PFC Joseph Anzack Jr., found in the Euphrates River The other missing soldiers are Spc. Alex R. Jimenez, 25, of Lawrence, Mass.; and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty, 19, of Waterford, Mich. While there is some hope the biggest source of hope lies in that the 3 of them were not found executed like the
bodies of two American soldiers who disappeared Friday after an insurgent attack on a checkpoint were discovered late Monday and showed signs of having been tortured. Al-Qaida in Iraq posted an Internet statement claiming that Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, the successor to the group's leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed the two soldiers, using a word for slaughter that is commonly understood to mean beheading. According to a farmer claiming to have witnessed the attack, masked gunmen swarmed the checkpoint, killing the driver of a Humvee Spc. David J. Babineau, 25 of Springfield, Mass. and taking the two other soldiers captive. Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore. I find it strange that when there's film of American atrocities the press worldwide, US is quick to run this film footage yet the footage of Menchaca and Tucker taken by the insurgents showing them laying out the bodies and playing soccer with Tuckers head is too graphic to show? Perhaps had it been US troops desecrating the bodies it would have been not too graphic.

I predict that holding one side to obeying the rules of war and turning a blind eye to the other sides violations has led to what is happening today - that is to say you can't have unilateral obedience of laws before one side says "HEY IF YOU'RE GOING TO IGNORE OUR OPPONENTS VIOLATIONS....." then you have Hama Rules, not US troops committing atrocities but Iraqi elements, not necessarily military but perhaps paramilitary and the signs of this kind of program already going on are there for those who can read between the lines to see.

Once atrocity begins it is a slippery slope of action/reaction no less than an iron circle of revenge when it gets to the point to where no one remembers the original acts being avenged or who did what to who. It's out there people and until there is equal justice instead of any act commited by the insurrgents a legitimaate act of ressistance no matter who wins the criminals using the war as a fig leaf of justificartion will present a problem in restoreing law and order when the war's over.

PS

It should go without saying, but to clarify for those who cant think their way out of a wet paperbag, while I advocate taking RUTHLESS action against our opponents, at the same time I urge economic actions to show the neutral WHY IT IS THEIR BEST NTERST TO SUPPORT US AND THUS THEIR GOVERNMENT. The height of folly is to gon in intending to do well and becoming like Mister Kurtz "Exterminate the brutes" We must be men not just of high ideals but also of moral fortitude. Otherwise whats the point? may as well practicse Mongol Negotiation or act by Hama Rules.

Additions

Seems the boys have pointed out I have missed 3 other books that SHOULD be in a strategists library! The Prince where Machiavelli discusses monarchical governments read in conjunction with the Discourses on Livy, where Machiavelli advocates republican governance. And the United States Marine Corps Small Wars Manual of 1940. To those who say the Small Wars Manual is out of date, I suggest that by reading these books I have suggested one can build a foundation in learning HOW TO THINK rather than WHAT TO THINK. The book is a guideline and can NOT cover every situation but just as the Romans valued a sound mind in a sound body and many among these readers exercise to maintain the body, the mind too must be exercised in order to develop a sound way of thinking.

Now on to the main subject, in Iraq it is indisputable that the insurgents are in control of the population createing a habitable sea in which to swim and flourish. In a recent news story of the search for the missing soldiers in Iraq, it was sasid that the people were afraid to speak to the US Troops as the insurgents promised DEATH to any who did so and to prove their point killed that towns sheikh - remind you of something? Hint it is alleged a Sendero Luminoso in describing his strategy in a short paragraph said "We practice selective annihilation of mayors and government officials for example to create a vacuum, then we fill that vacuum. As popular war advances peace is closer" Bernard Fall wrote of this in his paper showing that while coventional forces claimed control of the prople and countryside the reality was different. By collilateing murders (assassinations) with the postiti0ons of the vcictims, he was able to show that conventions forces were lucky to be able to control the space in front of thier bedroom door to exagerate a point.

The control of the people and information is a hallmark of the insurgency in Iraq but then when you are going for ULTIMATE POWER Miachaivelli and not the "GOOD BOOK" of the GOD of your understqanding is the guidline and rules to gain that poswer. To the victor the spoils and to the loser? IF you are lucky a bullet to the back of the head and a grave, if not? well after a long and painful end the dogs will eat well, so at least the dogs will appreciate you.

Why else are the insurgents killing those reporters who don't play along or publish material that aids them? They pass out/sell DVDs/Videos of thier atrocities where they kill disi9dentsa nd those opposed or percieved to be opposed to their agenda and NOTHING! However when the US Forces/Allies commit a crime and the world sits in horror and demands justice? It is this atttitude where one side is unaccountable for its actions that leads to a Pol Pot type regime with YEAR ZERO and all its attendant horrors, and afterwqrds the world moans WHY DOESNT SOMEONE DO SOMETHING! And apparently its the United States who MUST do something? Look a Rwanda? The genocide of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutu sympathizers in Rwanda and was the largest atrocity during the Rwandan Civil War. This genocide was mostly carried out by two extremist Hutu militia groups, the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi, during about 100 days from April 6 through mid-July 1994. At least 500,000 Tutsis and thousands of moderate Hutus died in the genocide. Other estimates put the death toll between 800,000 and 1,000,000.
In the wake of the Rwandan Genocide, the United Nations and the international community drew severe criticism for its inaction. Despite international news media coverage of the violence as it unfolded, most countries, including France, Belgium, and the United States, declined to intervene or speak out against the massacres. Canada continued to lead the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR). However, the UN Security Council did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing. Afterward it was reorted the United States Apologized for not becoming involved in stopping the genocide? What about thte neighbor African countries? The European Countries? Those in South American. All those who are quick to denounce the United States for acting in its interests but when a situation is in neither the United States or their interest then NO ONE does anything and it is a non event? Somewhere Adolph Hitler’s Ghost is laughing it up with the ghosts of
Heinrich Himmler Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann are laughing as they wander the grounds of The villa at 56-58 Am Grossen Wannsee, saying we gave the world Endlösung, the final soluition and they said at the sites of our camps NEVER AGAIN? So what is different? Jus t what they call it Ethnic Cleansing is no more than semantics hiding the truth that the more that things change the more they stay the same.

So what must be done? First of all while I abhor the press for presenting a unilatteral picture of the crimes that are occuring there, I also fault those in charge for a failed information campaign strategy. The center of gravity and goal was/is/and always will be thte people. Just like in Vietnam the Allied Forces control in the day but at night the insurgents come out to play and the people are left to ask the age old questoin "Who can hurt me the worst" and support that side. Instead of fighting harder we must fight smarter, instead of reacting to the insurgents moves it is time we became the band and plalyed the tune that they dance to instead of vice versa. The Marine Corps in Vietnam were well on thier way to doing this with the civic action platoons in Vietnam, the mmilitary has the well knowns break down of activities into S1 Administration – S2 Intelligence – S3 Operations – S4 Supply and the little known but there on paper S5 Civil Affairs, always hiding in the shadows they may as well be intelligence operations as they behave far more secretively than the spooks do. Get them into the spotlight and take the attention of allegations and innuendoes about atrocities real or imagined.

At this point in time to quote to these people "Those who would trade security for freedom deserve neither," are talking empty rhetoric to a man who says "Maye so but being alive one more day means far more than your empty words". At this point in time the insurgency is no more than a matte of getting there firstest with the mostest to quote General Nathan Bedford Forrest. It has been proven that many of these people involvedin fighting us are doing so for economic reasons, the disbanding of the army and bathist infrastructure with no jobs left many oopen to recruitment to fight for money to feed their families. I can not dondem this as I would do so to feed my fammily. It is said that when MacArthur took over as overloard of Imperial Japan he made basicly 2 anuncemants.
1. I am in charge and those of you employed by the Imperial Japanese Government are not going to be paid by that body.
2. tomorrow you WILL RETURN TO WORK THOSE OF YOU IN CHARGE OF KEEPING ORDER - WE WILL BE PAYING YOU. They did and order was kept.

To paraphraise Miachiavelli, if you are going to hurt someone, do so in a manner that they will be unable to retaliate against you, no small hurt but annihilation to where tyey are impotent and powerless to do anything.

Two sad but true as Sun Tzu said make all your calculations ahead of time and be through, the last thing you want to do is leave the people in confusion as to who is in charge and leave a power vaccum, becasue there is someone who will seek to fill that vaccum and take charge and to whine ineffectively about human rights, laws of war, the Geneva Convention may get the reply "We are not in Genevca" or "IF you seek me to play by your rules, make me! show mew why it is in my interest to follow your rules! I am after power, when I win I will rewrite hitory to show me as the hero and you as the criminal villain.

Think about it - to those who think I am full of it and have no idea of what I am talking about please feel free to come up with a solution, instead of full quotes plead add a link, and keep your argument to hmmm perhaps 2-3 paragrapshs at the most. Raising your voice nor repetition does not reenfoce your argument. Instead say your peace and allow me to rebut your argument or if you have a relevent point I shall praise you for clarifying the issue.

Part II

Getting back to where I started, I advise that you begin the the basics among which are the following books. Sun Tzu The Art of War, The 36 Strategies, Carl Von Clausewitz On War(when you read On War bring a dictionary and remember that this book is unfinished, Clausewitz died before it was finished and his wife gathered his papers, put them together and published them. His writing style is dialectic that is to say he wrote a thesis then a antithesis and a synthesis or in plain English a idea then a counter idea and finally a finished idea that leads you in the right direction. For example the thesis (1st idea) is "We shall not enter into any of the abstruse definitions of war used by publicists. We shall keep to the element of the thing itself, to a duel. War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance. the antithesis (counter idea) is "War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means. " (which brings us to the synthesis that is to say to tie together the spirit of both to begin to study the problem impartially) the `remarkable trinity' In On War: Clausewitz defines the components of the trinity as (1) primordial violence, hatred, and enmity; (2) the play of chance and probability; and (3) war's element of subordination to rational policy. Mao tse Tung (there's 4 books and one essay to be read to understand guerrilla warfare and they are in order A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire (January 5, 1930)- On Guerilla Warfare (1937) -Basic Tactics (1937)- -On Guerrilla Warfare 1937-On Protracted War (May 1938). Bring your dictionary because what you thought a word means and what it actually means is two different things and can influence your understanding of what you are reading. Also look up on the Internet others papers, for example the meaning of politics as we use it today and as Clausewitz used it is very different and today those who translate Clausewitz can't agree on what he meant and was trying to say, so by seeing both pro and con you can come to a better informed opinion. For example as Antulio J. Echevarria II wrote in his paper (Clausewitz's description of war as a "continuation of politics (Politik) by other means" is of course well known. But it is unfortunately interpreted to mean that war is merely an act of state policy brought forth to achieve a political aim. At least part of the confusion surrounding this misunderstanding stems from the ambiguity of the German term Politik, for it means both policy and politics. But Clausewitz, too, deserves some blame, for he neglected to define in simple language how he wanted this multivalent term to be understood. Indeed, German scholars and soldiers alike have puzzled over this question since the late nineteenth century. Historian Eberhard Kessel argued, for example, that, for Clausewitz, Politik consisted of subjective and objective elements. The former pertained to the choice or choices made by the political leadership regarding the type of war to be waged and the specific aims to be pursued. The latter involved the dominant ideas, emotions, and political interrelationships unique to a given time and place.
In fact, Clausewitz's varied usage of Politik and the historical context within which he wrote indicate that he meant three things by the term. First, Clausewitz did intend Politik to mean policy, the extension of the will of the state, the decision to pursue a goal, political or otherwise. Second, Politik also meant politics as an external state of affairs, the strengths and weaknesses provided to a state by its geo-political position, its resources, alliances and treaties, and as an ongoing process of internal interaction between a state's key decision-making institutions and the personalities of its policy makers. Lastly, Clausewitz used Politik as an historically causative force, providing an explanatory pattern or framework for coherently viewing war's various manifestations over time.) others will have their own interpretation of what was meant of course giving you points of view and interpretations to allow you to choose what you think was meant.
In my next posts I shall take what I feel is a look at war based upon the writings I have listed, however DON'T TAKE WHAT I WRITE AS GOSPEL-HADDITH LOOK FOR YOURSELF.
In the end we are faced with many schools of thought among those are those leaders who are so in love with the book that they can't do a thing without the book or to use a Navy saying covering the three people. There are 3 types of leaders who base their actions on three expressions 1. Unless the book says you can do it you can't 2. Unless the book says you can't do it you can 3. Its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Got to love those sailors, but then the fleet has always been the branch of the armed forces that has traditionally had to operate independently of "HIGHER" more than any other branch.
Was going to write something differently however one of the guys I talk to was looking at my script and just scratched his head saying "That's nice but do you have to use so many big words? Who you trying to impress with your vocabulary? Can't you just write this is plain English?" So I am rewriting this and will be publishing hopefully a thoughtful coherent paper instead of an essay that seeks intentionally or unintentionally to look like a scholarly work out to impress those in the academic community while boring to tears those in the field.
Until then I have two messages for my brothers.
To those world famous "Devil Dog" Brothers of mine Semper Fidelis
To those world infamous "Rakkasans", the heroes of Shah-i-Kot Valley NE DESIT VIRTUS
as for the rest of y'all God love and bless everyone of you.
Last thought WHY do you CAV guys always say IF YOU AIN'T SHIT YOU AIN'T CAV? Since I never have been, are, or intend to be SHIT I can't be CAV?
YHWH/GOD/ALLAH bless Colonel James Hallums! Rakkasan Commander! American Hero!Good Night Uncle Chesty-Wherever you are.

Why we are losing in Iraq Part 1

In a sense the United States Army is making the same mistakes it made in VietNam, we've had military leaders and political leaders e.g. President Bush tell us we've gotton over VietNam but we havent learned shit. Thus the problem we have in Iraq. In a sense its like the Talleyrand quote used to describe the Bourbons 'THEY have learnt nothing; and forgotten nothing,’ and fits the US Army like a glove. However the Marine Corps developed the Small Wars Manual based on the experience of the Banana wars 1919-1939 and the Combined Action Program (CAP). that by all accounts of historians did well until killed by politics?

Its a matter of reading Sun Tzu. Clausewitz and Mao as a start to see that while the US Army is playing the "GAME" with the Iraq Insurgents, chasing them all over the insurgents through terrorism have coopted the indifference of the maajority of the people who see the United States inability to bring peace and stability as a sign that the insurgents will win. Obviously the Iraqi insurgents have read thier Mao but unlike the US Army they comprehend "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Where as the US Army is fighting the war of the flea in the role of the dog. "Analogically, the guerrilla fights the war of the flea, and his military enemy suffers the dog’s disadvantages: too much to defend; too small, ubiquitous,
and agile an enemy to come to grips with. If the war continues long enough—this is the theory—the dog succumbs to exhaustion and anemia without ever having found anything on which to close its jaws or to rake with its claws. Robert Taber.

So whats wrong and why are we as a nation repeating the wrong things and unable to repeat the right? A good example of successful conterinsurgency is the Philippine-American War, AKA the Philippine-Insurrection. Part 1 against the Catholic Filipenos and Part 2 against the Moros, Islamic Filipenos. Thus leading this writer to say Americas first Asian war of insurgncy of the 20th Century and the first clash against Muslims in the 20th Century. However our armed forces fell into love with technology and forgot its not high technology toys that determine victory but the men behind them. Or as Ho Chi Minh said to the French, late 1940s
You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win. Later on the United States attempted to win the "War of Attrition" and to bomb the VietNamese into the stone age and failed miserably. It is estimated the United States dropped three times the amount of bombs that were dropped by all parties in World War 2 on VietNam but in the end we lost our political will and the North Vietnamese took Saigon 30 April 1975 as the United States evacuated the Embassy, litterly one step ahead of the invaiding North Vietnamese.