A Continuing Education in Military Science

Posted By Grim

Colonel (and Ph.D.) David Kilcullen has a piece up explaining the current operations in Iraq from a COIN perspective.  Dr. Kilcullen is, as BlackFive readers know but Pandagon readers probably do not, an Australian officer who has rewritten much of current COIN theory.  He is currently serving as General Petraeus' senior advisor on COIN in Iraq. 

He is posting to the web in order to talk to you, the citizens of Coalition nations, to tell you what we are doing in Iraq -- what the plan is, and why that is the plan.

Why did I mention Pandagon?  Well, there was this post:

Meanwhile, the right-wing plan for Iraq still boils down to the Parker-Stone calculus**:

Phase 1: Escalate hostilities
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Peace

I just have to shake my head.  We publish our COIN manual; nothing.  We let our senior officers blog about their plans; nothing.  They give interviews to The Atlantic Monthly; nothing.  They make themselves available to bloggers for interviews; nothing.

Every American has a right to comment on the war.  If you're going to avail yourself of that right, however, make an effort to learn something about military science and history, so you can understand and engage the discussion. 

Our military men want nothing more than for you to get what they're trying to accomplish.  No military has ever gone to the lengths ours has done to try and help you understand their mission. 

Reducing their plan to "?" is the mark of a mind that simply doesn't want to understand.  It's fine to disagree -- as I said in the comments to the previous post, I respect Gen. Zinni in spite of the fact that he and I disagree about when war is useful (in general) and what to do about Iraq (in particular).  Nevertheless, he is a serious thinker who is honorably engaged in the questions of the day.

That's not too much for a nation to ask of its citizens.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/19612280

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Continuing Education in Military Science:

» Colonel Kilcullen Reports from Op For
Via Small Wars Journal: I’ve spent much of the last six weeks out on the ground, working with Iraqi and U.S. combat units, civilian reconstruction teams, Iraqi administrators and tribal and community leaders. I’ve been away from e-mail a lot,... [Read More]

Comments

[jordan]

I read through some of the Pandagon posts yesterday, thought to comment, then thought the better of it.

There's a degree of cluelessness about military affairs on Pandagon that shocks the conscience.

They're not interested in substantive learning. There's no intellectual curiousity there. They have a "belief" and that's the way it is. The light bulb won't turn on until the knife is at their throat and they're yelping for our evil U.S. soldiers to come save them.

And the post on blacks in the military is a real doozy. Still no realization that the military is all-volunteer now.

[Ghost of Habu, The Pit Viper]

Reading those Pandagon posts, and then reading Colonel Kilcullen's full post at SWJ (far above excellent!), I'm reminded of a specific comment that was once made (generally speaking) about such poorly thought out comments:

"We gives them books to read, and they eats the covers".

Colonel Kilcullen's posts are the type of informative, insightful, and honestly, flat out brilliant posts/articles, which if you are into the blogging world, that you live for.

[Steve]

Colonel (and Ph.D.) David Kilcullen

PhD's don't impress me. Often they are too educated for their own good and their Ivy Tower thinking gets in the way of the practicalities of the real world.

Perhaps Colonel David Kilcullen is the exception to this, but in general this is what I have found with people with PhDs.

Our military needs less people with PhDs and more people with with practical experience on warfare. We need street smarts, not ivy tower thinking!

[Kirk]

Grim said,

They give interviews to The Atlantic Monthly; nothing.

The Atlantic Monthly has been around for a long time, hasn't it. It was even around on February, 1946.

By the way, is it really a good idea to have our COIN manual out there on the Internet for all the world (including our enemy) to see?

[MajMT]

And, Kirk...whodda thunk that just a mere 4 years after publication, another nihilistic dictator would invade South Korea, or that a “grass roots, peoples movement", sponsored, funded, trained and supported by China and the USSR would push Southeast Asia into a major conflagration, or that Stalin would introduce Hungary, Czechoslovakia and so many others to the wonderful world of Soviet expansionism. I could go on but will defer to one with greater wisdom than I..."To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." --- George Washington

[Bill Smith]

Steve:

OK, Ph.Ds don't impress you. How about what the man wrote? It sure impressed me. People who can write this clearly, and simply can also think, and see clearly, and are to be trusted, IMO

[Marzouq]

Verrrry goooooood!

Although an "arm chair operator", I do have a very good understanding of unconventional warfare, guerilla warfare and COIN. I do not have a pHD but have been a student/scholar of milsience, polscience, religion for 42 years. I is an amateur.

The concepts of Boyd expounded by lind, Van Creveld, et al, have not sufficiently been absorbed by the pandagon.

Matt, et al: You are damn good!

Salaam eleikum!

[Howard Towt]

Thanks for the link to Col. Kilcullen's piece.

The contrast to the Amanda Marcotte posting(pandagon.net) is dramatic. Ms. Marcotte literally senses the intent of our troops in Iraq. She is filled with conviction and insight into the workings of our military and is passionate in sharing her feelings.

Dr. Kilcullen is a person who seeks to provide information and clarification. His disclaimer to us is simply a request to use his information as a model, and accept the outcomes in Iraq in the context of that model.

Depending on our individual makeup, we are drawn to one approach or the other.

This example of the "great divide" in America could not be more stark.

[Kirk]

MajMT, I totally agree with you regarding Edgar L. Jones' article.

So, much so that it makes me wonder if Edgar L. Jones was a pinko commie sympathizer who realized that future conflicts would indeed be against communists and so wanted to weaken our defenses so we will have less of an ability to fight them. (Does anyone know if that was the case with Jones?)

I posted it because I do believe that American soldiers during WWII did do acts that civilians who hadn't "been there" would not understand but were the natural result of individuals being in combat. In war Shit Happens and soldiers should not be punished when it does. I don't like us thinking we had "clean hands" during WWII because it hampers our will to get our hands dirty now as we really need to.

But yeah, I certainly believe that post WWII peacetime national service was necessary given the enemies we still faced. You can consider Edgar L. Jones opposition to post WWII peacetime national service being published in such a major magazine like the Atlantic Monthly as an indication that the Enemy Within has been with us for a long time now.

[butch]

Uh, Steve: LTC Kilcullen was a COIN practioner in the Oz Army. He has spent years in the field. The man has loads of practical experience.

I suggest in the future that you do your homework before dismissing someone's opinion.

[The WatchCat]

Reducing their plan to "?" is the mark of a mind that simply doesn't want to understand.

Correct. And why don't they want to understand? Because they hold the basic premise that all war is wrong. This blinds them to all positive outcomes and progressions. War must "solve nothing", otherwise their entire identity is threatened. They cannot see a threat, whether Al Qaeda or the conservative victory of a successful war, because it would make their theories and strategies irrelevant.

The ignorance displayed at the Pandagon would be funny if it wasn't so widely adopted. As the Kilcullen piece so aptly displays, we have a very solid strategy. This isn't just "applaud louder for victory" as some allege. I know enough about strategy and counterterrorism to be dangerous, but I honestly don't see how the average citizen can fail to understand what we're doing (provided they have access to the information.) Yes, it would be nice to capture all the insurgents and/or send them off to meet 72 Virginians but chasing them out of Iraq (which incidentally creates more trackable movement) is an excellent real-world plan.

When we achieve victory in Iraq, I wonder if 1) America will notice, and 2) whether they'll have a clue of how we did it.

[OldSoldier54]

Great link, Grim!! Thanks, bro!

So the guy's an Ozzie snake eater, eh? Couple that with the clarity of his writing style (good indicator of rigorous thinking), sans drama, and it sounds like LTG Petraeus has a PRIME adviser. IMO.

One point, however. "...The really decisive activity will be police work,..." the good guys might have their work cut out for them in Baqubah as Mike Yon reports the police there are egregious. Folks might want pray that our boots on the ground there act with wisdom in dealing with it.

[John Ryan]

Well how about an update into how Operation Arrowhead Ripper is going ?
Today in the interview published in the NYT Col Townsend said that the KIA for insurgents was still at 41

[Grim]

"Because they hold the basic premise that all war is wrong."

I don't even mind that position. I know some Quakers -- I like them. I've always liked them. They're good people, and their pacifism is honorable and deep. It's not for me, but it's deeply felt and right.

The folks at Pandagon (it wasn't Marcotte who wrote the post, just to be clear) aren't doing that. I don't get the sense that they're pacifists, who would never support a war if (say) Clinton or John Edwards were the CIC. I get the sense that they're convinced of their rightness, but that they have not made any attempt to learn enough to test their ideas. They haven't even learned enough to know what the plan is they're rejecting -- they just, apparently, assume there isn't one. It's been literally broadcast worldwide, but somehow they're just unfamiliar with it.

I don't even want to be mean to Pandagon and Yglesias. I just want to challenge them to take these things seriously. They want to be an influence on their country and it's direction in the world. OK. They want to comment on its military and foreign policy. Fine.

There's a price: you've got some reading to do. These are serious matters, the most serious possible. They deserve to be taken seriously.

[The WatchCat]

Grim,
To clarify: I too know honorable, thinking pacifists. I don't disagree with you there.

I may have overextended the argument, as I have no longterm familiarity with Pandagon. But I would like to get to the bottom of their mental block on these issues. Is it faulty education? Is it the sum of generational experience? You are correct to challenge them in the here-and-now, but I'm hoping we can uncover the source of the problem in order to encourage widespread critical thinking in the future.

[jordan]

I think it's just the passive acceptance of what the news feeds them and Bush-hate, but not maliciousness. I agree that if we had a Dem in the White House, and the mission was fighting off the Janjaweed from refugee camps in Darfur, they would be praising the same military to the high heavens, and intensely arguing against "redeployment" because it got too challenging.

[jordan]

I don't know how to do this, but reasonable anti-warriors should be urged to read the Kilcullen article linked above, including the comments. Maybe they'll get hooked and spend alot of time there.

[Cincinnati_Bob]

"Every American has a right to comment on the war. If you're going to avail yourself of that right, however, make an effort to learn something about military science and history, so you can understand and engage the discussion.

DUDE!!!. Many of the people who vote couldn't tell you:

- What the political or economic system the United States is on.
- Who the current Vice-President and Speaker of the House are.
- What significance are trade deficits
- What the stock market does
- What the Smithsonian is
- Where it is
- Which 4 or 8 presidents are memorialized on a mountain in South Dakota. Really, it's in South Dakota?
- That CO2 makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere of the Earth and that Trees and Plants would do the Freakin Wave to get more of it so they could suck it in and make more oxygen and LESS CO2!

Military Science and History? You are correct of course but reaching way too far. Swing voters are people who, given today's environment, cannot figure out who or which party they intend to vote for - probably up to the point that they actually cast a vote. ie. Dumber than wet mice. More stupid than a non-existent freight train. Able to not leap anything with as many bounds as they can count on their fingers and toes.

The election process is 'The Seduction of the Idiots"
Which is why it is so stupid and full of incredible lying.

Like 'I will Virtually Eliminate the Need for Middle East Oil By Replacing it With A Clean and safe Power Supply" (that no-one beside me knows about because if they did, they'd be rich beyond their wildest dreams SELLING the damn thing in a capitalistic environment)

My God, it brings tears to the eyes.

[Ymarsakar]

Still no realization that the military is all-volunteer now.

That's the entire Leftist ideology is full of conscripts, Jordan. Why would they expect their opponents to be different or superior than their own methods?

You are correct to challenge them in the here-and-now, but I'm hoping we can uncover the source of the problem in order to encourage widespread critical thinking in the future.

Posted by: The WatchCat | Jun 26, 2007 5:57:13 PM

We know the source of the problem, but the methods used to solve it is unavailable for now.

[jordan]

The problem is, these clear explanations aren't getting to the people. There are plenty of Generals doing TV interviews, but it just doesn't come out in a way that the lay person can understand. When the funding bill comes up again next week, this article will be put to good use, especially as regards key Congresspersons. They should all read it.

[Pat]

The best tactics can not overcome a muddled strategy.

[rea]

I'm one of those commentors over at Yglesias and Pandagon who you don't think understand our strategy well enough to reject it. Look at what the Colonel/Doctor says, however:

But the population-centric approach is the beginning of a process that aims to put the overall campaign onto a sustainable long-term footing. The politics of the matter then can be decisive, provided the Iraqis use the time we have bought for them to reach the essential accommodation. The Embassy and MNF-I continue to work on these issues at the highest levels but fundamentally, this is something that only Iraqis can resolve: our role is to provide an environment in which it becomes possible.

What he's telling you right there, explicitly, is that the military can't win this war. The Iraqi and American politicians have to win it, by crafting a political solution acceptable to both us and the bulk of the Iraqi population. That's exactly where the Pandagon comment about:

Phase 1: Escalate hostilities Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Peace

is apt and telling. We don't have a plan for an acceptable political solution to Iraq, even if Gen. Petraeus and his people are finally on top of the military side of things. The present government of Iraq is well liked in Teheran, but nowhere else.

We don't have the troops or the money to keep this up for another decade or so, and that seems to be what you're proposing--and we don't have a plan for victory, as the very article you link demonstrates.

[William]

C_Bob,
I think I understand your desire to generalize, but, please be sparing with the venom. Given what is currently going on at the national level, I am a swing voter and will vote for the best man, whichever party s/he* belongs to. I will freely admit to not knowing all the answers, but I am mildly aware of current events (local, national, and international tho it's been a few months since my return state side...)
Now to the meat of your post:
Republic
Cheney/Pelosi
Varies, dependent on the surrounding politics and trade structure
Just a guess here, but, trade stocks?
A museum (Nation wide, but mostly in the D.C.)
Not relevant, too far north
And I'm all for happy trees!
As for who and which party to vote for, I'll vote for whomever represents my views as closely as possible. The lesson that I learned from the last few cycles of elections has been "meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." (gratuitous Who reference) As for the selection process and the lying, they are politicians (which loosely translates as "many blood suckers") and that is what we have trained them to do. We, you and I, need to start putting forth candidates who are more worthy, and then electing them. Until then reference the Who again. In reguards to your shotgun ad hominem, my experience simply does not support it. YMMV. Oh, I almost forgot, the military history thing, the majority of the undecided voters that I know , and there are many, not only study it in all its history, we apply it (either as a hobby or a livelyhood) and some of us stake our lives on it.
In conclusion, all I ask is, if you desire to offer insult, that you be more specific, more accurate, or both.
Thank you,
William sends.

*Not a Rodham reference, just no gender preference.

[William]

Bob,
Yes, it is my name. Your reply has brought me enlightenment and your existence makes a fundamental contribution to the aforementioned trees! On their behalf and my own, thanks for the reply.
And Bob, take it easy on the mice, they might be running the show after all....

Reguarding the Col.'s article,
Nice work. Well written and direct with a specific goal. No earth shattering revelations, but nice to see the concept getting out to the general public. One of the commenters noted that this doctrine is over 40 yrs old., indeed it is much older than that, but in a fluid environment the focus and needs change and the old becomes new again. I would like to see the Col.'s thoughts on how to handle the media, our weakest front in my opinion. I have my own ideas, but media is not a realm that I am experienced in.

William sends.

[Grim]

Anyone dropping into B5 for the first time, please note that we have a troll who has decided to amuse himself by adopting the screen names of regulars, and making foul comments. Please ignore any such things you see; I'll clean them up periodically.

Rea:

Thank you for coming by.

The political solution you speak of is indeed something that is necessary. On the other hand, it's not entirely accurate to say that our military efforts can have no effect upon it. Indeed, our military efforts are principally directed at effecting it. We are spending so much time on training the Iraqi Army, police, and helping them with their judicial system precisely in order to prejudice the outcome of the political solution in favor of the government already elected to office -- as opposed to one arising from rebellion or chaos.

The US government is also taking other steps. For example, the recent religious congress in Iraq (see: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/06/rountable-on-ir.html ) is designed to help clerics from Iraqis factions negotiate a way to live together, reduce extremism in their ranks, and so forth. It was paid for by the Department of Defense, and arranged primarily by a DOD Chaplain. This too is part of the strategy.

Dr. Kilcullen's part of the operation is the Counterinsurgency. That is, as he rightly points out, only part of the overall strategy -- a military aspect that is designed to give the Iraqis some greater peace and space to work on their institutions. However, we have an additional contribution in our Provincial Reconstruction teams and Embedded PRTs (which have Department of State and Justice members assigned to them as well as DOD assets); the Chaplain's mission; and, also, interagency assets that Dr. Kilcullen mentions. These are all part of the overall strategy: to help the Iraqis build their political institutions into a state strong enough that it can resist insurgency on its own. At that point, the political solution will be fairly easy to negotiate, and it will happen within the framework of the democratic government now in power.

This is why Yglesias' comment, cited in the Pandagon piece, is simply backwards. To say that you need a political solution before you can arm groups willing to ally with you is to say that you need to end the war before you can fight it. As Clausewitz properly notes, war is an outgrowth of politics: the two things are joined at the hip. In any war, political solutions are being pursued by the parties at war. In this case, we prefer the democracy, AQI prefers chaos, and the various factions within the Iraqi state prefer a system more preferential to them than currently.

The military campaign, combined with our rebuilding efforts, can make the central government capable of asserting its authority in a method based on the rule of law. Once we get there, a political solution becomes feasible in a way it currently is not. The war and the politics have to be "won" together, if you like; that is the nature of war.

[Smitty_ROK]

Ok Grim, I am just an old dog(dumb old grunt)that has no tolerance for double talk. If we ( the current occupants of the white house) wanted to conquer this object (Iraq), then they did it all wrong. The enemy is willing to die and wants to, so we should of let them all. Counter Insurgency techniques, right! We have to get away from the PC stuff and get back to the Art of War.

[jordan]

rea, read some of the other posts and comments on this. There's nothing terribly controversial about Kilcullen's statement. We all know this is buying time for the Iraqi politicians to get their act together and have explicitly said so many times. I know what Kilcullen is saying, and don't need a lecture on the reality of what our various relations write home about.

For months we've been bemoaning the lack of involvement of political and diplomatic experts who should be interfacing with the Iraqis and helping them strenthen and build their institutions and conclude agreements on powersharing.

The military, by default, has been performing these tasks in addition to their security and counterinsurgency tasks. But does that mean they think there's an exclusively military solution to the problem? Of course not.

The troops are holding back the dike so the Iraqis can get their political act together, perhaps with the help of America's intrepid diplomats. There's nothing more intolerable than the thought of our sons, nephews and brothers doing this all summer while the parliament vacations. Believe me, what Kilcullen says is thoroughly understood, and has been for a long time.

Nobody thinks military power alone can win it. But that doesn't mean you don't applaud and acknowledge their successes. Unfortunately, even the slightest uplift about the smallest military achievement immediately provokes cries of "the military can't win this", or "they think they're winning." You seem to begrudge even small successes.

If you believe there's no political strategy to win, slug it out with those who are in a position to make such decisions. Or, you could provide your own winning political strategy, if you have one.

People seem to spend more time finding reasons to slam and undermine the military portion of the overall strategy, rather than constructively critique those portions that need help. It's fun, easy, and you don't need to know much to do it. But undercutting the military pillar of the strategy by naysaying their efforts just defies logic, unless your goal is to lose. Focus on how the our political and diplomatic officers can help pull these people together and strengthen the central government.

[LPierson]

Preface to Chapter 5 COIN Doctrinal Pub 3.24:

"It is a persistently methodical approach and steady pressure that will gradually wear the insurgent down. The government must not allow itself to be diverted either by countermoves on the part of the insurgent or by critics on its own side who will be seeking a simpler and quicker solution. There are no short-cuts and no gimmicks." -- Sir Robert Thompson

And that is exact what Lawernce Korb and his cronies want, short-cuts and gimmicks. I read Korb et al's solution paper that was posted on Center for American Progress. Korb and crew are so wedded to the post DESERT STORM "coalition and diplomacy only" paradigm that they cannot see the forest for the trees. I noticed particularly how they keep a seemingly and seductively "hawkish" view by stating that Counter Terrorism should the US' number one priority; they would, considering that DOS is the executive agent for Counter Terrorism, not DOD. Lets face it, the old guard and coalition queens have never been supporters of DOD lead COIN etc. Before I hung it up in 2004, I found troubling the absolute angst and rancor that many on the DOS "side" held for "Rumsfeld's" war on terrorism. There was never going to be full unity of effort, unless of course when those not playing nice were in need of help.

[Smitty_ROK]

Jordan, I am not slamming the military, I have been there for many years. I am slamming the founders of the Iraqi contingent of this war. The 5 P's were not applied here. The mission was not properly planned for! And now my brothers are there stuck in the mud because congress and the white house can't get their head out of their asses!

[Tincan Sailor]

They are a hell of a lot of good points here and
Kilcullen's thoughts are sound...But we have
lost the majority of the American public...Thats
a killer, Bush can't sell it anymore It's like
a car salesman who can't make the deal and his
customer walks out...We have Bush at 28% and our
Congress and Senate at 14% That is sour as Owl
S**t...It's called Leadership you have that and
you have a winner... Lack of leadership you got
the S**ty end of the stick which is where we are
now...Our military is out doing their very best
every bit as good as the Greatest Generation
and with crapy Leadership at the top...It's a
fact with out sacrifice it means nothing to
John Q Public.The only folks that are
sacrificing is the Military and their Familys.
So there it is in a nut shell and as I look down
the road 17-18 months I sure as hell don't see
a shinning star and I'm damn glad I'm 68 and not
28...

[Gene]

You know it is really dumb for our military to put the COIN manual out there on the Internet for all the world to see.

Guess what! Our enemy has Internet access as well.

Loose Lips Sink Ships.

And Keyboards Kill.

If our military leadership doesn't understand something so fundamental how do we ever hope to win this war!

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

Never underestimate the danger of idiots in a large group.

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

(Chuckle)......

[liontooth]

Rea said,
That's exactly where the Pandagon comment about:
Phase 1: Escalate hostilities Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Peace
is apt and telling.

The purpose of this surge is not to simply 'escalate hostilities'. There is a specific strategy behind those actions. It's about securing areas and holding on to those gains.

What he's telling you right there, explicitly, is that the military can't win this war. The Iraqi and American politicians have to win it, by crafting a political solution acceptable to both us and the bulk of the Iraqi population.

No, please reread what he exactly said,

this is something that only Iraqis can resolve: our role is to provide an environment in which it becomes possible

The US military can't win this war nor can US politicians. All the US military can do now is provide the stability/security that the Iraqis can't provide themselves.

The question really is can the US military perform that task? I think that finally they are starting to and will. Provided they aren't withdrawn.

What I don't understand was why did it take 3.5 years to get to this point when the Pentagon knew what worked in Vietnam?

[Arch]

Rea said,

"What he's telling you right there, explicitly, is that the military can't win this war. The Iraqi and American politicians have to win it, by crafting a political solution acceptable to both us and the bulk of the Iraqi population."

There is a contradictory argument here.

Iraq is a violent place and politicians who support the current government do so at great personal risk. Our military forces are preserving order and working to stand up a stable, viable Iraq. That is what the whole "rule of law" thing is about.

Leftists are threatening to remove those forces permaturely. That threat is not, as the left would have you believe, forcing the Iraqis to coalese around a political solution. The effect is polarization. Iraqis saw first hand what Saddam did to the Kurds and Marsh Arabs after we withdrew. Withdrawal timelines and artificial benchmarks have a destabilizing effect (e.g., Pol Pot Regime).

If the democrats are interested in peace and stability in Iraq, they should encourage the Bush administration to keep our forces in place until the Iraqi government is capable of providing its own security. What they really want, regardless of the consequences, is a Bush defeat.
.

[Al Maviva]

The mistake that the left and its unknowing adherents are making - and the equal and opposite mistake that the WH leadership is making - is talking about the different components of warmaking as if they were discreet entities that might be manipulated without affecting all the other components. Warmaking, whether it is about taking on a conventional military force or a violent transnational movement, is about applying the national power in a steady, consistent and comprehensive manner to sap the power and will of the enemy.

The national power is an integrated whole with all the parts affecting all the other parts. The military is part of the national power, as is diplomacy, domestic politics, communications, and the economy. Tourism is part of it, so is our mass media. The most important element of power, however, is the national will. Our leadership has done almost nothing to bolster it besides a little bit of scaremongering, acting as if the national will just supports itself. It doesn't, leadership is required, and if there's one thing the mumbler-in-chief doesn't provide on a regular basis, it is leadership. We need a long-term, full court press against violent Islamic extremism and there is good reason to believe that attempting to spread post-enlightenment classical liberal values might be a useful tactic, but I suspect we will never find out if that will work. The nation has to be fully engaged to win, and the importance of this comprehensive war effort needs to be explained.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that anybody in the WH has ever read Clausewitz, or Sun Tzu or Musashi or even Vo Nguyen Giap, or anybody who has explained the rudiments of how war works.

Yglesias and Amanda Marcotte and their pals diddle around and accuse the WH of having a military-only strategy, but their preferred choice of a military-only retreat will fail to do anything to fix the problems we face for the exact same reason a military-only warmaking policy would fail. That any adult who has pretensions to commenting intelligibly on public policy fails to grasp this most basic fact of warmaking, is stunning to me. It is like attempting to be an accountant without knowledge of basic addition and subtraction. Eh, I guess it's no worse than the WH staff being ignorant of the same stuff, but somehow one would hope for better.

[atadOFF]

OMFG ... thanks for the link to Pandagon Grim (/sarc). The post was bad enough but reading the comments has me running around trying to scoop up my brains after they leaked out my ears.

...opinion unfettered by fact or reason, nice.

[jordan]

Smitty, I was responding to rea, not your comment.

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 06/27/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

[Mordrach]

Question, Rea:

Are you basing this statement:

"The Iraqi and American politicians have to win it, by crafting a political solution acceptable to both us and the bulk of the Iraqi population."

on the fact that he uses the word "politics" in the paragraph you cited?

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, here is a definition of politics:

The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government.

Examples: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?

Just because someone mentions politics, doesn't mean they are referring to politicians...

[Soldier's Dad]

"But I would like to get to the bottom of their mental block on these issues. Is it faulty education?"

All of us have dominant portions of the brain. Most of us 'sync' the rational mind and the emotional mind. We either filter our emotions to fit the facts, or filter our facts to fit ur emotions. A common example would be "The Weather is Gloomy".
Weather has no emotions...it just is.

The great divide is really between people whose rational mind is dominant as compared to peoples whose emotional mind is dominant.

It boils down to a difference in how one mentally makes a statement...

Generally, the two options are
1) I think...blah..blah(People condired to be on the right)
2) I feel...blah..blah..(people considered to be on the left)

[Ymarsakar]

We don't have a plan for an acceptable political solution to Iraq, even if Gen. Petraeus and his people are finally on top of the military side of things.

I think Grim explained the incorrect reasoning behind this piece. Without the military side of things, there is no acceptable political solution, either to peace loving Iraqis or anti-terrorist Americans.

It is sort of like trying to do diplomacy without using force, the threat of force, or even wishing to harm the enemy. As with normal haggling, if you feel all sympathetic for the other guy, the other guy will cash you out.

Indeed, our military efforts are principally directed at effecting it.

I think some people believe that you just can't use force to convince people to truly do real things. They think it is fake, that force doesn't work, at all. This is not just a pacifism thing after all.

The other problem is that some other people only believe that force doesn't work if they aren't the ones using it.

In such a situation, I can easily see why people seek to push the Iraqi government into the Iranian camp. Without force of arms and the Band of Brothers bond, it is literally impossible to convince people to truly side with you. Not when the other side uses the tools of intimidation and death dealing at their disposal.

[jordan]

Sparkle, those that did not agree to the decision to go to war still have this civic duty: when debate is done, and troops are committed, you do not persist in undercutting and badmouthing the effort out of pique that your side didn't prevail before the invasion.

We have an absolute right to expect that those Americans who debated against the invasion should refrain from trashing and weakening those Americans in harm's way. It's reckless self-satisfaction that does nothing to improve the situation, but only to weaken Americans who are taking bullets right now. This is why indulging in such rhetoric is so reckless and damaging.

Not everyone agreed that we should bomb Serbia and go into Bosnia. But once our forces were in battle, you didn't see the dissenters try to undercut and bash the military. You didn't see those that disagreed ostentatiously having photo-ops and meetings with the enemy. Politics stopped at the water's edge, unlike now.

Don't think that doesn't mean those dissenters can't make constructive judgements about the military effort once it's ongoing, but what we have going on today has gone way, way beyond that.

[Steve]

We have an absolute right to expect that those Americans who debated against the invasion should refrain from trashing and weakening those Americans in harm's way. It's reckless self-satisfaction that does nothing to improve the situation, but only to weaken Americans who are taking bullets right now. This is why indulging in such rhetoric is so reckless and damaging.

Absolutely. That is sedition. Freedom of Speech isn't absolute. It was never met to protect speech that gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

What gets me is that the same Leftists who claim they have freedom of speech regarding the war, work very hard to restrict the Freedom of Speech of those who oppose them on through the use of "Politically Correct" speech codes especially at the Universities but now practically everywhere in society, and legislation such as the Unfairness Doctrine.

So, when it comes to Free Speech their motto seems to be Free Speech for Me but not for Thee. They don't believe in Free Speech. In fact the biggest threat to free speech comes from them.

The Left in America really are a bunch of Nazis.

[Steve]

The First Amendment was never meant to protect speech that gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

The Left claim that it does but at the same time they want to outlaw speech that disagree with them falsely calling such speech "Hate Speech".

How Orwellian is that!

[Steve]

jordan said

Politics stopped at the water's edge, unlike now.

I was against our involvement in the whole Bosnia-Serbia civil war conflict but I followed the water's edge rule.

The Left in America has now broken that very important and long standing principle, but I for one will not give it back to them when they get in power. They will not have the advantage of breaking the principles when its to their advantage but then appealing to those same principles when they are in power and its to their advantage.

[Steve]

I hate to say this but for the young people thinking about the military today, they need to think about the fact that in two years we will likely have a Leftist President (or I should say a President MORE Leftist than Bush). And who knows what that President will force them to do.

So, I would have to discourage young people from joining the military at this time.

[Arch]

Jordan & Steve

I could not agree with you more. Words matter. That is precisely why the Winter Soldier campaign John Kerry in 1971 was so important to the Swift Boat guys & POWs. It encouraged the North to continue that war. One POW said he thought it added 2 years to his captivity.

The time to debate the decision to take military action is when the President asks Congress to approve use of force.

[Retief]

There are plenty of know-nothings on the left and the right as some of the commenters here and at Pandagon, ably demonstrate. To be fair, we do have a much better group here than many a blog. If you want to see absolutely adamantine ignorance, go wade through Protein Wisdom for a bit.

Anyway, I wanted to make basically the same point that REA did. That is that

The politics of the matter then can be decisive, provided the Iraqis use the time we have bought for them to reach the essential accommodation. The Embassy and MNF-I continue to work on these issues at the highest levels but fundamentally, this is something that only Iraqis can resolve: our role is to provide an environment in which it becomes possible.

is not a lot different from "?". That is, somebody else has to figure it out. Is there any sign that Shia or Sunnis or Kurds are prepared to back down from their maximalist demands? Also as earlier noted, the Iraqs who have to make this peace with each other are the very groups we're arming to go after AQI. Col. Kilcullen can talk all he wants about also targeting Shia Extremists and Sunni Insurgents, but just because somebody joins the security forces and gets issued a nice new m16 doesn't mean he stops being Sunni or that he can't go back to being and insurgent next week. The US is spending lives to buy more time for this ? to happen. Col. Kilcullen makes a case that this particular effort to buy that time may eventually be more successful in reducing violence than previous ones, but how that time will be used is still a big ?. And it is a ? that is going to have to wait while the politicians all take two month vacations pretty soon.

[The WatchCat]

The great divide is really between people whose rational mind is dominant as compared to peoples whose emotional mind is dominant.

Soldier's Dad, that's a good comment. I would like to point out, however, that there is also a nurture element involved. I'm a certified "emotional mind" but through various factors became someone who generally relates as a rational thinker. (Yes, that combination has created an odd personality)

The problem is that neither side wants to develop the other side of the brain. Feelers don't want to be "cold" and rationals don't want to be "weak". And so both sides ultimately ignore factors that could help their ultimate objectives.

I have yet to meet a perfect person. So let's stop patting ourselves on the back, and instead begin a quest for improvement of both sides of the brain.

[jordan]

Again, there's no difference in the quote you boxed above and what everyone else is saying. We're holding back the hordes so the Iraq government can make the agreements and form the policies and solidify the institutions they need to be able to handle their security issues without the U.S., or at least minimal U.S. help. That's what we're saying, and that's what Kilcullen is saying, so if there's a point of disagreement there with previous comments, I don't see it.

Personally, my eagle eye is on the civilian side of the Iraq leadership. Today, the spotlight should be shined on them. The military operation is underway, things are moving along, violence has been reduced markedly in the areas where it has to be safer in order for the workings of government to take place. (Not to say they don't still get a bomb through.)

The questions the MSM should be asking are, who are the major civilian Iraqi players, what are their positions and deal-breakers, is there a bonafide effort on the part of major parties to hash out their often conflicting interests so governance can take place. They're not asking that. It's only this many dead, that many dead.

People are still stamping their feet demanding, "What's the plan? What's the plan?", but if all of the above, and other articles on SmallWarsJournal don't suffice as an explanation, unfortunately, we just have to shrug it off, and press ahead. (Or rather, our "boys" have to.)

[bthun]

Amen Jordan...

Great post and point (as usual) Grim.

And please, oh please, don't get me started with reducing to the least common denominator/deflating position statements such as for some of the major political party players in our nation. It could be ugly and I really do not want to expend the time or effort to restate the obvious.

[Cincinnati_Bob]

William,

Well you're obviously current or recent military just back from the sandbox and for that I admire you and thank you.

I don't see any venom in my post. I was being a little tongue in cheek and a lot reality. You didn't get all the answers correct but that's not really the point.

Imagine yourself a presidential candidate. You will have a Dick Morris or a Karl Rove working for you at the following task:

Determine the number of guaranteed Dem and Repub voters.
From this determine the number of un-decideds. Of the un-decideds, figure out which demographic they belong to.
Race, gender, hot buttons(abortion, illegals, gay marriage, etc etc) Figure out what your boss will need to say to collect as many of these votes as possible.

Now William goes out, trying to be honest to some extent but paying a whole lot of respect to these demographics, or you lose before you even start.

Do you have any idea the number of people hanging on one Paris Hilton story to the next? Walk into Wal-Mart and realize 'These people vote".

You got people calling radio station talk shows and actually saying "We need to get these conservative talk shows off the radio or else we'll end up like Nazi Germany"

I know generalizations. Well, I can't make this a college level thesis, it would be too long for anyone to read.

In short, pay no attention to what any of the candidates talk about because it's all BS. Again, what I refer to as the seduction of the idiots. I suspect you're not an idiot, just too young to come to realize/accept that this is how it is. Young folks are too geeked up on fixing the world if you will, and the only visible thing you got to latch onto is what these dudes talk about in debates. The leader of the free world is an important position if you want the world fixed.

To me, worthless. In fact, I have yet to vote FOR womone. I voted against the idiot Gore and I voted against the coward, liar, idiot Kerry.
I suspect in 08, I will vote against someone again, because I don't particularly adore any of the red team candidates, and I wouldn't vote for a democrat if you held a gun to my head. they are Socialists. Show me where socialism works anywhere and I'll re-consider.
It is simple isn't it? Show me where socialism works somewhere.

As an aside, if I were inclined to give Democrats a chance, I'd be very cautious. The people voted in a democratic congress for several reasons, some of them the red teams own fault, and some of them because of the promises of the Dems and what they would accomplish in the first 100 hours. They didn't accomplish ANY of it, nor will they, and that would surely sour me to voting for any of them again. Given the choice of incompetence and tax cuts, or incompetence and tax increases(dems of course) I'll take the tax cuts.

The def has a 3 Trillion per year budget. The states tax the heck out their citizens, and take care of their own more or less, so what does the fed do with 2 trillion bucks?! (The DOD has a one trillion budget that I'm quite happy to support)

Well, you have a good start on things and a pretty good read in general, and I wish you all the best, and hope you come to realize just how much of a BS situation the federal government is sooner rather than later.
It is getting late in the game, and maybe too late to have any hope of avoiding the USA going to communism.

[Cincinnati_Bob]

Bob,
Yes, it is my name. Your reply has brought me enlightenment and your existence makes a fundamental contribution to the aforementioned trees! On their behalf and my own, thanks for the reply.
And Bob, take it easy on the mice, they might be running the show after all...

______________________________________

William, I didn't reply, it was the troll who posted in my name as the post you refer to. My reply is just above this one.

[Rob]

In my view, the propaganda war was lost when the government let the media refer to our enemy in Iraq as 'insurgents' rather than as terrorists. Several things followed from this: it became easier for the left to blame all the deaths and violence in Iraq on the US (the insurgents are rebelling against the 'occupiers'). This would be much harder to do if it was presented as if we were there doing our best to prevent terrorist attacks. How odd to blame all the deaths and violence in a war on one side. Think of WW2: Imagine if the Allies had been considered responsible for all the violence and death that occurred in that war; we don't say the Allies caused the deaths of 6 million Jews, it was the Germans, but that is what is happening now; the US is blamed for the actions of the 'insurgents'; and therefore, since the US is responsible for all the violence, the 'insurgents' cause must be just, like, as Michael Moore said, as if they were the Revolutionary Minutemen. Language matters.

[Steve]

I kind of feel like these soldiers are dying for a country and the ideals of a country that doesn't exist anymore, or will soon not exist anymore.

[William Hazen]

Now this dialouge is more like it...A few things to note... The material regarding COIN has been availible and used for over a Thousand years (indeed Alexander the Great was an early adherent of COIN). Centcom operations plans (which included such "small details" as occupying and controlling the country post invasion) were thrown out by Rummy a Princton Graduate and Bush a Yale Gradute in favor of "Shock and Awe" and considering the true state of the Iraqi Armed Forces at the time of the invasion Shock and Awe bordered on Farce. Not because of our Military didn't win but because anybody knows an essentail part of invading any country by force is OCCUPYING IT... Wars are also fought by Nations not just Armies. So...Bush only has himself to blame for lying to the public about the nature of the threat, and failing to engage the Nation's total support. But why should he... That would have involved a debate and giving a platform to too many smart folks with opposing viewpoints regarding the nature of the "smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" (LOL). There also would a have been no war without total control of all the Media Memes (folks seem to have forgotton the complete manipulation of such Liberal Media outlets like the NY Times where Cheney had the guile to leak a story to Judith Miller and then go on a talk show the next day and quote the same "story" to make his position more "credible"). Having fucked themselves and us for the last 5 years with phrases like "The Iraq War will pay for itself." "Dead enders" "Last Throes of the Insurgency" The appointment of Junior General Officers to Command Postions who were politically loyal over War Fighters and on and on and on...All of a sudden they now want our help. LOL In a very basic sense what they're now asking of us is the time to unfuck themseleves, salvage their political legacies, and leave this mess for someone else to cleanup.

So you folks do well when you discuss the Miltary Arts and thier effectivness... However the fact of the matter is Why should the Nation...Spend trillions of more dollars...thousands of more lives... and perhaps ten years to allow Bush to show his face on a talk show after he leaves office ala Frost and Nixon???

I can hear it now...It will be worse if we leave blah blah blah...and that my friends is just Hubris...Either the Iraqis do it for themsleves (and as it has been reported they already are fighting Al Qwacky types) or they don't...

The best you can hope for even if we stay 50 years is a Shia Religeous State and a nervous NATO ally like Turkey ready to pull the trigger on Iraqi Kurdistan.

We are in World War III speaking of World Wars and unless we come up with some radically pragamtic diplomatic solutions and engage the nation in cleaning up the mess the Ivy League Graduates have made. You have not seen it bad...YET

William Hazen

[William Hazen]

My Apologies for the poor spelling and grammer in my last post. I am a busy man. LOL :)

William Hazen

[Nathan]

World War III = The COLD WAR Against World Communism.

By my count this is World War IV man.

[douglas]

Just a simple summary re: the political solution vs. military solution issue:
Both are necessary, neither are sufficient. Nutshell.

[Laika's Last Woof]

"I too know honorable, thinking pacifists ..."
Honorable, perhaps, but I've never met a thinking pacifist. Pacifists open their argument with an appeal to reason over violence, but once you start making rational arguments for war the pacifist invariably falls back on emotional appeals and spirituality.
Some will cling to the premise that pacifism is always rational by warping the facts of the scenario to fit the assumption in the same way "creation science" begins with the premise of divine creation.
The spiritual appeal is the more honest. Pacifists can't be trusted to make a rational decision, and those who openly admit that their beliefs are spiritual in nature acknowledge that.
Since 98% of the world's population believes in some kind of god the pacifist doesn't automatically lose the argument -- but the pacifist appeal to reason is at best self-delusion and at worst pure conceit.