War and Conflict Journal

Two new pages uploaded on the History Guy Website:
Wars and Conflicts of the Philippines http://www.historyguy.com/wars_of_the_philippines.htm
This page includes info on the 7 coup attempts on the recently deceased former Philippines President Corazon Aquino.
and a page dealing with the recently-discussed controversy over the small number of Medals of Honor awarded to American forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Medals of Honor Awarded for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

http://www.historyguy.com/medals_of_honor_iraq_afghanistan.htm

The Iraq War began on March 19, 2003 with the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship.  As the 6th anniversary of that invasion passes, U.S. war deaths reach 4,260.  British deaths are holding at 179 deaths.

For more information: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/22/america/Iraq-US-Deaths.php

As of Saturday, March 21, 2009, at least 4,260 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The figure includes eight military civilians killed in action. At least 3,425 military personnel died as a result of hostile action, according to the military’s numbers.

The AP count is one fewer than the Defense Department’s tally, last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EDT.

The British military has reported 179 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia and Georgia, three each; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand and Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan and South Korea, one death each.

Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/22/america/Iraq-US-Deaths.php

The American helicopter raid into Syria this week which targeted an al-Qaida leader based there, may presage a similar attack into Iran in the near future. Just as missile strikes and a very similar commando raid into Pakistan's border region in September may have foreshadowed this raid into Syria's border area, the next logical target in the ongoing attempt to curtail cross-border aid and supply to al-Qaida and other insurgents into Iraq may be Iran.

Many analysts and pundits have mulled over the possibility of an "October Surprise" in the middle east which could affect the American Presidential race.  The theory being that an international crisis or event could highlight the foreign policy experience of John McCain over his opponent, Barack Obama.  Also, if a major military event took place, the American public may automatically back the party in power (the Republican), and this close to Election Day, that may translate into more votes for McCain.

This theory is faulty on several fronts.  First, the economy will continue to be Issue #1, and little short of a major terror attack on the U.S. homeland will change that.  Second, at this point in the war and in the election campaign, the American public would likely turn on the Bush Administration and, by extension, John McCain if it perceived an attempt to manipulate the election with the lives of American service members.

And then there is the real danger.  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been clear that they view the development of Iranian nuclear weapons to be a grave and mortal danger the the United States and its allies, particularly Israel.  Rather than start something with Iran before the election, in what the history books and public opinion would surely condemn as a blatant and heavy-handed attempt to influence the election, it is far more likely that the long-feared "Iran War" will begin after Barack Obama wins the election, which, as of this writing, seems very likely to occur.

Were McCain to take office, Bush and Cheney would likely feel assured that their policies on Iran and the nuclear issue would be carried on by McCain.  The same is not true of a likely Obama Administration.  Thus, in order to save America, Israel, and much of Europe from a nuclear-armed Iran, it is highly likely that at some point in the 77 day transition period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, an incident will occur, or a commando raid similar to those carried out on Pakistan and Syria will take place on Iranian soil.  Or, Israel may elect to attack Iran itself, with the full assurance of American support and involvement.

If Obama wins, watch for signs of military buildup and preparation.  This Iran War scenario is all the more likely after the raids on Pakistan and Syria.  After all, what do President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have to worry about if the American public disapproves of such a war?  Elect them out of office?  President Obama may be faced with a much more dangerous, chaotic, and violent world than now exists.

The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, known by the names Abu Hamza al-Muhajer and Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and several of his top lieutenants have recently left Iraq for Afghanistan, according to group leaders and Iraqi intelligence officials, a possible further sign of what Iraqi and U.S. officials call growing disarray and weakness in the organization. It is believed that these al-Qaeda leaders see more prospects for success in Afghanistan and Pakistan than in Iraq.

Washington Post Article:

Turkish forces withdrew from orthern Iraq on Feb. 29, concluding an eight-day offensive in the northern Iraqi mountains against the PKK Kurdish rebels who use Iraq as a save haven.

The Turkish military claims to have killed 237 PKK rebels, while losing 27 of its own men.

Turkish tank during the anit-PKK offensive in Northern Iraq, February, 2008.

Photo by Reuters

Turkish forces bombed Kurdish PKK rebels based in northern Iraq in aerial attacks on December 1st and on December 16th, with both attacks aided by intelligence supplied by the United States. Earlier in the Autumn, Turkey hinted at an invasion of northern Iraq to get at the rebels, a move opposed by both the U.S. and the Iraqi government.

While the Turks are within their rights to strike at an enemy combatant force with whom they have been at war with since the 1980s, the U.S. is not the sovereign power in Iraq; officially, sovereign power rests with the Iraqi government in Baghdad, and reports indicate that the government, especially the Kurdish members of the government are quite angry at this attack and at U.S. complicity.

While the U.S. can claim that it is aiding a fellow NATO member defend itself, and that the PKK is considered a terrorist group, allowing the Turks to strike inside Iraq does open up the question of what the Bush Administration would do if Iran launched a similar cross-border strike against their own Kurdish rebels who also use northern Iraq as a base.

U.S. Helps Turkey Hit Rebel Kurds In Iraq: Intelligence Role Could Complicate Diplomacy–Washington Post Staff, December 18, 2007

Turkey’s U.S.-Backed Strike in Iraq–Time, Dec. 17, 2007

A very interesting and detailed article on British Special Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the differences between UK and US Special Forces can be found at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2461368.ece

A Royal Goes to War

Well now, let’s see what is going on with the British part of the war. Prime Minister Tony Blair announces that Britain will begin withdrawing her troops, while the military announces that Prince Harry will deploy to Iraq with his army unit.

While the media remind us that Britain’s royals have served in, and often led, the English/British military in wartime, it rarely mentions that the current war is but the latest of a long string of British wars in Iraq. Not counting World War One, in which a British military expedition failed miserably against the Ottomans (who then ruled Iraq), Britain has now fought in five wars/conflicts in Iraq (not counting Britain’s efforts to put down intermittent Kurdish rebellions in the Iraqi north).

For a list of Anglo-Iraqi Wars, see http://www.historyguy.com/anglo-iraq_wars.html

Oh, and we do wish Harry luck in Basra. Pity poor Tony Blair if the Queen’s grandson is killed or maimed in a war that he has already said Britain will eventually leave behind.

7:58:09 PM

Iraq: From Combat to Advising

U.S. troops accelerate their shift from a major combat role to an advisory role. The process of "Iraqization" continues. Will it lead to a better ending than "Vietnamization?"

U.S. Military Shifts Troops Into Advisory Roles in Iraq –By Thom Shankar and Edward Wong

Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq: A Comparison of Perceptions

New York Times columnists Dominic Johnson and Dominic Tierney examine the power of perception in recent American military history, and present a very strong case that those perceptions and opinions formed by the media and hence by the public as a whole are not always well-informed or correct. With the War in Iraq as a backdrop, Johnson and Tierney look at the American experiences in Vietnam and Somalia, basically warning against looking at the shallow reporting coming out of Iraq which is skewing public perception.

Johnson and Tierney explain that the Vietnam War’s infamous Tet Offensive of 1968, while an almost total military defeat for the Communist Viet Cong, found itself perceived in the U.S. media and in public opinion as a total American failure. Tet was considered a Communist victory despite the fact that the Viet Cong failed to hold onto a single one of their military objectives, and despite the fact that the Americans and the South Vietnamese destroyed at least half of the Viet Cong forces in this offensive. The power of the media to shape public opinion is well-known, and Tet is a classic example. Images of the Viet Cong attack on the American Embassy in Saigon, though a military failure, were flashed across the world and into the living rooms of millions of American voters in the early months of an American Presidential election year. The misperceptions were also partly the result of the pollyanna “we are wining the war” mantra of the Johnson Administration, making the shock of the sudden Communist attacks all the more mind-blowing for most American civilians. Shortly after Tet, President Johnson declared his non-candidacy in the election, paving the way for Richard Nixon to win and his eventual pullout of American forces from Vietnam, dooming the South Vietnamese, and by extension, the people of Cambodia and Laos to the pain of Communist rule.

Just as in Vietnam, the U.S. and U.N. intervention in the early 1990s was seen by the media and the public as a failure due to the highly-publicized Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. Even though untold thousands of Somali lives were saved from the drought and famine by the intervention, that one single battle in which 18 Americans died, (to the loss of hundreds of Somali fighters), paved the way for American withdrawal. Again, the media flashed pictures around the world and into the living rooms of America, turning a relatively minor battle into a policy-changing media event. Somalia today is a warren of warlord-controlled militias and violent anarchy, amid a growing unease that these conditions are fostering an al-Qaida aligned Islamic militancy which could lead to a larger regional war involving Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The lessons of these two failures of American foreign policy, though not necessarily military failures, leads now to the debate over what to do with the Iraqi question. Whenever American forces meet the insurgents in open battle, as at Turki recently, or in Fallujah earlier on, the insurgents cannot stand, fight, and win. We do win those battles, but the media focuses on the day-by-day statistics of IED explosives, car bombs, and the political problems of the Iraqi government. The frequent picture of burned out car-bombs in Baghdad markets and streets impacts public opinion far more than the much more infrequent television reports out of Kurdistan, which show a functioning society enjoying relative stability, or the many neighborhoods in smaller Iraqi cities that do not suffer the attentions of terrorism or Sunni-Shiite warfare. This is not to say that things are going well in Iraq; quite the contrary. The Sunni-Shiite civil war and the possible breakaway of Kurdistan are very serious problems that must be addressed.

One would hope, that in this modern era so highly touted as the “Information Age,” that the American public, (along with the British and other citizens of the world), can look past the often biased or incorrect perceptions of the media, whether it is from CNN, ABC, Fox, or even al-Jazeera, use the internet as the informative tool that it should be, and gain better knowledge of our problems in Iraq. One image broadcast by the media, such as we saw in Saigon and in Mogadishu, should not set the course of American public opinion, or American government policy.

Check out: The Wars of Perception –By Dominic Johnson and Dominic Tierney of the New York Times: November 28, 2006

1:35:23 PM