A civil war is taking place within Islam. The presence of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan is acting as a catalyst. It can be argued both ways that our presence is positive or negative. (Probably both, to some degree) The overall point is that the Islamic civil war is HUDGE. The Muslim population is over 1 billion people. By comparison, the population of all the major combatants during World War II was about 1 billion. The issues within the Islamic Civil War (Among many others) that are being fought over:
1) The penalty for leaving Islam is death. (An Apostate) (Fighting qualifies for Jihad.)
2) The worldwide obligation to kill ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land. (Fighting infidels also qualifies for Jihad)
3) The Islamic electoral policy of ‘One man (Men only) one vote, once’.
4) The common interpretation of ‘Jihad’. Bernard Lewis: "For most of the fourteen centuries of Islamic history, Jihad has been most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power." Individuals who fight in the Jihad qualify for booty. This means that property can be seized. Throughout history, this issue has helped trigger countless wars. These issues can also be seen as being contributors to the causes of the constant Arab-Israeli wars.
The cultural changes going on in the Palestinian areas can be seen as being indirectly connected to the war in Iraq. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are speeding up cultural changes throughout the Islamic world, yet the war is still relatively small. It amazes me how small the amount of fighting is when compared to the number of people impacted. Compared to most of the modern wars that the United States has engaged in, the war in Iraq is a small one. Vietnam and Korea by comparison were much larger affairs. Yet the populations involved were miniscule in comparison to the war today. So far, this is a classic guerrilla war on a global scale. The largest concern is that this war can easily become a much, much larger war if not handled well.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Iraq to Afghanistan
The desert is the 2nd best surface on the planet Earth for the U.S. military to engage in battle on. The desert has been called a quartermaster’s nightmare and a tactician’s dream. This is because in order to support any sizable force in the desert requires heavy mechanization. The desert is hard on equipment. However, no features can block movement or line of sight. Mobile forces are free to maneuver at will. The differences between heat and cold allow thermal imaging and other ‘high tech’ devices an ideal environment to work in. There are very few (If any) places to hide and slip away, avoiding death or capture. A human being can survive for something like 30 days without eating. A human can only last up to 3-4 days without water. If the United States must fight a war, Iraq is one of the best places on Earth for us. This is why the war has moved into the cities. This is the opposite from Vietnam because we controlled the towns and cities where the VC and NVA controlled and contested the countryside.
I have been hearing the idea that the United States should withdraw from Iraq and re-deploy at least some additional troops into Afghanistan. While additional troops may be required in Afghanistan, withdrawal from Iraq into Afghanistan does not make military sense. Mountain terrain is the WORSE surface for the U.S. military to fight on. We would be re-deploying from some of the best terrain in the world to THE worst. Among many things, Afghanistan and Iraq are serving to draw people into action whom are willing to assume risk in order to directly or indirectly help to kill American soldiers. To stop engaging them in the area where we would dominate and seek to fight them where they are at a much more even level is foolhardy. They must attack us in Iraq. They cannot allow us to succeed. We are encouraging them to attack our army. This is a good match-up for us. The logic against this is that by our presence, we are creating new enemies. This overlooks the factor that ALL wars create new enemies. The U.S. had one hell of a lot more enemies on December 10, 1941 than we did on December 6th. (Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 9th) Besides, we really do not know how many terrorists exist now and how many existed before. How can we be certain that all of these ‘new’ enemies are not ones that are being forced or encouraged to go public? Just because we see many enemies today does not necessarily mean that they are ‘new’. One of the largest problems in the fight against terrorism is in knowing who they are and who supports them. Taking action does not necessarily mean going into Iraq and carrying a rifle. By taking action, you run the risk of revealing yourself. Is it not to our advantage to know more accurately who they are and how many we actually face?
Another way to look at it: Have you changed your mind about which side you feel is more ‘right’ concerning the Palestinian – Israeli situation? This issue is also similar to the debate over abortion. Everyone has a view, and very little change of sides occurs. I have not changed my mind regarding either issue since before 1973. Can we really expect anyone else to have changed his or her mind? We pride ourselves in being open-minded. Don’t forget that our culture is much more prone to changing views than most. Particularly regarding the culture prevalent throughout the Middle East.
I have been hearing the idea that the United States should withdraw from Iraq and re-deploy at least some additional troops into Afghanistan. While additional troops may be required in Afghanistan, withdrawal from Iraq into Afghanistan does not make military sense. Mountain terrain is the WORSE surface for the U.S. military to fight on. We would be re-deploying from some of the best terrain in the world to THE worst. Among many things, Afghanistan and Iraq are serving to draw people into action whom are willing to assume risk in order to directly or indirectly help to kill American soldiers. To stop engaging them in the area where we would dominate and seek to fight them where they are at a much more even level is foolhardy. They must attack us in Iraq. They cannot allow us to succeed. We are encouraging them to attack our army. This is a good match-up for us. The logic against this is that by our presence, we are creating new enemies. This overlooks the factor that ALL wars create new enemies. The U.S. had one hell of a lot more enemies on December 10, 1941 than we did on December 6th. (Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 9th) Besides, we really do not know how many terrorists exist now and how many existed before. How can we be certain that all of these ‘new’ enemies are not ones that are being forced or encouraged to go public? Just because we see many enemies today does not necessarily mean that they are ‘new’. One of the largest problems in the fight against terrorism is in knowing who they are and who supports them. Taking action does not necessarily mean going into Iraq and carrying a rifle. By taking action, you run the risk of revealing yourself. Is it not to our advantage to know more accurately who they are and how many we actually face?
Another way to look at it: Have you changed your mind about which side you feel is more ‘right’ concerning the Palestinian – Israeli situation? This issue is also similar to the debate over abortion. Everyone has a view, and very little change of sides occurs. I have not changed my mind regarding either issue since before 1973. Can we really expect anyone else to have changed his or her mind? We pride ourselves in being open-minded. Don’t forget that our culture is much more prone to changing views than most. Particularly regarding the culture prevalent throughout the Middle East.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Iran challenge of U.S. Navy
Iran’s recent challenge of the U.S. Navy can not be seen as a serious effort, other than possibly to offer the idea that in the event of war, Iran may be able to close the straight of Hormuz for a period of time. While closing the straight is an important consideration, the challenge of Iran to the U.S. Navy is a very small one. Why do I say this? Because the best surface on Earth for the U.S. military to fight on is over water. It requires warships to control the surface. It requires submarines, torpedoes and mines to fight under it and it also requires aircraft and missiles to fight above. All aspects are high tech and heavy on quality of equipment. I am leaving out the land aspect of any war with Iran at this time. The limit placed upon this discussion is a naval battle. This is leaving out any war of conquest or any punitive expeditions.
Closing the straight of Hormuz would be an economic blow to the world. Something like 40% of the world’s oil passes through that straight. However, it would not be decisive. Situations like this have occurred in the past. One example is that in 1942, Japan overran most of the rubber producing areas. We developed alternatives, which reduced our reliance upon rubber. This is not a quality comparison because oil is far more important today than rubber was in 1942. However, the industry of the rest of the world through the global economy would reduce the overall effect of any disruption in the straight of Hormuz by a significant amount. The effect would be delayed and very serious. Hardship would result. However, it would not be catastrophic. Any sunken ships would be eventually removed. Unless nuclear weapons were involved.
One line of thought is that once Iran has the bomb, they will no longer have to resort to these types of confrontations. Another thought is that when they get the bomb, they just may think like some of the suicide attackers and not become very hesitant to deploy.
Closing the straight of Hormuz would be an economic blow to the world. Something like 40% of the world’s oil passes through that straight. However, it would not be decisive. Situations like this have occurred in the past. One example is that in 1942, Japan overran most of the rubber producing areas. We developed alternatives, which reduced our reliance upon rubber. This is not a quality comparison because oil is far more important today than rubber was in 1942. However, the industry of the rest of the world through the global economy would reduce the overall effect of any disruption in the straight of Hormuz by a significant amount. The effect would be delayed and very serious. Hardship would result. However, it would not be catastrophic. Any sunken ships would be eventually removed. Unless nuclear weapons were involved.
One line of thought is that once Iran has the bomb, they will no longer have to resort to these types of confrontations. Another thought is that when they get the bomb, they just may think like some of the suicide attackers and not become very hesitant to deploy.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Outdated equipment used by armies
We used to hear arguments about how our United States forces are not properly equipped in Iraq. One example is that the Humvees were not armored enough. This is an old issue and a far older problem. It is not uncommon for military forces to be equipped with outdated equipment. At the beginning of direct U.S. involvement in World War II, our forces were equipped with plenty of left over World War I weapons. The Korean War was also fought with left over equipment from World War II. In less well-equipped armies, the situation is far more pronounced. Some other examples:
The horse was obsolete during World War II. Yet the United States and Great Britain were the only 100% mechanized armies in the world. The German army was more than 60% horse driven and they kicked a lot of people around for years. (They even got us and the English a few times) The horse was obsolete at the time. However, it was useful. Part of the reason Sixth Army held out for so long during the winter at Stalingrad was because they ate the horses. This saved the rest of the army that could have been trapped if Stalingrad did not hold out so long. This disaster could have been even greater in scope than the loss already endured.
American aircraft carrier flight decks were built with wood in World War II. This allowed for them to be easily repaired when damaged. Wood is less slick than steel, so working on the deck is less dangerous. Ships with wooden decks could operate far more aircraft. (Which is the ship’s first line of defense) The downside to this is the fact that when hit, the wooden decks offered far less effective resistance to damage and injury to the crew. We lost a lot more men than we would have if the decks had been armored.
These are just some examples of a problem that has been around since the dawn of time. As pointed out in a prior post, balance is part of the issue. Expense is another part. After all, military equipment has always been VERY expensive. And for the most part, useless. Unless a war occurs. Then the modern equipment is priceless. Another part of the problem is foresight. Who could have guessed that the Sherman tank would have been so outgunned by the better-armored Tiger and Panther tanks in 1944? Armchair quarterbacks have been around since the dawn of time when referring to military equipment and battles.
The horse was obsolete during World War II. Yet the United States and Great Britain were the only 100% mechanized armies in the world. The German army was more than 60% horse driven and they kicked a lot of people around for years. (They even got us and the English a few times) The horse was obsolete at the time. However, it was useful. Part of the reason Sixth Army held out for so long during the winter at Stalingrad was because they ate the horses. This saved the rest of the army that could have been trapped if Stalingrad did not hold out so long. This disaster could have been even greater in scope than the loss already endured.
American aircraft carrier flight decks were built with wood in World War II. This allowed for them to be easily repaired when damaged. Wood is less slick than steel, so working on the deck is less dangerous. Ships with wooden decks could operate far more aircraft. (Which is the ship’s first line of defense) The downside to this is the fact that when hit, the wooden decks offered far less effective resistance to damage and injury to the crew. We lost a lot more men than we would have if the decks had been armored.
These are just some examples of a problem that has been around since the dawn of time. As pointed out in a prior post, balance is part of the issue. Expense is another part. After all, military equipment has always been VERY expensive. And for the most part, useless. Unless a war occurs. Then the modern equipment is priceless. Another part of the problem is foresight. Who could have guessed that the Sherman tank would have been so outgunned by the better-armored Tiger and Panther tanks in 1944? Armchair quarterbacks have been around since the dawn of time when referring to military equipment and battles.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Heavy versus light/fast.
Throughout history the balance between heavy armor and light but fast movement has been instrumental in determining the victors in many battles. Some modern examples:
In the early 20th century, the argument was made that speed is armor when designing warships. The HMS Hood was an example. Battleship sized guns were placed on a ship with cruiser armor. Because a cruiser did not have as much armor, this enabled the ship to have a much higher turn of speed. As you probably know, when the Hood ran into the German battleship Bismarck, the heavier armored ship literally blew the battlecruiser out of the water. Another example was the Soviet T34.
On June 22, 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The main battle tank for the German army at that time was the Panzer III. What the Germans did not know was that the Soviets had developed the most advanced tank in the world, the T34. The T34 was heavier, carried a much larger weapon, and had better range. The T34 was actually faster in adverse conditions because of its much wider tracks. It did not become stuck as easily. The Germans built the Tiger tank to fight the T34. As you also probably already know, the Tiger was the heaviest tank in the world when it arrived on the battlefield. This did not translate into the same type of success as with the T34. The Tiger had limited range (Its fuel economy was low) it was slow and prone to breaking down. True, it was a tough tank to destroy in battle. This was also offset because it was difficult and expensive to build. In other words, they could not make nearly as many. The German Panther tank was also developed to fight the T34. This tank was lighter than the Tiger and carried a smaller main gun. This was offset by the fact that it was much faster, had much better range, was easier to tow away, was also easier and less expensive to build. Production of the Panther began almost a full year after the Tiger, yet more than 4 times as many were built before the end of the war. Even though the Panther was lighter than the Tiger tank, it was almost as difficult to destroy in battle.
The overall point is that as a general rule, balance is key. (As in so many other aspects in life) This is one area where I personally had disagreement with former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Future wars may demand a lighter, more agile force. It is almost a certainty that some type of heavy weapon system(s) will be useful, if not a vital part of those wars.
In the early 20th century, the argument was made that speed is armor when designing warships. The HMS Hood was an example. Battleship sized guns were placed on a ship with cruiser armor. Because a cruiser did not have as much armor, this enabled the ship to have a much higher turn of speed. As you probably know, when the Hood ran into the German battleship Bismarck, the heavier armored ship literally blew the battlecruiser out of the water. Another example was the Soviet T34.
On June 22, 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The main battle tank for the German army at that time was the Panzer III. What the Germans did not know was that the Soviets had developed the most advanced tank in the world, the T34. The T34 was heavier, carried a much larger weapon, and had better range. The T34 was actually faster in adverse conditions because of its much wider tracks. It did not become stuck as easily. The Germans built the Tiger tank to fight the T34. As you also probably already know, the Tiger was the heaviest tank in the world when it arrived on the battlefield. This did not translate into the same type of success as with the T34. The Tiger had limited range (Its fuel economy was low) it was slow and prone to breaking down. True, it was a tough tank to destroy in battle. This was also offset because it was difficult and expensive to build. In other words, they could not make nearly as many. The German Panther tank was also developed to fight the T34. This tank was lighter than the Tiger and carried a smaller main gun. This was offset by the fact that it was much faster, had much better range, was easier to tow away, was also easier and less expensive to build. Production of the Panther began almost a full year after the Tiger, yet more than 4 times as many were built before the end of the war. Even though the Panther was lighter than the Tiger tank, it was almost as difficult to destroy in battle.
The overall point is that as a general rule, balance is key. (As in so many other aspects in life) This is one area where I personally had disagreement with former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Future wars may demand a lighter, more agile force. It is almost a certainty that some type of heavy weapon system(s) will be useful, if not a vital part of those wars.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Vietnam withdrawal
Many similarities exist between Vietnam and today’s war in Iraq. Even though every war is different in some major way(s), review of the United States withdrawal from Vietnam may provide some insight.
The treaty signed in January 1973 enabled the U.S. to fully withdraw its combat troops. By April 1973 the withdrawal was for the most part, completed. The war continued without the United States. In April 1975, the North Vietnamese Army attacked and took Saigon. We evacuated our embassy staff. Many people were imprisoned and/or killed during the months that followed. The point of view from the United States was, this is where it ended. The government of South Vietnam was gone. Once united, Vietnam left us alone.
A significant percentage of the population of the United States today is in favor of withdrawal from Iraq. Even an accelerated withdrawal would take at least a few months. How long do you believe the Iraqi government would last? If we use Vietnam as a guide (Possibly not an accurate indicator) Baghdad would last around two years. Once again, if we use Vietnam as a guide, many people would be killed over the next few months. After that, the new government of Iraq would leave the United States alone. If you believe this is likely, then it makes sense to agree with the idea that withdrawal from Iraq is a sound move.
The treaty signed in January 1973 enabled the U.S. to fully withdraw its combat troops. By April 1973 the withdrawal was for the most part, completed. The war continued without the United States. In April 1975, the North Vietnamese Army attacked and took Saigon. We evacuated our embassy staff. Many people were imprisoned and/or killed during the months that followed. The point of view from the United States was, this is where it ended. The government of South Vietnam was gone. Once united, Vietnam left us alone.
A significant percentage of the population of the United States today is in favor of withdrawal from Iraq. Even an accelerated withdrawal would take at least a few months. How long do you believe the Iraqi government would last? If we use Vietnam as a guide (Possibly not an accurate indicator) Baghdad would last around two years. Once again, if we use Vietnam as a guide, many people would be killed over the next few months. After that, the new government of Iraq would leave the United States alone. If you believe this is likely, then it makes sense to agree with the idea that withdrawal from Iraq is a sound move.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Israeli settlements
The election of Abraham Lincoln triggered the beginning of the U.S. Civil War. A contributing reason was because Lincoln would not allow slavery to expand. The supporters of slavery knew their days were numbered. If slavery were not allowed to expand, the support of slavery would become weaker and weaker as time passed.
Today, a key demand in the Israeli – Palestinian problem is Israeli settlements. No new settlements are demanded by Palestinian politicians. It could be that they want Israel to stop expanding so that their days will then be numbered. Another potential influencing factor: The occupation of Muslim land triggers a worldwide obligation to kill occupiers. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Not only can you not convert to another religion; Muslim land cannot revert back to being non-Muslim. These factors can be seen as not only basic contributing causes for the constant Arab-Israeli wars, but an important factor in the violent response to Israeli expansion.
Today, a key demand in the Israeli – Palestinian problem is Israeli settlements. No new settlements are demanded by Palestinian politicians. It could be that they want Israel to stop expanding so that their days will then be numbered. Another potential influencing factor: The occupation of Muslim land triggers a worldwide obligation to kill occupiers. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Not only can you not convert to another religion; Muslim land cannot revert back to being non-Muslim. These factors can be seen as not only basic contributing causes for the constant Arab-Israeli wars, but an important factor in the violent response to Israeli expansion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
