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

[tw]

Originally Posted by queequeger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, the ingress of foreign fighters? Even that is mostly a myth created by the same incompetant American liars. America created the insurgency that is almost 100% homegrown. There are almost no Al Qaeda of foreign fighters. See Frontline's The Lost Year. Appreicate why America created an insurgency. Appreciate why Al Sadr with no army in 2003 is so powerful today.

The low troop numbers now still contribute: we don't have enough men to patrol the borders, fight the insurgency, AND protect the infrastructure, but it COULD BE DONE with enough manpower.

That is the classic and futile military solution. You are using the exact same lies that Westmoreland used in Nam. It completely confuses tactical victories with winning a war. Your post is another classic example of the same Vietnam lies that concluded with "I see light at the end of the tunnel". Even a poltical solution must begin before any military action.

[queequeger]

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

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

BTW, the ingress of foreign fighters? Even that is mostly a myth created by the same incompetant American liars. America created the insurgency that is almost 100% homegrown. There are almost no Al Qaeda of foreign fighters. See Frontline's The Lost Year. Appreicate why America created an insurgency. Appreciate why Al Sadr with no army in 2003 is so powerful today.

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

That is the classic and futile military solution. You are using the exact same lies that Westmoreland used in Nam. It completely confuses tactical victories with winning a war. Your post is another classic example of the same Vietnam lies that concluded with "I see light at the end of the tunnel". Even a poltical solution must begin before any military action.

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

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

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

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

[queequeger]

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

[Aliantha]

don't kill yourself worrying about it quee.

[Griff]

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

[yesman065]

:bites tongue:



Again

[tw]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Most of the things you stated were correct, i.e. mismanagement of the war from the start. I could go through and nit pick the few errors, but what you're saying is largely true. What I am saying is that there were not enough troops to secure the border, Rumsfeld sent out specific directives to not stop rioting because he needed the men to search for those fabled WMD, and also because of the WMD hunt our soldiers were not able to tie down the conventional weapons and protect the power grids.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One final point - from Griff

Try not to take tw's posting "voice" personally.

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

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

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

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

If they fail to grasp this opportunity in the next three months,
then massive civilian deaths in a Civil War probably will be
the only way to minimize their death and destruction.

not sure I understand this part at all.

Originally Posted by tw

The question I keep asking is "what is Sistani thinking?"

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

Illegals and crime

According to Rep. Steve King, illegal aliens commit 12 murders every day in the U.S. and kill another 13 daily through drunk driving incidents.

That's more than 9,000 people killed every year by illegal aliens.

As World Net Daily's Joseph Farah points out, that means more people are murdered by illegal aliens in one year than have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since their inception.

Rep. King also notes that on average eight children are sexually abused by illegal aliens every day -- that's over 2,920 annually. And that's just a small portion of the illegal alien crime wave.

+ + 4.1 million crimes by illegal aliens

As we reported in Grassfire's booklet, "The Truth About The Illegal Invasion," some 325,000 criminal illegal aliens will be incarcerated in state and federal prisons this fiscal year. A GAO study found that illegal aliens commit, on average, 12.6 criminal offenses. This means incarcerated illegal aliens have committed over 4.1 million crimes -- and that does not include illegal alien criminals who are not incarcerated. And we learned from Rep. Tom Tancredo that thousands of illegals are coming from terrorist and suspect nations.

+ + So, what do we do?

It is very clear that the President and the Democrat-controlled Congress are "chomping at the bit" to pass amnesty. The only way to stop this is to rally a massive grassroots uprising.


http://www.grassfire.org/42/petition.asp?RID=11667349