Quote Originally Posted by Gian P Gentile View Post
Sometimes you write things to make explicit points; other times you write things more to ask questions that need to be asked or to challenge certain ways of thinking. I think Macgregor in this piece is trying to do the latter two things rather than offering up specific solutions to problems or as you ask make a specific point. In this regard I thought his article was of value because it does view differently the current narrative that explains the lowering of violence in Iraq and suggests that what many think is the road to success may be the road to disaster.

gentile
which I did the second time, it makes some sense. Unduly pessimistic I thought, though...

As you know, I share your concern that we'll overdo the COIN bit and I thought and think the so-called surge is of marginal overall value (on a cost benefit basis) so I can agree with him on those points. Further, I certainly don't have any problem rattling anybody's cage and believe that needs to be done on a regular basis, sometimes violent shaking is in order. He generally does that well and I applaud him for it.

I guess my problem with the article is three fold. First is that, IMO, the idea of success in Iraq as originally defined by the idiot sector of the Admin was never going to happen therefor I didn't expect it so am not disappointed. 'Win' is, as I've often said, a bad word to use in application to any COIN operation, thus we were looking at an acceptable solution, no more. I also thought and think a major Sunni - Shia confrontation is inevitable; the question is when. The ME, unlike us, is long on patience and as Macgregor notes and as you and I both know, duplicity (and haggling) are the national pastimes...

Unlike Macgregor (or unlike that article...), I think that it is probable we will achieve an acceptable solution and that the confrontation will be delayed for a variety of reasons. I also suspect we will be there at about 40K for quite some time -- but then, I've always been an optimist...

The second problem is, of course, the 'occupy' set me off as I don't believe we ever tried to do that and know that he knows better -- but that, admittedly, is only mildly disingenuous or semantic and little more.

Finally, I believe that just as dangerous as overdoing the COIN thing is, I think, getting over protective of the institution and I sense he sometimes does that. Could be wrong, have been many times and I hope I am in that sensing.