Fighting Iraq At RedState
By Erick Posted in War — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It is and has always been RedState's position that to write on the front page you should be both in support of the Iraq War and pro-life. We don't take kindly to people agitating against the war on our front page and we don't take kindly to pro-abortion supporters advocating death to the unborn on our front page.
We do, however, recognize that a lot of people have some concerns about the war in Iraq. Some on both the left and right now lean toward the Nancy Pelosi view that Iraq is a problem needing management, not a war needing victory. Others, myself included, think the President needs to fire the generals until he finds one willing to engage and win. And there are lots of opinions and variations in between those.
Since November 7th, several of our front page contributing editors have been ready to get on the front page and hash out the Iraq War. While we don't control front page content among those with front page access, we did in this case. We want everyone to be able to have at it, but in a way that is less than a free for all.
Tomorrow, Contra Tyrannum will be pre-empted, though the theme will be the same. Instead, all of the front page contributors who want to speak their mind on Iraq will have the opportunity. Feel free to join the debate in the comment threads. This should prove to be interesting. Whether they believe the war to be a mistake from the beginning, flawed in execution, perfect all the way around, in need of further engagement, or any other variation we'll post them all.
Stay tuned . . .
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Listen up, countrymen--I come to praise Rumsfeld, not to bury him. — Comments (34) »
Fighting Iraq At RedState 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
How can anyone claim they supporting our troops when you do not support the mission.
There are historical precents where tactics must change and generals too - but we must not raise the white flag and retreat. To do so would be giving Al Qeada a major win in the GWoT and would gaurantee a much larger and better equipped jihadist movment.
I look forward to the discussion. The difficulty in fighting this as a conventional war is that there is no enemy to fight. Although in concept we are fighting terrorists, this quote from the Iraqi Prime Minister about today's massive kidnapping in Baghdad shows the problem:
Gunmen dressed as police commandos kidnapped scores of staff and visitors [~130] in a lightning raid on a Baghdad higher education office Tuesday, while least 82 people were killed or found dead in murders, bombings and clashes nationwide...
In his sole public comments on the kidnapping, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the kidnapping was the result of rivalries among armed groups sponsored by different political factions.
"What is happening is not terrorism, but the result of disagreements and conflict between militias belonging to this side or that," al-Maliki said in televised remarks during a meeting with President Jalal Talabani.
I have to say that you can fire Generals all day long and you still won't find a way to fight this thing without an MSM camera over your (the fighter's) shoulder. Part of the problem is that we are not allowed to prosecute this war in a way that is consistent and meaningful to the enemy.
When I was in Afghanistan in November 2001... on horseback... with the full power of the joint services at my fingertips (including money), I and my brothers were allowed to defeat the enemy. We were feared and respected. Allow us to do the dirty work of unconventional warfare and keep the media away from us... we will deliver the win.
But... unfortunately, the Special Operations community has been forced to grow and is quickly turning into a highly trained conventional force. Therefore, Special Operations may not be a viable unconventional option for very long.
There is definitely a sense of the genie being out of the bottle. Early on, the Operators just wanted to be able to kick in doors and get things going. Generally, this required a couple of things to happen... Iraqi borders needed sealed and Abu Garib couldn't have happened. We treated bad guys with greater care than I got in SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) school, but the American people are soft and we cannot make up the time we lost.
The complicity of the MSM has made our jobs nearly impossible. Remember when there were interviews with bearded men who went by their first names (like Sergeant Sam)? Notice that we haven't seen these stories on television? It is partly because we learned our lesson. No good deed goes unpunished in the media.
Sorry to vent a bit. What would I do? Well, Afghanistan was planned by a bunch of senior NCOs, young Captains, and some senior staff at SOCCENT. I think that we can all agree that the result was spectacular. Give the responsibility to plan the next phase (for the military) to these folks and keep the big brass off their backs. We don't need to hear from the Generals, the Joint Staff (or any other staff for that matter). I don't know what that plan
might look like. I don't think that a plan of that nature should be debated in the public square. Is this possible? I contend "genie out."
The Iraqis are currently embroiled in a civil war. I spoke with one of my former Iraqi translators today (via phone in Baghdad) and he is understandably terrified. He noted, however, that the U.S. had its own civil war and that from this pain we became what we are today. Interesting.
In that vein, Special Operations folk are trained in counter-insurgency. We are trained to determine who are friends are and who they are not. We are infinitely better at our jobs than the people we elect. We know who are friends are in a civil war. For example, al Sadr would have been eliminated a long time ago if left up to us. Sistani would have been brought on as a close ally. Saddam would be dead... (who found that guy anyway)?
In any case, it seems that the opportunity is passed and we have been somewhat abandoned by the public. I don't blame the people as much as the politicos and the media. We were actually winning till they got involved.
I'm not worried about job security though. The world is much more dangerous than it was last year and there is no sign that this trend will end. We can leave, but they will only follow us. There will be plenty of work left for men like me.
in your company. Thank you for your service. May our Country only live up to people like you.
In Vino Veritas
I should mention as well that as we withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan is going to completely disintegrate and destroy much of the work that we've done there. If I were, the enemy, that is what I would do. Unintended consequences...
Militias are fine as long as they abide by the law. The problem is that many Iraqi militias refuse to do so, and the Iraqi government seems unwilling to force them. We need to help the Iraqi government become the biggest and baddest militia, so that it can get control over all the other militis.
Seems to me that the only viable short-term choice in Iraq right now may be between a democratic police state versus a dictatorial police state. Given that choice, we should be backing the former instead of the latter. That means massive surveillance by the government, video cameras everywhere, transmitters in all automobiles for easy tracking by the government, et cetera, et cetera. It's sad that such steps are apparently necessary, but better that they be taken by a democratic government than by a dictatorship. At least such measures would not be as oppressive as imposing curfews, which so far has proven to be the only effective way to put a lid on the turmoil.
I'm not sure how important it is for our troops to stay in Iraq. Whatever happens, I hope we can support a more effective democratic government there. They may need our money more than our troops.
Let the secret squirrels do there thing and get the media away from them. War is ugly. No one needs to see everything we do.
and thank you for your service fastest...
These terrorists understand one thing-fear.
Note to class, that is why they are called terrorists.
I wasn't there but everyone I talk to says the same thing...because we had cameras on our backs from the minute we crossed over from Kuwait, and we allowed the media to start convincing the American people(heck-the rest of the world as well) that these people were afraid, and were dropping their weapons and running, that they wanted peace.
We propagandized ourselves from the first assault. If we had fired back into the early mosques, leveled a few, destroyed city blocks with carpet bombs, and driven the fear right out of their human waste outlets(can't think of how else to put that in a family friendly environment), we would be a whole lot further along.
What started as shock and awe became care and understanding far too quickly-and we have been the "kinder, gentler" military ever since.
Our guys are warriors, they are there to wage war, blow stuff up, and kill people. Not stand in the crosswalks of their freakin' secular classes and direct traffic.
When they are allowed to kill the bad guys, they will have won.
The media needs to get out of there so the GI's can do the job the general public is too squeamish to do for themselves, and too naive to accept from the lens of a camera.
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
I don't mean to be offensive, but that smacks of the same sort of simplistic approach which got us into this mess.
We should have learned decades ago that counterinsurgency warfare is a totally different animal than conventional warfare. Why do we keep having to re-learn this?!?
It's so tempting to get all wound up and call for "carpet bombing" of city blocks, but such a view (while getting the hearts of armchair generals everywhere racing) doesn't further out cause.
You want to WIN this war? It's time to start acting like that. Counterinsurgency warfare is one of the classic "smarter, not harder" cases. You do not win this sort of conflict by alientating the populace. In fact, it's exactly the opposite -- he who has the support of the people wins. Period. We need to do a MUCH better job at that.
--
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson
You want to win this war then fight it like a damn war. Counterinsurgency warfare can be defeated only when they have no place to hide and no one to provide them supplies and cover.
You want to win, we should have reduced the first Mosque that was used as a military outpost to rubble with everyone in it. Preferably on a Friday afternoon. Someone should still be looking for pieces of Sadr. And the entire city of Fallujah should be only a bad memory.
You don't alienate the populace, you identify the populace that sides with the enemy and you kill them. All.
We need to stop worrying about whether "they" like us or respect us and make sure they fear us. Then, and only then, do we win.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
> You don't alienate the populace, you identify the populace that sides with the enemy and you kill them. All.
But who is the enemy? What does any of this have to do with us? No one in Iraq declared war on us, attacked us, or threatened us. We have no allies in Iraq, no official enemies, and no goals.
Our law gave the president and the military two missions in Iraq:
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
There are no enemies named, no mentions of getting involved in civil wars, and nothing about slaughtering a bunch of civilians just because they opposed Maliki's government.
Exactly correct here on one point -- WHO is the enemy?
Heated rhetoric like "we just kill anybody who sides with the enemy" presupposes there is some "red side" which we are fighting against.
It's that sort of simplistic "us vs them" crap which perpetuates this quagmire.
The ghosts and lessons of vietnam haunt us again. Will we listen this time?
I think those Iraqis who want us out of the country are trying to play mind games on us in order to trick us into leaving. They are trying to make us fight a war we can't win, and to define war such that the world will think we are defeated.
As far as I'm concerned we have already won, and we can stay in Iraq as long as we want. The only reason America doesn't believe this, doesn't see the great victory, is because so many believe these statements of the war, which I consider false:
False: It is the responsibility of the United States to make the Iraqis love each other
False: If the Iraqis have a civil war, the US has lost the Iraqi war
False: The US is responsible because Iraqis are killing each other
False: If we decide to stop fighting in Iraqi's civil war, we must immediately leave Iraq
Imagine that shortly after we liberated Iraq that a Sunni group and a Shiite group announced that unless we immediately withdrew from Iraq, that they would being killing each other, one member of each group dying per day. Would we have surrendered? Would we blame ourselves? Would we have felt obligated to risk the lives to US soldiers & marines to prevent the sunnis and shiites from killing each other?
If not, then why is it different now?
I don't doubt that our military could kill any and all targets.
However given how they are embedded in civilian areas, I think the collateral damage would hurt us more in the long run than it helped.
I also am not sure if killing a few of them would have scared the rest into stopping. After all they have been killing each other for years, including torture like drilling holes in the head, and yet neither side has given up.
Letting them kill each other until they tire of it actually sounds like a good solution to me.
in the beginning and accomplished the goals, the balking would have stopped. It is easier to beg forgiveness thasn to get permission.
No one was holding him back. The problem with firing Generals? The new ones will have the same restrictions. Ruthlessness is required, not whining over GTMO. Jeez, I was watching the handwringing over Bobby Knight rapping some kid on the chin to get his attention today and I was thinking; Where is the culture of manhood of my father and grandfather's generations? They wouldn't think twice about rapping you one if you needed it. I'm a better man for it. Perhaps it's something as basic as this; Western leaders and society have lost their collective manhood.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
The difference IMO is that this is not our war, not choosing between the Iraqi militia groups or propping up Maliki's government. The sunni version of the story is that the central government forces are just a shiite militia, and sponsor death squads which kill sunnis civilians.
The Al Qaeda terrorists are ours, along with Saddam's people if we want them, but as far as I'm concerned the Iraqis can have the rest. We could stay in Iraq and protect the US without getting involved in their internal wars.
As Iran moves closer and closer to having nukes, and louder and louder, it's starting to look like we might be fighting there soon. Maybe that would break the stalemate over Iraq. One way or another it seems to be part of the discussion about Iraq.
We could pursuing him as he runs for the protection of his allies and suppliers as an excuse to cross into Iran. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone that way.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Iraq is simply the current front, but it will expand. I think that once that happens, the kinder, gentler war will be over, and the MSM will be suffficiently scared for their own survivial to be complaining about human rights.
I think in general the Libs would like to see America's power leveled with others, until they discover what that really means.
.....especially if we can get away from some of the hotheaded rhetoric which has characterized past discussions about the real options in Iraq.
I for one am very ready for an intellectually honest discussion about where we go from here. I'm sure there will be oodles of investigations and recriminations about how we got to where we are later (and rightly so), but the fact is that we need to extricate ourselves from a worsening situation and QUICKLY. That may not mean withdrawing from Iraq itself[1], but then again it may.
Let's put aside the self-defeating partisan crap and hash this thing out.
[1]I have and continued to favor a MASSIVE deployment of forces to Iraq, though I know many here have called that idea crazy or foolhardy.
--
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson
This is the key issue to me, that the Iraqis are asking our troops to bleed and die for Iraq, when the Iraqis themselves aren't willing to fight for their country.
The excuse from the Iraqis seems to be that the terrorists are too strong, so they the Iraqi citizens are too scared to even turn them in to us. So the result is that we stay there fighting for a country they are afraid to.
One of the most important rules for terrorist fighting is anyone who harbors a terrorist IS a terrorist, and should be treated like it. That rule is important for situations like these. Because no matter how weak that Iraqi citizen is, the terrorist would still if they reported actionable intelligence to the US military, because they can get anyone. So there really is no excuse for harboring terrorists.
This could be a trap where the Iraqi citizens pretend to want our support, just to keep us in the killing zone. They could be trying to increase US casualties to the point where we pull out of the war.
That would be my main question, why can't the Iraqis do it themselves?
Because no matter how weak that Iraqi citizen is, the terrorist would still be killed if the Iraqi civilian reported actionable intelligence to the US military, because they can get anyone.
You're ignoring the long history in the region. You're also making the fundamental mistake of imposing the western notion of "statehood" and "nationalism" on what is basically a set of tribes.
Remember that these things we call Iraq and Iran and the like are all just ripples for the disintegration of collonialism. You may not want to acknowledge that, but you do so at your own peril; understanding the history will lead you to the conclusion that there really are no "Iraqis" in the sense that there are "Americans" (or Germans or whatever). You have people whose entire lives are controlled by their tribal affiliations. You say "stand up for Iraq" but that's basically a meaningless statement to them.
Superimposed on this is a what is percieved as a history of broken promises by the US (see: post Gulf War Shia uprising in southern Iraq) and a more recent failure to impose stability on the country. Because we didn't have enough troops (we have discussed this ad nauseum in the past).
Are you really surprised that people have taken their family's security into their own hands (or the hands of their religious leaders), when we moved in, disolved all the security apparatus, and then didn't impose our own? Please.
I'll grant ya that it sure does make for good posting to write (in bold, no less) that "anyone who harbors a terrorist is a terrorist," but that just simply doesn't translate well on the ground. Life isn't filled with booleans. You might as well execute every last one of the people there.
It has nothing to do with the history of Iraq, but the long history of terrorism itself. Those who harbor terrorists but claim to be unaware of them or unable to stop them always end up being supporters of the terrorists. They use their pretense of helplessness to hurt the anti-terrorist forces.
Arafat was an example. He denounced every suicide bomber who came out of his territory, but by golly, he never caught even one of them. And of course intelligence showed lots of them were paid for him, and some were even in his offices.
The best example was India. For years terrorists had been crossing into their country. Pakistan always said, "We don't support those terrorists either, and if we catch them you can have them." Then came the day when India's government building was attacked. So India put most of its troops on the border, pointed every nuke it had at Pakistan, and said "You are responsible for the terrorists who come out of your country. Choose now between full scale war or stopping the terrorists." Pakistan couldn't win that war, so they magically found all of those terrorists they couldn't before. The terror attacks on India from Pakistan dropped to zero.
We have the same thing with the Sunnis in Iraq. Ever since the invasion, terrorist attacks have been launched out of their territory. For years the Sunnis said "We support attacks on the US, but we don't know anything about the slaughter of Shiites by people from our area." Alternatively, some villages claimed to be afraid of the "resistance".
Yet the Sunnis have such a deal for us. "US troops, we are afraid of the terrorists so will you stand out there in the open, under the light protecting us while we go inside where it is safe?" He who harbors a terrorist is a terrorist. There's no way our troops should be required to go into traps like that.
That's my position. Either the Iraqis lead their self-defense, or we don't defend them. I don't expect the Iraqis to be skillful, just to try, to be willing to die, and to turn the terrorists in to us. Otherwise they are part of the "resistance", and we shouldn't waste our blood over them.
I never mentioned execution. Most of those in Iraq are fighting a civil war, so their crimes are a local problem, not terrorism against the US. The point of saying that he who harbors a terrorist is a terrorist is that we shouldn't be fooled into defending Iraqis from something they won't fight for themselves. I'm aware of their history, and that is exactly the point. If they are loyal to their group instead of their country, and aren't willing to fight for the Iraqi flag then we shouldn't spill our blood for it either.
I really don't care what the Iraqis do or how they group. But if they ask for US military help, then they should be first in the line of fire and give us all the intelligence information we ask for, or we shouldn't defend them.
"the Iraqis themselves aren't willing to fight for their country"
They are fighting for their country. We're the enemy.
...and national makeup of those attacking American and Iraqi military targets and Iraqi civilian targets. Send it in via the Contact button and we'll think about turning your account back on.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I couldn't agree more I always have proffered that had we demolished the mansions and most of the surrounding areas in the beginning of the war there would have been no place to hide. This PC version will never work. Germany and Japan had to be decimated before being rebuilt and then those countries became part of the serious world. I don't believe this enemy, Muslim extremism will be ended without a total destructive wipe out of Iran, they are now the bigger problem and with a wipeout of the mullahs Iraq will come into the Democratic Nations willingly. Americans would like it all to go away and it will not, it didn't in WWI and did not in WWII and will not this time. We can not retreat to our shores and bunker down it will not work. Rick Santorum was the best at explaining this and look where he is now, when we are hit again then maybe people will see it for what it is and not just a fluke.
Peace through superior fire power:)
First of all go back to when all this started. It was Kennedy making remarks that Sadr picked up on and that's when Sadr started with His insurgency. It's multiplied from there. Many of those in the region know well of our situation in Vietnam and the Tet offensive. They've spoken of it time and time again. Even recently Nasrallah brought this up and said he would turn Iraq into another Vietnam with the same images of Saigon when we "pushed the people out of helicopters". They have learned well from That history. They know we aren't Spain and changing government by terrorism here will not in itself create change. They do, however, KNOW that creating a New Tet will indeed change our policy. Unfortunately the Left and the MSM have been complicit in aiding the terrorists. It not doubt gives big smiles to those terrorists when people say "We support the troops but not the mission". If this country would've been fully united throughout this conflict there wouldn't have been all this insurgency problem. If you truly understand these terrorists you'd know that. This problem didn't start even recently. It started in 1928. Until people understand this they cannot understand these modern terrorists.
Supporting troops w/out supporting mission is like cheering on Brett Favre and hoping Green Bay loses.
CommonCents
"It often shows a fine command of the English language to say nothing at all."
Join to help build a conservative grass roots movement: www.winningthefuture.com
This columnist says the problem is that we are being held back by political correctness. He points out that the Iraqi government is really just a Shiite government so we can't simply support them. We need to fight them too, along with the Sunnis.
His conclusion is "To master Iraq now - if it could be done - we'd have to fight every faction except the Kurds. Are we willing to do that?" Are we? Should we?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11152006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/arabian_...
ARABIAN NIGHTMARES
By Ralph Peters for the New York Post
...
What really matters is what our forces are ordered - and permitted - to do. With political correctness permeating our government and even the upper echelons of the military, we never tried the one technique that has a solid track record of defeating insurgents if applied consistently: the rigorous imposition of public order.
That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them.
...
With the situation in Iraq deteriorating daily, sending more troops would simply offer our enemies more targets - unless we decided to use our soldiers and Marines for the primary purpose for which they exist: To fight.
Of course, we've made a decisive shift in our behavior difficult. After empowering a sectarian regime before imposing order in the streets, we would have to defy an elected government. Leading voices in the Baghdad regime - starting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - would demand that we halt any serious effort to defeat Shia militias and eliminate their death squads.
Killing Sunni Arabs would be fine, of course. The Maliki government's reason for being is to promote Shia power.
...
From the Iraqi perspective, we're of less and less relevance. They're sure we'll leave. And every faction is determined to do as much damage as possible to the other before we go. Our troops have become human shields for our enemies.
To master Iraq now - if it could be done - we'd have to fight every faction except the Kurds. Are we willing to do that?
Re: "carpet bombing"...
Would have gotten us closer to what, guys? A massive humanitarian crisis and all of Asia and Europe arrayed against us? I too thought this war was a lamentable but necessary one 2 years ago, but I'm not so sure now. Does anyone remember how much tonnage we dropped on N. Vietnam? How'd that work out? Figuring out how to win is one thing; going Dresden on the country in order to save it is quite another.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
This has been a fascinating day here at Redstate. Lots of interesting stuff on the front page. It's a debate we need to have, certainly
Why not let the Iraqi people decide if they want us to stay? If this was so much about democracy, then let those with the most to lose/gain decide if they prefer US help or not. I'm guessing that they will say, "Thanks, but it's time to leave." Great, we are gone with a clear mind. If not, then bush can at least legitimately say that we are there at the request of the Iraqi people.
I'm sure that Bush will send more troops, but I'm sure the Brits begin to take away many of their troops. So where does that leave us.
By the way, McCain said that the war has been like watching a "train wreck."
horse to death on at least one other blog.
Maybe the second time is the charm. The Iraqi people DID have an election. They elected a government to represent them. The government - like, ahhh, the one representing the Iraqi people - considers the US an ally and doesn't want us to bail on them. Regardless of what Jack "Oki" Murtha and John Kerry have to say.
Bush can legitimately say NOW that we are still in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi people. It's just that if Bush held a presser and noted that the sun would be rising in the East, the AM edition of the NYT would have a photoshopped picture of the sunrise over LA. If he noted that he had converted to Islam, the Times and the Democrats would suddenly be promoting a war against Islam in general, advocating a round up of every Muslim in the US, and editorials would be screaming for a 2 million man army and 500,000 Marines so we could take the war to the "enemy" wherever they are found.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Serial posting. Bad mojo.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius