General McCaffrey Iraq AAR

[SWJED]

General McCaffrey Iraq AAR - SWJ Blog.

After Action Report by General Barry R McCaffrey, U.S. Army (retired), 18 December 2007. AAR written for the United States Military Academy based on GEN McCaffrey’s 5 – 11 December 2007 trip to Iraq. Highlights from the report follow...

[SteveMetz]

I just quoted his comment "There is no functioning central Iraqi Government" in my book.

[Tom Odom]

(Mr. Rumsfeld was an American patriot, of great personal talent, energy, experience, bureaucratic cleverness, and charisma---who operated with personal arrogance, intimidation and disrespect for the military, lack of forthright candor, avoidance of personal responsibility, and fundamental bad judgment.)

WOW. Talk about a "compliment".

[selil]

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

WOW. Talk about a "compliment".

That stings so bad I think somebody is going to need a band-aid.

[historyguy99]

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

WOW. Talk about a "compliment".

Ditto that! Perhaps most accurate protrayal of Rumsfeld ever penned.

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by historyguy99

Ditto that! Perhaps most accurate protrayal of Rumsfeld ever penned.

And it could also serve to portray McNamara.

[MattC86]

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

I just quoted his comment "There is no functioning central Iraqi Government" in my book.

But General McCaffrey calls the ISF the "center of gravity" for the war. Isn't that kind of like Gen. Casey's emphasis prior to Gen. Petraeus taking over? The old "we stand down when they stand up" thing?

Why isn't a nonfunctional national government the center of gravity?

I like Gen. McCaffrey a lot, but this was just a summary of what we knew, for the most part. The political way forward, at the national level, is the $64,000 question that I haven't heard answered.

Matt

[TROUFION]

[Why isn't a nonfunctional national government the center of gravity? /QUOTE MattC86]

Security has to come first, though it is kind of a chicken and egg issue. Without security you cannot have a stable government; without a stable government it is difficult to train, equip and manage a professional security force. The one thing that makes establishing security first work is the US Military presence. Therefor the establishment of security and a stand alone security apparatus with the legs of financing and logisitics is the most important step. The government can be shaky and come along later, government particularly of the democratic style, will be a work in progress for years to come. Security can be (and must be for success) established now and maintained while the government develops.

There are many pitfalls in this evolution, the desire for security has driven many states into the hands of dictators. There are far more Napoleons than there are Washingtons.

_T

[MattC86]

Originally Posted by TROUFION

[Why isn't a nonfunctional national government the center of gravity? /QUOTE MattC86]

Security has to come first, though it is kind of a chicken and egg issue. Without security you cannot have a stable government; without a stable government it is difficult to train, equip and manage a professional security force. The one thing that makes establishing security first work is the US Military presence. Therefor the establishment of security and a stand alone security apparatus with the legs of financing and logisitics is the most important step. The government can be shaky and come along later, government particularly of the democratic style, will be a work in progress for years to come. Security can be (and must be for success) established now and maintained while the government develops.

There are many pitfalls in this evolution, the desire for security has driven many states into the hands of dictators. There are far more Napoleons than there are Washingtons.

_T

Good points. I in no way dismiss the importance of the security situation. Obviously it's the first goal.

But I think the last months have shown that the stable, functional, and legitimate government issue is rooted in more than a security problem. US troops have helped foster a new, more secure environment, yet much of the work done to accomplish that (CLC groups, arming the Sunnis, etc.) has actually destabilized and delegitimized the national government. With that fragmentation at the national level (important success at the local and provincial levels notwithstanding for the time being), two problems arise with the security forces:

1 - the corruption and the ethnic and regional fragmentation will continue to degrade the effectiveness of ISF; and, perhaps more importantly,

2 - If somehow the ISF do become a stable force, if they are the arm of a weak, divided state, they seem likely to be the source of a military takeover. Or, they could just fissure into US-armed and trained private militias for a general power struggle.

So, in the overall foreign-policy strategy of the United States, the stability and legitimacy of the Iraqi government is the problem. But I agree, as far as the US military can influence the situation, the security issue is the center of gravity.

Need to get my terms right.

Matt

[Rank amateur]

Originally Posted by TROUFION

Security has to come first,

No offense, but that's one of those things that keeps getting repeated and no one asks, "Where's the proof?" American democracy wasn't created by a British army that provided security while the founding fathers chatted.

Originally Posted by MAtt

1 - the corruption and the ethnic and regional fragmentation will continue to degrade the effectiveness of ISF; and, perhaps more importantly

Serious question, has any country ever created a multi ethnic national security force after ethnic cleansing?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by TROUFION

Why isn't a nonfunctional national government the center of gravity? /QUOTE MattC86

I would have to agree that the national government should be the center of gravity. Unfortunately most military people will not look at the friendly political insitutions as centers of gravity because the military cannot affect them. They are outside our sphere of influence so we do not include them in our thought process.

Originally Posted by TROUFION

Security has to come first, though it is kind of a chicken and egg issue. Without security you cannot have a stable government; without a stable government it is difficult to train, equip and manage a professional security force.

Security is a funny term. We keep hearing that the population wants security. We interpret that to mean they want someone in a tank patroling thier neighborhood. They could very will mean that they want a place to live and a steady income.

Originally Posted by TROUFION

There are many pitfalls in this evolution, the desire for security has driven many states into the hands of dictators. There are far more Napoleons than there are Washingtons.

Based on this assessment, that is where we are headed. THe only element of the government that is going to be funtional will be the military. As the military continues to grow implatient with the failures of the civlian government they will feel the duty to take charge. Happens all the time.

I guess we (the military) either need to learn to get better at building functioning governments or worse at FID missions.

So it seems that we have to increase our political efforts or quit trying to force a form of government on them they cannot work in. Perhaps we should look to a rentier form of government like the UAE or Kuwait as the model.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

No offense, but that's one of those things that keeps getting repeated and no one asks, "Where's the proof?" American democracy wasn't created by a British army that provided security while the founding fathers chatted.

I think you could argue that is exactly what happened, what with the various wars against the French, Dutch, Spanish and Eastern Woodland Indians over the course of many years. We should probably give credit to the Royal Navy too.

[tequila]

Note that a key reason for Southern participation in the AmRev was hatred of the British Army's COIN tactics in the Indian Wars - that is, the restriction of colonial settlers from overstepping tribal treaty boundaries, despite the fact that those treaty boundaries helped keep Indian attacks down. Imperial armies just can't help being despised. Reminiscent of this poll, perhaps?

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.

That is good news, according to a military analysis of the results. At the very least, analysts optimistically concluded, the findings indicate that Iraqis hold some "shared beliefs" that may eventually allow them to surmount the divisions that have led to a civil war ...