Good news -- the insurgency is over! Now we need a new strategy for the Iraq War.

Quote:

---

What does a federal Iraq get us? It's a bottom-up path to building a central gov't. It’s a plan “B.”

---

Okay, develop this a bit more if you can. What's that path look like? Who are the players at the bottom? This may be an op-ed for you, but I'd like to see youn bring some more depth to the writing before you steer in and out of the SWC, dropping landmines.

You state that a federal structure appears to be the only solution, and that our articles of Confederation offer a viable model. Why? I ask because I would caution anyone who wants to hang that hat of Iraqi progress on American models of governance.

We got into trouble because "bringing democracy to the people of Iraq" was a noble idea to some. Perhaps it is time to stop that seed. The Green Revolution brought good crops to other parts of the world, but it also made the rich richer, and widened the divide between them and subsistence farmers. A federal Iraq poses very hard questions which I'd like to see you answer beyond a few one-liners.

Hi FM,

I haven't been involved in this discussion for a variety of reasons, including a dress rehearsal and concert last night and another one today in Montreal. That being said, I do want to make a point that, I believe, needs to be addressed.

"Semantics" is absolutely crucial to any form of communication; it is not a "joke" as it appears to be presented by many people. "Semantics" is about "meaning", and he opposite of it is Humpty-Dumpty land where words mean what the author says they mean. This is one of the reasons why I almost always attempt to provide operational definitions of terms in my articles and, frequently, put in material about the etymological derivation of words.

Having said this, I want to highlight one comment you made in an earlier post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

I rely on primary sources almost exclusively, mostly media, NGO's, and government. When quoting officials and describing events, would you accept my personal observations, or prefer something with more credibility?

---

Every source you list is a secondary source, not a primary source unless what you are studying is media / NGO / Government representation of what is happening in Iraq. It is a secondary source precisely because it has been filtered through at least one, or more, interpretive schemas. In the case of the media, it is frequently a tertiary source when they are reporting on what someone else, such as a government, military or NGO figure has already analyzed.

In proper academic research, every layer of interpretation creates a new bias that must be resolved, and you do not do this. I think that this is one of the causes of friction here.

Anyway, I have to run - off to Montreal for another concert.

Marc

They are secondary sources, not primary.

For discussions about war zones we are to a large extent limited to these sources. Both sides of the debate can see them and assess their credibility. Also, for most of us they are our only sources through which to see the larger picture.

Anecdotal data – “annec-data” – can provide valuable context and insights, but is often difficult to build on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

They are secondary sources, not primary.

For discussions about war zones we are to a large extent limited to these sources. Both sides of the debate can see them and assess their credibility. Also, for most of us they are our only sources through which to see the larger picture.

Anecdotal data – “annec-data” – can provide valuable context and insights, but is often difficult to build on.

---

Unless you placed a request to imbed with an operational unit in theater and saw this firsthand. You could probably go in country on your own and snoop about easily (quite a few have done this, to include guys like Scott Taylor).

That way you wouldn't have to worry about source filtering.

Re the federal model,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

This is of course just a guess, but I think domestic political considerations favor this course. It might be given more time to work than continued COIN.

---

BINGO!

Domestic political considerations seek the impossible - clean wars, talk (AKA diplomacy) that "solves" the problem of those who have sworn a blood oath against your very existence, no abortions and no sex education but no unwanted babies, a military that welcomes rump rangers with open arms not closed fists, and COIN against an established insurgency that takes less than 10-20 years (our bad for letting it get established, but water under the bridge now :mad: ).

A course of action (in military planning process terms) has all those pesky little requirements like being complete, feasible, achieving the desired end state, etc. The amount of time that we might be willing to indulge it does not make an unworkable solution workable. Wanting it doesn't make it feasible. Even wanting it very badly. As has been so often said of late, hope is not a course of action. On the contrary, disatisfaction with things that are not sterile is at the root of our domestic disatisfaction now, and we would likely convey the same to the failing federal Iraq model once the brief honeymoon was over. (Come to think of it, maybe Karl Rove should let the Dems go for it to plot for 2012? ;) )

BREAK

A slight sidebar -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

As Ironhorse says, many have not given up on the top-down approach in Iraq.

---

When did I say that? What is that?

But OK, if a strong central government is what you mean by top-down, that seems to be within our chosen COA. i.e. a part of our current ConOps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWJED

Professor Kahl has been kind enough to grant the SWJ permission to post his e-mail, the following link also contains a link to the Andrew Krepinevich briefing that generated his e-mail - The Four Phases of the U.S. COIN Effort in Iraq.

---

This is right on.

Quote:

---

Phase 4: Doing it. None of this changed until January 2007, when Bush announced his intention to "surge" 17,500 additional forces to Baghdad (and 4,000 more to Anbar). More support troops have since been tapped to also go to Iraq. But, it is vital to remember, the surge is not the strategy -- it is a means to implement a strategy. The strategy is to to provide actual population security, tamp down sectarian violence, and create space for national reconciliation and reconstruction. To implement this strategy, Bush replaced Casey with Petraeus, who appears committed to implementing the COIN manual he co-sponsored, spreading American troops out into smaller bases from which they can work with Iraqi forces to provide local security. Moreover, even Odierno, the new MNC-I commander, appears to have learned something from his early mistakes, and he seems to be committed to treating the Iraqi population as the focus of operations.

As the Krepinevich briefing makes clear, this shift makes sense from the perspective of COIN best practices and the new COIN field manual. There are other successful approaches to COIN, including what the briefing calls "the Roman Strategy" ("make a desert and call it peace"), which was basically the approach Saddam used to prevent sustained insurgency in Iraq. But, as the briefing properly notes, adopting this approach (or even somewhat softer, but still highly coercive COIN practices, such as those used by the Americans effectively in the Philippines between 1899-1902), is incompatible with norms against targeting civilians embraced by the U.S. military and political leadership. So, with the Roman strategy off the table, that leaves the "clear, hold, and build" option. However, as the briefing makes clear, this strategic shift may simply be too little, too late. What the briefing doesn't say is that it is also unclear whether employing COIN best practices will work in the context of not only a raging insurgency (in Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala), but also a sectarian civil war (in Baghdad, Diyala, and increasingly Kirkuk), diffuse criminal anarchy and militia rivalry (in the South), and endemic separatist tendencies (in Kurdistan).

---

I appreciate the confidence shown in me by some of these posts, looking for me to write “the” analysis or give a solution for the Iraq War. I hate to disappoint you, but so far the best analysis of the Iraq war was written by van Creveld in the Transformation of War (1991) (in my opinion). And the war might not have a solution.

More seriously, this is just a 2100 word op-ed. At 188 lines, it is aprox 40% the size of Krepinevich’s Feb 27 presentation. Neither gives much supporting evidence. They are both what I call “pointers.”

While Krepinevich gives an overview, my text is an exercise in reductionism -- what a small part can tell us about the whole. This looks at the Iraq situation from one perspective (there are of course many others) to assess if COIN remains a suitable strategy. The rest of the text is background or context.

It sketches a syllogism (given in a previous post), using what I believe are widely (not universally) agreed upon “facts” about Iraq (hence the lack of supporting detail). They are roughly the same as in Krepinevich’s. Re-stating this in a different way…

1. The Iraq national gov’t is weak, and does not appear to be gaining strength

2. Political structures at the local level are acting as governments, and appear to be growing stronger.

3. COIN assumes we should suppress the local groups to build the national polity.

4. Given #1 and #2 above, successful COIN might no longer be feasible.

5. Therefore we should consider alterative strategies, using these local structures.

All abstractions are, in a sense, games of logic. To borrow from TE Lawrence, they are “foolish nonsense.” The rules of this game are to disprove either the assumptions or the logic. Of course, any reductionist effort might be futile if not representative of the overall situation. It is just an analytical tool.

Developing the alternatives (e.g., a federal Iraq) would be interesting. However, perhaps a bit pointless in that I suspect (see the end section) that we will not pursue them.

BTW – I recommend reading Krepinevich’s slides (link below)!

I agree with this, when it comes to forming your own views.

But I was speaking about giving evidence in a debate. I say I saw "A". You say you saw "B." Will you believe me, and change your view of Iraq? Also, since we only see bits of the whole, we both could be right.

Also, it is useful to quote official statements (esp. by military and political leaders) -- which I find quite useful. Here we (or at least, I) can only quote using secondary sources.

Repeating what I said at greater length in an earlier post, everyone has their own preference in determining what is reliable knowledge. Debating which method is "right" will, I suspect, accomplish nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

I agree with this, when it comes to forming your own views.

But I was speaking about giving evidence in a debate. I say I saw "A". You say you saw "B." Will you believe me, and change your view of Iraq? Also, since we only see bits of the whole, we both could be right.

Also, it is useful to quote official statements (esp. by military and political leaders) -- which I find quite useful. Here we (or at least, I) can only quote using secondary sources.

Repeating what I said at greater length in an earlier post, everyone has their own preference in determining what is reliable knowledge. Debating which method is "right" will, I suspect, accomplish nothing.

---

The "philosphy" of nihilism is an excuse not to admit there might be a solution. It is a cop out and choosing to do nothing out of fear of failing. It is not enough to reach a point and simply renege by claiming the individual perception bugaboo.

FM,

Please, please bring it down a notch. I re-read your last two posts at least three times, and have no idea what you are tyring to say.

If nothing else, time spent drifting through some of the SWC's thread would tell one that there are very few widely agreed upon facts in any conflict. You leave this detail out, and that makes sense, but my critique of your writing is going to rest on one thing. You base it on supposition, and where I still do not believe you understand the likes of RTK, it is because supposition is dangerous.

And you had better believe it that if you want decent comment on your writing, or theses, or just wild ideas, you need to be open to a discussion of "reliable knowledge". Some people here base their lives on it, so it seems like you're dismissing the discussion out of hand.

I will also offer that few folks here (or most anywhere for that matter) like or appreciate reductionism when one is addressing the issues we face in Iraq. A SecDef was sent away for that sort of stuff, and the problem is so complex that you cannot filter it down into a neat package.


Did you at one time work for the CPA? That's an honest question.

I do not understand. I was expressing a preference in this kind of debate for secondary sources over primary experience. (both have value, of course). You speak of a "philosphy of nihilism." I don't see the connection.

As for "solutions", this text points to one. Not a promising one, in that I guess that we will not take it. The next few texts, as I said, discuss "solutions" at greater length. Just small steps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

If nothing else, time spent drifting through some of the SWC's thread would tell one that there are very few widely agreed upon facts in any conflict. You leave this detail out, and that makes sense, but my critique of your writing is going to rest on one thing. You base it on supposition, and where I still do not believe you understand the likes of RTK, it is because supposition is dangerous.

And you had better believe it that if you want decent comment on your writing, or theses, or just wild ideas, you need to be open to a discussion of "reliable knowledge". Some people here base their lives on it, so it seems like you're dismissing the discussion out of hand.

I will also offer that few folks here (or most anywhere for that matter) like or appreciate reductionism when one is addressing the issues we face in Iraq. A SecDef was sent away for that sort of stuff, and the problem is so complex that you cannot filter it down into a neat package.

---

1. We don't want to overuse the quote button, but it might help here. I cannot relate your comments to my post. I state my reading of the situation, sticking to views which are widely believed -- stating that they are not universal -- and show my logic. It's that kind of text. Easy to read and rebut.

If you don't like that class of work, or only if it is very long (including supporting evidence for all views), that's fine. I do not dis your opinion. However, readership often declines with length, and I suspect (guessing) that many of the posts here are by folks who have not read even my little piece. People write shorts b/ long things tend to be read less. Many have observed this dynamic at work in DoD. It was extensively discussed in the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

2. As for "open to discussion of reliable knowledge" and "dismissing the discussion out of hand", perhaps you are reading someone else's posts. I am the one saying -- at length, attempting to fairly present the issue -- that many forms of knowledge work, and everyone has their own style. Others seem to be saying -- quite curtly -- that only their preferred form is right, and dismissing mine out of hand.

3. You say that few here like a reductionist view of the Iraq war. What is your point? It is the primary (not the only) method of analysis today in the physical and social sciences. For example, Kilcullen's professional papers (i.e., the long ones) are highly reductionist -- and are in my opinion deservedly highly praised.

"Godel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter has an excellent discussion of this. The physicist/mathematician Roger Penrose's has written extensively to attack scientists reliance on reductionism.

I do not take the extreme position -- as some in the sciences do -- that this is the only proper form of analysis. The opposite, a holistic approach, gives different and valuable insights. Nor is it an either/or distinction.

In my opinion, they are both just tools. A complete picture requires use of both.

I care not for Hofstadter or Penrose, and don't go there about Kilcullen.
I guess what I have failed to communicate is that your little part, does not in fact tell me about the whole...thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

I do not understand. I was expressing a preference in this kind of debate for secondary sources over primary experience. (both have value, of course). You speak of a "philosphy of nihilism." I don't see the connection.

As for "solutions", this text points to one. Not a promising one, in that I guess that we will not take it. The next few texts, as I said, discuss "solutions" at greater length. Just small steps.

---

Like this... I don't understand that you don't understand. Therefore, we could both be right.

You resort to a nihilist approach when backed into a debate corner by stating there is no possibility of an objective basis for truth because we don't understand in the same way. You write up a study, state it is based on facts, and resort to a philosophical defense mechanism under debate that completely abandons the facts. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical but when you become skeptical of your own work as a means to an end than we have a problem. Next time you watch the movie Full Metal Jacket you should pay careful attention to the scene where the DI asks Private Joker if he believes in the Virgin Mary and how Private Joker handled that problem.

The link below is a short clip of the scene Joker that Culpepper is referring to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s9F7p3w9jQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Culpeper

You resort to a nihilist approach when backed into a debate corner by stating there is no possibility of an objective basis for truth because we don't understand in the same way.

---

Thank you, that explains the confusion. I was refering to various ways of obtaining knowledge. Not that there is no objective knowledge.

Sometimes we use primary sources, sometimes secondary. Both have strengths and weakness. For example, two people can observe the same event and report it quite differently -- this is a classic first year law school lesson.

I do not see why is there is debate on this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

Thank you, that explains the confusion. I was refering to various ways of obtaining knowledge. Not that there is no objective knowledge.

Sometimes we use primary sources, sometimes secondary. Both have strengths and weakness. For example, two people can observe the same event and report it quite differently -- this is a classic first year law school lesson.

I do not see why is there is debate on this point.

---

Are you ever going to give your qualifications and background, as I've asked you previously on multiple occassions?

You stated a preference to secondary sources over primary sources in this type of debate. That makes absolutely no sense in any rational mind. I speculate that it is closely tied to the absence of any qualifying credentials after months of being asked.

Here's the bottom line: Would you want someone who read a book about packing parachutes pack yours or would you want the guy who's been doing it for years? I could do your job (all it seems to be is write a stream of thought with very few supporting facts). Could you do mine?

I too like to bat around these questions over a few brews. Here it seems a bit off-topic. It is important. Perhaps deserves its own thread, for those who like to discuss philosophy.

Epistemology: The study of what is meant by "knowledge". What does it mean to "know" something as opposed to merely having an opinion. This issue has been at the core of Western philosophy since before Socrates, since, until it has been answered, all other questions become unsolvable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

I too like to bat around these questions over a few brews. Here it seems a bit off-topic. It is important. Perhaps deserves its own thread, for those who like to discuss philosophy.

Epistemology: The study of what is meant by "knowledge". What does it mean to "know" something as opposed to merely having an opinion. This issue has been at the core of Western philosophy since before Socrates, since, until it has been answered, all other questions become unsolvable.

---

You're skating around questions asked of you again.

I think talk like this is completely on topic. How can your position/opinion be taken seriously if you don't have a knowledge base on the topic? I could write an article for the New England Journal of Medicine on neurosurgery but it isn't going to be a very good article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

We got into trouble because "bringing democracy to the people of Iraq" was a noble idea to some. Perhaps it is time to stop that seed. The Green Revolution brought good crops to other parts of the world, but it also made the rich richer, and widened the divide between them and subsistence farmers.

---

That is out of the box thinking, the most radical insight I've seen in a long time. Much more so than anything in my text, which was pretty conventional thinking.

Thinking like that might lead to revising much of our foreign policy. IMHO, almost anything would be an improvement.

Worth it's own thread.