Six Steps to Victory Against the Iraqi Insurgency

An interesting article detailing what might be a viable way to conduct the war in Iraq. I am under no illusions that this will be adopted, But it does present a view with an end.
A rather long read, as it is a bit detailed, but interesting. Put forward by someone with actual experience in the matter.

[url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/930jbmte.asp]Six Steps to Victory:The bottom-up plan to defeat the insurgency.
by Eric Egland, 11/16/2006 12:00:00 AM

IN THIS POLITICAL season, the debate about Iraq has become almost completely backward looking. It has degenerated into finger pointing and partisan sniping–stuck between a false choice of “cut and run” versus “more of the same.”

Failure in Iraq is not an option, because it would spell disaster for U.S. national security and foreign policy credibility, not to mention military morale. Our mission in Iraq continues to move forward, and U.S. forces have successfully defeated the insurgents in several areas, yet the enemy has proven resilient and effective. Thus, we must succeed in Iraq by changing the status quo.

The plans for victory so far have fallen short. They have come, top-down, from the Pentagon or the palaces-turned-coalition
headquarters in Baghdad. Now, American leaders, especially the nominee for secretary of defense, should consider a bottom-up
plan to win that taps the collective grass-roots wisdom of successful battlefield innovators. In particular, there are six course corrections that can be taken almost immediately.[/url]

More comments on the viability of this plan. Again, from people with real-life experience in this type of counter-insurgency warfare.

[url=http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/11/six_steps_to_vi.html]Six Steps to Victory
Posted By Blackfive

USAFR Major Eric Egland stopped by my house a month ago to discuss his ideas around six steps to victory in Iraq.
I thought they were very sound. Eric is a good friend, but he wasn’t seeking my approval as much as wanting to get as much feedback as possible, more from our readers on the ground than from me.

His plan has been vetted at various levels, but I know he would really appreciate hearing from the troops in Iraq about this. While no plan survives the battlefield, he’d like to bullet proof it as much as possible.[/url]

Any comments on the 6-Step Plan? It looks like a ‘step’ in the right direction to me for what this war has morphed into.

This is a brilliant plan for de-extricating ourselves from Iraq. It brought tears to my eyes just reading it. Where has this guy been hiding? I’m totally convinced this is the way to go.

Six Step to Total Victory:

“1. Encourage innovation . . .
2. Improve pre-deployment training realism and abandon Cold War-era checklists.
3. Allow local commanders to buy what they need and nationalize the war effort by connecting the American public with the troops and their mission.
4. Strengthen intelligence sharing between tactical and national levels, and develop a national insurgent database.
5. Take the offensive by reducing predictable patterns on the ground while conducting operations that hunt, rather than chase, the enemy.
6. Accept the realities of warfare in the media age by decentralizing the sharing of information with both the Iraqi and the American public.”

Just a couple of questions if I may in case I have to explain this strategy to someone else. What exactly is a “Cold War-era checklist”? And what does “connecting the American public with the troops and their mission” mean? Does that mean we’re all going to have to go to Iraq?

The way Eric England portrays it one could have the impression that …

Six Step to Total Victory:

… under the Bush administration innovation was stiffled?

… the war was run under utterly unrealistic perception (Commies, Red Army, Nazis, Werewolves, the whole she-bang)?

… U.S. troops did not get the tools they needed and the U.S. public was actively shielded from the harsh realities of the Iraq War?

… Patriot Act achieved diddly-squat, same for FEMA?

… U.S. troops are not up to the task on a tactical level?

… the media dimension of warfare has eluded the Bush administraton from day one?

Well, fine then. A good, patriotic reply can be summed up in one simple sentence then:

> Eric England is a Islamofascist-felating, Freedom™ hating, traitorous BUSH BASHER! It is zis kind of critizism that stabs our troops in the back and strengthens our enemieeeee! <

Verditc held, traitor exposed. Mission accomplished, bring it on, stay the course.

:doh:

P.S.: Proof Eric England is out of touch: Rummy had a WWII checklist (Ze Fascism, Churchill, Werewolves) not a Cold War checklist.

I figure that a key point in achieving success would be to get the current crop of America-haters in the White House changed over to folks who give a damn about success. These are guys who cared so little for our serving troops that they went into Iraq with no plans and no ideas, overriding those who knew something about war (like Powell and so many of the generals) and those who knew something about Iraq (like the State Dept, which had many plans already put together for a zillion contingencies).

There are so many things wrong with the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq quagmire that even a return to normal problem-solving methods (application of logic to well-understood facts) would be a huge step up.

[quote]We need to establish sister city relationships between battalions that are preparing to deploy or are already in Iraq and American cities–not just the towns around military bases. The Pentagon should expand on the success of existing grass-roots organizations such as AnySoldier.com and SoldiersAngels.org that allow private citizens and organizations to send the troops the items they need, whether for themselves or for the Iraqi people.

Just as an engaged couple sets up a wedding registry for loved ones to buy them what they need, so the relationship should be between deployed units and Americans back home, using places like Wal-Mart, Ebay, Radio Shack and Target. Added elements that could make the program even more effective could be: competition between cities to see who can marshal the most support per capita, broadcasting the results, and awarding tangible recognition for cities that exceed certain thresholds.[/quote]

Anybody else reminded of that old peacenik poster?:

“Wouldn’t it be great if our schools could afford all the books they needed and the Pentagon had to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber?”

Failure was not an option for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, for the same reasons, but fail it did. The current mission was doomed from the start. But if you think this is bad, try invading Iran.

Another option: Wipe out the US Okkkupiers and there wont be an insurgency at all XD

How do account for the insurgency in Xinjiang, King Wu? :slight_smile:

And those twenty-three Chinese Uighurs held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Any “chance” they’re going to be tortured once the government of China gets its hands on them?

The biggest problem is that the Bush administration would never listen to any plans that come from the bottom up. They live in a fantasyland in which the only option is to keep plowing ahead with failed plans. Since the Republicans are essentially elitists who don’t need to care about the troops’ welfare because they take the troops’ votes for granted, no plan offered by serving troops will ever be seriously entertained.

I am glad to see that you finally have gotten around to admitting that the “troops” tend to vote Republican. Whoops! hahaa Thanks for that though. I knew that you knew that I knew that you really knew how the troops vote.

Six steps to victory in Iraq?

Please don’t me me laugh.

Not even 66 steps would ensure victory in Iraq.

I see a tail-between-legs withdrawal for “Mr. Danger” and his gang.

I do feel for the soldiers, though. :s

We have already been victorious in Iraq.

We deposed Saddam. We have held 3 elections. Power has been transferred. The threat of Iraq’s wmds is now removed. Al Qaeda has been defeated in Iraq.

What we have now is not a civil war but a lot of violence with no possibility of putting an end to that soon. We have not seen total breakdown along ethnic lines. This is more akin to the Italian governments efforts to fight the Mafia albeit it on a much grander scale or Colombia’s fight against its drug-fueled insurgency, etc. Not to dismiss the challenges but a whole different kettle of fish that requires not 66 solutions.

If you really believe that … let’s just call it an opinion, ok?

Fair enough.

With limited success.

Read: we got a strawman now.

There never was a threat from WMDs because there weren’t any WMDs.

Doubtful.

Yes fred, that’s how I truly feel.

I am glad to see that you finally have gotten around to admitting that the “troops” tend to vote Republican. Whoops! hahaa Thanks for that though. I knew that you knew that I knew that you really knew how the troops vote.[/quote]

Do they still get votes from the troops? My sense has always been that the GOP takes the troops for granted, coasting by on “good feelings” from the Reagan military build-up era that occurred approx. one generation past the Vietnam War quagmire. So far, you’ve been able to cite to (and inflate) a couple of aged polls in which career military may have indicated some support for the Republicans. In contrast, look at the sheer numbers of “Fighting Dems” who ran in the 2006 election (as opposed to the sole Republican candidate who was a vet of the Iraq War, Van Taylor). Any polls done on how the troops are voting now?

In any case, the Bush administration has never given a crap for the troops, which is why they’ve been so busy slashing budgets for the VA, trying to shut down the only research institute that deals with cranio-facial injuries (the signature wound of this war), trying to cut pay and housing benefits, etc.

Come to think of it, in comparison to time spent trying to improve matters for our serving troops, it would appear that Hastert spent more time in the past year trying to ensure Foley could continue his predations upon children. After all, Foley appears to have spent exactly 0 minutes trying to help our troops.

The threat of Iraq’s wmds was real Rascal. Your own government said as much. Every major security agency of every major country included this as a real part of their threat assessment. Why?

We were wrong about actual existing wmds. You have us on that but that does not change the threat equation and your unwillingness to face that or own up to it has always made your position on this very unfair and how shall I phrase this: precious. You want to play with exactitudes but you do not want to address the real problems of doing so. Ironically, that is very “with us or against us” of you, eh? AND it was not as if you would ever pay a cost if you were wrong right? So where does that put you morally on this whole decision to invade Iraq plane? hmmm?

So, do you think that al Qaeda is finding success in Iraq? I don’t. It has been defeated there. The rest of the problems are very real, but I am confident that we can beat these down as well. Two problems prevent that: The Sunnis are afraid of the Shias and the Shias are finally fed up with the Sunnis and their support of terrorist attacks on their adherents. This bloodletting was avoidable but now that it has started, it ain’t going to stop until both sides tire. That could take up to 10 years if we go by past insurgencies and sectarian conflicts. THAT is the reality. The other reality is that we always planned to stay 60 years AND this is not the problem that many like you think it is. Rather it is something good. It will serve to stabilize the region. Ironically, much of this bloodletting has congealed consensus among all parties to keep the American presence in Iraq no matter what. Don’t you find that this contradicts your earlier views and assessments while buttressing those by me and others who supported this effort?

Anyway, all these clever asides “aside” the reality is that the decision has been made, mistakes have been made but we must persevere. The problem with the West is one of inattention, short attention and misguided attention. If we cannot stay in Iraq despite the historically low death count (US and coalition troops) how can we pretend that we have the resolve to see this conflict through to the end. It should be one of great concern to you as a German. After all, it ain’t as if America is going to turn Muslim anytime soon. You’d better be sure that you are stocking some retirement funds overseas lest these be “absorbed” for the greater good when your own Muslim population gets into a position where its 30 percent is the kingmaker in your domestic politics. It may not even require that much given the close breakdown. Hell, even 7 percent to 9 percent seems to be enough to determine coalitions these days. How do you feel about that? What are you going to do? AND given Germany’s official position all along, why is it that your nation is being targeted at all? IF this is not as many think about a very real problem with intolerant, unbending, Islamofascist extremism?

Ah what a poor loser you are MFGR. You got caught. Would you like to rephrase your statement? so that you do not have to admit that deep down you too assume that most troops vote Republican hence the “taking for granted.” haha

Like I said, I would be happy to read more about that. You bang on about this and thanks for referring me to the Democrat Party Web site, but what do you have YOURSELF on this? Nothing? Well, then, as you say, thanks for playing…

why is it that I really struggle to believe that you give a shit about “our troops.” It reads the same as when you claim to be worried about the “folks at home.” Was that from the Democrat Web site as well? Get a new writer! hahahahaha

How do account for the insurgency in Xinjiang, King Wu? :slight_smile:
[/quote]

lol… there isnt one… and if there was i would care.

Ah what a poor loser you are MFGR. You got caught. Would you like to rephrase your statement? so that you do not have to admit that deep down you too assume that most troops vote Republican hence the “taking for granted.” haha[/quote]

“Taking for granted” requires precisely the same attitude that you show here – that no matter what horrendous crap the GOP does to our serving troops, you assume that the troops will continue to vote Republican. I tend to think not. I’d like to see the results from the latest election… my guess is that it will show a shift. Frankly, most of the people I know who are currently in the military have nothing good to say about the current Administration.

Like I said, I would be happy to read more about that. You bang on about this and thanks for referring me to the Democrat Party Web site, but what do you have YOURSELF on this? Nothing? Well, then, as you say, thanks for playing…[/quote]

That’s cute. You previously asked for info on the Dems’ positions. If you want mine, you can have 'em. If there were a website out there called www.whuppedneoconapologists.com, I’m sure we’d find 90% of your failed worldview there.

why is it that I really struggle to believe that you give a shit about “our troops.”[/quote]

Apparently it is because giving a damn about our troops is a concept foreign to you. For much the same reason, I as an American find it hard to understand why the GOP would go to such lengths to screw our soldiers. Vive la differance! Let’s just agree to disagree on what is appropriate to do. For many Americans, exposing our key weapons-proliferation intelligence agents would be beyond the pale, but for hardcore Republicans it’s something to be done casually. Likewise, for many Americans it would be impossible to imagine covering up for a predatory pedophile for years as he makes his rounds, but apparently this is what passes for “Republican values”. Just because it doesn’t make any sense to me doesn’t mean that there aren’t millions of Republicans who completely support Hastert’s actions in protecting Foley.

I suppose caring at all for the American nation is beyond you, but there are many Americans who don’t buy into the corrupt Republican way of doing things. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree – I will continue to support our nation and troops and you can continue to support things that hurt our nation and troops. Then let’s see how 2008 goes.

Classic. Vintage. If these could be bottled and aged. IF only…

Classic. Vintage. If these could be bottled and aged. IF only…[/quote]

Forget it, it’s a sour vintage suitable only for giant Taiwanese wedding-banquet halls and government dinners.