Modernization

From the Washington Post's latest news from Fallujah:

Troops have cut off all roads and bridges leading out of the city and have turned back hundreds of men who have tried to flee the city during the assault. Only women, children and the elderly are being allowed to leave.

The military says keeping men aged 15 to 55 from leaving is key to the mission's success.

In Vietnam, the expression went, "If they're dead, they're VC." But now, it's "if they're male, and between 15 and 55..."

But something tells me the old version still stands. How many people--civilian or insurgent--have been killed? For that matter, can we trust the casualty figures for US soldiers? One thing's for sure--I don't know how anyone can watch the limited amount of footage we've seen and NOT realize that Iraq is a lost cause, regardless of how many of these "battles" we win.

Sure, we can blast Fallujah to smithereens, just like we did to Najaf a few months ago. We can pretty much destroy any part of Iraq that we feel like obliterating. And for every "victory," we'll be a step closer to either losing or making Saddam Hussien look like a piker. The "war" in Iraq is no longer a tactical struggle--it's a battle for hearts and minds, and we keep losing every time we "regretably" bring about "collateral damage."

In other words, how do you expect anybody to support us after what we've done to husbands, to wives, to boyfriends and girlfriends (for the record, Iraq--at least until we moved in--was relatively liberal by Muslim standards. It was no Saudi Arabia), sons, daughters, grandchildren, neices and nephews, and so on.

The wingnuts just don't seem to get this. Perhaps it's because they've already assigned "less-than-human" status to Iraqis. Or maybe they just never cared to begin with. But the Fallujah operation drives home a point about modern warfare, at least for those who've seen the limited footage broadcast by the US media: modern war involves tactics that might as well be genocide.

That's NOT a reflection on the men and women who've been ordered into combat. It IS a statement based on an understanding of the instruments of modern warfare, the circumstances under which they're used, and the political implications of invading foreign lands. "Collateral damage" is just candy-coating.

I've noted before (don't feel like looking it up in the archives though) that the US could possibly prevail in Iraq--but it would require killing on an unprecedented scale. And, while we might bring THAT country to its knees, the world reaction would guarantee a global version of the Palestine/Israel situation.

Until we recognize that--i.e., move back into at least the semblence of reality-based governance, well...it sure isn't going to get any better. The question unfortunately becomes whether or not Bush really IS insane to the extent that he'll choose this route. And, considering that his invasion of Iraq was undertaken for the sleaziest of reasons--his re-election (or election, as you prefer)--I can't say I feel very good right now...