As reported in the Times, US and Iraqi forces stormed mosques in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq today. This is obviously going to produce more moral ammunition for the anti-American side of Muslim opinion. There is a growing pattern of violence in mosques and hospitals in Iraq, most notably the mosque in Fallujah which was the scene of the apparent execution of an unarmed, wounded Iraqi by an American Marine.
With so many examples of atrocities and violence targeted against civilians, we can't hope to win any hearts, much less minds. Our moral standing and credibility, already questionable after Abu Ghraib, is entirely gone. Many on the right seem unwilling to acknowledge the cold, hard truth here, and would prefer to attack those who simply report the events.
We're stuck in a bind here. The insurgents are using fourth-generation techniques: they take up positions in civilian buildings; they melt away into the populace when confronted; they set off car bombs and boobytraps. So if we don't target the mosque where they're hiding, they can continue to mount their operations from it. If we do target it, we look like bullies and blasphemers.
Martin van Creveld, author of The Transformation of War, writes in a new article:
[H]e who fights against the weak – and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed – and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish.
This paragraph perfectly captures our dilemma. By taking up a guerilla stance, the insurgents use their very weakness as their biggest strength. This is analogous to how a small group of hyenas can kill a lion: by surrounding it, tagging it with small bites and running away, until the lion gets confused and weakened from having to defend itself on every side.
(Tip of the hat to James Wolcott for the van Creveld article.)