A Change In Policy & The Rules of Engagement
It's About Time
By Erick Posted in War — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There are a number of things we can expect to hear from the President tonight. RedState, along with a number of other biogs, was invited to attend by conference call a special White House bloggers' briefing on tonight's speech.
Press Secretary Tony Snow gave highlights of the speech and change in policy. As expected, there will be an increase in troops and some definitive timelines for when certain things -- like security for Baghdad -- will be handed back to the Iraqis.
Three things in particular are coming internally to Iraq. A hydrocarbon law will be pushed to divide oil proceeds for the benefit of the citizenry in Iraq; reforms will come to the debaathification laws; and Sunnis, who sat out the last election, will somehow become better represented in the Parliament.
The overarching strategy will be to crack down on security in Baghdad. Baghdad will be divided into nine districts with one full Iraqi brigade and 1 U.S. battalion per district. Likewise, we'll see an increase of 5 U.S. army brigades in Iraq.
Read on . . .
In these nine districts, the Iraqi and American forces will destroy the insurgency, hold the territory, and rebuild the territory. This is a substantial and good shift from prior policy, which saw the insurgents driven out only to come back in once we left the area.
American policy will also shift toward taking out the "micro-sanctuaries" of the insurgents in the Anbar Province. While there was a lot of talk on the call about defensive security measures, Tony Snow also explained that the rules of engagement will beneficially change and admitted that the President now recognizes we need more boots on the ground to take out the bad guys.
In the past, politicians and outsiders could call of a military operation based on who the target was, where the target was, etc. Those rules are now out. The military will not be stopped by outsiders from pursuing to completion an operation to take out the enemy. This is a bold and good change.
Tony Snow said the President recognizes that we must succeed and we must put Iraqis in the lead. Tonight he will tell us how he is going to do that.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | We Will Now Fight — Comments (15) »
A Change In Policy & The Rules of Engagement 16 Comments (0 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I really hope that will be the case. This is what has been needed for a long time now. Now they can do thier job!
But given the track record, the prospects aren't exactly promising.
Basically, the same people who admit that they have had the wrong ROE for the last three years, that they have had the wrong force structure for the last three years, that they've vastly overestimated the capability of the Iraqi Govt, that they haven't doen anything about Iranian and Strian subversion and even outright Iranian "lethal action" against the US and Iraq, and countless other mistakes, now say "ok, we we ere wrong about a whole bunch of stuff, but we see that now, and we know what we have to do to fix it, and this is too important not to fix".
While I agree, there's little to suggest that these people are capable of fixing it. They've had 3+ years and numerous different attempts and they're admitting now that most of them were ill conceived from the start and resulted in failed policy, now they're basically asking us to take a leap of faith that this time, they've got it right.
Interestingly, the numbers Bush is calling for(approx 20K)are far less than the 50K that the AEI study initially said was needed and even far less than the 30K that they came up with as the bare minimum for even a 50% chance of success.
When one looks at all the mistakes that are admitted and conceded, the question becomes, what basis do we have for confidence this time around other than good faith and hope?
As the President once famously said, "fool me once, shame on, shame on you, fool me, you can't get fooled again". Hopefully the new boss proves better than the old boss.
All that said, the US will be much better off if this succeeds and right now, this administration is all we have, so all of us should hope that this works, becuase if it doesn't, things will only get much, much worse.
Hopefully, also, the strike in Somalia signifies an increased aggresiveness against AQ and other terrorist targets around the world. There are literally hundreds of Pasdaran camps in Iran that we know the location of and have had SAT coverage of for years now. We KNOW these camps manufacture IEDS and train people in their use. We've caught IRGC officers REDHANDED in Baghdad, in cahoots with the Iraqi govt, fomenting violence on both sides. No matter what this new strategy entails, if we continue to ignore the Iranian and Syrian element, it won't matter. A few massive and targeted strikes on some of these Pasdaran camps and supply dumps, would be a good start.
So, I hope this works, and if it does does, I for one will gladly admit my pessimism was misplaced and give the administration credit. It's a shame they couldn't have recognized these truths 3 years ago when it would have been better, but you have to start somewhere, and perhaps they've finally turned things around. Let's all hope so.
"Basically, the same people who admit that they have had the wrong ROE for the last three years, that they have had the wrong force structure for the last three years, that they've vastly overestimated the capability of the Iraqi Govt, that they haven't doen anything about Iranian and Strian subversion and even outright Iranian "lethal action" against the US and Iraq, and countless other mistakes, now say "ok, we we ere wrong about a whole bunch of stuff, but we see that now.."
"While I agree, there's little to suggest that these people are capable of fixing it.
*takes a deep breath..calming down*
Right. That's why the President has replaced "these people" ie those reposnsible for the last 3 years, with an entirely new team.
In other words, the people implementing the new plan will not be the same people (as you seem to think)as those who have been in charge up till now and whose advice the President unfortunately followed. Let's review:
Team A
Rumsfeld
Abizaid
Casey
Chiarelli
Team B
Gates
Fallon
Petraeus
Odierno
It is Team A which followed the unsuccessful policy for the last 3 years. Team B will carry out the new policy.
We can add Rice to team A and Negroponte to Team B, since his job will be to carry out an enhanced State Dept component of the plan, while Dr Rice will be engaging in diplomacy, ie telling the Palestinians that they are just like the black people in Birmingham, Ala when she was growing up.
But Team A also included Bush, Cheney, Pace, the same Joint Chiefs, Rice, Negroponte, etc..., all of whom are still there. And all of whom ar still responsible for the overall direction and strategy.
I mean, unless you want to say that Rumsfeld, Abizaid and Casey were the real guys in charge and Bush was hands off and they just did what they felt like and he just went along with what they said. But I don't think that was the case. If it was, then the fault is his for sticking with such obviouslu inept Generals and commanders for so long.
The President is the CINC. Abizaid and Rumsfeld and Casey should be listening to him , no the other way around. He should set the ROE, not them. Whether or not it was Rumsfeld and Abizid and Casey, he sat back for 3 years while things obviously weren't working. Bush picked Team A and gave them his full support and approved everything they did. Now he's switching to team B. Better late than never and hopefully the B team is better. But if the same guy who picked A, also picked B, what concrete evidence, besides hope, is there? The President has the ultimate responsibility, and he doesn't exactly have the same benefit of the doubt that he may have ahd a few years ago.
It's like if you own a football team that's had a few losing seasons in a row, and blown the last few drafts. Then the owner announces he's cleaning house and bringing in a new GM and a new coach. Well, you hope they work out, but if it's the same ownership there's reason for skepticism. Look at Dan Snyder in Washington. He brings in new GMs, new coaches, new free agents, always says "we're ready for next season and we're doing what it takes to win a Super Bowl". But nothing changes. Maybe Snyder's the reason.
It's nice that after 3 years they say the ROE have been unaccpetable, but that's little solace to the families of all the troops killed and wounded because of thsoe restrictive ROE or the guys still there who have had to suffer the impact of them. I mean having the right ROE is basic stuff. It's like the first thing you establish,. It's not encouraging that the leadership at the Pentagon and the civilian leadership in the WH have been so wrong on it for 3 years. It's good they seem to finally be changing it, but they've been told to change it for 3 years.
And as of now they're just saying the ROE will be changed. We'll se if it actually happens in the field. Until it starts happening, I remain skeptical.
The fact that they still seem to be banking on Maliki and his Dawa/SCIRI/Sadr cadres is also puzzling. This Iraqi govt is throughlt penetrated by Tehran. It aids and abets Iranian subversiona nd an Iranian presence. It's tilted towards Tehran and even in the best case scenario, it will remain so. So counting on Maliki to deliver is not exactly a winning hand in my view. Hopefully I'm wrong.
If some Pasdaran camps are struck or if top Pasradan commanders that are captured aren't released the next day, then maybe things will change. Until then, our current policy towards Iran has been incompetent and inexcusable. We've known the shaped IEDs and other devices are supplied by the IRGC for years and we've done nothing. Is that Abizaid's falut?
It's good that they've finally decided to increase the size of the active duty force, but it's been obvious since before 9/11 that thta was needed.
The Army had about 725K in 1991. It had 500K as of 2001. The Marines have about 180K, the same size as in the early 90s. That's 10 Army divisions eliminated and the Mariness(our main strike force and rapid deployment force)are the same size they were 15 years ago. Now, Clinton had a lot to do with that. But the fact that after 9/11, and with the War on Terror the current administration hasn't built it up to at least 1991 levels, if not greater, is virtually unexplainable.
If we had that 725K Army, and say a 250K marines, if not greater, things would have been a lot better off. To not build up the mlitary and staff and equip it to face the new challenge is puzzling to say the least. To fight WW2 we had to undertake a massive buildup. Our overwhelming production won the war. What overwhelming production have we engaged in recently?
It's good that things might be changing but I just hope it's not too late.
to make these changes. I do think that the President deferred to Team A for too long even as his doubts were growing. Your analogy of the football team is excellent. A team will spend the summer figuring out what they did wrong the previous season and making the necessary corrections. Sometimes they fire the coach, etc. Ultimately, it does depend on the owner, and how much he wants to win.
I think we now have about a 50/50 chance of succeeding. But that is better than where we were at the time of the election last year.
to make these changes. I do think that the President deferred to Team A for too long even as his doubts were growing. Your analogy of the football team is excellent. A team will spend the summer figuring out what they did wrong the previous season and making the necessary corrections. Sometimes they fire the coach, etc. Ultimately, it does depend on the owner, and how much he wants to win.
I think we now have about a 50/50 chance of succeeding. But that is better than where we were at the time of the election last year.
I will believe it when I see. I have patients who have come back from Iraq and they told me how even if they were getting shot at, they have to call supervisors before they were allowed to fire back. The bullets were counted and every one had to be accounted for and they had to be signed out. Our boys are targets. Those people will not respect us this way--Bush has wasted 3-4 years with this nonsense. The idea was great, the implementation sucked!
In Dec, 2006, the AEI Keane/Kagan study mentioned about 30K needed:
Bringing security to Baghdad – the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development – is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.
It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq.
Well, this new plan has about 20K or 30% fewer troops.
And it dpesn't mention anything about 18-24 moths, rather it lists November of this year(10 months) as the target date.
Again, I hope I'm wrong and Kenae/Kagan are wrong and the WH is right. We'll see soon enough, I think.
The best laid plans of mice and men can go astray given the unpredictableness of the Iraqi people and government.
Looks like the President has done all he can to get the Iraqi government's attention, but if they don't deliver on their end of the bargain, ALL BETS ARE OFF! No crack down on Sadar, no increase in Iraqi government elements and pro-active actions and darn soon, time for the US forces to come home in my book.
The biggest mistake that the President will never admit, backing the bunch of clowns running Iraq today.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
From the AP, a few minutes ago:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq’s prime minister has told Shiite militiamen to surrender their arms or face an all-out assault by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces, senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday, as President Bush said he will commit an additional 21,500 American combat troops to the war.
Under pressure from the U.S., Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has agreed to crack down on fighters controlled by his most powerful political ally, Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shiite cleric, according to officials. Previously, al-Maliki had resisted the move.
“Prime Minister al-Maliki has told everyone that there will be no escape from attack,” a senior Shiite legislator and close al-Maliki adviser said. “The government has told the Sadrists: ‘If we want to build a state we have no other choice but to attack armed groups.’
So how long do we give al-Maliki to see if he is going to follow through with his promises ?
I'd give him 1 maybe 2 months, then we need to ether effect regime change or start pulling out.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Exactly. THis guy al Sadr should have been done away with when he was first captured a year and half ago. This war is being fought with political correctness. Our guys can't shoot back, hell, they can't even place undergarments on an Iraqi's head without all hell breaking loose. You can't rebuild a country until you first defeat them to the point where you make them your bitch! THen they will be receptive to rebuilding.
1. ROE - the Rules of Engagement are being changed such that our guys no longer have to go thru a checklist of 7 items or call their superior in order to defend themselves.
2. The White House has said that PM Maliki told the President that he would not allow Al-Sadr to run Iraq. He gets it that he has to place the Shia militias on the same level as terrorists.
ThePresident has obviously been unhappy for a long time with these and other aspectsof the Iraq war -- he believed that he should follow the advice of his military leaders, and did so for far too long.
invasion portion of the war ended is that whenever our guys would get close to taking out a militia or other insurgent group, somebody would call it off.
I think allowing our guys to go all out to find and kill the enemy is what has been needed all along.
I see two problems:
#1 will Iraq-people and leadership-be supportive, or will they get cold feet as soon as the shooting starts-part of me votes the latter.
#2 the anti war crowd and to some degree the media loves to cover outrages by our troops-will they be able to deal with this, or will they start turning our soldiers into "baby killers?"
So, while I don't oppose this direction, I can't say that I think it will work, because somebody is going to get cold feet-and the anti war crowd will play media circus.
"In the past, politicians and outsiders could call of a military operation based on who the target was, where the target was, etc. Those rules are now out. The military will not be stopped by outsiders from pursuing to completion an operation to take out the enemy. This is a bold and good change."
Hoorah! lets get to work.. This is the best last chance.