The classic anti-insurgency strategy is isolate, concentrate, annihilate. Isolate the guerillas from the population, concentrate them, once they're concentrated, annihilate them.
But there's another type of isolation, concentration and annihilation, and as GorillasGuides points out, it's going on in Iraq today, as the guerillas blow bridge after bridge... [1]
The bridge bombing campaigns overlap and are escalating steadily both within and outside Baghdad. This is the third major bombing this in less than a fortnight. The goals of these campaigns are as follows:
1. To isolate Baghdad.
2. To isolate districts of Baghdad.
3. To cut off the governorates one from another.The isolation of Baghdad from the rest of the country is an important goal for those resisting the continued American attempts to subjugate Irak. By doing so they deny political credibility to the green zone government headed by Nouri Al Maliki.
Militarily it is part of the push to isolate the American forces stationed in the capital and then pick them off at leisure.
A similar benefit to those resisting the Americans derives from the bombings within Baghdad itself .
This isn't just about the capital, of course. It's about getting some significant overrun victories. The more you restrict the US's ability to reinforce isolated positions, the more likely it becomes that you can overrun them and either destroy them, or take hostages.
Over the next few months we expect to see further such bombing attacks preparatory to a series of complex attacks aimed at overruning American outposts and either slaughtering their defenders or of taking them prisoner with a view to forcing the Americans to provide further targets of opportunity.
Agonist military editor Stirling Newberry predicted this as the endgame many months ago. It continues. And this points out the problem with all the stupid buck-passing games in Washington. Americans still act as if they create reality and this is to a large extent as true of Democrats as it is of Republicans. They think that that the argument is about "when the US leaves Iraq voluntarily" and not "when the US is shoved out of Iraq".
More After the Jump
As the isolation continues, eventually US forces in the Governates will come under attacks designed to overrun them. If those attacks are succesful, the US will be forced to abandon entire governates. And with secure bases to operate with against the capital, the endgame is on. Add this to the continued and increasingly succesful attempts to cut off ground supply, and the US situation in Baghdad becomes more and more tenuous. While the US can support a significant number of troops by air supply alone, it won't be pretty at all. And if US forces in the capital are really cut off, that means their retreat rout is cut off as well. Can you say Dien Bien Phu? Sure you can.
Classic warfare against an occupier almost always ends with the capital the last place under foreign occupation. The anti-occupation forces are run by well trained, experienced military officers. They know exactly what they are doing, and they are doing it well.
There aren't two sides here - anti War Americans vs. pro-war Americans. There's a third side, and while they keep an eye on US affairs to see how much they have to do to make the US pick up its marbles and go, it is a constant mistake to implictly assume that the US has as much time as it wants, and that while grinding attrition losses will go on and on, that there is no chance of significant overruns or even of catastrophe.
There's a war going on here, and Congressmembers in Washington need to start remembering that it isn't being run according to the US electoral calender.
If there are overruns, then the blame for those losses will rest on all who thought they could play war games by the rules of politics.