Do They Read These Manuals?

I have a Guardian item up about our reliance on airstrikes in counterinsurgency situations. Meanwhile, with regard to the new American offensive in Iraq, Robert Farley observes that we're witnessing a return "to pointless and destructive sweep operations" that may represent a recognition within the command structure that the conditions in Iraq aren't actually appropriate (in particular, we have neither the appropriate number of forces nor the appropriate sort of local ally) to conduct a textbook counterinsurgency -- even according to the US Army's brand new textbook.

As Farley says, these sweep "operations are emotionally satisfying, but by and large have never worked, and almost inevitably cause more damage than they prevent."

Comments

Hey Matt if u have a better idea I would like to hear it. Instead of criticozing people busting their butts off for you, maybe you should contribute. And blogging doesn;t count.

Posted by Stir | June 20, 2007 10:58 AM

Farley's wrong about the motivation, but right about the outcome.

The sweeps are "emotionally satisfying" because the military believes in them. It's an article of faith just like the GOP and tax cuts (or torture). The sweeps weren't launched out of frustration. They were launched out of a deep belief.

Military sweeps are a central part of the surge concept. The surge idea is to "clear, hold, build" in BAGHDAD. Military sweeps conducted by the Americans would clear al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents, and Shiite militiamen out of Baghdad neighborhoods. Then Iraqi troops would come in and "hold" them to prevent undesirable from returning and provide the stability needed for economic reconstruction and political compromise.

The fact that the U. S. military has had to launch a sweep in Diyala is an extremely bad sign for the surge policy. How is the military able to secure Baghdad if they can't focus on Baghdad? But that's not the worst of it. Sunni insurgents around Baghdad actually appear stronger now than they did in 2006. The American military doesn't even appear to be doing as good a job at suppressing the Sunni insurgents as the Shiite death squads in 2006. In other words, the surge has made Baghdad less rather than more secure.

Posted by Ric Caric | June 20, 2007 11:13 AM

He's right Matt, if you don't have actionable solutions to global warming, childhood obesity, clinical depression or why baseball sucks-- then you should STFU and let only those certain they have all the answers comment on the world.

On another note, that's a good picture of you up on the Guardian website. That photographer should go into the fake ID business, you look at least 30.

Posted by beowulf | June 20, 2007 11:19 AM

If the U.S. Military is ignoring its own counter-insurgency doctrine, then we have to suppose either that they are idiots, or that the political motivations for the American presence in Iraq preclude the pursuit of that doctrine.

Can anyone think of any other reasons?

Personally, I do not believe that the people who wrote those manuals are too stupid to understand their own words, so I favor the explanation that says they cannot follow their own doctrine for reasons they presently prefer to hide.

The simplest and most obvious reason for rejecting a strategy to win hearts and minds is that the policy objectives of the U.S. in Iraq run counter to the interests of the people living in the country, and so there is no choice but to impose those policies by brute force, without regard for the costs to either the local population or the soldiers who have been deployed there.

Because politicians and their servants routinely lie, the subject of those motives is of necessity a matter for speculation.

I think this all revolves around that-which-must-not-be-named. I daren't speak its name directly; let me just say that it dwells deep in the earth, is the color of pure evil, burns with a white-hot flame, and arose from the bodies of the dead...

Posted by RLaing | June 20, 2007 7:08 PM

The Army might as well have a Field Manual on Astrology

People would like to have some way of making events important in their lives as predictable as the movements of the stars. So they believe in Astrology, and are willing to fork over money to people who claim to a knowledge of Astrology -- despite the lack of evidence that such a theoretically useful science actually exists.

This nation finds itself at a juncture in which many of us would like to believe that there is a science, a predictable method, of imposing democracy on other nations by force of arms. So many of us believe in something called "Counter-Insurgency", a method that, if only executed competently, will enable us to create democracy at the point of a bayonet -- despite the lack of evidence that such a method actually exists.

If there actually were a body of military theory and practice answering to the claims of counter-insurgency, we would have already had a counter-insurgency Field Manual, about 95% descriptive and at most 5% prescriptive, and would not have had to commission Petraeus to come up with noble-sounding prescriptions for something that lacks any concrete reality that could be simply described. The unglamorous truth is that there is no competent, non-genocidal, way of forcing the people of another nation under a government that is to our, and not their, liking. A phrase such as "counter-insurgency warfare" is simply a euphemism for empire and genocide, making war on a foreign people rather than a foreign armed force.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | June 21, 2007 12:46 AM

Well, the operation described in the NYT doesn't seem to be about imposing democracy. It seems to be purely targeted at Al Qaeda. So is that just a feature of this particular operation, or have we given up on restraining the Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias?

Posted by AlanC9 | June 21, 2007 5:01 AM