I was reading a fascinating piece on aerial bombardment during World War II and, largely due to today’s headlines on cnn.com, associated it with our current debacle in the middle east.

The article began by discussing the effects bombing would have on the morale of a civilian population. Allied military strategists anticipated widespread panic, paranoia, and drunkenness to follow bombardment. What they found was quite the opposite. Civilians showed tremendous resolve in the face of such attacks, it galvanized the populace by providing them with a common enemy. The archetype example of this situation would be the citizens of London during the blitz. However, it must be noted that nearly identical behavior was exhibited by the Japanese after the firebombing of Tokyo, as well as Germany following raids over Dresden and Berlin. The author concluded that morale is not affected by indiscriminant bombing, and it actually improves. Strategically, air power is necessary for the elimination of communication and transportation assets, but has little psychological effect on civilians or the military.

From this I extrapolated the following (somewhat Machiavellian) argument. The U.S. has not yet galvanized the region as the common enemy; there is still a vacuum of power in the area as evidenced by our current state of civil unrest. Our next few weeks will play a critical role in this situation. Military superiority is a relative concept and can only be achieved through complete occupation. We do not have the manpower in place to undertake such an action, nor do we have support at home to do so. The morale of insurgents cannot be broken by extensive military action because the methods we employed to cripple the Axis powers no longer apply. Transportation and communication is already in disarray, and yet the chaos continues.

What I am stating here is the obvious, and I will voice a conclusion stated often by Rumsfield, Bush, and Cheney “it is a new type of war”. I wholeheartedly agree, but I must then pose the following, “why are we fighting this war with similar tactics?”


Reference:

Tami Davis Biddle, “Strategic Air Warfare: An Analysis,” Reconsidering a Century of Flight, (pp. 190-206).

Makes perfect sense why it would bring a people together. Never really thought about it like that though. Very insightful observations.



But what new/alternative military tactics could be applied in Iraq?

I'm a political scientist, not a military strategist, but I'll give you my two cents. Unfortunately, my solution in this matter might come across as unreasonably callous. Its certainly unethical.

We first have to establish the nature of combatants in Iraq. We are aware that they are not a conventional military force, but are they terrorists, guerillas/insurgents, or a mixture of both? I lack access to intelligence reports but various news sources force me to believe the latter is true. If we accept this as the case a policy that addresses each individually would need to be adopted.

The CIA's former political personality profiler, Jerrald M. Post, identified several different types of terrorism: criminal terrorism, political terrorism, religious terrorism, and pathological terrorism. In each of these there is constant tension between security and communication, they are paranoid fringe groups with an us vs. them mentality.

Luckily for us, we have provided the proper impetus for civil war in the middle-east right now. I suggest we "Cry havok! And release the dogs of war." These nations are not politically enlightened nor will they engage in civil disourse, diplomacy is not a solution and neither is occupation. We could supervise the transition into anarchy, then provide a hand to lift them from the ashes.

In terms of adaptive military policy, fighting terrorism should be the sole responsibility of special forces and covert operations. Espionage will be the order of the day. I suspect much as the "domino theory" lost fashion following the vietnam war "preemptive action" will also prove distasteful. We fought the Cold War though espionage and a powerful economy, the war on terror can be won in the same manner.