No words
ABC News highlights the two seemingly diametrically opposed lessons were drawn from US counterinsurgency experience in Anbar, in Iraq. The document despairs of winning the insurgent's "heart and mind" -- asserting that insurgents cannot be coerced -- claiming they can only killed or captured. But if one target was the physical destruction of the enemy's body the other target was the enemy ideology in and of itself.
Roadside and other bomb attacks "are not aimed at killing U.S. soldiers," ... Instead [it] ... asserts the insurgents conduct the attacks for propaganda. "They want those pictures to show up on TVs in America, and they use it to recruit on the Internet"
One security analyst I heard speak claimed that practically every insurgent operation in Iraq had a video camera unit attached, but until recently practically all Jihadi video was in Arabic. "Arabic is the language of the [Sunni Salafist] Jihad, and Jihadi videos were not even widely distributed in places like Indonesia or even Pakistan because they were in Arabic." But that has changed, he said, and now the videos were making their appearance in English, sometimes in American Internet forums, and that for the first time Jihadi propaganda was being produced in German. The connection with Germany was momentarily incomprehensible until the history of the 9/11 attackers came to mind. Et in arcadia ego sum. The overarching purpose of those videos was to demonstrate American mortality and the vulnerability of the West. To spread the word that it is fun and easy to hunt Americans. The American officer who had authored the counterinsurgency lessons learned in Anbar, Capt. Travis Patriquin, himself died in combat, but not before warning that the ideas which eventually killed him were leaping over borders into the wider world.
The virulence of this meme is suggested by the circumstance that, in order to charge it, an unending supply of snuff films was required. And the importance of the media, as a sphere of combat was illustrated by Patriquin's claim that the kinetic impact of insurgent operations themselves was itself subordinate to collecting the video of the operations. Lastly, the lethality of this meme is highlighted by the fact that those infected by it 'cannot be coerced -- only killed or captured". A movie producer, confronted by the essentials of this narrative might only be able to depict it in terms of an incurable plague whose progress can only be stopped by quarantine and extinguishment. It would need a science fiction-horror movie script to adequately describe the actual reality of virtual Jihad. The grist needed to feed this dark spirit comes from everywhere. Gaza, Chechnya, Palestine all provide their share of footage.
But coldly regarded the virtual Jihad poses a formidable challenge because it uses the very sinews of an open society as a vector to spread, in particular the media and the Internet. And while physical Jihadis can be effectively met by traditional arms -- including counterinsurgency -- the West is still casting about for a method to meet the dark spirit of the virtual Jihad with a puissant spirit of its own. Five hundred years ago, a simpler world accused to living in the diurnal cycles would have no trouble accepting the notion of a natural truggle between a Demon and some Angel with a Flaming Sword. But in a modern world that can neither conceive of Demons nor invoke the aid of Angels, what notation is left to describe that aspect of warfare which Captain Patriquin posthumously warned us against? In mathematical history, the solution to a problem often awaited the advent of a notation. The machinery to be able to process a problem. The success of military science against the physical Jihad is owed partially to the existence of vocabulary about how to think about kinetic warfare. But for fighting the virtual Jihad we have no words. No name for the threat it represents, not even a name for our enemies.
posted by wretchardthecat at 12/18/2006 02:32:00 AM
92 Comments:
The title of the article is "How To Beat Insurgents", and it discusses the new US Army Counterinsurgency manual, which was officially approved this month. (In the past I pointed a link to the draft version of this.)
Here's the link to the Army Manual:
Link
This is the section about the importance of winning the hearts and minds of the population (not of the insurgents):
Once the unit settles into the AO, its next task is to build trusted networks. This is the true meaning of the phrase “hearts and minds,” which comprises two separate components. “Hearts” means persuading people that their best interests are served by COIN success. “Minds” means convincing them that the force can protect them and that resisting it is pointless. Note that neither concerns whether people like Soldiers and Marines. Calculated self-interest, not emotion, is what counts. Over time, successful trusted networks grow like roots into the populace. They displace enemy networks, which forces enemies into the open, letting military forces seize the initiative and destroy the insurgents...
This is the true main effort; everything else is secondary. Actions that help build trusted networks support the COIN effort. Actions that undermine trust or disrupt these networks—even those that provide a short-term military advantage—help the enemy.
We can also beat insurgents at their own game: video records of their humiliating defeats!
Most of Iraq is already busy waging peace, so we're doing SOMETHING right, now more, faster and sustained, please!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
> I can only conclude that your extract was written by a Social Science undergraduate, full of love for humanity, even the one that wants to kill her.
That quote was from the US Army Counterinsurgency Manual. According to the manual and the ABC news article wretchard linked to, it was written by Lt. Col. John Nagl;
Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus, Commander, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center; and Lieutenant General James F. Amos, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and Integration.
No name for the threat it represents, not even a name for our enemies.
William Lind's 4GW, where the physical level is trumped by the moral. In this case, the propaganda surrounding an attacks is more important that the attack itself.
Not a new technique either, Hezbollah was doing the video camera at every single action routine in the 90's.
Perhaps it helps to ponder what exactly the "insurgents" have won, using these wonderful new tactics? Have they territory, riches, power? Over poor Shi'ite peasants? They only survive, and that barely. Finding innovative ways to kill and die does not sound like much of a life to me.
Life, robert, in the service of allah is not much of a life, either.
Better to die in Jihad and gain instant access to Paradise, guarenteed.
Islam, a state of having nothing, but a desire to share
"They only survive, and that barely."
They hide...they forever hide...like the cockroaches they are.
The question is not whether insurgents can be coerced. Of course they can be, notwithstanding claims to the contrary. The question is whether liberal Western democracies have reached the point where they are willing to take the steps necessary to coerce the insurgents. Clearly, they have not. Query whether the stakes in Iraq are great enough that they should. Think a long time before you answer.
Tigerhawk,
I apologize for the fuzzy quality of this post. Besides being tired when I wrote it, it was at a coffee break in a discussion on information warfare at which discussants presented an unending litany of unanswered Jihadi propaganda efforts. And the main theme was that the West didn't have a mode of war to match it.
One participant related how the Jihadis had information cells along on everyone of their operations. Contrast this with the difficulty at getting enough embeds and the way many regular reports have been trapped in hotel rooms and forced to rely on stringers.
The frustration factor is so high than the blogs, ahem, are looked upon as some sort of White Knight to save the day. Yet I, more than anyone else, know how fragile a reed that can be. The enemy is spreading their meme on a wide front and the blogs had help counteract them, but they can't do it alone.
The idea that enemy cells go out to attack to get footage really struck me as authentic indicator of the strategic priorities. The main enemy mode of combat is information warfare. Kinetic warfare runs a poor second. But look at us. We're geniuses at kinetic warfare but I leave you to judge how good we are at information war.
In her essay on the Nazi propagandist Reifenstahl, Sontag noted that the Nuremberg rallies were staged for the sake of Riefenstahl's documentary. Likewise, she argued that in some sense Hitler staged the world war for the sake of the films from the front which apparently he would watch obsessively. Wretchard, you are making Lee Harris' point about Islamic fascism being a fantasy ideology: it is only in the movies, the terrorists' little videos, that their lives can seem glorious and their beliefs seem real.
As you intimate, the fault here lies in our own desolation of spirit, our inability to "conceive of Demons nor [to] invoke the aid of Angels." For if nothing is all there is, then all there is is force. And the biggest force there is in this empty world is the little explosion next to me, not the death of the world, but my selfish little death, written (but not in large) in the cop show, the video game, and the jihadi snuff film. We and the jihadis very much speak the same language, the language of individual despair in a world without G-d.
Wretchard, I wish you would address these spiritual issues directly and at length.
I am now listening to a lawyer describe how lawsuits have so gummed up the Palestinian suicide bomber reward program and made banks fearful of handling Iranian money that they've been forced to move their money out of Europe. This is the sort of private information warfare, broadly defined, that we need to wage across the board.
While it is important to put 5.56 mm round where it needs to be put, there is a need to engage the virtual Jihad not only in the media, but also in civil institutions, like schools and banks. It is an important support to rule 5.56mm, which is good, but not enough.
Karridine said, "We can also beat insurgents at their own game: video records of their humiliating defeats!"
Yeah, but who's gonna air it, other than the F word network?
> but I leave you to judge how good we are at information war.
That is the big problem. This time around the Bush Administration needs to work morning, noon, and night to win the information war. The enemy is not only the terrorists, but the liberal media, the MSM.
When Bush gives the speech with his new Iraq plan, he should have a campaign ready to rally support behind it just like he was running for office or trying to get Congress to approve a tax cut.
And it needs to go on and on. Every day along with his military briefing Bush should be told if we think we won yesterday's information battle on US TV, UK, and in Iraq.
If we don't control the airwaves, then Al Qaeda, the Democrats, and the MSM will.
Karridine said, "We can also beat insurgents at their own game: video records of their humiliating defeats!"
Yeah, but who's gonna air it, other than the F word network?
Youtube it to the World.
That is where the Mohammedans play, not on the US TV Networks.
But the big pipe INet infrastructure required for the INet video to be effective is limited in the World.
Satellite TV, technology we could dominate if desired. False flag a ME & EU network, which is where, MS T, the battle rages.
In the past we have discussed how the US Military is behind on the Information Officer curve. Where are 21st century John Fords? In this age of ez video, as compared to Wake Island.
Systematic failure within the Military to manage the battlespace.
...there is a need to engage the virtual Jihad not only in the media, but....
Wretchard? The media? Like CNN, BBCommunists, New Duranty Times, Associated with terrorists Press, Al-Reuters?
We would all love to see the media - our media - supporting, and not white anting, civilization's efforts against jihad. But instead we get is Jihadi terror snuff videos, embeds with the Taliban, incessant wails of "islamophobia!", Jamil Hussein soundbites, and fauxtography.
Not even mentioning their media outlets.
Paul Weyrich recently suggested in a townhall.com column reanimating the House Unamerican Activies Committee to hunt for islamist sympathizers. That or something similar needs to be done, its obvious.
I can't imagine it happening this side of a WMD.
It really is quite simple, just put forward compelling reasons in support of 'the war'. What has been advanced to date has not acheived this goal. In fact (reality rules in the end as opposed to how it is presented) this current Iraq adventure is a poorly conceived and executed exercies and no amount of 'media warfare' can cover that up.
“Hearts” means persuading people that their best interests are served by COIN success. “Minds” means convincing them that the force can protect them and that resisting it is pointless. Note that neither concerns whether people like Soldiers and Marines. Calculated self-interest, not emotion, is what counts.
This doesn't seem weak to me. The generals redefine "hearts and minds" in a tough way, which is basically the same as bin laden saying that people like the strong horse.
This has nothing to do with terrorists, who we kill, but applies to the rest of the population. We aren't trying to make them like us, just convince them that they'll be better off by taking our side.
Posted at the Elephant Bar.
trish said...
Where's Allen?
Trish,
Allen is has lost interest. Allen is no longer amused.
Every conservative, indeed, every patriotic blog should have front and center the story of a guy from Texas who, 23 years ago after disbarment in at least two states, was commissioned an Air Force JAG. This non-lawyer lawyer, faux-officer went on to become probably one of the most influential people in the Air Force; think of LtC. Oliver North, here. Among other things this liar, cheat, and fraud, became commandant at the Air Force JAG School in Montgomery, Alabama, i.e. he formulated the policy and curriculum used by all JAG commands throughout the world; think Iraq and Afghanistan, here. He negotiated with and distributed “large sums of money” to selected tribal leaders and other political entities in Iraq. (And when the US government admits to “large sums of money”, it must be assumed that they were LARGE sums of money.) In short, the liar, cheat, fraud, disbarred non-lawyer, faux Colonel chose and rewarded the Iraqi allies of the United States. Finally, this flag fraud served two tours within the White House, presumably advising the President, through the Air Force, on legitimate target acquisition and other material issues in TWAT.
For all those who obviously missed a REAL story, that of “Colonel” Michael D. Murphy is one. Oh, and it is one over which the President may exercise his sole prerogatives as CnC.
ss
Except that Mr al-Sadr is part of the Iraqi Government, not in opposition to it. That was made evident by reports of Mr Maliki's discussion with Mr Bush.
The political plan for Iraq seems to be an attempt to further reconciliation. With the Iraqi beginning to take over a "surge secured" Iraq in June or July, completing the transfer of Authority and Responsibility by Nov 07. As Mr Maliki promised when he took office last March.
I agree, ss, but it has been so since the graveyard fight, al-Sadr's position with regards US.
Today he is the figurehead of a large minority of the majority.
A segment of the body politic that is integral to a "Unity Government"
> it is imperative that pretenders like al Sadr be dealt with ruthlessly and not allowed to pose as alternatives to the power of the State
I'm starting to believe this will be President Bush's next step. This is because the rumors are getting stronger and stronger that Bush will ask for every extra fighter he can get quickly, maybe as many as 50,000.
The think tanks are saying all these troops would be used to secure Baghdad and maybe Anbar. However, it doesn't seem that the US single-handedly taking and holding a region would by itself give peace. Bush himself recently said that it has to be a political solution.
So maybe it will be like the movie scene where the Godfather says "In a minute one of two things is going to be on that paper: your signature or your brains". As our troop strength builds Bush might tell the Iraqi groups, "It is time for you to come to the agreement about oil, federalism, etc, the agreement you've been talking about. We won't take sides and you can divide things however you want. However, you all need to agree to it, disarm, and stop fighting the government. Otherwise, if one group refuses to sign, then we and everyone who signed the treaty will attack that group until they do sign it".
Yeah, another great master plan.
What I want to know is will the American public stomach ROE that enable attacking camera crews?
More importantly, who will argue at the bully pulpit for the propaganda boon?
How does America represent itself amidst such a hostile media environment, which will provide images more violent and gut-wrenching and de-contextualized than anything before?
Does America simply become the "Global badass" instead of the "global policeman" a kind of hegemonic Detective Sipowicz?
If we fear losing bonds of fellowship, its possible to have a net gain in such bonds if its obvious and irrefutable what were doing. Such things could underpin trust and then loyalty, each of which we suffer a critical deficit in.
But in order for that "obvious and irrefutable" information to be out there, we've gotta construct it and believe in it. We've gotta construct the idea that killing cameramen, their crews, their drivers and their production staff is little different than killing IED-men, their crews, their drivers and their staff. We have to believe that what were doing is right.
I think this belief ultimately has to be theologically rectified: can you stand before God in good conscience and say, they had to die and I helped kill them? If we believe in the cause to that extent, our fellowship will be strong, emboldened by a fervor unbeknownst to the "tranzi" clerics.
If we cannot have such theological rectitude, then we are best off converting to Islam. Its quite stark.
More importantly, who will argue at the bully pulpit againstthe propaganda boon?
One thing top-down media seems to have over bottom-up media is the "bully-pulpit" broadcast capability. Zeitgeists are great for something, but not radically changing course, so to speak.
We really cannot expect to win the "information war" by just writing about how disagreeable or silly the enemy is.
I'm thinking the infowar is in "trench warfare" mode, awaiting new ideas to break the deadlock
From Wikipedia on Trench Warfare:
-more mobile, flexible infantry tactics w/ shorter decision loops
-Tanks
-Bypassing the deadlock (maginot line)
We should consider the tank analogy: just outright destroy the sensors that gather information.
WW,
We don't need any more troops to inflict the level of persuasion you describe.
I really hope were investing in ways of altering BIOS settings on mobile electronics so we can fry their processors once they join the Al Jazeera crews in the battlespace.
Until then, it'll have to be lenses vs lead.
Maybe I'm off the wall with advocating attacking camera crews, but when I try to think of ways of attacking the information produced by the crews, I feel like I'm in some sociological wonderland.
Is considering information as causal a continuation of tabula rasa models of the human mind?
I know the word "information" is all sexy etc but does it not conform well to modern ideas of cognition, what with their emphasis on the intrinsic and innate?
There are a variety of 'media' inconsistencies between what 'is said' and 'how people respond'. Putting a pretty girl on the screen while a car insurance salesman provides voice-over text, is just media 101. Nothing is said about the girl, but the ad is all about the audience's instictive reaction to the girl.
Audience manipulation is extremely well understood among those 'making media', but exceptionally boring to those that consume it. I suspect this boredom can be likened to drug addiction. The addict 'knows' what is happening at a certain 'logical' level, but the emotional tide is far too 'real' and 'compelling' to stop.
The snuff movies described here essentially play on the same set of instincts your average soap and deoderant advertiser plays upon. They are also the insticts that make popular past times like 'NFL football' and the soap operas compelling.
'Terrorism' is the most highly rated 'reality show' on TV. It won't go away, it sells far too much air-time. The old saw 'if it bleeds, it leads' is not going to change. It will always capture eyeballs, and advertiser revenue.
Wretchard said: "I am now listening to a lawyer describe how lawsuits have so gummed up the Palestinian suicide bomber reward program"
It would be nice to see one or more of the US Airways passengers sue the six flying Imams for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It would stop "political correctness probes" by Muslims in their tracks. Also, imagine the kind of dirt that could be dug up on those imams and their organizations using the civil discovery process.
This new phenomenon, as described by Wretchard, has a fundamental weakness. Perhaps we have no words to adequately describe it, no concepts upon which to form a reasonable response. But that will not matter in the long term.
Western society is thoroughly adept at absorbing, and assimilating, shock and horror. We do so without even thinking about it consciously. Thirty years ago, we would have been horrified by evening television shows we now consider pedestrian.
The very thing that, as described above, provides the fuel (continuous creating of jihadi videos) will in turn eventually attenuate the effectiveness of this type of thing. The potential jihadis will have seen so much of this stuff, that it will likely cease having a meaningful impact on them.
That's my prediction, anyway. . .
Sirius sir said, "That is why it is so important to impose a monopoly on violence."
As long as we have Rules of Engagement, a seditious media, and a priority on own-force protection, and the enemy has none of these things, the enemy busts our monopoly on the use of violence.
This story broke a year ago, that Special Forces was running a media campaign. The MSM was all over this, saying it was terrible, and the White House partially backed down.
Now that both houses of Congress have lost and there is strong pressure to give up in Iraq, maybe the White House will stick to its guns, and even expand this program.
Run by psychological warfare experts at the U.S. Special Operations Command, the media campaign is being designed to counter terrorist ideology and sway foreign audiences to support American policies. The military wants to fight the information war against al-Qaeda through newspapers, websites, radio, television and "novelty items" such as T-shirts and bumper stickers.
The program will operate throughout the world, including in allied nations and in countries where the United States is not involved in armed conflict...
The military's communications work in Iraq has recently drawn controversy with disclosures that Lincoln Group and the U.S. military secretly paid journalists and news outlets to run pro-American stories.
White House officials have expressed concern about the practice, even when the stories are true.
National security adviser Stephen Hadley said President Bush was "very troubled" by activities in Iraq and would stop them if they hurt efforts to build independent news media in Iraq. The military started its own probe.
It's legal for the government to plant propaganda in other countries but not in the USA.
Link
Streisand said, "But aren't you the Teresita that said Iraq was an illegal preemptive war and that Bush and Rumsfeld were torturers?"
Regretably, in order to keep my promise to Miss Catherine never to reply to her again, I have to plonk everyone who posts with a similar fiction prose style.
New pentagon report out:
It said, for example, that the goal of training and equipping an Iraqi army of about 137,000 soldiers is 98 percent completed, although it also noted that far fewer troops are actually available for duty on any given day due to absenteeism, casualties, desertions and leaves of absence.
Lt. Gen. John Sattler, the plans and strategy chief for the Joint Chiefs, told reporters Monday that of the approximately 322,000 Iraqi troops and police now trained and equipped, only about 280,000 are available for duty.
Iraq will Haunt US
Sam quoted, "It said, for example, that the goal of training and equipping an Iraqi army of about 137,000 soldiers is 98 percent completed, although it also noted that far fewer troops are actually available for duty on any given day due to absenteeism, casualties, desertions and leaves of absence."
Education is what you get from reading the fine print. Experience is what you get from not reading it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says that Iraqi forces have to be tailored to match the "flavor" of the local area where their mission is to take place. This is Pentagonese for saying he can't send Union forces into a Confederate area, a policy which effectively divides the Iraqi army into non-interoperable thirds. But Iraq is not having a Civil War, that's the important thing to take away from this.
wretchard:
So, what's going to happen if (or when) snuff video is used with Islamists as the victims and their enemies as the executioners?
What's going to happen when the Islamist meme of genocide "hops over" to other cultures? Will it get to the point where the torture of Islamists will become a major spectator sport of this coming century just like the combat at the Forum during the Roman Empire or lynchings a century ago?
The problem historically with vicious behavior is that the side that starts it isn't necessarily the side that finishes it. Nazi Germany's "Total War" wasn't much fun for Germans when it was practiced against Germans.
There is an old scenario by General ‘Black Jack’ Pershin:
http://www.soldierlife.com/2006/06/26/general-black-jack-pershing/
A video based on this could be "youtubed". If one can buy the 72 raisins deal. . .
...the West is still casting about for a method to meet the dark spirit of the virtual Jihad with a puissant spirit of its own.
Speaking of YouTube, the dark spirit rapping here and throwing down the gauntlet to Muslim Jihadists seems pretty puissant to me. Run quick and look before CAIR protests and makes YouTube take down this demonstration of Western "spirit":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLJz3N8ayI
streisand,
I finished that url and got the page, but I am curious what words you use in your detective work wrt the multifaceted Ms T.
Not that I would stoop to such things myself, of course, or even contemplate it.
Just Curious
'Rat linked to this article for an with a plan to rescue us from the failures of occupation and reconciliation/peace/love among Iraq's sects.
"article with a plan"
---
The Aussies!
Peter W, commenting at Chester's on "The Great War:"
`The Great War'. It is written from the Australian perspective by an ex-journalist named Les Carlyon who also wrote the much acclaimed `Gallipoli'.
In a diversionary attack at Fromelle we lost over 5000 men in an hour or so from two brigades attacking across open ground with enfilading machine guns on both flanks.
At Pozieres the Australian 1st, 2nd and 4th Divisions suffered the loss of more than 23,000 men in five weeks.
In total from a volunteer force of 331,000 who served in Europe and the Middle East WW1 cost Australia over 60,000 killed in action with more than 166,000 battle casualties of which an additional 62,000 died during or on their return to Australia as a result of their injuries.
Australia’s population at the time was 5 million.
jb and C-4 joust with jb retorting:
"It seems to me that the populist/ socialist crowd will only support a war that ...surprise, promotes populist/socialist policies."
You do not have to be either a populist or socialist to be for or against a war. It seems obvious that one would support something that they support. The opposite is also true.
The accusing taunt of BDS assumes that Bush is "Arranged" in his thinking, intuition, planning and execution of the duties of his office, and the object of the taunt believes differently. That is an ambitious argument.
Link
According to this Washington Post story, the President wants more troops in Iraq, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff don't want to send them.
The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate...
But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.
The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.
At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said...
A senior administration official said it is "too simplistic" to say the surge question has broken down into a fight between the White House and the Pentagon, but the official acknowledged that the military has questioned the option.
Syria wants to join our side?
Syria's president made a written offer to Israel to conduct peace talks and stop Hezbollah arms smuggling into Lebanon, the Al Arabiya newspaper said Tuesday.
Quoting diplomatic sources, the report said a German emissary delivered the letter from Syrian President Bashar Assad to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and made the offer, which had no preconditions or time limits.
The report also said Assad offered Syrian participation in an international tribunal to probe the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, on the condition high-ranking officials could not be summoned or sentenced, the Jerusalem Post reported.
Link
: )
oops
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office in Jerusalem denied reports that Syria's president had sent a letter seeking peace talks.
R2k has a very interesting video on his site. and if the babe is your girl friend, I understand why you are doing this: : )
12/19/2006 05:25:33 AM
Below is just a comment from another blog, American Spectator. I think it shows the kind of debate that will happen if the JCS try to block having more troops in Iraq. A nation divided against itself...
Today's Wash Post reports that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are arguing hard against increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Maybe they would have some credibility if they had already shown a clue how to secure the peace there. Here we are with the most powerful and technologically advanced military machine in history, yet we can't secure the peace against a bunch of two-bit (brutal, but still rather unsophisticated) sectarian thugs. It's pathetic. In this war, where has been our Patton, our Grant, our McArthur, or even our Schwarzkopf? And where has been the president who will, Lincoln-like, recognize when his military leaders have failed and fire them and fire the next ones and keep on looking until he finds the ones who, like Grant, will WIN? As Lincoln said of Grant: "I like this man: he fights."
...
These Joint Chiefs have proven jointly to be failures. If they won't commit to securing the peace in Iraq, they should resign or be fired.
Hmm a choice between the unanimous opinion of the JCS and the leadership acumen of the Bush Administration. hmmmmm
The question is whether the Joint Chiefs ever had a plan to win in Iraq, and if they have one now.
At this point the JCS seem to be in agreement with the Iraq Study Group.
Well, elections matter.
There is only one CiC, he does not work in the Pentagon.
I do not think a "surge" for upwards of six months will succeed, in the "Long Term", but could set the stage for a Summer announcement of Victory in November, complete with transfer of Responsibility and Authority.
Does the US stay in the country, on the megabases, "in support", or redeploy to Oceanside and Okinawa?
re: reluctance of Joint Chiefs of Staff
SOMETIMES generals influence policy formulation.
ALWAYS generals influence policy implementation.
Why the Iraq debacle?
allen said...
re: JAG
___"Colonel" Murphy is not just any lawyer; he is within the top 10 in the Air Force. Before being "fired" (not incarcerated, mind you) he commanded the big show, The Air Force Legal Operations Agency.
Given the career path of "Colonel" Murphy (sponsored by some as yet anonymous general officer), he would have received a star within two years, and the position of Top JAG within five.
___"Colonel" Murphy was given "large sums of money" with which to negotiate deals with Iraqi tribal leaders et al. Those Iraqi alliances are not working out very well. What responsibility, if any does "Colonel" Murphy play in the reality of Iraq, today?
“In between those tours [counsel to the White House] he was THE LEGAL adviser to the RECONSTRUCTION effort in IRAQ, and Air Force spokesman said.”
___"Colonel" Murphy headed up the sole Air Force JAG training academy. What influence, if any, had his tenure on the products of that school? What influence, if any, has his interpretation of military law had on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
___"Colonel" Murphy twice was assigned as counsel to the Air Force at the White House. What influence, if any, did he have on targeting policy and procedures in Afghanistan and Iraq? What influence, if any, had his findings of law on the policies formulated by the White House?
___"Colonel" Murphy's dark secret made him a natural target of foreign espionage agencies. What influence, if any, did such agencies have on the "Colonel"?
___What is the official Air Force response to the Murphy scandal:
“A person who does not have the proper credentials at any particular time may still be able to provide competent legal advice,” she said. “If a credentials issue arises there is no presumption that the legal advice provided by that person was incompetent. Actions taken as a result of that advice are not automatically void.”
---Air Force JAG spokesperson, Lt. Col. Lisa Turner
“Lt. Col. Lisa Turner, chief of the Policy and Projects Implementation Division for The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.” CPPIDJAGAF.
___Given all the above, do you really have confidence in the ability of "law enforcement" to handle not only "Colonel" Murphy but all the other as yet undiscovered "Colonels" Murphy?
The blogosphere has brought to slaughter many sacred cows. It is my hope that eventually the blogosphere will catch on to how great a danger the existence of this man and his enablers pose to the United States. With sufficient pressure, a somnolent Congress might see fit to investigate how a 23 year scofflaw went undetected by all the very expensive, responsible agencies of the Federal government. Until that time, none of us should rest comfortably. But, since the criminal negligence of 9/11, I don't in any case.
MON DEC 18, 08:26:54 PM EST
LINK
Desert Rat said, "I do not think a "surge" for upwards of six months will succeed, in the "Long Term", but could set the stage for a Summer announcement of Victory in November, complete with transfer of Responsibility and Authority."
Twenty thousand more men who must take incoming fire from mosques and not return it. Yeah, that will bring victory.
On another site, DR linked to a plan for Iraq published by Westhawk. Westhawk's plan has received unstinting praise. However, even if Westhawk's plan had come straight from the mouth of the deity, it would fail, given the current national leadership.
For instance, "[Colonel Murphy] was the legal adviser to the reconstruction effort in Iraq, an Air Force spokesman said.” So, what's the big deal? "Colonel" Murphy is a criminal, a fraud, a liar, a cheat, a man of such disrupt that he was disbarred in not one, but two states. This is the man put in charge of overseeing the distribution of tens of billions in reconstruction aid. Moreover, this paragon of virtue supervised the payoffs dispensed to guarantee the loyalty of tribal leaders et al.
So, my friends, when next you are searching for a cause to the woes of American foreign policy, think of "Colonel" Michael D. Murphy, a good ole boy from Texas. He is the poster boy for everything that is wrong with America's leadership.
No, Ms T, At every Election the Security Services were able to "lock down" the entire country.
Promised attacks did not materialize, because Security can be achieved. There are associated costs though.
Lock Baghdad down, just as on Election Day, then extend the lockdowns until cleared, by District or block.
Impose high levels of Election Style Security for six months. Newsweak reports the Iraqi economy is booming, the economy would cool, but so would the violence.
> At every Election the Security Services were able to "lock down" the entire country.
Isn't this just voluntary though, that all the combatants have a truce on Election Day? There was violence during the first election, some Iraqi police sacrificed their lives diverting suicide bombers from the crowd.
What happened for the second election was that the Iraqi Sunni resistance decided to participate in the election, and told Al Qaeda if they slaughtered people on election day, Al Qaeda would get slaughtered themselves.
The insurgents even discussed how attacking people on that day would make them look bad, so they wouldn't do it.
That is why another 30,000 US troops would be needed, for a six month to transition surge.
If each majority within the minorities agreed, it would be a volunteer effort. Mr al-Hakim has signed the SCIRI on to the Plan, the Sunni VP dropped by the White House and Mr Maliki has Mr Bush's full support.
There are no car bombs if the streets are closed to cars. The level of "freedom" would drop, the level of Security would rise.
The real question is how to integrate the Iraq Army into "Clear, hold, build" rapidly.
> If each majority within the minorities agreed, it would be a volunteer effort.
That would be the key to everything. There could be real peace that way, if some of the players started agreeing.
I don't understand why Maliki came out "firing" when he took over, and I said it at the time. Don't know why he tried to clamp down on the militias before there was an agreement. It would have made a lot more sense to do like the Afghans, have a peace meeting with all players involved and everything on the table. In fact he could have built towards it by taking very small steps, like getting two or three groups to cease fire on each other for a week, or maybe extend the election day truce for a week instead of being a day.
Using force would make sense if there was an agreement which only one or two groups wouldn't sign, say al-Sadr and the Sunnis in Anbar. But right now there is no peace treaty on the table, and none of the groups have agreed to being part of the central government permanently.
The peace treaty is the key to everything, and it seems like there are only two options, and maybe neither would work. If some or most of the groups are willing to agree on the remaining issues like oil, then diplomatic and military pressure could be used to get the others to agree. This is "going heavy".
If no one is willing to agree with anything now, then our only hope would be "go long", that we'd need to go into something like a prevent defense where we reduce our casualties to the minimum while preventing anyone from taking over Iraq by force. Don't know how realistic it would be to just sit there waiting though.
A fellow calling himself "Captain" Ed, runs a show called Captain's Quarters. Today he led off with a thread allegedly examining special investigations etc. Finding myself with a subject I believe worthy of just such an investigation, I posted the following. Initially, the comment was accepted, but shortly thereafter deleted. I guess I hit too close to home for the good Cap'n. Apparently, the MSM is not alone in subjective censorship.
Now, it is the man's blog. Therefore, he can do as he pleases. However, for those innocent souls who believe the Cap'n is on the up and up, think again and tailor your comments to his satisfaction, or else.
Citation:
“re: impersonator and imposter, faux-Colonel Michael D. Murphy, USAF, JAG
I would like to see an investigation of how a man impersonating a commissioned officer of the United States for 23 years, while disbarred in at least two states, could rise to such prominence in military legal circles.
For instance, “In between those tours [counsel to the White House] he was the legal adviser to the reconstruction effort in Iraq, an Air Force spokesman said.”
!!! Allow me to repeat that: “In between those tours he was THE LEGAL adviser to the RECONSTRUCTION effort in Iraq, an Air Force spokesman said.”
In chronologic order:
1) legal counsel to the White House
2) legal adviser to Iraq reconstruction
3) legal counsel to the White House
And last, but certainly not least, “Colonel” Michael D. Murphy commanded the Air Force Legal Operations Agency.
And what is the official Air Force response to “Colonel” Murphy’s impostiture?
“A person who does not have the proper credentials at any particular time may still be able to provide competent legal advice,” she said. “If a credentials issue arises there is no presumption that the legal advice provided by that person was incompetent. Actions taken as a result of that advice are not automatically void.”
___Air Force JAG spokesperson, Lt. Col. Lisa Turner
The blogosphere has brought to slaughter many sacred cows. It is my hope that eventually the blogosphere will catch on to how great a danger the existence of this man and his enablers pose to the United States. With sufficient pressure, a somnolent Congress might see fit to investigate how a 23 year scofflaw went undetected by all the very expensive, responsible agencies of the Federal government. Until that time, none of us should rest comfortably.
Link”
Here comes the Iraqi surge to save Baghdad.
nytimes.com
The American general in charge of training Iraqi forces said today that a new deployment of Iraqi troops to Baghdad is planned, and that bonuses and better training may prevent a repeat of the refusal by some troops to be deployed to the capital last summer.
Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said that the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is planning to send six additional battalions – about 1,800 troops -- to Baghdad over the next few months. American forces have been bearing the brunt of stepped-up efforts to reduce violence in the city since August.
The general said that he was hopeful that the new incentive programs could overcome the reluctance of many Iraqi troops to leave their home bases. “I think you’re going to see that they come when you train them to come, give them some incentive and give them some information,” General Dempsey said. “But we’ll see.”
I never read 'Rat's comments,
but I'm convinced he's wrong.
Wu wei quoted, "...bonuses and better training may prevent a repeat of the refusal by some troops to be deployed to the capital last summer."
Bonuses for actually following orders! What will they think of next?
Well,
It ain't compassionate,
and it ain't Rocket Science,
but it's well said, El_!
Link
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; 4:18 PM
President Bush said today that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists, a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point...
I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," Bush said in the Oval Office session. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
...
A substantial military expansion will take years and would not be meaningful in the near term in Iraq. But it would begin to address the growing alarm among commanders about the state of the armed forces. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, warned Congress last week that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations...
The incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee spoke out forcefully today for increasing the size of the Army and Marines, noting that their leaders describe the services as "stretched and strained." "We're going to have to pay attention to this," Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) told reporters. Saying the two services are "bleeding," he added, "I think we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces. I think that will be a major part of our work."
...
Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq and would wait for Gates to make a trip to Iraq to assess the situation for himself. "I need to talk to him when he gets back," the president said...
Among the options under review by the White House is sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq for six to eight months...
Bush would not discuss such ideas in detail but said "all options are viable." He said he also wanted the American and Iraqi people to know that he would press the Iraqis to do more to secure their own country. "We expect the Iraqi people to continue making hard choices and doing hard work necessary to succeed," he said, "and our job is to help them do so."
On Sunday, Iraq's Sunni vice president called for more American soldiers in Baghdad to quell sectarian violence ...
"Who is going to replace the American troops?" asked [Iraqi Vice President] Tariq al-Hashemi, who met with Bush in Washington last week. "Iraqi troops, across the board, they are insufficient, incompetent, and many of them corrupted."
Link
In other violence Tuesday:
_ In southern Baghdad, two civilians were killed and seven wounded by mortar rounds, and a roadside bomb killed two civilians and wounded nine near an electricity plant, police said.
_ In the city's western Yarmouk district, a bomb narrowly missed a police patrol, wounding four civilians and setting several vehicles ablaze.
_ Three children were killed when mortar rounds hit their village near Baqouba, and seven civilians were wounded in a mortar attack nearby, police said.
Violence Tuesday
I know this could never happen because the soulful Mr. Putin is the perfect new Russian, a veritable Teddy bear. But, just for the sake of argument only, suppose the Russians are adults, having an interest in shaping the ME to their liking. I know. I know, no one behaves that way anymore, but bear with me.
In Iraq the Russians find an American Air Force JAG officer controlling the flow of billions of dollars in reconstruction funds. This would be “Colonel” Michael D. Murphy, of course. Curious, the Russians set about to learn what can be learned of Murphy. Always helpful, an Air Force website provides a nifty, glowing biography of “Colonel” Murphy. Therein, the Russians learn that Murphy graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 1981 and was admitted to the Texas bar. Since much of the business of the Texas bar is the matter of public record, the Russians inquire into the status/history of “Colonel” Murphy; one never knows what one might catch fishing. To their delight, the Russians learn that “Colonel” Murphy is not a lawyer at all; in fact, Murphy has been disbarred in both Texas and Louisiana. Moreover, Mr. Murphy has been impersonating an officer for 23 years. Needless to say, a more deviously aggressive Russian government might suppose that a potential cornucopia of intelligence information had just fallen into their laps.
Was “Colonel” Michael D. Murphy compromised by the new model KGB? If so, as counsel to the White House on two occasions and as the lead legal adviser on the distribution of American largesse, what might a corrupt, highly placed American Colonel have given the Russians? Certainly, since this is all outlandish and could never happen in in the modern world, we need not even consider the possibility of the Chinese, French, Iranians, Saudis etc. etc. etc, or some combination of all the above, having gotten to Murphy.
It would make for a great spy novel, wouldn’t it?
Excuse me, but comments have been off for an Hour at EB.
For Me!
"No words"
I'm gonna 'splode!
doug,
I'm getting through OK. Then, again, I have the dark powers of the Elders working for me.
Doug,
More pithy ruminations from Cap'n Ed's site:
"Carol Herman is my mother.
Posted by: Hugh Beaumont at December 19, 2006 09:02 PM"
Ed Morrissey is a political wunderkind.
You know, Ed Morrissey could have been correct in deleting my strictly political comment; it didn't really match the quality of his site.
Frankly, Doug, I think the man has no spine. Probably got a call from one of his "ace" military sources. How right have they been for ole Ed so far? Or the President for all that?
Doug,
Yeah, that is a first class political blog run by Ed Morrissey, if you want to bash the MSM. It's no place for a person who would like to see an investigation of Iraq policy referencing pseudo-Colonel Michael D. Murphy and his access to the President, the money, and American foreign policy.
Yeah, heavy are the stars on the epaulets that facilitated the advance of Mr. Murphy. I can see where ole Ed and his Air Force buds would want to keep that sequestered.
Sorry, Belmonters, I know you have more important foci for your valuable time than worrying about the security of the Untied States.
Oh, in the event that Ed comes this way, yes, I am calling you out.
Doug,
Hold on to your hat, this is an excerpt from a comment made to ole Ed Morrissey that will rock your world. Talk about apropos.
“I'm telling you; pulling names out of a beanie, is not the purpose these cute little hats are put on the heads of kids. Better to just blow on the propeller.”
Having a plethora of such cogent, collegial commentary, it is easy to understand why “Easy” Ed wouldn’t want his site littered with simple minded questions of national security, addressing the likes of “Colonel” Michael D. Murphy.
You go, Ed! The force is with you, Dude.
This wouldn't be the first time.
Captain Ed made some really bozo comments as well about border security that all kinds of nitwits have run with.
My Guess about captain ed is that-- judging by the dumbo nature of his comments since McCain blogged for his site--he's been channeling the arizona senator of late.
charles,
Are you suggesting that the little grey cells are not up to par?
Link
Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has a new military plan for Baghdad.
Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has created a two-pronged security plan for Baghdad in which U.S. forces would aggressively target Sunni Arab insurgents instead of Shiite militias. At the same time, Maliki would intensify his efforts to weaken Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and contain his Mahdi Army militia, Iraqi officials said Tuesday.
Under these conditions, Maliki would accept a surge in U.S. troops in Baghdad, according to two Maliki advisers with knowledge of the plan. Maliki plans to discuss his proposal with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and senior U.S. commanders during a meeting in Baghdad on Thursday, the officials said.
The plan calls for U.S. troops to combat Sunni Arab insurgents for four to eight weeks in outer Baghdad neighborhoods, which Maliki believes are the source of the sectarian violence afflicting the capital, his aides said. Iraqi forces would take over primary responsibility for patrolling inner Baghdad from U.S. forces.
During this period, Maliki would persuade Sadr to stop the Mahdi Army from fomenting violence, using a combination of carrots and sticks, including the threat of force, said the advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters. If the Mahdi Army does not stop its assaults, Maliki, with the help of U.S. troops, would crack down on Sadr.
"Then he has no choice but to attack them and arrest their leaders," said one adviser, who added that the plan's details were still being ironed out. "Sadr is not immune. We all hope it doesn't get to that point, but no one is above the law."
...
But the government's Shiite-dominated security forces under Maliki's control are widely perceived as ineffective, and are mistrusted by Sunnis. Under the plan, that mistrust could deepen: With U.S. troops focusing on Sunni Arab insurgents, Sadr and his forces could solidify their grip in Baghdad.
we wei,
This is not a two headed snake; rather, the US faces two snakes. Kill al-Sadr's base and weaken the Iranians. Kill the Sunni insurgency and weaken the Saudis.
If I had to choose, I would kill the Sunni insurgency and weaken international Saudi Wahhabism. Since the Saudis can be counted upon to react negatively to this course, the US should also consider custody of the Saudi petroleum resource matrix.
we wei,
What might, you suppose, happen to the world petroleum market were the stranglehold of Saudi Arabia and OPEC broken? Consequently, with ample supplies of petroleum available, to what degree might Iran be weakened? Given these, how much stronger would the US position be, and how much weakened the power of Russia and China?
wu wei,
Please accept my sincere apology for the typos.
Link
The New York Times reports that the most important Shiite leader is supporting a plan to throw al-Sadr out of the government by forming a moderate Shiite/ Sunni/ Kurd alliance.
Iraq’s most venerated Shiite cleric has tentatively approved an American-backed coalition of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that aims to isolate extremists, particularly the powerful Shiite militia leader Moktada al-Sadr, Iraqi and Western officials say.
Since the fall of Saddam Hussein the cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has been the spiritual custodian of Shiite political dominance in Iraq, corralling the fractious Shiite parties into an alliance to rule the country.
But Ayatollah Sistani has grown increasingly distressed as the Shiite-led government has proved incapable of taming the violence and improving public services, Shiite officials say. He now appears to be backing away from his demand that the Shiite bloc play the dominant political role and that it hold together at all costs, Iraqi and Western officials say.
As the effective arbiter of a Shiite role in the planned coalition, the ayatollah is considered critical to the Iraqi and American effort.
American officials have been told by intermediaries that Ayatollah Sistani “has blessed the idea of forming a moderate front,” according to a senior American official. “We wouldn’t have gotten this far without his support.”
...
“He is very sad,” Mr. Hamoudi said. “He feels he should do something to save Iraq and keep the unity of Iraq and preserve the blood of the people.”
...
Since winning 130 of the 275 seats in Parliament, the Shiite bloc has never coalesced as Ayatollah Sistani intended it to, and factional rivalries have deepened, particularly over the past several months. A law enabling provinces to form autonomous regions, approved in October, was supported by Mr. Hakim but bitterly opposed by Mr. Sadr and members of the Fadhila Party, a Shiite group close to Mr. Sadr.
The Shiite infighting has paralyzed the government. Since Mr. Sadr’s loyalists began boycotting the government last month, the Parliament has been unable to form a quorum, preventing the passage of laws.
The new coalition is aimed at circumventing that kind of conflict, its leaders say, which is probably why Ayatollah Sistani is willing to lend his support.
wu wei,
Well, we must all hope the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani does not meet with an untimely, tragic end. In Iraq, one must hedge one's bets.
New commanders in Iraq too. Looks like they are seriously trying to change things.
As they flew to Iraq, the Los Angeles Times reported that Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has submitted plans to retire and will leave his post in March.
Abizaid was among those expected to meet with Gates and Pace in Baghdad. His four-year term as chief of the Central Command, or Centcom, was to have ended in July but a spokesman earlier had said he agreed to stay until "early 2007" at the request of former defense chief Donald H. Rumsfeld. The Times quoted one recently retired Army general as saying Abizaid wanted to retire earlier, but was blocked by Rumsfeld.
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, has indicated in recent months that he also may not stay much beyond the end of this year.
wu wei,
Yesterday, as the President was expressing his desire to upsurge, the Commandant of the Marine Corps was expressing publically his "concerns" about upsurging.
In Mr. Lincoln's administration, the Commandant would have been thanked for his service to the nation as his resignation was accepted. And, lest I forget, the Joint Chiefs, as a whole, were also expressing publically their concerns.
Sometimes generals influence policy formulation.
Always generals influence policy implementation.
A Grant cannot be made from a McClellan.
Allen said, "This is not a two headed snake; rather, the US faces two snakes. Kill al-Sadr's base and weaken the Iranians. Kill the Sunni insurgency and weaken the Saudis."
Good thing our fight is with Implacable Islam and not Killer Kwanzaa. President Bush's Kwanzaa Message
Allen said, "This is not a two headed snake; rather, the US faces two snakes. Kill al-Sadr's base and weaken the Iranians. Kill the Sunni insurgency and weaken the Saudis."
Good thing our fight is with Implacable Islam and not Killer Kwanzaa. President Bush's Kwanzaa Message
> We need to pick a part of Iraq ( Sadar City would be a good place) and carpet bomb it. Then we use artillery to bounce the rubble. After that we send in the Marines to kill the survivors. That will end the 'insurgency'.
That's what Israel did a few months ago to Hezbollah. Now the Jerusalem Post reports that Hezbollah is back to full strength.
And in the past Israel occupied parts of Lebanon for over a decade and still didn't wipe Hezbollah out, just like we didn't wipe out the Viet Cong after all those years in Vietnam.
> Fallujah should have been flattened, paved and turned into a prking lot with a Wal Mart at one corner
It was. Almost all of the buildings were torn down and weeks spent making sure every single insurgent was out of there.
Force alone is not enough to kill off an insurgency. It never worked and never will.
I don't think the United States would give up if China invaded us and carpet bombed New York. We didn't give up when the British burned our capitol in 1812. So it isn't likely other countries will cave in that easily.
Just to make clear: I definitely do believe in killing someone who is truly an enemy. However, we need to be careful in choosing the time and place, like we used the Soviets as temporary allies to help defeat the Nazis in World War II. Before killing off Sadr's bunch, we first should decide (1) can we get some other Iraq group to do it? (2) before killing Sadr's militia, could they help us wipe out Al Qaeda and the Sunni Resistance?
In fact right now there are talks going on amongst the Shiites, all the way up to Sistani, that they need to control al-Sadr themselves, including possibly using force. They are squeezing him for a ceasefire of at least a month, which could be very useful to us.
John Samford wrote, "War is about death and destruction. Trying to change the focus to winning hearts and minds, just means losing to those who understand what war is about."
Agreed, but we haven't had a war since 1945. This is "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Freedom operations are not about death and destruction, they're about winning hearts and minds, yadda yadda yadda.
Van Furgomania.
Sam quoted, "It said, for example, that the goal of training and equipping an Iraqi army of about 137,000 soldiers is 98 percent completed, although it also noted that far fewer troops are actually available for duty on any given day due to absenteeism, casualties, desertions and leaves of absence."
Education is what you get from reading the fine print. Experience is what you get from not reading it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says that Iraqi forces have to be tailored to match the "flavor" of the local area where their mission is to take place. This is Pentagonese for saying he can't send Union forces into a Confederate area, a policy which effectively divides the Iraqi army into non-interoperable thirds. But Iraq is not having a Civil War, that's the important thing to take away from this.
Post a Comment
<< Home