Inevitably, Vietnam was used as the comparison point. Sentences usually began with **unlike Vietnam, Iraq...** followed by a checklist of supposedly guerrilla war unfriendly conditions such as:
* the lack of jungle cover (I actually read this from several different 'experts' who insisted it was a showstopping problem for Iraqi fighters...as if everyone in the country is standing in the middle of an immense desert, in the open, wearing white...holding mirrors) * the lack of a rival superpower providing logistical and other support * (and later, once guerrilla war was well underway but the denials kept coming) the lack of a coherent strategy unlike, of course, the N. Vietnamese
Astoundingly (though perhaps not, we do have a tendency to interpret according to beliefs more often than what's actually before our eyes) the three most basic facts of post-invasion Iraq -- from a likelihood of guerrilla war perspective -- were routinely overlooked:
* When Bremer disbanded the Iraqi military he unleashed a force of men -- many of whom were hard bitten, highly trained vets of the Iran Iraq war -- onto the street with little hope of employment, no clear way to feed their families, wounded pride, high powered weapons and serious training. Did this boneheaded maneuver contribute to the formation of the deadly force we're witnessing today?
* High tech advantages aside, it's not possible for a force of approx. 160 thousand (and how many of these are actually combat personnel?) to decisively control a country of 25 million people. As Carrol pointed out very early on, if only 5 or ten percent of the population decides to resist your occupation either directly or by giving aid and comfort to fighters you are easily over-matched. Of course, the Americans can devastate an area like nobody else but as Chuck Grimes has stated many times, they only control the ground they stand on.
* Iraq is well stocked with a remarkable assortment of conventional weaponry, enough to supply years of combat. Everything from rusty old AKs to Russian laser guided anti tank and anti aircraft rockets have been deployed by guerrillas, amazing their American opponents (who, if recent news stories are to be believed, have shifted from declaring their enemies wild eyed cowards to discussing the ruthless efficiency of their tactics).
And a forth item, foreseeable to be sure, given time-proved American behavior towards subject, non-white peoples (and, more generally, the behavior of conqueror towards conquered)...
* The Americans have been killing and 'detaining' Iraqis pretty much indiscriminately (considering the state of the art, you can plausibly claim a 500 pound bomb precisely hit its target but you cannot claim the blast effect only killed 'bad guys') adding more and more fuel to the guerrilla fire.
Much, if not all of this was predictable -- indeed, was predicted by people like Scott Ritter who, before the invasion, said the Iraqis would begin slow, get their bearings and then start bringing the hammer down with ever increasing force. He was ridiculed at the time as I recall.
Yes, all warnings were ignored and now, with the US military in the midst of a full scale counter-insurgency war, with no good idea of how to get a handle on the situation (there's no need to discuss exit strategies...Washington doesn't intend to leave) the analysts have re-tuned to offer sober advice and clear eyed assessments while celebrating 'victories' such as uncovered weapons caches and higher body counts of enemy dead.
The new formula, replacing the *unlike Vietnam...* theme is *although US forces have scored major victories, the insurgency remains a stubborn foe*.
This is better, by which I mean more realistic, than the previous leitmotif but still has a merrily whistling while hurrying past the cemetery feel to it.
.d.