The things people do...
I was tossing around an idea that instead of the comparisons of this war in Iraq to Viet Nam, or Gulf War I -which are, of course, valid comparisons in many ways - that maybe a better comparison would be to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Not in military strategy, per se (thank the gods, as that was extremely brutal) but in... I guess what can be termed as people things, as opposed to war things.
War, of course, involves people and their histories, as well as the latest in Pentagon toys, and trials of new military strategy. One can always have bigger and better wars, or lighter, more lethal wars, or short and sharp wars, or.. well, it goes on and on. From rocks and slingshots to Tomohawk missiles, ways of waging war have "advanced" as "civilizations have advanced". But people, in general, have stayed the same. Inside, if not the outside trappings. And the instinct to band together against a common enemy is a strong one, even if you don't especially like the person at your side. And, consistently, as soon as the common enemy is defeated, the person at your side reverts to his or her former position as 'the opponent. ( I have seen this sort of thing dismissed as a 'tribal' view, or the purview of 'backwards' societies, such as Afghanistan, but in reality it occurs in all societies. After all, I can't think of any society which is not made up of 'tribes' of one sort or another... just under different, 'civilized' names).
Anyway, what is happening (or reported to be happening) in and around Iraq reminds me quite a bit of the Afghanistan situation, as was explained by the 'experts'. The U.S, said they, was able to invade Afghanistan and score significant victories with the help of the local anti-Taliban forces, because they were not there to occupy Afghanistan. They were just there to eliminate the Taliban and break up the Al Qeada stronghold. This is why the end result was not a bogged down, high coalition or local attritrition war, such as befell the Soviets in their Afghanistan venture. Mind you, the end of the US/Afghanistan story hasn't been written yet, and there is a distinct dearth of news coming out of there, since the ending of the war, and the installing of the new government. And what news has come out has not at all been uniformly good, or optimistic. However, taking the Bush Administration as it's word, and assuming the success in Afgahnistan is a given, that leaves now, and Iraq. (To be continued...)
I was tossing around an idea that instead of the comparisons of this war in Iraq to Viet Nam, or Gulf War I -which are, of course, valid comparisons in many ways - that maybe a better comparison would be to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Not in military strategy, per se (thank the gods, as that was extremely brutal) but in... I guess what can be termed as people things, as opposed to war things.
War, of course, involves people and their histories, as well as the latest in Pentagon toys, and trials of new military strategy. One can always have bigger and better wars, or lighter, more lethal wars, or short and sharp wars, or.. well, it goes on and on. From rocks and slingshots to Tomohawk missiles, ways of waging war have "advanced" as "civilizations have advanced". But people, in general, have stayed the same. Inside, if not the outside trappings. And the instinct to band together against a common enemy is a strong one, even if you don't especially like the person at your side. And, consistently, as soon as the common enemy is defeated, the person at your side reverts to his or her former position as 'the opponent. ( I have seen this sort of thing dismissed as a 'tribal' view, or the purview of 'backwards' societies, such as Afghanistan, but in reality it occurs in all societies. After all, I can't think of any society which is not made up of 'tribes' of one sort or another... just under different, 'civilized' names).
Anyway, what is happening (or reported to be happening) in and around Iraq reminds me quite a bit of the Afghanistan situation, as was explained by the 'experts'. The U.S, said they, was able to invade Afghanistan and score significant victories with the help of the local anti-Taliban forces, because they were not there to occupy Afghanistan. They were just there to eliminate the Taliban and break up the Al Qeada stronghold. This is why the end result was not a bogged down, high coalition or local attritrition war, such as befell the Soviets in their Afghanistan venture. Mind you, the end of the US/Afghanistan story hasn't been written yet, and there is a distinct dearth of news coming out of there, since the ending of the war, and the installing of the new government. And what news has come out has not at all been uniformly good, or optimistic. However, taking the Bush Administration as it's word, and assuming the success in Afgahnistan is a given, that leaves now, and Iraq. (To be continued...)
posted by Nanette at
12:59 PM
