Today's Must-Read Op-Ed

Of course, Michael O'Hanlon spent a week in Iraq and says these guys are wrong:

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

Obviously, the other side of this debate is going to be able to produce its own group of soldiers to back them up, but the basic claim these guys are making is more logical than factual: "Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population." As they say, it's simply implausible on its face to think that better tactics and an increase in the level of troops from way, way, way fewer than history deems necessary for this sort of thing to way, way fewer than history deems necessary for this sort of thing could reverse the fact that the US troop presence lost the support of the population years before the surge began.

Comments

I'm surprised you didn't quote the end of the op-ed:

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Yup.

Posted by ProfD | August 19, 2007 6:39 PM

These guys make sense, but they are offering a bitter pill to the American people. We will leave Iraq someday, somehow. When that day comes, the Iraqi's will resort to some type of majority rule and the results might be ugly. Bummer.

Posted by Tuna | August 19, 2007 7:04 PM

It is fallacious to call the resistance to US military occupation Iraq an insurgency, which is a revolt against a government.

The fallacy is that the US military (the "counterinsurgents") is defending the Iraq government against rebellious "insurgents". In fact, there is no effective Iraq government, there is a US-controlled puppet government and a brutal US military occupation, characterized by random killing, kidnapping, imprisonment, torture, bombing and all the other niceties of war ("outlived our welcome"), which is being resisted by a large portion of the Iraqi populace, much as you or I would do if the circumstances were reversed. So it is more accurate to call Iraq a resisted occupation, not an insurgency.

Listening to soldiers, while they can provide interesting anecdotal evidence, is not normally a good way to analyze the full complexities of a large military operation. They're talking 'way over their pay grades, and are often fully indoctrinated. That said, these particular guys make a whole lot of sense in many ways and make a valuable contribution to the dialogue. Their unusually fresh and intelligent comments, if they are representative of other GI's, bode some hope of turning this thing around, which must be done by the GI's (as in Vietnam) because the pols won't do it. And yes, Matt's right as usual, look for an immediate "counter-insurgency" of soldiers who support the current strategy in Iraq.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 19, 2007 7:33 PM

Tuna,

The Iraqis have already resorted to "some type of majority rule," and the results so far have been ugly.

A meta-point on this essay is that the politicization of active duty military personnel here is extraordinary. I can't think of a similar op/ed -- pro or con -- published by active duty troops on this or any other war. If "the other side" rounds up troops to counter this op/ed, that would be as unfortunate as this essay, for the same reason. Where will this ultimately lead -- to polls of American troops before military actions? How much greater a roll in our politics does the NY Times want active duty military troops to play?

I know the Times editors (along with their pals at the WSJ) want to import more Latin Americans, but aren't they wary of Latin America's history of politicized armed forces? Why weaken the historic preventatives against that here?

Posted by Fred | August 19, 2007 7:58 PM

The most important observation from that editorial was the comment that the Iraqi army and/or police are aiding in the placement of roadside bombs. If they can't even count on those guys then there is no point staying a minute longer.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | August 19, 2007 7:59 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html

August 19, 2007

The War as We Saw It
By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY

Baghdad

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a "time-sensitive target acquisition mission" on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force....

Posted by anne | August 19, 2007 8:05 PM

Fred, what kind of insane monster are you?

Posted by Jennifer | August 19, 2007 8:08 PM

"I know the Times editors (along with their pals at the WSJ) want to import more Latin Americans, but aren't they wary of Latin America's history of politicized armed forces? Why weaken the historic preventatives against that here?"

Fred, you are truly sickening and sick with your vile racism even in the midst of the true courage of these soldiers. Vile sickening racism.

Posted by Jennifer | August 19, 2007 8:12 PM

Don Bacon,

Would the leader of a "US-controlled puppet government" hobnob with the leaders of Iran in Teheran? Would a "US-controlled puppet government" be one that arose out of a legislature elected in free, UN-monitored, elections -- elections in which everyone from Communists to religious parties participated? Would a "US-controlled puppet government" take the month of August off, given the negative perceptions of that in Congress?

You are entitled to your opinion about the war in Iraq, but not your own facts. The Iraqi government may be corrupt and incompetent, but the Iraqi parliament from which it was formed was freely chosen by the Iraqi people. To lie and call this a puppet government is an insult to Iraqis who risked their lives to vote, and to the Coalition troops who risked their lives to give the Iraqis that opportunity.

Posted by Fred | August 19, 2007 8:14 PM

Jennifer,

Why parade your ignorance? What does this have to do with race? The Latin American tendency toward politicized armed forces extended to Argentina, a country much whiter than the United States.

Posted by Fred | August 19, 2007 8:21 PM

I can't speak for Fred, but I think he just meant it as a badly thought out joke, not a racial slur.

In any case, the point about the politicization of the military is a valid one. You don't want it to become routine for active duty soldiers to be the arbiters of war policy.

These soldiers have written a very good article. But why couldn't some democrats have written something similar? There's nothing in it that's groundbreaking, but democrats seem to like using the military as a shield, for fear of looking soft.

Be wary...if the military is called on for political guidance, one day it may decide it ought to play a political role. Latin America has a bad history of this, as Fred notes. (though this has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with political conditions and foreign meddling in the region, mostly by the US.)

Posted by graeme | August 19, 2007 8:28 PM

Fred, your comments are of a vile insane racist. What a sick person you are.

Don, how about learning to show a little respect and not vilifying our soldiers as a group?

Posted by Jennifer | August 19, 2007 8:31 PM

Graeme,

Thanks for making my point more clearly than I did.

Posted by Fred | August 19, 2007 9:08 PM

Lighten up, folks. Fred isn't being racist. He's raising a point about the tradition among active duty people in the U.S. military to never get publicly involved in politics. He's reminding us that in countries where the military has become overtly involved in politics, democracy suffered. I think he could have done without the crack about "importing Latin Americans," but his main point is worthy of our attention. Recall that when retired generals started speaking out publicly against Bush's conduct of the war in 2005, several pundits tut-tutted them for getting involved in politics -- and they were RETIRED. These NCOs that wrote the NYT op-ed are still on active duty.

Let me offer a counter-argument to Fred's comment without calling him names: the politicization of the U.S. military didn't start with these NCOs. It went beyond the pale starting in 2003, when Gen. Shinseki was sidelined and humiliated by Rumsfeld for giving his expert, professional opinion to Congress on how many troops the occupation would take. It was further politicized, in the sense that the Iraq war and the soldiers fighting in it were used by the Bush/Rove/DeLay Axis of Weasel as a political cudgel against Kerry and the other Democrats in 2004. It is again being indirectly politicized now, with the fantasies and lies the neocons are telling about the present situation in Iraq, and the additional ones they are setting up to tell Congress in September.

I suspect that these guys wrote this op-ed BECAUSE of their perception of how the U.S. military has become politicized, or at least politically used. They are communicating to the American people the truth on the ground that they are experiencing every day, because they anticipate that the Bush Administration will continue to leverage the respect the public has for our soldiers to suppress honest assessments of the situation in Iraq, to portray questioning the progress of the war as disloyal.

The NCOs take care to state in their op-ed that the opinions in it are their own, and may not be consistent with those of their commanders. But I am sure that they are perfectly aware that this kind of step runs the risk of court-martial, because it openly involves them in U.S. politics. And they took the step, and they signed their names to it.

The military would collapse in chaos if soldiers disobeyed any order they didn't like -- but the Uniform Code of Military Justice reminds American soldiers that they have a duty to disobey an unlawful order, in spite of the possible consequences. Similarly, the tradition our soldiers have of staying out of politics is valid and important to the country, but in this extreme a situation, these grunt sergeants saw it as their higher duty to give an honest sitrep to their fellow citizens. I agree with them, I am immensely proud of them for speaking out, and if any of them is ever in the Seattle area, the beer's on this old ex-air defense artilleryman.

Posted by DuBaun | August 19, 2007 9:34 PM

Jennifer, I believe Don was a soldier.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 19, 2007 9:51 PM

Well said Dubaun,

You're very correct to note that most of the politicization of the military has come from the executive/conservative side of things.

upon a re-reading, I suspect you're right that they wrote the article largely as a response to politicization, eg. the final point about not worrying about morale.

Still, I wish more Democrats would make these points on their own. I fear they have acquiesced too much to the politicization of the military, and are not above using it as a tool themselves if political winds shift.

The military has been glorified by both sides for political advantage, with the non-nonsensical "are you saying you don't support the troops?" being bandied about as the definitive end to any argument. Its not a trend I like, and I wish someone would push back harder against it.

I wouldn't worry any more about Jennifer. Barring further evidence, she's clearly either a troll or someone who doesn't understand the point of debate.

Posted by graeme | August 19, 2007 10:38 PM

No; try again Shinseki was a very conventional Chief of Staff for an increasingly unconventional
war. He was the default choice after the Clinton's
favorite choice of Wesley Clark; fell through since he really wasn't so popular among the troops specially after the brinksmanship in Kosovo with the Russians. Most line officers including future Bush bete noire General Zinni
rallied to the administration's side in 2000. Which is ironic considering his record of inactivity in the period when AQ was on the move bombing targets in Riyadh, Dhahran, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Aden harbor etc. Same for his predecessor Gen. Hoar, McPeak, the Gulf War air war chief; et al.This is why he was replaced with Schoomaker, a long time Special Forces veteran of campaigns from Iran,to Lebanon, Colombia to Somalia. His calculations on troop strength were based on seeing Bosnia as a viable solution. The idea of including so many conventional troops; including NGs; militates argues against the advantage Actually Matt; O'Hanlon & Pollack's very realistic assessment is very much of a par with this group of NCOs; which as Maureen Dowd,
would say; have total moral authority. How many
NCOs and or commissioned officer who argue for victory have been published as a Times Op Ed
The examples of Reickoff, Hackett, Reppenshagen, et al and their opposite numbers suggest a future political situation not unlike the Optimate/
Populares struggles between Marius & Sulla veterans of the Jugurthan War in the late 1st Century B.C. Realists officer like McMaster, Nagl,
Mattis, et al; would be the likely candidates in this framework.

The issue of Shia consolidation, can beunderstood
only in light of past history. From the First British intervention in 1917; that enshrined the
pre-existing Sunni tribal families (al Ghailani,
Pachachi, al Said) over the Sadrs, Hakims, Askari et al. The Golden Square fascist clique under the junior Ghailani; the Baathist coups and counter-coups that culminated with Saddam's rise to power;
driving the rise of Sadr's Daawa and Hakim's SCIRI
whose instrument was the Badr organization, out of Najaf & Karbala; where Khomeini spent the bulk his exile. the Shia intifadah of 1991; and the relentless onslaught upon every Shia mosque, husseiniya, imam, mullah in the last 4 &1/2 years.
All directed by the Sunni tribes (Ubeidi, Jibbur,
Dulaimi) who made up the core of regular Iraqi army and the security services; who directed the
bulk of these actions against the Shia community
with the aid of their cross border allies in Arabia & Syria

Posted by narciso | August 19, 2007 10:48 PM

Fred, Prime Minister Maliki, the head of the "sovereign government" of Iraq, commands one division of the ten Iraqi Ground Force divisions. This gives him a lot of extra time to, as you say, to hobnob with Ahmadinejad, but it doesn't mean that he heads an actual, effective non-puppet government. Has Maliki been to Mosul or Fallujah lately? And the independence that the Iraq parliament showed in taking August off indicates that they are effective? Come on, Fred.

Jennifer, I did not and would not disrespect or vilify US soldiers. I have served with and commanded US soldiers, which I consider to have been an honor and a privilege. I loved the soldiers I served with, and I would never dishonor them. When the government takes young men and women and turns them into soldiers it has a sacred obligation to train them properly, motivate them honestly and lead them diligently to perform their duties according to the laws of land warfare and the Geneva Convention. The fact that this has not been done in Iraq is not the fault of the soldiers. Nasty, terrible things have been done by soldiers in Iraq. It is not their fault. After all, these were the boys and girls "next door" until the military got them. But unfortunately they will suffer the Post Traumatic Stress from deeds that their officers, from the highest level, either instigated, encouraged or allowed. They will wake up nights screaming, they will give their spouses grief and they will suffer mightily because they had been induced to do things that their consciences cannot accept. One day, years from now, we may see one of them on a freeway off-ramp, bearded and derelict, with a paper cup in his hands. We might crank up the window and go at the green, conveniently forgetting that he was one more of the victims of war.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 19, 2007 11:52 PM

So Matt - I take it you avoid Yon and Totten so as to remain blissfully unaware of objective voices reporting from the ground in Iraq?

Posted by James Robertson | August 20, 2007 12:30 AM

Fred, what kind of insane monster are you?
Posted by Jennifer

Fred, you are truly sickening and sick with your vile racism even in the midst of the true courage of these soldiers. Vile sickening racism.
Posted by Jennifer

Jennifer, you ignorant twat. Please shut-up. Adults are talking.

Listen and learn.

**********************

Don Bacon - When the government takes young men and women and turns them into soldiers it has a sacred obligation to train them properly, motivate them honestly and lead them diligently to perform their duties according to the laws of land warfare and the Geneva Convention. The fact that this has not been done in Iraq is not the fault of the soldiers. Nasty, terrible things have been done by soldiers in Iraq. It is not their fault

Sorry, I disagree, and I commanded soldiers as a junior officer in the Gulf War. The Geneva Convention only applies, outside Article 3, as a reciprocal pact. We have had great difficulty in Iraq for many reasons, among which the enemy is greatly advantaged by not having to follow any of the rules of war and we have not responded in kind out of politics.
And spotlighting "nasty terrible things done by our soldiers", when foreign military observors and Red Cross call our soldiers "a model" of a disciplined well-ordered and led military, while ignoring the massive atrocities done by AQ and insurgents - does our troops and their mostly exemplary behavior a disservice and groundlessly dishonors them.

Active duty troops - from officers to privates - need to avoid active politicking for the good of the country and service. Those NCOs should suffer a reprimand for becoming involved in a political debate of their own violation. America should not go the way of Latin America, Africa, Arab nations and tolerate an Armed Forces riven with political factions. Same with religion - where certain officers and NCOs that were proselytizing their personal religion on other troops and civilians just got slapped down, hard.

On the other hand, it is important that Americans, especially our elected representatives, get a clearer picture of the morale, beliefs, problems of front-line troops. As is, much of the info is massaged - and that is the fault of a Leftist media with an agenda and an anti-war narrative they are trying to fit the facts to, the Pentagon spin machine, and certain hyperpartisans that try using the soldiers and their sacrifice for partisan advantage. All too much, when honest info is sought, dog & pony shows are the product the media, Pentagon, and warring politicians deliver.

The Milblogs have come through with some good reporting, so too the rare journalist that embeds and lacks an agenda. About the best is finding some troops that did interact with Iraqis, who are now home, and ask them to "tell me what I don't know about Iraq or the US military's status there.

You will be fucking amazed at what they say - the good stuff the press doesn't report, the bad stuff they should report but don't....and 15 minutes of conversation will give you a dozen "Wow, I NEVER heard THAT from any media I read!" and then go to another group of soldiers or Marines that worked a different locale, and many of their answers will disagree with the other active duty Vets. My Nephew, a 1st SGT now out on war disability, had his own stories about all the little things, the frustrations with how much the troops were handcuffed by PC, and big things like AQ occasionally car-bombing Sunnis in places like Ramadi and trying to pin it on Shiite factions - and the AQ execution pits they found...

Some caveats about "Ask The Troops!" "They Know Best!"

Because they often don't know best......

1. Soldiers are "enclosed" in a small world, their ops area. They may be able to tell you everything about life within two kilomters of them, but nothing strategic, nothing past that small piece of the puzzle they dwell and live in.

An example was how a squad of men and women from some rear ech support unit reported proudly and deeply sincerely about how they had won over Iraqi hearts because they repainted several schools and built playgrounds and handed out candy and soccer balls to "Iraqi people that loved the freedom we brought" in the fall of 2003 ----in Fallujah.

Japanese soldiers provide another great example, telling after the war how shocked they were they lost because until the US landing craft arrived or Soviet artillery began falling in Manchuria - that everything in their little world of soldier's duties had gone very well, and the news was all good.

2. Unfortunately, most US soldiers lack any meaningful contact with the people. Their contacts, even the combat guys with direct lethal actions against Al Qaeda or Iraqi insurgents, will have no significant common language exchanges, no extensive "hands on" experience understanding where the local Hajiis were coming from. Waving 700 Iraqi motorists through a checkpoint, while contact of sorts, does not signify knowing or understanding a single one of the 700 the soldier was in contact with.

Also, Americans serving in Iraq and Kuwait are behind base walls, forward operating bases or rear area supply ones. The "FOBBIT" phenomenon refers to a pile of "heroes" that arrive at a base and never leave the wire until their helo ride or convoy ticket out comes. Only a minority, a small one, interacts with Iraqis...

3. US soldiers are indoctrinated. That is not a bad thing. All soldiers must be indoctrinated into mission and goals and support them for the whole military to work properly. They must have the belief that they are doing their duties and believe in the mission in order to have the committment and morale needed. That means a lot of "Hoo-uhhhs" and "Bravo Zulu" talk from grunts when VIPS - big shot "influencers" from the States arrive on "fact-finding" trips. And the grunt's bosses - the colonels and 1-Stars - have unfortunately been trapped by the Party Line the Pentagon expects. They will answer direct questions truthfully while seeking to dodge embarassing or unpleasant truths - the problem is too few in Congress on their dog&pony show expeditions know the questions too ask, and of those that do, too many were the Vets who had given Bush loyalty...

4.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 20, 2007 1:29 AM

"And the independence that the Iraq parliament showed in taking August off indicates that they are effective? Come on, Fred."

Don Bacon, did you read where I called the Iraqi government "corrupt and incompetent"? If so, what gave you the impression that I thought they were effective? The Iraqi parliament's decision to take August off isn't an indication of their effectiveness, but it does indicate that they aren't puppets of the Bush administration, which is being embarrassed by this August vacation in the run up to the September report on the surge.

DuBaun:

Do a little more research on Gen. Shinseki. You may find that he was quite political, using his family connections to Sen. Inouye to resist Rumfeld's early attempts to modernize the Army. Like a broken watch that is right twice a day, Shinseki may have been right about the need for more troops in Iraq*, but he also said that an invasion force of several hundred thousand troops would be needed to depose the Taliban, and was rightly ignored. Further research will show that Shinseki retired on schedule and suffered no repercussions for his testimony about force strength on Capital Hill. Shinseki was a thoroughly unimpressive chief of staff (as is Casey, btw).

*It's possible that Iraq would be in better shape now had we invaded with the same sized force, but taken more time. Rather than rushing to Baghdad, we would have been better off bypassing it temporarily, and crushing resistance and cleaning up ammo dumps in Tikrit, etc., before going into Baghdad.

Posted by Fred | August 20, 2007 2:54 AM

"when foreign military observors and Red Cross call our soldiers "a model" of a disciplined well-ordered and led military"

Bullshit. Maybe compared to Idi Amin's troops...

The British military has been criticizing US "heavy handedness" since 2003.

The Brits own tactics for dealing with the local population were effective for the first year or two of the conflict, but they are now being run out of Iraq.

Expect all British troops to be out of Iraq by next spring, or even the end of this year, as the British government has no intention of trying to explain to their citizens why they lost 5,000 troops when Bush attacks Iran.

The US government, on the other hand, will have no interest in explaining how they lost thousands more US troops when the Iran war starts, and the US is forced to evacuate Iraq in a hurry when the casualties mount drastically.

But anybody who has read anything about the US forces behavior in Iraq - or anyone who served in the US military during Vietnam as I did - knows that US troops are "disciplined" right up to the moment when an officer isn't looking. And today, most of the officers are deliberately not looking, as every soldier criminally charged with the murder of Iraqi civilians has testified.

While the bulk of non-combat US forces are participating in a war crime of a war, they cannot, I suppose, be specifically charged with war crimes. But many, if possibly not most, of the combat troops can be.

Of course, there is no point in doing so. You don't prosecute 500,000 men in a military for war crimes. This wasn't done after WWII, nor can it be done today. You prosecute their officers. And this should be done right up the chain of command to the Commander in Chief.

But still more must be done. The US military concept of warfare must be modified to eliminate the actions that amount to war crimes, such as the bombing of civilian areas from the air and via the use of artillery, to the search of civilian homes, to the mass arrests of civilians in the vicinity of an insurgent attack, and so on. These tactics are not only ineffective against an insurgency, they are war crimes and should be prohibited. The military should be retrained to replace such methods with effective counterinsurgency methods.

Finally, the US government must be forced to stop using its military in foreign countries which are not a direct threat to the security of the US mainland or US properties elsewhere. This alone will eliminate the problem of US war crimes, as by definition such actions are war crimes. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo and now Iraq - all of these operations were by definition war crimes and were conducted by criminal methods.

The criminals responsible for these operations should be made responsible and dealt with appropriately.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 20, 2007 3:05 AM

Chris Ford congratulations on you imaginary promotion. Just the other day you were an enlisted man but now you were "commanding soldiers as a junior officer in the Gulf War." The Army must have offered you a battlefield commission to entice you away from the Air Force. At the current rate, you should retroactively make Lieutenant Colonel in the Marines by then end of the week.

Posted by Chris Ford lies | August 20, 2007 5:13 AM

"As they say, it's simply implausible on its face to think that better tactics and an increase in the level of troops from way, way, way fewer than history deems necessary for this sort of thing to way, way fewer than history deems necessary for this sort of thing could reverse the fact that the US troop presence lost the support of the population years before the surge began."

But it's not all that implausible to think that the insurgents, by being murderous bastards even by middle east standards, have lost whatever support they ever had... Not that the election results suggest they ever had much.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 20, 2007 7:04 AM

Just the other day you were an enlisted man but now you were "commanding soldiers as a junior officer in the Gulf War."

Nice try, Fuck-stain. I noticed you even hid your regular "handle" to challenge my creds. Just another dumb Lefty that doesn't understand what jobs people in the military do. You only speculate on who does what. And appear ignorant it is a rare junior officer, and certainly outside Line Officer, that does not have men under them to command and to be evaluated on. Or NCO in a combat billet. Maybe in JAG..but not Line Command. Nor do you have a clue on tasks assigned, how intelligence was used by who, back in the Gulf War - nor who had final target strike approval. (Hint: It wasn't little O-2 me that approved or rejected elements of our Group's target package and tasked the fire mission.)

Just stick to doing something you know how to do, like endlessly repeating "We Love and Support Our Troops Soooo Much!!" and "My finely-honed Lefty strategic skills and understanding of radical Islam tells me the real enemy is only 4-5 guys hiding in caves in Pakistan!"

And of course, keep waiting for those "good days for the Left" when more than 6 US soldiers are killed so you can crawl out from under your rocks to do the old fake mourning act about "Unbearable numbers of Dead Heroes to the Left Killed by Bush-Hitler. When will we ever declare we lost!!"

And I am convinced that one reason you love to call conservatives "chickenhawks" is that so many young Lefty boys got their party money doing tricks for the real Chickenhawks.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 20, 2007 7:52 AM

By definition, if guerrillas are outnumbered/outgunned by the occupation forces, but are not betrayed to the occupation forces by the locals, they must be in some way supported by the locals. Since U.S. military intelligence in Iraq is unbelievably bad, it follows that the locals do not oppose the guerrillas. There isn't very much that the U.S. can do about this.

The U.S. is extremely fortunate that the guerrillas have not grown significantly stronger in recent months -- unless, of course, they have grown stronger but are wisely operating in areas where the U.S. is weak.

Posted by MFB | August 20, 2007 8:23 AM

Do not feed the Fred troll.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 20, 2007 8:52 AM

There is Chris Ford showing what it is to be "insane."

Posted by Chris Ford lies | August 20, 2007 10:09 AM

The whole thesis is invalid, Counterinsurgency is not about who wins the support of the population. If it was, there wouldn't be a need for violence in the first place. They'd hold an election instead.

Insurgency is a type of force. Like most force, it is beaten by force. Saddam didn't beat any insurgencies by "winning the support of the population". That was why there was an insurgency in the first place, because he didn't have the support of the population.

But Saddam did have the support of a few hundred thousand Sunnis with guns, tanks, and missiles, and he wasn't afraid to use them.

Not saying that should be our tactics in this war, but we also shouldn't be chasing after something that wouldn't win the war even if we successfully executed it. We could win the support of the entire population of Iraq other than the current insurgents and it would mean exactly squat since Iraqis FEAR the insurgents more than they fear us.

This is a civil war. It's time to get out and let the Sunnis get what's coming to them.

Posted by Adam Herman | August 20, 2007 11:04 AM

Fred, your contention that the US Ambassador sits at a lower level than the Prime Minister of Iraq in a country where the US controls all the main levers of power, including most of the PM's army, in a land under full martial law enforced by the US military is laughable.

Chris Ford, the plain obvious fact is that the US military turned a liberated people in Iraq into an armed enemy because of lawless killing, kidnapping, imprisonment, torture and harassment. Read "Military veterans speak on the record about attacks on Iraqi civilians" in The Nation.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 20, 2007 11:48 AM

Man, I haven't posted in these comment threads in a while...the regular posters are all changed now.

I'll have to watch for a bit and figure out who the new trolls are.

Posted by graeme | August 20, 2007 12:02 PM

Graeme- the way I read these comments is that Fred is usually pretty conservative for these parts and occasionally not above the rude or snide remark. Hence his Latin American comment. Totally irrelevant to his main point (which was well taken) and revealing of his more unpleasant side.

Posted by mpowell | August 20, 2007 2:47 PM

So your confusion is unsuprising. Fred does, in my opinion, like to troll sometimes (whatever that means, exactly). But like Al, (who I can tell from his basketball comments) is intelligent enough to contribute something now and again.

*sorry for the double posting

Posted by mpowell | August 20, 2007 2:50 PM

Thanks

Posted by graeme | August 20, 2007 5:37 PM

"That was why there was an insurgency in the first place, because he didn't have the support of the population.

But Saddam did have the support of a few hundred thousand Sunnis with guns, tanks, and missiles, and he wasn't afraid to use them."

This is little short of moronic.

First of all, the US could "win" the insurgency war by killing every Sunni and every Shia not directly supporting the US. This is called "genocide" and is what Saddam was accused of doing when he fought insurgencies among the Shia and the Kurds. They hung him for this approach. And this is the approach we should consider? Fine, if it leads to hanging OUR leaders.

Second, Saddam was Iraqi. Iraqis expect this behavior from their rulers, which is why they didn't start insurgencies in the first place.

Third, the US is NOT Iraqi, therefore nationalism comes into play more than "fear" of either the US OR the insurgents.

Fourth, hate plays more a part than fear - the Iraqis HATE each other to some degree, but they hate the US MORE because the US is not Iraqi and is occupying their country and killing their relatives for no damn good reason they can see - and even if they understood the reason, they don't understand the braindead INCOMPETENCE of the US forces.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 20, 2007 9:50 PM