The Troop Surge - Upping the Ante

[Mephisto]

Again, the troops are caught in a Catch-22 dreamt up by an administration who (for the most part) never served combat duty.

No military solution to Iraq - U.S. chief

POSTED: 9:18 a.m. EST, March 8, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The new commander of U.S. troops in Iraq has warned that military force alone will not be enough to quell the country's violent insurgency.

Speaking publicly Thursday for the first time since taking charge in Baghdad last month, General David Petraeus said military action was necessary to improve security in Iraq but "not sufficient" to end violence altogether.

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a press conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html
________________

(from the link)

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday announced plans to send almost 5,000 additional troops to Iraq to serve as military police, bringing the planned "surge" to 26,000.

Thankfully, this war is paying for itself . . . until you consider the cost in human lives.

 

[Garrette]

Again, the troops are caught in a Catch-22 dreamt up by an administration who (for the most part) never served combat duty.

No military solution to Iraq - U.S. chief

POSTED: 9:18 a.m. EST, March 8, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The new commander of U.S. troops in Iraq has warned that military force alone will not be enough to quell the country's violent insurgency.

Speaking publicly Thursday for the first time since taking charge in Baghdad last month, General David Petraeus said military action was necessary to improve security in Iraq but "not sufficient" to end violence altogether.

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a press conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html
________________

(from the link)

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday announced plans to send almost 5,000 additional troops to Iraq to serve as military police, bringing the planned "surge" to 26,000.

Thankfully, this war is paying for itself . . . until you consider the cost in human lives.

Petraeus asked for the additional MPs; they are not being foisted on him. In the press conference I saw, though, he only mentioned 2,200 and not 5,000.

Petraeus is right and has been for a long time. The primary solution is political.

 

[Garrette]

When he was in charge of MNSTCI (Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq). This article doesn’t give much indication of Petraeus’ understanding of the broader picture, but it’s only fair to put it out there.


Or you may take a little heart from this article which addresses Petraeus’ different outlook. As the article notes, however, it may be too late. You can google for some responses to this article and find that not all are complimentary (meaning they are not complimentary to Petraeus and his “Brain Pool.”


For a very brief synopsis of Petraeus’ views, read FM 3-24, Counterinsurgency, which Petraeus helped write. Particularly read the foreword which he did write.


I have another article by Petraeus on my thumb drive but I cannot find it on the Internet. It goes a bit more into how he views this type of fight.

 

[Mephisto]

Thanks for those links, Garrette. You were right about the first one, but I found the second one particularly enlightening regarding the fact that Petraeus is obviously willing to "think outside the box."

It looks as though he's smart enough to cover all the angles and willing to listen to other viewpoints. The team he has assembled sounds pretty impressive and it looks like "Petraeus guys" might have the best chance of good result.

The field manual looks pretty comprehensive and I hope his familiarity with the subject can help him in Iraq. I've bookmarked it as it seems a worthwhile read.

I hope he can provide some results, but more than that, I hope he can provide some results with minimal American casualties.

 

[Garrette]

Found the article on my thumb drive on the Internet, finally.

Here's the link.

And here's the summary of what it's about:

1."Do not try to do too much with your own hands."
2. Act quickly, because every Army of liberation has a half-life.
3. Money is ammunition.
4. Increasing the number of stakeholders is critical to success.
5. Analyze "costs and benefits" before each operation.
6. Intelligence is the key to success.
7. Everyone must do nation-building.
8. Help build institutions, not just units.
9. Cultural awareness is a force multiplier.
10. Success in a counterinsurgency requires more than just military operations.
11. Ultimate success depends on local leaders.
12. Remember the strategic corporals and strategic lieutenants.
13. There is no substitute for flexible, adaptable leaders.
14. A leader's most important task is to set the right tone.

 

[Mephisto]

Found the article on my thumb drive on the Internet, finally.

Here's the link.

And here's the summary of what it's about:

Thanks for that! For the record, I think that #s 6 & 7 are the most often neglected - intelligence (from the Commander in Chief - not military intelligence) is in short supply, and "winning their hearts and minds," could be the key to ending the civil war.

The sooner everyone understands they can LIVE together, the sooner this conflict will end.

 

[Azure]

Which is understandable.

'Acting in a police role' is the problem to me. Our military, outside of MPs, are not trained to be policemen.

 

[Garrette]

Thanks for that! For the record, I think that #s 6 & 7 are the most often neglected - intelligence (from the Commander in Chief - not military intelligence) is in short supply,

Hah. I get what you're saying, but for the lurkers, "military intelligence" is what's meant. Though to be accurate, it's more broad than that, and really means intelligence not only on what military operations the insurgent will conduct but who make up their political structure and where they are.

and "winning their hearts and minds," could be the key to ending the civil war.

The smallest part of that is convincing them we are nice. The next smaller part is providing them with jobs and schools. The largest part is convincing them they will be more secure informing on bad guys than supporting them.

The sooner everyone understands they can LIVE together, the sooner this conflict will end.

They have known this for a very long time. The problem is that a requisite for living together has been the presence of a strong man. The understanding now must be that the strong man represented by the evolving Iraqi form of democracy is bigger than the many strong man militias, insurgent groups, and terrorist organizations.

 

[Mephisto]

Which is understandable.

'Acting in a police role' is the problem to me. Our military, outside of MPs, are not trained to be policemen.

I agree wholeheartedly with you there, Azure.

If we'd had to do this whole thing over again, it would have been great to rely on UN peacekeeping forces rather than our own military. I know how you probably feel about the UN, but having their sanction along with a stronger coalition would take some of the heat off our guys.

Still, I think we can all applaud our troops for the restraint they're using, as they also know too well they're doing a job that they were never meant to do.

 

[Mephisto]

The smallest part of that is convincing them we are nice. The next smaller part is providing them with jobs and schools. The largest part is convincing them they will be more secure informing on bad guys than supporting them.

I agree, it's a shame that our continued presence is seen as a threat when most of our troops and most of the American people would honestly like to see the Iraqi people unite for the purpose of rebuilding their country.

The power vacumn that the Soviet Union left behind in the Balkans should have cued our President to what likely would happen once we ousted Hussein. It's a shame that our President keeps "upping the ante" for our troops. They've done an incredible job of accomplishing every job they've been given, but I'm afraid another 26,000 troops is only going to be so much gasoline on the fire.

 

[Azure]

I agree wholeheartedly with you there, Azure.

If we'd had to do this whole thing over again, it would have been great to rely on UN peacekeeping forces rather than our own military. I know how you probably feel about the UN, but having their sanction along with a stronger coalition would take some of the heat off our guys.

Still, I think we can all applaud our troops for the restraint they're using, as they also know too well they're doing a job that they were never meant to do.

I probably wouldn't do the whole thing over again.

The UN is only as powerful as its member nations. But there is a problem when human rights violators are on your human rights panel.

 

[Garrette]

I agree, it's a shame that our continued presence is seen as a threat when most of our troops and most of the American people would honestly like to see the Iraqi people unite for the purpose of rebuilding their country.

The power vacumn that the Soviet Union left behind in the Balkans should have cued our President to what likely would happen once we ousted Hussein. It's a shame that our President keeps "upping the ante" for our troops. They've done an incredible job of accomplishing every job they've been given, but I'm afraid another 26,000 troops is only going to be so much gasoline on the fire.

My boss asked me about a month ago if the surge would make a difference. My response: "It will look like it because we will kill some bad guys, but in reality, not a damn bit."

He just shook his head sadly.

 

[Mephisto]

I probably wouldn't do the whole thing over again.

The UN is only as powerful as its member nations. But there is a problem when human rights violators are on your human rights panel.

You're right, but then we could count ourselves among the human rights violators. We just don't belong in Iraq - never did. We had better control of the country under Hussein, and we wouldn't have contributed to the death of so many innocent Iraqis ourselves.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You're right, but then we could count ourselves among the human rights violators. We just don't belong in Iraq - never did. We had better control of the country under Hussein, and we wouldn't have contributed to the death of so many innocent Iraqis ourselves.

"Let them die, so long as it is not on our hands."

OK works for me. Who else is OK with that?

DR

 

[Mephisto]

My boss asked me about a month ago if the surge would make a difference. My response: "It will look like it because we will kill some bad guys, but in reality, not a damn bit."

He just shook his head sadly.

I agree, and that was my complaint every time the administration pointed at the "bad guy of the month" that we'd just killed. They still haven't figured out that there's always one waiting in the wings.

Killing one of two more "Al Qaeda 2nd in command," just doesn't seem worth putting 25,000 more soldiers in danger.

 

[Azure]

I agree, and that was my complaint every time the administration pointed at the "bad guy of the month" that we'd just killed. They still haven't figured out that there's always one waiting in the wings.

Killing one of two more "Al Qaeda 2nd in command," just doesn't seem worth putting 25,000 more soldiers in danger.

I disagree. Killing the Al Qaeda 2nd in command is worth putting 25,000 soldiers in danger.

Remember, Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11...so this war so be against them. Problem is, we're not specifically fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. So sending 25,000 soldiers to Iraq to kill a bunch of worthless insurgents, wouldn't make sense.

I do think it is a bit early to judge the surge...if I remember correctly, one 1/5 the troops being sent have arrived and set up.

 

[Azure]

You're right, but then we could count ourselves among the human rights violators. We just don't belong in Iraq - never did. We had better control of the country under Hussein, and we wouldn't have contributed to the death of so many innocent Iraqis ourselves.

I personally wouldn't call 'war' as a human rights violation.

And Iraq is war, illegal or not.

 

[shecky]

I personally wouldn't call 'war' as a human rights violation.

And Iraq is war, illegal or not.

But Iraq isn't just any old war. Your previous post seems to back this up:

Remember, Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11...so this war so be against them. Problem is, we're not specifically fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. So sending 25,000 soldiers to Iraq to kill a bunch of worthless insurgents, wouldn't make sense.

Wouldn't waging war on the wrong country cause needless deaths, of both Americans and Iraqis? It seems thousands of needless deaths comes pretty close to "human rights violation" territory.

And that doesn't even count Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, Abu Gharib, Jose Padilla, etc.

 

[Azure]

But Iraq isn't just any old war. Your previous post seems to back this up:

First of all, I still support the War in Iraq. Was it on the wrong country? As far as WMD are concerned, yes. Is it a lost hope? Probably. But there are still American troops there, and American troops, in general, do not commit human rights violations. Especially with the RoE, which you ironically ignored.

And that doesn't even count Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, Abu Gharib, Jose Padilla, etc.

There you might have a point.

 

[shecky]

First of all, I still support the War in Iraq. Was it on the wrong country? As far as WMD are concerned, yes. Is it a lost hope? Probably. But there are still American troops there, and American troops, in general, do not commit human rights violations. Especially with the RoE, which you ironically ignored.

If the war was on the wrong country and is a lost hope, then the very act of war is arguably a massive human rights violation, from it's very foundation. Even if the troops follow the most stringent RoE to the letter. All the military professionalism in the world won't make the casualties any less an unnecessary waste of human life. What more a human rights violation is there, than to be killed in a war that didn't need to be fought?