Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: U.S. Army / Marine COIN Doctrine

  1. #21
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    I'm not in the least minimizing DePuy's impact on the army, and I'm sorry if the post came off that way. He did have a major and very important impact on the post-Vietnam army. What I was pointing to was his tenure as CG of the 1st ID in 1965-66 and his concept of operations in the III CTZ. DePuy was very much a big unit war guy, and preached reliance on supporting arms and firepower. This may not have been the way to go in Vietnam. He did a great deal to get the Army to adapt to the situation it faced in Europe in the 1970s, and certainly paved the way for Starry's Air-Land changes. I worked with Starry for a time in the late 1990s. Very interesting guy.

  2. #22
    Council Member CR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    181

    Default

    I don't think that MG Scales was linking GEN Depuy to COIN so much as holding him up as an example of one man's impact on doctrinal development. Active defense got officers speaking about doctrine and IMO served as the wellspring of Airland Battle, not to mention jump starting the Army's modernization cycle for material development, the use of the METL and battle-focused training. I wonder what his impact on COIN doctrine might have been if he viewed his Vietnam experience as a vision of the future instead of an aberration.
    "Law cannot limit what physics makes possible." Humanitarian Apsects of Airpower (papers of Frederick L. Anderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University)

  3. #23
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Unconventional Conflicts to Dominate Future Operations

    12 October American Forces Press Service - Unconventional Conflicts to Dominate Future Operations by Donna Miles. Posted here in full per DoD guidelines.

    Irregular, unconventional conflicts like those under way in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to dominate U.S. military operations for the foreseeable future, Army officials agreed this week at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual convention here.

    “I don’t see conventional challenges to be dominant for a long time,” said Conrad Crane, director of the U.S. Army Military History, during a panel discussion on irregular warfare and counterinsurgency operations.

    “Our enemies are going to make us fight this kind of war until we get it right,” Crane said. “This is our future.”

    The Army is rewriting its doctrine and incorporating lessons learned in the terror war into its operations so it’s better postured to confront this new threat, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, during an Oct. 10 luncheon address.

    He pointed to the new counterinsurgency manual, Field Manual 3-24, developed jointly with the Marine Corps, as a big step toward preparing the force for the challenges associated with irregular warfare.

    In addition, transformational changes taking place within the Army -- in terms of equipment, training, technological advances and new approaches—are also helping ensure its ability to address unconventional threats.

    But fighting irregular conflicts and helping new democracies get on their feet isn’t something the military can do alone, said Kalev Sepp, assistant professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, Calif.

    “This is revolutionary” -- building democracies and helping them establish capitalist economies and open and public police forces and judicial systems, Sepp pointed out. “The mission is too broad to put on the shoulders of the military alone,” he said. “It has to be interagency.”

    “We will not prevail with the force of arms alone,” Schoomaker agreed.

    Schoomaker warned about the stakes of the current conflict and expressed concern that the American people have lost the focus they demonstrated immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

    “This is perhaps the most dangerous period in our lifetime,” he said. “We are in the midst of a long war and the stakes could not be higher.”

    Schoomaker noted that al Qaeda and other terror organizations hate all that America stands for and show no signs of wavering in their commitment to spread their hateful ideology. The Sept. 11 terror attacks “were not the war’s first salvos,” he said, but rather, the continuation of a long string of attacks against the United States and its interests.

    Yet five years into the terror war, Schoomaker warned that American response to this threat -- one against which he acknowledged, “victory is not assured” -- has been largely “tepid.”

    That’s a concern, he said, because the conflict is far from over. “We are much closer to the beginning than the end of this long conflict,” he said, emphasizing the need for public support and financial backing to ensure the mission succeeds.

    “Ultimately, victory requires a national strategic consensus, evident in both words and actions,” he said. “While such a common strategic foundation, understood and accepted by the American people, existed during the Cold War, … it is not yet evident that such common understanding exists today.”

    Schoomaker said it shouldn’t take another attack like the United States experienced on Sept. 11, 2001, “to shake us into action.”

  4. #24
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Waging War, One Police Precinct at a Time

    15 October New York Times commentary - Waging War, One Police Precinct at a Time by Phillip Carter.

    The military’s new counterinsurgency manual offers a great deal of wisdom for those who will wage the small wars of the future. Its prescriptions and paradoxes — like the maxim that the more force used, the less effective it is — make sense. However, having spent the last year advising a provincial police headquarters in Iraq, I know it’s far easier to write about such wars than to fight them.

    The war I knew was infinitely more complex, contradictory and elusive than the one described in the network news broadcasts or envisioned in the new field manual. When I finally left Baquba, the violent capital of Iraq’s Diyala Province, I found myself questioning many aspects of our mission and our accomplishments, both in a personal search for meaning and a quest to gather lessons that might help those soldiers who will follow me...

    This paradox raises fundamental questions about the wisdom and efficacy of our strategy, which is to “stand up” Iraqi security forces so we can “stand down” American forces. Put simply, this plan is a blueprint for withdrawal, not for victory. Improving the Iraqi Army and police is necessary to prevail in Iraq; it is not sufficient.

    Counterinsurgency is more like an election than a military operation; the Iraqi government must convince the Iraqi people to choose it over the alternatives offered by Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish militants. To do so, the Iraqi government and the coalition must deliver public goods — security, public works, commerce, education and the rule of law, to name a few. The campaign must convince not just a majority or super-majority but virtually everyone, for as the noted insurgents T. E. Lawrence and Mao Zedong have noted, it takes the support of just 2 in 100 citizens to sustain an insurgency.

    At this point, and with this strategy, it may not be possible to win in Iraq. America gained a spectacular victory in 2003, toppling the brutal Saddam Hussein regime. But there are limits to what military force can accomplish. You cannot plant democracy with a bayonet, nor can you force Iraqis to choose a particular path if their democracy is to mean anything at all.

    Moreover, our choices in 2006 are not as good as our choices were in 2003; we cannot simply stay the course now and hope for victory. Given Iraq’s historic antipathy to invaders and the strength of today’s insurgency, I believe only a wholly unconventional approach will work. This means many more embedded advisers like myself, working in tandem with teams from the State Department and other agencies, supported by combat forces only when force is necessary.

    We should strive in 2006 to build on our successes and to find a smarter way to shift the counterinsurgency effort to the Iraqis in order to secure an imperfect victory. For, as Lawrence wrote eight decades ago about helping the Arabs fight the Turks: “Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.”

  5. #25
    Council Member CaptCav_CoVan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    36

    Default transforming Military Training

    Interesting presentation by General Petraeus at the Brookings Institure on 14 September 2006 addressing various "new" training initiatives in the Army. The title is "Transforming Military Training: Using Lessons of the Past to Build the Army of the Future". Now there is a novel idea...sorry if this is repeat of a previous citation.

  6. #26
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Politically Correct War

    18 October New York Post commentary - Politically Correct War by Ralph Peters.

    ... Obsessed with low-level "tactical" morality - war's inevitable mistakes - the officers in question have lost sight of the strategic morality of winning. Our Army and Marine Corps are about to suffer the imposition of a new counterinsurgency doctrine designed for fairy-tale conflicts and utterly inappropriate for the religion-fueled, ethnicity-driven hyper-violence of our time.

    We're back to struggling to win hearts and minds that can't be won.

    The good news is that the Army and Marine Corps worked together on the new counterinsurgency doctrine laid out in Field Manual 3-24 (the Army version). The bad news is that the doctrine writers and their superiors came up with fatally wrong prescriptions for combating today's insurgencies.

    Astonishingly, the doctrine ignores faith-inspired terrorism and skirts ethnic issues in favor of analyzing yesteryear's political insurgencies. It would be a terrific manual if we returned to Vietnam circa 1963, but its recommendations are profoundly misguided when it comes to fighting terrorists intoxicated with religious visions and the smell of blood.

    Why did the officers in question avoid the decisive question of religion? Because the answers would have been ugly.

  7. #27
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Classic Peters

    Obsessed with low-level "tactical" morality - war's inevitable mistakes - the officers in question have lost sight of the strategic morality of winning. Our Army and Marine Corps are about to suffer the imposition of a new counterinsurgency doctrine designed for fairy-tale conflicts and utterly inappropriate for the religion-fueled, ethnicity-driven hyper-violence of our time.
    Classic Peters

    A. Go for the base instinct; in this case, confusing "terrorists" with applications in COIN. Winning hearts and minds targets the population, not the "terrorists" as Peters tosses the term around. No the manual does not ignore religion if one considers religion part of belief systems.

    B. Use dismissiive rhetoric to appeal to lesser intellects; "low-level Tactical morality"? Is consideration of effects "low level tactical morality"? I see it as a necessary component of any campaign.

    Tom

  8. #28
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    The whole thing is classic Peters - some interesting observations and comments jumbled in with his pseudo-historical rants. Peters seems to think that we will encounter only insurgencies based on ethnicity or religion. I also find his evocation of Marshall and FDR disingenuous, given that FDR in particular totally misread Stalin and set the stage for much of the Cold War at Yalta. And calling the new doctrine "dishonest and cowardly" is just stupid. When Peters says "a little education really is a dangerous thing" he may want to look inward and evaluate some of his own positions.

    That rant aside, I don't dismiss his ideas out of hand. He was one of the first to publicly grasp the change in conflict from Cold War-style affairs to the more "warrior-centric" conflicts we face today. But over time I think he's gotten entranced with seeing his own words in print and has lost some of his grasp.

    And Tom, I would say that any educated person would consider religion part of a society's belief systems.

    If shorter is always better, Peters must consider the original Small Wars Manual a titanic failure. Short it ain't.

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default Counter insurgency strategy

    I haven't seen the book yet, but from teh comments I have seen on it here and elsewhere it does appear to focus on the political aspects of fighting the enemy. I have not seen anything on how to defeat the enemy's kinetic operations. Insurgencies by there very nature use a raiding strategy.

    The classic way to defeat a raiding stregy is having a sufficient force to space ratio that permits you to cut off and attack the enemy when he is most vulnerable, i.e. when he is moving to atack or retreating from an attack. The raiding strategy relies on the superiority of retreat to pursuit.

    Having forces in place to cut off the retreat or intercept the attacking forces seems to be far more important than whether you have a good relationship with the people. Where the latter becomes important is in gaining intelligence about the enemy. In Iraq we did not start getting good intelligece consistently until we had enough Iraqi troops to augment the force to space ratio and interact with the people.

    My question to those who have seen the book is does it address this strategic aspect of defeating an insurgency? If so, please give some excerpts or examples.

    Another point that needs to be addressed in a book on counter insurgency is whether the enemy can be defeated in the time frame that domestic political considerations permit. It appears that in the US a war must be won in about three years or less before political opposion to the war makes it more difficult to sustain. If that is the case can the new strategy produce a victory in that time frame?

    Does the new counterinsurgency strategy discuss how we can defeat the enemy in the media battle space. In Iraq, that is were he has had most of his victories, and we have been way behind his OODA loop in responding to his media message. The enemy has said that half of the war effort is in the media battle space. How much of the book addresses this battle space? Tom Freidman recently cited similar materal on an enemy web site referring to our current election.

    The jihadists follow our politics much more closely than people realize. A friend at the Pentagon just sent me a post by the “Global Islamic Media Front” carried by the jihadist Web site Ana al-Muslim on Aug. 11. It begins: “The people of jihad need to carry out a media war that is parallel to the military war and exert all possible efforts to wage it successfully. This is because we can observe the effect that the media have on nations to make them either support or reject an issue.”
    Again does this new strategy address this point?
    Last edited by Merv Benson; 10-18-2006 at 04:42 PM. Reason: New data

  10. #30
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Another point that needs to be addressed in a book on counter insurgency is whether the enemy can be defeated in the time frame that domestic political considerations permit.
    Merv, this is precisely the element that I, in my research, found makes or breaks the COIN fight, even in cases where an insurgent win could pose disaster and diaspora for the economy and people of the target state. I agree that this looms heavily over our current situation. Perhaps OIF will continue to chug along solely due to the portrayal of Iraq as the new terrorist hotbed. Invoke enough images and connections to 9/11, and many American's will (arguably) be more than happy to beat the drum.

    Conduct polls in swing states, and targetted at folks in the heartland, and I bet we'd see some interesting dynamics. That brings up a question on whether media polls admit where the poll was conducted (city vs. rural area, South vs. North, etc.). I know that polls can tell you about whatever you want them to say, but is there a watchdog that digs up this information to provide context on where the respondents are coming from? To illustrate what I'm saying, I would bet my paycheck that I could dig up overwhelming anti-administration sentiment in Vermont, and now in S. Louisiana. Also, is anyone studying how polls are shaping the debate (or lack thereof) about the GWOT?

    I have to admit ignorance because I totally dismissed the relevance of polls for real political scientists after I endured my sophmore statics class...

  11. #31
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Jcustis, you are so right about polls and not only where but when is the poll conducted?? Last week the son of one of the employees where I am a security manager was killed in Iraq by an IED. He was a 20 year old Marine. His parents were heart broken to say the least and it had a huge effect on a lot of people that could have been in some type of survey. The week before they would have been supporters this week I think there was alot of changed hearts. Polls are just one more I/O weapon the enemy can use against our morale.

  12. #32
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Polls to a great extent have become the sacred cows of our political process. Their creators don't want too much information about them to come out (things like refusal rates, for example) because it might undermine their oracle-like status. They're too easy to massage, you often have no real idea of what questions were really asked, and as has been mentioned before the time frame and demographics of these polls are often questionable at best.

    Jucstis, the information you're looking for is closely-guarded from what I remember about polls (did some research about their methodology a few years back) and not often discussed. And regarding I/O, I think we will just have to live with the fact that we have no control over our media while most of our prospective enemies have almost total control over theirs.

  13. #33
    Groundskeeping Dept. SWCAdmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    DC area pogue.
    Posts
    1,841

    Default e.g. Zogby

    Reminds me of the Zogby poll, released at the end of Feb, that caused such a hullaballoo.
    An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows. http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
    And some of the piercing of the veil, from the SWJ Daily News Links archive (the second one doesn't seem to work, too bad, it was priceless):
    Zogby vs. the Blogosphere (Troop Iraq Poll) - The Officers' Club Blog
    Zogby Hangs Up - Hugh Hewitt Blog
    Zogby Poll Not What it Seems - Wizbang Blog
    Zogby Military Iraq Poll Dissected - Threats Watch Blog

  14. #34
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    A bit on Zogby from Hewitt can be found at http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/2006/03/page13

  15. #35
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Army Counterinsurgency Doctrine Charts a New Course

    15 December Secrecy News - Army Counterinsurgency Doctrine Charts a New Course.

    The U.S. Army has completed a long-awaited new manual presenting military doctrine on counterinsurgency. It is the first revision of counterinsurgency doctrine in twenty years.

    In several respects, the new doctrine implicitly repudiates the Bush Administration's approach to the war in Iraq.

    "Conducting a successful counterinsurgency campaign requires a flexible, adaptive force led by agile, well-informed, culturally astute leaders," the foreword states.

    The new manual emphasizes the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilization, and it stresses the limited utility of conventional military operations.

    "The military forces that successfully defeat insurgencies are usually those able to overcome their institutional inclination to wage conventional war against insurgents."

    A copy of the new 282 page unclassified manual was obtained by Secrecy News.

    See "Counterinsurgency," U.S. Army Field Manual 3-24, December 15, 2006 (12.9 MB PDF).

  16. #36
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default COIN FM / MCWP Officially Posted to the Web

    Army, Marines Release New Counterinsurgency Manual
    By Jim Garamone
    American Forces Press Service

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 18, 2006 – “Learn” and “adapt” are the key messages of the new Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, which just hit the streets.
    The Counterinsurgency Field Manual, FM 3-24 and Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-33.5, is a unique joint effort between the Army and Marines to put in place doctrine to help operators as they face the challenges of asymmetric warfare.

    The manual codifies an important lesson of insurgencies: it takes more than the military to win. “There are more than just lethal operations involved in a counterinsurgency campaign,” said Conrad Crane, director of the U.S. Army Military History Institute, in Carlisle, Pa., and one of the leaders of the effort.

    He said the team working on the manual decided early on to emphasize the interagency aspect of counterinsurgency fights. “The military is only one piece of the puzzle,” Crane said. “To be successful in a counterinsurgency, you have to get contributions from a lot of different agencies, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and host-nation organizations. There are so many people involved to make counterinsurgency successful.”

    All of these organizations bring important weapons to the campaign, “and you’ve got to bring unity of effort if you can to make it effective,” he said.

    Lt. Col. Lance McDaniel, a branch head at the Marine Corps Combat Development Center at Quantico, Va., said the manual is aimed at battalion-level officers and NCOs, but felt that all who read it could gain some insight into the difficulties of a counterinsurgency war. “We see this being part of the pre-deployment training units undergo,” McDaniel said. “Once on the ground they can adapt the ideas from the manual to their particular location and enemy.”

    The Army and Marine Corps have shared field manuals in the past, but this is the first on which the two services worked closely to write, both Crane and McDaniel said. “This was a real team effort of Army and Marine writers,” Crane said. “What I tell people is we had about 20 primary writers on the manual and about 600,000 editors.”

    Crane said many soldiers and Marines commented on the manual and provided input to the final product. “We received more than 1,000 comments from people actually doing the mission,” he said.

    But it didn’t stop with military feedback. State Department employees, CIA officials, academic experts and representatives of the international human rights community contributed insights to the manual, McDaniel said. “I hope the publication will make it easier for other agencies and organizations to work with us,” he said.

    Chapter 4, a discussion on Campaign Design, is a unique aspect of the manual. “The Marines brought that to the manual,” Crane said.

    Before beginning a campaign, planners must identify the problem that needs solving, then be ready to change the plan as conditions change on the ground, Crane said. “In counterinsurgency, that is so important because it is a complex situation,” he said.

    A counterinsurgency campaign is much more complex than a traditional military-on-military conflict. The make-up of the community, the needs of the various groups, the history of the area, traditional allies in the region, and many other things contribute to understanding how to design a counterinsurgency campaign. “It takes a lot more analysis before you jump into it, because if you do the wrong thing, it could have major implications,” Crane said. “You have to be sure you are applying the right solution to the right problem.”

    Crane said the idea of campaign design will probably permeate other Army field manuals.

    The new counterinsurgency manual uses examples from fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also uses examples from the Napoleonic War, the U.S. experience in Vietnam, and counterinsurgency efforts in the Philippines, Malaya (now Malaysia) and South America.

    Crane and McDaniel agree that insurgencies are the wars of the future. The idea of a nation taking on the United States army to army or navy to navy is remote, given the U.S. conventional expertise. “Enemies will make us fight these kinds of wars until we get them right,” Crane said. “Then they’ll switch.”

    The manual is informed by Afghanistan and Iraq, but also informed by history, Crane said. “We tried to glean what was useful from the historical record, but also with the realization that there are a lot of things that are new out there, Crane said. “Trying to grapple with the nature of contemporary insurgency was one of the toughest parts of writing it.”

    The manual is not limited to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. “If we’ve created a manual that is just good for Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve failed,” he said. “This thing has got to be focused on the future and the next time we do this.”

    The manual is going to be useful in Iraq and Afghanistan, but much of what the manual covers is already being done in those theaters. “The manual is future-focused,” Crane said. “The manual gives you the tools to do your analysis and the guidelines to apply it with the understanding that every situation is going to be unique.”

    It also will be rewritten, as needed, the men said.

    Both men said the manual is receiving a good reception. “This is not a doctrine that is being jammed down peoples’ throats,” Crane said.” This is a doctrine that they are demanding.”
    Here is the official link: U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual, FM 3-24 and Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-33.5.

  17. #37
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Getting Counterinsurgency Right

    20 December NY Post commentary - Getting Counterinsurgency Right by Ralph Peters.

    If a prize were awarded for the most-improved government publication of the decade, we could choose the winner now: "Army Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency" (MCWP 3-33.5 for the Marine Corps). Rising above abysmal earlier drafts, the Army and Marines have come through with doctrine that will truly help our troops.

    Doctrine matters. It doesn't provide leaders with a detailed blueprint, but offers a common foundation on which to build strategies and refine tactics. Start with a weak foundation, and the wartime house can easily collapse.

    This new field manual is a solid base. Earlier drafts were dominated by theorists locked into 20th-century thinking - approaches that failed us so dismally in Iraq. But the final document offers a far greater sense of an insurgency's reality...

  18. #38
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Secrecy News Update

    Counterinsurgency Manual Flies Off the Shelf at the Secrecy News (FAS) blog.

    The new Army Field Manual on Counterinsurgency doctrine has been downloaded from the Federation of American Scientists web site at an extraordinary rate -- more than 250,000 times since it was posted on Friday morning.

    But unlike previous drafts obtained by Secrecy News, the new manual is no secret. It has been published and actively disseminated by the Army.

    "Why don't you also put up our press release announcing the manual which can also be found on our web site?" inquired Col. Steven A. Boylan of the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth. That December 15 news release (pdf) and the accompanying manual (large pdf) can be found on the Fort Leavenworth web site.

    Col. Boylan also objected to Secrecy News' statement that the new counterinsurgency doctrine was at odds with current U.S. policy in Iraq.

    "This manual was in production for about two years and is not and was not intended to counter any current or future policy as you indicate in your article. This document is also not specific to Iraq or Afghanistan. If you understand the basis of doctrine, then you know that our doctrine is geared to be used anywhere our Army might deploy."

  19. #39
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Lessons for One Last Try

    10 January Washington Post commentary - Lessons for One Last Try by David Ignatius.

    What makes sense in Iraq? The political debate is becoming sharply polarized again, as President Bush campaigns for a new "surge" strategy. But some useful military guideposts can be found in a new field manual of counterinsurgency warfare prepared by the general who is about to take command of U.S. forces in Baghdad.

    Lt. Gen. David Petraeus supervised the development of the manual when he ran the Army's training center at Fort Leavenworth, before he had any idea he would be heading back to Baghdad as the top commander. In that sense, the document reflects a senior officer's best judgment about what will work and what won't -- independent of the details of the current "to surge or not to surge" debate. The manual was published by the Army last month and can be downloaded at http://www.leavenworth.army.mil.

    Two themes stood out for me as I read the document. The first is that success in counterinsurgency requires a political strategy as much as a military one. The second is that broad political support back home -- which buys time on the battlefield -- is the crucial strategic asset in fighting such wars...

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
  •