[zen jihad]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

"Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and na�ve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the "political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off the tracks.

I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties than we�ve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or necessary but possible.

Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)

Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.

We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media bias."

Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.

We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army.

Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them. Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and traditional religious networks.

Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.

Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.

Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency and adaptability.

Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.

It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn.

September 20, 2004

Al Lorentz [send him mail] is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq. "

[Krusty]

worthwhile read. Thanks for posting.

[Buckaroo]

First of all, this was not written by any soldier in Iraq. It was written by some Left Wing Democrat trying to influence everyone against the war. He is full of crap and he is living somewhere in Massachussetts, just like his favorite war protestor Kerry.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
First of all, this was not written by any soldier in Iraq. It was written by some Left Wing Democrat trying to influence everyone against the war. He is full of crap and he is living somewhere in Massachussetts, just like his favorite war protestor Kerry.

What do you base this on ?? I googled but couldn't find the "Al Lorentz is really a left winger from MA" stories (there are a few other stories about this particular guy though). What makes his opinion less weighty than, say, some forum geeks for whom "automatic weapons" means holding the X key down on their Playstation 2 ??

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I smelled ******** a foot deep the instant I saw that article. Buckaroo probably nailed it- I�d wager that this is just some guy sitting out there giggling at how gullible all the bitterleftwingnutjobs.org sites are that buy his crap hook, line and sinker.

Once again, we have proof positive that bitterleftistnuts.org sites will latch on to virtually ANYTHING, written by ANYONE and present it as an authority on a given subject without an ounce of fact checking, and that thousands of the �We the Sheeple� will latch onto it, and blindly bleat along to the latest propaganda.

Anyway, some chuckle-worthy choice writing from the left�s new anti-war �darling�:

The blame for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are the responsibility of none other than William Jefferson Clinton, the most disgraceful and criminal individual to have ever darkened the halls of our nation's capital in it's history. While some may consider this just another case of "Clinton bashing", I would challenge you to read on and discover the terrible truth.

http://www.cptexas.org/articles/al100802.shtml

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There you go, there�s your �voice of reason and authority� on the Iraq war for you!

Furthermore, this guy has been writing bitter screeds since well before he was ever supposedly �stationed in Iraq� (which seems highly doubtful). He didn�t just go to Iraq (if that�s to be believed) with an open mind, and then voila, the reality hit him and he changed his mind. He�s been blathering about the Iraq war from the start. From Feb. 2003, he even spells his motives out: http://www.truthusa.org/articles/war/iraq.htm

I am obviously against the Bush family war but not because I don't think we can win (I know we can win).

In June 2003:

I hear a lot of empty, hollow and jingoistic slogans being hurled around on the radio and across the net about freedom, how our troops are fighting for our freedom in Iraq. I question just how the war in Iraq is going to do anything to reverse the course of our totalitarian government and it�s quest for total control of our every thought and deed.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis...903_anger.html

Gee, how conviiiiiiiienient for his pretend-relevance that now he claims to be stationed in the very place he was questioning others service in, and now does a complete 180 on his �we can win, I know we can� claim, where he spells out his TRUE motives!

Thank you �I want to believe� leftists who will buy literally *anything* from *anyone* merely because it�s on the Internet, for providing yet another hearty belly-laugh! A million bitterleftwingkooks.org sites have parroted this drivel, and as usual, not one of them has bothered to look up any or Al�s other ramblings that reveal about how much he can be trusted to assess a situation without insane bias. But wait- in this case, his insane bias jibes with the insane bias of the anti-Bush left, so it�s all good!

Too funny!

[Xeo]

And if we entertain the idea that he's really in Iraq right now and he really did write this? What's your take on it if that?

[James L]

Really, what difference does it make if he is there or not. Forget the source of this article... read its words. If you honestly cannot see that Iraq is turning into America's next Vietnam than you have some serious blinders on. No occupying army of that size can sustain a supply line half way across the world forever. The simple fact that you see more and more Iraqi's fighting through whatever means they can to free themselves of what they see as an occupying army should tell you something... they do not want to be occupied, and the longer the US stays there, the worse it will get. This, in turn, brings in the catch 22... the US cannot leave this mess it created until there is peace, but the longer they stay there the more attacks and resentment there will be. The concept of the US Army as a liberating force diminishes exponentially as each day goes by, and as more and more people feel they are being occupied they will fight for their freedom... against the occupying force.

It's a mess, and anyone can see that.

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by Xeo:
And if we entertain the idea that he's really in Iraq right now and he really did write this? What's your take on it if that?

I'd say if he is in Iraq (big if) and writing these things (first post), he is risking some serious disciplinary action.

Just my opinion.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Curiouser and curiouser. Is this guy who he says he is?

That site says he is a former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas, which from its platform looks to me like a rather extreme right wing party. They share isolationism and a degree of paranoia with the extreme left, so I guess that fits.

However, a google search turns up this biography for one Al Lorentz on an anti-war military web site. It says he is from Aberdeen, Md. - which is a military base just north of Baltimore and is originally from New York. Now, the author of the article said he was a civil affairs specialist in the reserves. Civil Affairs is a rather esoteric specialty. There aren't many of them. The main unit is an active duty one that is part of the 18th Airborne Corps stationed in Fort Bragg.

However, Maryland could fit because there is a reserve Civil Affairs unit in Riverdale, Maryland about 60 miles south of Aberdeen. That's a bit far for a drilling reservist, but not unheard of. However, the biography gave Al Lorentz's military occupational specialty as 96D. That's more of a problem because a 96D is an imagery analysis specialist. The Civil Affairs MOS is 38A. Imagery analysts are not civil affairs branch, they are in the military intelligence branch. I think it is highly unlikely that a civil affairs unit would have a 96D.

In case you are wondering what Civil Affairs troops do, they are the Army's dedicated nation builders. They do things like set up local government, rebuild services, and so on. That's a very odd choice of job for someone who was the state chairman of the isolationist Constitution Party of Texas. The Constitution Party of Texas'platform says:

The only Constitutional purpose and basis of foreign policy is to serve the best interests of the U.S., not to police the world.

Compare that with the mission statement of the Civil Affairs batallion (from the Army web site linked above).

Mission Statement: To support the commander�s relationship with civil authorities and civilian populace, promote mission legitimacy and enhance military effectiveness.

That doesn't seem very compatible to me.

The other problem is that the biography lists his status as retired/separated and his branch as regular army (not reserves). Now, it is possible that he was separated and has been called back up. 96D is quite likely a shortage MOS. But still, something doesn't quite smell right. Assuming, of course, that this is the same anti-war Al-Lorentz who is in the Army.

My conclusion: I'd say the odds of this being the same person in the bio are high, but the odds of that person being fully truthful look dangerously low.

[spacefreak]

"Before I begin, I am not some politically idealistic soldier... this un-Constitutional mission...."

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by James L:
Really, what difference does it make if he is there or not.

Because he states that he is there. If he is not there, you may as well state "what difference does it make if he is lying?"

[James L]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Because he states that he is there. If he is not there, you may as well state "what difference does it make if he is lying?"

So, you think if he is lying about being there, that the obvious truths he is stating about the situation in Iraq must not be happening?

Spacefreak, I have read many of your posts and know you are smarter than that. Go back and read the rest of my post... those are the truths.

[Spliffdaddy]

I don't think he's lying about being in Iraq - after all, there are 25 million people who are in Iraq at this very moment. They have opinions, too, just like Al Lorentz has his opinion. I guess their opinions have just as much merit as Al's opinions...yet few others in Iraq seem to share his opinion.

I agree with a lot of the positions that Al Lorentz takes. Among them are his views on illegal immigration and abortion. I disagree with a lot of his views, as well. This is one of those times.

Whoever would have thought that a self-proclaimed Fundamentalist Christian would be heralded as mouthpiece for the liberal left?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by James L:
So, you think if he is lying about being there, that the obvious truths he is stating about the situation in Iraq must not be happening?

If these "obvious truths" were recorded by someone who actually there, that's fine. But if he's lying about being there, then all his first-hand accounts are lies as well.

I spoke to Putin yesterday, and he told me that Saddam did have WMD. Then I spoke to Hillary Clinton, and she said that she doesn't want Kerry to win, because she wants to run for the office in 2008.

After that, Michael Moore told me that he is a fat piece of crap on top of being a far-left kook, and that he does spread lies throughout his films.