Winning in Iraq!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]btm62 wrote:
So now that all the foolish posturing and I’m smarter than you bullshit has hopefully come to brief pause. (You guys should really step back and read some of the crap you argue about sometimes.)

Can anyone give me an idea of what can be done differently than is being done now to “win” and get out?

Bush is wrong is not an answer. Bush is right is not either. You must use your own brains for this.

Good luck.
[/quote]

My hope is that economics will play a role. As the economy improves, young men may begin to see opportunities to do something else than pick up a gun.

I am not one of those that believes terrorists are terrorists because they are poor and disenfranchised - I think it is pathology.

But the more work opportunities there are for young men, the more they will get immersed in the civil society that rejects the pathology, and I would hope that that would decrease both the demand and supply for terrorists.

82

Excellent posts gentlemen. I wonder how many of these ideas have been actually considered at the “higher levels” and perhaps dismissed for various reasons. Or just missed altogether?

83

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
My hope is that economics will play a role. As the economy improves, young men may begin to see opportunities to do something else than pick up a gun.

I am not one of those that believes terrorists are terrorists because they are poor and disenfranchised - I think it is pathology.

But the more work opportunities there are for young men, the more they will get immersed in the civil society that rejects the pathology, and I would hope that that would decrease both the demand and supply for terrorists.[/quote]

Economics has an important role to play, but do not underestimate the power of belief systems or emotions. To be humiliated as a nation, to see US soldiers projecting “shock and awe” tactics are powerful driver for rebellion, even for those that do not profess radical islam. This explains, although not forgives, the approving noises after videos of beheadings, etc. It is very difficult (but necessary) to bring the mentality back on rational tracks following this scenario. Although it may be tempting, a blanket condemnation of everybody as "animals " or worse, only creates future trouble. This is the real world, and we live in it.

Slightly off topic, I do not understand why the US is so bad at peace-keeping. It is as if there only is two settings “Off” and “Whoo Hoo, I’m a warrior”. I wrote a piece in April 2003, predicting a quick military victory and a speedy US handover to local politicians. In retrospect my mistake was overestimating US capabilities. I did note the absence of MP’s (and even more desirable civilan police), but the disregard for even basic precautions to maintain order appalled me. I have done peacekeeeping in the Middle East in te 70’s and there, as in other places, once the fighting is over, you have to dial down the threat you present to establish a rapport with the locals.

This blunder provided the opening for opponents to act. They did so in text-book fashion. (Never underestimate someone, just because you do not understand him). First they attacked US patrols through mines and bombs. This served to force the US troops to entrench themselves and become physically separated from the local population. Second, they target local staff at US installation, both to increase the US sense of isolation and to intimidate Iraqis into avoiding contact. The third step, which is to assassinate leaders that look ready to cooperate, was only partly successful, due to the sectarian divide and the difficulty to penetrate the other groups.

Unfortunately, this does not provide any easy ways out, but If I were to offer some gratuitious advice it would be:

  1. Ban the term “War on Terror”. It only give your opponents a stature they do not deserve. What you are involved in is “peace-keeping with added enforcement”.

  2. Do not focus news on individuals like al-Zarqawi. Killing him will not solve the problem and only creates a succession issue.

  3. Wherever possible, ease off a bit. Soft vehicles, helmets off, slung weapons. Accept that this will increase casualties in the short term, but lessen them in the long run. Obviously this does not work in a real combat situation.

  4. Establish much broader contact surfaces with locals, respectful and friendly. There comes a point when it no longer pays off for insurgents to kill “collaborators” as they include the majority and the risk of backfire is too great. Do not leave this to PR officers. Phony attempts will be quickly spotted.

84

[quote]btm62 wrote:
Excellent posts gentlemen. I wonder how many of these ideas have been actually considered at the “higher levels” and perhaps dismissed for various reasons. Or just missed altogether? [/quote]

I can promise you without hesitation, that most of this was well-known, both by the CIA and State at the time leading up to the invasion, but that the analysts were over-ruled.

How do I know? I left the Middle East in 1986, and had no difficulty predicting most of what happened (OK. I gave Iraqi nationalism too much credit and the sectarian divide too little). There is no way real professionals did not have a clear idea.

85

Well the way I see it is that the insurgents will eventually lose support because they are killing the very people they try to recruit. These insurgents blow up mosques and kill innocent people on a regular basis. Eventually they will lose all support and you cannot fight a guerilla war in an area where you don’t have the people’s support.

86

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
btm62 wrote:
So now that all the foolish posturing and I’m smarter than you bullshit has hopefully come to brief pause. (You guys should really step back and read some of the crap you argue about sometimes.)

Can anyone give me an idea of what can be done differently than is being done now to “win” and get out?

Bush is wrong is not an answer. Bush is right is not either. You must use your own brains for this.

Good luck.

My hope is that economics will play a role. As the economy improves, young men may begin to see opportunities to do something else than pick up a gun.

I am not one of those that believes terrorists are terrorists because they are poor and disenfranchised - I think it is pathology.

But the more work opportunities there are for young men, the more they will get immersed in the civil society that rejects the pathology, and I would hope that that would decrease both the demand and supply for terrorists.[/quote]

My ideas would be similar, but I also think improving the quality of day to day life would help immensely in terms the attitude the non insurgent population has against us. Really work on fixing the quantifiables- power, sewage, water etc. Voting is once a year, taking a hot shower is every day.

The other problem is while we may not be occupiers, being perceived that way incites the population. It’s been said here before and I agree, be more humble, interact more, get more Iraqi’s involved in the process.

Having Iraqi units with us at all times could help too, though we need to get fix some of the issues they are having along ethnic lines first.

87

[quote]ExNole wrote:
…

My ideas would be similar, but I also think improving the quality of day to day life would help immensely in terms the attitude the non insurgent population has against us. Really work on fixing the quantifiables- power, sewage, water etc. Voting is once a year, taking a hot shower is every day.
[/quote]

We are trying to do that but the bad guys are targeting the infrastructure and the workers.

It is a catch-22.

This is happening with much success in most of the country. Where the bombs are going off it is much harder to take off the helmet and sit down to tea with them. We must travel in force in those areas.

Another catch-22.

In the past we have had some bad commanders that did not do this and some excellent commanders that did.

Hopefully the Army has learned these lessons and is giving better direction to the guys on the ground.

It is fascinating to read the accounts of how well some units have done and how poorly others have done.

Many people try to make this political and blame Rummy/Bush for what is happening on the ground, but it is really the culture of the military and the ability of the individual commanders that have been responsible for the successes and failures.

[quote]

Having Iraqi units with us at all times could help too, though we need to get fix some of the issues they are having along ethnic lines first. [/quote]

Absolutely.

88

[quote]semper_fi wrote:
Well the way I see it is that the insurgents will eventually lose support because they are killing the very people they try to recruit. These insurgents blow up mosques and kill innocent people on a regular basis. Eventually they will lose all support and you cannot fight a guerilla war in an area where you don’t have the people’s support.[/quote]

I think this is an excellent observation on your part. And at least one reason why they will fall sooner than later.

89

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ExNole wrote:
…

My ideas would be similar, but I also think improving the quality of day to day life would help immensely in terms the attitude the non insurgent population has against us. Really work on fixing the quantifiables- power, sewage, water etc. Voting is once a year, taking a hot shower is every day.

We are trying to do that but the bad guys are targeting the infrastructure and the workers.

It is a catch-22.
[/quote]
It’ll definitely be tough, but I don’t think at this point anything in Iraq is going to be easy.

Since the insurgency is so decentralized and could probably be carried out with relatively few people, beating them like a traditional army is unlikely.

Given that, I think the main goal should be hearts and minds to try and get the people to reject the insurgents.

Petreaus (sp?) did a really good job with the 101st.

I think there are some legitimate criticisms of Rumsfeld’s handling of the prewar and war that can be made, but it’s also very true that certain units (or their leaders) have understood the war better fromt he beginning than others.

There’s a line between criticism of Rumsfeld’s handling of the war and criticizing him as a Republican politician, but his handling of the war deserves fault in a lot of ways.

Keeping the Iraqi Army employed as an unarmed reconstruction force would have been a good idea as well as sealing the borders. More troops initially would have helped. All were brought up prewar.

I think his ‘new military’ worked very well for what it was designed- fighting, but not well at peacekeeping/policing.

90

[quote]semper_fi wrote:
Well the way I see it is that the insurgents will eventually lose support because they are killing the very people they try to recruit. These insurgents blow up mosques and kill innocent people on a regular basis. Eventually they will lose all support and you cannot fight a guerilla war in an area where you don’t have the people’s support.[/quote]

True, but a poll quoted in “Parameters” last year, which I think is an Army journal, stated that 88% of the Sunnis and 46% of the Shias approved of the insurgency. If I remember right, the rule of thumb is that you need active support from 10% of the population and tacit support from 30% to run a successful guerilla campaign. Remember that it is not a single insurgency and that extremist Sunnis blow up Shia mosques and vice versa. This will not be enough to make the lose support.

91

TQM,

Your analysis certainl applies here, but I don’t know if it is really relevant over there. Are they currently at or near full employment?

Is it really expensive to keep the insurgent recruiting fodder off of the streets – compared to letting them get recruited and through ignorance develop animosity and apathy for their own new government.

Now the difficulty with neutrality is something that would then have to be fixed immediately. Conscripting everyone and making sure they learn to work together, or at least only sending units that do work together out into public (as I described above) might even be helpful.

Who knows, but trivial rejections of ideas for things like money and economic efficiency is not wise, in my opinion. If we want things to work, we have to do what it takes to make it happen.

Now, the ideas may be dumb for other reasons, but don’t tell me we only want cheap ideas for the rehabilitation of the Iraqi situation…

92

[quote]vroom wrote:
There are two major flaws in this. The first is that conscription is expensive. Both in terms of direct funding and in diverting the contribution of the soldiers from a more productive occupation. The second, and more serious, is that the Iraqi security forces cannot be seen as neutral national entities. This is the reason why it been extremely difficult to assign the ministry of defence and the interior ministry on a permanent basis.

TQM,

Your analysis certainl applies here, but I don’t know if it is really relevant over there. Are they currently at or near full employment?

Is it really expensive to keep the insurgent recruiting fodder off of the streets – compared to letting them get recruited and through ignorance develop animosity and apathy for their own new government.

Now the difficulty with neutrality is something that would then have to be fixed immediately. Conscripting everyone and making sure they learn to work together, or at least only sending units that do work together out into public (as I described above) might even be helpful.

Who knows, but trivial rejections of ideas for things like money and economic efficiency is not wise, in my opinion. If we want things to work, we have to do what it takes to make it happen.

Now, the ideas may be dumb for other reasons, but don’t tell me we only want cheap ideas for the rehabilitation of the Iraqi situation…[/quote]

Fair enough, but a conscription system aims at bringing in a year-class at the time, i.e it is this year’s 18-year olds that are called up. This will not make a dent in the insurgecy base. On the other hand you would expect to call up ALL (with the usual exceptions) of those 18-year olds. This is very expensive in terms of lodging/food/supervision and training effort, not least in having the required staff to manage such an exercise without shipping kids home in boxes every week.

93

[quote]ExNole wrote:
Many people try to make this political and blame Rummy/Bush for what is happening on the ground, but it is really the culture of the military and the ability of the individual commanders that have been responsible for the successes and failures.
[/quote]

Now, I am not an American, and the US political system is different from over here, but it surprises me how little political accountability there is. Soembody took the decision to go to war and somebode decided on the type of war to be fought and what resources would be available. This is not the military’s job and what is being learnt on the ground makes up for those short-comings, but in no way dissipate them.

Clearly, the president has a term to serve, but I would have expected Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to take responsibility and resign, to allow for a fresh start. Well. it’s your country. You figure it out.

Can I finally add that I appreciate the level of the discussion that has been going on in the thread lately. Good point are made and we will all learn.

94

[quote]TQB wrote:
This is very expensive in terms of lodging/food/supervision and training effort, not least in having the required staff to manage such an exercise without shipping kids home in boxes every week.[/quote]

I’d much rather waste money than lives. Seriously, the best way to get the population to buy into the government is to make them all part of the process.

Involve them. Force them to work together, to put their lives on the line together, to build comraderie. Enough of the pussy footing around.

Unemployed people with shitty services sit around and bitch at each other and spread the lies of Al-Queda throughout their communities.

Shutting this down might sound expensive, but the end game will never be a success if we don’t find a way to stop it. Seriously, stop telling me it will cost money.

If we can stop having the infrastructure bombed, Iraq will be able to sell enough oil to pay back whatever it costs up front.

Expecting the Iraqi populace to undo generations of attitudes and hatreds just because we are sitting on their land and asking them to do so is lunacy. We’ve got to find ways to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Seriously, how can all this shit have been figured out if nobody is doing anything to cause the desired outcome to occur? I mean, are they that incompetent or do they have a desired outcome we aren’t aware of?

95

[quote]vroom wrote:

I’d much rather waste money than lives. Seriously, the best way to get the population to buy into the government is to make them all part of the process.

Involve them. Force them to work together, to put their lives on the line together, to build comraderie. Enough of the pussy footing around.

Unemployed people with shitty services sit around and bitch at each other and spread the lies of Al-Queda throughout their communities.

Shutting this down might sound expensive, but the end game will never be a success if we don’t find a way to stop it. Seriously, stop telling me it will cost money.

If we can stop having the infrastructure bombed, Iraq will be able to sell enough oil to pay back whatever it costs up front.

Expecting the Iraqi populace to undo generations of attitudes and hatreds just because we are sitting on their land and asking them to do so is lunacy. We’ve got to find ways to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Seriously, how can all this shit have been figured out if nobody is doing anything to cause the desired outcome to occur? I mean, are they that incompetent or do they have a desired outcome we aren’t aware of?[/quote]

I think you have an excessive concept of US capabilities. A single class would be in the region of 250-300000 kids. You would need a trained cadre of 25-30000 people to manage this, with an average experience of 4-5 years and with some with much more. The only ones that could conceivably fit the bill in a medium term perpective are the former army staff, mainly Sunnis. This would defeat the purpose of your proposal and anyway be unacceptable to most Iraqis.

As for Iraqis paying back the costs to the US, I would hazard a guess that they are much more likely to send the US a bill for the original war damage.

96

[quote]TQB wrote:
I think you have an excessive concept of US capabilities. A single class would be in the region of 250-300000 kids. You would need a trained cadre of 25-30000 people to manage this, with an average experience of 4-5 years and with some with much more. The only ones that could conceivably fit the bill in a medium term perpective are the former army staff, mainly Sunnis. This would defeat the purpose of your proposal and anyway be unacceptable to most Iraqis.[/quote]

How do you know what would or would not be acceptable to most Iraqis? Besides, the current situation is unacceptable to most Iraqis, but they are putting up with it because they have no choice.

I find your thinking quite rigid. Obviously, you can’t take all of them at once, nor do they have to end up as regular soldiers by the end of the process.

Perhaps the conscription service period is a good way to identify those with the appropriate attitudes and skills for further movement into a regular forces scenario. I don’t know, but simply thinking of them as recruits into our modern militaries is not helpful at all.

I’m seeing some pretty strong defeatism in your responses.

97

More good news from Iraq, but you have to read past or ignore the part about insurgent attacks in central Baghdad to get to it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060623104436

[quote]
Iraqi govt declares state of emergency

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 15 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi government declared a state of emergency and imposed a curfew Friday after insurgents set up roadblocks in central Baghdad and opened fire on U.S. and Iraqi troops just north of the heavily fortified Green Zone.

U.S. and Iraqi forces also clashed with insurgents in southern Baghdad.

The prime minister ordered everyone off the streets of the capital from 2 p.m. Friday until 6 a.m. Saturday. The order came at around noon, when many residents were in prayer, and sent many rushing home to beat the curfew.

In other violence, a bomb struck a Sunni mosque in a town northeast of Baghdad, killing 10 worshippers and wounding 15 in the same town where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was slain earlier this month, police said.

The explosion occurred in front of the Grand Hibhib mosque in Diyala province, according to the provincial joint coordination center.

In the southern city of Basra, a car bomb ripped through a market and nearby gas station, killing at least five people and wounding 15, including two policemen police said.

At least 19 other deaths were reported in Baghdad.

Al-Zarqawi, the leader of
Iraq’s most feared terror group al-Qaida in Iraq, was killed June 7 in an airstrike in Hibhib, which is near Baqouba, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

Throughout the morning Friday, Iraqi and U.S. military forces clashed with attackers who were armed with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and rifles in busy Haifa Street that runs into the Green Zone, site of the U.S. and British embassies and the Iraqi government.

Two Iraqi soldiers and a policeman were wounded in the fighting, said police Lt. Maitham Abdul Razzaq said.

The region was sealed and Iraqi and U.S. forces conducted house-to-house searches.

Gunmen also attacked a group of worshippers marching from Sadr City, the Shiite slum in eastern Baghdad, to the Buratha mosque on the other side of the city to protest a suicide attack a week ago on the revered Shiite shrine. At least one marcher was killed and four were wounded, Lt. Ahmed Mohammed Ali said.

The U.S. military on Friday said a Marine had died in combat and a soldier was killed in an unspecified non-hostile incident three days earlier. Their deaths raise to at least 2,514 members of the U.S. military who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The new security measures came as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sought to rein in unrelenting insurgent and sectarian violence. He launched a massive security operation in Baghdad 10 days ago, deploying tens of thousands of troops who flooded the city, snarling traffic with hundreds of checkpoints.

While violence had diminished somewhat, the outbreak of fighting on Haifa Street and in the Dora neighborhood apparently prompted al-Malaki to declare the state of emergency even as Friday prayer services were in progress, sending many residents scrambling homeward to beat the curfew.

Also Friday, police said they found the bodies of five men who apparently were victims of a mass kidnapping from a factory on Wednesday. The bodies, which showed signs of torture and had their hands and legs bound, were floating in a canal in northern Baghdad, police Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razzaq said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military said it killed four foreign insurgents in a raid north of Fallujah. Two of the dead men had 15-pound suicide bombs strapped to their bodies. The military said an insurgent thought to be an Iraqi also was killed in the raid, which was launched on information from a suspected arrested in the region in previous days.

Separately, the military said, it detained a senior leader of al-Qaida in Iraq and three other suspected insurgents Monday during raids northeast of Baghdad, near where al-Qaida chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. air raid earlier this month.[/quote]

98

[quote]TQB wrote:
Slightly off topic, I do not understand why the US is so bad at peace-keeping. It is as if there only is two settings “Off” and “Whoo Hoo, I’m a warrior”. I wrote a piece in April 2003, predicting a quick military victory and a speedy US handover to local politicians. In retrospect my mistake was overestimating US capabilities. I did note the absence of MP’s (and even more desirable civilan police), but the disregard for even basic precautions to maintain order appalled me. I have done peacekeeeping in the Middle East in te 70’s and there, as in other places, once the fighting is over, you have to dial down the threat you present to establish a rapport with the locals.
[/quote]

TQB,
Great posts and insightful analysis of the situation in Iraq.
I’d like to address the quotes above.
The U.S. military has played a great deal of lip service to humanitarian operations and peacekeeping operations; what we call Operations Other than War or Low Intensity Conflict or whatever the doctrinal term is for that particular period of time. We have adjusted our training to the current situation in Iraq and our forces are going in country much more prepared than we have in previous conflicts.
The military is still struggling with how to train a force of peacekeepers who still have the teeth to fight the Soviet threat. I emphasize Soviet threat because up until a few years ago we were still training on fighting a Soviet style military.
Our higher echelon commanders are cold warriors and are rigidly locked into that way of thinking about the world and our enemies. Look at our procurements, we are still buying a fighter (the f-22) that is built for an air superiority battle over Europe. We are still buying new submarines. We are spending billions on technologies, but not on people or our organization. Our internal organization; Army, Corps, Division, Brigade, Regiment, Battalion, Company, Platoon, Section, and Squad was developed in the 1890’s and hasn’t changed over 100 years.
Rumsfeld’s transformation isn’t intended to make the US military better at fighting insurgents and terrorists, it is intended on making the US military better at fighting the Soviets or in other words a conventional force. It will be a generation or so before the US military changes its thinking as an institution and begins to focus on how to fight an unconventional enemy and fight the style of warfare that is evolving in the world right now.
BTW, thank you for the correction on spelling Shiite.

99

[quote]vroom wrote:
TQB wrote:
I think you have an excessive concept of US capabilities. A single class would be in the region of 250-300000 kids. You would need a trained cadre of 25-30000 people to manage this, with an average experience of 4-5 years and with some with much more. The only ones that could conceivably fit the bill in a medium term perpective are the former army staff, mainly Sunnis. This would defeat the purpose of your proposal and anyway be unacceptable to most Iraqis.

How do you know what would or would not be acceptable to most Iraqis? Besides, the current situation is unacceptable to most Iraqis, but they are putting up with it because they have no choice.

I find your thinking quite rigid. Obviously, you can’t take all of them at once, nor do they have to end up as regular soldiers by the end of the process.

Perhaps the conscription service period is a good way to identify those with the appropriate attitudes and skills for further movement into a regular forces scenario. I don’t know, but simply thinking of them as recruits into our modern militaries is not helpful at all.

As for Iraqis paying back the costs to the US, I would hazard a guess that they are much more likely to send the US a bill for the original war damage.

I’m seeing some pretty strong defeatism in your responses.[/quote]

We don’t need to make all of them soldiers either. It could be easier if a good deal of them were doing a WPA type projects. Just give them a job that isn’t shooting us.

100

BH6, good stuff. It helps explain why the language may not match the situation at times…

Exnole, exactly, get those people busy and cooperating with somebody other than the enemy. Basically, you learn a lot about something by doing it! Get them doing something related to having a peaceful cooperative country – whether they want to or not.