Charlie Rose Interviews David Kilcullen
And it's what you would call interesting. You can almost feel the sparks fly.
CHARLIE ROSE: General Petraeus, the president, everybody talks about Anbar. It's almost like they want to say, if you say to them, as I have, the political reconciliation is not taking place, as I said to you, in Baghdad -- they all want to say, but, you know, the new news is Anbar.
DAVID KILCULLEN: Anbar is .
CHARLIE ROSE: How significant is it? I mean, and how .
DAVID KILCULLEN: Well, I think Anbar is shorthand.
CHARLIE ROSE: . portable is it?
DAVID KILCULLEN: It's shorthand. Right now, the phenomenon that you are talking about is not in Anbar; it's in about 45 percent of the country. It's in Anbar; it's in Diyala; it's in Babel. It's in Baghdad. Even down in Nasiriyah with Shia tribes, we're seeing a similar kind of phenomenon.
CHARLIE ROSE: Where they are turning against al Qaeda.
DAVID KILCULLEN: Jaish al-Mahdi in the case of the Shias. But, so, there's a -- there's a much wider geographical and demographic spread to this thing than just al-Anbar. And what has happened in other parts of the country is not exactly the same as what happened in Anbar. And what happened in Baghdad was driven by local community leaders, who are often religious leaders.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
DAVID KILCULLEN: So, it is a -- it's different in different parts of the country, but it's a very substantial phenomenon. And it's not something that we started, it's not something we really predicted. But it's certainly making an enormous difference.
Read the whole thing.
posted by wretchardthecat at 10/10/2007 06:33:00 AM
35 Comments:
Here's an interesting quote from David Kilcullen:
Politics is alchemy. It's not an engineering project. You can't build it step by step, through benchmarks to a solution. It takes people to feel comfortable and be able to work together and to build confidence. And we all know this from domestic politics.
So, what's it going to take for our congressmen and senators "to feel comfortable and be able to work together and to build confidence"?
Perhaps Congress needs to investigate the anthrax attacks of late 2001. Remember them? My pet theory is that the unity that existed in the wake of the September 11 attacks evaporated once the anthrax attacks happened. They fed suspicion. I suspect that, by attacking liberal Democratic senators and media outlets, the terrorist who orchestrated the anthrax attacks created the impression of partisan assassination in wartime. The anthrax attacks also undermined communication between members of Congress and their constituencies -- also during a time of war.
If anything, the principal difference between the anthrax attacks and al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq was al-Zarqawi's extraordinary crudness in his attacks on the Shi'ite community and with his selective assassinations. (He even attacked his fellow Jordanians!) In contrast, the anthrax attacks fomented deep suspicion and subliminal unease, but haven't been crude enough to provoke a counterreaction.
One of Kilcullen's more interesting assertions is that Samarra represented an intentional phase-change by the enemy, prior to which things -- after the elections -- were going down one path. After Samarra the nature of the entire ballgame was changed.
Some years ago I got a flier in the mail touting this great land deal in another place. The pictures were inviting, the price was right, I had some extra dollars, the wife wanted to retire to such an area...we bought the deal.
Then we visited our precious land! Whoops, we hadn't been shown the swamp land, nor the landfill site, and that industrial area never was mentioned. Trouble for sure.
However, our Minder told us as he walked us through the area that all could and would be fixed; it just needed some time. I asked about how much it would cost, our Minder said he didn't have the "exact" figures, but he thought it was well within the overall budget.
My wife has since divorced me. I am now broke with no dreams before me. The land deal we bought is in foreclosure over unpaid taxes.
Why we ever thought living in Iraq was a great idea I'll never know.
Not in this lifetime!
A marriage made in Hell! This is what the interview suggests to me. I am starting to feel somewhat raped by idiots within my government.
Too bad I voted for these clowns. Yea, I know: "We broke it, now we must fix it!"
Can't wait for oil to hit $120 per barrel. Maybe I might be able to marry one of those Saudi women with rooms full of money!
R, you're a pathetic pessimistic anti-American defeatest. Which means you'd be perfect to marry a Saudi.
I've seen enough reports from Iraq to believe there is something substantial happening at the community level.
But here's (one of) the problem(s). Charlie Rose is a sincere man, and a patriot. But he's been so bludgeoned by bad news and exhausted by failures that he can no longer be moved by reports of progress, so long as those reports arrive through Administration/Republican channels. The crucible of Iraq has annealed in his mind a presumption of failure.
And he's obviously not alone. A majority of Americans are now immune to reports of progress. It's just a mess, it's hopeless, the most we can hope for is two steps forward and three steps back -- so what difference does it make when the news reports we've taken those two steps? This is what the majority of Americans believe.
Now, I hope you'll excuse me for getting a little technical, but this is a collective psychology problem which, accordingly, has a collective psychology solution.
Have you ever heard of the "look test?" This is a test administered to children to discover how they process information. Simply, the longer they look at an "event," the more impact the event has on their assumptions of the world and the way it works. So for example, show a baby a video of a knife cutting through a loaf of bread, and the baby won't look very long because this type of event has already been assimilated into the baby's physical-world paradigm. It's a mundane, ordinary event, and therefore not worth processing time that could be better spent elsewhere.
However, if you then show this same baby a video of a glass of water sliding like a knife through a loaf of bread -- an assumption-shattering event -- then the baby will stare and stare. In a way the baby's saying, this is a paradigmatic crisis, I need to understand this and possibly rebuild my assumptions of the world.
Well, adult humans are more sophisticated at processing and ignoring unusual data, but they still have the same type of responses to "same old same old" versus "the unexpected high impact event." A real world example is the miraculous raid across the desert by T.E. Lawrence. Faisal needed a "miracle" to break the Arabs out of their fatalism. Lawrence gave him the miracle, and the Arabs began to believe. Bakhtin, in analyzing the novel, referred to this type of event as "apperception-shattering." Kuhn called it "paradigmatic crisis." Whatever you want to call it, the lesson is the same:
To get Americans to believe in Iraq again we need a "miracle" that can only be assimilated into their/our worldview by discarding their/our assumptions of failure and doom.
But how do we do that? How do we get a miracle when the deck seems completely stacked against it? Well, let's start with the messenger. I think we can safely assume that the Administration cannot be the messenger -- too tainted. I think we can also safely assume that the military cannot be the messenger -- it's under Bushes thumb. In fact, nobody who has a political interest in Iraq succeeding can be the messenger, because whatever they say will be written off as "same old same old." That leaves the national media (unlikely to do it willingly but they can be played), a Democrat who is not named Lieberman (preferably a Presidential candidate, but that's unlikely as well), or a foreign head of state like Sarkozy whose country is perceived by the American people as "not on board."
The event itself will have to be managed and marketed like the grand unveiling of a new product. There will have to be at least two weeks of build and national media attention. The event itself will have to be unusual/unprecedented enough to capture the attention of the media and therefore the public. There will have to be risk involved or there will be no drama, and no drama equals no attention. Preferably there should be some kind of conflict between the event-instigators and the Administration -- another element of drama which will act as flypaper to the media. Then the event must happen, it must be televised, and the new information must overawe.
I can think of several possible scenarios where this might work, but they are all contingent on a great many things. The upshot is that if something like this doesn't happen, no amount of good news from Iraq is going to substantially affect the perception of Americans that the whole thing has gone to shit.
What Iraq has successfully demonstrated above all else is the limits of terrorism. Not the terrorism of isolated acts (which can be extremely effective), but the failure of ongoing, day-to-day terrorism that becomes the order of battle. People eventually rebel against it, since they are facing death in the end anyway.
One would expect groups like Al Queda to learn from this, but they suffer another limitation and that is the mental health (or should I say lack of) of many of their adherents. The ability to take part in wanton murder attracts sociopaths and psychopaths who see this as an outlet for their hair of the dog.
It's a bit of the damned if you do, damned if you don't problem for the Jahidists. Enter the terror game and you attract the al-Zarqawi's of the world, who eventually destroy any chance of building what you claim you want to establish in the first place.
Unless there is an outside force to repair and re-establish order (in Iraq, the U.S., in the Palestinian areas, there is no one) there will be no social/economic infrastructure to build even a middling civilization on.
It is an interesting conundrum facing the Muslim world.
"Then we visited our precious land! Whoops, we hadn't been shown the swamp land,"
Wetlands, R, Wetlands. A vital, treasured and fragile part of our natural ecosystem. Enjoy it.
" nor the landfill site, and that industrial area never was mentioned."
Ratables, R, Ratables. They'll hold your property taxes down.
Sounds like you did well, what's your problem? You've just described Moonachie, New Jersey, which is NOT a particularly bad place to be.
Ben
I am from New Jersey (where a mayor appears to have inflated his military records for personal benefit). As to a miracle that would propel a new (positive) attitude within the American psyche, I advise the capture or death of Osama (which I am sure this administration has been actively trying for years) or some other great believer/leader in Islamo-facism.
Wasn't Kilcullen saying that in order to fight the fight in Iraq we need to learn those dynamics that are at play and what a win might look like there?
Only problem (now) is that when explained the American people would most likely say no. Therefore, have we been played (as suckers/field slaves) by this administration and our Congress?
I certainly understand how the Iraqi people may not just jump up when freedom comes into their world and run off into a working democracy with joy. All one has to do is go to the local animal shelter and look at those pets who have come from cruel and mean owners. How long does it take for them to adjust within a new and loving environment, if ever?
This war on terrorism is for me somewhat like being diagnosed with cancer: You pick a treatment program that's best for you, knowing that a killer has entered your body and this is a war to the death. You know every human will die, you just want to delay your death: You do the best you can do to deny cancer's march!
My bottom line: I think our leaders are poor communicators. As to why, that's a long discussion and may be very complicated. I think Kilcullen suggested this problem.
You could argue, using your cancer analogy, that Islam is exactly that to Western Civilization. It is a fight to the death. It has been going on for over thirteen hundred years and the past 70 years or so have shown a set of new flare ups after a period of relative remission.
The old drugs of Martel, El Cid, and Colonialism are no longer useful, and the new treatment of co-opting the inter-cellular networking mechanism is unproven and may be at best a stop gap or only locally effective.
Part of the problem is that most of the body denies there is even a problem, refusing to change its unhealthy diet and destructive habits, even when shown they are feeding the disease. It is almost as if the larger body is saying that if I am going to die anyway, I might as well eat, drink, and be merry, and wait until tomorrow to die, but for now do not rain on my parade.
Beyond the rim: You could argue, using your cancer analogy, that Islam is exactly that to Western Civilization. It is a fight to the death.
The US Civil War(1861-1865), the European Civil War (1914-1945), and the Cold War (1947-1991) were fights to the death, with the American Republic, liberal democracy, and capitalism at stake in each conflict, respectively. The war with Islam is a battle with a corpse temporarily animated by high oil prices. There is no possibility of Islam overwhelming the West with their hateful culture, unreformed religion, or puny military force. They had to resort to hijacking the aerial weapons they used to make their assault on 911, rather than manufacturing them. It was a cheap shot and that loophole has been closed. We're on to them now.
what I'm reading in the last week is that the change is so fast the soldiers in the field are now more optimistic than hq staff in the green zone. its usually the reverse.
The war with Islam is a battle with a corpse temporarily animated by high oil prices. There is no possibility of Islam overwhelming the West with their hateful culture, unreformed religion, or puny military force. - Teresita
Complete agreement. Sure, numerous articles can be found describing how fundamental islamists are 'gaining ground' in this part of the world or another. . .but I challenge anyone to find stories about these temporary gains leading to the local populace feeling happier, more secure, and generally more satisfied. If all a movement has to offer is suffering and hardship, that movement is doomed in the long run.
Unfortunately, that doesn't preclude a bit of kicking and screaming on the way to its fate.
It has often been said that demographics is history in the making. As to terisita and yashmak's view, I leave you with this quote from ever erudite Mark Steyn.
...If you're Nada Farooq, raised by moderate Muslim immigrants in Mississauga, Ont., educated at Meadowvale Secondary School, what's "more valued"? Your fellow Canadians who gave their lives at Normandy? Or the fallen Chechen jihadist for whom you named your newborn son? In much of the West, "cultural eclipse" would seem to be a given. The only question is what comes next...
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/601/
Indeed. The war is more demographics and culture than military conquest at this point. We can defeat any military objective. The other fronts on this war are another matter...
Teresita said:
"The war with Islam is a battle with a corpse temporarily animated by high oil prices. There is no possibility of Islam overwhelming the West with their hateful culture, unreformed religion, or puny military force."
Yashmak replied:
"Complete agreement... Unfortunately, that doesn't preclude a bit of kicking and screaming on the way to its fate."
That "kicking and screaming" is the problem. As Islamic militancy goes into its death spasm it will whack a couple American and European cities with petro-dollar funded nukes and we'll have a "Third Conjecture" situation. Truth to tell, if Islam was a healthy religion it wouldn't be threatening the rest of the world with violence. Precisely because Islamic radicals are "kicking and screaming" is what makes them dangerous.
Also Aristides said...
"But here's (one of) the problem(s). Charlie Rose is a sincere man, and a patriot. But he's been so bludgeoned by bad news and exhausted by failures that he can no longer be moved by reports of progress, so long as those reports arrive through Administration/Republican channels. The crucible of Iraq has annealed in his mind a presumption of failure."
I love this analogy of Rose's mind being work hardened like a piece of aluminum hit too many times by a hammer. That's one of the additional problems with the MSM/Goebbels method of propaganda by constant repetition. People's minds have become so work hardened that they are invulnerable to new information. This war would be lost if it wasn't for the strength of President Bush's convictions. He's like a rock being pounded by the ocean's tide.
EGGPLANT: This war would be lost if it wasn't for the strength of President Bush's convictions. He's like a rock being pounded by the ocean's tide.
What would it take to win the war? Democracy? A coalition of Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds peacefully ruling a united Iraq? Not even Bush uses the word "victory" anymore, but talks about returning on "success".
Teresita asked:
"What would it take to win the war?"
For what it's worth, here's my definition:
When Iraq's government can stand on its own without U.S. support AND al Qaeda operatives in Iraq are being hunted down by the Iraqi government then our job there is done. Mind you, under this definition Iraq could be an Iranian client state. I'm not too bothered by that because the Iranian thing is a separate issue that will either take care of itself through regime change or be dealt with directly either by the U.S. or an American lead coallition.
About two years ago, my sons' mother was diagnosed with an extremely rare form of breast cancer. She did not hesitate in having her breasts whacked off (this is a common doctor term) and then proceeding to the most aggressive form of chemotherapy.
It was all out war for her! My kind of girl, my sons' mother. She is still alive, but she knows the cancer could return somewhere in her body.
It's her attitude that I love! A fighter for sure.
That's what I mean by a communicator. Rally the troops, get that energy up front where the action belongs.
Take the fight to the enemy!
God bless America...is that too corny?
I don't think so, if for no other reason than we are a democracy that is comprised of people from everywhere on this planet...Americans love everyone!
I've made my case.
It's interesting to note that it is now the Democrats who are in denial on the War in Iraq! Of course, with their liberal media allies they can hope to successfully keep the facts from getting out. And the terrorists will cheerfully do anything in their power to get the Democrats in power. Jimmy Carter is still their favorite infidel and he was a donkey-party member.
Hilary recently compared today's economy in the US to the 1929 post-crash economy. The fact that every member of the media did not dust off their 40-point type font and come out with a "Hillary Goes Crazy" headline tells me that the truth no longer matters to one of America's political parties. Hillary now resembles the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.
Readers may wish to look at the transcript of the blogger roundtable with General Bergner on where the grassroots uprising against al-Qaeda is going.
I attended it and question nearly everyone asked was whether the grassroots efforts could eventually be made to mesh with the politicians in Baghdad. I think the qualified answer of General Bergner is that it could, but would take some shoehorning. However, it seems clear that the Baghdad politicians are aware of what's sweeping across the country, and like politicians everywhere want to come to terms with it at some level.
"like politicians everywhere want to come to terms with it at some level."
Two step process:
1) Determine which way the crowd is heading, and
2) Run ahead of the mob and shout "Follow me!"
Perhaps the time has come to figure out what to do with Muqtada al Sadr.
Meanwhile, as the shiites and Sunnis make peace, the Turks and Kurds are mixing it up on the Northern border.
Peter Grynch: Meanwhile, as the shiites and Sunnis make peace, the Turks and Kurds are mixing it up on the Northern border.
President Bush strongly opposed a House measure that would call the deaths of one million Armenians at the hands of Turkey during the first World War "genocide". The President said it will damage relations with Turkey and set back U.S. efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. The Turkish government characterized the resolution a "biased interpretation of tragedies involving Armenians in the early 20th Century." I pray that a similar "tragedy" does not befall the Kurds in the early 21st Century.
Hilary recently compared today's economy in the US to the 1929 post-crash economy.
She's right. In the immediate wake of the stock market crash, credit became difficult to obtain, just as it is today in the wake of the sub-prime fiasco. The result was a contraction of the US economy by 50%, which didn't happen overnight. The trough was in the early 1930s, and it wasn't until the war economy kicked in that a full recovery took place.
Peter Grynch said:
"Hilary recently compared today's economy in the US to the 1929 post-crash economy."
Teresita replied:
"She's right. In the immediate wake of the stock market crash, credit became difficult to obtain, just as it is today in the wake of the sub-prime fiasco."
I believe we are still a little bit before 29 October 1929 but not by much. The American economy is huge and has considerable inertia. The sub-prime fiasco may have tipped us into a major recession but we can't see it because we're still barreling along on pure inertia.
It's hard to judge the quality of our economic status because the Hard Left would like to see us in a major recession. True to form, the MSM is playing to the hard left's aspirations.
Unfortunately I don't see how we will avoid a major recession before November 2008. This will seal our fate in terms of Hillary becoming president. Of course that will put her in Herbert Hoover's predicament. Unfortunately, we'll be screwed royally while she flounders around trying to figure out a solution to fixing the economy, e.g. let's fix it with more socialism! This might be a blessing in disguise (assuming we survive) since it'll permanently discredit liberal political ideology.
Did I hear somebody say "Sparks Fly"?
eggplant: This might be a blessing in disguise (assuming we survive) since it'll permanently discredit liberal political ideology.
Yeah, lets keep that conservative political ideology rolling, we all know what a tightwad Bush is on spending.
Eggplant said "it'll permanently discredit liberal political ideology"
Liberal political ideology is permanently discredited on a regular basis. The problem with "useful idiots" is that there is ALWAYS a new crop convinced that if THEY were in charge things would be different.
Teresita,
Looka at the history of Zimbabwe since liberal Robert Mugabe took over and managed to implement the kind of economic reforms that you and Hillary espouse. At last count the unemployment rate was 80%, the inflation rate was 10,000% and people have taken to eating their pets. Of course, since there is little "income inequality" left in Zimbabwe you would probably consider it a shining model!
:^)
In war with Islam,we are looking at 3-4 countries, close to Europe.I used war with Islam intentionally I understand that PC tells us to use war on terror.
However, think, Islam spreads in Third world countries, susceptible to its pressure. End of that war is not tomorrow or after tomorrow.This war proceeds and ps perpetual for next centuries. In 1400 years Islam did not lost even one acre.Countries of that Third world are going to evolve technologically, culturally etc.
What Islam gets today its not going to lose tomorrow.Afghanistan, Iraq Syria, Iran is only wall Islam build to divide West from rest of tomorrows goals it has.
Peter Grynch said:
"Liberal political ideology is permanently discredited on a regular basis. The problem with "useful idiots" is that there is ALWAYS a new crop convinced that if THEY were in charge things would be different."
Sad but true. I see socialism or rather moonbat ideology as a form of entropy. It's an unavoidable byproduct of a functioning political system. Eventually enough of this entropy accumulates and the political system degrades into some variation of the Weimar Republic. Then either an external enemy conquers it or the economy collapses with the follow-on fascist or communist street fighters taking over what's left. It's a dreary variation of the "cycle of life".
I absolutely agree wit your comment
Eggplant.
Lifespan of political system based on last ideologies you mentioned do not last 1400 years without losing ground.
That is scary if you add mine previous comment.
Good overview from our brit friends of the current state of the Iraq 'conflict'
Prospect Magazine
Yeah, lets keep that conservative political ideology rolling, we all know what a tightwad Bush is on spending.
-teresita
Hasn't the budget deficit been cut almost in half in the past 3 years? Bush may be spendy, but the tax cuts he put in place have helped generate the increased tax revenue that has helped make that happen.
One non-existent nuke compared with Wudu in universities and taxis refusing guide dogs and congress passing salutatory resolutions for ramadan. How does that boiled frog thing go again?
nugzuaBeyond the Rim,
You hit on a very good point, Demographic Warfare. This is the method used on Israel by the "Palestinians". With mulitiple wives and with Europe's low birth rate, the vision of Eurabia is also possible.
The death throes of Islam mentioned in an earlier comment is cogent. From my vantage point a reformation of Islam is occuring.
The larger problem is the belief of each religion being supreme. As long as competition is non-violent missionary work and competition in doing good for humanity, there is hope and pleasure for The Most High.
Salaam eleikum all Y'all!
The mental no-jihad zone
Objecting to a recent column characterizing his views as being non-comprehending or indifferent to jihad, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, senior counterinsurgency adviser to our forces in Iraq, wondered in an e-mail whether I "may not like Muslims, and that's your choice." It was a long e-mail — one of several — but even these few words convey the viewpoint, increasingly prevalent, that discounts the doctrinal centrality of Islam to jihad violence convulsing the world, from Iraq to London. In the mental no-jihad zone (and, in Lt. Col. Kilcullen's case, despite what he calls his "significant personal body count of terrorists and insurgents killed or captured"), only personal animus can explain alarm over the Islamic institution of jihad (let alone dhimmitude).
"Alternatively," he wrote, "you may think Islam contains illiberal and dangerous tendencies."
I may think? I do think "tendencies" such as jihad and dhimmitude. "Again," he said, "you're entitled to that view."
"That view" is increasingly absent at the top, where Islam itself is politically and strategically beside the point.
Consider current military thought, as expressed by Lt. Col. Kilcullen: Typical terrorists, he wrote, are "driven by fundamentally non-religious motivational factors."
I wonder which non-religious motivational factors inspired Glasgow's terror-docs to scream "Allah, Allah" while ramming a flaming car into the airport.
Of course, it gets worse. Debate now divides the Pentagon over a new lexicon for Centcom. At stake is the Islamic term "jihad" itself, which could become officially verboten within the ranks of the fighting force that is actually supposed to defeat it.
This might leave us speechless, but it better not shut us up.
Maybe the real question, for the long run, is how does a religion defeat an empire? Things like that have happened before, at least twice, so to suggest that it's not possible seems a bit hubristic.
If I were a moslem I'd be thinking how do I convert the west to Islam?
-Maybe I start in Europe which is a religious vacuum at this point in history. As the communists taught us, I only need a strong disciplined minority of true believers to win power, even to win it legitimately. I don't have to defeat them militarily any more than the Christians defeated the mighty Roman empire militarily.
-The west, as it was before, is more interested in fighting amongst themselves, than they are in fighting us. The secularists still think the dead religion of Christianity is still the enemy. The Christians are tired of fighting the secularists and just want to be left alone. The post-post moderns are hungry for truth. I'd think we could accommodate all of them.
-The west itself after only a few decades has, once again, grown tired of the Jews, how could I use that.
-Is the west, which doesn't much believe in religion, any more, perhaps open to a new religion?
If I were a moslem I would see a dispirited, literally, west ripe for conquest. I'd think it was just a question of patience and finding the right tactics to gain power.
Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net
Post a Comment
<< Home