[Previous entry: "Iraqi Stakes"] [Next entry: "Subservient Chicken Unmasked"]

04/13/2004: "A Russian view of Fallujah"

Via Instapundit, this analysis from the Moscow Times:

... Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy said that Iraq had become "George Bush's Vietnam," and declared that the United States needs a new leader.
...
The Vietnam War was a battlefield in the global Cold War that pitted the United States against the Soviet Union and its allies. ... So long as the Soviets were able to maintain a global balance of power, any local war -- in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua -- tended to develop into a quagmire.

Today the world is a very different place, and the scope of the fighting in Iraq cannot be compared to Vietnam. The United States lost more than 60,000 soldiers and 8,000 aircraft in Vietnam. U.S. casualties in Iraq number fewer than 500. The nature of combat of Iraq, as demonstrated in Fallujah last week, is also different.
...
The Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah outnumbered the Marines and were armed with Kalashnikov automatic rifles, RPG-7 antitank grenade launchers and mortars. Chechen fighters used the same weapons in Grozny in 1995, 1996 and 2000, killing thousands of Russian soldiers and destroying hundreds of armored vehicles.

Just like the Russians in Grozny, the Marines last week were supported by tanks and attack helicopters, but the end result was entirely different. U.S. forces did not bomb the city indiscriminately. The Iraqis fought well but were massacred. According to the latest body count, some 600 Iraqis died and another 1,000 were wounded. The Marines lost some 20 men.

The Marines are far better trained, of course, but the Iraqis were fighting in their hometown. The decisive difference between the two sides was the extensive use of a computerized command, control and targeting system by the U.S. military. Satellites, manned and unmanned aircraft collected precise information on enemy and friendly movements on the battlefield night and day.

Modern U.S. field commanders have real-time access to this system, allowing them to monitor the changing situation on the battlefield as no commander in the history of war has been able to do. This technology has greatly enhanced the effectiveness of aerial bombardments in the last decade. And now the nature of house-to-house combat has changed as well.

The more accurate historical analogy to the current war in Iraq is not Vietnam but, say, the battle at Omdurman, Sudan, in 1898, when Horatio Herbert Kitchener, a British field marshal, crushed the Sudanese forces of al-Mahdi by bringing machine guns to bear against the enemy's muskets and spears. Today the United States has the capability and the technical superiority to fight and win colonial wars against numerically superior enemies.

But military superiority is not enough. Will the Bush administration -- or the Democrats, should they win the White House in November -- prove better, kinder rulers of the world than the British Liberals and Tories of a century ago?

My main concern is that we not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Our two biggest impediments to destroying the enemy are (1) the way we let them hide behind women and children and (2) the way our media is spinning our victories as losses. That may make us kinder rulers. But if our leadership does not persist, are we better rulers?