Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Thoughts on a possible "surge" in Iraq

  1. #21
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Maybe Sadr has agreed to have his guys go to ground for a while, and hand over a few dozen RPGs and machine guns as a token offering. Maliki looks good, and the death squads are off the streets for a few days.

  2. #22
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default An update

    From CBC.ca

    Iraqi forces press Baghdad insurgent strongholds
    Last Updated: Saturday, January 6, 2007 | 7:51 PM ET
    CBC News

    Iraqi forces launched a new security drive in Baghdad Saturday to quell violence in the embattled city's neighbourhoods, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, as state television reported 30 militants were killed in a gun battle.

    More...
    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  3. #23
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Moved this over to a more open area, to see if opinion comes in from proponents of the various strategies that have popped up within the past 60 days.

  4. #24
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    It seems that the rhetoric is starting to congeal around a figure of 20,000 additional troops for a short-term surge.

    Is that an appropriate number, assuming the real ratio of shooters to supporting MOS's?

    Is there a line in the sand that defines the limits to the surge? New metrics to define success in the surge?

    Should the surge be tied to extended deployments for the Marines already on deck?
    Last edited by jcustis; 01-08-2007 at 03:15 PM.

  5. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Civilian Taxpayers .02 Worth

    Take out al sadr and lets the chips fall where they may and seriously brutalize the anbar provence at the same time. It's whole hog or none, boys - Nancy Pelosi & Co. aren't going to give you any more chances. Cut the leash from Pratereus and let her rip. Let the lads take some ears, come home and drink beer at the VFW with the rest of us.

  6. #26
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default Hmmmm....

    The Soviets tried this in Afghanistan and it didn't work. No sir, not one bit. As for Al Sadr...that's when the pols and diplomats need to step up and provide direction. This ain't just a military show, no matter how much some may want to attach all the blame to them.

  7. #27
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goesh View Post
    Take out al sadr and lets the chips fall where they may and seriously brutalize the anbar provence at the same time. It's whole hog or none, boys - Nancy Pelosi & Co. aren't going to give you any more chances. Cut the leash from Pratereus and let her rip. Let the lads take some ears, come home and drink beer at the VFW with the rest of us.
    So your solution is to disobey lawful orders and committ war crimes. No thanks - and I would appreciate a serious discussion of the issues on this board - not nuke them all and let God sort them out drive-bys. There are plenty of other discussion boards and groups where you might feel more at home.

  8. #28
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goesh View Post
    Take out al sadr and lets the chips fall where they may and seriously brutalize the anbar provence at the same time. It's whole hog or none, boys - Nancy Pelosi & Co. aren't going to give you any more chances. Cut the leash from Pratereus and let her rip. Let the lads take some ears, come home and drink beer at the VFW with the rest of us.
    ' got to agree with Dave on this. Anyone who would seriously do this, as opposed to spouting off about how "nice" it might be, is getting really close to the Islamist line. Goesh, this is an ideological and symbolic, as well as kinetic, war. What your post (quoted above) advocates is pretty much what bin Ladin advocates.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  9. #29
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Yep. Or Stalin or any number of the "boys" who go this route. Always remember: the difference between Stalin and Hitler was the color of the party badge. Nothing more. If anything, Stalin was MUCH more ruthless than Hitler (who actually admired this trait in his opponent).

  10. #30
    Council Member MountainRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    83

    Default the pink elephant

    What about actually using and incorporating the legions of contractors operating in Iraq today? They are there, many / most are already on our dime.

    - From 20,000+/- around the time Bush donned his flight suit to around or over 100,000 today, security contractors are America's agents in the Iraq project whether we acknowledge it or like it and regardless of what the Under Secretary of the Army might say.

    - Incorporating this 100-150k 'private army' is essential and not blue sky unless you haven't been paying attention.

    - These men must be 'deputized', in some form or another, and brought inside the mission as direct agents of the United State government. They need to be integrated into the command structure to work with and not 'coincidently near' counterinsurgency and reconstruction efforts as a whole.

    - Their accountability to the mission, not the law, is essential. Further changing UCMJ and MEJA are unnecessary, but helpful. These firms are there on USG’s dime and command officers and down need to work closely with contract officers to make sure adherence to the mission, not the letter, is understood and monitored. Bad behavior must be clearly punished (techniques used to bring contractors inline include threats of exposing personal information to local IP, not recommended but effective). If the Administration believes it can open mail and listen to phone calls it can cut and enforce smart contracts in Iraq.

    - Contractors must adhere to and follow revised ROE that are more expansive than when to shoot but include how to engage and interact with the population. Aegis 'Trophy Video' and alleged shootings of Vice Presidential guards in the IZ must be met with visible and swift punitive action, legal and financial and public, as a demonstration to the Iraqi people and the US public of the resolve and commitment of the United States.

    - Flooding Iraq with contractors, security and civil and everything else, who will work with Iraqis is essential to garner Iraqi buy-in, establish their own stake in the venture, and build an Iraqi desire to succeed. This desire cannot be imposed and it cannot be assumed.

    Some (all?) is pie in the sky, but not only am I eager to hear input from this board but I'm fascinated how the contractors are largely ignored.

    This is step #4 in something I put together over the weekend:
    http://mountainrunner.us/2007/01/ele...s_in_iraq.html

  11. #31
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Green V Pink

    Runner, you essentially have a motive of profit conflicting with a motive of service and sacrifice. Halliburton's janitors make more than NCOs and as such, an innovative janitor can produce change and adaptation more efficiently than a half dozen NCOs can. The camp followers are no longer in the rear of the column so to speak but rather are beside the soldiers. There was a Congressional hearing around the time of Kosovo over Halliburton price gouging on plywood. A couple of the boys from Halliburton showed up and told the committee that if they didn't like the prices being charged they could hire someone else - end of hearing. You present a paradigm of profit blending with the rigidity of the DOD chain of command, flexibility V tradition. Look what happened when Pratereus was using found money to get things done for the Iraqi civilians. When that money dried up, his operational capability and the ability to win began to degrade. Ignore the camp followers as much as possible and let them do their thing. When grunts get to wear jeans and beards, things get done - that's what it boils down to.

  12. #32
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default Contractors and other mercenaries

    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRunner View Post
    What about actually using and incorporating the legions of contractors operating in Iraq today? They are there, many / most are already on our dime.
    We've talked a bit about contractors in various threads, and there are a few observations that are worth bringing out in order to answer your question.

    1. Contractors fulfill a variety of roles, not all of which are "combat".
    2. Contractors are brought into Iraq under specific contracts that strictly define what they may and may not do.
    3. Contractors, regardless of their nationality or who pays them, are "mercenaries" in the broad sense of the term (no pejorative intended). As such, their loyalty must be to their contracts.


    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRunner View Post
    - Incorporating this 100-150k 'private army' is essential and not blue sky unless you haven't been paying attention.

    - These men must be 'deputized', in some form or another, and brought inside the mission as direct agents of the United State government. They need to be integrated into the command structure to work with and not 'coincidently near' counterinsurgency and reconstruction efforts as a whole.
    This would certainly have been a possibility IFF their contracts had stated it in the first place. As for deputizing or integrating them into the command structure, that is, in many cases, a radical change in their contracts. Trying to change them now, on the fly, would be a major disaster. BTW, that is a PR disaster since there would be a large number of legal cases in civilian courts, and AQ and the MB would treat this as a gift from God.

    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRunner View Post
    - Their accountability to the mission, not the law, is essential. Further changing UCMJ and MEJA are unnecessary, but helpful. These firms are there on USG’s dime and command officers and down need to work closely with contract officers to make sure adherence to the mission, not the letter, is understood and monitored. Bad behavior must be clearly punished (techniques used to bring contractors inline include threats of exposing personal information to local IP, not recommended but effective). If the Administration believes it can open mail and listen to phone calls it can cut and enforce smart contracts in Iraq.
    I have to disagree with your first statement - mercenaries must be accountable to the law, not the "mission". A smart employer of mercenaries will understand this and will set their contracts such that the mission is a component of them. I certainly agree that "bad behaviour must be clearly punished, but under what code? I believe that there was a recent change that now allows the UCMJ to be applied to contractors. Individual blackmail attempts, such as outing them to the IP, may "work" in the short run but, as a policy, they will backfire on the employer.

    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRunner View Post
    - Flooding Iraq with contractors, security and civil and everything else, who will work with Iraqis is essential to garner Iraqi buy-in, establish their own stake in the venture, and build an Iraqi desire to succeed. This desire cannot be imposed and it cannot be assumed.
    I agree that the desire to succeed cannot be either imposed or assumed. This makes me wonder why the contractors were hired in the first place under the contracts they are under. What does it say about a nation or coalition of nations that they have to outsource basic services such as transport? I really don't like the idea of contractors for any of the basic conflict oriented services; I think it sends the message that "we" don't believe in our own propaganda. On a more pragmatic note, how much use could the money that has been paid to contractors be put in strengthening the regular forces? Personally, I think it would have been better to sink that money into force expansion, training and,if an immediate manpower push was required (which it was) in developing the concept of "auxilliaries".

    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRunner View Post
    Some (all?) is pie in the sky, but not only am I eager to hear input from this board but I'm fascinated how the contractors are largely ignored.

    This is step #4 in something I put together over the weekend:
    http://mountainrunner.us/2007/01/ele...s_in_iraq.html
    I just finished reading it, and I think you have put your finger on a number of problem areas. I especially liked your last point .

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  13. #33
    Council Member MountainRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Thanks for the feedback so far. A few quick responses.
    mercenaries must be accountable to the law, not the "mission"
    I disagree with that the absence of UCMJ jurisdiction because the nature of the conflict was not a "war" was a major impediment to justice. I this was the case, why hasn't MEJA been used effectively? What about basic adherence to the contracts? The point I'm making is that strict interpretations of the contract, a natural act in the US, should be seconded to the mission through smart wording granting flexibility and greater control by the local commanders who have little to no insight into what the contractors are doing, and little to no understanding on how to cause contractual change or adherence. Certainly the dearth of contract officers is to blame. If these shortcomings are addressed and the security contractor, which is my main target here, they are effectively brought into the mission and made extensions of the force. A last point on UCMJ, but not all contractors are working LOGCAP or other DoD contracts (in fact, we may find that armed security contractors working LOGCAP or other DoD contracts may actually be operating illegally). As they are not DoD, they are not covered.

    Trying to change them now, on the fly, would be a major disaster. BTW, that is a PR disaster since there would be a large number of legal cases in civilian courts, and AQ and the MB would treat this as a gift from God.
    On the legal response, hence my somewhat tongue in cheek comment about an mail and telephone privacy. But I'm not sure firms would be so quick to reject change. On goesh's point about plywood, there are actually options, especially in the security area and the larger players are eager to participate 'deeper'.

    This makes me wonder why the contractors were hired in the first place under the contracts they are under.
    Why indeed. To provide services we were unable or unwilling to provide, for political or short-term financial reasons (some of which are finally being addressed now with upsizing the force to authorized levels now that Rummy's gone). To compensate for not listening to Shinseki and others to on how to win the peace. etc. But what is the cost when they help create and manipulate our image, critical in coin, negatively? Where's the Afghan Road Rage memo for the contractors?

    I especially liked your last point
    Thanks.

    Goesh, good points. Bureaucracy kills. Contractors do provide flexibility, but at what cost? Gets to the whole 'core competency' restructuring and what are the real and total costs of outsourcing.

  14. #34
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I'll jump in and say that we have bought ourselves a heap of one trick ponies. They do perform that trick very well, but I would never ever want them "deputized".

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •