WE MUST BEHAVE LIKE VICTORS

This post is part of a thread that started several days ago, and needs to be read in context of previous missives.

http://patriotspoints.blogspot.com/2006/12/everyone-else-has-plan-heres-mine.html
http://patriotspoints.blogspot.com/2006/12/no-mr-bond-i-want-you-to-die.html
http://patriotspoints.blogspot.com/2006/12/give-killing-our-enemies-chance.html
http://patriotspoints.blogspot.com/2006/12/toying-with-genocide.html


Several posts ago, I proposed A Plan of what to do in Iraq. Basically, it was to get out of those parts of Iraq that are not worth saving, let them fight it out among themselves, reserving our assistance to those who prove able and willing to assist us. But we cannot leave Iraq. Furthermore, I've added that we should enlarge the war, USING Iraq as a base to extend it to our real enemies. We paid for it; we get it; let's use it.

As the public debate continues, there are whispers of support for elements of my plan. The Washington Times' Diana West writes:

...two options, neither of which has occurred to Iraq Study Groupies calling for peace parleys with Hezbollah boosters and Holocaust deniers, or to hawkish proponents of "winning" Iraq (or at least Baghdad) with more troops. But maybe that's because neither group dares to reckon with the two greatest obstacles to our efforts in the region: namely, Islam (culturally unsuited to Westernity) and our own politically correct ROE, or rules of engagement (strategically unsuited to victory).

The first option is military, but it carries a seemingly insurmountable cultural override. The fact is, the United States has an arsenal that could obliterate any jihad threat in the region once and for all, whether that threat is bands of IED-exploding "insurgents" in Ramadi, the deadly so-called Mahdi Army in Sadr City, or genocidal maniacs in Tehran. In other words, it's a disgrace for military brass to talk about the 21st-century struggle with Islam as necessarily being a 50- to 100-year war. Ridiculous. It could be over in two weeks if we cared enough to blast our way off the list of endangered civilizations.

As a culture, however, the West is paralyzed by the specter of civilian casualties, massive or not, ...So, the military solution...is out, unless or until our desperation level rises to some unsupportably manic level. ... Our fathers saved us from having to say, "Sieg Heil," but what's next--"Allahu akbar"?

Not necessarily. There's another Middle Eastern strategy to deter expansionist Islam: Get out of the way. Get out of the way of Sunnis and Shi'ites killing each other. As a sectarian conflict more than 1,000 years old, this is not only one fight we didn't start, but it's one we can't end. And why should we? ...With the two main sects of Islam preoccupied with an internecine battle of epic proportions, the non-Muslim world gets some breathing room. And we sure could use it--to plan for the next round.

OK....what's the "next round?" See The Plan.

I abhor the idea of being run off the battlefield by a band of 12th century fanatics armed with our weapons, purchased with our money...and I counsel deploying to continue the fight. BUT to fight better.

But defining the nature of the fight remains. Today, the Army has a "new counterinsurgency manual," which both infuriates and offers hope. Infuriates because of the time it's taken to come to the realization that:

Insurgents in Iraq cannot be coerced. They must be killed or captured. That is the view of one of the authors of the military's new counterinsurgency manual.

Released today, the document is the first significant update of America's counterinsurgency doctrine in more than two decades. It comes more than three years into the insurgency in Iraq, and during a time when President Bush is rethinking his Iraq strategy.

The manual is blunt. ...While it is written for counterinsurgencies around the world, Nagl said they did learn specific lessons about Iraq.

Roadside and other bomb attacks "are not aimed at killing U.S. soldiers," he says. Instead Nagl asserts the insurgents conduct the attacks for propaganda.

"They want those pictures to show up on TVs in America, and they use it to recruit on the Internet," the lieutenant colonel says.

..."The enemy in a counterinsurgency campaign will do almost anything. He's unconstrained by the rules of normal civilized behavior," Nagl says. "He will kill innocent civilians in a heartbeat in order to prevent security and stability and freedom from taking root."

While many of the tenets of COIN have been used successfully for decades, Nagl says this new edition looks at the globalization of insurgency as "information flows almost instantaneously."

Indeed....it's comforting to know that our soldiers understand the nature of the enemy, and most of the "new" doctrine is about information as a battlefield, not only that we must destroy the enemy. It is not comforting to find that it's only NOW that the understanding is finding its way into the rule book. (Read Ralph Peters' discussion of this doctrinal change in military thinking).

It remains to be seen if our Political Leaders understand it. There's much talk in the media about "surges' of troops to pacify Baghdad. McCain has pushed this for a long time, and it may be necessary.

The problem is that our Generals see it differently.

...with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

They may need more forces in the long run, including a larger standing Army, but what they most need is clear direction and a change in their mission to include killing our enemies as a first priority. With no change in the Rules of Engagement, more forces will simply be more IED targets. Let our Armed Forces secure the battlespace and kill our enemies. That's a start.

Ralph Peters' latest comments come to the point, again.

....the Army leadership has one reasonable request: A clear mission.

Here in Washington, the brigade of civilian "experts" insists that the answer to our Iraq problem is to surge our forces from stateside bases back to Baghdad to restore security. Sounds good . . . until you ask them exactly how they would use those troops.

What would the specific tasks be? "Restore security" is too vague - we need to identify no-nonsense objectives. And which new tactics would be authorized? Would the rules of engagement change?

How would we handle prisoners, given that a crackdown would generate tens of thousands (and the Iraqi system releases the worst offenders)? What if the Maliki government rejects our plan?

At that point, the think-tank boys give you a deer-in-the-headlights look and spurt empty generalities. Our military is supposed to figure out the pesky details.

But it's the details that make the difference between succeeding and failing. If you don't nail down the goals - and the methods to reach them - you're ducking the make-or-break issues. Our soldiers can't evade such questions.

Generalities and platitudes won't fix Iraq. But they will kill our men and women in uniform to no good purpose. Before we send them on such a difficult mission, we should at least be willing to face the difficult questions.

Army generals worry that frantic politicos want to send more troops to Iraq as a p.r. stunt, to appear to be taking decisive action. Our uniformed leadership is rightly loathe to have our troops used to give anyone's approval ratings a temporary boost. They'll do what they're ordered to do and do it well. They just want the mission to have a chance of success that justifies the human and strategic cost.

Could an increase of 20,000 to 40,000 troops make a difference?

Yes - but only if they're assigned a clear, achievable mission and our government stands behind them solidly as they carry it out. Sending more troops in the vague hope that it will magically improve the situation would be a travesty.

...Which brings us to the one approach that could make Baghdad a secure, livable city: Zero tolerance.

...We've never been willing to do all it takes to win. Now the clock's running out. Without a comprehensive crackdown, Baghdad (and Iraq) will be lost irrevocably in 2007....

Suppose we do ask our under-strength, under-funded Army to send 40,000 more troops to secure Baghdad. Below are just a few examples of the kind of hard-to-swallow and hard-to-do measures President Bush would need to back, if the deployment were meant as more than a forlorn hope:

* Zero tolerance for weapons possession in the streets or in vehicles. The authorities must have a monopoly on force.

* Foot patrols - soldiers must get out of their vehicles and "walk the beats." Initially, this could cause a spurt in casualties - but there's no alternative to knowing the turf. Once average citizens as well as our enemies know we're serious and that we're staying on the block, attacks will drop. Presence rules. We have to occupy neighborhoods.

* Automatic, no-early-release prison terms for the possession, transfer or transport of military weapons and related paraphernalia. (I'd prefer a "shoot on sight" policy -- JG)

* Rigid enforcement of all public-space laws, from shutting down black markets in gasoline to enforcing traffic codes.

* Temporary movement restrictions, with passes required for any person desiring to leave his neighborhood and enter another. Identify who belongs where.

* Simultaneous crackdowns on Shia militia and Sunni insurgent strongholds. Establish the principle that we go where we want, when we want - and stay as long as we want. (I favor destruction of these militias. We must have a monopoly of the use of force -- JG)

* Thorough searches of every building in Baghdad. No safe havens - not even mosques (trusted Iraqis can help). Structures used as weapons-storage facilities or safe houses for armed factions to be leveled.

* Disarmament of all private security elements in Baghdad not vetted by U.S. authorities. Foreign security contractors subject to Iraqi law.

If we're unwilling to take such stern measures, we won't make durable progress, no matter how many troops we send.

Who would resist such a program? There's the problem. The partisan Maliki government would refuse to go along with a crackdown on Shia militias. Unless we're willing to overrule the regime we recently celebrated, none of this can happen.

And, of course, the media would accuse us of a war crime every five minutes. The global media want Iraq to fail and revel in the current level of suffering. If we're unwilling to defy the media, Iraq is finished.

Oh, and that increase in troop strength would have to last two years. (So stop talking about "surges." Honesty with ourselves is a place to start,too.--JG)

It all comes back to President Bush. If he won't lay out clear goals, then approve a serious plan to achieve them, sending more soldiers to Iraq would only worsen our problems in the long term. If a troop boost failed to produce results, it would further encourage our enemies while crippling our worked-to-the-bone ground forces.

Send more troops? Only if we mean it.

Can it actually be, that after all the blood shed, and the billions of dollars spent and stolen, we now find out that our soldiers are operating under rules that keep them from killing our enemies? Can it be that our Generals still wish for clarity of their mission? Can it be that our people actually want to surrender? Color me pissed if it's so.

"It all comes back to President Bush." That's only part of the truth. President Bush for sure, but much of the rest of our government has been asleep and ignorant of the threat to the nation.

A new Congress has been elected, and responsibility for oversight has been transferred. But so far, congressional appointments demonstrate only "politics as usual." The petty and spiteful bypassing Jane Harman for Chairmanship of the Intelligence committee is an example. The selection of Mr. Reyes, who this week has been shown to be totally ignorant of basics, after years..years..on that committee, is all the proof necessary. Even USA Today has this comment:

These are just the latest signs that official Washington has been cavalier about the war on terror.

Congress' inclination is to hand out anti-terror funds based more on political considerations than real risk, at one point producing a formula that gave New York $15.54 per person and Wyoming $27.80.

In Baghdad, only six of 1,000 U.S. Embassy staff members are fluent in Arabic, according to the Iraq Study Group.

Overcoming such shortcomings requires first a seriousness of purpose about the war on terror that places it beyond the workaday pork-barreling and power games of Washington politics. It then demands that Congress exercise responsible oversight, something that has been lacking since 9/11 because Republican members of Congress feared embarrassing a Republican president.

Perhaps the new Congress will change that dismal picture, but the Reyes appointment suggests that some Democrats also have much to learn. Thoughtless oversight is as bad as none at all.

Nor are the Courts relieved of responsibility. The granting of Geneva Convention rights to non-uniformed individuals, and non-state sanctioned, armed gangs and terrorist groups is a travesty. The Geneva Conventions specifically define those people as NOT covered. Congress should act to specify by law who is defined as our enemy, and we need to quit fretting about aggressive interrogation where needed.

In a lifetime of Neurosurgery, I learned some lessons that others may never have to learn. One was The Lesson of Heros and Goats.

It starts like this....one is going about life in the standard way, when something unanticipated and horrible happens to somebody else. Countless factors are unknowable, but not responding or deferring action is not an option. The issues are stark; someone lives or dies, or worse. Someone MUST act, as not doing so is an action in itself. From the moment the telephone rings, you are responsible for the outcome, whatever happens. It's yours.

If you're lucky, you're knowledgeable, and have at your disposal all the technological wherewithal available. You have a capable staff to help, and excellent advice from the best consultants around. Some of the consultants disagree with others. You must choose between them.

Using all these, you make a plan, and dealing with the unknowns as best you can you execute the plan. The desired outcome is known, but the unknowns may make it necessary to alter the plan "on the fly." When finally done, you wait for the outcome. It matters not that you did your best, nor that no one had a better plan or a better execution. If it works, you're a hero. If it fails, you're a goat.

You may ask for the key to the riddle but the answer is always the same...you're a hero, or you're a goat. The riddle is "why me?" I didn't cause it. I didn't order it or define it. I didn't want it, nor did I hope to have to confront it. And the answer is always the same: "Quit whining. You chose this life. You're either a hero or a goat."

President Bush, who was on call and picked up the 9/11 phone call, has had more than enough experience being the goat. It's time for him to be a hero. He must act, and he must act as a Warrior President. He must redefine the rules for our soldiers. He must stand up to his critics by forcing them to confront the third option. They never agree that they want to surrender, but we're facing an implacable enemy; withdrawal IS surrender. There's only one other choice, or do the opponents really want to force the War Of The Worlds Scenario?

Most important, President Bush must accept that Iraq is not a sovereign state. Its government exists because we finance it and bleed for it. There's nothing sacred about whoever holds title there, if they are unable to provide the most elemental functions of a sovereign state. We cannot be bound by their imperatives. If Mr. Malaki doesn't like our taking out Mookie Al Sadr's thugs, then take out Mr. Malaki. That'll take a real rethinking of what Mr. Bush wishes were true, that elections are all that's necessary to legitimize power. Unfortunately that's not true anywhere in the Arab world, where elected governments hold power by force, often by brutal force. Think Egypt.

We, not Malaki, must determine the course of events. Winning Iraqi hearts and minds doesn't mean that they must love us. Winning them means convincing them that their interests and ours are the same. We must protect them, and stop the killing, to legitimize whatever government we install.

Those who oppose us with words and ideas can be brought into the discussion. Those who oppose us with explosives and guns must be killed. Killed. Dead. No more fretting about whether or not a terrorist, like Zarquawi did, lived awhile after being shot or whether we were diligent in getting him medical care. Killed. Dead.

We'll know when we've been defeated in Iraq. It'll be when the US Army starts losing the fights. Till then, keep them fighting, and it'll be the "bad guys" who choose to withdraw.

Who else has a role in this? You do. You and I, and everyone else. If you agree with me, stand up and say so.

All of us live within a circle in which we influence others and are influenced by them. Our circles always overlap, so while we influence our small circle, by contiguity those influences may spread. There's your chance. Influence your own circle. That's not too much. The next time you hear a snide remark at a social event, don't keep quiet; confront the source and ask if he's willing to accept the third option. Simply by speaking you defy their assumption that "everybody knows we've lost Irag. The NY Times says so."

We as individuals must speak up or leave the field to the lazy, to the uninvolved and uninformed, to the cowards and to the enemies of our America.

Frankly, that's why I continue this blog. I doubt that anyone reads it regularly. Comments are rare. But I continue to try to influence a small circle. Whatever the outcome, win or lose, proven right or wrong by history, I'm going to try to influence my circle. One reader, maybe the only reader from the greater blogosphere, commented:

...This war is not lost on the battlefields of Iraq but in the homes of America in a time that echoes Lincoln's truism that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." We are not witnessing Armageddon but the whimpering of victimhood by a culture on its way out. The strong usually push out the weak. That's how we got here, and that's how our successors will get here.

Time is short, and we all have to stand up. Find your circle.