Good news -- the insurgency is over! Now we need a new strategy for the Iraq War.

[Fabius Maximus]

RTK,

As for how to label these, whatever. I'll accept "op-ed."

As for "facts", this op-ed builds on the previous ones. Please question any specifics, and I'll attempt to show the supporting evidence.

Of course, as mentioned previously, "facts" in a war zone are usually open to debate.

Like most folks looking at Iraq, we rely on the real analysts who collect from primary sources. Like Anthony Cordesman of CSIS. Have you seen his latest? It's worth a look.

The New Strategy in Iraq: Uncertain Progress Towards Unknown Goal
Center for Strategic and International Studies
March 14, 2007
7 pages

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...rat_update.pdf

[RTK]

RTK,

As for how to label these, whatever. I'll accept "op-ed."

As for "facts", this op-ed builds on the previous ones. Please question any specifics, and I'll attempt to show the supporting evidence.

Of course, as mentioned previously, "facts" in a war zone are usually open to debate.

Like most folks looking at Iraq, we rely on the real analysts who collect from primary sources. Like Anthony Cordesman of CSIS. Have you seen his latest? It's worth a look.

The New Strategy in Iraq: Uncertain Progress Towards Unknown Goal
Center for Strategic and International Studies
March 14, 2007
7 pages

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...rat_update.pdf

Fabius,

I'm not going to question anything you write anymore. Obviously, as evidenced in this thread and a number of others I've called you out on, you haven't ever answered any of my questions anyway, nor have you ever been able to explain your operational relevance or insight (I've only been asking for almost three months [recall the Kilcullen Thread, http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...?t=1649&page=5 ]). Until you can, I'll count you as one of the multitude of so-called "experts" who continue to exploit the events in Iraq for personal name recognition or notarieity

[Culpeper]

Fabius,

I'm not going to question anything you write anymore. Obviously, as evidenced in this thread and a number of others I've called you out on, you haven't ever answered any of my questions anyway, nor have you ever been able to explain your operational relevance or insight (I've only been asking for almost three months [recall the Kilcullen Thread, http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...?t=1649&page=5 ]). Until you can, I'll count you as one of the multitude of so-called "experts" who continue to exploit the events in Iraq for personal name recognition or notarieity

Been there. Done that. It seems to work.

[Fabius Maximus]

Nice discussion of situation in Iraq in another thread in this forum. Makes many of the same points as in my op-ed. In more detail, of course.

Note the trend since the first report posted, the March 2006 "quarterly report to Congress." Toward unfulfilled promise, greater disorder and chaos.

The trend might be more important than any of the specifics.

US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...read.php?t=839

[RTK]

Nice discussion of situation in Iraq in another thread in this forum. Makes many of the same points as in my op-ed. In more detail, of course.

Note the trend since the first report posted, the March 2006 "quarterly report to Congress." Toward unfulfilled promise, greater disorder and chaos.

The trend might be more important than any of the specifics.

US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...read.php?t=839

As usual, you ask for questions, then don't address them. I'm not really sure why you keep coming back here....

[Fabius Maximus]

As usual, you ask for questions, then don't address them. I'm not really sure why you keep coming back here....

I am happy to answer any questions about Iraq that I discussed in my op-ed. Please assume I am slow and repeat your question.

The only thing in your post with a question mark was about the label "article" or "op-ed". And I accepted your term.

{My post about the other thread was not a response to your post.}

[Fabius Maximus]

As usual, you ask for questions, then don't address them. I'm not really sure why you keep coming back here....

I write only by invitation. Hence the articles (or op-ed’s, if you prefer) on DNI. Hence this thread. Perhaps you should address your complaints to the SWC.

However, I said I would attempt to answer your questions.

First, I post here in order to receive useful feedback and criticism. That allows me to correct errors and do better in the future.

Second, why should anyone read my articles? What authority do I claim?

Everyone chooses what they regard as a legitimate source of authority. Max Weber classifies authority as charismatic (religious), traditional, or legal (bureaucratic rank, credentials). Perhaps one of those works for you. None of them works for me. I prefer to seek a different basis for belief: what works, what makes sense, what has supporting data. I care little for the source -- whether lord, priest, or serf.

I can only guess why people read my work. Perhaps it is best that I do not know!

1. My record as a forecaster is pretty good. (Not perfect, of course. I wish I was correct and that the US started withdrawing troops from Iraq in late 2006).

2. Perhaps they present interesting ideas or new perspectives.

3. Perhaps they provide some useful information.

Certainly not for entertainment. They are humorless and long (by web standards). Worse, they have been pretty grim (although this series is different).

I am sure we all agree that no style should or does work for everyone, as everyone seeks the truth in their own way.

[SWJED]

I write only by invitation. Hence the articles (or op-ed’s, if you prefer) on DNI. Hence this thread. Perhaps you should address your complaints to the SWC...

Just to make sure everyone is on the same sheet of music here re "invitation" - Fabius Maximus asked if his DNI article was "worth posting to SWC." We said yes and suggested the link as the method.

[SWCAdmin]

Just to make sure everyone is on the same sheet of music here re "invitation" - Fabius Maximus asked if his DNI article was "worth posting to SWC." We said yes and suggested the link.

In the wise words of Nick Nolte from one of my favorite movies, "What's life without a little salt, English?"

Certainly FM is spicing things up here, again.

He adds to our dialog and gets those juices flowing. He is a welcome member of our community. And a masterful teaser and baiter. So if he infuriates you, just say no. If you want to wrassle, have at it within our ROE.

On his end, he clearly gains access to some articulate and opinionated folks who have first hand experience. No doubt which will inform (we hope) future prolific DNI "op-eds." Go, go RTK!

So our relationship is a win-win, but it always seems just a hair away from a smackdown.

All is great in this thread so far and much as expected. No problems or implied criticisms here. We'll see how the fleshpile develops.

[RTK]

I write only by invitation. Hence the articles (or op-ed’s, if you prefer) on DNI. Hence this thread. Perhaps you should address your complaints to the SWC.

However, I said I would attempt to answer your questions.

First, I post here in order to receive useful feedback and criticism. That allows me to correct errors and do better in the future.

Second, why should anyone read my articles? What authority do I claim?

Everyone chooses what they regard as a legitimate source of authority. Max Weber classifies authority as charismatic (religious), traditional, or legal (bureaucratic rank, credentials). Perhaps one of those works for you. None of them works for me. I prefer to seek a different basis for belief: what works, what makes sense, what has supporting data. I care little for the source -- whether lord, priest, or serf.

I can only guess why people read my work. Perhaps it is best that I do not know!

1. My record as a forecaster is pretty good. (Not perfect, of course. I wish I was correct and that the US started withdrawing troops from Iraq in late 2006).

2. Perhaps they present interesting ideas or new perspectives.

3. Perhaps they provide some useful information.

Certainly not for entertainment. They are humorless and long (by web standards). Worse, they have been pretty grim (although this series is different).

I am sure we all agree that no style should or does work for everyone, as everyone seeks the truth in their own way.

Do you write your positions off of mainstream media accounts or have you been in Iraq since 2003 at all? The bottom line is it's either one or the other. Just by looking at the long list of fairly mainstream media resources for the Peshmerga item (which, in all actuality, you're using the term in way too general an application) I gather you've spent little, if any time, in Iraq and quite obviously haven't stepped foot in the northern provinces. I've worked with the IA, and I've worked with the Pesh. I've also worked with IA soldiers with Pesh backgrounds. There are huge differences between each of these catagories.

Additionally, your writings have always smacked of one who has bought into the mainstream media perspective. You highlight problems and seldom solutions. I have not once seen you use or highlight the infrastructure improvements along the SWEAT-MS lines, nor have you ever spotlighted the Iraqi Army units who are responsible for their own areas of operation. In short, you lack balance.

Lastly, you have long used your postings on this web site to attempt to gain readers to DNI. Let's be honest, most all of your posts have direct links to your DNI articles and very little outside of that. You've scantly addressed direct criticism, or even direct questioning. My summary of the 28 Articles was a direct response to your inability to understand their practical application in counterinsurgency operations and your failure to show examples of their futility beyond the 2nd article. Discussions are two ways. You effectively ignore the issues, especially when people whose jobs are to operate in that environment call you out. I'd prefer you'd just write on DNI (we know you're there) and quit asking permission to post here. If you won't address that which is asked of you, don't enter into the forum.

Ryan T. Kranc
CPT, AR

Reconnaissance Tactics Instructor
Armor BOLC IIII

[tequila]

RTK - I was wondering if you could give any real-world examples of your experience with pesh vs IA. Every single media item I have read emphasizes that Kurdish IA have no hesitation proclaiming their ultimate loyalty to Kurdistan and the pesh. This item shows pesh officers getting salutes from IA soldiers and an IA major proclaiming his loyalty to the pesh, all in Kirkuk.

Now I am not going to privilege that over your own real-world experiences, so I definitely would like to hear your own take on the whole pesh vs IA and the ultimate loyalties of Kurdish soldiers in the IA, since to me this appears to be one of the ultimately crucial questions as to whether Iraq remains a single nation or not.

[RTK]

RTK - I was wondering if you could give any real-world examples of your experience with pesh vs IA. Every single media item I have read emphasizes that Kurdish IA have no hesitation proclaiming their ultimate loyalty to Kurdistan and the pesh. This item shows pesh officers getting salutes from IA soldiers and an IA major proclaiming his loyalty to the pesh, all in Kirkuk.

Now I am not going to privilege that over your own real-world experiences, so I definitely would like to hear your own take on the whole pesh vs IA and the ultimate loyalties of Kurdish soldiers in the IA, since to me this appears to be one of the ultimately crucial questions as to whether Iraq remains a single nation or not.

In the 3d IA division, most of the leadership (BN and above) was from the northern provinces. Most had backgrounds that placed them with the Peshmerga in the 1990s. The a good majority of the jundis were Sunnis from Diyala and Babil provinces. I never saw issues.

Am I going to say that unabashedly there are zero issues - nope. I don't deal in absolutes quite like that. For all intents and purposes, it's not nearly the issue it could have been. You must remember that the real Kurdish radicals are actively fighting the Turks daily in the mountains.

In casual conversation, many of the Kurds expressed their desire for their own country, however, on multiple occassions they could have "thrown the game," so to speak, and never did. They're dedicated to ridding Iraq of the violence that plagues it. At least that was my understanding after spending my second year in Iraq with them

[Fabius Maximus]

Do you write your positions off of mainstream media accounts or have you been in Iraq since 2003 at all?

I rely on primary sources almost exclusively, mostly media, NGO's, and government. When quoting officials and describing events, would you accept my personal observations, or prefer something with more credibility?

Additionally, your writings have always smacked of one who has bought into the mainstream media perspective.

The common objection to my 2003 & 2004 articles was that they contradicted reports in the mainstream media.

You highlight problems and seldom solutions.

A valid criticism and one I am addressing with this series of articles. It's easy to criticize; proposing solutions is more difficult. Of course, proposing solutions is inherently more speculative -- as I move from describing events to guessing what might work in the future.

Lastly, you have long used your postings on this web site to attempt to gain readers to DNI.

Again a valid criticism. This was raised for the first time in my previous SWC thread; since then I obtain in advance permission to post.

You've scantly addressed direct criticism, or even direct questioning.

This was raised in the last go-around, perhaps with some validity. Here I have attempted to specifically and clearly address questions. Including yours. Have I missed any?

I'd prefer you'd just write on DNI (we know you're their) and quit asking permission to post here.

It's not my place to decide what is appropriate for the SWC. That's for the folks running it to decide.

... your inability to understand their practical application in counterinsurgency operations

Please rebut or question! That's why I am here. Or ignore me, which is also OK. So far on this thread -- all this text! -- the only question was about the uniforms worn by Kurds. To which I replied. That was a fair test on a small but perhaps telling point of fact.

...which, in all actuality, you're using the term in way too general an application

Perhaps. The meaning of the term has shifted over the years. I checked current usage when writing my reply, and I think I used it in the commonplace sense. This is a minor point, however, as I think my meaning was clear -- which is the important thing.

[Fabius Maximus]

I actually have the article in my file and overlooked it's significance!

[RTK]

Please rebut or question! That's why I am here. Or ignore me, which is also OK. So far on this thread -- all this text! -- the only question was about the uniforms worn by Kurds. To which I replied. That was a fair test on a small but perhaps telling point of fact.

I'm talking about on the whole, not specifically isolated to this thread. The truth is, I've been waiting for 3 months for your response in the Kilcullen thread.

On 28 DEC you said that "I've given a close analysis of his text. Please give specifics as to my errors."

The point is that I did. I broke down each of the 28 Articles and showed real world application. You fell off the face of the earth after that. I gave specifics on each article. You never addressed them. No, there weren't question marks in the text, but there was plenty for you to refute.

[SWCAdmin]

I'd prefer you'd just write on DNI (we know you're their) and quit asking permission to post here.

Again a valid criticism. This was raised for the first time in my previous SWC thread; since then I obtain in advance permission to post.
<snip>

I'd prefer you'd just write on DNI (we know you're their) and quit asking permission to post here.

It's not my place to decide what is appropriate for the SWC. That's for the folks running it to decide.

OK, time out.

I don't like the whole permission / implied endorsement thing that is going on here. There was and is no "advance permission to post," either required or granted. There was, and is here again, affirmation that this is a relevant topic and a welcome Council member. Nothing more, nothing less.

Our approach to the Small Wars Council is not to be gatekeepers on the front end, but to run an open community where relevance and worth, or at least interest and intent, is the key to access. We have been largely self-regulating and only occasionally apply revenge (i.e. after the fact) moderation.

Is this thread about a Small Wars topic? Yes. (except for some sidebar "process" rants like this)

Do we care that it refers to a source external to our board? Not really. We do that all the time. And while FM is certainly cross-promoting himself, we do that too, and there's nothing excessive, spammy, or abashedly commercial about this instance of it.

Does "presence" here, in and of itself, say anything more? No. Everyone's posts stand on their own merit.

Let the Games continue. Time back in.

While the Operator of this forum may from time to time monitor or review discussions, postings, transmissions, bulletin boards and other user and member generated pages on the Site, neither the Operator nor its affiliates is under any obligation to do so. You acknowledge that the Operator and its affiliates do not control the information available on the bulletin boards and other user and member generated pages and that any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers or other information or content presented or disseminated on any bulletin board or on any other user or member generated pages are those of their respective authors who are solely liable for their content.

[Culpeper]

I rely on primary sources almost exclusively, mostly media, NGO's, and government. When quoting officials and describing events, would you accept my personal observations, or prefer something with more credibility?


The common objection to my 2003 & 2004 articles was that they contradicted reports in the mainstream media.


A valid criticism and one I am addressing with this series of articles. It's easy to criticize; proposing solutions is more difficult. Of course, proposing solutions is inherently more speculative -- as I move from describing events to guessing what might work in the future.


Again a valid criticism. This was raised for the first time in my previous SWC thread; since then I obtain in advance permission to post.


This was raised in the last go-around, perhaps with some validity. Here I have attempted to specifically and clearly address questions. Including yours. Have I missed any?


It's not my place to decide what is appropriate for the SWC. That's for the folks running it to decide.


Please rebut or question! That's why I am here. Or ignore me, which is also OK. So far on this thread -- all this text! -- the only question was about the uniforms worn by Kurds. To which I replied. That was a fair test on a small but perhaps telling point of fact.


Perhaps. The meaning of the term has shifted over the years. I checked current usage when writing my reply, and I think I used it in the commonplace sense. This is a minor point, however, as I think my meaning was clear -- which is the important thing.

This is what I'm talking about. I find it very irritating for someone to selectively quote and respond, which place the entire thing out of context by construct. The Emperor should be able to respond to a post and cite his arguments appropriately. This isn't the Mariah Carey Fan Club where the lambs fight back and forth and take each other's comments out of context just because they don't know how to write a proper rebuttal.

[marct]

Hi FM,

I haven't been involved in this discussion for a variety of reasons, including a dress rehearsal and concert last night and another one today in Montreal. That being said, I do want to make a point that, I believe, needs to be addressed.

"Semantics" is absolutely crucial to any form of communication; it is not a "joke" as it appears to be presented by many people. "Semantics" is about "meaning", and he opposite of it is Humpty-Dumpty land where words mean what the author says they mean. This is one of the reasons why I almost always attempt to provide operational definitions of terms in my articles and, frequently, put in material about the etymological derivation of words.

Having said this, I want to highlight one comment you made in an earlier post:

I rely on primary sources almost exclusively, mostly media, NGO's, and government. When quoting officials and describing events, would you accept my personal observations, or prefer something with more credibility?

Every source you list is a secondary source, not a primary source unless what you are studying is media / NGO / Government representation of what is happening in Iraq. It is a secondary source precisely because it has been filtered through at least one, or more, interpretive schemas. In the case of the media, it is frequently a tertiary source when they are reporting on what someone else, such as a government, military or NGO figure has already analyzed.

In proper academic research, every layer of interpretation creates a new bias that must be resolved, and you do not do this. I think that this is one of the causes of friction here.

Anyway, I have to run - off to Montreal for another concert.

Marc