ALL’S FAIR IN WAR (4-2003)

Consider this scenario of war:

A country sends a large, well-trained and well-supplied 
army thousands of miles into another land in order to 
protect its interests and to protect the populace of the 
foreign land from upheaval. 

There is little doubt as to the outcome. The only questions 
are how long will it take and how many casualties will 
there be? And in the beginning, all goes as it should.

However, before long the invading force is surprised to 
find that not everyone is playing fair. Some of the 
soldiers in the targeted country step out of their uniforms 
and start dressing like normal civilians. Rag-tag groups 
of civilian militia begin harassing supply lines and others 
fake surrender.

The invading army is slowed down and suffers more 
casualties than expected because many of its enemy 
counterparts are not playing by the rules. They even go so 
far as to target officers, rob supplies, and resort to 
devious hoaxes in order to kill or capture the much more 
superior force that has invaded their land.

Am I referring here to the war in Iraq? I probably could 
be, but I’m not.

Those of you who have watched the movie, “The Patriot” may 
recognize the ploys of a group of militia in their endeavor 
to defeat the much more robust British Army during the 
American Revolution.

In the movie, Mel Gibson plays Benjamin Martin, a former 
Colonial soldier who is opposed to going to war with the 
British, primarily because of his family. He has a son, 
however, that is bent on joining the Continental Army and 
fighting the Redcoats. 

When the Brits kill one of Martin’s sons as he looks on 
helplessly, he decides to plan an attack of revenge with 
his remaining sons in tow. He ambushes the officers that 
killed his son and slaughters them.

That is the beginning of a militia campaign led by Martin. 
His men trick British Gen. Cornwallis out of his prize 
dogs, his new uniform, and his pride, not to mention ship 
loads of supplies.

When Cornwallis confronts Martin on the inappropriateness 
of his actions and how, in war, there must be rules in 
order to prevent chaos, Martin agrees, just before tricking 
the general into releasing several of his captured militia 
men.

We all know the outcome of that conflict: the Brits lost. 

Although there are a few parallels with Iraq, I am not 
implying that we are in eminent danger of losing the war, 
nor that Saddam’s civilian militia is justified in its 
fakery. They are not fighting for independence from an 
oppressive king (or other occupying force). And most of the 
civilians really do want to be liberated.

I am suggesting, however, that the degree of surprise and 
outrage shown by many of us at the gall of some of Saddam’s 
forces might have been overdone. In a head-to-head conflict 
between the U.S. and Iraq, where both sides play by the 
rules of war, Iraq would have no chance. We know that and 
they know that.

The only slim chance they might have is if they play by 
their own rules, and that means no rules at all. As long as 
the war lasts, until Saddam is killed or otherwise removed 
from power, we can expect his loyalists to use whatever 
means necessary to secure as many small victories as they 
can. And we shouldn’t be surprised at them for trying it 
all.