Alan E. Brain

Excellently presented and totally applicable!

Interesting, but not really comparable. The bottom line is that the bulk of the American people are not prepared to accept those kind of casualties in this situation. Worse, this is becoming a increasingly organized resistance. Its going to take some real thinking outside the box to wipe out these guerillas, and the current strategy has shown no sign of that. We cannot continue to treat the rebellious cities and towns the same way we treat the more passive areas. For instance, the arms and explosives cache that was found last week was discovered in the home of a guy thought to be friendly to the coalition. The Sunni Triangle needs to be treated as a conquored territory, and a much much more forceful policy implaced. We arent losing hearts and minds there, they are already lost. So instead we need to make examples. Its better to be loved than feared. Bring in 5000 Kurdish fighters to one of these cities and set them to patrolling the streets. The others will fall in line quite quickly with that threat looming. Oh, and find Hussein, he's hiding in Tikrit.

Correction: Its better to be feared than loved. Too much Jack tonight.

Mark B: Perhaps if the media were to draw the public's attention to the rather incredible parallels between Iraq 2003 and Germany 1945 then the constant trickle of casualties might be seen in perspective. Compare, for example, the death rate of young males in, say, California due to auto accidents.

As regards "sending in the Kurdish Horde", "sending in the Mongolian Horde" didn't work too well for Uncle Joe in the long term. Besides which, quite frankly, it's not our style, and I would fight long and hard for it never to become so. I'm also increasingly hopeful that it may not be the Kurds' style hereonin either. Certainly if they are to gain their own de-facto state it must not be.

That the populous in the Sunni triangle should be treated rather differently from the rest of Iraq is something I wouldn't argue with. Saddam was Tikrit's Home Son, and until the place is raised to the ground or otherwise dealt with decisively, no doubt there will be some Saddamites still taking pot-shots.

See Mao on Guerilla Warfare:

Many people think it impossible for guerrillas to exist for long in the enemy's rear. Such a belief reveals lack of comprehension of the relationship that should exist between the people and the troops. The former may be likened to water the latter to the fish who inhabit it. How may it be said that these two cannot exist together? It is only undisciplined troops who make the people their enemies and who, like the fish out of its native element cannot live.

Tikrit is a friendly sea for the new Werewolves, but the rest of Iraq is not. But solving this problem is most emphatically not up to us: it's up to the Iraqis themselves. For the Saddamites have made "the people their enemies and who, like the fish out of its native element cannot exist."

The former may be likened to water the latter to the fish who inhabit it. How may it be said that these two cannot exist together? It is only undisciplined troops who make the people their enemies and who, like the fish out of its native element cannot live.

There it is: time to drain the sea. There's a big, convenient desert right to the west of the Sunni triangle, right? We simply need to surround the area, explain to everyone in the area that unless the assholes perpetrating the resistance are handed over within two weeks they would systematically be moved to tent cities in the desert. In August.

If the preparations made are credible, we'd have every one of the assholes, possibly even Saddam himself, handed to us.

Mao,
First off, no amount of spin is going to convince the public that Iraq is analagous to Nazi Germany for a simple reason, its not analagous. There is no looming Soviet threat for one thing. Right or wrong the American people are not going to be happy with a bloody, extended occupation. Secondly, the California traffic accident comparison is absurd. There are over 35 million people in California compared to 150,000 soldiers in Iraq. Losing a soldier a day like this is going to cripple the combat effectiveness of these units in short order (especially the 3rd ID) both psychologically and eventually physically. Soldiers accept casualties in combat as sad but necessary. Casualties in nebulous peace keeping missions are different, because they are random and unpredictable and open ended. Basically these guys will start to feel that there is no safety and no place to let down their guard in Iraq, and no end in sight because there is no definable objective. This is untenable. We need to take proactive steps to drain this swamp in a big way. The status quo allows Sunnis to smile at Americans in the day and support terrorist Fediyian at night with no repurcussians. We need to make the death of an American soldier a burden on these people, that will discourage collaberation. These former Hussein supporters are our enemy, rank and file. If we make an example of some of them (im not talking rape and murder, i'm talking a healthy dose of fear) we will have an easier time with the rest.

The parallels are strange, but probably shouldn't be. Ba'athist is simply Arab for "Nazi". I remember reading that the Ba'athists originated out of Nazi-occupied France.

Robert Prather : The origin was actually in Damascus in 1943 though the name originated in Syria in 1952. It's essentially Pan-Arab National Socialism - as opposed to German National Socialism, aka Nazis. Saddam Hussein's regime was more Stalinist in character though, according to the Iraqi refugees I've talked to - their stories were identical to those told about 1930's Russia.
The best concise (1 paragraph) history of the Ba'ath party is here.

So your detail might not be 100%, but you're spot on : Ba'ath == Nazi with an Arabic accent.

Nazis and Arabs have been working together ever since Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Why not? In general they hate the jews as much as the Nazis ever did. There have been notable exceptions, particularly before WWII, but there was a significant minority or possibly even a majority who were willing to slaughter the Jewish infidels at the word of any demon, be he an austrian madman or the grand mufti of Jerusalem or his nephew. Granted you have your antisemites everywhere, but only in the Muslim world do you have the religious network to bring them to the point of conflict in vast numbers. How could Hitler pass up an easily manipulated ally that was begging to help with his final solution?

is there any conection between Ba'ath Party and the Iraqi group that invided the Nazis to invade Iraq in 1941 or 1942? If I remember correctly there was at least an attempt at contact using aircraft. But hitler was able to establish a land link. Although the matter was discussed with Rommel. It was hoped that after the defeat of the British in Egypt the way might become open. Anyway the Nazis appear to have been certain they would be very welcome in Iraq.

sorry , I meant to say unable to establish a land link. the nazis did have brief access to Syria thanks to the French, but they made little use of it. But I think I saw something about nazi aircraft traveling to Iraq refueling in Syria. Yes Iraq was under British contral at the time. But the Iraqi group was offering to over throw the British with Nazi help.

Let me see - no Soviet threat. OK.

Is the Islamic fascist threat similar to the Soviet threat? All I can say is that it does the job for me. The Soviet threat was mainly ideological. If we were to be beaten in the war we would have to defeat ourselves.

None the less there was a military component. The major point of which was to avoid direct confrontation so no test of strength involved other than minor national interests.Thus you have Vietnam and Afghanistan in the 80s and not war on the plains of Europe.

I am a college professor and I liked this story on the German violence after WW II (which I originally got from the Wall Srreet Journal) so much that I sent it to my students enrolled for upcoming classes in American foreign policy. On the same day that I sent it, however, I found this account from the Hussein sons' captured bodyguard in the London Times:

"The bodyguard said that Saddam and his sons had remained in Baghdad in the genuine belief that they could hold the city. Only later, when they believed they had been betrayed by their commanders, did they consider an alternative. 'The resistance was not factored in before the war,' he said. 'There was a closed meeting five or six days after the war, and that is when they began to discuss the resistance.'"

I still think it is a pretty good analogy between postwar Germany and postwar Iraq, but there appears not to have been any prewar planning on the part of the Iraqis unlike the planning begun by Himmler in 1944. Not a fundamental difference, perhaps, but a difference nonetheless.

As for why we do not see this sort of thing more generally in the press, it is because journalists are historically ignorant, by and large.

I think the reason why many Americans won't accept a comparison between Ba'ath and Nazi is twofold:

A) The Ba'ath party is an incompetent version of totalitarianism

B) Most Americans have no understand of what living in a dictatorship (or specifically a fascist regime) really means.

C) From B, many radicals have convinced themselves that "fascist" means "political ideals I disagree w/".

D) From C, these same radicals have assumed that Bush is a fascist, since Bush holds "political ideals I disagree w/".

E) From movies and popular history, most Americans believe (incorrectly) that fascist regimes always cooperate.

F) From E, a conclusion can be made that if Bush (a "fascist") opposes Saddam, then the latter can't be a fascist.

Doug M:

A) You're partially incorrect -- holding power for 30 years in spite of losing multiple wars and suffering multiple revolts seems like a pretty competent version of totalitarianism.

B) Right on. Americans in general are clueless about totalitarian regimes, left-wing or right-wing.

C-F) This is a bipartisan thing. I recall many far-right Clinton critics referring to him as a fascist ("Clintler").

I was an American child who grew up in occupied Germany. It was terrible, primarily due to vicious infighting among the so-called Allies, abysmal planning, inept bungling of that ever-changing planning, inconsistent and ever-changing policy, a virtually total lack of communication (newspapers, radio), insistence on 'reparations,' the fact that the wholly unnecessary, indiscriminate and wantonly revengeful Allied bombing of civilian targets had ruined the country, etc etc. The Wehrmacht in the west were in POW camps, starved, abused, and mistreated in most instances. There was little transportation except for US personnel. I have read Biddiscombe's Werwolf study and find it a load of hogwash for the most part. There were no attacks on American occupying troops after the surrender in the US Zone, and certainly no transport, electricity, fuel or food or weapons or supplies for 'guerilla bands' to carry out any such. I was there. The groups most 'feared' were DPs (displaced persons) and former concentration/labor camp detainees, who were attacking the Germans, not the Americans. The US Government had no qualms about families accompanying its occupation forces. And as for mistreatment, it was the other way around. It was the US Forces who had no qualms about looting, pillaging, raping, black marketing, molesting Germans, and taking a leak into any cellar window, open, of course, no glass, and occupied, of course, housing virtually destroyed. A better study is: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Occ-GY/ch19.htm

Steve wrote: "I think the reason why many Americans won't accept a comparison between Ba'ath and Nazi is that the Ba'ath party is an incompetent version of totalitarianism"

BS. talk to an Iraqi, or read interviews from before the killing of the Bad Boys and after. An accepted distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian is that authoritarian regimes, while strict, have a recognized set of rules that one must follow.

Singapore is one example. We might not understand those rules, (spitting on the sidewalk leads to caning?!) from the outside, but the people there do. The important thing is that the rules don’t change much and you can learn what they are. Usually the rules are designed to keep one man, or one party in power.

But in a totalitarian system the rules are arbitrary, change on a dime, and do not appear to have a rational aim other than to please the rulers and to reinforce the powerlessness, the meaninglessness of the individual. Soviet Russia under Stalin was one such regime.

If you look into the last 25 years of life in Iraq you will find it is replete with stories of the arbitrary nature of the rules, with the one constant theme being the power of Saddam and his son's and the lack of power of everyone else.

Nor is this an accident, Saddam himself says that he styled his rule after the examples of Hitler and Stalin.

Steve also wrote: "Most Americans have no understand of what living in a dictatorship (or specifically a fascist regime) really means."

BS, Many Americans are the refugees or children of refugees from exactly such regimes.

Steve again: "Many radicals have convinced themselves that "fascist" means "political ideals I disagree w/". These same radicals have assumed that Bush is a fascist, since Bush holds "political ideals I disagree w/".""

Not sure what you mean or who this is really directed against, I don’t know if you know what a radical is or what a fascist is.

"From movies and popular history, most Americans believe (incorrectly) that fascist regimes always cooperate."

cooperate? with whom? on what?

"Thus a conclusion can be made that if Bush (a "fascist") opposes Saddam, then the latter can't be a fascist."

Ah, I see. Sorry, I don’t think Left wing-wingnuts think that long and hard about this.

Rather, hard leftists merely see Bush as an exaggeration of what he is... anti-working man, anti-environment, anti-personal liberties, pro-capitalist, pro-business, and glowing with the light of The Saved.

In one element they have it right. Fascism is the merging of the business class with the government, this was the original dictionary definition up til the 1980's when most dictionaries and encyclopedias were bought up by a handful of large publishing houses.

Bush' presidency DOES represent a merging of government and business interests.

But, thus far, that is where the parallel ends. Maybe it is because this "fascist government" lives in the US, a most Liberal of Democracies.

I have yet to read this new Werwolf study, but at least one statement sets off alarm bells. I have never before heard the claim that the destruction of artworks in the Friedrichshain flak tower was due to Nazi partisan action.

Anyone interested in life in postwar Germany can check out Germany Year Zero, a film made in Berlin in 1947 by Italian director Roberto Rossellini. Rossellini auditioned an entirely German and mostly amateur cast; the film's main stars never worked again. The scenes of devastation are breathtaking. An American DVD version was released in 2002.

The description on the box, courtesy Amazon: "Citizens fight for survival in the nightmarish devastation of post-World War II Berlin in this towering masterpiece of Italian neorealist cinema from groundbreaking director Robert Rossellini. Twelve-year-old Edmund, a child who has known only upheaval and terror, wanders from day to day trying to help his family and find money or food on the streets. One day he meets his former schoolteacher, who now profits from Nazi propaganda, and sets in motion a shocking new chain of violence. Filled with haunting imagery and unforgettable performances by real local citizens, this unflinching look at a country wracked with guilt and confusion will never leave your memory."

What everyone here seems to be missing is the underlying cultural difference between the Iraqis and the Germans. In many ways, Germand and American culture in 1944 were almost identical. Hard working, solidly middle-class values. Hell, a huge proportion of the US army was within a few generations of being from Germany. Common culture. Common values. Common religion. They looked like us. They lived like us. That made for a very strong, common basis to cooperate. Lots more soliders spoke German. There was lots of friendly history between the US and Germany prior to the war.

Iraq has NONE of this. Iraq has no real middle class. Iraq is Muslim. No common religion. No real common set of values. Almost no arabic speakers in the US military. A long history of antagonism. A whole culture that hates the US and what it stands for. I think this is far more important than any parallels to the Ba'aath party to Nazism. They are not going to accept us because we are just too different. In 1944, the freed Germans had a lot in common with their liberators. In 2003 the freed Iraqis have much more in common with the terrorists we are fighting than they do with us.

This basic culture clash is why this latest Iraqi 'democracy' will fail, just like every other 'democracy' set up in Iraq for the past several hundred years.

a better analogy would seem to be to compare the iraq regime to a soviet stalinist regime ..the Baathist party being analogous to the communist party ...considering that the iraqis had a lot of soviet equipment and training it would seem more logical.

Regardless of the likelihood of success, this occupation must take place, and the seeds of democracy sowed in the Middle East.

Wether it is expressed by compliance with the ravings of an 18th century cleric, whose "Book of Unity" describes the tactics for restoring the "lost glories of Islam" or the Ba'ath echoing the rhetoric of an evil Hun, the goal of restoring a bloody Arab empire that requires subjucation of all the known world is common.

Who cares if the "Arab street" is angered, when the Arab basement harbors the goal of traditional empire that will make every human subject to the whimsy of tyrants and dumfamentalcase clerics, including the atrocities being perpetrated in the Sudan and as were perpetrated during the 60 months of Talipuppets in Afghanistan?

The American people will maintain forces in Iraq, no matter the cost in lives or money, until the objective of subjecting the entire world to what is happening in the Sudan is gone forever. The only thing that can shake our will is the lack of education about the enemy we face: an entire culture of imperialists that have incited and are funding violent insurgencies in more than a dozen countries aroung the world TODAY, as we type.

My daughter joined the Marines in July of this year. Today she is training for deployment to Iraq, in full knowlege of the likelihood that she will face severe conflict in our fight against Arab imperialism, and willing to die in that fight if that's what it takes.

I've never been so proud, and pray her mission is successful.

Wouldn't it have been nice to hear Rumsfeld bring up this problem when he was brainwashing the public with his lies! What do you bet if the Sunni resistance is defeated, the Shiite majority will eagerly take their place (their probable strategy). What a mess. And what'll happen when Johnny Comes Marchin' Home? Hey hey Timothy McVeigh - how many kids did you kill today!?!?!?

The BBC had a Canadian military correspondent discussing this yesterday and he wasn't at all convinced of the parallels. He thought they were mighty shallow. For example:

Germany had a comparatively recent history of democracy and a longer history of somewhat parliamentary, if authoritarian, democracy before that. Iraq does not.

The German military was crushed, with 8 million casualties (military and civilian) after 6 years of fighting a war that they knew they had started. Does not apply to Iraq.

The occupying powers were much larger, 2-3 million men, over a country 3x the size of Iraq. Compare that to 150,000 GIs in Iraq. If you adjust for the size of the country, we're still 225,000 men short in Iraq. That will have an impact.

All of these factors kept the resistance in Germany to the occupation really small and largely ineffectual. Contrast that with the continuing violence in Iraq. I think we are seeing something more akin to a real resistance movement rather than the largely phantom hopes of Goebels and the Werwolves.

Now, I opposed the war. But since we committed ourselves, we had better darn well commit ourselves to doing this right in Iraq (something we're NOT doing right in Afghanistan as far as I'm concerned). And keeping a relatively small force in the field, insufficiently supported by the reinforcements they need, is NOT the way to create a stable Iraqi state (I'm not even really hoping for serious democracy).
But let's hope we don't have to stay there for 45+ years to get it this time.

The German Werwolf program existed more in theory than in subbstance. It was part of a dream by the some ot the top Nazis, the likes of Geobbles, Himmler and Goering and never really got off the ground. What there was of it, was made up mostly of young boys and old men. And they, like all Germans, were tired of war and sought an early peace. Little thought was aparently given to a continuation of the war by Werwold units.

DE Professor, European Division, University
of Maryland. Living at:

Parc Saint Jean, Bat. C
50 Avenue Francisque Perraud
06600 Antibes
France

Telephone 0493611534

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: