Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS OF INTERCOMMUNAL WARFARE IN IRAQ

ita-al

Old-Salt
It is too late in the day for America to suddenly start doing long term strategic studies. It is utter meaningless piffle. The intercommunal warfare that will or will not erupt in Iraq upon American defeat is not the problem. The lack of oil drilled as a result is also not the problem. The die has been cast and the nature of the future of the middle east around Iraq is going to happen and America has no real say in its outcome. All the recommendations made in the study are childish and meaningless.
This is what the paper reads like to me. America is in a hole, ergo, the ungrateful liberated are descending into a benighted hell of their own making falling back to their basic primal instincts of clan and tribal warfare. These wretched creatures who were even taken by the hand to the open gates leading onto the great green fertile plains of freedom and democracy, yet they stabbed the hand that freed them and turned away to the base squalor that they now inhabit. How are we supposed to soar like eagles if we are surrounded by turkeys.
Hubris has marred this venture from start to finish. Hubris is so ingrained in the American method it will take a whole lot more than a few studies by really cleaver men to sort out the mess they have created.

At a time when America have so utterly and expertly demonstrated to everyone else on the planet that they are utterly crap politically and militarily that in the moment of their defeat and complete and utter humiliation they still can not see where they went wrong. They have raped and destroyed a functioning country, destabilised a whole region and empowered their enemies and now they want to fix it?
The paper should read, what went wrong and how can we stop ourselves from doing this sort of thing again.

The principles and rules of war have been so resoundingly flouted. Machiavelli might as well of not bothered writing the Prince for all the attention the Americans have given it. American officers seem to have degrees coming out of their ears and yet none in any position of influence have been able to blurt out Klauswitz dictum, War is Politics by other means. That did not mean war is war for war's sake. Or war is instead of Politics. It means politics is politics and sometimes war is used for political ends. Its about the politics and not about the war.
They must apply the principles and then they will begin to understand that the taste of victory is contingent on what is the definition of victory, as defined by the political aims.

Can someone tell me how does the State Department, Pentagon or CIA judge the value of this paper when there are 5 Arabic speakers in the US embassy in Baghdad. Which of the five checked all the references and then analysed it setting aside their own opinions and prejudices garnered from their previous life of pulling Mr Whippies for a living. Generally with American policy the prevailing intelligence and analysis always seems to confirm the current doctrine. Which leads us back to the poor ungrateful Iraqi thesis.
Any paper or study of American policy in this region has to begin and continue and end with Iran. The great chant, Give Pease A Chance, is not just a naive sentiment but also a political reality.

7. The United States may need to consider opening a dialogue with Iran on Iraq-related matters.
Iran and the United States have widely divergent interests in Iraq, but they may at times be able to find common ground on important issues. Temporary and tactical cooperation with Iran may be permissible so long as the fundamental differences between the United States and Iran on long-term goals are always kept firmly in mind.

May...MAY!
This paper's one redeeming feature is this last almost embarrassed statement at the very end. Christ all fukcing mighty this study is so politically scared of the Whitehouse they are not even allowed to say MUST. MUST HAVE PEACE WITH IRAN IF YOU STAND A CHANCE IN HELL OF RECOVERING ANY SEMBLANCE OF CREDIBILITY OUT OF THIS SHAMEFUL FARCE. Set aside your desire for revenge from previous humiliations. You have blown your chance of negotiating from a position of strength because you do not understand Klauswits. Your Army is incapable of strategic/ tactical flexibility because the one lesson you learned from Vietnam was "we don't do counter insurgency. " Iran was, is and always shall be the key to the Middle East. Do the Americans even know the Iranians are not Arabs? One tends to make assumptions.....Oh and doesn't Iran have a little interest in Afghanistan. Remember....the reason all this started.
 

EXRC

Clanker
ita-al, while I concur with the obvious feelings and sentiments you express so well, bear in mind that the document was published in February 2005 - some 30 months ago.
With that in mind the author was, IMHO, both prescient (in that many of his predictions and warnings have come about since then) and brave given that back then Dumbya, DC Dick, et al. were still in total denial of even the possibility of a 'civil war', let alone allow those actual words to be used in any official briefing or leak to MSM.

This was another good piece that was likely ignored because it did not fix facts around policy.
 

alib

LE
Rayc said:
...
Iraq holds the key to a surge in terrorism that can be expected if one quits prematurely. After all, it will be a great morale boost to the terrorists that they defeated two superpowers! I know that many will not agree, but then one should visit US forums to see the jubilation when a ray of hope is reported from Iraq through the perpetual gloom. If minor successes can give jubilation to the US posters, then just imagine how the terrorists will react at the idea that they have forced the infidels out of Allah's land with the cards stacked against them! They will go berserk with joy.
...
The Cousins may clutch optimistically at comfortable delusions but I'd really not compare them with our current crop of Takfiri Jihadi fantasists. They are in a whole different class for empty headed self deceit.

The Arab 'Afghans' confidently proclaimed they'd destroyed the Soviet Union when it collapsed. That they were a tiny peripheral element that mostly sat bickering in Waristan while the Saudi funded Afghans and the ISI fought the Red Army never impinged on their fantasies.

Whatever state central Iraq is in when the US redeploys to protect the Saudi fields and whatever their casualties the Jihad takes it will declare a glorious victory again. This is yet another war in which the Jihadi international have mostly watched the much more able locals fight the invader and ventured into the field to mainly butcher fellow Muslims.

These people are as easily pleased as a mongrel that has recollected it has the ability to lick it owns balls. Somewhere there is an easily bewildered bearded muppet wetting himself with delight at the mighty blow the Jihad struck against the Zionist enemy at Glasgow airport.
 

ita-al

Old-Salt
EXRC said:
ita-al, while I concur with the obvious feelings and sentiments you express so well, bear in mind that the document was published in February 2005 - some 30 months ago.
With that in mind the author was, IMHO, both prescient (in that many of his predictions and warnings have come about since then) and brave given that back then Dumbya, DC Dick, et al. were still in total denial of even the possibility of a 'civil war', let alone allow those actual words to be used in any official briefing or leak to MSM.

This was another good piece that was likely ignored because it did not fix facts around policy.

:oops: Thirty months? A long time ago. Given as you said the climate then and now a very brave thing to write. Couldn't have done their career much good though. I had the impression from RAYC it was a current paper. And I was on such a roll.. My sincere apologies to the author.
 

EXRC

Clanker
No worries, ita-al. I enjoy Dr. Terrill's analyses and his career was not harmed (see below), just (I suspect) that what he (and others) wrote back then was likely ignored at that time. In hindsight, of course, the powers that be can never say they were not warned.

Here are some more of his works if you are interested.
Scroll down for for the list.
 

Rayc

RIP
RIP
Ita - al,

Yes, the error is mine.

Because it was a large document I had to try three times before I could post it since it was not being accepted in one post nor indicating why it was not accepting the same.

In my original attempt, I has mentioned that it was dated.

The link however mentions it was written in 2005.

The aim was basically to understand what was thought and what has transpired and why.
 

ita-al

Old-Salt
Rayc,
What has transpired. Well, who knows?
An interview this morning on the BBC, an excerpt taken from a longer world service piece, was very interesting. The interviewer was Owen Bennet-Jones, and he was speaking to General Richard Myers, who was chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and principal adviser to the defence secretary; Gen Jack Keane, former vice chief of the US Army; and Gen William Wallace, who led the soldiers in the ground
invasion of Baghdad. The interview is an interesting insight into how they see/ saw their relationship with Rumsfeld. It is also a counter from the retired generals who are dissing them.

The real reasons go right to the top and are at the core of the doctrine and ethos or the US Military and Government. I can only comment from my perspective as EX UK Military with a little insight in the US MO. I always have to bear in mind and I forget just how completely and utterly different we are and so many assumptions are made based on this seeming similarity.

The American model of the vast continental style Army, where the troops are trained once for the vast conflagration. The Army has what it has and that's it. Go fight the war.
This is something which has never really been in the experience of the British Army. Field Marshall Slim came close with the size of the 14th Army at around 2,000,000 souls. I remember a Q&A session Rumsfeld did with troops out in Iraq. One Sargeant got up and said something about how they are having to up armour their own vehicles. His reply was, you've got what you go to war with, end of.

So we are here because the Americans did what they could only do. In hind sight this was the only possible result from the very beginning. A big Army is very inflexible. If the political decisions and predictions on the Americans behalf had been better and planned for, then perhaps the American Army would not have found itself conducting a police role like it was the sands of Iwojima.
So where are we going? The answer is of course American and a local one in Iraq. 8O Hopefully the Politics/ diplomacy of the situation will improve which is the real war winner. The American politicians do not inspire me. But the Super Tanker does turn eventually and to misquote Churchill "the Americans always get it right, once they have tried everything else." Like here for example Link I just hope for the Iraq's sake they turn it around.
 

alib

LE
EXRC said:
ita-al, while I concur with the obvious feelings and sentiments you express so well, bear in mind that the document was published in February 2005 - some 30 months ago.
...
Chatham house produced some rather similar papers about the same time. It's been obvious for more then three years which way this one was going.

After Fallujah #1 it was clearly all headed down the karsey. Really not a matter of prescience more just looking facts in the face.
 
Top