Our Troops Did Not Fail in 2006

[Mark O'Neill]

The objective balance of facts regarding what we are doing now (including CLC), why we are doing it, and the role of the 'new' COIN doctine favours the narratives offerred by Mansoor and CavGuy.

The people I have spoken to on CLC are clearly enamoured with being paid. Can't say I blame them. Last time I looked, we were being paid for providing security in Iraq, why not pay Iraqis for participating in the same task? As Cavguy pouints out, the business case is sound. You only have to have them 'save' one Hummer a month, without even considering the value of our soldiers lives, and you are already streets ahead.

The assertion that we have 'bought' off the Sunni through the CLC program fails examination against the facts. It does not adequately explain why 'CLC' type entities, acting in accordance with the rule of law and ISF / CF / GOI wishes, have arisen in many places....where we are not paying them at all. There appear to be many of these 'self help' CLC being formed - in Sunni and Shia communities.

One thing that this thread highlights is that there are many competing narratives about what is happening in Iraq. Some of them are probably even quiet close to the reality of what is occurring. However, the situation is constantly evolving and each narrative can really only as 'good' as the accuracy of the facts that inform it.

What was a fact about certain things in '03 , '04, '05, '06 and '07 may not be applicable now. How things seem from CONUS through the distortion of either the media or friend's reports, and tempered with the gift of hindsight may not accord with the reality been percieved by the people up to their necks in it at the time in theatre. That is perhaps why one of the strongest takeaway points to emerge from the 'new' doctrine is the constant emphasis on learning and adaptation.

And Gian - the good news is that 'Learning and adpatation' has universally utility across all war fighting endeavours.

[Gian P Gentile]

Lots of comments on my posting and since I can get lost in long-running, detailed threads let me just say a few things in response.

First of all I apologize to Colonel Mansoor for not having my facts straight by stating incorrectly his former area of operations in Iraq when he was a Brigade commander.

I do accept what Colonel Mansoor's concludes his posting with that perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.

I also appreciate Mark Oneil's statement that:

One thing that this thread highlights is that there are many competing narratives about what is happening in Iraq. Some of them are probably even quiet close to the reality of what is occurring. However, the situation is constantly evolving and each narrative can really only as 'good' as the accuracy of the facts that informs it.

I actually think that there are essentially two; the one i hold and admittedly very few others do and the consensus view as described in detail by the responses to my postings. This is almost certainly why my responses and the words i use to describe how i see things draws such strident remarks from the other side. In order to probe at the truth with power sometimes the matrix responds with equal and even greater force. Cavguy asks why i keep using terms like "buying off our former enemies," well it is an essential truth to the matter that at least a few reporters from Iraq have highlighted and it does set off sparks within the matrix which needs to be done which causes at least some to consider things otherwise.

The narrative, or truth, is important much beyond my personal views and feelings toward Iraq and my experience there. As General Casey has stated our army is out of balance. If we dont see the war as it actually is and understand causal factors as they actually are we may be learning the wrong things that will take us down wrong paths in the future. This may not be the detail that Cavguy is looking for from me but it is the best that i can do in this forum as a serving officer.

It is curious that i am the one being most often accused as being "emotional." Yet i have to tell you that when an officer like Colonel Mansoor uses terms like "periodic patrolling" to characterize my operations in 2006 how am i supposed to take that? The implication of it is hurtful and is factually incorrect. Why are not others questioning his use of strident language?

I push the button by using terms like "buying off our enemies" because so many have convinced themselves that American military power has been the primary agent for the lowering of violence in Iraq in Summer 2007. I am sorry but i just dont view it that way; and a cold hard look at the evidence should cause others to question the narrative too. In the same way that many of you have responded to me this is not an indictment against those brave soldiers who have served as part of our (I accept Colonel Mansoor's critique of my use of a personal pronoun that assigned the Surge to him) Surge but an attempt to get at the truth so that we can devise paths for the future.

Getting at the primary mechansim for the lowering of violence in Summer 2007 is absolutely critical here. Most assume that it was American military power using new doctrine and more troops that did it. From that point to the past the narrative is built that prior to that point we just didnt get things right because we did not have the right doctrine and were not practicing the right methods. Too from that causal point into the future we say that since success in Iraq is primarily because of us we build future plans of action from tactics all the way up to national policy based on this incorrect assessment of causation. Looking at this from the opposite angle, if American military power in its form in Summer 2007 was not at all the primary mechanism for lowering of violence then the way one views the past as essentially a continuation of the same method and tactics since 2004 makes sense. And the future course certainly looks different from the path we are on now. Hence the importance i place on getting at the truth.

This has been an admittedly generalized response lacking in detail but alas like most of you i have lots of things to do on this sunday.

More to follow in other mediums. As the great American historian Carl Becker once said: "it is the duty of the intellectual to think otherwise" in order to get at the truth.

gg

[max161]

I think that some people fail to realize that there is no quick win in a COIN environment and the perceived success of the surge is also a result in part of seeds planted and actions taken long before the surge was devised or implemented. Although this article is defensive in nature I think it also illustrates a potential problem that could arise within the ranks – a “we-they” among those whose units served at different times. But in the end, as we all know, the only ones who can achieve success are the Iraqis themselves. The real success of the surge is not due just to the increased presence of US forces, but because of actions of Iraqi security forces, actions of the (though still troubled) Iraqi government, and most importantly actions of the Iraqi people and the choices they are making (and the choice is not to side with terrorists/insurgents or Americans; the real choices are side with terrorists/insurgents, be indifferent or apathetic, or side with the Iraqi government – in the end it is always a fight for legitimacy – the insurgents or the indigenous government – and we can only be the external support to that indigenous government – we cannot win the COIN fight for it)

And of course COIN takes presence, patience, and persistence. You have to have security forces present in sufficient forces engaged with the population and providing the necessary secure environment. You must have patience because change does not happen over night, the enemy has a vote and most importantly the essence of COIN (as in all warfare) is about dealing with human behavior. And finally you must be persistent because not all strategies and tactics work in every situation. You must adapt strategies and tactics to suit the specific conditions and most importantly the changing conditions.

[Shek]

I push the button by using terms like "buying off our enemies" because so many have convinced themselves that American military power has been the primary agent for the lowering of violence in Iraq in Summer 2007. I am sorry but i just dont view it that way; and a cold hard look at the evidence should cause others to question the narrative too.

***

Getting at the primary mechansim for the lowering of violence in Summer 2007 is absolutely critical here. Most assume that it was American military power using new doctrine and more troops that did it. From that point to the past the narrative is built that prior to that point we just didnt get things right because we did not have the right doctrine and were not practicing the right methods. Too from that causal point into the future we say that since success in Iraq is primarily because of us we build future plans of action from tactics all the way up to national policy based on this incorrect assessment of causation. Looking at this from the opposite angle, if American military power in its form in Summer 2007 was not at all the primary mechanism for lowering of violence then the way one views the past as essentially a continuation of the same method and tactics since 2004 makes sense. And the future course certainly looks different from the path we are on now. Hence the importance i place on getting at the truth.

From FM 3-24.

6-39. Another organizational approach is establishing home guard units. In many COIN operations, these units have effectively provided increased security to the populace. Home guards are part-time, lightly armed, local security forces under HN government control. Often, career military and police officers supervise home guards at the provincial and national levels. Home guards provide point security. They guard vital installations that insurgents will likely target, such as government buildings and businesses. Home guards can also provide security for small villages and man gates and checkpoints. While home guards are not trained to conduct offensive operations, their constant presence reminds the populace that the HN government can provide security. Effective home guards can free police and military forces from stationary guard duties.

6-48. Appropriate compensation levels help prevent a culture of corruption in the security forces. It is cheaper to spend the money needed for adequate wages and produce effective security forces than to pay less and end up with corrupt and abusive forces that alienate the populace. Paying the police adequately is especially important; the nature of their duties and contact with the civilian community often expose them to opportunities for corruption. (Table 6-3 lists some important considerations concerning security force pay.)

The formation of CLC would be consistent with the published COIN doctrine. While not an exact application, as demonstrated by the consternation of the Iraqi central government at the formation of many of the CLC groups, one could argue that instead of 3-24 transitioning beyond doctrine (the starting point on how to think about COIN operations) to dogma (a "bible" that one cannot deviate from), it is serving its proper role as a way to frame a point of departure on how to operate.

[Danny]

My respect to Lt. Col. Gentile, but I take issue with parts of his analysis (although not all of it). Some of his points are spot on.

My response:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/...raq-or-are-we/

[SWJED]

In this morning's Wall Street Journal - Officer Questions Petraeus's Strategy by Yochi Dreazen.

... Lt. Col. Gian Gentile, a history professor here who served two tours in Iraq, begs to differ. He argues that Gen. Petraeus's counterinsurgency tactics are getting too much credit for the improved situation in Iraq. Moreover, he argues, concentrating on such an approach is eroding the military's ability to wage large-scale conventional wars...

Col. Gentile is giving voice to an idea that previously few in the military dared mention: Perhaps the Petraeus doctrine isn't all it's cracked up to be. That's a big controversy within a military that has embraced counterinsurgency tactics as a path to victory in Iraq. The debate, sparked by a short essay written by Col. Gentile titled "Misreading the Surge," has been raging in military circles for months. One close aide to Gen. Petraeus recently took up a spirited defense of his boss...

Col. Steve Boylan, a spokesman for Gen. Petraeus, said the surge deserved credit for enabling the other dynamics contributing to Iraq's security gains. "The surge was definitely a factor," he said. "It wasn't the only factor, but it was a key component."

Col. Boylan said that he was familiar with Col. Gentile's arguments but disagreed with them. "I certainly respect the good lieutenant colonel," he said. "But he hasn't been in Iraq for a while, and when you're not on the ground your views can quickly get dated."...

Col. Gentile's arguments have drawn fierce criticism from counterinsurgency advocates, in particular from Gen. Petraeus's chief of staff, Col. Pete Mansoor, who is retiring from the military to teach at Ohio State.

In a posting to Small Wars Journal, a blog devoted to counterinsurgency issues, Col. Mansoor wrote that Col. Gentile "misreads not just what is happening today in Iraq, but the entire history of the war."...

Additional links at SWJ.

[William F. Owen]

He also argues that Israel struggled in its 2006 war with the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah -- which operates more like a traditional army than a terrorist group -- because the Jewish state had spent years focusing on counterinsurgency. His conclusion is echoed by a historian at the Army's Combat Studies Institute, who concluded in a recent paper that Israel lost the war because "counterinsurgency operations had seriously diminished its conventional war-fighting capabilities."

The observation that Hezbollah operates more like a traditional army is not an accurate one, but it cuts the heart of the argument.

I concur that there is ample evidence that over focus on COIN erodes formation fighting skills, but only if you allow it. This is not a given. (The British Army between 1976-93) It is a product of poor doctrine and understanding. Even the idea that there is COIN and then there is something else -called War-fighting- dodges the hard question, and leads to a false dichotomy.

NOTE: The IDF started as insurgents and switched effortlessly to formation war-fighting skills in 1948, and won! Then fought COIN continuously, apart from breaks for formations level operations in 1956, 67 and 73. - though I admit that it's COIN Ops of the time were typically British and thus quite brutal in nature, by today's standards, - though less so than French methods.