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.