Good news -- the insurgency is over! Now we need a new strategy for the Iraq War.
With the permission of the SWC, this thread opens a discussion of an article posted on the Defense and National Interest website.
The Iraq insurgency has ended, which opens a path to peace
By Fabius Maximus.
March 13, 12007
http://www.defense-and-society.org/f...ency_ended.htm
Summary by Chet Richards, Editor of DNI: “The insurgency has indeed ended, but not for the reasons you might imagine.”
This article is the first in a series on a common theme: how America can survive and even prosper in an age in which 4GW is the dominant mode of warfare. It starts with our most pressing problem, Iraq.
It is a brief, hopefully provocative introduction -- recommending a radically different strategy for Coalition forces in Iraq. Following articles discuss these ideas and recommendations in greater detail. Criticism of my work on this site has in the past proved quite helpful in correcting and guiding me, and will prove so again. I thank all those who comment now, in advance.
Is the "end of insurgency" just definitional, or does it represent a real change?
Reply to a great question sent off-line ...
When the gov't disappears, losing so many attributes that it is not longer a real gov't in the eyes of its people, *all* the insurgencies end.
Insurgency is a rebellion against a gov't. No gov't, no insurgency.
In some areas, like the northern Kurd-dominated area, there appears to be a winner.
In others areas, such as the ungoverned zone called Baghdad, the fighting may continue or even intensify. There are other forms of civil war than "insurgency." These might be waged by any mix of conventional means, guerilla tactics, terrorism, etc.
The significance of this phase-change is not that we bury the dead differently. The "remedy" must different for each type of civil war. For example, a common COIN ops is suppressing local militias to build up the central govt's authority. Post-insurgency, the first is likely counter-productive -- the second probably impossible.
Facts -- what is happening in Iraq?
RTK,
As for how to label these, whatever. I'll accept "op-ed."
As for "facts", this op-ed builds on the previous ones. Please question any specifics, and I'll attempt to show the supporting evidence.
Of course, as mentioned previously, "facts" in a war zone are usually open to debate.
Like most folks looking at Iraq, we rely on the real analysts who collect from primary sources. Like Anthony Cordesman of CSIS. Have you seen his latest? It's worth a look.
The New Strategy in Iraq: Uncertain Progress Towards Unknown Goal
Center for Strategic and International Studies
March 14, 2007
7 pages
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...rat_update.pdf
A relevant thread in another forum about Iraq
Nice discussion of situation in Iraq in another thread in this forum. Makes many of the same points as in my op-ed. In more detail, of course.
Note the trend since the first report posted, the March 2006 "quarterly report to Congress." Toward unfulfilled promise, greater disorder and chaos.
The trend might be more important than any of the specifics.
US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...read.php?t=839
Reply to RTK: Kurds in uniform of the Iraq Army
I use "peshmerga" in the long-standing sense of armed Kurdish fighters, whose loyalty is to their ethnic group.
Some are in the uniforms of the Iraq national army; their true loyalty has been the subject of many articles over the past few years. A few quotes follow; more can easily be found on Google.
Perhaps the most famous: "Keeping Iraq Intact", CBS/AP (December 28, 2005)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1166972.shtml
Quote:
The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga - the Kurdish militia - and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted.
…Afandi said his group had sent at least 10,000 Peshmerga to the Iraqi army in northern Iraq, a figure substantiated in interviews with officers in two Iraqi army divisions in the region.
"All of them belong to the central government, but inside they are Kurds ... all Peshmerga are under the orders of our leadership," Afandi said.
BBC (March 11, 2005)
Quote:
Entering and leaving the area where the PKK camp is located is like crossing a border. The peshmerga of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, dressed now in their Iraqi National Guard uniforms, check all the cars coming in and out. There is even a customs official.
From The Scotsman (November 5, 2006)
Quote:
Hamid Effendi, KDP minister for the peshmerga, has said, "The Arabs in southern Iraq struggle to build a new Iraqi army, but the Kurds already have one. The peshmerga wear Iraqi army uniforms, but they are still Kurds. We have about 60,000 peshmerga. And now they've got big guns"
This discussion is relevant today as Kurhish units of the Iraq national forces move to Baghdad as part of the surge. Much in the news; here is a balanced look:
Voice of America (Feb 16, 2007) "Iraqi Army Soldiers From the Kurdish North Head to Baghdad"
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-16-voa27.cfm
Adding to the confusion;: many news accounts note that the peshmerga often do not wear uniforms.
New York Times (Feb 23, 2007)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/in...&ex=1174276800
Quote:
The pesh merga are everywhere in Iraqi Kurdistan - along the highways, atop government buildings, riding in convoys. They wear a hodgepodge of uniforms, from traditional baggy outfits to desert camouflage hand-me-downs from the United States Army. There is one thing that appears to be consistent, though: they think of themselves as Kurds first and Iraqis second.
Reply to RTK: why post here, or anywhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
As usual, you ask for questions, then don't address them. I'm not really sure why you keep coming back here....
I write only by invitation. Hence the articles (or op-ed’s, if you prefer) on DNI. Hence this thread. Perhaps you should address your complaints to the SWC.
However, I said I would attempt to answer your questions.
First, I post here in order to receive useful feedback and criticism. That allows me to correct errors and do better in the future.
Second, why should anyone read my articles? What authority do I claim?
Everyone chooses what they regard as a legitimate source of authority. Max Weber classifies authority as charismatic (religious), traditional, or legal (bureaucratic rank, credentials). Perhaps one of those works for you. None of them works for me. I prefer to seek a different basis for belief: what works, what makes sense, what has supporting data. I care little for the source -- whether lord, priest, or serf.
I can only guess why people read my work. Perhaps it is best that I do not know!
1. My record as a forecaster is pretty good. (Not perfect, of course. I wish I was correct and that the US started withdrawing troops from Iraq in late 2006).
2. Perhaps they present interesting ideas or new perspectives.
3. Perhaps they provide some useful information.
Certainly not for entertainment. They are humorless and long (by web standards). Worse, they have been pretty grim (although this series is different).
I am sure we all agree that no style should or does work for everyone, as everyone seeks the truth in their own way.
A Yes to a Request is More Like It.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fabius Maximus
I write only by invitation. Hence the articles (or op-ed’s, if you prefer) on DNI. Hence this thread. Perhaps you should address your complaints to the SWC...
Just to make sure everyone is on the same sheet of music here re "invitation" - Fabius Maximus asked if his DNI article was "worth posting to SWC." We said yes and suggested the link as the method.
Reply to RTK about sources and other concerns
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
Do you write your positions off of mainstream media accounts or have you been in Iraq since 2003 at all?
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?
Quote:
Additionally, your writings have always smacked of one who has bought into the mainstream media perspective.
The common objection to my 2003 & 2004 articles was that they contradicted reports in the mainstream media.
Quote:
You highlight problems and seldom solutions.
A valid criticism and one I am addressing with this series of articles. It's easy to criticize; proposing solutions is more difficult. Of course, proposing solutions is inherently more speculative -- as I move from describing events to guessing what might work in the future.
Quote:
Lastly, you have long used your postings on this web site to attempt to gain readers to DNI.
Again a valid criticism. This was raised for the first time in my previous SWC thread; since then I obtain in advance permission to post.
Quote:
You've scantly addressed direct criticism, or even direct questioning.
This was raised in the last go-around, perhaps with some validity. Here I have attempted to specifically and clearly address questions. Including yours. Have I missed any?
Quote:
I'd prefer you'd just write on DNI (we know you're their) and quit asking permission to post here.
It's not my place to decide what is appropriate for the SWC. That's for the folks running it to decide.
Quote:
... your inability to understand their practical application in counterinsurgency operations
Please rebut or question! That's why I am here. Or ignore me, which is also OK. So far on this thread -- all this text! -- the only question was about the uniforms worn by Kurds. To which I replied. That was a fair test on a small but perhaps telling point of fact.
Quote:
...which, in all actuality, you're using the term in way too general an application
Perhaps. The meaning of the term has shifted over the years. I checked current usage when writing my reply, and I think I used it in the commonplace sense. This is a minor point, however, as I think my meaning was clear -- which is the important thing.
Reply to RTK: no need to apologize!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
FM is well within his rights to post on SWJ. Perhaps my earlier post was a bit less well constructed and too emotive.
I agree with what you expressed both here and in the Kilcullen discussion. Posting from another site is, I believe, not discussed in the rules and therefore seems problematic. I did not ask then, but did so before starting this thread. I'm not sure where the "implied endorsement" view came from, as I doubt either of us thought that.
Web communities tend to spend much time on internal mechanics. I've read that some astonishingly high fraction of Wikipedia discussions are about its internal mechanics. It's a price paid for members taking the community seriously.
Since this has come up twice to my knowledge, adding a sentence about cross-posting might be useful. Just an outsider’s suggestion. (I hope it's not in there and I overlooked it in December)
As for previous discussions, the “Kilcullen” debate went on long past the point where I ceased to get anything from it. Not to mention the endless ad hominem attacks. Who was right or wrong I leave for the God or the SWC moderators to determine. I made what I considered a good faith contribution to a thread I started, not a life-long commitment. Like yourselves, I leave when the cost-benefit ratio becomes unfavorable.
So we’re back to this thread. If anyone has questions or criticisms on the article posted, I will make a good faith attempt to answer them. Like any opinion piece (another good call, RTK) it has errors, some of which people have told me about. If we're done, that's OK too.
Jedburgh: that is a clear message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jedburgh
Occasionally there is someone posting on the board that I want to look up just so I can punch him in the face. At that time, for me at least, it is useful to recognize that not posting is probably the better response. The board does have a feature that can help with targeted aggression:
I will answer the questions already in progress, such as from Culpeper and RTK, but I think with Jedburgh's comment this thread has gone past any reasonable debate.
Just a parting thought, if this is how you respond to my fairly mild comments -- after all, calls for to build a federated state in Iraq &/or exit fast are common now -- the range of debate here will likely remain fairly narrow. It is your site, and your decision how to run it.
How could there ever have been an insurgency?
Think of these terms – banditry, insurgency, civil war – as a diagnosis. The first diagnosis was fighting with a low level of political activity – by “dead enders.” As the disease progressed the threat assessment also escalated, and there was an “insurgency.” Now it has progressed to the point that the central government – for which we had such hope – appears non-viable. There is probably a specific word for the current condition, this specific type of civil war. (I wish I had thought of this when writing the text).
Continuing the medical metaphor, each diagnosis leads to a remedy. Now we are treating Iraq with counter-insurgency operations. If the disease has progressed, that might no longer be appropriate. A different form of treatment might be required.
As with 5GW, we cannot take this metaphor too far or it gets silly. (Do we ally with the cancers in each organ?) It's an illustration.