consider the Jesuits. FWIW they saved the Catholic church after the Reformation disaster. In fact, given their Christianization of Spain's colonial empire, they increased the number of Catholics in the world. Understanding the other was the hallmark of the Jesuits success. Arguably the pre-Reformation church was about keeping people ignorant so that they would continue to trust and support church leaders. The Jesuits realized that would no longer work. They studied and respected the culture of their missionary targets and tried to show those to whom they preached how Catholicism fit their culture and how it could enhance their culture.

My favorite rendition stories concern this - use of a local Muslim cleric to convince a terrorist of theological error, and, dirtiest pool of all, when they brought in the dude's mother to give him hell.

Certainly the death of Zarqawi would be a blow to the insurgency, just as the death of the Saudi leader was a few months back. On the other hand, one of the paragraphs cited in the message (that there were fewer attacks in May on US and Iraqi government targets) strikes me as suspect given the number of US deaths in the last month.

I'm also skeptical of the idea of putting Baghdad into a lock. Realistically, a city of 5 million cannot be tied down without seriously curtailing commerce and movement.

The political process is equally important. The fact that some Sunnis are willing to join is a good sign.

i They studied and respected the culture of their missionary targets and tried to show those to whom they preached how Catholicism fit their culture and how it could enhance their culture.

You are kidding of course.

If the insurgency lasts, power will slowly move toward the Iraqi military and out of the hands of the US military and the voter population. If that happens, the Kurds will probably secede. Which might be the basis for a crack down on the Kurds or another civil war. Who was it who first told americans that Iraq was a real country? They have a lot to answer for.

"Scott Peterson has an excellent roundup of the state of the Iraqi insurgency in the Christian Science Monitor."

Scott Peterson! Mwahahaaaa!!

I wonder if that 40 thousand will be taken from the more than 200 thousand soldiers trained -- according to the pentagon last year -- or the 150 thou -- according to the revision of the pentagon in january -- or perhaps the 100 thou -- according to the pentagon this spring -- or perhaps the possible 60 thou that seemingly couldn't be spared for that wondrous Western Iraq push. My, the government just seems to have soldiers at the push of a button. Yet, here they are asking the U.N. to keep the 160 thousand coalition soldiers in Iraq b/c the government doesn't have an army.
Of course, one could think that the figures are delusional. But that would be to impugn the government of Iraq and the Bush administration, both of which have shown a straight as an arrow attitude regarding figures. So those insurgents must be tremblin' in their suicide cars now.

Remember, whenever the insurgents sharply spike the attacks, it shows desperation. And whenever the attacks go down, it shows we are winning. This is the way to victory!

"If the insurgency lasts, power will slowly move toward the Iraqi military and out of the hands of the US military and the voter population. If that happens, the Kurds will probably secede"

How does that happen when the president of Iraq is a Kurd as is a disproportionally large part of the military as well? This civil war has been impending for an awful long time...

"How does that happen when the president of Iraq is a Kurd as is a disproportionally large part of the military as well?"

The Kurds have a long autonomous tradition through oppresion and relative freedom. If they see a better future outside Iraq, I think they will bolt. They don't have any benefit to gain from belonging to Iraq. Their conciliator gestures are merely placating larger powers - they do not directly aid their cause. The Kurds have been boned by everybody including the US by now and have no reason to be loyal except to mollify their enemies. They are productive and selfsuffiecent on their own.The Kurds are like Israel. They have no reason to be nice to anyone and lots of people owe them favors.

a very interesting test case for democracy and a view of the future for America. When a people replace faith in the straight economic life with other faiths the country can no longer be democratic. Liberals took this life for granted and so became conterproductive. A lot of American businessmen have now lost faith in themselves and the American dream and have turned to the Govt. for riches -- this opens the door for leaders like Saddam, originally a secularist who was supported because it was thought that he would provide security.

> But it is under increasing pressure from
> numerous US offensives in western Iraq, the loss
> of two-dozen top lieutenants, and intelligence
> from Zarqawi's captured computer. Iraq's budding
> government is also tightening its grip,

Juan Cole has I think done a very good job of explaining why the Iraqi insurgents cannot win a 25-year war of attrition as did the North Vietnamese forces. He estimates that if the US maintains current or higher force levels, the insurgents will dry up in 10 years. Now, Mr. Cole tends to be very well informed but a bit pessimistic, so perhaps 7-8 years is a better estimate.

But my god, how can ANYONE write the quoted paragraph without even given a nod to the fact that it is EXACTLY what was written and said every few months from 1965 right up to 1971 about Vietnam? How many corners are there to turn? How many schools to paint? How many tunnels to find light at the end of? Can we now at least start acknowledging that Cheney and Rumsfeld may just have done what they did in Vietnam AGAIN? Just acknowledge it?

Cranky

Who was it who first told americans that Iraq was a real country? They have a lot to answer for.

That would be the British. To their credit, they have contributed quite a few troops to assist our attempt to clean up the mess.

Can we now at least start acknowledging that Cheney and Rumsfeld may just have done what they did in Vietnam AGAIN? Just acknowledge it?

Not without someone drawing a parallel between Viet Nam and Iraq that's more substantial than "oh my god, we're fighting guerillas who use AK-47's! It's Viet Nam part Deux!! RUN AWAY!!!".

Cranky, do you realize that this line of thinking is precisely why Bin Laden and his ilk thought al Qaeda could attack us with impunity? He thought the most we would do is throw a few dozen cruise missiles at him.

"Can we now at least start acknowledging that Cheney and Rumsfeld may just have done what they did in Vietnam AGAIN? Just acknowledge it?"

Can we at least acknowledge that every war conceivable can draw some parallels to Vietnam? And then get over it? When 100 soldiers start dying a day, i'll conceed we are bogged down in the long looked for quagmire. There have been dozens if not hundreds of insurgency type low intensity conflicts in the last century. Sometimes the insurgents win, sometimes they lose. Sometimes it takes decades to resolve, sometimes not. Sometimes the body count is high, sometimes low. Half the political problem with getting the left on board, or at to have a legitimate discussion, is that their entire perspective is filtered through the Vietnam lense. Go study the British Malayan campaign and then we can have a rational discussion of military history.

For all interested, a very good comparative analysis of insurgencies, albeit communist insurgencies, is Timothy Lomperis' "From People's War to People's Rule." I read it recently and found that it was particularly relevant to the situation in Iraq and the global jihad in general.

> Can we at least acknowledge that every war
> conceivable can draw some parallels to Vietnam?
> And then get over it?

Shorter answer: no, you can't bear to acknowledge it.

I don't believe Winston Churchill ever talked about "the light at the end of the tunnel". At first, he talked about blood, toil, tears, and sweat, the need to fight them on the landing grounds, and the possibility that every man in England might have to sacrifice himself samuari-style. When later on he said "This is not the beginning of the end, but may be the end of the beginning", everyone who knew what was going on, and most of the general population, knew he was right. As did the German generals.

Contrast to W Bush: when they attack us, it is because they are losing. When they don't attack us, it is because they are losing. Mission accomplished. Schools painted. Situation getting better. Corner turned. Oops, not this time. OK, this time the corner is _really_ turned.

You are aware that the Reserves are now accepting applications from men up to 43, right? Please stop in at your earliest convenience.

Cranky

Here are all the reasons this war is exactly like the American Civil War and no other in history:

-The federal government is constantly claiming we are making progress, when in fact the war has not ended yet. How is that possible? Can you make progress without instantly accomplishing your goal? Should we consult Zeno on whether such a feat is even philosophically possible? Has any other war in history lasted more than _two years_?

-Rifles. Everywhere. Think about it. Guys using rifles shooting at each other. Care to explain that one?

-An election mid-war where the peacenick beat by the 'warmonger' president, largely because the military went with the incumbent in a landslide.

-Bodycount. Actually that doesnt work at all. More Americans died on one day at Antietem than in this entire war.

-Aftermath. Wars dont all end on the decks of battleships. More of them wind down and sputter out, occasionally flaring back up on small scales for years to come.

I know you are aching in your heart for one day Don Rumsfeld and GW to walk into the Rose Garden and tell the disbelieving nation that this is indeed exactly like Vietnam. Then I guess the healing can began. Surely in no other war did the adminstration tell the American people to be patient, that we were making progress? Sure, maybe the adminstration puts a happy face on news, but thats its job. The media does _plenty_ in the other direction. For that matter is it fair to pretend that democracy and Iraqis building their own army isnt progress? Like you are? Claiming we arent making any progress is just as big a pile of crap as claiming we are on the cusp of total victory (which no one is in fact doing except the voices echoing from 1970 in Cranky's mind).
Im not sure how claiming that this war is another Vietnam serves our interests as a nation either. Making Cranky smile and bask in victory might not be quite the same promoting the interests of the US. If this is Vietnam than we are beaten and should withdraw? Is that the answer?

"An election mid-war where the peacenick beat by the 'warmonger' president"

Got beat, of course.

Mark -- can you name a second third world insurgency besides the British In Malasia that a Western power won?

I do not know, hope there are several.

And you bring up Winston Churchill as your sole example? Immediately after Germany wipped throw Europe, nearly annihylating the British army, with German planes all over Englands sky? That was the time when a lesser leader would be claiming victory was at hand? Great analogy. How many times was the end of the Korean war proclaimed nigh? And what were Americans leaders saying about the end of the war in Europe in the days before Germany tanks smashed through the Ardennes? Please. It is absolutely _common_ for administrations to speak encouraging words about the advent of victory. What the hell are they supposed to say? 'Well, i know it looks good with the Iraqi army coming on line and the new government in control, but honestly im guessing we're in for a sheer nightmare that have made the last couple years look like a picnic.' Aside from being a lie that would be pretty bad for moral, no? Believe it or not it isnt the governments job to hold your hand. They are busy trying to win the war.

Spencer, excellent question. Colonial wars, no. Pretty much any time a Western power has tried to retain its ownership of a colonial conquest, they have been beaten badly. Malaya was instructive because the British said up front they were out of there as soon as the smoke cleared. And they lived up to it. Afghanistan is an obvious example. We did ok in El Salvador using similar ideas and few troops. Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Haiti, and the Balkans are all probably too small to take seriously. Korea is probably the best example of an international force putting their boots into an inernicene conflict and coming away with what they originally intended. Korea was called a draw but it was basically victory as the goal was to defend South Korea from communist takeover. The biggest problem with that question is that very seldom has their been a set of circumstances where the foriegn power has expressed its desire to leave the nation in the hands of a democratic government. It worked in Malaya despite many similar ethnic rivalries. There are many examples, however, of friendly democratic movements overcoming insurgencies with American aid by themselves. Since that is our ultimate strategy, that may be more instructive to our present circumstances.

Historically, most insurgencies lost. The British victory in Malayia is not unique. Multiple peaseant rebellions in Europe and Asia were defeated.

There were few that succeed, and because they suceed, they received more attention to, more books, more literature, more studies than the ones that fail. Therefore, there is an incorrect impression in history that insurgencies always win.

"t is absolutely _common_ for administrations to speak encouraging words about the advent of victory. What the hell are they supposed to say"

Mission accomplished :-)

Historically, most insurgencies lost. The British victory in Malayia is not unique. Multiple peaseant rebellions in Europe and Asia were defeated

Not in the post WW-II era. The French and Belgians lost practically all their colonial possesions to violent insurgencies. The British won in Malay, but lost elsewhere.

Personally, I don't think the insurgency has any chance of winning, if by winning one means re-establishing Sunni Arab rule. That is simply not going to happen. Far likelier is some continuation of the current chaos for an extended period of time. Even if we were to win, I would predict some violence for at least 5 years, and underground terrorist cells for at least 10.

I think the likeliest scenario is de facto splitering of the country.

Another defeat of an insurgency that comes to mind is Pershing's campaign in the Philippines (early 1900s). One problem is how to clarify "winning" and "losing": if an insurgency fails to win political control of a country, but manages to continue its existance, is that "winning"? If a counterinsurgency manages to crush the revolt, but later the country gains the goal that the insurgents wanted (Algeria in the early '60s), is that "losing"?

Here's a couple other links which might be of interest:
Discussion on Phil Carter's INTEL DUMP of what the goals of the insurgents may be, if any

A short essay I wrote on what a fractured/segmented Iraq might look like

Buenhner

" There are many examples, however, of friendly democratic movements overcoming insurgencies with American aid by themselves."

When?

Greece, El Salvador, Phillipines, Bolivia, Peru. Guatamala and Chile were not democratic solutions but anti-communist insurgents were put down certainly. Thailand, Turkey, and South Korea and a number of others were eventually put on the democratic track.

Im not defending America's track record with supporting thugs. That list isnt pretty, but you have to consider the alternative. The proof, however, is in the pudding. The number of democracies today compared to 50 years ago is an astounding increase, and winning the cold war was a critical step. Ultimately thats neither here nor there. The point is insurgents dont always win.

Even though a knowledge of history is always crucial in considering contemporary situations -- and I am always skeptical of arguments re the Middle East that REFUSE to acknowledge the relevance of situations OUTSIDE the region --

I'm a bit surprised that both the original Monitor report -- as well as the discussion that follows -- both fail to take account of an important -- if, admittedly, deeply problematic -- article in the NYTimes Week in Review of May 15, The Mystery of the Insurgency, in which pretty much ALL the points made above were referenced re the current Sunni insurgency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/weekinreview/15bennet.html/partner/rssnyt/?ex=1117425600&en=3b699c246ce28a5d&ei=5070

Put simply, the most relevant "frame" for the Sunni Arab campaign are the Palestinian intifadas of 1936 - 39 / the late 1980s / early 21st century,

rather than the Marxist / national liberation struggles so often referred to instead.

Without going into it TOO extensively, these insurgencies operate on the "spark" theory so popular in Arab nationalist circles in the 1950s and 60s -- the idea that a visible popular struggle will enroll the larger "ummah" in the specific struggles of the specific "watan".

The Iraqi Sunnis are banking on the fear in the rest of the Sunni Arab Middle East of the "Shiite crescent" expressed by so pro-American an Arab ruler as King Abdullah in December 2004.

They figure that they will eventually receive support from their Sunni Arab brothers who ALSO shudder at the possibility of a Shiite-led Iraq -- flanked on one side by Shiite Iran, and the other by Alawite (a Shiite sect) Syria and a Lebanon led by Hezbollah, which is ALSO Shiite.

In this context, the aim of the Iraqi insurgency is NOT to "win" anything, but -- as with the Palestinians -- to keep things percolating until they are "rescued" by their Sunni Arab brothers.

Israel was successful in the early 1980s in more or less cutting off the Palestinians from any hope of military -- or, even, political -- intervention by the Arab states, putting great efforts into destroying Arab nationalism as any sort of real factor in the Israel / Palestine confrontation.

Unfortunately for the Israelis, one of the main ways they did this was by favoring the emergence of Hamas and other Islamist Palestinian groups in opposition to Fatah / PLO, whose slogan of a secular, democratic state -- which, of course, the Palestinians never REALLY believed -- the Israelis nevertheless greatly feared.

So while they were successful in cutting off the Palestinian watan from the Arab ummah, what resulted instead was something much worse, which they are now confronting: the Islamization of the Palestinian struggle.

While this is something that also bothers Christian Palestinians, Israel has now succeeded in getting peasants in Pakistan / Indonesia / Malaysia who previously could have cared less about Israel to now care passionately -- at least in principle -- about it ...

A fate that the US is likely preparing for itself with its deeply misguided invasion of Iraq -- if, indeed, this hasn't already happened.

David

Forgot one link: the Grok Your World piece that analyzes in detail this important -- if strange and deeply misguided -- New York Times piece by the USUALLY excellent James Bennet, former head of the Times Jerusalem bureau ...

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/2005/05/us_ignorance_of.html

Sorry for the "double" comment ...

David

"A fate that the US is likely preparing for itself with its deeply misguided invasion of Iraq -- if, indeed, this hasn't already happened."

GYW - To be sure, al-Jazerra is playing up the angle of the American oppressors and the noble Iraqi resistance' attempt to regain Iraq's freedom (sic). I can believe that has some traction with the Arab 'street,' which has been anti-American for decades.

However in Iraq itself the elected government is seen by over 70% of Iraqis as being representative, according to the latest IRI polls. The long-term message which gets spread past Iraq could well be 'hey, the Iraqis got democracy and self-governance, where's ours?' instead of the one al-Jazerra is trying to promote. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon is one example of that.

If the U.S. gets hated for helping others gain their freedom and attain representative government, I can easily live with that.

Tagryn:

Thanks for your response, to which I would make a couple of comments.

1) I would be somewhat skeptical about ANY poll data coming out of Iraq, whether it contains "good" or "bad" news, regardless of one's perspective.

The situation there is not just highly dynamic, but there is a HUGE amount of mistrust -- understandably, given the circumstances -- on the part of ordinary Iraqis towards ANYONE asking their views on these highly charged political questions ...

So I'd be a bit wary ...

2) I would also be careful about what the Cedar Revolution is and is not ...

Without going into it TOO much, the specific conditions in Lebanon are QUITE different from those in Iraq, with a very different history and dynamic ...

While the Christians in Lebanon will naturally use the January election --

which, as you may have noticed, seems to have lost a great deal of its luster, given the mess in Iraq that has followed

on this, see most recently:

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/2005/05/the_ides_of_may.html

and for recent background see:

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/2005/05/growing_alienat.html

--

it's a pretty major mistake to think that what happens in Iraq has much impact at all on the elements in Lebanon that wanted the Syrians out ...

After all, Iraqi Shiites and Kurds are QUITE different from Lebanese Christians and secularized Shiites and Sunnis ...

Indeed, I don't think that "the Cedar Revolution" is a meaningful term in ANY real sense of the word ...

Yes, the Syrians are out of Lebanon ... but what difference has that made in how the Lebanese are going to deal with each other --

above all, in the relation between the Christians and the Shiite Hezbollah ???

On this, please see the piece we wrote the same day Hariri was assassinated:

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/2005/02/hariri_killing_.html#comments

3) What I'm saying has nothing to do with Al-Jazeera ...

It's reflection on how what the Israelis THOUGHT was going to be a shrewd move --

undercutting Arafat by promoting Islamism --

has turned out to be a DISASTER for them ...

And the US had better be careful of creating the exact same dynamic in Iraq -- if, as I said, it's not already too late.

David

Buehner:
"Insurgents don't always win."

Actually they rarely win. Most revolutionary or militia groups of whatever kind are ameliorated or put down.

The recent spread of democracy can be associated with two things.

- The end of the cold war

- the resulting stand down by the United States in supporting dictatorships.

The US has always supported democracy in the media but often actively undermined it covertly. At times it has found it expedient to support democracy and at other times it supports vile oppresion. To say that the US is evil is silly. To critisize the US does not mean one hates the US. But in supporting Democracy, I would say the US is been running in place. It has wrecked some democracies but bolstered others. Its record is no better than say - England or France.

I think that supporting dictatorships during the cold war was one of a series of choices the US had for dealing with the world in competition with Russia. It did not have to invade Guatemala But it did. It did not have to arrest Mossedeq but it did. It had choices and often made the wrong one.

In the case of the ME right now, I think a lot of the progress that is being made is because people no longer believe the US will stand in the way of freedom. Americans, in side the bubble which is the USA, seem to think they are vigilantes for world justice when in fact the USA has been a big part of the problem for a long time.

I don't think americans recognize that which is why people in the rest of world often find them amusingly niave.

GYW - I recommend reading Michael Totten's dispatches over at his blog from his visit to Lebanon, posted a couple of weeks ago. I wouldn't underestimate the impact of the departure of the Syrians on Lebanon, though whether this will make Hezbollah more agreeable to compromise or will make them even more paranoid now that their guardians are gone remains to be seen.

I think trying to compare U.S./Iraq to Israel/Palestine is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. There's too many differences between the two situations for the analogy to hold up for long.

exclab - I agree with about half of what you are saying. The USA did do its share of "deals with the devil," especially in the Americas. At times realpolitik was the order of the day, at the expense of the ideals which the USA should have stood for. If the standard is perfection, then the USA has fallen short of that.

However, there's something inconsistent in stating that "to say that the US is evil is silly," then ending your post by positing that the U.S. is a primary source of evil ("a big part of the problem") in the world.

Tagryn

What I mean is that the US has not, as other hegemons have done, actively pursued capital domination in the world as a conscous agenda. As any group will, the US has tryed to impose it's will for various reasons, but at no time was there an effort to extend its power and dominate as its primary concern. The american view of the world has always been isolationist. Its alarming misapprehension of the world stems ( I think ) from its odd lack of desire to inflict itself on other people. Unfortunately the US has an a very powerful effect on the world that it doesn't understand. Back in the heartland, they just don't understand how invasions alter the whole dynamic of a region. This has happened over and over in central and south america. Countries that most american don't know exist are profoundly effected by arbitrary actions in the state department. Most americans have never informed themselves about Iran for example. Or Pakistan - to give the example that applies directly the president - nor do they wish to inform themselves. I call it the american bubble.

Tagryn,

About your comment: "However in Iraq itself the elected government is seen by over 70% of Iraqis as being representative, according to the latest IRI polls."
Interesting thing about the IRI polls -- which are connected, as anybody can see from the masthead, to the Republican Party in this country (http://www.iri.org/board.asp): they also told us that Allawi was wildly popular last year. Almost, in fact, a 70 percent approval rating.

Now, how much did that guy get in the election? I forget. But I think it was around 20 percent. Make it 30. Giving the IRI poll data a mere 50 percent range of error. Good job, there.

Of course, the IRI is the same completely unbiased source that just gave President Bush its medal of freedom award. My guess is that IRI includes, in its poll data gathering set, the random members who eat lunch in the Pentagon cafeteria.

Give me more of those freedom fries.

Now, how much did that guy get in the election? I forget. But I think it was around 20 percent. Make it 30. Giving the IRI poll data a mere 50 percent range of error. Good job, there.

Thinking someone is doing a decent job is not the same thing as thinking that person is the best person for the job.

Try comparing apples to apples sometime.

rogergathman - When you have something specific that you can point to which IRI is doing wrong in their polls, rather than ad hominem attacks, I'd be happy to hear it.