Surge is working, but that is only half of the story
By Hooah Mac Posted in War — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted by AE because this first-hand narrative of the last year in Iraq complements Jeff's work as a refreshing alternative to conventional wisdom of the armchair variety.
This is one of the updates I promised you all now that I am home and safe and sound.
A couple of notes: First of all, I will comment less on news stories or specific statistics, and more on processes and impressions as someone who was there. I do this because the other information is all out there to be had, and the one thing I can enlighten with is my perspective. Second, there are many things which I wish to tell you, and which would greatly enhance your understanding, and likely your support, of the war in Iraq, but I cannot reveal because of classification.
I served 14 months and 6 days on active duty with a Sustainment Command. 11 months and 16 days of that at LSA Anaconda, a.k.a. Balad Air Base, a.k.a. "Mortaritaville". It is a very large base located to the north and west of Baghdad. The Army and the Air Force share the base. For more information about the base, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/balad-ab.htm is fairly accurate.
When I arrived in Iraq in August of 2006, there was no "surge". However, we were making continual progress in security, training of Iraqis, and the political process already. One thing that struck me from the beginning was the number of local Iraqis that would come to the base regularly and give information to the Coalition forces stationed there. They always asked for things in return, but not as you would think. The sort of thing they asked for was a relocation of them and their families. Definitely understandable when they were ratting out vicious killers that lived nearby.
Part of my job involved watching the daily briefing that our Commanding General received concerning everything in Iraq that had anything to do with logistics. I saw continuous reports on caches found, AIF(Anti-Iraq Forces...what we call the bad guys) captured and killed, and successful operations.
Then in November, the Democrats won control in Washington, D.C. I do not believe that people voted Republicans out of office because they were against the War in Iraq, although it was a consideration. The Iraqis did believe it though. Overnight, people went into hiding; the Iraqis that supported us, told on the bad guys and were working towards a better Iraq. They thought the U.S. was leaving, a thought that terrified the average Iraqi that I talked to. It took time and effort to reassure them and resume relationships. By and large, Iraqis are glad we removed Saddam, they want peace and security for their families, and they want us to STAY until their government can safeguard them without our help.
Throughout the first 3-4 years in Iraq, the singular strength of the American military was at work. Our military provides an amazing level of flexibility and autonomy down to the lowest levels of leadership. We started with one overall strategy, which didn't fit the situation. Criticism aimed at this is pointless, since nobody knows how to do something perfectly the first time it is tried. Local commanders had that flexibility though, and they used it, as different units tweaked the strategy continually as they found things that worked.
The "surge" wasn't a radical overnight shift from the way we did things to the way we ought to have done them. Rather, it was the result of people, GEN Petraeus included, looking at what worked, what didn't work and how it all fit together and sending that out to all the local commanders. 5 more Combat Brigades made a significant difference, but it would have been useless to add those additional Brigades before they were able to be used effectively.
Toward the end of my tour, the number of successful AIF attacks spoken of in the briefings had shrunk, the success of our people in battles was ever increasing, and in some parts of Iraq that we had essentially been avoiding we were now seeing regular reports of military successes. By the time I left just a month ago, Mortaritaville is no longer a fitting name for LSA Anaconda.
While I am just a simple Sergeant and am not trained in a war college on classic strategies of war, the battle in Baqubah shortly before I left Iraq should go down in history as a nearly unparralleled piece of military genius. It is also a culmination of all the hard work Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines have been doing since March of 2003.
These are just my thoughts. Take them or leave them, argue as you will. There is one thing on my mind every day since my return home. There are still brave men and women, my brothers and sisters in the Army family, who are still in Iraq. As I write this, some of them are undoubtedly seeking cover from a mortar attack. Some of them are kicking down doors, not knowing what they face on the other side, but doing it willingly, professionally and with honor. They deserve our support, and our unwavering commitment to honor their service by completing their mission.
Is the biggest difference between the current strategy and the one previous?
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Under Casey, the coalition pulled back from within the communities to obscenely plush and huge "Super FOBs," reducing the coalition presence in favor of putting forward an Iraqi face. Unfortunately, neither the Iraq Security Forces nor the Iraqi government was ready for that.
Now, we've basically had to undo the Casey years, pushing back out of FOBs and LSAs to tiny combat outposts and patrol bases that are located within the combat units' areas of operation and responsibility.
The rest is strategery, but that's your huge diff.
Albeit one that can only be measured through trial and effort, is how many Iraqi units you have that are actually ready to do the job - the more you have, the more effective the American forces will be, and eventually the less need there will be for our forces. I don't have the answers to that question over the whole of the 2005-07 period, but I do know that the choices of what strategies and tactics to choose in deploying U.S. troops were not made in a vaccuum. To the extent that we are doing things now that are working, or tried things in the past that didn't, some of our choices at the time were constrained by a lack of capable Iraqi units, and some of the divdends we are getting now are from a downpayment made in the past few years.
Is that a defense of all the decisions that were made? Maybe, maybe not. Time and perspective will be needed, and my guess is that war colleges will be debating the issue for the next century or more. But it's a factor that has to be considered.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
That's why I am bummed out by the report of the GAO that there are fewer Iraqi troops ready to operate independently of our guys than there were a few months ago. Not clear to me why that is. Maybe we don't have the resources to train and to clear-and-hold at the same time.
would it be a reasonable assumption to see these new FOB as something similar, though not exact, to a police precinct or even a police station. Obviously, there are military, not necessarily police, in these stations, but it seems that by putting these FOB's within the towns, it is much like having a police precinct within a town.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
it's jarring to read your tagline after your posts on Iraq: "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" I keep thinking you're talking about the counterinsurgency! ;-)
answer but what is the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. Why did things go so much better in Afghanistan. That country was no less poor, no less divided. In fact, it seems that Afghanistan had even more in place for a complete mess, and yet things have gone surprisingly well, with far less troops, than in Iraq.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
that the lack of suitable accomodations for reporters is one of the biggest differences. My son just returned from a stint in SE Afghanistan. His unit was under frequent, at times almost constant, attack at both the FOB and at various forward deployments. They patrolled frequently looking for and usually finding contact with the enemy. The enemy would take over and fortify a town, they'd come chase them out and kill some and leave. In a few days or weeks, the enemy would be back. ALL of his units KIAs were from IEDs, though they had quite a few wounds from gunfire, RPGs, etc.
There are fewer troops, fewer reporters, and a smaller and less concentrated population, so Afghanistan is rarely in the news. That said, outside Kabul, pretty much firmly in Government control, a lot of Afghanistan is "Indian Country."
In Vino Veritas
is that in Afghanistan it is the remnants of the Taliban and AQ that are causing the trouble. It isn't being made worse by Afghans forming militias and killing rivals themselves. This is what I was wondering about. Why did it work out that the Afghan population came on board with democracy in full, whereas there has been so much resistence in Iraq?
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
You're looking for that "aha!" moment - that one simple answer that makes it all clear, and that unlocks the puzzle for you.
It's not possible.
Trust me, I'm as black-and-white a guy as you can get, and perhaps this is perspective you can't get while not actually over here, but there *are* no simple answers. You think the situation is complex and confusing?
The reality is one hundred times moreso.
That's not your fault; when back home, I struggle not to simplify the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. into easy explanations and black-and-white differences. Unfortunately, that's not reality. Reality, in this case, is more complex than you or I or anyone else could ever *really* comprehend.
what I am trying to figure out is how the same group could have gotten one thing fairly right in Afghanistan and then turned around and screwed it up in Iraq so badly.
Obviously, things aren't the same, but there are plenty of similarities and the two wars have gone so markedly different. I haven't been to either place, however from what I know it looks like Afghanistan is more difficult to control than Iraq, but it has worked out totally different.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
1. Afghanistan's been a mess for decades. Lower expectations.
2. No widespread opposition to the Afghan war = lower demand for bad news.
3. Afghanistan lacked a strong central government of the Saddam variety, thus the various camps were already well-armed and in place. The result is ugly but less anarchic, and the guys on our side are more battle-hardened.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
This is mainly my own guestimation, but it is backed up by what our intel guys thought there. Afghanistan is a lot more difficult to get into, due to terrain and other factors. Iran and Syria have a lot more difficult time supplying their fellow travelers in Afghanistan.
That isn't the whole answer, but it is a much bigger part of the answer than most people realize.
Afghanistan has been mostly left alone by their neighbors and without evil tyrants stoking violence it is much easier to rebuild a society, go figure.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
IIRC, Abizaid/Casey had these constraints which Petraeus does NOT have:
1) A SECDEF who was committed to "Iraqifying" the war. If your CO tells you to make the Iraqis take the lead, and to minimize your footprint, you do it.
2) A SECDEF unwilling to surge 30,000 extra troops.
3) A SECDEF who drew personal fulfilment from not only saying "no" to, but wirebrushing, generals.
3) An administration that's gunshy about an upcoming election.
Jeff, this is a personal bone with me. I think that Casey has become a convenient whipping boy for policies which he didn't fully control. As Casey still needs his professional credibility---he's not retired; he's the sitting Army Chief of Staff, charged with selling my Army's needs to Congress---I'm concerned by the casual "Casey Kicking" I see going on on conservative blogs. (E.g., Dean Barnett's saying that Petraeus' arrival "removed the stench of incompetence and indecision" from American command in Iraq.) Especially when politics and protocol deny Casey the ability to fully defend himself publicly.
This may be a topic for another diary. But, I fear we are being unfair to Casey and the other generals that preceded Petraeus. All generals build the best operations plans they can, within the constraints their civilian superiors impose on them.
We're not the nutroots. We're supposed to be fair.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
opens up a lot of issues. But let me confine myself to the issue of competence by our military in the field.
Gen Casey was, of course, carrying out a course that had been set for him by the Administration and the Pentagon in trying to limit the size and scope of the MNF. In that sense you are right. However, it's also the case that events on the ground can change policy as well as the other way around and it's the duty of the general in charge to bring these events and issues to the civilian leadership and offer suggestions.
In that regard, it's my recollection that the president constantly asked Casey and Abizaid if they wanted more troops and they replied they did not. In the case of Abizaid, he argued that more troops would actually be inimical to security in Iraq as it would cause the Iraqis to turn against us if we were too visible. He was given a great deal of credence in his opinions because he is an Arab-Ameican and was thought to be more culturally attuned than others. It turned out that the Iraqis were a lot less disturbed by our presence than they were by Al Qaeda cutting off fingers of smokers.
As to Casey, he placed 90% of American troops outside Baghdad in the FOBs Jeff Has described. His hope was that the Iraqi forces would step in and remove the necessity for our forces to engage the enemy as Petraeus has. In my view he did this for the reason that generals always do, namely the hope of reducing casualties and avoiding catastrophic, war-ending defeats along the lines of Dienbienphu. In other words, it was his inclination and it fit in with the policy from the top.
But that's not what I blame him for. I blame him because he failed to act after the bombing of the Samara mosque in February 2006 changed the dynamic of the war, ushering in the deadly sectarian violence and deteriorating security conditions that brought us to the brink of military and political defeat at the end of 2006. It was up to Gen Casey (if not Casey, then who) to inform the President, the SecDef, the JCS, if necessary the country, that the small footprint was no longer viable and that we were headed to certain defeat if we did change course immediately. The kind of review the President undertook after the election should have been undertaken then, in February, and whatever changes the President decided on should have been implemented immediately.
If not for the courage of the President, his advisors, Gen Petraeus and a few lonely voices in the elite opinion ranks, we would now be on our way out of Iraq, in defeat. Instead, we are winning on both fronts.
Smagar, I think you're right that Casey's role in Iraq strategy is not simply an unmitigated disaster that has been miraculously undone by the man he recommended to succeed him. After all, the point of this diary is that many of the successes now becoming apparent are long-term developments that had their origins in the Casey years--and I expect the General will have a thing or two to say about that when he retires.
But I also think you might want to be cautious about points 1,2,3a--at least in terms of Casey considering these negative constraints. The Iraqi government is tenuous, it's true, but how much more tenuous would it have been had a concerted effort not been made to put that government in place and give power to the Iraqis, it being their country and all? And while maintaining the lightest practical footprint in Iraq was--and is I would argue--a strategic priority, are you sure that's a mistake? And that General Casey disagreed with it in principle but bowed to his civilian boss' dogma? Mr. Rumsfeld never denied a request for troops while he did on several occassions approve requests for additional troops--from General Casey.
As for 3a, well, perhaps your experience is different than mine but from what I understand, Mr. Rumsfeld's relationships with military commanders was far more good than bad, and his occassionally rough treatment of military (and civilian) subordinates was not a cheap way to get his kicks but rather a means to grab their attention and encourage them to do what he rather urgently felt needed to be done in situations that I think we can all agree were critical. Most "got" this and got on with the job. Some got their feelings hurt and pride bruised. I might put General Casey in the first category.
As for point 3b, now we've entered the era of the perpetual election cycle, perhaps this kind of politicization is an unfortunate inevitability with which we will have to learn to live.
Hands & attention span full with baby until then! :)
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Thank you for your service, Mac.
And sobering too.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Who are we going to shoot first? LOL.
[For those coming in late: Reply To This is your friend. - Moe Lane]
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I'm not even sure who did it, but time and effort have been saved.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Actually YOU did it. Maybe you could please explain why someone who is clearly trying to incite the shooting of Democrats is allowed to continue posting while my simple extension of your violent train of thought gets my username frozen.
After all, I was only taking his call-to-action to it's logical conclusion. Which is inciting the murder of Democrats. Which is CLEARLY what you are inferring to and hoping for.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
At least retread tires, unlike Nickname, don't fall apart right away.
Your evasion of my question tells me all I need to know. Way to defend yourself.
Listen, bud. First, I think that that signature line advocating (even if in jest) "shooting Democrats" is inappropriate and should not be allowed. Having said that, I took your comment as a comment on the post -- in other words, on our war effort -- rather than a reaction to that person's signature line, because you didn't use the "Reply To This" function like everyone else here (have you noticed all the indentations of comments? think there's a reason for that? think you just might be able to do it, too, to avoid such confusion?). Also, if you want to make the point that that line is inappropriate, just say so (although you may not survive here long enough to do so). Lastly, whether you're banning was due to the same misunderstanding I had or not, you can't just show up again as you have. Email one of the moderators (click on one of their names, then click the "Contact" tab), explain yourself and request permission to return.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
There was no confusion at all. I was making a point. Ya know, just kidding about shooting people. See! Ha ha ha it's so funny.
The left has seen a whole bunch of it's leaders assassinated by right wing freaks who sowed this kind of intolerance, leaders who really meant something to some people. My question to you is - if it's inappropriate to joke about shooting Democrats and referring to them as The Enemy, WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO in the first place? Why did I have to take that statement to it's logical conclusion for you to actually say so? Is this something that consistently goes on here? WTF?
My point is that there isn't any further you can take logic like that but to act upon it. That there is but a fine line between suggesting shooting Democrats and shooting Democrats. You don't have to be a Man to pull a trigger.
You know this site is a perfect metaphor for why the right is in the toilet right now and why no one is listening. You had complete control for so long that you no longer have what it takes to make a persuasive argument. And it's why you are totally dominated online. You can't set up the game so you win every time. You have to make rational arguments and back it up with evidence. But you don't remember how to do that do you?
Intimidation and manipulation is NOT perusasion. Maybe you and your Glorious Leader Bush would get somewhere if you woke up and realized it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Looks like someone's angling for an IP ban, because he can't tell when he's worn out his welcome. Typical liberal loser, can't abide by the rules so they think they deserve to be able to cheat.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Visual representation of your clueless diatribe:
[Accurate, but crude, photo disabled. - Moe Lane]
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
against the enemy in Iraq.
If YOU are saying that means shoot Democrats, that means YOU believe Democrats are the enemy.
Before accusing, look into your mirror.
It pains me that some jerks have to have everything explained to them. My tagline REQUIRES no explaining, because it's internal logic is complete and self-contained. If you don't get it, that's because you are a simpleton. Brevity is the soul of wit.
But here goes, for all stupid people Democrats in the room. I'll try to use small words.
First, my tagline CLEARLY advocates engaging in a war the Democrats have already started -- or is "shooting back" unclear to you?
Second, the same phrase states indirectly that the Democrats are already "shooting" at us (conservatives). Now, do you think I was using "shooting" in a literal sense, with firearms? If you replied "NO", then maybe you have a brain.
So logically, I'm not advocating "shooting" idiots Democrats literally with firearms, but rather in the sense of pounding them in the media, pounding them in the arena of ideas, having our Senators and Congressmen (and yes, PRESIDENT) actually respond to the lies, corruption,dirty politics, underhanded scheming, and backroom deals with some actual public defense of our positions, calling liars liars, and engaging in hardball politics.
That's what my tagline means. And it's not especially subtle. You are just a jerk.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
of US Senators
"Kerry, Kansas City, and the FBI files
By Steve Gilbert
An American Thinker Exclusive must credit americanthinker.com
"By now you've probably heard that John F. Kerry attended a meeting of his Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) group in Kansas City in November 1971, where they considered a proposal to murder top governmental leaders."
The Democrats nominated a person, who attended a meeting where
murdering top government officials was discussed, to be President of the United States. Some Americans even voted for him. I don't see any outrage at all about him.
Let's not lie by omission. Kerry was indeed at the meeting, but a witness present at the meeting says Kerry voted against the proposal and resigned from the VVAW Executive Committee immediately after the vote.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
I don't see any part of my statement that is a lie by omission, it states;
"The Democrats nominated a person, who attended a meeting where
murdering top government officials was discussed, to be President of the United States."
Your link says he was there. What is the omitted lie.
Now if voting No on a proposal that is sure to end his presidential aspirations, and resigning from a leadership position in a group discussing killing US Senators is a good thing, wouldn't going to the nearest phone, calling the FBI and telling them where they can find a group of Americans plotting to kill American senators have been a better thing. But of course, we don't have that action. It was not omitted, he never notified the FBI that there was group of Americans discussing a plot to kill American Senators.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
reality and also probably political calculation. The Dems may feel that the longer the surge goes on the more it will be an issue in 2008. There are of course political calculations here.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Mac and Jeff,
I'd be interested in any comments you may have on this report http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/isf.pdf
Impact of the Murtha type Dems.
"Overnight, people went into hiding; the Iraqis that supported us, told on the bad guys and were working towards a better Iraq. They thought the U.S. was leaving, a thought that terrified the average Iraqi that I talked to."
If average Iraqis felt this way, how much more the politicians in power, even more dependent on us, felt vulnerable? Now, even Republicans are throwing bricks at them for trying to cover their butts.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/07/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
When General Mc Dowell was pressed as to why he did not use the volunteers he had been given in 1861, he said they weren't ready. Bu the was forced to use them and Bull Run was the result.
General Mac was given the job and didn't bestir himself for a year until the Army was more than just a mob. Still the Seven Days was the next result.
Rumsfeld and Bush really wanted to keep a low footprint and knew it would take a long time to recruit, organize, train and blood the Iraqi government, its new Army and its new national Police. Bu they had to be blooded, even if we took casualties.
They paid the price, and so did the US; but Petraeus is able to pick up the results.
AQI and Sadr's Mahdi are mow being outclassed by the native Iraqi forces and the gap widens by the day. I know its not fun to fight a holding action like Bataan, Corregidor, or Guadalcanal, but while you mobilize and organize and train but sometimes that is what is called for.
Casey gets the short end of the stick for taking the tough duty. Just like General Wainwright in the Philippines fifty years ago. Meanwhile the gathering of forces led to a more and more unequal correlation of forces, in the Iraqi favor.
It's great to hear these kinds of first hand reports you can't find in the mainstream media.