Iraq: U.S. Analysts Say 'Surge' Progress Warrants Patience
 

Iraq: U.S. Analysts Say 'Surge' Progress Warrants Patience

I'm not trying to be extremely cynical but does this imply overall process over the entire country or just in a few specific areas where we have progressed and once again, what is the definition of progress?

Would it still be possible to say we have progress if some areas (both physical areas and aspects of the war) that were helped by the surge while others have been deteriorating?


From most sources it seems that we have been doing very well fighting Al Qaeda lately, which is extremely good, but I just can't believe that is the only problem with Iraq since this is the result of a cultural war and I haven't seen anything resolved in the culture area.

I seriously want things to go well in Iraq but just do not want to make any assumptions with this matter since Bush's biggest mistakes had to do with making assumptions that later turned out to be false. We have to learn from history.

I agree with you, but I feel compelled to post some positive feedback since it seems all we are fed is the negative perspective.

Thats good, I would much rather hear more than one side in a situation as complex as Iraq.

Exactly, and I think we haven't really been getting that.

Gonna' take a while to get that oil.

Because that's irrelevant.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...2-lede13_N.htm

The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

The high-profile attacks — generally large bombs hitting markets, mosques or other "soft" targets that produce mass casualties — have dropped to about 70 in July from a high during the past year of about 130 in March, according to the Multi-National Force — Iraq.

Military officers say the decline reflects progress in damaging al-Qaeda's networks in Iraq. The military has launched offensives around Baghdad aimed at al-Qaeda sanctuaries and bases.

"The enemy had the initiative and the momentum in '06," said Jack Keane, a retired general who is a chief architect of the increase in troop levels and mentor to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "We've got it now."

We all seek to reinforce our own opinions. even me

Greenwald is doing exactly that.

Greenwald's piece addresses who Pollack and O'Hanlon are. In tremendous detail. What they actually said in the op-ed is irrelevant. He doesn't address much of what they said.

This whole approach sets off alarm bells in my head. This guy interviewed O'Hanlon and found that the most important aspect was that he was supposed to be one of "us" but he's not. Intruder alert!

At that point all facts and information presented by O'Hanlon become invisible.

This is how we got here in the first place, isn't it? Neo-cons only listening to neo-cons' version of official reality, fell apart when actual reality set in.

I'm trying to take it for what it is - As a pessimistic optimist - Its just another piece of "good news" that the majority of the country seems not to want to hear. I don't mean that in a bad way - Its just that a lot of people seem to want this OVER - no matter what - and if it goes really bad really fast then we'll get out sooner. At least thats my completely uninformed impartial, overtly emotional take on it.

Michael Yons latest piece almost seems like a plea.

The way O'Hanlon's article had been spun was "even serious Iraq war critics are now seeing progress!" How much of that spin was his fault is impossible to say, but it's obviously false, which was the subject of the article. In the article is a link to an earlier article which puts O'Hanlon into even more perspective. His rosy assessments of Iraq go back to at least 2003.

Yon said it best:
False advertising is afoot. I write these words from Indonesia, soaking wet, having just returned from photographing rice paddies in a pouring rain, wearing a Florida Gators shirt. That means there is a green alligator on my chest. While supporting my team, my shirt perpetuates the myth that alligators are green, when in fact they are black when wet, gray when dry.The mantra that “there is no political progress in Iraq” is rapidly becoming the “surge” equivalent of a green alligator: when enough people repeat something that sounds plausible, but also happens to be false, it becomes accepted as fact. The more often it is repeated—and the larger the number of people repeating it—the harder it is to convince anyone of the truth: alligators are not green, and Iraqis are making plenty of political progress.

There may be little progress on political goals crafted in America, to meet American concerns, by politicians who have a cushion of 200 years of democracy. Washington might as well be on the moon. Iraqis don’t respond well to rules imposed from outside their acknowledged authorities, though I have many times seen Iraqi Police and Army of all ranks responding very well to American Marines and soldiers who they have come to respect, and in many cases actually admire and try to emulate. Our military has increasing moral authority in Iraq, but the same cannot be said for our government at home. In fact, it’s in moral deficit because many Iraqis are increasingly frightened we will abandon them to genocide. The Iraqis I speak with couldn’t care less what is said from Washington but large numbers of them pay close attention to what some Marine Gunny says, or what American battalion commanders all over Iraq say. Some of our commanders could probably run for local offices in Iraq, and win. To say there has been no political progress in Iraq in 2007 is patently absurd, completely wrong and dangerously dismissive of the significant changes and improvements happening all across Iraq. Whether or not Americans are seeing it on the nightly news or reading it in their local papers, Iraqis are actively writing their children’s history.

"To say there has been no political progress in Iraq in 2007 is patently absurd, completely wrong and dangerously dismissive of the significant changes and improvements happening all across Iraq. Whether or not Americans are seeing it on the nightly news or reading it in their local papers, Iraqis are actively writing their children’s history."

That is a very bold statement

It also begs the questions;
Is it too little, too late?
Can the momentum be sustained?
Is it going to spread to the borders?
How much would it take to derail this improvement?

I have complete faith Yon reports honestly what he sees and hears, but I keep in mind he is an admitted unabashed supporter of the US military.

Yes he is and so am I, shouldn't we all be? They offer their lives for the freedoms we enjoy everyday.
It does beg those questions and many more, but there has been more positive news "leaking" out and the "mainstream media" seems to be more inclined to report some of it as well. That, in itself, is in stark contrast to 6 or 12 months ago.

What so mainstream media has just been deliberately ignoring the good news stories out of iraq? They've been there all along and the media is just so bent on bad news they didn't tell us?

Exactly - maybe not on your side of the pond, but over here thats MY impression.

Over the last 4 years there hasn't been a significant amount of good news to ignore. Iraq has been a tough and dangerous place to get the news.

The military has made it tougher because they feel the media burned them in Vietnam. They've lost sight of the fact that the winning the "hearts & minds" is just as important as battlefield victories in the middle east... maybe more so. The enemy has used the press, locally and globally, superbly.

Not only the enemy but the mainstream media and anti-government supporters with any number of agenda's who have used not only the press but the internet to the same end.

Its well known with military types that the media mis- and under- represents and informs the public consistently about what happens and is happening in iraq.

Did that sentence make sense?

not entirely....have another go, I'd really like to know what you meant:P

The commanders smart enough to not take that position and work with, educate if you will, the press, do more good for the effort than those that leave the reporters to work with rumors. Reporters have a job to do and will do it with or without help from the military, so if you want to even have a chance of getting your side out, you have to make sure your side is available.

btw, welcome to the Cellar, minnmirman. :D

Spot the mishandlings of the apostrophe on this page. One apostrophe too many, one too few. One from a guy known to be on my side, one not necessarily.

/s/Eagle-Eye Fleagle

thanks for the welcome

yeah, as i havent been there I really cant back up first hand what i said before. Luckily we all have second hands, and I have plenty of second hand accounts from most of those in my platoon (some going on their fourth deployment) all the way up to the Battalion Commander constantly telling us in an angry tone that they feel like they got gypped (jipped, gyped?) by our own media while they were in Iraq. They feel as if many of the good things that they were doing there were not being shown to our own public.

Of course this goes into the much greater debate on our supposedly 'objective' system of journalism and sensationalism as a ratings boost in media today...

First instinct on "gypped" was the best.

He's not alone in that impression. I've no doubt it's very general in the "red states." The bias seems brought on by the silly distinction that the President is a Republican, and ninety percent or more of the newsies are Democrats. They've forgotten that they are Americans, and citizens of a major member of the Barnettian Old Core nations thereby. They end up forgetting the nation's interest.

Not because he's a Republican, because he's an idiot who's completely botched this war for 4 years.... as well as the one in Afghanistan.

August 20, 2007 How to Spy in Iraq

Kinda long but very revealing - a good read.

Revealing... and depressing if you read the August 14th Balance of Terror post.

Front-line lessons from the Iraq surge

The nature of the efforts in Iraq are as follows:

It simply isn't possible to secure the country with the levels of troops that are deployed and the amount of money we devote to humanitarian aid, i.e. 'rebuilding.' If we had started things on the right foot instead of ignoring every lesson we've ever learned or heard about nation building, it would be a different story, but it's too late for a war that can be won with 160,000 troops (or whatever the exact number is).

"The good things" that the press "isn't reporting" are things that have little or no effect on the ultimate goal. Even today, with all of our lessons learned, our attempts at rebuilding are haphazard and aimless. What does an Iraqi care about a new school if their child can't attend it safely? The first and only thing we can worry about right now is nation-side security (i.e. the borders, and every major city in the country, not just Baghdad).

All the money we've pumped into things like the power grids and public works amount to nothing because they were given to contractors who were unable to do the jobs. Someone in the pentagon had a friend of a friend of a friend who had some company in Lubbock, TX (or take your pick) who jumped in over their heads, instead of being willing to source our efforts to European, Middle Eastern, or god help us Asian contractors.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the invasion of Iraq. It was a war for money and power, regardless of the ostensible reasons. However I also disagree with a withdrawal. Not for any prideful reasons ('We won't accept defeat!' usually ranks about as high as 'I swear I satisfy my wife' with me), or any security reasons, because frankly terrorism will not end our way of life, or even kill that many people people in the grand scheme of things. If/when we do withdraw from Iraq (which might not be a certainty), there will be some serious chaos and death, and this is why I can't get behind a 'leave Iraq now' policy. Treating Iraqis as dispensable while our troops are not... just wrong.

And one more thing, I swear to god, please, please, please stop assigning value to AQI. They are a near insignificant group when looking at the whole insurgency. They make up about 10% of the problem and we devote well over half of our resources on them. The instant we leave, the Iraqis will kick their sorry asses out, probably killing a large number of them, and they'll never be heard from again. Maybe if we worried a little more about the militias that saturate the entire country we'd get somewhere.

Where did you get that number from?

I know it has gone down since this was written (3/2/07) because IAI, 1920 and others have left Al Qaeda but I have heard up to 50% of insurgencies are aliened with Al Qaeda now.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...02/insurgency/

Ok, the actual numbers of the insurgency are in dispute, and I shouldn't have put out a figure as being rock-solid. You can't judge on arrests made, because like I said we favor arresting Sunni groups and AQI guys. We can't just go around polling people because simple support does not equate to numbers (in fact, there are very VERY few non-AQI members who actually support AQI).

Also, if by IAI you mean Islamic Army of Iraq, never heard of them (at least not as an active group in Iraq). I don't know who this 1920 is either, but it's important to note that AQI is not an umbrella organization. AQI is a cell group comprised largely of foreign fighters (i.e. non-iraqi) and one of many groups under ISI, Islamic State of Iraq (which might have been what you meant by IAI, they change their name about twice a week). Because of the very loose and fluid ties that exist between foreign terrorist organizations, it's difficult to assign numbers to each group (oftentimes people will group all Sunni militias and terrorist organizations as AQI). The connection between AQI and UBL is even in dispute.

ISI is important to pay attention to, but the one major player (at least in central Iraq) is Jaysh al-Mahdi. They've got popular support and have many MANY ties to GOI both locally and nationally.

My main point in saying that people stop obsessing over AQI is that everyone attacks everyone, and al-Qa'ida is pulling most of the US's attention because they have the same name as the group accused of the terrorist attacks on us (when in reality the connection is fragile at best). If we want to quell an insurgency, we need to step back and evaluate our priorities... AQI isn't really one of them.

And I wouldn't pay much attention to that article, he makes several kind of stupid points... he uses semantics to group several orgs under al-Qa'ida and manages to draw a definite line between 'insurgent' and 'terrorist' which is something that most CI experts wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

.. and I take back what I said about IAI, I had heard of them, just not in english...:o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Revolution_Brigade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Army_in_Iraq

Bush & Co are in the habit of calling every terrorist/insurgent cell, Al Qaeda with the equivalency of 'bad guys'.
To confuse the issue more, many of the cells are calling themselves Al Qaeda, in an effort to give themselves street creds and to manipulate the press... something they are very good at.

That said, to the combat commanders, it doesn't make any difference what you call them, or they call themselves. The commanders only have to know who's shooting at them and not fuck with people who are not. They know they can't win this war, only the Iraqis can do that.

The 1920s Brigade are not our friends. Currently they are working with US troops, in some areas, where they don't have the ways and means to oust the oppressive, Iranian backed groups. But as soon as that's accomplished, they want us out and they feel that's much easier than ridding themselves of Islamic invaders.

European, Middle Eastern, or Asian contractors, couldn't do the job either. It behooves the 'bad guys' to disrupt as much infrastructure and services as they can. With millions of troops, it would still be impossible to guard everything, all the time. It's much faster and easier to destroy shit than to build it.

Yeah, I agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that any contractors could pull it off now, just that incompetent contractors with no foreign experience effed things up in the beginning of the war, when there was little security problems with the public works construction.

And with a larger number of troops it would be possible to secure the country, history is riddled with successful counter insurgency campaigns, but all the ones that worked had adequate resources. The usual approximation is that 3-4 hundred thousand troops plus equal contractors could do the job, because while you're correct about guarding every street corner, the modern military has impressive capabilities including an intelligence apparatus. With various intelligence disciplines it's possible to track the 'bad guys' therefore we'd only have to protect a small number of targets full time.

In addition, those are only the foreign troops. A major part of a good campaign would be retraining and re outfitting the ING and Police (hopefully using SF for it's real purpose instead of the purpose assigned by a secdef who watched too many rambo movies). It would take several years and more resources than are currently employed, but it could be done.

Many successful programs did not use massive numbers of troops nor solve problems with money. In each case, a military objective is only to return the dispute to a peace table. But a peace table will not be fruitful if the reasons for that insurgency are not addressed.

Why were insurgencies in Indonesia and Thailand easily defeated? The reasons for those insurgencies were eliminated with social, economic, and political solutions - not military.

Money does not solve problems. Money is only one tool. Throwing money at any problem like a grenade is money completely wasted. Vietnam and General Motors are two classic examples of money wasted. A solution starts by first identifying the problem and then solving that problem. Whereas money is required, still, money can neither identify a problem nor define a solution.

Money is a tool - a scapel. Does the blindfolded doctor throw scapels in all directions hoping he will fix a heart? And yet that is exactly what happened in Nam - as every soldier who served there with his eyes open can testify.

Some people must wait to learn what was obvious in April 2006. Some confuse tactical victories with winning a war. Well wait. Wait because in a couple of days, another analysis, this time by the Government Accountability Office, will be released.

The report will demonstrate that sectarian violence makes reconciliation almost impossible. That American stupidity started making things worst about the time that Saddam was captured. Because reporters, accused of only reporting bad news, did not robustly report that reality. An ignored 'in the press' problem that Americans can no longer resolve. Fundamental problems that were only exasperated by American ignorance are demonstrated: Insurgencies can only be terminated by resolving the problems. There never was a military solution to insurgencies. None of these problems entrenched by Americans can be resolved by Americans.

But then what has been accomplished? The electrical system is on the verge of collapsing. Much of it is now controlled by insurgencies. The British are now being driven out of central Basra - another defeat. Insurgents even used the electrical system to attack and defeat that British base.

What was supposed to be already fixed must be torn apart and reconstructed. Those who grasped military principles for a victory were also hearing this from reporters. Those in denial have been preaching 'light at the end of the tunnel' myths. Those who still foolishly believe victory can be achieved are even denying why Iraq has is in civil war. So they even invent another myth - calling all insurgent Al Qaeda. And that's the bottom line. The strategic objectives cannot be achieved. Petraeus, just like in Nam, can win every battle, and still not win the war. America is again supporting a government that does not represent the interests of a nation.

Scowcroft (one of George Sr's closest friends who was probably echoing George Sr's opinions) predicted an Iraqi Civil War. New Cellar dwellers can search here for that name to see how long ago reality was understood - how long ago some were denying reality.

None of this disparages Gen Petraeus. Petraeus repeatedly said he cannot achieve a strategic victory - only make it possible for one to happen. But then one need only view how deep the animosity is between Sunnis and Shia because America did not resolve that problem almost five years ago - the only time that problem could have been resolved. Of course, that means a president with some intelligence - who could plan for the peace - who understood by America must do nation building. Today's problems could only be resolved back them.

How curious. Things we do today only show up on the spread sheets four and more years later. Four years after creating an American defeat, it is even appearing in the numbers. Remember those soldier don't decide to go to war. We send them. Four years ago, this is what we did to the American soldier:
The Lost Year
Yes, it takes almost one hour to view. But to understand the loss of "Mission Accomplished", one should learn why. Nothing better explains why a defeat in "Mission Accomplished" is obvious. That was the only time this simmering conflict could have been avoided. Americans can no longer solve it - no matter how many dollars are thrown at the problem like a grenade.

Gee and you quoted your own stupid suggestion from another thread - thats pretty good. Ya freakin pessimist.

What I think you're misunderstanding about my opinion is that I'm not suggesting a military solution anymore than I'm suggesting 'throwing money at a problem.' You said it yourself, the military and the money are tools... but how are you going to do the job if the tools are inadequate?

If we had deployed sufficient troops we could have
a) secured the borders to prevent an ingress of foreign fighters
b) prevented looting in business districts vital to the economy
c) protected the infrastructure from collapse

The low troop numbers now still contribute: we don't have enough men to patrol the borders, fight the insurgency, AND protect the infrastructure, but it COULD BE DONE with enough manpower. Also, with better use of each man on the ground (i.e. focusing more on SF training ING than on blowing up bad guys, and operation on high value low risk targets instead of massive arrests) and intelligence control, we can secure the country.

And Patraeus is correct: this can only provide the opportunity to succeed. The reason I suggest that we need gobs more money is NOT because we would be spending willy nilly on fruitless projects, but because this damaged electricity grid will take vast amounts of investment in Baghdad alone. The level of deterioration has skyrocketed and will take a lot of money.

So with security and general comfort taken care of only then can we worry about political reconciliation. I think you'd be amazed how few people will still be violent with their families well fed, their houses air conditioned, and their businesses not closed for fear of attack. IT would still take years of policy building and arrangement, but with the members of parliament not scared to leave their homes, it will be easier to stay in session.

It is not impossible to fix this, it will just now take far better and robust tools than it would have had we not effed up. Not every military effort is misguided, not every spending effort is a waste. I don't have the time to watch the video, so if this is redundant I apologize.

Neither more troops nor money were a solution. Too few troops was only a symptom. And money shortages never existed. Many planes packed end to end with pallets of $100 bill were even shipped into Iraq and distributed. America was asking for aid from European nations for an oil rich nation; more money than is provided to all of Africa. When Europeans balked, American covered those expenses as well. To claim money was insufficient is a Nixonian lie.

BTW, who financed so much of Iraq's insurgencies? America probably did. $billions in cash were distributed and nobody knows where the money went. Shortage of money never existed.

If the Iraq electric grid was so deteriorated, then why could Saddam have full electricity restored throughout his nation in only one month? We specifically targeted his entire electric system in the first war - and he restore it almost completely in one month. Why with many $billions spent on power plants and the grid - why does the grid only provide 2 to 6 hours of electricity daily? Do you have any idea how massive $billion are? We almost gold plated that grid - and it still cannot do what Saddam did in only one month.

You are falling for myths. Money was not insufficient. Deterioration was not the problem. Americans were/are the problem.

Cited previously was the MD State traffic code. Americans were using the MD State traffic laws to rewrite Iraqi traffic laws - rather than restoring electricity. Not an exaggeration. People sent to Iraq were selected, for example, on how they answered questions about abortion and questions on Republican party loyalty. Parking lots full of black SUVs - not moving - as most Aemricans were found lounging all day around swimming pools rather than out in the field in those SUVs.

How do people who answer politically correct then restore electricity? How does an army, purged of its civil affairs officers, restore an electric system?

Money and more troops will not solve a problem when 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Again, money and more troops would not solve what Frontline made so obvious in:
The Lost Year.
If you don't have time to learn what are major facts - well beyond what you are posting here - then why are you posting here? Concept in that video is not optional. Concepts are a pre-requisite.

America only had six months to get it done. America did nothing - zero - for seven months. It’s too late. The mindset takes root like kudzu. As anyone familiar with Phase Four planning knows - if you don't win those hearts and minds in six months, then all is lost. A fundmanetal point made even in the movie Patton.

$Billions cannot fix the grid because the work was not done in 2003. Deterioration is not the problem - except where propaganda is promoted. Brand new power plants completely destroyed. Americans never even taught Iraqis how to maintain it. American incompetence is that widespread. A resulting mindset cannot be fixed with more money and troops. And then Americans openly advocated torture - including some in The Cellar.

Damage has been done. No amount of money or troops can change that.

Latest examples are Lebanon and the Balkans. Clinton was particularly sharp. At the time, I feared he blew it - moved in too early. Not enough had died. Clinton let the violence fester long enough so that all parties finally wanted peace. And his negotiator Holbrook was so sharp as to get Milosevic negotiate himself out of a job. Another success only possible because death rates were sufficiently high to change that mindset.

Not enough people have died yet in Iraq as is so obvious in those 18 unfulfilled benchmarks, a fourth Iraqi government that shows no interest in building a nation, and the secular mindset of hatred now entrenched across Iraq. American can no longer impose a solution. The damage is done. We are a nation who even tortures routinely and lie about that. Does not matter what you think. The damage has been done.

Time to avoid that failure was more than 3 years ago. That was an underlying point even in the Iraq Study Group. That is the point in this soon to be released government report. That is well proven in history. Nobody has any tools that can fix what America has now created.

Show me how America could have ended Lebanon's Civil war or averted massacres in Balkan with more men and money. Not possible. Why did both end for the better? Because we were smarter; let the parties of hate kill one another long enough that all parties finally want peace. The conflict was contained and let fester. Peace cannot be imposed. It must first be wanted - a mindset cannot be imposed.

Learn from this now so that when another dumb president does it again in 30 years, you will be sufficiently patriotic American and informed to call him a mental midget.

Some wars can only be contained and let burn themselves out - just like Lebanon and Balkans - because hate is that deeply entrenched. Welcome to the disaster in Somalia where everyone who thinks they are going to fix it only makes it worse. There are no tools that can solve such wars except higher death rates.

BTW, the ingress of foreign fighters? Even that is mostly a myth created by the same incompetant American liars. America created the insurgency that is almost 100% homegrown. There are almost no Al Qaeda of foreign fighters. See Frontline's The Lost Year. Appreicate why America created an insurgency. Appreciate why Al Sadr with no army in 2003 is so powerful today. That is the classic and futile military solution. You are using the exact same lies that Westmoreland used in Nam. It completely confuses tactical victories with winning a war. Your post is another classic example of the same Vietnam lies that concluded with "I see light at the end of the tunnel". Even a poltical solution must begin before any military action.

Ok, I can't quote specific parts of your post without throwing my back out. I think my computer almost pooped trying to load that bad boy.

Most of the things you stated were correct, i.e. mismanagement of the war from the start. I could go through and nit pick the few errors, but what you're saying is largely true. What I am saying is that there were not enough troops to secure the border, Rumsfeld sent out specific directives to not stop rioting because he needed the men to search for those fabled WMD, and also because of the WMD hunt our soldiers were not able to tie down the conventional weapons and protect the power grids. This affected not only the insurgents capabilites to fight but because we ignored the plights of the iraqis it caused them instant distrust. These serious detriments to the effort were caused somewhat by mismanagement, but it would have difficult for even the most intelligent commanders to perform with the lack of troops, and had we followed military recommendations they would have been avoided.

I think at this point I should let you know what I do for a living. I'm an arab linguist employed by the US Air Force, I collect and analyze both minute details and large amounts of data in relation to counter insurgency efforts. I have been working in operations related to OEF for about 2 years now, with 2 years of training before that. I can tell you first hand, both through personal collection and larger reports, that while al-Sadr is the primary mischief maker(as I've previously mentioned) and is almost entirely locally manned, no one's lied in saying that AQI and most groups in the north are manned from out of country sources in vast majority. Anyone who tells you different is absolutely and unequivocally wrong.

You keep saying this, but I can't recall a single in-country counter insurgency that didn't rely heavily on military presence to quell violence to allow these political proceedings to continue. Yes, tactical victories do not equate to strategic ones, I'm aware of that. You're also right in saying that a 'military solution' isn't possible, but you're wrong in saying that it can only be solved 'politically.' The two are intertwined at their base, and are like love and marriage. No military movement leaves the active parties vulnerable and terrifies the people, no accord process and all the military does is fight at random and piss more people off.

The reason 'more troops' was a bad idea in vietnam is because they HAD enough men, they were just operating like a sledgehammer and therefore causing more strategic harm with every tactical victory. We have painfully learned to STOP operating as such (we still aren't very good, but we at least understand the 'less is more' concept), but now we are sorely undermanned.

...and 'containing a war and letting it burn itself out' pretty much just counts a large portion of the innocent civilian population as acceptable losses. I think that's some cold shit.

If you're interested in learning more about our exact fuckups in Iraq, since you've deemed it necessary to all but call me an ignorant idiot because I didn't watch your god damn youtube video, you could start with Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. I would be more than happy to go through my bookcases to find a few of my more choice books that relate to CI warfare in a general sense, but they're kind of buried, so I won't unless you're actually interested. I'll watch the thing as soon as I get a chance, k?

I'm not going to go back and edit my post, I'd feel a little dishonest, but I realized I went a little excessive with the swearing and such. Apologies.

don't kill yourself worrying about it quee. ;)

Try not to take tw's posting "voice" personally. It will save you a lot of annoyance.

:bites tongue:



Again

For these same reasons, Sen McCain defined Rumsfeld as the worst Sec of Defense ever in the history of America. And so that he was clear, he restated it. Meanwhile Rumsfeld even repeatedly denied looting was occuring.

Whereas specific units were assigned to WMD searchs, many other units even avoided ammunition dumps for fear of mythical WMDs. All of which is not relevant to what created a disaster in those first six months - America did not do nation building.

Yes, we did not have enough troops. Military doctine says we needed 600,000. Shinseki estimated (was it?) something under 300,000. Get them all in, win the battle, do Phase Four, and then many (if not most) can leave a peaceful nation after a year. But our leaders who had no military experience or knowledge instead called Shinseki (et al) wrong. And so the damage was done. And so America created the insurgency that we now spin into allies of bin Laden.

Back in the States, many in America claim the Iraqi insurgency is mostly from bin Laden's organization exported into Iraq to kill Americans. Americans know this from propaganda. The new expression 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' does not clarify this confusion. To most Americans, that is still bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Even province leaders in Anbar who have since turned against insurgents were previously declared in America as bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Suddenly they are now Iraqis - not Al Qaeda? Domestic spin continues to promote confusion for a White House political agenda that says all insurgents are bin Laden's Al Qaeda - foreign fighters. These inconsistencies are heavily entrenched in what the American public believes.

I did not say insurgencies can only be solved poltiically. Defined (previously) were needed economic, politicial, and social solutions. Those would define the strategic objective. Military action (tactical objectives) must be included but oriented to achieve those strategic objectives.

In Nam, we decided that victory was found in body counts. Westmoreland said principles of war no longer applied to Nam. That justified 'search and destroy' sweeps. Whereas a tactical (military) victory was achieved, at the end of the day, the land remained in VC hands - a strategic defeat.

Westmoreland asked Johnson for another 500,000 troops saying if he just had a few more, then he believed victory would be achieved. That was when Johnson asked Westmoreland some daming questions and eventually concluded that Nam clearly was lost. Johnson eventually realized that Westmoreland's "more troops" solution was a myth.

We are saying very much same things. But the point previously made is that the time to achieve those economic, political, and social solutions was in those first critical six months. Having not done so, then the only people who can accomplish those goals are Iraqis. The Maliki government is futile. All others (ie Sadr) should be keeping strength in reserve for when Maliki falls or the Civil War errupts.

Only useful solution I had read was the Iraq Study Group. It was a comprehensive and aggressive plan that even requires actions by most every Department in the US Government. It was a plan to minimize defeat and to try to save Iraq from complete Civil War.

I read Thomas Rick's book (Fiasco), multiple Bob Woodward books (State of Denial), Isikroff and Korn (Hubris), and numerous others. It is unbelieveable that we were even dumber than the dumbness acknowledged publically. It is appauling that Rumsfeld, et al executed the same communist management techniques so routinely found in business school education - especially micromanagement. If I remember Fiasco, some appauling stories are iterated by Col Spain, Gen Keane, Warrick and O'Sullivan, Garner, David Kay (George Jr curiostity is so non-existant as to not ask questions) and others. Incompetance or bad leadership was clearly demonstated by Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Feith, Odiero (who did not understand how to fight an insurgency and operated the 4th ID much like Nam), Sanchez (who was too far from ready to have such a command), and Bremer. People who did jobs responsibily such as Petraeus, McMaster, Batiste, Swannack, Keane, and others were either delegated to back room assignments or retired in open disgust. Meanwhile Bremer, Franks, and Tenant get the Medal of Freedom? Of them, Bremer is by far one of the most incompetant - as equally incompetant as Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld's two assistants.

Guessing is that these stories were in Fiasco. I have read so many sources that these may be from those others.

Unfortunately it is war. Yes civilians are no more than 'acceptable losses'. I don't like it either. But once that sectarian mindset gets this deeply entrenched, then it takes that much violence to undo the mindset - just like everyone in Lebanon had to be considered cannon fodder until sanity was restored. Is it cold shit? Damn straight. But it is logically the only way to minimize losses. In "Mission Accomplished", the situtation is so desperate that emotion has no place. Logic is to save as many as is possible. If that means being cold, well, so was MacArthur, Patton, Sherman, Grant, Pershing, Rickover, and Presidents Truman (Hiroshima) and Kennedy (Cuban Missile). In each case, the eventual result was (intended) less lives lost.

From the top of your head, you probably remember one or two particularly good CI books. One repeatedly cited book discusses Algeria. I have not read that one in part because I don't remember the title.

One final point - from Griff If you make even the slightest assumption based upon the tone as written, then you will have 100% false conclusions. I make zero attempt to word anything nicely or poltiically correct. Anything implied is not relevant. I also see absolutely nothing but the most honest, thoughtful, and blunt logic in your post. You went right after the facts as only good people do. I love it.

Even the statement about 'cold' is appreciated for its honesty. My ruthless statements about solving "Mission Accomplished" are (unfortunately) inevitable if Iraqis refuse to take advantage of (what should be) their last opportunity; provided by Petraeus. If they fail to grasp this opportunity in the next three months, then massive civilian deaths in a Civil War probably will be the only way to minimize their death and destruction. I suspect that is even how Al Sadr sees it - trying to keep his army in line and his ammo dry until the eventual meltdown (ie referencing his 'stand down' of his army). Life's a bitch. I am not going to let silly emotions deny that reality. What may be inevitable is cold. Warm or cold does not change the reality.

I suspect the many parties are positioning themsleves for what happens when Civil War breaks out. The question I keep asking is "what is Sistani thinking?" And will he be relevant anymore? Maliki is destined for a pile that includes Chalabi and so many other Iraqi leaders.

not sure I understand this part at all.


Really? The question you've been repeatedly asking for months if not longer, is "When do we go after Bin Laden?" - this is the first time I've seen this one posed.

Illegals and crime