, were totally obsolete. I believe that we have entered into just that paradigm today.
Our military minds seem flabbergasted at the efficiency of guerrilla war, after all, we've been losing to it since it arrived on the scene (in American terms) in Vietnam. After carful study I have come to a conclusion, our modern generals have not read Mao Zedong's 'On Guerrilla Warfare" or paid attention to the basic strategies guerrilla's conduct their recruitment and attack patterns. This is an unacceptable error, and if I were America's dictator I would most certainly have these people executed in the town square for their inept behavior.
Let us think for a moment, the twentieth century actually does know how to combat this type of combat; in fact we prevented this type of thing at the end of the second world war. We educated and rebuilt our enemies, we tried to get them back on their feet, reconciled with them and brought them to grips with some of the things their regimes had done in their name. Yet, we have failed to understand, and in fact have regressed in strategy and practice, to fight a cogent conflict with at least a semblance of a resolution; why?
In many ways I believe that we have fallen into the military industrial complex trap of "war for war's sake" which has become a major business boon for the weapons industry. We must remember, each bomb costs a fortune and each bomb can only be detonated once and so we spend fortunes to replace the ones we've used; this critique includes bullets and even military equipment that we leave behind on the battlefields and in the nations we've fought in; disposable expenses.
Placing these things aside, and that is nearly impossible to do, we must focus on the inefficiency that is conducting our war tactics; why can't we win? Well, a guerrilla war needs a maximum of two people to start, two people and a populace filled with boiling rage/legitimate reason to feel animus against the enemy; these individuals are often in poor countries. Then, all that is required is a solid recruitment, a few people in the beginning, to conduct the attack, and then, in expectance, the more powerful nation that they attacked will overreact and use excessive force; killing many civilians in the process. Bang! Instant recruitment tool, you have now recruited many angry people to the guerrilla ranks, and the perpetual motion device goes on.
You cannot win a guerilla war, short of committing mass genocide, you will forever be left with rage filled masses who will wish revenge upon you for the slaughter of innocence that you have perpetrated upon them. This is the only logical emotional response that said person can have, entirely reasonable, and they will enact those feelings; they must. And so, the question, how can you defeat a guerrilla war ?
We cannot continue to utilize our over reliance on air power, this is creating the problem, we must establish a solid ground force. Then, this is the revolutionary part, we must send in behind them both the army corps of engineers and the peace corps. The peace corps must become part of the military, but they must be unarmed, they must be relational, and they must interact and work with the masses of people of the enemy nation. The reality is they must, along with the army corps of engineers, help rebuild/hire/train the enemy nation. We must establish relationships with the masses, we must show them the humanity of their enemy along with the fact that we must take their humanity into account as well. Yes, we must combat the enemy who assaults innocence, but we cannot delve into the morass of barbarism along with them, because it will only serve to create an intractable conflict that has no end or possible reconciliation.
Let us be clear, war is always expensive, and so for those who say we cannot afford to both bomb and rebuild our enemy is not paying attention to how much money we're paying to fight without any clear path to peace. Right now, we are fighting in the middle east, the refugee crisis is exploding, and for obvious reasons; we've no plan for peace. We need people, not just troops, but engineers and individuals who can help establish the education for living in a rebuilt nation/economy. We must retrain people on how to run businesses, how to build buildings, bridges, and other infrastructure. They would require a completely rebuilt electric grid, and it would be up to us, as the more powerful nation, to provide them with a solid green grid with wind and solar renewables. We should look at this as an opportunity to both combat our enemies and the specter of climate change; as this too is driving the refugee crisis.
Now, let us establish a new rule, a rule that already exists but no one pays any attention to, the stronger bear more responsibility. This is just a fact, if the stronger nation does not restrain its power it will hit potential friends in the process. We cannot view an entire country as an enemy, and we cannot throw out their humanity as a whole when we combat them. If we keep killing, with the idea that civilian casualties are 'to be expected' or 'a necessary evil' than we will never stop the combat and the war will ever continue on.
Now, I know that my observation of "war for war's sake" makes this entire article's observation moot; after all, if we are utilizing war as a business, than no interest even exists in ending it. My proposition is that of 'how to combat a guerilla war' hopefully with a satisfactory ending. But I do understand that we are now living in the age of the dollar, and so unfortunately, we may be transfixed in an intractable conflict that may do more than kill those poor souls, but slowly work it's way back home as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment