Understanding the nature of war
This Op-Ed in the LA Times from an Army Specialist who has served twice in Iraq demonstrates the unfortunate inability of our military to grasp the concept of 'limited war' - over sixty years after we fought our last 'total war.' All wars have 'killers' on both sides. And in all wars, peace is achieved without either eliminating or prosecuting all of the combatants from one side or the other.
Insurgents in Iraq have chosen to fight the US in the manner they have found most effective - through IED attacks, sniping, and occasional complex ambushes. They have done this because to face US forces in a 'stand-up fight' (the sort which we prefer) would be the height of foolishness...because it IS the sort that we prefer.
But we must put aside the notion that their resistance is 'criminal' if we are ever to reach an equitable solution in Iraq that does NOT involve either killing or incarcerating every Sunni military age male in the country. While those who advocate the old American style of war would likely prefer to carry the campaign to this extreme, it is neither feasible nor possible within our own interpretation of the laws of war.
Peace always comes with compromises. To assume that Iraq's Sunni insurgency can be persuaded to put down their arms only to be put on trial for murder is to assume that the war simply cannot be prosecuted successfully. Counterinsurgency campaigns are not won through brute military force. They are won through political understanding of the insurgency and actions that isolate the most violent members of the insurgency from the general population. Offering a sensible amnesty program as part of a broader reconciliation is likely the only means we have available to accomplish this difficult task.
![[Keeping in Stride]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vFasmr3Ma5QX3A5VnkH9qpkFXEosxL8W7jlTufXJ3mWuUEksunMvAypGOagudRMJcNobh1-wfm3WyohkOg3wVwXy8EyijroTmKipC_S2L-wmuvG_3CnloTAWXjWfuPmrnnD22r1RBjalbulCeA9MTbj3E=s0-d)
