Patton vs. Limited War

As President Bush begins to implement his new plan for the War in Iraq, Democrats and Republicans alike are scrambling to denounce it (and him) by passing numerous 'anti-surge' resolutions. In the process, nearly everyone on the Hill is becoming a master of the 'I support the Troops but not the Mission' mantra. Basically, while our Men and Women in the field continue to fight it out in Iraq, the vast majority of Congress-persons are doing what they do best: playing politics and 'please like me now' games instead of debating and resolving real issues.

Personally, I believe that a troop increase could have a significant impact on Iraq. However, I am not sure that this will necessarily help us in our drive towards victory. Indeed, the question of whether a troop increase will help the Cause in Iraq brings me to what I feel is the primary reason we have not seen the level of expected success in Iraq. I believe that we have struggled in Iraq because of the manner in which we have fought the war; thus, if we change our fighting style, an increase in troop quantity would surely help to ensure victory. However, if the fundamental aspects of the fighting style do not change, an increase in troop levels will not result in an increased ability to defeat the enemy.

So, you might ask, what exactly is this "manner" of fighting that has prevented success? Allow me to explain. Throughout history, in my understanding, there have been two fundamental ways in which wars have been waged. The first is as old as warfare itself, but I will refer to it as the "George Patton style" war, after one of my heroes. The George Patton style war is exactly what it sounds like, warfare that is aimed at winning. It is based on the idea that war works best when it consists, in essence, of "making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country (or organization, religion, etc.)" The second style of warfare is relatively new to the world, and has been used, to the best of my knowledge, by only two Nations: The United States and Great Britain. This style of warfare is also somewhat self-explanatory and I (and many others) call it "Limited War". Limited War consists of fighting, essentially, with one hand tied behind your back and includes attempts to 'win hearts and minds'. To the best of my knowledge, no Nation in history has ever won a Limited War. Perhaps the contrast I am referring to is epitomized by the situation surrounding the Sunni cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr. If George Patton had been the top commander in Iraq, al-Sadr would have been killed early on, and never survived to cause as much trouble as he currently does. However, in our zest to not offend the local people (win hearts and minds) we, fighting in the Limited Warfare style, allowed him to live, much to the detriment of our long-term cause.

Indeed, this is the inherent flaw in the Limited War style - it tries to kill as few people as possible. The problem is, in the long run, this ends up resulting in more deaths. Perhaps the best analogy that I can draw for this reasoning is the dropping of the Atomic bomb. In the short run, it cost many lives and did very little to win us the 'hearts and minds' of the Japanese people; yet, in the long run, the dropping of these bombs resulted not only in fewer American casualties but fewer Japanese casualties as well, given the high cost which would have been paid by both sides during a land invasion of Honshu. Maybe the reasoning was best expressed by Voltaire, who noted that "a little evil is often necessary for obtaining a great good." Additionally, Limited War ignores the basic reasoning behind the 5 following quotations:

"A good plan now, violently executed, is better than a perfect plan next week" - Gen George S. Patton Jr.
"A pint of sweat saves a gallon of blood" - Gen George S. Patton Jr.
"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - but the size of the fight in the dog" - Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower
"When you appeal to force there is one thing which you must never do - lose" - Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower
"In war, there is no substitute for victory" - Gen Douglass MacArthur

Perhaps you noticed the stellar War credentials of those I quoted above? Many in today's world would call them 'neo-con war-mongers' for saying such things. Indeed, Limited War advocates waiting and searching for the perfect plan and conserving the pint of sweat; furthermore, it places a real emphasis on the size of the dog in the fight and also creates a substitute for victory. This is what we are doing in Iraq. The United States' record in Limited Wars is 0-1-1, with Vietnam being the loss and Korea being the tie. Neither a tie nor 'peace with honor' will do us any good in Iraq.

By all conventional measures we are winning this war. Our casualty rates are remarkably low. As a percentage of the GDP this is the second cheapest war in American history (at 2% some 11% cheaper than Vietnam). The civilian casualty rates in Iraq have been kept, for a war, remarkably low as well; and they have also decreased nearly three-fold since the days of Saddam. Iraq has voted on a Constitution and elected a government. The infrastructure is improving and certainly better than it was under Saddam. Indeed, according to a recent Newsweek report, Iraq's economy is doing surprisingly well. Despite all of this, few level-headed individuals would suggest we are having great success in Iraq. Why? I believe this is the unfortunate hallmark of a Limited War. We can win in Iraq, witness all the positives I just mentioned above, and, indeed, we must win in Iraq; or the War on Islamic Fascism (W.W.IV, as I see it) will be far more difficult than it should be.

In his speech on the new policy in Iraq the President made reference to a loosening of the "Rules of Engagement" in Iraq. So far, from what I can discern from the news, this has actually translated into a policy change on the ground in Iraq. I had refrained from passing judgment on Bush's new policy until I saw promising signs along the lines of the Rules of Engagement. Assuming the positive trend in that area continues, I believe the troop surge will work.

For the sake of the Troops who have dedicated so much to this mission, let's hope I'm right.