Standoff at the Not So OK Mosque

OR: Imam Ali Mosque Symolizes the Problem With U.S. Policy

Published on August 23, 2004 By CrispE In Current Events

Several writers on JU have talked about why we should destroy the Imam Ali Mosque. They argue that it is a symbol of Iraqi and Muslim hatred for Americans and if it were destroyed it would tell the muslims that we meant business and would not tolerate this form of "gun and run" destruction. Others site the lack of commitment (including myself) to the war effort in Iraq, the parallels to Viet Nam and the lack of will of the United States to do "what is necessary" to win the peace. However, in this situation the debaters are seemingly missing the tactical answer to the problem.

Forces "friendly to the United States" control the area around the mosque almost completely. The chance of supplies and especially food going in without our knowledge is very small and the little that does can't possibly help to any extent the people who are there. Essentially then, you have a classic siege situation where, without using bombs or destroying the mosque we can wait the insurgents out. Even the indians in the old west knew this strategy surrounding forts and denying supplies. There, of course, the cavalry came to rescue the soldiers, but whom will answer that call in this situation?

The alternative of destroying the mosque is not acceptable for 3 reasons. One, a siege loses you much fewer troops and saving lives should always be a concern with military operations. Americans are getting more and more concerned that the fighting is out of control and sympathy for the underdog Iraqis who are undermanned and essentially reduced to small arms fire grows as we continue to act as bullies. This is not a plea for a code of conduct but rather a "smart plan" to end the threat.

Second, destruction of the mosque unites all enemies against us, terrorist and non because the mosque is a symbol of their faith. Right now we have some form of acceptance of our actions in Iraq by most of the world because while most think we are wrong and acting unilaterally they understand the tactical situation. These situations are hard but the rest of the world believes that certain actions are wrong. Historians and philosophers still talk about the bombing of Dresdan in World War II for example. When you destroy in a manner seemingly without reason (which this would appear to be) then you encourage debate, division, and even more animosity amongst the citizens and allies. The enemy however will be even more willing to resist though and indeed the attempt to goad us into the situation may be occuring. However, the ultimate result will be our problem and their victory if they succeed.

Finally, the taking of the mosque is not strategically worthwhile. Are we so silly militarilly that we can't see that crushing the mehdi army is not the issue? The issue is how to get the Iraqi people on our side. Can that be done when everyone can see that the U.S. can win this battle without the destruction of the mosque in the first place? Do we really need to see that it means longer and longer deployment of troops when we can least afford it, when it heightens risk to the troops, and unifies the enemy?

Well, do we?

Comments

greywar

on Aug 23, 2004

I agree that the destruction of the mosque would serve no purpose, but you are sorely mistaken about the control of the area around it. That cordon is very porous and is regularly crossed with food and weapons. The police are corrupt and complicit in this as is the Iraqi National Guard. Destruction of the mosque is not necessary but an assault on its occupants probably is.

CrispE

on Aug 23, 2004

greywar:

Well, I only know what the media tells us but if we do not control the area, how come we don't? If it is our "friends" the Iraqi military shouldn't we be doing something about that? If we could control the area (and I think it is wrong to say we are unequipped or unable to do so with the troops available) this is still the best option. Right?

greywar

on Aug 23, 2004

we be doing something about that?

You have to offer more than "do something". What is the US supposed to do? Tell them firmly, "Don't be corrupt!" or "Don't sympathize with Sadr!"? Critics of the action Iraq have been long on criticism and short on realistic advice. We can not "control the area" because it is largely a dense residential area. The people in the area are sympathizers and short of shipping in 40,000 troops to physically occupy every inch of open ground (which would place so many in harms way as to make it laughable) we can not dobetter than try for a diplomatic surrender on Sadr's part or failing that (and I think we have failed in that), to storm the mosque with ING troops if possible or ours if necessary. Blowing up the mosque would serve no purpose but whacking the nut balls inside would.

Sadr is not interested in giving up as it would shame him greatly in the Arab world and hugely diminish his standing in the Shia hierarchy.

and I think it is wrong to say we are unequipped or unable to do so with the troops available

This a darn sight harder a task than you seem to think. Let me assure you that the US military has not been set up for ground occupation for a very long time. We shifted during the Vietnam war to a smaller and more capable (offensivly speaking) military that is devastating in combat but not as good at "peacekeeping" or static ops. Standing guard on a Nejef street is a great way to eat a bullet.

CrispE

on Aug 23, 2004

greywar:

You know it's interesting. You think that we can storm the mosque that is protected but can't surround it in an area that isn't?! A residential area is actually easier to occupy. You simply cordon off the area surrounding and then control entry and exit. How low an opinion do you have of our troops, anyway? This is the United States Army we're talking about, not the French Foreign Legion. If we don't have the manpower to do this, how will you ever deal with real armies?

And as far as taking a bullet goes, that's the job description, isn't it? Ever heard of barriers?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!