tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post1176705477418700924..comments2024-03-28T23:48:08.527-05:00Comments on Jackson Jambalaya: Counter-Insurgency for BeginnersKingfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-25349852041191208372007-08-02T12:49:00.000-05:002007-08-02T12:49:00.000-05:00Hi there, just to say it is so refreshing to final...Hi there, just to say it is so refreshing to finally hear people talking about coin operations and having a vague understanding about what they require. If you want to read a cracking book on coin then read Thompson - lessons from Malaya and Vietnam. Something along those lines anyway. It's what us Brits did in Malaya, Borneo, Yemen, Oman... and it worked! It is working in Afgan right now and it could work in Iraq. Indeed I read recently in a paper or some random magazine, that there is a US military commander doing exactly what I would have liked to have seen done from the word go - secure towns and villages, then ship in the local troops with our own advisers, and then fight outwards. Whilst this allows for security of those fixing the local amenities, it also dissalows the insurgents back in. Very basic hearts and minds stuff.<BR/>Also it should be noted that the US military did actually want to send in a lot more troops than the administration allowed and would peobably have done it properly if the politicians hadn't been sticking their noses in. In the British Army we call it mission command, and in essence it is setting the mission, aims or goals and setting out all the parameters, then allowing junior commanders to get on with it. As long as you know what you have to achieve and what you have available to achieve it, then you should be allowed to crack on at all levels. Maybe this has always been a problem for the US military though.<BR/>Lastly I thought that was a really good point about the move towards the Kurds. People have forgotten that Iraq is really 3 separate countries, and that the Kurds are totally happy in their part. If only we could sort out the problem with the shiites and sunnis, but I guess people smarter than me will do that! <BR/>Anyway, from a British Infantry Army Officer this is all very refreshing, thanks for allowing the rest of us to read your thoughts. <BR/><BR/>BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-41157921883620677162007-07-29T20:33:00.000-05:002007-07-29T20:33:00.000-05:00Your first paragraph I agree with as would Colonel...Your first paragraph I agree with as would Colonel Galula if he were alive. Its clear that they didn't take it seriously. By they I mean the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith Cabal. Impressive credentials, high IQ scores, and stuck in the ivory towers and considered to be total dumbasses by those in the military with heavy experience in Iraqi affairs. <BR/><BR/>As for your claim about Petreaus not telling the truth, I must disagree. His record speaks for itself. When he was in Iraq has head of the 101st Airborne, he conducted operations in his area in a way that should've been a model for the rest of the army. Ricks has an excellent section in his book on this period. <BR/><BR/>If there is a commander in Iraq that really does get it, it is him. He has recognized the importance of winning over the population and showing it respect. He has shown more common sense and initiative than other generals have along with a better understanding of what is going on in Iraq. <BR/><BR/>Its still early in the surge. If he says it has a chance of working then I think he deserves that chance based on his record in the field. Its also ridiculous to expect the surge to work immediately. These things do take time and the enemy does not always cooperate. however, he is a general who has shown an impressive ability to adapt to changes in the environment which is one of the leading traits you need in a commander. <BR/><BR/>I say give the military more time for one reason. I think you are right. Bush et al totally misjudged the situation. Completely. I dont't think they so much lied as they were incompetent and as Galula stated in his treatise, had no clue about military matters, insurgencies, etc. If they had retained Shelton, that might have happened, however, he was cashiered and his Special Forces expertise was lost. <BR/><BR/>However, in 2002 the Army War College nailed it in a study I linked what would happen if Saddam was replaced. When you get away from the Pentagon civilian leadership and to the true experts in the military, they have pretty much gotten everything right but have been ignored. <BR/><BR/>What I think is happening now is that Bush is finally letting the true military run the show and people like Petreus who have a true understanding of what they are facing are calling the shots alot more than before. Bush got rid of Rumsfeld, Gates changed leadership, lets see what happens. <BR/><BR/>If it is the military that is finally running this operation and determining the strategy, then I like the chances of success (which I define as stability, not democracy)better than if its another scheme by the Pentagon itself. <BR/><BR/>As for my characterization of opponents and supporters, I simplifed somewhat as I didn't want to digress from what was a long post anyway.Kingfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-71922112463543770772007-07-29T19:25:00.000-05:002007-07-29T19:25:00.000-05:00One wishes the administration had taken the idea o...One wishes the administration had taken the idea of the insurgency seriously from the beginning. It should have been obvious to them that set-piece military resistance would be easy to crush and that the real fight would be an insurgency. Hussein fought that way right from the beginning, and his only successes, limited as they were, during the invasion came from guerrilla fighting. Wolfowitz et al. were apparently too enamored of the B.S. Chalabi was selling to take the task before them seriously, and their infighting with the State Department insured that the only people who knew anything about Iraq were locked out of the process. <BR/><BR/>I do have to take issue with two things you wrote. One was that opponents of the war believe we can bring all the troops home now. I don't think that's a fair description of the majority of opponents. The recent row between Clinton and that Cheney stooge Edelman was over planning for a withdrawal, for instance, and she explicitly stated that the purpose of such planning was to provide for force protection. <BR/><BR/>You also misstate the central purpose of the surge. Yes, it was supposed to bring security to the Iraqi people, but the desiderata there was to give cover for politicians to reach the compromises necessary to build a coherent government. There is no sign that the political effort is succeeding, which is the reason why some American politicians (much to your ire, I know) have declared the war lost.<BR/><BR/>There are, I think, two central lessons we should draw from Vietnam with direct relevance to Iraq. The first is that if you lie to the American people, you will destroy their support for the war. Tet was a military victory for the U.S. and a political disaster, because Westmoreland and LBJ had been telling the American people that the war was just about over. After years of such lies, (and they were lies, not well intentioned mistakes), Tet broke the camel's back. <BR/><BR/>The American people (except Republicans) no longer believe even legitimate good news from Iraq because the administration has been lying to them for years. And if Petreus gives us a positive report on the surge in September, why should we believe him? He is clearly a political creature, and when he was in charge of training Iraqi troops, he lied to us over and over again about their readiness. Right-wingers like to say that we lost Vietnam because we lost our will to fight, as if the fault somehow lies with the American people. The truth is that the manipulations and lies of the Johnson and Nixon administrations destroyed that political will, just as Bush has destroyed our political will now.<BR/><BR/>The second, related lesson is that military victories are short-lived if they are not married to political victories. The reason why we could not win in Vietnam is that the South Vietnam government was a) corrupt and violent, b) never democratic and thus c) had virtually no support among the south Vietnamese. There simply wasn't a base for establishing a real democratic government there, or at least, the American government would not support the measures such a government would require--like massive land reform. <BR/><BR/>I do not think the war in Iraq is lost, but I do not think it can be won either. The principal reason is that, as in Vietnam, we are fighting to preserve a government the native population does not want to preserve. The reason why the surge has not produced political compromise is that neither the Kurds, the Shiites, nor the Sunnis want such compromise. The Kurds will never sign on to the more centralized constitution the Bush administration and the Sunnis require. The Sunnis and the Shiites are both just waiting for their opportunity to unleash total war against each other. They will wait a year or they will wait five years. The Shiites have scores to settle, and they're not going to forgive. (This is one reason why Iraq will not become an al Qaeda haven like pre-9/11 Afghanistan if the U.S. withdraws. The Shiites will slaughter al Qaeda in the streets, using brutal tactics the U.S. could never pursue.) <BR/><BR/>Given these political realities, it seems strategically prudent to me that we withdraw the bulk of our forces to Kurdistan. This will prevent a declaration of Kurdish sovereignty and the entry of Turkey into the war. It will give us quick-strike capability into Iraq. It will counter-balance the influence of the Iranians. It will protect our troops from Sunni and Shiite attack, thus lowering the cost of the war in treasure and American lives, thus making it far more palatable to the American public. <BR/><BR/>Thoughts?Brian Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209322950873561064noreply@blogger.com