At the risk of raising blood pressures and getting myself banned, I have to say that the Economist has done an excellent job and the derogatory comments about the article and the British demonstrate exactly why we are in the trouble we are in in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan.
To put it another way, some of you just don't get it, and you don't know that you don't get it - which is why you don't like the Economists take on things.
Lets start with some neurolinguistics again "Framing" - if you frame Iraq as a "war" and then tag it as something that is either a "win" or a "lose" you are setting yourself up for disappointment, because these concepts don't compute in an insurgency.
Take Malaya for example, the British didn't call it a "war" it was officially described as "The Malayan Emergency", the campaign in Northern Ireland against the IRA hasn't been called a "war" either.. The "enemy" (for want of a better word) weren't regarded as "soldiers" fighting a "War" they were regarded as criminals performing criminal acts and if caught they were dealt with by the civil justice system.
Names DO matter because with each name there comes a whole host of connotations; War - enemy - defeat - victory - soldier - winning - losing - battle.
The end state we eventually reach in Iraq is not going to be defined as a "win" or a "loss", that much is obvious already. Instead we will ultimately settle for some sort of political compromise that will have good parts and perhaps bad parts from our point of view. The Economist implicitly understands this.
What the Economist also implicitly understands is the total weakness of Foreign Army of occupation (any foreign army) against a well organised domestic insurgency movement that has a measure of popular domestic support. Look no further than the American War of Independence if you want an example.
The simplest example I can give of this asymmetry is from my own past: I was once given that most delightful role you can have in a war game - playing the enemy, in this case the VC. We had a ball, and every night we went to sleep with the alarm clock set for 0200 or thereabouts when we would get up and carefully creep towards a perimeter, throw a few grenade simulators and make some noise, then we'de go back to bed in the knowledge that the poor guys in the base were going to be stood to for the rest of the evening. - Thats asymmetry - liittle effort by us - big effort by you.
Gen. Schwartzkopf, the greatest commander America has produced since WWII in my opinion summed it up brilliantly at a press conference I heard before Gulf War One. A journalist asked him about precautions being taken against the possibility of Iraqi minefields and how many mines there might be?
Schwartzkopf simply replied "Son, all it takes is one mine." Same again - little effort by minelayer - big effort by us.
There is a video on You Tube of a radar controlled Gatling gun destroying incoming mortar bombs at Balad. Great demonstration of technology and a great video, but I couldn't help from thinking about how much it was costing in ammo to destroy each of these old $5.00 81 (or 82)mm mortar rounds. Same thing - little effort by insurgents - big effort by us. Thats asymmetry
I also fail to understand the comment that:
No significance? How many billions have been spent on hardening vehicles? How many billions are spent on road blocks, checkpoints and god knows what other security measures to deal with these threats in Iraq??? Not significant???? Of course they are significant because they have constrained the way we must operate every day, all day!The "vulnerability" to the RPG, AK-47 and the suicide bomber is hyperbolic to say the least. It is also of no strategic, very little operational and not great tactical significance.
"Winning" in counterinsurgency, as it was taught to me, involves getting people, including the insurgents, into a state where they think that its going to be better for them in future to either stop fighting or stop supporting those doing the fighting, and as we have sadly seen "Shock and Awe" just doesn't cut it as a motivator. The Economist seems to understand this.
Sorry for the rambling post, it saddens me deeply that some people just don't get this.
Originally Posted by walrus
) objection to the article is that it is a summary of issues which have been, and are being debated and discussed which is myopic and selective in its view of this situation and it historical parallels.
Bookmarks