Arguably the most insightful commentator on the war against the radical Islamic fascists — Victor Davis Hanson — posts this excellent article with his insights into last week’s debacle at Fallujah:

I am sorry, but these toxic fumes of the Dark-Ages permeate everywhere. It won?t do any more simply to repeat quite logical exegeses. Without consensual government, the poor Arab Middle East is caught in the throes of rampant unemployment, illiteracy, statism, and corruption. Thus in frustration it vents through its state-run media invective against Jews and Americans to assuage the shame and pain. Whatever.
But at some point the world is asking: ?Is Mr. Assad or Hussein, the Saudi Royal Family, or a Khadafy really an aberration?all rogues who hijacked Arab countries?or are they the logical expression of a tribal patriarchal society whose frequent tolerance of barbarism is in fact reflected in its leadership? Are the citizens of Fallujah the victims of Saddam, or did folk like this find their natural identity expressed in Saddam? Postcolonial theory and victimology argue that European colonialism, Zionism, and petrodollars wrecked the Middle East. But to believe that one must see India in shambles, Latin America under blanket autocracy, and an array of suicide bombers pouring out of Mexico or Nigeria. South Korea was a moonscape of war when oil began gushing out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia; why is it now exporting cars while the latter are exporting death? Apartheid was far worse than the Shah?s modernization program; yet why did South Africa renounce nuclear weapons while the Mullahs cheated on every UN protocol they could?

Then, Mr. Hanson lays it on the line:

The enemy of the Middle East is not the West so much as modernism itself and the humiliation that accrues when millions themselves are nursed by fantasies, hypocrisies, and conspiracies to explain their own failures. Quite simply, any society in which citizens owe their allegiance to the tribe rather than the nation, do not believe in democracy enough to institute it, shun female intellectual contributions, allow polygamy, insist on patriarchy, institutionalize religious persecution, ignore family planning, expect endemic corruption, tolerate honor killings, see no need to vote, and define knowledge as mastery of the Koran is deeply pathological.

And sums it up as follows:

I support the bold efforts of the United States to make a start in cleaning up this mess, in hopes that a Fallujah might one day exorcize its demons. But in the meantime, we should have no illusions about the enormity of our task, where every positive effort will be met with violence, fury, hypocrisy, and ingratitude.
If we are to try to bring some good to the Middle East, then we must first have the intellectual courage to confess that for the most part the pathologies embedded there are not merely the work of corrupt leaders but often the very people who put them in place and allowed them to continue their ruin.
So the question remains: did Saddam create Fallujah or Fallujah Saddam?

Read the entire piece. VDH is the essense of clear thinking.

This Wall Street Journal ($) article relates the interesting story of Marine Colonel Joe D. Dowdy, who was relieved of his command during the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year. Not only is this a fascinating story about the pressures involved in commanding a Marine regiment in battle, but it also provides insight into the battlefield tactics that the U.S. military has executed brilliantly and effectively in the last three major military operations — Desert Strorm, Afghanistan, and the latest Iraq operation:

A potential 150-mile bypass around Nasiriyah didn’t seem feasible. Col. Dowdy wasn’t sure he had enough fuel and didn’t know what resistance he might face. The First Regiment was stuck.
The halt was anathema to Gen. Mattis, a devotee of a modern military doctrine known as “maneuver warfare.” Though Marines have practiced the technique for years, the Iraqi war was its first large-scale test. Instead of following rigid battle plans and attacking on well-defined fronts, this tactic calls for smaller forces to move quickly over combat zones, exploiting opportunities and sowing confusion among the enemy. The technique is summed up in Gen. Mattis’ radio call name: “Chaos.”

* * *

The issue of speed in Iraq remains in debate. Last fall, the Army War College, a Pentagon-financed school where officers analyze tactics, released a study saying there was little evidence that speed affected the outcome of the war. The stiff resistance outside Baghdad suggests U.S. forces may have done better by moving at a more measured pace, entering more cities, rooting out fighters and leaving more troops in the provinces to enforce order, the report said.
However, in another study yet to be finalized, the military’s Joint Center for Lessons Learned says speed was integral to U.S. military success in Iraq. In a speech in February, Adm. E.P. Giambastiani, commander of the Joint Forces, said speed “reduces decision and execution cycles, creates opportunities, denies an enemy options and speeds his collapse.”

As noted in this earlier post, the creative and effective military tactics used in the current Iraq operation and the two earlier operations were not embraced easily within the military establishment. Author Robert Coram’s book, “Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War,” presents a compelling story of how dedicated military experts outside of the Pentagon establishment fought over a 20 year period to change traditional Pentagon thinking on military tactics. As noted in the earlier post, appearances are deceiving with regard to the Pentagon, the special interests that attempt to control it, and the elected officials who attempt to lead it.
This is not a story that the mainstream media covers well, so Mr. Coram’s book and a few others are essential to an understanding of the way in which the U.S. Armed Forces confront issues of military tactics in modern warfare. It is particularly noteworthy that, during their service in the Reagan, first Bush, and current Bush Administrations, Messrs. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell have been leaders at the forefront of facilitating these new ideas on military tactics. Their support for those new ideas has often put them at odds with the Pentagon establishment, which is a “behind the scenes” conflict that the mainstream media has largely ignored. That is an important point to remember during this political season when these public servants will likely be accused of being lapdogs for the military establishment.