“We must bear in mind that imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism—and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism. Our share, the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world, is to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capital, raw materials, technicians, and cheap labor, and to which they export new capital-instruments of domination-arms and all kinds of articles, thus submerging us in absolute dependence.”
- Ernesto Che Guevara.

While critics of the Iraq war are quick to point out that US occupation is failing, they hesitate to draw the obvious conclusion; that the Iraqi resistance is winning. Observations like that are tantamount to treason and thus banned in the establishment-media. The idea of American invincibility is such a carefully-nurtured myth that is defended in all quarters and at all times. Even if U.S. troops were caught red-handed pushing their helicopters into the Euphrates while hastily fleeing Baghdad, the “embedded” media would twist it around so it looked like a “strategic redeployment”.
There’s nothing new about media bias, but its effect on the ongoing war has been negligible. The media’s “spin” cannot alter the reality on the ground, and the fact is the US is getting beaten quite badly. They’ve locked-horns with a crafty enemy that has neutralized their advantages in terms of firepower and technology and limited their range of movement. It’s shocking to think that after 4 years of bloody conflict, occupation forces still control “no ground” beyond the looming parapets of the Green Zone. This is a stunning admission of defeat.
By every objective standard, the US is losing the war in Iraq.
Still, America’s misfortunes are simply the result of administrative
miscues or a bungled strategy, but the unavoidable effect of a shrewd
and ferocious adversary that strikes unexpectedly and then hides among
the population. As Mao Tse-tung said, “The guerilla must move among the
people as a fish swims in the sea.” The Iraqi resistance has managed
this feat with greater dexterity than anyone expected.
The benchmarks for winning a guerilla-type war are fairly well known.
The occupying army must quickly establish security in order to elicit
the support of the general population. That’s why winning “hearts and
minds” is such a critical task. If the occupation iswidely unpopular,
then reconstruction and security become impossible, and the
armed-struggle flourishes. Now that 80% of the Iraqi people say that
they want to see a rapid draw-down of American troops, we can be
certain that victory, in any conventional sense of the word, is out of
the question.
Guerilla warfare has reached a new level of complexity in Iraq. After 4
years, we know little moreabout the resistance and their methods of
operating as we did at the time of the invasion. Is there a
central-command or just small independent cells? How do they
communicate among themselves? Do they have a reliable source of
weaponry and explosives? What are their funding sources? How many men
are in the resistance? How many women? Do they move around the country
or stay in one location? Are there foreign donors or are they
self-sustaining? How deeply is the public engaged in supporting
resistance activities?
Without knowing the answers to these questions, the United States, with
all its high-tech surveillance gadgetry, is just a lumbering giant
stumbling around aimlessly. The dependence on rounding up and torturing
“military aged men” (MAMs) to gather intelligence about resistance
activities and networks has backfired entirely; galvanizing the public
against the occupation and eroding America’s claim of moral
superiority.
Guerilla warfare is a war of attrition; the steady, inexorable wearing
away of the enemy’s forces and morale. The object is to invoke various
asymmetrical strategies to keep the invading army constantly
off-balance and on the defensive. The guerilla must keep probing for
vulnerabilities; picking away at potential soft-spots while executing a
program of sabotage and deception. As Mao advised, “Withdraw when the
enemy advances; harass him when he stops; strike him when he is weary;
pursue him when he withdraws.”
The overall effect of this strategy is already apparent. The mission’s
goals have become vague and muddled, the troops are increasingly
demoralized, and there are no clear benchmarks for success. Under these
circumstances, increasing troop strength is an act of pure desperation.
“Victory” is not possible when no one has a clear idea of what victory
means. That’s the problem with waging a war simply to extract the
wealth and resources from another country. Eventually the mask of
ideology slips and everyone can see the true nature of the fraud.
There is a tendency in the West to minimize the accomplishments of the
Iraqi resistance, but no one can dispute the results. With limited arms
and resources, they have out-flanked, out-maneuvered and
thoroughly-confounded the best-trained, best-equipped, high-tech
military war-machine the world has ever seen. That’s no mean
achievement. I expect that many high-ranking American officers secretly
admire their enemy’s effectiveness. They’ve waged an impressivebattle
under very thorny circumstances and they'vepersevereddespite clear
disadvantagesin communications, logistics, firepower, propaganda,
mobility and supplies. With the most primitive of weaponry and
bomb-making equipment, they’ve gone nose-to-nose with the world’s only
superpower and forced a stalemate.
In truth, the Iraqi resistance has succeeded where the Congress, the
United Nations, and the millions of peace-loving antiwar citizens
across the globe failed; they stopped the Bush juggernaut dead in its
tracks.
Last week, Lt General Michael Maples admitted that resistance attacks
have increased “in scope, lethality, and intensity.” Attacks on US
forces are now up to a whopping 180 per day, nearly doublethe number
just a year ago. The armed-struggleis clearly growing stronger by the
day.
At the same time, Bush’s problems continue to mount. His army is
stretched to the breaking-point, sectarian fighting is on the rise, and
the Al-Maliki government has failed to disband the militias or devise a
strategy for establishing security beyond the Green Zone.
No part of the occupation has succeeded.
Bush’s plan for Iraq is doomed to fail, because it is based on flawed
logic. Overwhelming force and extreme violence do not produce political
solutions; just more bloodshed. Iraq is not the Gaza Strip.
The only way forward now is for the United States to declare an
immediateceasefire, call for negotiations with the leaders of the Iraqi
National Resistance, convene a meeting between the main groups, (Sunni,
Shiite and Kurd) and agree in principle tothecomplete withdrawal all
American troops.
Even at this late date, there is reluctance among conservative and
liberal pundits alike, to acknowledge that the Sunni-backed,
Ba’athist-led resistance must be dealt with and brought to the
bargaining table.
Negotiations with the Iraqi Resistance is the “first step” on the path to a political solution.
“Staying the course”, “phased withdrawal” or even meeting with other
regional powers, (such as Syria and Iran) are merely superficial
remedies that do not address the central issue. The United States needs
to make a deal with the men who “carry the guns and pack the
explosives”;they are the ones who are fighting this war and they are
the ones who will decide the terms of a political settlement.
Whether negotiations take place now or 5 years from now depends
entirely on George Bush, but the outcome of the war is already certain.
Bush’s imperial ambitions have been smashed by a small cadre of
committed Iraqi nationalists. They’ve blocked thepath to Tehran and
Damascus and paved the way for their country’s liberation.


Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio