An Education in Military Science

Posted By Grim

And now that we've finished being nice to people for a little while, let me take a moment for other business.

Strikingly, the big "sweep" against al-Qaeda failed for the exact same reasons that this technique always fails, both in previous iterations in Iraq, and also in other counterinsurgency situations around the world and throughout history.

Emphasis added.  So writes Mr. Yglesias, declaring current operations a failure on account of their not capturing the whole of AQI leadership.  His commenters joyfully pile on: 

The aspect of Operation Ripper I find most disturbing is our failure to learn.

This demonstrates a complete failure to grasp the authorship of a new COIN manual; the change of command in Iraq and of overall military operations; the ascent of officers such as Generals Petraeus and Mattis, or Australian Col. David Kilcullen (who spoke to us here); or the reasons behind any of these things.  It simply ignores everything that has actually happened since last January, in preference for a preferred narrative:  the Surge failed before it began; it is failing now; it must fail in the future.

I realize that Mr. Yglesias is hampered by a Harvard education; that is a disadvantage for anyone.  Harvard was once a great institution for learning, the greatest in America; but that time has long gone.  It no longer educates the complete man, and yet its reputation is such that its alumni believe themselves to be educated to the highest degree.  They do not grasp that their institution has failed them.

In fairness to them, then, a course in counterinsurgency.  Consider it a remedial course for those who consider themselves overeducated, though they have failed to learn the basics of military science.

Two main articles will serve as an introduction: 

A Strategy for the Long War

The Gravity Well

The first of these is the most important for the current claim, i.e., that AQI fleeing battle is the mark of US failure.  (Indeed, to phrase it in plain terms makes it clear how odd a claim it is.)  We just finished talking about this.

AQ leadership normally does flee the battle. This is just what happened in 2004 in Fallujah. However, breaking their strongholds is important precisely because of what it does to their overall strategy, which is to set themselves up as 'the strong horse' versus America. Because they flee, and their strongholds are destroyed, they lose face -- the one thing they cannot afford to lose.

I discussed the question in "A Strategy for the Long War":

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/01/a_strategy_for_.html

"Now consider the example of Fallujah, where this played out in a larger arena. In Fallujah, the enemy convinced a hostile population that it could lead them to victory. As a consequence, the people of Fallujah gave themselves over to the leadership of Islamists, trained with them, and believed them when they said that the Marine Corps would be buried there.

"This, too, was an illusion. When the Marines and US Cavalry came, the terrorist leadership fled. The people of Fallujah who had chosen to believe the myth were left to fight alone, and fight they did -- hard, and according to the Fallujah veterans I've talked to, with a deep determination. In the end, however, they did not survive. Between the second battle of Fallujah and Iraq's elections, terrorist attacks fell forty percent. The elections came off almost without a hitch even there, in what had been the heart of enemy country.

"This was an occasion when our actions unmade the enemy's information strategy. There still remained Sunni insurgents -- their local problems remained in need of a solution -- but al Qaeda in Iraq's fall from popularity began there. Sunni tribes have increasingly turned against al Qaeda and Islamism, as Bill Roggio has journaled.

"Defeating the enemy requires breaking its myths. But its myths can be made anywhere, in any village, in any house. We can break their hold on Fallujah, and when they become rooted in a place, we must break their hold on it."

If we do that consistently, there will come a time when no one anywhere listens to their myths.

It would be impossible to prevent the escape, by any route, of AQI leadership elements from an impending battle.  Running from the US military is what they do; and an urban environment permits an endless number of opportunities for such flight.  What is important is breaking their myths.

Fallujah is the model for this.  We have just finished the RCT-6 email project.  RCT-6 is based in Fallujah, where the 2004 battle mirroring the current fights was undertaken.  Here is what its commander, Col. Simcock, said about the current fighting:

As I told you, we've been here now for about six months. As we progress further, we're using less and less artillery, less and less combined air support, weapon systems, combined arms-type activity less and less; our armored assets have been pulled out of Fallujah. Engagements, if you will -- the enemy that we're fighting here, there is nothing on the ground here that a Marine rifle squad can't quickly take care of. If they stand up and fight us, they're going to lose and they're going to love very, very quickly. Their chosen tactics right now are the improvised explosive devices that they plant on the roadways. Other tactics that we're seeing are suicide vests that they'll use, and a lot of these -- and also, I know you're very familiar with the vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, but those tactics we're seeing more and more aimed at the Iraqi security forces vice the coalition forces. That's for, I think, for a couple reasons.

One, the success that the Iraqi security forces are having. The terrorists, the enemy that we're fighting here, they see that the tide is changing, that the support of the Iraqi people are coming over to the coalition force side, and the enemy are trying to use murder intimidation tactics and it's just not working against them. They won't -- the people of Iraq are standing up and they're fighting the terrorists, and it's good to see.

If we see the same success in the Baghdad belts from the current operation that we've seen in Fallujah, is that "failure"?  Or is that victory?

Neither, in fact.  It is a monumental step forward, but it is not sufficient for victory.  For that, Iraq must be established as a stable state based on democratic principles, with a firm and locally acceptable rule of law. 

It's an Iraq where sectarian violence is not the ruling factor of the day, and the religious community backs a society founded on peaceful coexistence.  As soon as DefendAmerica.mil has the transcript up, I'll have a conversation to post with MNF-I's command chaplain, on the recent religious congress in Iraq, which united to condemn al Qaeda and extremist violence.  It happened to finish up on the morning of the latest Samarra bombing. 

The clerics were together to call Iraqi media, and get out in front in calling for their followers to avoid violence and revenge.  Hear about that on the news?  Well, you'll hear it here.

Who put that conference together?  The United States of America's Department of Defense.  Who asked for it?  The Iraqi clerics themselves -- they sought out our chaplains, respecting them as fellow holy men.  DOD hasn't learned anything about dealing with the local culture?  They've learned enough to engage them, and put up the cash for a congress of this sort, complete with the security needed to get the leading religious figures together in Iraq.

The new COIN policy is a humane, honorable, fighting policy meant to crush the worst elements of violence in the world today.  It is opposed by forces who use as their means suicide, the intentional murder of children and the weak, and the attempt to destroy rather than rebuild the institutions of civilization.

It would be hard to sketch a clearer conflict between virtue and viciousness. 

It is a conflict that we are going to win.  I said we would win in the Sunni Triangle back in 2004, and we are winning there for exactly the reasons I told you we would be.

Our current foe is not the Ba'athists, but the Islamists. For all the worrying about the things we do that might turn the populace against us, it is rarely remembered that the enemy can turn the populace against it too.

There is cause to think that it is doing so.

Consider this: the Sunni Triangle, as mentioned, is largely tribal in culture. People who grew up there are strongly attached to the tribal system, which to them seems as natural and morally right as the sun rising in the east and the moon waxing and waning. The enemy of the tribe is your enemy -- and it is not our side that is wrecking the tribal strength.

An anti-war piece by paleoconservative site Lewrockwell illustrates this:

Last spring, the Marines made a deal with the Baath Party in Fallujah: Keep the place quiet and we?ll let you run it while keeping our hands off it. As has so often been the case in the history of war, it was the right move, too late. Throughout Iraq, the balance had already swung away from the Baath and any other forces that might have been able to re-create an Iraqi state, to non-state, Fourth Generation elements. The experiment in Fallujah was worth trying ? the only other option was destroying the city in order to save it, as we recently did in Najaf ? but the Baath was by then already a fading force. Of its Fallujah Brigade, the [New York] Times writes:

The Fallujah Brigade is in tatters now, reduced to sharing tented checkpoints on roads into the city with the [Islamic] militants, its headquarters in Fallujah abandoned, like the buildings assigned to the national guard. Men assigned to the brigade, and to the two guard battalions, have mostly fled, Iraqis in Fallujah say, taking their families with them, and handing their weapons to the militants.

Instead of the Baath, what we now face in Fallujah is a genuinely dangerous opponent. Its idol is not Saddam, but Allah. The Times reports that:

The militants? principal power center is a mosque in Fallujah led by an Iraqi cleric, Abdullah al-Janabi, who has instituted a Taliban-like rule in the city?with an Islamic militant group, Unity and Holy War [Tahwid and Jihad -- Zarqawi's group -Grim], that American intelligence? [has linked] to al Qaeda?

By invading Iraq, the United States in effect took Fallujah and much of the rest of Anbar Province from Saddam and gave it to Osama bin Laden... From the standpoint of our forces in Iraq, the main problem the third stage in the war there presents is that we have no one to talk to, no one to make deals with. As we saw in Fallujah in April, it was possible to make a deal with the Baath ? a deal the Baath genuinely wanted to carry out, though it proved unable to do so.

We all remember how the Taliban was scorned by the average Afghan -- how men rushed to shave their beards, women to go forth into the sun. We remember how many of the men impressed into service with the Taliban surrendered at first chance to the National Alliance, who embraced them like brothers and then summarily killed the "foreign fighters" who were there.

It is the guerrillas in Iraq who are undoing the tribal structure, scorning the traditional authority, and bringing chaotic change to the Sunni Triangle. The US military has negotiated with tribal leaders, not only in Fallujah but constantly. Had the assualt on Fallujah been completed, we would have emplaced tribal leaders over a town secure enough for them to control, instead of one that still contained a large enemy force. We would not have occupied it ourselves, any more than we have occupied Najaf.

The scorning of the tribes is an offense to the natural order in the minds of many Iraqis. Some will join, heart and mind, with the guerrillas -- they will accept that the tribal order was wrong and deserved to be overturned, in favor of Allah's divine sha'riah. Most will not, though while the guerrillas are present in numbers and with guns, they will be silent. Even the Afghans, a well-armed and fiercely independent people, did not toss out the Taliban, though they were very glad to see the back of them. The guerrillas in the Sunni Triangle, likewise, are their own worst argument.

That is another way of saying: American arrogance, for all we hear about it, does not match the arrogance of the guerrillas. We overthrew a national government that enjoyed some broad support in the Sunni triangle, but we did not try to overthrow the tribes. The insurgents are doing just that, turning the order of daily life upside down. 

Today, as Sunni tribes line up to fight AQI with us, we find ourselves fulfilling that vision.  Victory in Anbar was predictable in 2004, though even last year some said it was impossible.

I'll tell you we're going to win this whole thing, too, for the same reasons.  The only danger, the only danger, is that we pull away from the fight before it's over.  Unless we choose to lose, we will win.

Comments

[Matthew Picklke]

Yglesias with his uber alma mater demonstrates the total lack of critical thinking taught in todays centers of learning. Killing more of the enemy always translates to success. Over thinking will bring the wrong answer every time in warfare.

[Lucky]

Aww, Mr. Yglesias is just pissed because he couldn't get into MIT like the other smart people, because, and I have this on good authority from a sibling who goes to MIT, friends don't let friends go to Harvard!

[Grim]

Well, my BAs are from Georgia State University, which seems wholly honorable to me. Of course, they still let ROTC on the campus at Georgia State.

[Ymarsakar]

I realize that Mr. Yglesias is hampered by a Harvard education; that is a disadvantage for anyone.

Remembering Grim's piece on Cindy Sheehan, I have come to realize that it must take quite a bit to get Grim to offload on you in a negative or personal manner.

I'm glad you wrote this post, Grim, because it gives me a chance to post this video from Bookwormroom.

It's a personal testimony by a KGB defector, pro-American, detailing Soviet techniques for brainwashing potential future generations of useful idiots inside the West during the Cold War.

Harvard indeed. These Russians, like Sergey at Neo-Neocon, are funny as hell and sometimes unintentionally even because of their way with English.

This (the Soviets) is one reason, although not the only one, for the lack of critical thinking on the Left.

Soviet projects

Territory is often gained and then lost, or vice a versa, in war. In this case, the territory is less the physical space than the mental compartments of the Iraqi. The closer terrorists are to an Iraqi, the more territory the enemy dominates and controls. Al Anbar had been in the grip of terrorists for awhile, as well as Baathist remnants looking to fight the American occupation, occupying what they saw as their own territory, tribal or not. But there is a purely mental or psychological facet as well, which Grim termed as myth. Might as well use that. The belief that America can be defeated must be... defeated. In one way or another. Our enemies must be made to realize that they need to make a deal, because they cannot win through force of arms. And if AQ can't be convinced of that, then certainly their allies might be. Divide and conquer.

From what I see, the people of Al Anbar are stubborn and full of pride, even to the extent of attemping to fight Al Qaeda alone without asking for Ameri help. Perhaps because asking for Ameri help would imply that the tribes had made a mistake to fight the Americans and join AQ, something that is hard for any Arab to do. Admit mistakes, not join AQ.

To a certain extent, AL Qaeda introduced the necessary stimuli that forced a resolution of this pride, resistance, and alliance against the US forces. It is true that Bush didn't want to introduce the stimuli himself, but that factor became a mooot point when the AQ guys decided to pull out all the failsafes. They used up their reserve, and they didn't win.

I can't remember which year it was exactly, but there were reports of the fracturing of the Al Anbar AQ alliance for back more than, what, 2 years? I think it was after Fallujah, since that would have been one of the high marks to cause Al Anbar pride to realize that it was false. That they were serving false masters, and their friends weren't really their friends. I didn't realize the dynamic at the time of course.

Concerning battles, it is the only reliable way to determine the true loyalty of anybody in Iraq. The Iraqis need it to gauge our abilities, and we need it to gauge their abilities, and the AQ boyos need it because they want to go to jihad land. Regardless of who you kill or what not, the strength of belief that fighting puts in the mind of people concerning the reliability of your loyalty to them, is the real important object here. No alliance can be made without trust, not an efficient alliance that is. I cannot explain why, perhaps because of the freedom issues, but I felt rather disappointed that OIF was not going to use any indigenous forces during the invasion. Neither Kurdish, Shia, or anyone else for that matter. I knew from Afghanistan that using local support was workable, not a pipe dream cooked up that would be unrealistic and get people killed for nothing. I still believed in it when they said that they were going to train up local Iraqi forces.

Except, of course, I hadn't found out the differences between what I believed to be right and what the leaders in charge of things for Iraq believed were the right thing to do. Not the same, it seemed.

A very good lesson on military science, Grim, current and past.

It is funny in a sense. Karl von Clausewitz put his ideas into a book with a preface by his wife, from which then passed on through the centuries. This is compared to Harvard, which is an institute, an old institute even. Institutes and systems may be changed and always depend upon the current crop of leadership at anyone one time. Their standards rise and fall, they vary while Clausewitz remains the same, throughout time.

[Richard1]

Gen.: Fallujah clear of insurgents by August

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/06/ap_fallujah_070621/

[materialist]

When I was at MIT, Harvard was accurately recognized as "the first red brick oouthouse on the right as you enter the USA." Now I wonder if the part of that phrase that might be objected to is "enter the USA".

[MrSparkle]

Good article. I am wondering though how well the induction of liberal democracy fits with their tribal system?

Can you get Shia and Sunni into a peaceable relationship?

[Lurker of sorts]

History if reviewed properly may teach some lessons if you are willing to learn.

How to Win in Iraq—and How to Lose

Read the article, it provides backup and analysis of what was posted above and should be required reading by many. 

[Grim]

MrSparkle: I think you can get the tribes to resolve their disputes politically -- eventually. In the meanwhile, what is more likely to be useful is separation, a process that the Iraqis have been sorting out for themselves in Baghdad. Our efforts to assist them in this, by creating what David Kilcullen calls "gated communities," seems to be paying off. In the Kilcullen interview above, he estimated that 5-8,000 fewer civilians had been killed in Baghdad than would have been without that policy in place. In the "Rule of Law" interview linked above, General Phillips confirmed that it seems to be something that the Iraqis in Baghdad are comfortable with, and that it's improving their sense of security.

If you can lower the temperature of sectarian violence, it becomes easier to submit disputes to political solutions instead of violent ones. We know that Sunni Iraqis and Shi'ite Iraqis can live together peacefully -- for example, in Anbar, they do. Gen. Mattis reported that, as of last December, there was no sectarian violence in the corner of Anbar that has a large Shi'ite population:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/12/24/perspective/17_55_4312_23_06.txt

So, yes, it is possible. What you probably can't do in this generation is to get them to think of themselves as loyal to the new government first, and the tribe/faction second. That isn't necessary, however. It will be success enough if you can get them to stop using violence as their primary means of resolving factional disputes.

Ymar:

"Remembering Grim's piece on Cindy Sheehan, I have come to realize that it must take quite a bit to get Grim to offload on you in a negative or personal manner."

That wasn't a personal attack. That was an attack against Harvard as an institution. If it's a disadvantage for "anyone," it's nothing personal. :)

[douglas]

Damn, you're good Grim.
Sparkle:"Can you get Shia and Sunni into a peaceable relationship?"
Sure. They've had their problems over the course of their history, but they've had a great deal of interaction and periods of relative harmony also. There is a fairly substantial amount of intermarrying between the groups, as well, in Iraq. If they get a stable system and develop commerce and financial relationships as well, then it's pretty well a done deal. If you have two groups invested in a system that supports both, they're both incentivized to protect that system.

[arch]

Matthew Yglesias supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (his senior year at Harvard). Today, he favors the democrat position - running away to do political damage to the Bush Administration. Never has Matthew set foot in the Middle East or served in the military, yet he is considered an expert on the Iraq War.

General David Petraeus graduated from West Point, served 33 years as a US Army officer, wrote the book on COIN and earned a PhD in International Relations from Princeton.

If we were looking for sound advice on military operations in Iraq, I doubt if Mr. Yglesias' phone would be ringing.

[twolaneflash]

Yeah Grim, Go Cougars! GSU Class of 1975! I loved the 5 a.m. ROTC formations on the streets of Atlanta!

Harvard and Yale defined the upper limits of their educational institutions by competing for fourth grade educated terrorists to show how liberal they are. Like other inbred situations, the later generations of Harvard, Yale, et.al. have accumulated fatal recessive genes. Idiocy institutionalized, legacy retards (see Kennedy, Theodore), multicultural madness, pseudo-superior arrogance have made these schools have all the respect and admiration the average American has for comic book advertised art school.

I do love to see the elitists, puffed up with hubris, suffer the loss of the source of their false pride, e.g., the loss of reputation by their alma mater. The days when an "Ivy League" education was golden are long over; these "intellectual alchemists" have turned gold into lead.

And as for failure in Fallujah, only son, who is there, writes via AIM, "brb, firemission."

[Ymarsakar]

If it's a disadvantage for "anyone," it's nothing personal. :)

Indeed, Grim, just as indirect fire is nothing personal heh

[Ymarsakar]

Matthew Yglesias supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (his senior year at Harvard). Today, he favors the democrat position - running away to do political damage to the Bush Administration.

Primarily because Harvard didn't teach psychological defense techniques against enemy propaganda. And of course, Yglesias himself doesn't have the strength of will to learn for himself, what others won't teach him. The tech/info is there and available for anyone to learn of war, the art of war, military science, propaganda, or psychology. They just have to have a desire, a will; a spirit.

There's a lot of Freudian defense mechanisms that the Left uses now a days. They can't deal with the Islamic Jihad and they can't defeat the IJ, so they find somebody else that they can beat upon with fewer risks. Like Bush. They don't want to admit their helplessness, incompetency, and rather gross inflation of themselves through a superiority complex, so they have to project some of their problems unto BUsh by calling Bush incompetent and clueless.

They displace their problems with the Islamic Jihad unto Bush, and they project their own internal worries and cluelessness on other hapless folks. It is why so many former people on the Left, such as Neo, have told these stories about being turned on by their former friends. The Left does not have enough strength to recognize the dark pits in their own soul and deal with it in a constructive fashion, meaning without tearing down the psyche of other people to supplement your own weakness and fears.

Because of the psychology of the Left, they are notably vulnerable to the IJ Psychological Warfare techniques used, such as hostage taking and claims of American atrocities and such.

Even such things as behavioral modification is feasible with the media, through providing them exclusives to dictators, terrorists, and also taking journalists hostage. You can get the media to do what you want them to do by applying classical behavioral conditioning, otherwise known as the Klingon Painstick and the Chocolate Sunday. (AKA carrots and sticks)

I don't read Yglesias's stuff so I cannot provide a more detailed analysis of his motivations and behavior, but certainly the general trends of Leftist thinking may be applied to him. And that seems to be enough for most things.

[Ben]

If we had sensible Rules of Engagement we would be winning this war.

[Scott]

Here is an interesting perspective on the conflict.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2271236184435736407

[Grim]

Well, the point isn't that "the Left" or "the Right" is better/worse. The point is, if you're going to comment on the war -- which any American has a right to do -- you ought to take some time to understand it. Our military takes great pains to be available; it publishes the COIN manual so anyone can see it; it embeds reporters and allows a great deal of its scholarship to be in the clear.

Several people who know what they're talking about have always been opposed to the war -- Gen. Zinni, for example. He's always said he thought this wasn't the best use of our resources, and that it wasn't worth the sacrifices we have to put forward to win it.

(In fairness, he says the same thing about every war we've fought in his lifetime. Go here:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=anthony_zinni

...and scroll down to "worth the fight.")

Nevertheless, the guy was a great commander, a Marine who understood how to fight and -- once his nation had embarked upon a war -- could fight as well as anyone. His opposition is honest and honorable, and though we often disagree, I always consider his opinions.

What's getting on my nerves is all the people who haven't troubled to learn the first thing about war, how it's fought or its history, but feel inclined to run down military experts day after day.

[jordan]

Good point, Grim. Just a little study and research in the area will make clear the history and depth of this topic, and make anyone realize how little they know.

For the anti-warriors, a good place to start would be Small Wars Journal.com. There, the political atmospherics are cut away, and you have competing essays on the nuts and bolts of COIN by the practitioners themselves. They may be experts, but they approach the subject with humility and a realization of the enormous weight and complexity of the Iraq war.

Some Ivy Leaguers are capable of understanding these nuts and bolts, while dispensing with the hot button political phrases. Above Abizaid (Harvard), Petraeus (Princeton) are noted. Numerous other younger officers are contributing to that body of knowledge. They're as scholarly as they are physically courageous, and their judgements are informed by reality and experience. Without it, you get useless debate that goes nowhere, like the one you linked to.

In one of the early books on the war, a reporter said one soldier he was covering tried unsuccessfully to coverup his Ivy League past, fearing the disdain of his men. When his secret was exposed, his platoon's "social teasing" was merciless. It could be yet another issue for "Don't ask, don't tell.'

[Grim]

Well said, Jordan. "If you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart," even a Harvard education can be overcome. :)

[Ymarsakar]

you ought to take some time to understand it.

They cannot understand what they will not face, Grim. And that is an element of internal strength, without it, it really does matter which side is better at promoting internal balance and spiritual strength. Every individual is variable, but if your environment is totalitarian enough, then it does not matter what individual choices you wish to make, for you have not the freedom to make that choice (such as both the Left and the Islamic Jihad).

Why would they seek to understand something that demonstrates their ultimate decay?

Identity politics after all links a person's mental self-image with the survival of their politics. Every charge or flaw becomes a life or death issue for them, a matter of kill or be killed. There's not much flexibility there. Their minds are closed because it is like a border, it is designed to repel invasions of the Other, threats to the self. Ironically, they utilize some of the same methods as you described, Grim, in that they have a defender's mindset yet they use offensive weapons as well in their Fortress mentality.

The fundamental problem seems to be, how can a person understand his opponents and other people, when he cannot even understand himself?

[Jim]

In 1960 the American people elected JFK president. The first thing he did was hire Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense. He was the architect of the Vietnam war. He also graduated from Harvard. Harvard has gotten a lot of Americans killed. My advise is not to listen to Harvard grads about warfighting.

[Tom W.]

Every time we kill or capture a terrorist leader in Iraq, what do the media and all the rinky-dink pundits and analysts say?

"Big deal. It won't make a difference."

But now they say the "surge" is a failure because all those unimportant terrorist leaders supposedly got away.

Oh, the crusading journalists! Thundering away with their probing questions, ferreting out the lies, protecting the little guy, exposing the failures, fighting for you and me, their voices shaking with righteous outrage...

They all suck. They're demented jackasses who've lost sight of the fact that the people we're fighting--not our own troops--are the bad guys.

How bad are the bad guys? Well, the Taliban just tried to use a six-year-old as a suicide bomber. Luckily the kid asked the Brits to save him, which they did.

But using a toddler as a suicide bomber doesn't compare to the unspeakable atrocity of having a woman with an IQ of 67 point at your genitals and put panties on your head.

Go media! You do us all proud, you do.

[jordan]

How low will they go to ensure defeat? NYT includes the Haditha incident in a listing of "Murders" including mainly domestic homicides.

The most amusing media needle, however, comes from Iraqslogger, which may or may not be MSM. They tease apart an internal Marine Corps response to questions from Time mag's Tim McGirk (put out there by NYT Week in Review).

It shows, they say, "a contempt for the press and general defensiveness on the part of four 2nd Marine Div commanders. In the opinion of Iraqslogger, the Marines' responses were "cynical."

Ya don't say! Our boys, cynical about the media? What in the world made them feel that way? Of course they're cynical -- they're awake.

Oh well, it got under their skin, so chalk it up as a victory, and press ahead. ; )

[michael ledeen]

great work. i linked to it from my remarks: http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/

[Cincinnati_Bob]

Sure seems like everyone who posted on this one makes a whole lotta sense.

It used to be that you wouldn't be subjected to so much stupidity. Stupid people would simply stay out of the fray. But it's not that way today. The stupid people seem obsessed with having not only having a say but a controlling interest.

It seems to me people are conditioned to the idea that there will always be formal voice(s) around to 'help them along the way'. Directing them. First is parents. Next are school teachers, then college professors if they go to college. Then there is a vacuum. The vacuum is filled by the News Media for many people. I think most people would say that they believe that the News Media not only gives them only accurate information (with the occasional screwup, not their fault) but ALL the information they need to conduct themselves through life as it relates to national and personal affairs et al.

Consider most of the news presenters probably got through college with a communications degree if that. Isn't that the joke of degrees? Millions of people being educated now by folks who barely got through college.

Anyway, can stupid people win? Given the fall of Rome, it would seem so. Though words and concepts like apathy, belief in invulnerability, obsession with greed and lust, the shunning of hard work are certainly elements, it still really boils down to stupidity.

The greatest nations threatened by 7th century barbarians. There's got to be a lot of stupidity in there.

[Ymarsakar]

I just in general people think the US is always the greater threat to world peace and their pocketbooks, bar nothing.

I mean check out Malkin's recent Iranian crackdown post.

Link

Notice Rosie's Geico Caveman reject style of typing? She doesn't seem any quicker in reality, btw.

But anyways, the Iranians can kill millions and slaughter a half a million here or there, and it is still trumped by Pinochet in Chile or the Shah of Iran. It was the same back in Vietnam. So long as the US isn't involved, it is not that important anymore.

They are kind of tunnel visioned on the US, a sort of obsessive compulsive thing.

[Kirk]

Why does Fallujah still exist?

It should have been blown off the map a long time ago.

Long Range weapons is the way to bring more of our troops home!

I am not against the war, but I am against needlessly putting our troops in harms way. Often troops need to be sent in harms way to fulfill a mission, but every mission should be designed to minimize the risk to our troops while fulfilling the mission.

We don't need to be losing Americans at the rate we are losing them. We have the technology. Let's stop letting our troops be shooting ducks and instead put some real firepower into the situation.

[Grim]

Kirk:

Another man I disagree with, but who has earned the right to his opinion, is General "Tony" McPeak. He advocated that exact course in the run up to the Iraq war; he later served as John Kerry's advisor on military matters in the 2004 elections. I thought then, and think now, that he's wrong to advocate that approach, except as a last resort.

See here:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/03/foreign_policy__1.html

..and here:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/07/on_limits.html

One caveat: Warfighting, and particularly COIN, requires a certain internal consensus. If we get to the point that our social contract has worn so thin that we can fight no other way, then we will fight that way. I think, however, that would be a mark of weakness rather than strength. I'm proud of our military for the seriousness with which it takes its duty to noncombatants. I think that's part of what makes America a great and moral nation.

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

Personally, I think it's about time to wrap this thing up, or bag it and tag it as the saying goes.
See, the way I figure it, if one is going to draw the enemy out of hiding, you need a great big jar of honey buried right next to the ant's nest, (you can try it at home) and you'll get a jar full of ants including the queen every time.

Ok, so here's the opps translation (short version):

Let's say the Prez. decides to give "cut and run" a chance for about 30 days (pulling out en mass w/ every bit of gear to Kuwait....(make it look like a permanent move).

Now I'll put odds on the result....Iran and Al quaida declare victory, Mookti al shiitehead decides to have a civil war party, Iran openly pours massive convoys of arms and munitions into Iraq to overthrow the Malaki gov.

But....and this is the kicker.....All this not only proves the folly of the "Pelosi Doctrine" but totally exposes for all the world , the agenda of those we are fighting today, and those who support them.

Then.....Thunder run (version 2) comences.

All that Iranian hardware up in smoke (as well as the government as it is not a limited opp into Iraq, but a full scale assault on the house of terror ( Iran).

Gee, what do you bet every freekin jihadi decides to go to Iran to fight us...?

Except we won't be there...our airforce and navy have simply convinced them boots on the ground in Iran is next, while in reality we roll right on back into Iraq to complete the mission.

( note: this being the "short version" with a lot of detail left out , feel free to opine on the hypothetical.....)

Nice job Grim.

My best to Blackfive and Co.

EJ

[Matt M]

"We don't need to be losing Americans at the rate we are losing them."

Kirk,

The casualty rates for US soldiers in this war are among the lowest, if not THE lowest in our entire history. Why? Many reasons, but one of them you cited -- technology.

And take the "20,000+ wounded" figures thrown around by the lame street media with a large grain of salt. About 60% of them return to duty w/in 72 hours.

[Kirk]

I hate Clinton.

But I have to give the Devil his due on one thing.

Regardless of the reasons he attacked Serbia, he sure knew how to fight that war.

[Kirk]

Grim said:

If we get to the point that our social contract has worn so thin that we can fight no other way, then we will fight that way.

In less than two years this will be Hillary Rodham Clinton's military, so yeah, I think we have gotten to that point.

[Kirk]

Grim,

Our social contract has been worn thin since the 1960s. Where have you been all this time? How have you totally missed the Culture War?

[Kirk]

Grim also said,

I'm proud of our military for the seriousness with which it takes its duty to noncombatants.

It has no duty to noncombatants.

And whatever duty you think it has should be considered far, far, far, after consideration for the mission and consideration for minimizing the risk to our soldiers within the requirements of the mission.

War is hell. You can not refine it. There are too many out there who think it can be refined but when you try to it is ultimately counterproductive because it prolongs the war and and the suffering for all involved.

Forgive me for quoting a Star Trek episode here, but I believe Abraham Lincoln explained it best to Captain Kirk, in the episode "Savage Curtain".

http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/78savagecurtaintrans.htm

http://chakoteya.net/StarTrek/77.htm

[Lincoln] One matter further, gentlemen.
We fight on their level.
With trickery, brutality, finality.
We match their evil.
I know, James. I was reputed to be a gentle man.
But I was commander in chief...
during the four bloodiest years of my country's history.
I gave orders that sent...
a hundred thousand men to their death...
at the hands of their brothers.
[ Sighs ]
There is no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy.
There is nothing good in war except its ending.
[ Sighs ]
And you are fighting for the lives of your crew.

[Grim]

You're the second person who has quoted that episode of Star Trek to me, in an attempt to prove something about the nature of war. Art can be a valid way to explore concepts and feelings, but it is finally not the same thing as reality; and Star Trek, in particular, is... well, Star Trek.

"[The military] has no duty to noncombatants."

That is simply untrue. It has formal, legal duties that are encoded in the Geneva Conventions, the UCMJ, and its various legal publications. It has, also, ethical duties that are taught in military professional ethics education courses, for example at West Point.

We could withdraw from the Conventions and change the UCMJ; but unless we do so, the legally binding duties remain. The ethical issues lie at the foundation of our military's culture and its best traditions. I would not gladly cast them aside.

[Ymarsakar]

War is hell. You can not refine it.

Total War philosophy requires a couple of caveats when applied to Counter-insurgency. For one thing, Iraq is a limited war and an insurgency. Total War only really applies to... total wars; meaning wars to the knife backed up by the full logistical support of a nation and its people, until Final Victory or Unconditional Surrender bar nothing. President Bush has decided on a limited war, and the definition of total war itself prevents you from calling a war a total war when there are people who aren't willing to go all out. Everyone has to for it really, and even if Bush was for, the Left wouldn't be, and that would be half war, not total.

In our day and age Total War means that you use everything in your conventional arsenal. Nukes, torpedoes, subs, navy, air bombs, GPS bombs, etc. Everything, against ALL of your enemies, not just some. And it has to be sustained, people just can't do a Fallujah 1 and say "time OUUUUTT". No.

But since they can, it is obviously not a total war, far from it. It is true that you cannot refine total war down to something uhh less total, because total war once engaged, must be won quickly or else humanity might be wiped from existence; at least given the weapons we have now a days. Limited wars have far greater freedom of movement, because ultimate victory is not as critical an aspect as in total war. There are still consequences for losing, but it is not the same as unconditional surrender in a total war.

Limited Wars are best won get acquiring local support. And to that extent, you don't want to start a terror campaign on the locals unless you are willing to go all out. If you destroy Fallujah, then next time a city rebels or a town fights against the US, you must nuke that city/village. And the next time after that, you must use two nukes, and the next time after that, you must again increase the level of punishment. This has two reasons. One, terror only works if you go all out and if you are able to ramp up the strength of the stimulus. People become immune to psychological surprise and fear if they feel it for a long time, they become tolerant to it, so you must raise the dosage. AQ tried that, but couldn't make it due to US intervention and just the nature of Iraq.

Destroying Fallujah completely would indeed send a message and acquire you short term gains, but there isn't much long term gains to it. It only convinces people of what they already know, which is that the US has the power to blow up a city, but they still will believe that we won't use it often or at all because of the media pressure and the Left. In order to defeat this perception by the people we need to craft alliances with in Iraq, requires Total War and dedication. But we don't got Total War or total dedication, so it is just not going to work. It won't with Bush because... Bush ain't going to nuke anybody, and without nukes as psychological weapons, you can't do the level the ground to ash strat and have it work.

I think the Russian example is a good lesson to learn from. They sent a few conscript battalions or whatever into Chechnyan held territory, and what they got back was... not what they sent in. Assuming they got back anything at all of the conscripts that is. So what the Russians did, because everytime they went to do CQB combat they got their ass F**(ed, is that they would use massive on time artillery barrages on Chechnyan territory, cities, and what not.

This was not an example of strength, however, but of weakness. And the Chechnyan propagandists would obviously have taken such material and explained to the Chechnyan population that Russia uses artillery shells because they are afraid to come fight us one on one. Thus the Chechnyan morale is not broken, regardless of the damage the Russians did to their infrastructure. As with Hamas in Palestine, we already know that terrorism and insurgency can function in a network of support and logistics, even if the countryside is a wreck and has ZERO infrastructure. Blowing the crack out of people and their homes won't do anything productive in the long term by itself.

Unless you can actually send boots in to claim the fracken ground, it doesn't matter how many artillery barrages or nuclear launches you fire. Fallujah and the success of the Marine Corps forever (at least in this century mebe) the myth that Americans would be eaten up alive in CQB MOUT environments. Not even the Left is talking about how Americans would disappear into the Black Hole of Baghdad/Fallujah or any other major urban city. That myth has been shattered, and it might indeed have contributed to the eventual Al Anbar split from AQ to our side.

I of course did and still do favor nuclear launches combined with psychological warfare techniques, but I recognize its limitations as well as its benefits. I also favor Deception, similar to what Eric described. Deception in war is making your enemy do stupid things, and then capitalizing upon it. Stupid things are defined as "whatever we have planned for and any event we know will definitely occur". In classic Sun Tzu terms, we make our strengths appear like a weakness, invite the enemy into attacking our "weak spot" and then surround the enemy attacking force, thereby achieving a decisive victory. Decisive victories are worth a lot more than regular victories. This is very in asymmetrical warfare, because the enemy is always attacking our weak spots and avoiding our strong points (running away from heavier firepower). If you are able to thus mask your weak spots, and make them appear strong, while painting up your strong points as weak, then you can basically cause your enemy to fall down to their own doom.

Q-Ships designed to fight piracy, also another good example of deception in warfare and asymmetrical warfare as well.

Deception is always nice because you can continue to use it. This is contrasted with nuclear weapons and conventional weapons, which have a very long reload time, the limitations placed upon the use of nukes and bombs are.... far more than the limitations placed upon deception or boots on the ground.

In a sense, there is more friction, to use Grim's descriptions, when using our more powerful and effective weapons on targets.

To support what Grim said concerning the military morale strength, I will try to forward a different argument why it makes the military strong. Americans don't like to take the easy road. General Lee for example could have just sided with the Union and fought against slavery, which he wanted to end, but no he had to go down the hard path. But of course, we all know that in adversity we develop our true strengths, so that is also why America is the strongest and most powerful nation in the history of the world. Americans love challenges, they love to work hard, and through adversity they have gained true strength. What has not killed America, truly has made her stronger.

This means of course, if you are afraid to go into Fallujah because you fear losing America lives and fear the additional stress that urban combat will have on your soldiers, you can oh so easily step back and artillery the place instead; like the Russians did. But that easy road will provide you no internal growth of power or skill. Because the Marine Corps went into Fallujah and took the casualties that they did, they have become the world's premier CQB and urban combat force. There is no other military force, either alone or combined with 10s of their allies, that could defeat the Marines in urban combat now; whether you include conventional armies or unconventional forces. That is the worth of the power acquired through adversity, hard training, and doing what is right precisely because it is not easy. And with additional cities being taken, this has enlarged to include the Army as well.

Evil is easy, evil is about the easiest thing in the universe. Strapping a suicide vest on a six year old, and telling the six year old to kill for you? Easy.

Protecting six year olds from Taliban, AL Qaeda, and Baathists? Hard.

Doing the hard thing is what makes America so special, amongst the lazy easy going Europeans and the inshallah Ayrabs. Russians think of themselves as hard, but they lack a certain hardening agent in their forging of the steel. They lack the power of the individual Marine rifleman, the ethics, the core strength that forges the true katana.

[Grim]

That said, what is lawful within those limits is hell enough. You may wish to read the following:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/08/on_the_virtues_.html

It is my least favorite thing I've ever written, though it gave rise to a profitable discussion with a host of people. It's an important topic, but it is not something to which the mind often wishes to return.

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

Ahem..excuse me Captain Kirk, but are you an advocate for the "Nuk'em all and let Allah sort 'em out." - counterinsurgency strategy think tank???

Just curious.

EJ

[Ymarsakar]

and Star Trek, in particular, is... well, Star Trek.

Don't even get me started on Star Trek, Grim. Folks haven't seen "long" until they've seen my posts on Star Trek and their Prime Directive.

[Kirk]

Star Trek might just be Star Trek, but they were paraphrasing what people like General Sherman had said.

Perhaps it would be a good episode to watch.

And yeah, Eric I am suggesting a "Nuk'em all and let Allah sort 'em out" policy. Well, not exactly. Of course I am not saying to use nuclear weapons (conventional is enough). And I am not saying to go after civilians. If you can make reasonable accommodations without increasing the risk to our troops or decreasing the chance of the mission's success, do so. But if you can't then well that is just the nature of war. Innocents die. And of course many of the so called non-combatants aren't what we would call innocent.

Grim, compare Iraq to Serbia. I hate to give Clinton any credit and I didn't really think we should have gone to war in Serbia, but once we did we kicked butt and didn't even let the Chinese embassy stand in the way. Obviously Clinton knew how to fight wars better than Bush does, though we can never forgive Clinton for not capturing bin Laden, even when he had many chances to do so.

[Kirk]

Fallujah - give civilians seven hours to leave, and then flatten it! Make sure that not one structure is left standing.

[Kirk]

If you destroy Fallujah, then next time a city rebels or a town fights against the US, you must nuke that city/village. And the next time after that, you must use two nukes, and the next time after that, you must again increase the level of punishment. This has two reasons. One, terror only works if you go all out and if you are able to ramp up the strength of the stimulus.

And the problem with this is? What?

This plan works for me (except the nuke part as we have got some very powerful non nuclear weapons that we can use).

[Kirk]

I am actually all in favor of the Prime Directive, but I don't think it applied to civilizations that posed a threat to the Federation.

[Grim]

It's been many years since I watched an episode of Star Trek, but wasn't there some other directive about nuking all the cities on a planet?

Again, interesting art; fine way to play with concepts. Still and all, here we are. (And Sherman wasn't dealing with a counterinsurgency -- I've had this particular discussion half a dozen times here. He was destroying the industrial and agricultural base for a formal army. Once that was done, an insurgency sprang up that required entirely different tactics to defeat. This was primarily done by President Grant's use of Federal Marshals and the rule of law, plus economic engagement to buy off the elites in the South in favor of the new order. In other words, Grant did what Petraeus and Kilcullen are trying to do right now in Iraq.)

[Kirk]

Grim said:

We could withdraw from the Conventions and change the UCMJ

And that is exactly what we should do. The Geneva Conventions never have been followed by any of our enemies (hell WE didn't even follow the conventions of war during our War of Independence). Following the Geneva Conventions just gets more of our soldiers killed by giving the enemy an advantage. Clinton broke the conventions of war by bombing Serbian radio stations.

Also the UCMJ needs to be changed to reflect the realities of war.

War is Hell. You can not refine it. This basic truth among all others need to be taught to and understood by our military leaders. Trying to Refine War just prolongs it which makes it worse for all involved.

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

--- William Tecumseh Sherman

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

"Unless you can actually send boots in to claim the fracken ground, it doesn't matter how many artillery barrages or nuclear launches you fire." -Ymarsakar

In a traditional military conflict your statement would be accurate, and backed up by historical precedent.

Spec opps in Afghanistan coordinating w/ Northern Alliance was not exactly a traditional app of that premise.

In fact, this whole war on terror is setting precedent for future military strategy for generations to come.

So it begs the question of who's boots ?

Well I guess someone upstairs decided it would be a pretty nifty idea to put boots on the locals so they could have a whack at the terrorists and dead-enders of their former governments.

And if that is a sound premise (which it appears to be, considering the results) then it may also be considered a good probability that leveling the playing field ( if not litterally leveling the government infrastructure of Iran) may cause the population of Iran to sieze the moment, put some boots on, and put the boot to the mullahs w/ a little help from their friends.

I woulds take Grim's correct statement regarding civilian populations a step further by saying that as policy, place the war on terrorism in its proper place, not in the streets of those we have liberated, but on the home turf of our enemy.

As long as the leading sponsor of terrorism exists as safe haven next door to the fledgling democracies we've helped establish over the last 5 years, no amount of troops, no amount of diplomacy, and no amount of money spent in nation building will change the dynamics of the instability created by those who want, and have been engaged in war with the US over several decades.

When this nation decides it's time to deal with the problem at its root, then I'll feel a whole lot more confident we won't have to use nukes sometime in the not so distant future as a result of monkeyboy Amenidijad's miscalculated agenda.

A "rehash" you opined? Well get used to it. I'll be saying it until it folks get real about winning this , or until my girlfriend's wearing a burka and my head's in a basket.

best,

EJ

[Grim]

Sherman again? I'm from Georgia, and I'll tell you this: Sherman did a fine job of 'ending the war' in terms of shutting down the Confederate state. The insurgency, and the killing, went on for quite a bit longer than 1865. His tactics were of no use whatsoever in addressing them.

We've already won the war against Saddam's state. What we are trying to do now is to actually end the war. Grant won his part of the war against the Confederate Army; but it was as President that he actually ended the war.

It's Reconstruction you should be studying, Kirk, not Sherman. That phase of the fighting has been over for four years.

[Nathan]

Grim, and how long did it take to remove the Southern insurgency?

Let's see the war ended in 1865 and you can't say the insurgency was really defeated until the 1950s or 1960s.

So, about one hundred years.

Is that how long it is going to take in Iraq?

Sorry, we don't have that long. As things stand today it seems like the American Left is going to take control over our military in about 2 years. We have probably 12 months to do something to change the situation around or it is over.

[Grim]

I'd say the insurgency as such was ended in the 1870s. I've also said how I think it was ended. There is no evidence that a continual war was waged by the South on anyone for a hundred years; the fact that some cultural resentment and different mores continued to exist is not the same as a state of war, or an insurgency.

As for "the Left" taking over the military, ah, that seems to be getting well ahead of the facts. There's an election to be had yet; and a debate as well. For that matter, the Left may actually nominate someone who will be responsible if he does win -- for example Bill Richardson, though he has opposed the war on Iraq, doesn't seem like a bad guy to me. I don't think he would drive the ship of state up on the rocks.

One thing at a time, man. :)

[kirk]

The new COIN policy is a humane, honorable, fighting policy

There is no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy.

War IS NOT HUMANE. But sometimes, like I believe is true in this case, it's NECCESSARY.

And when it is then you must fight on their level.
With trickery, brutality, finality. You must match their evil.

It worries me when anyone associated with our military talk about having Humane fighting policies. Again, War is not Humane. It is cruelty. And in a way, it is good that it is or we might grow to fond of it (to paraphrase a quote by Gen. Robert E. Lee).

If a war is necessary then it is necessary to do whatever it takes to win it. If it isn't worth doing whatever it takes to win it then obviously it must have not been necessary and therefore shouldn't have been fought.

In war, there is no substitute for victory.

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

The point Kirk, is how a war is won after major combat opps are wrapped up.
It is a curious fact that America has a long record of turning former enemies into solid partners for peace, and allies in future conflict.

Ponder the reasons why.

EJ

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

"For that matter, the Left may actually nominate someone who will be responsible if he does win -- for example Bill Richardson, though he has opposed the war on Iraq, doesn't seem like a bad guy to me. I don't think he would drive the ship of state up on the rocks."
-Grim

No Freekin' comment...:)

[Ymarsakar]

So it begs the question of who's boots ?

Anyone that is loyal to you, and you can't get loyalty without having your own forces there, SpecOps or not.

Cutting off the supplies of a guerrila insurgency is always one of the mortal hammers blows to get an insurgency to die on the vein. Without foreign support, no insurgency may continue their operations with any kind of success, not against the forces arrayed against them. The same seems to apply to terrorists as well.

Hitting the supplies in conventional warfare, was more or less used by forces that could not win a 1v1 field battle against a more numerous and powerful enemy. Yet the same strategy works just as well against an insurgency itself, because the insurgency is just like a more numerous and powerful force. Meaning, it is a force that you cannot engage in a decisive battle with. Should not in the case of facing more numerous and powerful forces, cannot in cases of an insurgency due to the people running away. If you cannot win through a decisive smashing of armies, then a little bit of indirect action is called for.

In this case, even unconventional war is subject to military science. Making guerrila warfare and terrorist insurgencies far less dangerous than they are often portrayed as. It is indeed the Gordian Knot, which you cut by striking off the hand that feeds the violence in Iraq.

It is another argument against total destruction of Fallujahs in the here and now. Meaning, there's no point striking at the Sunnis who are trying to ally with us. Strike at a target that will actually help your war effort.

Again, War is not Humane. It is cruelty.

Sherman himself recognized that to be kind, you must be cruel. To have peace, you must have war and destructive war at that. The more destructive the war and the methods used, the faster peace arrives and the more permanent the peace sustains.

Why don't you understand the dichotomy and the paradoxical relationship between war and peace, cruelty and kindness, Kirk?

[Kirk]

I understand that in war you have to be cruel to be kind.

That is why I am all in favor of turning up the fire power instead of allowing our troops to be shooting ducks.

And we need to stop with these stupid Rules of Engagement. They are getting our troops killed!

[bluliner10]

Wow, some interesting commentary here. Kirk, you need to put down the remote control, put the "uniform" away, cancel your reservations to the next convention, and take the comic books out of plastic...you wish to seriously compare an episode of Star Trek to the real world? Do you really think that we could move a city of 300,000 out in 7 hours? What purpose would there be in levelling the home of the small business owner who sells soda, beer, books and smokes to the average Iraqi? How 'bout the temporary stand that sells plastic sandals, what purpose is served by destroying his home, his marketplace and his livelihood?

I am for a massive application of force, significantly raising the steel to air ratio, makes it quite difficult for the average person to survive. I don't believe that a mosque deserves any special consideration as we would respect a church, but a church used the way mosques are deserves no protection as a place of sanctuary. Marines and soldiers should not be held to tightly restricted procedures from entering a place...any place from which an attack occured or was used to recruit a new "jihadist".

But punitive destruction without cause is no way to "win" the fight. And your suggestion to level Fallujah after nearly 2 and a half years of relative calm there is a ridiculous suggestion. Fallujah, despite the occasional setback is a model of success. I spent multiple days in that town, never once was attacked, no IED's, and was shot at exactly once. Most of the people were happy we were there, unless we interfered with the normal ebb and flow of life.

There is a lot to Iraq that does not follow the script. You have a beaten people who have either a vested interest in maintaining their old status quo, a group who wish to right old wrongs, a tribal mentality that extends generations well into the past, outside organizations funding money, providing people and continuing to spread hate and fear amongst the people. Now add a new element, the US and our allies, with concepts very foreign to the very people we attempt to help, and it becomes a challenge, albeit a bloody challenge to find the single simple solution.

Iraq is different for other reasons too...If the other terror groups had access to the weapons the Iraqi's had, the terror would be more mortifying in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Philippines, Thailand, etc...but they don't have thousands of documented and thousands more undocumented Ammo Supply Points. Iraq was an armed camp, with big rounds laying all over the place. People know where they can pick up big rounds, 155's, 130's, 120's, which do tremendous damage. They are artillery rounds and designed to do that. You lash two 155mm rounds together and it will blow up an uparmored HMMWV. Another problem was the completely madhouse introduction of technology following the fall of Saddam. The bomb makers are having a field day with designing new triggers and mechanisms. You also have a large unemployed populace of young males who will gladly take one or two months salary to dig holes and plant these IED's. When we would talk to the bomb planters, invariably it was economic motivation rather than malice which led them to the act. But the flipside, there isn't enough security to really bring forth the microeconomics to provide worthwhile occupation and pay to these same people. Fallujah is a bustling town because it is secure. The people are more likely to tipoff insurgents because there is more safety for them for the average citizen, no late night visits from the headchoppers. Other towns where the insurgents can spread fear...Diyala, Baquba, these are problem towns that will get cleared, then secured, then let some rebuilding and trust grow.

The last piece to this is the local security and military. They have a long way to go. It is easy to train the average trigger puller. But, it takes nearly 15 years to train a competent Battalion Commander and 8-13 years to build competent Staff Officers (and that is just a Battalion), imagine trying to do the same with a Brigade or a Division or a Corps. But these intelligent folks fail to realize the work it actually requires to move the US War Machine, the mental rigor of guys like me to put together the most complete intelligence to present the commander, and the other cats and dogs, who arrange transportation of equipment, maintenance, food, fuel, communications, administrative support, medical/dental, blah, blah, blah. This is what is hard about training a military or more appropriately, creating one from scratch...not telling the Iraqi Joe, lay suppressive fire for 1st squad, that is easy, how does Iraqi Joe get more bullets...that is hard.

So Kirk, your charge is to think. The world is more complex than what was finished in one hour weekly for 13 weeks. It is not 24, that is feel-good TV. It is the slow and delicate process of life, day by stinking day accomplished by men and women much better than you, and thankfully, a lot more imaginative and smarter than you...and that Harvard dork also...Semper Fi

[douglas]

Kirk, you quote Sherman- "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

Problem is, even Sherman's 'Total war' wasn't. He focused on destroying MATERIAL, not troops especially, and particularly not civilians. Burn farms, destroy rail lines, fine- resources for the war effort. Destroy civilians out of hand? He didn't. I think Grim posted on this before, you should look that one up.

Fight hard, don't 'handcuff' the troops, but make some effort to minimize civilian effect. It's paying off now in Anbar, where because we treated the population better than the AQI guys did, they're now switching to our side. Proof of concept, as far as I'm concerned.

[Ymarsakar]

And the problem with this is? What?

The problem with this is that you aren't willing to go all out. You put a cap, a limitation, on nuclear weapons. That makes your "Total War" based upon cruelty, into a limited war with limited use of weapons.

How can you put a cap on nukes if you say that whatever is necessary in war should be done? How do you know that nukes won't be necessary if you level Fallujah? You don't. And that's the point.

I am actually all in favor of the Prime Directive, but I don't think it applied to civilizations that posed a threat to the Federation.

That's cause the Prime Directive applied to developing planets that hadn't achieved warp drive yet. Hard for a civilization to threaten an interstellar federation when they are stuck on one planet.

It's been many years since I watched an episode of Star Trek, but wasn't there some other directive about nuking all the cities on a planet?

Genocide ban, Proxima something Protocols, equivalent to the Geneva Conventions. But I tend to think Kirk's primary position is sourced from Sherman's position, approximately.

Sherman's words by themselves do not really give the full flavor of his meaning, not it is cropped like that.

I recommend people actually read Sherman's letter to Atlanta in full.

Link

Piecemeal repetitions of cliche phrases does not do the man justice.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.

While true that Sherman was fighting a regular war, the way he did it was really a war on the will and psyche of the civilians themselves, making it a sort of pseudo COIN. You can see some of it from his words, his appeal to the people. It might as well be a carbon copy of the appeal to Al Anbar. Situations are different (or maybe not), but the appeal is the same. Sherman benefited from one thing that we did not, which is that France and Britain did not start actively funding the South, not after their defeat at Gettsyburg. If the South had acquired foreign support and lots of it from Europe... things might have been different for the insurgency, Grim.

[Ymarsakar]

That is why I am all in favor of turning up the fire power instead of allowing our troops to be shooting ducks.

Your sentiment is admirable, Kirk, but the way you do it is incomplete. If you want to turn on the firepower, I suggest you look towards Syria and Iran as targets, not Fallujah.

[Kirk]

Grim:

Do you think that Clinton was better at fighting a war (Serbia) than Bush is (Iraq)?

Believe me I hate to admit that, but I do have to give the devil his due on just this one point.

On everything else he almost destroyed America.

[bluliner10]

The Serbs left Kosovo with more than 90% of their equipment and personnel. No, that was not more effective that what we have accomplished in Iraq. If Milosovich had not upset some of his own countrymen, he would still be in power today. It wasn't the 76 day exercise in Air Force "precision munitions", that defeated Serbia...Semper Fi

[Kirk]

Ymarsakar if it took the use of Nuclear Weapons on Iraq to win then I would support the use of nuclear weapons on Iraq. I think we have developed non-nuclear weapons that can create a sufficient amount of damage, but IF it took the use of Nuclear Weapons to win I would be all for it.

For there is no substitute for victory. If the cost of defeat isn't so dire to make it unthinkable then we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place. I for one believe defeat will have devastating long term consequences on America so that is why I support doing WHATEVER it takes, Damn Rules of Engagement, Damn Geneva Conventions, in order to win.

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

I'm not so sure loyalty is as big a factor as common cause is where winning hearts and minds is concerned in denying an insurgency the benefit of the local civilian population's support. Without that support, even an insugency stoked to the max from outside will fail.

I generally agree with you about the "boots" thing, but covert opps is not the same as what is generally taken by the phrase "boots on the ground" to mean "an occupying, or invading army" by most of us civvies.

Mil definition would be I think..anyone in harm's way, including (by state Dept. definition) a single diplomat.

So being a civilian, my comment must be taken in context to that perspective.

Regards,

EJ

[Rich Casebolt]

Here's one metric for you, Kirk:

It took longer, from America's initiation of hostilities, to capture Milosovec ... than it did to capture Saddam and kill his sons.

Mr. Clinton was also fighting a nation whose people still had a viable voice in its affairs ... and could counter an authoritarian -- not totalitarian -- ruler whose malevolence had very little potential of becoming malignant and spreading beyond Serbia's borders.

As a result, Mr. Clinton could limit our involvement to an air war only, and still ... eventually, mind you ... see a measure of success from our efforts there.

In other words, compared to our present undertaking ... Mr. Clinton had it easy. Had Milosovec shared Saddam's stubbornness, duplicity, and meglomania, the actions Mr. Clintion authorized would have been inadequate to the task at hand.

BTW ... we still have troops there.

What we have undertook in Iraq, OTOH, is something that is unprecedented in both its nobility and its difficulty ... the transformation of a nation from totalitarian expansionism to rights-respecting governance, without grinding its people to powder first.

[Grim]

No, Kirk, I don't think Clinton did a better job; though it's hard to compare the two events, since they were totally different in scale and commitment.

I'll just say once more that I don't think your understanding of the nature of war is correct. War is not simply killing; and there are honorable, and dishonorable, ways to practice it. Setting off suicide bombs in civilian markets is a clear example of a dishonorable method of waging war. We do not, and should not, adopt such methods.

Moreover, the point of war is to achieve a set of aims. If those aims are best achieved not through cruelty but through other means, cruelty is counterproductive.

[ajacksonian]

The modern Left: working very hard to make JFK wrong and show that, indeed, victory can be an orphan....

[Kirk]

The nature of war is to kill people and break things.

The goal of war is to defeat the enemy and bring back as many of your people as possible.

War is Hell. That's something our military leaders don't understand.

[Grim]

Well, let's say that those who have fought our wars have a different understanding of its nature.

For example, USMC MCDP 1, "Warfighting," defines war somewhat differently than you do. You might want to read it -- it's a remarkably insightful document.

Indeed, everyone should read it. It's the best introduction to military science I know of.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/mcdp1.pdf

[Steve]

Here is how we won WWII.

It is part of an article by someone who saw our fighting in the Pacific first hand.

I post this not to condemn our brave soldiers but instead to show the true nature of war. It is brutal, cruel, and yeah Hell. But again reading such stuff as below makes me actually respect these men all the more for the stomach they had to do what needed to be done even though it was very unpleasant indeed.

This was published in the February 1946 issue of the Atlantic Monthly from war veteran and Atlantic Monthly correspondent, Edgar L. Jones.

What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter openers. We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an all-time record for instantaneous mass slaughter.

There are stuff that our war heroes usually don't talk about. But that is the nature of War. That is how you win in war. And isn't it interesting that we haven't really won a war since then. We need to understand, that morality is not a substitute for victory in war. No, in war you can't say it doesn't matter who wins or loses but what matters is how you play the game. No, it matters who wins. If defeat is an option, then obviously the war shouldn't have been fought in the first place. If defeat is an option then we should never have sent our troops into harms way to begin with. But if as I believe defeat will devastating consequences then we need to allow our troops to do whatever they feel is necessary to win the war and come back alive.

[Kirk]

War is a dirty business.

Thank God we had Men back then willing to get their hands dirty.

[Rich Casebolt]

Those of you promoting scorched earth as policy are missing another element that was present in those earlier wars, that is even more important.

That element was the RESOLVE to decisively replace the fruit of the enemy's will, with our own.

Wars are won when the losing side is convinced by the victor that They. Will. Not. Win. ... for you will never fully eliminate the losing side.

That RESOLVE has also been missing from our post-WWII conflicts -- we have consistently pulled up short and either left things to rot, or let the diplomats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory out of a misguided view of the value of war.

There are exceptions, of course ... Reagan vs. the USSR, where the war was won without firing a shot ... Desert Storm, until the media circus over the Highway of Death led us to pull up short and subsequently leaving the Marsh Arabs out to dry.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, we are attempting to implement the only way I know to deny the enemy the fruit of their will, without also denying the innocent their rights and/or keeping our forces on a war footing there in perpetuity ... the transformation of these nations into rights-respecting governments with the strength and structure that will prevent their future hijacking, from within or without.

The problem is, too many Americans don't think the threat demands such RESOLVE ... and/or they see ourselves as the threat, being steeped in the conventional wisdom of the last half of the 20th century that simplistically equates the amount of military and economic power a nation holds to its potential for evil, without regard to what kind of nation controls that power.

As a result, our enemy is getting a mixed message regarding our RESOLVE ...

... and that is making this war longer and harder than need be.

[arch]

Edgar L. Jones was another Ivy Leaguer (Dartmouth) who drove an Ambulance in North Africa. If Mr Jones witnesses these acts, he was duty bound to report them to his chain of command. I suspect this was a John Kerry style fabrication, designed to sell books or magazines.

As for Hiroshima & Nagasaki, judging from the battles for Iwo Jima and Okinawa where we took 8,300 and 12,500 killed, the decision to nuke Japan was understandable. Estimates of our casualties ranged from 200,000 to 1,500,000 KIA. I know Eric Jette will not agree on this point, but those two nukes may have also saved Japanese lives. On Iwo Jima, only 200 of the 23,000 Japanese soldiers survived. On Okinawa, they lost 66,000 soldiers and 140,000 civilians.

On the four main islands, Curt LeMay was dropping M36E2 bomb thermite bomblets on cities made of wood and paper. (His target planner was Robert McNamara.) Had we invaded and conducted a ground campaign, the Japanese civilians would have died in the tens of millions.

[Grim]

No one has clean hands to begin with. That is why these matters are so important.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009008.php

Our Marines in Iraq have done majestically, and are the equals at least of their WWII brethren. They have more combat experience, per man, than any Marines in history. Their primary AO, Anbar, has been the hottest location for the insurgency -- and is today the place to which we point as an example of how the war can be won.

Don't underestimate their methods. They are wiser, and better, than you know.

[Kirk]

Rich Casebolt said:

What we have undertook in Iraq, OTOH, is something that is unprecedented in both its nobility and its difficulty ... the transformation of a nation from totalitarian expansionism to rights-respecting governance, without grinding its people to powder first.

But isn't this nobility the fatal flaw in Bush's whole Iraq strategy? It's idealistic to the point of being naive.

Wouldn't we be much better off setting up a puppet government in Iraq under an authoritarian ruler?

Geopolitics is a rough place. It's street rules out there. Policy CAN NOT be driven by idealism.

That is the danger that the Neo-Cons represent to America. They put idealism ahead of sound geopolitical strategy.

[Kirk]

We need to get off our moral high horse and Get the Job Done.

And we have less than a year to do it in.

[Kirk]

The decision to drop the Atomic Bombs was easy.

The question should have been would it have saved even one American life by doing so.

And the answer, especially after what we saw at Iwo Jima and Okinawa was of course. It would save many, many American lives who would otherwise have died in an attack on the Japanese homeland.

So, the decision to drop the bombs were a no brainer. It would have been immoral for Truman to do otherwise for if he hadn't he would have been condemning American soldiers to needlessly dying. When there is an option that saves more American lives, that option should be taken over the one that would cost more American lives. That should be quite obvious. After all, as much as we honor our war dead, as we should because they gave the ultimate sacrifice to our country, still no one has ever won a war for dying for his country. Wars are won by making the other side die for theirs.

[arch]

I just posted this comment on Matthew Yglesais' blog:

If you want the current, unvarnished news, look at Mike Yon's blog.

Also, read or listen to Austin Bay's recent interview of Dr. KilCullen, General Petraeus' COIN expert.

Unlike Harvardista Matthew Yglesias, these guys know what they are talking about.

Counter-Insurgency operations are all about earning public acceptance and local support. Insurgets (terrorists) live in areas where they can hide, plan, train, prepare and conduct operations. Local support for these operations may be voluntary or forced by Al Qaeda.

The local people fear Al Qaeda because they are heavily armed and they punish those who refuse them. Typically, they move into a Sunni neighborhood and knock on the residents' doors. "Have your sons between 20 and 30 report to this address tonight at 8 o'clock." If your kid does not show, a team invades your house at midnight and kills everyone there.

Any resident who is suspected of cooperating with the MNF is killed. Fear is their most effective weapon, hence the term "terrorist." The locals know where Al Qaeda cells are, where they build their bombs and where the IEDs are planted, but they are afraid to tell us.

The current operation is brilliantly designed to deny the terrorist use of fear.

First, we sweep through occupied areas and chase off the terrorists. Al Qaeda, on the way out of town, tells the locals that they will be back when we leave and they will kill anyone who cooperates with us. We then put teams of Iraqi and MNF troops into neighborhoods.

The act of stationing American soldiers and Marines in a town to protect the locals is a powerful message. We all share the risk of defense. Iraqis manning these posts are locals who have the trust of their community (or tribe). Life begins to return to normal. Kids play in the streets; people pick up litter and reopen their little shops. We become the good guys.

Should Al Qaeda return, the locals call the post's tip line and the Iraqi-MNF troops engage them with minimum force necessary and we, together with the locals, prevail. The terrorist threat of retribution rings hollow. They are all dead.

Rent The Magnificent Seven. Give Chris [Yul Brynner] Apache and Cobra gun ship support. That's what Operation Ripper is doing.

[Kirk]

From the link that Grim provided

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009008.php

The moral problem of 'the clean hands' is that it is an illusion. It makes people believe they are better than they are, and therefore that others can also be better than they can be. It creates a class of people who feel clean, because they have never felt blood on their hands.

That is what I feel about our military leaders. They are a class of people who feel clean, and they all feel like they are so moral by making all these "Rules of War" and restrictive Rules of Engagement. The result though is immoral as it prolongs the conflict and gets more of our soldiers killed.

By the way, you might want to look into the philosophy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

I believe he addressed the moral problem of the 'clean hands' when he stated "To escape sin may be the ultimate guilt."

[arch]

Kirk:

How would you know how or why wars are won? What do you know about sacrifice? How many wars have you fought?

Most of us know about these things.

As an infantry platoon leader, my father landed on Omaha Beach, was wounded in the hedgerow fighting, wounded again in Aachen on day one of the Ardennes Offensive and killed two days before his unit took the Luddendorff Bridge.

At DaNang, my BOQ was hit by a 122 MM rocket. Two days later, I was shot down by an SA2 over North Vietnam. Our F4E was on fire and lost all hydraulics, pitched up and slowed to 450 knots so we could survive ejection. In the 30 minutes between my water landing and the arrival of the bravest men on earth, the 33 ARRS Jolly Green Giants, the NVA lobbed mortars at us as we sat wounded our rafts.

I also spent 1981 in El Salvador where we drew $65 hostile fire pay every month.

Google that.

If I need information on Star Trek I'll ask you. Don't quote us Patton speeches.

Arch

[Kirk]

bluliner10 said:

You also have a large unemployed populace of young males who will gladly take one or two months salary to dig holes and plant these IED's. When we would talk to the bomb planters, invariably it was economic motivation rather than malice which led them to the act.

Perhaps the economic motivation would be less of a factor if after interrogating the bomb planters their heads are spiked on a stake and placed where they had planted the bomb.

Then perhaps it wouldn't be worth two months salary for them to plant the bombs.

[k]

Kirk: "Perhaps the economic motivation would be less of a factor if after interrogating the bomb planters their heads are spiked on a stake and placed where they had planted the bomb.

Then perhaps it wouldn't be worth two months salary for them to plant the bombs."

Holy crap! How old are you?

[labar]

The most amusing media needle, however, comes from Iraqslogger, which may or may not be MSM. They tease apart an internal Marine Corps response to questions from Time mag's Tim McGirk (put out there by NYT Week in Review).

Eason Jordan from CNN is behind the Iraqislogger site. So it's mindset is MSM.

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

"As for Hiroshima & Nagasaki, judging from the battles for Iwo Jima and Okinawa where we took 8,300 and 12,500 killed, the decision to nuke Japan was understandable. Estimates of our casualties ranged from 200,000 to 1,500,000 KIA. I know Eric Jette will not agree on this point, but those two nukes may have also saved Japanese lives. On Iwo Jima, only 200 of the 23,000 Japanese soldiers survived. On Okinawa, they lost 66,000 soldiers and 140,000 civilians."
-Arch

I would suggest you not presume what I will or will not agree with.

WW2 was significantly different than the war we are in now. Times are different, and we've learned a few critical lessons from history along the way.

The parameters that led to Truman's decision ( referenced above in part) to drop the bomb on Japan are non existant in the context of the war we fight today...period.

However, we have a situation with the government of Iran that may (if not properly addressed by the removal of that terrorist government) may , by their own hand, create the conditions in which a rather terrible example of failed diplomacy comes to pass.

Being that I firmly believe it is not in this nation's interest to be the only nation to have used them...and do so a second time, I hope the "powers that be" in government recognize the limited window of opportunity that now exists to deal with the leading state sponsor of terrorism in an effective and concrete manner, before it escalates to the point where out of self preservation, we simply have no other choice but to nuke them back into the stone age, knowing their intent to see our demise as a nation.

Simply put, once the mullahs have the bomb, all bets are off. For your kids and mine.

EJ

[Ymarsakar]

As a result, our enemy is getting a mixed message regarding our RESOLVE ...

... and that is making this war longer and harder than need be.

And the solution to that is not to use bombs or nukes to blow up some Shia insurgents or even terrorists. Killing more enemies is not going to make your internal domestic situation any more trainquil or united.

Those who seek Total War as a solution to our 21st century problems, should know first hand the limitations that first must be removed and unsealed. Those limitations are not what is placed upon American troops so much as the inherent limitations of democracy and the United States people. The way they think, limited by the media, by Ivy League schools, and Democrat propaganda and brainwashing techniques (Universities ACLU California anti-ROTC)

Total War is only possible from a united front, and if you don't have that united front, then complaining about ROE is not really going to change anything. You can make ROE better, but even right now still we have not solved the original problems that lead to stiff ROE.

The head on spikes is a good idea, but it has its own problems. For one thing, you will have problems sustaining it. I'm asking you to think beyond the tactical and strategic level, Kirk, and think on the logistics. How do you sustain what you are suggesting, Kirk? Who will be the one that puts heads on a spike? It won't be Bush. Can you even get Bush to order it? No. Grim his own list of stuff he wants implemented, but for Grim he actually has someone that will and is implementing his plan, some if not all parts of it; General Petraeus himself.

Every war must be fought with an eye towards the logistics. You cannot use air supremacy to move tank columns into a country, if your pilots suck and the enemy has better electronics than you. A good idea and a feasible idea aren't the same things, Kirk. In an optimum world, we could setup a system in which we punish the guilty and reward those that help the US produce prospeirty and peace. But this is not an ideal world, not even close. Problems will always come up, one way or another.

I believe he addressed the moral problem of the 'clean hands' when he stated "To escape sin may be the ultimate guilt."

The devil is in the details. You have to look at how you are actually going to do it, talking about the Grand Plan is not enough.

They are a class of people who feel clean, and they all feel like they are so moral by making all these "Rules of War" and restrictive Rules of Engagement. The result though is immoral as it prolongs the conflict and gets more of our soldiers killed.

neither Petraeus nor Grim should be accused by you of fearing to get their hands dirty. Including people like them in military high command.

If you want the moral purists,