By Ezra
Matt's post on asymmetric warfare in Iraq should really be read, maybe not so much by all of you, but by any strong supporters of the war who happen along this site. I'm not entirely sure why this is, but the knowledge that the insurgency fights differently has not quite connected to the idea that we're not fighting well, that our tactics need to change, that this is a fight we can't militarily win.
Asymmetric warfare, for those who don't know, is a military term for conflicts in which the antagonists have hugely mismatched combat capabilities. Therefore, the whole game of it, particularly for the weaker belligerent, is to not have their weaknesses match up with our strengths. That would be symmetrical warfare and they'd be crushed. That's what the insurgency isn't doing and it's why, when we try and fight them, as with the invasion of Baghdad, the overrun of Fallujah, or the assault on Tal Afar, they "melt away", refusing to fight and instead regrouping to hit later. Think of it like this: imagine you have the fastest car on the planet. Imagine you like to race people. Is anyone going to race you? No. But let's say your winning races would still be a negative outcome for them. So instead, every time you're in class or have your back turned, they slash your tires, poor sand in your tank, cut your brakes.
That's asymmetric warfare, you can beat them in a race, but they can disable your car. And that's what we're dealing with in Iraq. Because the enemy knows our strength, they refuse to face us, because they refuse to face us, we can't kill them, because we can't kill them, they can keep launching attacks on us, and because they can keep launching attacks on us, we keep trying to find ground where we can face them, but because the enemy knows our strength, they refuse to face us...
