This time, we are the British

I was going to name this post "Between Iraq and a hard place" , but after Google'ing the phrase, it was obvious that it was neither new nor unique nor original, with usage dating back at least to a 2003 TV special. So much for original thought.

In the American Revolution, it was the British who were perplexed with "unconventional warfare". They were used to marching along in nice, neat columns. Stopping, fixing, kneeling, and firing in complete, formal order according to their squad leaders shouted commands. Then came along these weird colonists who didn't obey the "rules of war". They hid in the bushes, and fired from the brush and ran away before the mighty British army could kill them. How dare they!

Well now it's our turn. Middle-east terrorists, knowlingly or not, have taken a page from history and turned it against us. They don't obey our "rules of war". They don't have a country to attack or levy sanctions against. We cannot use diplomacy; they have no diplomats. We can lay waste to vast areas of land; killing hundreds, destroying people, buildings, land, and resources on a massive scale. This can be done, but at a phenominal cost to us which is very difficult to sustain. And yet, all it takes is ONE LONE PERSON to strap a home-made bomb (IED, or "improvised explosive device") to their body and walk into a populated area, and set it off. And they have won. At least according to the newspapers, who amplify everything the terrorists do a hundred-fold, while seemingly diluting the American military effect at the same time.

This activity is not sustainable. Over time, we will exhaust our vast resources, drain our reserves, and impoverish our own people. And, even then, all it will take is ONE LONE PERSON, with one IED, to put us all back in the losing column. Problem is: THEY KNOW THAT. They, the terrorists, feel that no matter what we do, they can always get ONE LONE PERSON to kill some civilians and then they can claim victory.

We need to alter this "asymmetric warfare" scenario. But how? Although a noble concept which I happen to agree with, the Bush effort to democratize the middle east seems at best horribly expensive and costly in terms of American lives and resources. We are essentially trying to make their country look like ours, so we can use our "rules" to win the contest. That's like going into a football game, and saying "you know, I don't much like football, how about we play basketball instead?" (Because I know I can win at basketball, and I really suck at football). Again, nice idea, but pretty difficult to achieve.

Can we learn from history? What did the British do? Although historical reference does not usually directly translate into modern-day strategies, let's consider it for one moment. The British expended tremendous resources, over many years, with essentially an occupation spanning much of what is now the North American east coast. They were essentially engaging in nation building, trying to get the colonists to act like they were back in England. But it did not work. And those folks CAME from England!!

So what happened in the end? The British LEFT.

This time, we are the British. Perhaps we should leave too. We can spend the same money and resources, but instead of occupation and nation building, we can spend it on homeland security, better intelligence, rebuilding America, strong border defence/interdiction, and new technologies that will make us energy independent.

Will it work? Who knows. But I'm not sure the result would be worse than what we have now.