Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
On Point Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The ""Iraqi Tet"" Fantasy
Austin Bay    4/12/2005 11:16:44 PM

Al Qaeda remains trapped in a Vietnam fantasy.

Al Qaeda is desperately trying to produce an "Iraqi Tet" -- a Middle Eastern repetition of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong 1968 offensive in South Vietnam.

On April 2 and again on April 4, the terror gang led by Al Qaeda's Iraq commander, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, launched "military-style attacks" on the Abu Ghraib prison complex in Baghdad. In the April 4 assault, U.S. forces took 44 casualties (most of them minor wounds). The terrorist gang, however, took 50 casualties, out of a force estimated at 60 gunmen.

On April 11, the gang attacked a Marine compound at Husaybah near the Syrian border. As I write, terrorist casualties are unconfirmed, but the assault flopped.

While bomb attacks on unarmed Iraqi civilians continue (particularly against Shiites), public opinion now matters in Iraq, and the thugs' public slaughters have killed too many Iraqi innocents. January's election dramatically lifted public morale and changed the media focus -- suddenly, democracy looks possible, and an Arab Muslim democracy is Al Qaeda's worst nightmare.

Hence the "Tet gamble." Bombs haven't cowed the Iraqi people -- but perhaps the American people will lose heart and buckle if Al Qaeda concocts a military surprise.

U.S. forces, however, are "hard targets" -- unlike civilians standing in line to vote, U.S. troops shoot back. Since 9-11, Al Qaeda has never won a military engagement at the platoon level (30 men) or higher. Coalition forward operating bases are heavily fortified.

But the Tet fantasy is so compelling. Though Tet was by most measures a disaster for the communists, as a media and hence political event, Tet snuffed "the light at the end of the tunnel." The Johnson administration had told the American public Vietnam had reached a turning point -- "the light" -- but Tet demonstrated that North Vietnamese Army (NVA) regulars and Viet Cong (VC) guerrillas were still capable of potent action.

NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap planned for maximum psychological and political impact. Communist forces simultaneously hit cities and military bases throughout the south. Though they took huge casualties, Giap's real target was President Johnson. Communist attackers managed to break into the U.S. embassy compound in Saigon. The assault was repelled, but the moral damage -- and dramatic photos -- energized Sen Eugene McCarthy's "peace candidacy." Political support for LBJ and the Vietnam War withered.

Iraq, however, is no Vietnam. The Vietnam War was strategic defense, a bitter Cold War "battle of containment." The War on Terror is a strategic political and military offensive directed at the dictators and theocrats who rule by death squad and export terror -- and it's a war we are winning.

With Iraq's democratic political process gearing up, Zarqawi has decided the risk of facing U.S. troops is worth the reward in headlines. Hitting the Husaybah Marine compound is supposed to generate media echoes of Lebanon 1983 and the U.S. Marine barracks terror bombing that led to American withdrawal.

U.S. Navy Capt. Hal Pittman, CENTCOM's senior spokesman, told me Tuesday that the terrorists seek media coverage of these attacks "to empower their cause, break the momentum of representational government (in Iraq) and dissuade the coalition to continue its support."

Zarqawi's gang "used a fire truck at Husaybah as a car bomb. That's theatrics if you've ever seen theatrics," Pittman said. "They're trying to create a spectacular event, overrun a patrol or border outpost somewhere, an event with huge media value that would promote their cause and make them seem more powerful than they are."

At Abu Ghraib and Husaybah, Zarqawi failed militarily. He didn't get his scare headlines, either. Short of detonating a nuclear weapon in Baghdad, a ground attack on the Green Zone that succeeds in cracking the U.S. embassy and taking hostages is the only "Tet" card Zarqawi has. The Green Zone, however, is Iraq's hardest target.

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

ShallowThinker1    RE:The Vietnam fantasy   4/13/2005 2:06:44 PM
I'm curious about why the "point" topics seem to generate such little commentary. Anybody know? Al Qaeda remains trapped in a Vietnam fantasy. They're traveling in rich company here. They could do a little parasailing with Mr. Kerry and then tip a few with Mr. Kennedy. AQ craves the media attention that might help them win a political victory as per Tet but they may be making a serious mistake by paying too much attention to the media whose attention they crave. The media has lost a huge amount of credibility and respect among the US population since the good old days of Tet. There are a number of studies showing this - the recent Pew one is making the rounds now but this is not a new problem for the media. It may be that AQ has selected a nearly impotent ally. If you would be kind enough to use your expertise to critique my assessment, it seems to me the AQ terrorists are stuck between a rock and a hard place here. It is suicide to try and wage large numbers of large scale attacks against the US forces over there. And apparently the Iraqi military, such as it is, is quickly coming up to speed and are not particularly soft targets either. So going up against military forces seems to have become a losing proposition and they may well not have the capability to mount a major offensive across a broad swath of Iraq. A few point attacks do not a Tet Offensive make. Yet they probably do have the capability to wage wide ranging and numerous, and "successful" attacks against softer civilian targets. They seemed to have tried this a few weeks back around the elections. Yet if they exercise this option to aggressively they appear to turn the civilian population against them and military forces are prone to come knocking on their doors and shoot them. Do they have the capability to mount a large scale series of attacks, and offensive, against soft targets or has their capability been reduced too much? Can you speculate on any timeframe required for AQ to be defeated in Iraq and move on to wherever? Besides AQ, which presumably is fighting for some ideological or even existential reasons, there is Baathist "murdering, criminal thugs" element. Do you believe the Iraqis can reach the point of demanding that these elements be rounded up and disposed of, rather than receiving the traditional tribal support, in time or depth sufficient to establish a democratic govermental system (whatever that means to them) that is not so weak that the criminal elements can take it by "coup"?
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy