FM 3-24: America's new masterplan for Iraq

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by dong20, Apr 11, 2007.

  1. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Robert Fisk: Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad - Independent Online Edition > Robert Fisk

    I know, it's hardly 'new' having been around for almost a year:

    "....The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.
    ...

    The system has been used - and has spectacularly failed - in the past, and its inauguration in Iraq is as much a sign of American desperation at the country's continued descent into civil conflict as it is of US determination to "win" the war against an Iraqi insurgency that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops. The system of "gating" areas under foreign occupation failed during the French war against FLN insurgents in Algeria and again during the American war in Vietnam. Israel has employed similar practices during its occupation of Palestinian territory - again, with little success....."

    Really, does the US ever learn? I despair.
     
  2. FrenumFellow

    FrenumFellow New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains, USA
    The US does learn. The Bush administration and its neocon idealogues don't, though. The whole mess in Iraq started with their denigration of the "reality-based community", willful ignorance of lessons learned from even recent experience such as the largely successful operations in Kosovo, and shutting out of the State Department and military officers who understood the lessons learned.


    FF
     
  3. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    Bush is at it again. He is increasing the length of deployment from 12 months to 15 months. New National Guard units are being deployed. It doesn't matter what Congreve the people the courts or independent thinking military experts say, Bush is hell bent on increasing the number of troops at a much high level than the 20,00 "surge" we were told about at Christmas time.

    Make no mistake about it, Bush has no plans to remove our troops anytime soon. Bush might change course some after the 2008 election, but I doubt it.
     
  4. HotBulge

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,181
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    217
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God
    That's exactly why I re-affirmed my support for Nancy Pelosi's "micro-management" of the war. (That's Bush' term). The Congress has no other choice but to limit Bush's hand and steer policy elsewhere. Bush is pouring more good resources (i.e. committed troops and financial resources) after a bad venture. Bush doesn't realize that America, as an occupying power, will not win an Iraqi civil war by definition.

    Bush's masterplan should be what the Iraq Study group prescribed:
    • Gradually move the troops out of Iraq in general. Retreat to 2 or 3 "strategic" points of interest in Iraq so that there isn't a complete vacuum of political and military stability... . But basically, get the US troops out of places where they are clearly not wanted!
    • Seek out stabilization efforts from Muslim countries nearby such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.
    • Set up a few strategic bases in the area. Move to the Iraq/Kuwait border, a base near Baghdad, and perhaps a base near the Northern oil fields -- to be purely strategic and pragmatic
     
  5. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    This just won't work. For one, it makes sense.:biggrin1: Two, real empires continue occupying more teritory until they finally over extend and collapse. Bush wants to be known as the last President of the American Republic and the first President of the American Empire. The first reason was "tongue in cheek." The second unfortunately, seems to be what is taking place. The Bush Adminisstration plans on making the occupation in the Middle East permanent. That is a definition of an empire.
     
  6. ClaireTalon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    I don't think further strong oppressing measures, such as settling the population of especially endangered areas in guarded housing compounds, will fight the problem of terrorism and civil war, at least not at its root. It's another measure aiming at getting a grip on the mere symptomatic of things that have gone wrong.

    Ever since, I've been preaching that the only solution to stem terrorism and civil insurgencies is: policing. Use military and special police forces, which are better trained at this, in a combination with investigators to disturb insurgents activities and infiltrate their organizations, until they're incapable of conducting well-planned operations. Offensive after offensive will not be as efficient as this long-term plan.
     
  7. HotBulge

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,181
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    217
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God

    Gheez. It sounds like Star Wars III, watching George Bush transform from Senator Palpatine to the Emporer and launching the Empire... So does that make us members of the Rebel Alliance? :smile:
     
  8. HotBulge

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,181
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    217
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God

    Agreed, policing is the only legitimate reason for not having an immediate pull-out.

    We do need to get our troops out eventually, though. Fall back and regroup....Bush needs to place more value on the lives of our troops rather than on his wouded pride. Bush's method has run on long enough without any positive results.
     
  9. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Much of it has learned that Robert Fisk's career consists entirely of reports that the sky is falling down. Recall his famous assertion that American troops were too dumb to find Baghdad airport, and what they'd actually captured was an abandoned RAF airfield from the 1950s. The man's a comic genius, perhaps, but he's no reporter.

    Why not cut out the middleman and just paste in propaganda - pardon me, press releases - from CAIR? Those are pretty funny, too.
     
  10. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    How did I know you would focus your negativity on the reporter rather than the policy which after all is a published document and the subject of the thread, not Mr Fisk.:rolleyes:
     
  11. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Today's events in Baghdad would seem to underscore that nowhere in Iraq is safe, not that it's really needed. Though of course calling the 'Green Zone' secure given the evidently lax security even there is more self delusion than reality.

    I'm not sure there's anywhere left to 'fall back' to, and regrouping would seem an exercise in futility. It seems to be a no win scenario the US is damned if it stays, damned if it leaves.
     
  12. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    Yes, you are totally right. Most real experts were saying this right at the outset. Immediately after 911 we had the cooperation of law enforcement agencies around the world right in our hands. These are groups who have had decades of experience dealing with this stuff. They were ready to mobilize. We told them to go pound sand and we off and invaded a country instead. What is worse is that the country we invaded were not harboring terrorists. Brilliant.

    Clare, you have your finger on the pulse of reality, as usual.
     
  13. ClaireTalon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    There are definitely law enforcement agencies who have more experience with organized, effective domestic terror groups, and the successful fight against those: UK, France, Belgium, Germany. And all of those have never used more than police special forces in their fights, and all of them have been successful, even though the fights have stretched over decades, and occasionally the terrorists scored big hits. Probably consultation of these agencies would have helped more than an alliance of countries who are willing to say and support anything in exchange for a few millions of foreign aid.

    The average soldier we send to Iraq has done Basic and Advanced Infantry Training, probably some additions such as Airborne School. Altogether an excellent military training, but not the training that's efficient for what's basically a police job.
     
  14. hypolimnas

    hypolimnas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    374
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Penisland
    The average soldier we send to Iraq has done Basic and Advanced Infantry Training, probably some additions such as Airborne School. Altogether an excellent military training, but not the training that's efficient for what's basically a police job.[/quote]

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand there is no one with current political influence, in the Bush (or Blair) administrations, who has had any personal experience of military service themselves.
     
  15. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Oh so true. It would seem we may be using the wrong tools for the job, like trying to use a tough wire scrub brush to clean stained tile or porcelain.
     
  16. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    I trust that there are plenty of experienced military advisors serving both leaders. Related questions would be: Are those military advisors being listened to? Are the advisors reporting only what the leaders want to hear? Or, as Claire suggests, is the best solution to the ongoing problems in Iraq application of traditional military force?
     
  17. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    While I can't speak for France, Belgium and Germany your statement about Northen Ireland (which I assume you mean) is inaccurate. The British Army was deployed on the streets of NI from from August 1969 in response to requests from the then NI Government when it became clear the police could no longer cope with the escalating violence. Police special forces were also used there and on the mainland but not exclusively by any measure.

    Initially the troops were by and large welcomed by nationalists because the police were not trusted to be even handed. It's an interesting parallel. That said I agree, largely that while the problem in Iraq was more suited to a civilian police solution rather than a traditional military solution I'm not entirely convinced that in using the police in that role now it would be easy in any meaningful way to distingush between the two.

    Today just because people are not blowing each other up at present doesn't mean the problems are entirely over. Iraq has a very long way to go before it gets even close.
     
  18. ClaireTalon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    Yes, you are right. Please excuse me, I got a little carried away I guess and oversaw this detail, my fault. However, let me step my statement down a little by saying that Police forces played the leading part in these counter-terrorism operations, whereas military personnel was only used for the very hard cases. If I remember correctly, the French have also used the one or other paratrooper unit to relieve hostage situations.

    Point is, there's a reason why police training takes years, and not a few months plus some special bulletins. The communiqué I received before Iraq, Pt. II, dealt, among other things, with flora and fauna of Iraq. Probably helpful in case of survival, but not the kind of information required to perform police jobs.
     
  19. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Yes they did, and still do. The military where, on the whole as I saw it more defensive and/or supportive than offensive though of course that was not a hard and fast rule. I do think that the police are better suited to such tasks, what I was meaning was given the current level of violence combined with the apparent ineffectiveness of the Iraqi police it's hard to see how they would not be overwhelmed should they be tasked with this on their own.

    Where the US et al went wrong (in this aspect) was not forseeing the scenario that has unfolded, or perhaps not recognising it for what it was clearly becoming when there may have been time to address it at least in part by training and deploying some form of civilian force.

    You're quite right that the military are not trained for this task, I recall having this discussion with DC_Deep a while back in a thread relating to the use of the military in law enforcement.
     
  20. D_Humper E Bogart

    D_Humper E Bogart New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    2
    I often wonder if it is unfair to expect the millitary to be expected to perform a civilian role? The millitary exists, to kill all enemies of the state, police are there to protect the citizens of a state from themselves.

    Sounds like a conflict of interest in Iraq. Are we aiming to save them or "nuclearfy" them?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted