Subscribe to ePluribus Media



ePluribus Media Store


Want Headlines via Email?
Enter your email address:


Help Save 1.800.SUICIDE


Stand Up! Stand Down! Fight! Fight! Fight!

by rcs1

Bumping, originally posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 10:08:49 AM CST

I distinctly remember all the self-congratulatory backslapping after the fall of Baghdad over the fact that we hadn't needed to conduct brutal house-to-house warfare in Iraq's capital city.  Since then, we've been doing a lot of urban fighting.  Right now, we're doing a whole bunch of it in Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's Anbar Province.  We're been trying to tame Ramadi since Saddam's statue came tumbling down.  

Under the fold: standing up or sitting down?


commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!
The latest operation to take control of what Dexter Filkins of the New York Times describes as "...the toughest city in the most violent of Iraqi regions" launched on June 18th.  Filkins reports that "Whole city blocks here look like a scene from some post-apocalyptic world: row after row of buildings shot up, boarded up, caved in, tumbled down."  Many parts of the city are out of control of either American or Iraqi forces.  

After prior failed efforts to control the chaos in Ramadi, coalition forces are trying something new.  Rather than making a full frontal assault on the entire city, they plan to take the city a neighborhood at a time, and they're using a prime tenet of the "stand up/stand down" strategy.  U.S. forces seize territory and round up or kill whatever insurgents they find there.  Then they establish a secure outpost and turn the area over to Iraqi troops.  

But nobody, including the U.S. commander in Ramadi, expects the Iraqis to take charge any time soon.  Col. Sean MacFarland says, "I don't think by this winter we'll be quite ready to turn over completely" to Iraqi forces.  

The delay in turning the job over isn't so much a function of readiness of Iraqi troops, but of how many Iraqi troops want to do the job.

How Long Will This Be Going On?

Mister Bush has said that Iraq's future is in the hands of its new government.  But it appears that the new government's army doesn't want to get its hands too dirty in the course of forging the country's future.

Lieutenant Colonel Raad Niaf Haroosh, commander of the Iraqi battalion in Ramidi, only has 145 of his troops committed to the operation.  He left 500 of them back in Mosul.  Why? According to Colonel Raad, it's because they fear that they'll create tribal vendettas if they kill fellow Iraqis. "They said, 'We don't want fight our own people.'"

Isn't that dandy?  NPR reports that recruits have to pay a $600 bribe to get into Colonel Raad's battalion.  If I could serve in a battalion where I didn't have to fight if I didn't want to, I'd pay money to get into it too.  Staying back at the base and peeling potatoes beats the heck out of getting shot at.  

My time at the U.S. Naval War College and subsequent study of military art tells me there are no absolutes in armed conflict.  All wars are the same, and they're all different.  But a fairly reliable rule of thumb says that if you're going to conduct a counterinsurgency operation in your own country, your own soldiers are going to have to kill some of their countrymen, including some who are related to those soldiers through blood, marriage, and extended tribal ties.  If you can't get your soldiers to do that, you're not going to conduct much of a counterinsurgency.  Moreover, if you can only employ a fraction of any given unit to an operation, none of your units will ever be at full combat effectiveness no matter how well equipped or trained the individuals may be.

And as the Times' Filkins points out, this situation is not unique to the present operation in Ramadi.  It has been endemic throughout the stand up/stand down process.  If this optional participation policy is anybody's idea of "standing up," I'd hate to see what they consider "sitting down on the job."  This critical vulnerability in the stand up/stand down strategy won't go away.  We can't wave a magic wand and un-relate people.  

We've arrived at a point where we're fighting Iraqis because the Iraqis don't want to fight among themselves.  How many American troops are in harm's way in Ramadi right now because 500 Iraqi soldiers got to sit this dance out and wax the floors in the barracks instead?  

Are we showing resolve in Iraq, or are we being played for chumps?  Getting into a bar fight over a girl you just met shows resolve.  Waking up in jail the next morning with a black eye and two missing teeth shows how stupid you are.

Iraq has turned into a goat rope tied in a Gordian knot wrapped around a Mobius strip.  How did the mightiest nation in human history let itself get into such a bind?

#

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia.  Read his commentaries at ePluribus Media and Pen and Sword.

Display:
...where's the pressure to tell your soldiers they have to fight whether they like it or not?  

This is a mess.

by Jeff Huber on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 12:21:20 PM EST

The second reconciliation conference of Arab nations was to be held in August.  At the last meeting with Iraq's representatives there was no question about withdrawal of the MNF:

CSM:  Iraqi leaders want a timetable for US withdrawal, November 22, 2005

TimesOnline:  Blair visits Baghdad to sketch out timetable for withdrawal, May 23, 2006

WaPo:  Iraq Amnesty Plan article on June 15th:  "The Arab League on Wednesday postponed a reconciliation conference for Iraq that had been set for August."

That second conference may nail a date certain for withdrawal.  As long as they decide before the mid-term elections, and the Arab community of nations speaks with one voice.  

by rba on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 12:48:56 PM EST

...the call for a timeline is coming, and we'll have to honor it.  

We'll see.

by Jeff Huber on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 01:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll be following up on all this next week. We really are on the brink--perhaps past of it--of becoming Malaki's mercenaries.

by Jeff Huber on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 05:08:56 PM EST


by kfred on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 05:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Chris, I think that has a whole lot to do with it.  Another reason to be displeased with the administration--using our troops for electoral politics gain.  

by Jeff Huber on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 09:20:11 AM EST
This AP article by Qais Al-Bashir that does a good job of recapping yesterday's offer by 11 of the insurgent groups to cease fire if US and other forces will set a two-year timetable for complete withdrawal.

Looks like a spin operation, though, judging by responses from Washington and US-backed leadership in Iraq.

Al-Maliki, in televised remarks Wednesday, did not issue an outright rejection of the timetable demand. But he said it was unrealistic, because he could not be certain when the Iraqi army and police would be strong enough to make a foreign presence unnecessary for Iraq's security.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that President Bush's ``view has been and remains that a timetable is not something that is useful. It is a signal to the enemies that all you have to do is just wait and it's yours.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 12:19:40 PM EST
Atrios called attention to Rumsfeld's comments today, here, with a simple, one line question and answer:

What Is Success?

Nobody knows. Nobody knows why we're in Iraq, so it's rather hard to define.

The comments (watch out for more one liners, some inane).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 03:08:34 PM EST

What is the fricking yardstick by which you want to measure your success?

And be danged careful of what you choose to measure ...

My favorite?

One branch of the military deciding to measure # of aborted takeoffs as a measure of pilot effectiveness...

So pilots who should have aborted didn't, took off, circled the tower, and landed again --- no aborted take-off, no sireebob!

by Cho on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 03:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We spend so much time working toward training measures of effectiveness that nobody knows any longer how to build MOEs for actual war, where the nuts and bolts parts don't necessarily count for anything.

by Jeff Huber on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:35:48 AM EST
I caught just a bit of a dialogue between Al Franken and Juan Cole on Air America around noon today.  They were speaking exactly to your points about Ramadi!

by kfred on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Seriously.

Why are American troops still in Iraq? Does anyone know? Iraq has a government. Iraq has plenty of fighters.

For Weapons makers?
Oil? - its' not exactly flowing easily or is the point to keep supplies disrupted?
Saddam Hussein? Is the point to stay there until his trial is completed? And if so, what are they so afraid of?
Is it the new embassy? They're waiting for it to be finished?
Lack of responsibility? Bush likes someone else to clean up his meeses. Are troops in Iraq just to save his face?

The Iraqi governemnt wants the US to leave. 80% of the Iraqi people want the US to leave. 2/3 of the American public wants the US to leave. So why are troops still there?

by susie dow on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:56:06 PM EST

...I think it's a matter of saving face.  A variation on Nixon's "peace with dignity."

by Jeff Huber on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 10:00:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Could we perhaps be there by now for domestic US political reasons? Leverage over internal institutions for elections? Karl Rove's fcus for the mid-term elections etc.?

by Chris White on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 08:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!

ePluribus Media

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

members


community front page

make a new account


Username:
Password:

create account | faq | search | community front page |