Scrutinizing Petraeus's Record

[Rank amateur]

I thought I'd dig up this thread. It bounced around a lot but my thesis that building capacity and creating breathing space doesn't automatically produce reconciliation seems relevant today.

Ken's comment "pressure is more likely to create resistance" is interesting given the pressure being placed on Sadr.

Marc might want to comment on the tribal reconciliation process when one side suddenly has more weapons than the other.

Another one of Ken's comments that is interesting: "It is considered not only permissible but desirable to lie (as we in the west see it -- they do not look at it that way) to a customer -- or a foreigner..." leads me to another hypothesis: Iraqis have figured out that if they call their rivals "terrorists" we'll use our use kinetic weapons against their rivals.

And finally, Ken's comment that "no one in the ME will ever 'trust' anyone who iis not family (preferably) or tribe / clan / moetie, etc (secondarily)" is undoubtedly true and supports my hypothesis that capacity building won't work. The government uniform comes off as soon as the fur flies. Here's photographic proof from CNN that it happened at least once.


An Iraqi police commando receives a Quran and an olive branch after deserting Saturday in Baghdad's Sadr City.

While everyone has acknowledged the brilliance and accuracy of Ken's previous post, no one has added up what it all means. It means that Iraqis only held up their purple fingers because they knew we were watching. It means that the only way to rule Iraq is the way Saddam did: give the most important responsibilities to your family and rule your family with an iron fist. Give the next most important responsibilities to your tribe and rule them with an iron fist. Give the next most important responsibilities to your religious group and rule them with an iron fist. Oppress everyone else with an iron fist. The mistake that Ken makes is thinking that if we deploy an iron fist for 10 or 15 years it won't matter that we don't have a family, a tribe or a relevant religious group in Iraq.

That's why I suggest that if you are in Iraq you reduce every interaction to a business transaction as simple as buying a carpet: how much do you want to attack Al Qaeda? That's why strategically I advocate withdrawal; we're never going to succeed without a family, without a tribe and without a religious group in the fight.

[Ken White]

I thought I'd dig up this thread. It bounced around a lot but my thesis that building capacity and creating breathing space doesn't automatically produce reconciliation seems relevant today.

I don't think anyone of any importance ever said it would.

Ken's comment "pressure is more likely to create resistance" is interesting given the pressure being placed on Sadr.

Why? I'd also note that Sadr has had several competing pressures placed on him by several actors -- which one will he most resist?

Another one of Ken's comments that is interesting: "It is considered not only permissible but desirable to lie (as we in the west see it -- they do not look at it that way) to a customer -- or a foreigner..." leads me to another hypothesis: Iraqis have figured out that if they call their rivals "terrorists" we'll use our use kinetic weapons against their rivals.

True in the first year or so, hardly at all true today. We're slow and we got taken early on but the Intel finally caught up and we're a lot more skeptical and aware today.

And finally, Ken's comment that "no one in the ME will ever 'trust' anyone who iis not family (preferably) or tribe / clan / moetie, etc (secondarily)" is undoubtedly true and supports my hypothesis that capacity building won't work. The government uniform comes off as soon as the fur flies.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by capacity building. Still, if your picture is to illustrate that people will change side based on the parameters I cited plus other factors -- Heh. No kidding. Welcome to the ME.

While everyone has acknowledged the brilliance and accuracy of Ken's previous post, no one has added up what it all means...

I think you do a distinct disservice to most people here and I'd suggest that those who said my earlier post was reasonably accurate already knew that everything I said was, in at least broad measure, correct -- and thus they'd already figured out what it meant. Something that seems to have eluded you, at least based on your post above to which this responds.

...It means that Iraqis only held up their purple fingers because they knew we were watching. It means that the only way to rule Iraq is the way Saddam did: give the most important responsibilities to your family and rule your family with an iron fist. Give the next most important responsibilities to your tribe and rule them with an iron fist. Give the next most important responsibilities to your religious group and rule them with an iron fist. Oppress everyone else with an iron fist...

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I don't agree with much of that but you're certainly welcome to if you wish to do so.

...The mistake that Ken makes is thinking that if we deploy an iron fist for 10 or 15 years it won't matter that we don't have a family, a tribe or a relevant religious group in Iraq.

You probably really ought to give up telling me what I think, you haven't gotten one call correct so far -- IOW, your'e batting .000 on that. Ken strongly disagrees with an iron fist, period -- go back to your first repeat of what I said "Ken's comment "pressure is more likely to create resistance" is interesting..." If that's what I believe, why would I be remotely disposed to do something that would build resistance. Your position is highly illogical. Again.

That's why I suggest that if you are in Iraq you reduce every interaction to a business transaction as simple as buying a carpet: how much do you want to attack Al Qaeda?...

Boy, they'd have a lot of fun with you...

...That's why strategically I advocate withdrawal; we're never going to succeed without a family, without a tribe and without a religious group in the fight.

Define succeed.

[Rank amateur]

Still, if your picture is to illustrate that people will change side based on the parameters I cited plus other factors -- Heh. No kidding. Welcome to the ME.

I'll bite. Let's define all the factors and then let's see if sticking around for 10 or 15 years will have any influence over them. Your list looks good to me. What other factors do you want to add?

That's why I suggest that if you are in Iraq you reduce every interaction to a business transaction as simple as buying a carpet: how much do you want to attack Al Qaeda?...

Boy, they'd have a lot of fun with you...

Cav guy was there. If he thinks my simplification is completely off the mark, I'll admit that I was wrong.

[Ron Humphrey]

I thought I'd dig up this thread.

that you went to all this trouble of digging through the thread in order to say this-

It means that the only way to rule Iraq is the way Saddam did: give the most important responsibilities to your family and rule your family with an iron fist.

and this

That's why I suggest that if you are in Iraq you reduce every interaction to a business transaction as simple as buying a carpet: how much do you want to attack Al Qaeda? That's why strategically I advocate withdrawal; we're never going to succeed without a family, without a tribe and without a religious group in the fight.

I'm afraid there are some major parts of what has and does happen that you seem to miss.

Generally I've seen that happen when someone tends to look more for what happens to support their own thesis, and less at the overall picture of history.
It's great to be right when your right but I propose its even better to be the one to catch yourself when your not right It means your searching for truth rather than backup.

Regardless of how business like or structured any given society is it is still filled with people and those deserve more than to be treated as actors in someones play.

No offense meant simply concern about where that line of thinking eventually leads you.

[Rank amateur]

it is still filled with people and those deserve more than to be treated as actors in someones play.

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:

What is collateral damage? I can't think of a better definition than minor actors in someone else's drama.

No offense meant simply concern about where that line of thinking eventually leads you.

No offense taken. I'm hoping that my line of thinking leads us all to the truth. If it won't, someone will blow my arguments out of the water because I am seriously outgunned in each and every debate amongst council members.

[Ken White]

I'll bite. Let's define all the factors and then let's see if sticking around for 10 or 15 years will have any influence over them. Your list looks good to me. What other factors do you want to add?

Added factors; temperature, humidity, power supply, employment situation, attitude of relatives, experiences bad or good with coalition elements, location, education and probably a dozen more. Seriously. Whim governs much in the ME. Insh'Allah covers many things.

Sticking around another 10 or 15 years will have little effect. More than 30 -- which I deem quite possible -- might have some small effect. However, I have a question, given the unlikelihood of having much effect on personalities and psyches that have developed over several thousand years, why would you want to influence a change or really think you could? Doesn't seem to me to make much sense. What benefit is derived from even engaging in trying to change something when the chance of success is slight?

Cav guy was there. If he thinks my simplification is completely off the mark, I'll admit that I was wrong.

Don't know about him but I don't think your simplification was off the mark, it was pretty accurate. Has nothing to do with the fact that they'd really have fun haggling with you. You're a smart guy and you sell things for a living. probably do well at it; they haggle for fun and profit -- not the same thing as selling. They just love a guy that's got them figured out.

Is that it? You resurrect an old thread, post a fairly detailed comment citing several things I said (one presumes there was some purpose to that); I respond in equal detail and you have only two ad-copy blurbs for discussion?

[Ron Humphrey]

What is collateral damage? I can't think of a better definition than minor actors in someone else's drama.

LINK

The question for this is for whom did and do the players perform, or at whose direction

[Rank amateur]

Is that it? You resurrect an old thread, post a fairly detailed comment citing several things I said (one presumes there was some purpose to that); I respond in equal detail and you have only two ad-copy blurbs for discussion?

I was just hoping you'd say this:

"Sticking around another 10 or 15 years will have little effect. "

If Rob said the same thing I probably wouldn't comment very often because I have little else of value to add. (But I would keep reading because I learn a lot here, especially when you share your war stories.)

LINK

The question for this is for whom did and do the players perform, or at whose direction

Sometimes, I hate the director. Sometimes, I don't.

[Ken White]

I was just hoping you'd say this:

"Sticking around another 10 or 15 years will have little effect. "

If Rob said the same thing I probably wouldn't comment very often because I have little else of value to add. (But I would keep reading because I learn a lot here, especially when you share your war stories.)

much to the dialog? If you want to contribute value, you've proven you're capable of expressing coherent and complete thoughts; you should simply do that more often. The little blurbs and barbs don't add much.

Nor do my war stories add much -- and it's easy to read mine or anyone else's in this medium and draw an incorrect inference; so be careful...

Okay, I said what you hoped I'd say. What, precisely does that tell you? That saying that means that I believe there's no sense in staying due to that fact? Surely you know better than that. That since we're unlikely to change 3,000 years of culture in 10 or 15 we shouldn't be there? I don't think that's anywhere near the most significant reason we're there. What difference does it make whether Rob or anyone else agree with me or with you, you asked a specific question of me and I answered; does this mean that either you or I believe that we are only there to 'influence' them? And our beliefs are only acceptable if someone else concurs?

What does my saying that indicate?

For other examples:

Sometimes, I hate the director. Sometimes, I don't.

Means what? Who is the director? What is being directed? Is the director the issue or is the play the issue?

...I'm hoping that my line of thinking leads us all to the truth...

Truth? Truth of or in what? Leading us all to it implies that, whatever that truth is, it is overarching and encompasses all and is irrefutable. You and / or we may or may not ever get there but without others having at least some knowledge of that truth you seek, a lot of pixels are going to be wasted trying to get there. What IS your line of thinking -- or are we supposed to play guessing games?

If it won't, someone will blow my arguments out of the water because I am seriously outgunned in each and every debate amongst council members.

That's not necessarily correct but reliance on short pithy pointed comments does make one wonder about the depth of your interest. Drive by shootings aren't popular anywhere to my knowledge.

[SWJED]

Ken offers sage advice:

If you want to contribute value, you've proven you're capable of expressing coherent and complete thoughts; you should simply do that more often. The little blurbs and barbs don't add much.

Dave D.

[RTK]

That's why I suggest that if you are in Iraq you reduce every interaction to a business transaction as simple as buying a carpet: how much do you want to attack Al Qaeda?

Culturally obtuse. You'd go nowhere with this for the long term. You'd be leasing success.