The Basrah Gambit

[Rank amateur]

A: ok here's your money back sorry bout that

B: You have to give it a little more time because we're working behind the scenes to make blue the new purple

Cwhatever your answer is since i'm pretty sure you won't pick either A or B)

B, but when they asked "how long is a little more time?" I'd give them an answer, because this is what I do for a living and I know what a reasonable time is. I know how to set metrics and see if we're on the right track or not. I also know that if I don't get results it's because I screwed up. (None of my clients have ever made a mistake.)

I have a strong personal dislike of the terms victory and defeat attached to any COIN or nation building effort. The best one can hope for is a satisfactory outcome -- that obviously can vary dependent upon outlook.

We agree. (Although every time I say that, you say we don't.) I just think that once the commander in chief uses the terms victory and defeat it is extremely difficult to find middle ground. Now that I think about it, that's probably a more accurate expression of what I meant initially. If we hypothetically came to an acceptable outcome, I don't think many people would accept it. They'd still be looking for victory or looking back at all the mistakes. (It goes back to seeing what you want, biases, self images, allegiances etc. All that spin doctor stuff that has it's uses but can also cause problems.)

[Ken White]

This is not a good idea:

Originally Posted by Ken
A: ok here's your money back sorry bout that

B: You have to give it a little more time because we're working behind the scenes to make blue the new purple

Cwhatever your answer is since i'm pretty sure you won't pick either A or B)

This medium doesn't lend itself to the subtleties that direct communication allows and Ken didn't say that.

EDITED TO ADD: Other than not understanding your meaning, I don't personally have a problem with the technique but on an open board, it can cause confusion. Someone else sees it, takes it out of context and a month from now I get accused of saying "You have to give it a little more time..." I respond, correctly, that I've never said that, then he produces the 'quote.' no big thing but I try to quote people verbatim to avoid such problems.

That said, I suggest that I did not and would not offer you any money back because I have none of yours; if, as I suspect, you meant something sort of allegorical by that, it went right over my head???

I am not suggesting that you 'give it a little more time.' My view has been and is that we'll be there for many years, so no reason for me to ask for more time. No attempt to make anything into something it is not. I don't think anybody in DC or Iraq is trying to do that and I know I'm not. If, by that comment, you meant that what the Islamists say about victory or defeat is irrelevant, all I can do is suggest that you might want to give that some thought.

IOW, I think your message got lost in the medium...

B, but when they asked "how long is a little more time?" I'd give them an answer, because this is what I do for a living and I know what a reasonable time is.

And what would your answer be? Ten weeks? Ten months? Ten years? Make it too long and you'll lose, make it too short and you may get stuck with something you can't deliver. So what is your reasonable time? You do messages for a living, if you fail, your client may lose a buck or two and get a tax write off. If we fail in Iraq, even more lives than it's already cost will be at stake. You do it for a living but are lives at risk if you err? not to mention that the ol' fog of war is awfully hard to see through -- and harder to predict.

Not that Politicians don't ignore that and err...

I know how to set metrics and see if we're on the right track or not. I also know that if I don't get results it's because I screwed up. (None of my clients have ever made a mistake.)

Be nice if it were that simple. First, metrics and war do not mesh well; too many intangibles and unforeseeable unknowns. Second, a lot of of folks who are also good at metrics have set or are setting metrics on this one -- most have been wrong and I predict the next crop will be equally wrong.

Your clients must be politicians; they have the same ability -- every time there's a screw up it's never their fault...

We agree. (Although every time I say that, you say we don't.)

Then stop using the word!

I just think that once the commander in chief uses the terms victory and defeat it is extremely difficult to find middle ground.

Too true -- that's one of many reasons I object to the word, it sets up unreasonable -- even unrealizable -- expectations. Hate it when the Pols use it but they and the media I can excuse on grounds of ignorance. Harder to excuse the Generals who should know better.

Now that I think about it, that's probably a more accurate expression of what I meant initially. If we hypothetically came to an acceptable outcome, I don't think many people would accept it. They'd still be looking for victory or looking back at all the mistakes. (It goes back to seeing what you want, biases, self images, allegiances etc. All that spin doctor stuff that has it's uses but can also cause problems.)

Sure, that's the American way. The One third rule applies. 1/3 would object, 1/3 would agree and the middle third would split with a tilt to one side depending on how well, on balance, we came out of it. Always been that way and likely most always will. That's okay.

[Ron Humphrey]

B, but when they asked "how long is a little more time?" I'd give them an answer, because this is what I do for a living and I know what a reasonable time is. I know how to set metrics and see if we're on the right track or not. I also know that if I don't get results it's because I screwed up. (None of my clients have ever made a mistake.)
.)

As to this as Ken said metrics for real time decisions in war are pretty fuzzy and more often than not if one gets stuck on them one will probably get stuck

Also consider that the client not being liable for bad luck in an ad campaign at worst cost someone their livelihood. In War whether the "clients" like it or not if it goes wrong someone or many someones die. It is largely different doing risk management in markets vs in war and it would be better for all of us if some would come to realize that. Unfortunately probably won't happen because most that have that problem aren't really paying attention to the war itself but what propaganda value it holds for them

[Rank amateur]

My apologies to Ken and Ron. I was responding to multiple quotes, started copying the quote tags and then deleted some quotes and got confused about who said what. (Maybe someone can fix it for me. I can't edit it anymore.)


To summarize my thoughts. War is messy. COIN particularly so, but I think we need to move beyond "it takes a long time" to "A COIN effort is going down the wrong track if [or the right track if]...."

From Abu Muqawama

While we're on the subject of Lebanonization, though, here's another historical analogy that Amb. Crocker missed. In Lebanon, in September 1983, the U.S. lent direct support to what it assumed was a national institution, the Lebanese Army, in the battle at Souk el-Gharb. By doing so, it became, in the eyes of the rest of the Lebanese population, just another militia and thus fair game. What happened next? Ask any U.S. Marine.

Now we all know the situations in Iraq and Lebanon are not exactly the same, but Souk el-Gharb was running through Abu Muqawama's head during the battle of Basra two weeks ago when we were lending our support to the "national" army of Iraq in its fight with the Sadr crew. To us good-natured Americans, it may have looked as if we were lending our support to the legitimate, national institutions of Iraq. But to other Iraqis, it probably looked as if we were taking sides in the intra-Shia political dispute between ISCI and Sadr in the run-up to this fall's provincial elections.

I think we can discuss the issue here, which is one reason why I like having discussions here, but I can't see the Senate having a reasonable discussion about it.

Then stop using the word!

An excellent example of how a single word can make it difficult to wrap everything up. Imagine how long we'd both go on if we both believed that this was a debate, instead of a conversation, and that one of us would be declared a winner and the other a loser.

In any event, I think it's safe to say that if we do withdraw precipitously, the Islamists will claim 'victory' and thus trumpet our 'defeat.' That can have a detrimental long term effect albeit not probably a fatal one -- so any cost benefit analysis should consider that in some detail.

An excellent point. I think the analysis really depends on how the debate is framed. Losing a battle in a long war isn't a problem. In a long war, you can have Pyrrhic victories. On the other hand, if you frame Iraq in black and white terms, no one likes to lose.

[tequila]

Well now, this is interesting: Petraeus on the Sadr movement:

General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is a "leader of an important and legitimate political movement," urging the Iraqi government, in whose selection Sadr was a kingmaker, to recognize and deal with it.

"I think the way, the best way to characterize Muqtada al-Sadr is that he is the face and the leadership of a very important and legitimate political movement in Iraq," he said."

Muqtada, the leader of the Sadrist movement, is the son of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, who was assassinated by the former Iraqi regime's intelligence agencies in early 1999. The elder Sadr was Marja al-Taqlid, source of emulation, for Shiite Muslims. Muqtada is also the leader of Jaysh al-Mahdi, or the Mahdi Army, militias, which he founded in July 2003 as a military wing for his movement.

"Sadr's movement is part of the alliance that elected the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki," Petraeus said during a joint press conference he held in Washington on Thursday with U.S. ambassador in Iraq Ryan Crocker.

Much more from both Petraeus and Crocker on Sadr's movement in 10 April press conference in DC. You can see it on CSPAN's website - scroll down to "Petraeus and Amb. Crocker News Conference on Iraq (April 10, 2008)".

The Muqtada question is right at the beginning. Crocker and Petraeus both emphasize the Sadrists' legitimacy, say that that Sadr is not an enemy of the U.S., and Petraeus even calls on the Iraqi government not to "back anyone into a corner".

[Ron Humphrey]

Well now, this is interesting: Petraeus on the Sadr movement:



Much more from both Petraeus and Crocker on Sadr's movement in 10 April press conference in DC. You can see it on CSPAN's website - scroll down to "Petraeus and Amb. Crocker News Conference on Iraq (April 10, 2008)".

The Muqtada question is right at the beginning. Crocker and Petraeus both emphasize the Sadrists' legitimacy, say that that Sadr is not an enemy of the U.S., and Petraeus even calls on the Iraqi government not to "back anyone into a corner".

never quite so predictable as some might think it is

[Ken White]

Life's never quite so predictable as some might think it is

or writ or supm'n...

Fortunately, I'm all for that; life would sure be dull and boring, otherwise.

[Ron Humphrey]

Any one want to lay odds on the actual perpetrators of the Sadr's aides assassination having been Special groups rather than IA/IP or Coalition as seems to be the first place many are looking

[Ken White]

...
To summarize my thoughts. War is messy. COIN particularly so, but I think we need to move beyond "it takes a long time" to "A COIN effort is going down the wrong track if [or the right track if]...."

I agree. Now all we have to do is convince the politicians and that 1/3 who are adamantly opposed to the Iraq intervention at all levels that should happen...

I think we can discuss the issue here, which is one reason why I like having discussions here, but I can't see the Senate having a reasonable discussion about it.

Sadly true. Even more sad is the fact that neither Iraq or US policy are the real issues.

An excellent example of how a single word can make it difficult to wrap everything up. Imagine how long we'd both go on if we both believed that this was a debate, instead of a conversation, and that one of us would be declared a winner and the other a loser.

Also totally true and a sad commentary on public and politics in the US today.

An excellent point. I think the analysis really depends on how the debate is framed. Losing a battle in a long war isn't a problem. In a long war, you can have Pyrrhic victories. On the other hand, if you frame Iraq in black and white terms, no one likes to lose.

Also true though I would submit some battles are far more important than others and their loss can affect the future course of the war.