The violence that began in Basra and spread to the capital continues as fears of a new civil war grow… http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/30/iraq2

BAGHDAD (AP) – Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is offering to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge… http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7422979

…winning their hearts and minds will be…

“a long hard slog!”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished”
You can only fool an olde fool, occasionally.

J_Gocht on March 29, 2008 at 3:23 PM

wikipedia as a legitimate source? You are aware that just because it’s on the intertubes and in newspapers like the ny times it still may not always be true, correct?

Well, at least you’re consistant.

And MB4, respectfully, I was in no way trying to shut down debate. Just putting forth my side for consideration. I’ve heard your arguments for getting out of Iraq now, and you are certainly entitled to them. But I don’t agree we should abandon the Iraqis and let chaos reign.

We’re getting close to a major US election and of course aq is putting on the big push to sway US public opinion by killing as many as they can. Sad that it seems to weaken resolve so easily.

Damn, looks to me we’re right back to “Kentucky windage and Tennessee elevation”.

The more things change the more they remain the same!
FMFM 1a: 4th generation warfare (draft)

J_Gocht on March 29, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Asymmetrical warfare is a term for it, but calling it that already implies that they have no idea what it means…as if there is a “symmetrical” warfare to speak of anymore.
You are right to say that many of our politicians don’t understand the nature of war, let alone 4th generation war. Some people refuse to accept that the world is constantly changing and adaptation is key to survival. War is no different.
.
There is no aggravation in polite conversation.

“…If they collapse then we are faced with potential enemies (though not declared ones) that do not resemble a military, but are more like a guerrilla force or mercenaries. In short, they become a 4th generation or “non-trinitarian” enemy. There are only two defined means of defeating such an enemy: De-escalation, and the Hama model. The Hama model refers to Syrian president Hafez al-Assad destroying the Moslem brotherhood in an attack on the city of Hama – an effective, but politically difficult means of destroying a non-state enemy. De-escalation is a very broad concept that involves keeping a smaller footprint, preserving the legitimacy of the state, and a variety of moral, mental, and physical factors…”blankminde on March 29, 2008 at 3:36 PM”

If I get your drift, you’re referring to asymmetrical [4th generation] warfare as DoD spokespersons like to make reference?
Question is…just because they have a word for it, do they understand it? From your posts, I might surmise that many do not?

You post reminds me of classes we took in what we euphemistically referred to as “guerrilla warfare”, at the Special Warfare School at Ft. Bragg, NC in 1962. We studied many passages from Mao’s “Little Red Book”, Che’s letters and the British experience in Malaysia.

Thanks for the reading list. That should keep me from aggravating the fine folks here on Hot Air, for an indeterminate period.

Perhaps…?

“…And J_Gocht, try reading outside your sphere of comfort and get both sides of the story, rather than just blindly spouting the defeatist party talking points or sources that only corroborate your very limited points of view.
techno_barbarian on March 29, 2008 at 2:54 PM”

That’s why I’m here t_b…that’s why I’m here!
Thanks for the suggestion!

FMFM 1: Warfighting

FMFM 1a: 4th generation warfare (draft)

Patterns of Conflict

With that thought in mind the only reasonable extension of your thought is to then confront Iran, and Syria on the same basis. Don’t forget, there is also Afghanistan and Pakistan poised precariously on the brink of being lawless Islamic states.

When and where do our good intensions overload our financial and military will and ability? My though is that… Iraq has and is expending our last “rounds” of both!

J_Gocht on March 29, 2008 at 2:57 PM

I think you’re confusing me with that odd sort of conservative that thinks we are bound by duty to spread democracy and stability to the four corners of the earth. I personally believe that our foreign policy should be motivated to protect and defend the liberties of the American people – nothing more. In my view, democracy is only the right of those willing to fight for it. It cannot be given or protected by foreign hands.
.
Regarding how far my altruism should extend, confrontation with foreign countries is not an easy thing to parse. If those states are truly devolving into stateless chaos, similar to the world prior to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, then I do not believe we have any obligation to prevent that. While it could potentially provide a breeding ground for radical Islam (or Islam in general – take your pick) preventing the collapse of a state is not something undertaken lightly, and cannot be solved through military action alone. If they collapse then we are faced with potential enemies (though not declared ones) that do not resemble a military, but are more like a guerrilla force or mercenaries. In short, they become a 4th generation or “non-trinitarian” enemy. There are only two defined means of defeating such an enemy: De-escalation, and the Hama model. The Hama model refers to Syrian president Hafez al-Assad destroying the Moslem brotherhood in an attack on the city of Hama – an effective, but politically difficult means of destroying a non-state enemy. De-escalation is a very broad concept that involves keeping a smaller footprint, preserving the legitimacy of the state, and a variety of moral, mental, and physical factors.
.
Sorry for the length there, but it is hard to explain this when the doctrine behind my thinking is not widely known. Debating what we should have done with Iraq is nonsense at this point, but how should we handle other countries where similar problems could occur? I can’t really answer that question fairly because I’m in no position to shape national policy, but I would think that if they are no direct threat to us then we should work to gain partnerships with nations around the world that do have an interest in preserving the state (their’s or ours). Chaos benefits no one in this instance, and cooperation in some sense with anyone willing to work together against it is necessary. The reality is that once sides are established it will not be a matter of political ideology or religion separating sides, but states against non-states (which could be any organization with independent loyalties from the state). At that point I recommend the Hama model.

McCain said that the point was casualties, we could be there for a long time and if there were not casualties it would not be an issue. He at no time said he wanted a hundred years of combat.

“…“Mission Accomplished…” Sheesh. It was a sign behind the President on a ship which had, indeed, accomplished its mission. Not something the President said, as all lefties such as yourself insist on perpetuating.
techno_barbarian on March 29, 2008 at 2:54 PM”

Dear t_b, you missed this then!

“…When he received an advance copy of the speech, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took care to remove any use of the phrase “Mission Accomplished” in the speech itself. Later, when journalist Bob Woodward asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded:”I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it’s too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign.”[8]
Bush reiterated a “Mission Accomplished” message to the troops at Camp As Sayliyah on June 5, 2003 — about a month after the aircraft carrier incident: “America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished.”[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished”

You can only fool an olde fool, occasionally.

The only way the “100 years” plan will make sense is if the U.S. military only has to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 100 years.

Turning the U.S. military into a peasant fighting force means it won’t do well against an actual army….like the PLA.

rather than just blindly spouting the defeatist party talking points

Using words like “defeatist” and “surrender” for non-believers in “Iraqi nation building” or “surge till they merge or now surge because they are not merging” is similar to Al Gore using “flat-earthers” and “deniers” for non-believers in “Global warming” to try to shut down debate.

It is not going to work either.

Your sacrifice, my dear “blankminde” is indeed very altruistic and idealistic. With that thought in mind the only reasonable extension of your thought is to then confront Iran, and Syria on the same basis. Don’t forget, there is also Afghanistan and Pakistan poised precariously on the brink of being lawless Islamic states.

When and where do our good intensions overload our financial and military will and ability? My though is that… Iraq has and is expending our last “rounds” of both!

That is precisely why this will be a Long War. You can stop being at war with radical islam and walk away. However, they will not stop being at war with you and all the other infidels in dar al harb.

I want peace as much as you do. Unfortunately, the jihadis only want your submission. The disturbing thing to me is that you, and so many who think like you, are so willing to to submit to them. They will not be merciful or in any way fair. Count on it.

“I think what’s more important is whether or not it is worth the cost, both financial and in American lives, to ensure Iraq does not spiral into chaos. Given the alternative of a stateless region under the control of Islamic radicals I would happily spend every day left in my life fighting in Iraq. The 100 years comment to me doesn’t sound like he wants to be there a hundred years, or even that he expects to be there a hundred years, but rather that he understands that what we’re really fighting for is worth a hundred years.
blankminde on March 29, 2008 at 2:09 PM”

Worth the cost in blood and treasure; that’s always the question, isn’t it?

‘…Given the alternative of a stateless region under the control of Islamic radicals I would happily spend every day left in my life fighting in Iraq…”

Your sacrifice, my dear “blankminde” is indeed very altruistic and idealistic. With that thought in mind the only reasonable extension of your thought is to then confront Iran, and Syria on the same basis. Don’t forget, there is also Afghanistan and Pakistan poised precariously on the brink of being lawless Islamic states.

When and where do our good intensions overload our financial and military will and ability? My though is that… Iraq has and is expending our last “rounds” of both!

I thank you for your brace and courageous service to our country.
Olde soldier sends!

The 100 years comment to me doesn’t sound like he wants to be there a hundred years, or even that he expects to be there a hundred years, but rather that he understands that what we’re really fighting for is worth a hundred years.

blankminde on March 29, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Well said! And thank you and all other vets for your service and sacrifice.

And J_Gocht, try reading outside your sphere of comfort and get both sides of the story, rather than just blindly spouting the defeatist party talking points or sources that only corroborate your very limited points of view.

“Mission Accomplished…” Sheesh. It was a sign behind the President on a ship which had, indeed, accomplished its mission. Not something the President said, as all lefties such as yourself insist on perpetuating.

To equate our five year old military operation in Iraq to those countries as Senator McCain has recently; is indefensible on it’s face and profound political foolishness.

J_Gocht on March 29, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Stop treating Sharia-supreme Iraq like post-war Japan

President Bush [and John McCain], of course, frequently refers to the democratization of Japan as a model for the democratization of Iraq (and the wider Islamic Middle East). But, as Lewis’ must-read essay makes historically clear, the president has been comparing apples and oranges.

Obviously, there have been no analogous U.S. efforts to “de-jihadize” Islamic public culture even as the United States has spent lives, limbs, money and years trying, essentially, to stop the jihad in the Islamic Middle East — not even, to take a manageable example, in the U.S.-funded Palestinian Authority, where state-run media continue to incite Islamically motivated violence against Jews and Americans. And then there are all those U.S.-fostered constitutions that enshrine Sharia law — just the sort of ideological concession our forebears would never have made.- Diana West

J_Gocht on March 29, 2008 at 2:05 PM

There are people in the military that understand this conflict and want to solve it expeditiously. We have new generations of leadership that know that we have to evolve tactically in order to remain free, and as they move through the ranks their insight will inevitably come into play. What troubles me is that there are billions of dollars mired in defense contracting for initiatives that are no longer relevant. Rather than serve the interests of the nation, some generals choose to perpetuate this by towing the line in order to ensure a place for themselves in retirement. This isn’t the rule, but it only takes a handful of self-centered, politically motivated generals to destroy a doctrinal revolution in the military.

To equate our five year old military operation in Iraq to those countries as Senator McCain has recently; is indefensible on it’s face and profound political foolishness.

J_Gocht on March 29, 2008 at 1:03 PM

I think what’s more important is whether or not it is worth the cost, both financial and in American lives, to ensure Iraq does not spiral into chaos. Given the alternative of a stateless region under the control of Islamic radicals I would happily spend every day left in my life fighting in Iraq. The 100 years comment to me doesn’t sound like he wants to be there a hundred years, or even that he expects to be there a hundred years, but rather that he understands that what we’re really fighting for is worth a hundred years.