Surge of Understanding
Australian LTC David Kilcullen, counterinsurgency advisor to Petraeus, explains current ops. Mandatory reading:
Ten days ago, speaking with Austin Bay, I made the following comment:
“I know some people in the media are already starting to sort of write off the “surge” and say ‘Hey, hang on: we’ve been going since January, we haven’t seen a massive turnaround; it mustn’t be working’. What we’ve been doing to date is putting forces into position. We haven’t actually started what I would call the “surge” yet. All we’ve been doing is building up forces and trying to secure the population. And what I would say to people who say that it’s already failed is “watch this space”. Because you’re going to see, in fairly short order, some changes in the way we’re operating that will make what’s been happening over the past few months look like what it is—just a preliminary build up.”
The meaning of that comment should be clear by now to anyone tracking what is happening in Iraq. On June 15th we kicked off a major series of division-sized operations in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces. As General Odierno said, we have finished the build-up phase and are now beginning the actual “surge of operations”. I have often said that we need to give this time. That is still true. But this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.
Read the rest. Too busy surging through life yourself? Here’s the quick version:
These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another, and to create an operational synergy between what we’re doing in Baghdad and what’s happening outside. Unlike on previous occasions, we don’t plan to leave these areas once they’re secured …
When we speak of “clearing” an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don’t get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that’s OK …
The “terrain” we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on…
Of course, we still go after all the terrorist and extremist leaders we can target and find, and life has become increasingly “nasty, brutish, and short” for this crowd. But we realize that this is just a shaping activity in support of the main effort, which is securing the Iraqi people from the terrorists, extremist militias, and insurgents who need them to survive.
… Personally, I think we are doing reasonably well and casualties have been lower so far than I feared … casualties are up in absolute terms, but down as a proportion of troops deployed (in the fourth quarter of 2006 we had about 100,000 troops in country and casualties averaged 90 deaths a month; now we have almost 160,000 troops in country but deaths are under 120 per month, much less than a proportionate increase, which would have been around 150 a month). And last year we patrolled rarely, mainly in vehicles, and got hit almost every time we went out. Now we patrol all the time, on foot, by day and night with Iraqi units normally present as partners, and the chances of getting hit are much lower on each patrol. We are finally coming out of the “defensive crouch” with which we used to approach the environment, and it is starting to pay off.
One odd statement:
This is not some sort of kind-hearted, soft approach, as some fire-breathing polemicists have claimed (funnily enough, those who urge us to “just kill more bad guys” usually do so from a safe distance). It is not about being “nice” to the population and hoping they will somehow see us as the “good guys” and stop supporting insurgents.
As a fire-breathing polemicist currently operating at a safe distance who applauds the killing of bad guys, I’m happy like most other fire-breathing polemicists to see the good guys killing smart and engaging positively with the locals from Anbar to Diyala to Triangle of Death. The criticism of the surge and claims of surge failure are coming largely from people who offer no support for the effort whatsoever and would like to abandon it. There has been, I’ll admit, some frustration at the fact that Moqtada al-Sadr is still drawing breath, and that the Mahdi Army was not more aggressively engaged on numerous opportunities it has offered, and maybe that’s what he’s talking about. It’s not clear to me what happens after the surge if those guys come out of the woodwork, if Iraqi security forces remain heavily infiltrated, if Iran still has a free hand. Maybe these are considered to be more political problems.
Meanwhile, this is a discussion of current ops, a strategy of choking the enemy while buying time for other developments to take place, and as such could be useful for people who think every suicide bomb and every soldier’s death signals failure of the strategy. But it doesn’t tell us much about what happens in a year’s time if the latter view prevails, if the effort is not sustained, if the Iraqi forces and government are not ready, if sufficient U.S. troops are not available, due to political considerations.
By the way, thanks Dave, for the explanation and for everything you are trying to accomplish. Best to all.
Blackfive on Kilcullen and anti-war left’s failure to pay attention.
Wretchard at Belmont on Kilcullen’s hedging.
QandO cites a prediction of failure in Baquba.
Small Wars Deep Think, a quick compendium of Kilcullen at SWJ. On second thought, the remark above about remotely polemicizing flame-snorters may well be a reference to Luttwak.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 2:39 pm on Tuesday, June 26, 2007
24 Responses to “Surge of Understanding”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
As one who wants to see them kill all the bad guys, I wish them all good in their efforts. It sounds like they’ve learned a lot of lessons and are acting on what they’ve learned. I appreciate the information. It is too bad that the administration doesn’t inform us as well.
One would hope that one of the lessons they’ve learned is that how you fight the war in the beginning will determine what you have to contend with afterwards.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Like the Generals who lost Vietnam, Kilcullen now seem to be operating with a willed ignorance of politcal reality.
Sad to see that he and Col. McMasters have sold out for a chance at glory.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Moron
Imbecile
Idiot
Invertebrate
Amoeba
alphie
There RebeccaH, I’ve made the corrections that you mentioned.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“When we speak of “clearing” an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation…”
Wrong!
“When we speak of “clearing” an enemy safe haven, we are talking about destroying the enemy in it…”
Right.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Well done, El Cid.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
alphie, two things.
FIrst, the Generals didn’t “lose” vietnam. Domestic political pressure meant that they had to leave.
Second, political reality is only one aspect of reality. They’re operating in the reality of Iraq, what works, what doesn’t, not what the opinion polls are showing back home.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Dave,
By now, the Iraqis should be doing everything and our troops there only to prevent a total collapse.
Same deal in Vietnam.
Just like parents who do their kids’ homework for them…and still only get a C.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:50 am
I must admit that the ant is sometimes supremely entertaining and offers some great laughs. He is the epitome of one who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and thus, he says the silliest things with all the surety of a five year old.
He does disprove the old adage that ignorance is bliss, however. How embarrassing oneself as often as he does could be called bliss. . .
June 27th, 2007 at 3:58 am
I’m glad I entertain you, Salty.
And I’ll admit, I have no idea why our military in Iraq are acting like they have all the time in the world, when in reality, they may have no more than a few months.
As I said, our generals in Vietnam made the same mistake.
Maybe they don’t have any other ideas?
Hammer - Nail problem?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:04 am
“And I’ll admit, I have no idea why our military in Iraq are acting like they have all the time in the world, when in reality, they may have no more than a few months.”
In the last few comment threads I’ve seen you post your take on military issues, I’ve pointed out how utterly clueless you are. This paragraph takes the cake though. Kilcullen deals with your question in detail by explicitly describing the buildup and deployment process of the last 6 months. It was the focus of Petreus’ briefings to congress. Even someone ignorant about military matters but maintaining an open mind could apply common sense and conclude that increasing the troop numbers in the surge would require ramp up time before they could be utilized.
But you…you have no idea why ‘our military in Iraq are acting like they have all the time in the world’.
There’s no defense against my observation of how clueless your comment is either. I imagine you’ll make what you think is some illuminating statement, but it won’t address the cluelessness. I doubt it will even be on point.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:17 am
On a separate but related note:
You consistently miss the point. Whether this is because you start from a particular bias or are simply woefully ignorant doesn’t really matter. What does is that even when information is right in front of you, you don’t grasp it’s implications.
What do you actually think you accomplish? You come off as a complete dolt. Cyberspace insulates you from directly confronting the consequences of being such a cretin, but doesn’t it bother you to at least some small extent that every single person without exception that reads your comments holds that opinion of you?
June 27th, 2007 at 9:02 am
OldManTyme,
He just wants attention. He doesn’t seem to care if it is negative; still fits the bill.
Just like a little kid. Heck, maybe he is a little kid.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Still, everyone without exception here seems to consider him a complete clown and dumb as a rock and he seems oblivious to that. A kid might hang around where he’s unwanted, but where’s he’s a running joke? Attention junkie personality and cyberspace insulation notwithstanding, you’d think he’d have that level of pride at least.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I meant no offense to kids.
Perhaps I should have said an ill-adjusted kid.
I don’t think he’s oblivious at all, I think he enjoys irritating people.
He is, after all, pretty good at it.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I see justifications, Oldman, I don’t see reasons.
The U.S. military should be letting the Iraqis handle…everything.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“The U.S. military should be letting the Iraqis handle…everything.” And damn the consequences.
He doesn’t have a clue how clueless he is–at least, that is the generous interpretation. Otherwise he is a vicious killer who yearns for the absolute slaughter of Iraqis.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Isaid:
“There’s no defense against my observation of how clueless your comment is either. I imagine you’ll make what you think is some illuminating statement, but it won’t address the cluelessness. I doubt it will even be on point.”
alphie’s response:
“I see justifications, Oldman, I don’t see reasons.”
Absolutely clueless.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Alphie: “I see justifications, Oldman, I don’t see reasons.”
The reason is that if the American troops left, there would be carnage on a collossal scale. Look how many civilians the insurgents kill daily, right under the nose of the troops. If the troops were not there, they’d take over, and it would be a bloodbath, that’s why.
Alphie: The U.S. military should be letting the Iraqis handle…everything
In an ideal world, yes. It’s not an ideal world.
This isn’t me opening a door for you to respond “well who got us into this mess in the first place?” Whatever your opinion about the rights or wrongs of invading in the first place, that’s the situation now. Either stay and contain the killing, or leave, and let the slaughter commence in earnest.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
People with sociopathic personality disorders have an astonishingly uncanny ability to push other people’s buttons. Alphie’s aim is to state a contrary opinion to every post, in order to be irritating. The subject doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t even matter to him if he sounds stupid (which he does). He can’t help himself. He’s feeding some deep-seated psychological need that normal people can’t even imagine.
And if he’s a collection of jihadi wannabes, the analysis still holds.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Daddy Dave,
Our troops are leaving Iraq soon, accept it.
What better plan could there be than to have all U.S. troops withdraw to their bases, let this imaginary carnage unfold now, while our troops are still in Iraq, then lash out at the bad guys?
June 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
“Our troops are leaving Iraq soon, accept it.”
As I pointed out in another post, nothing you’ve ever predicted comes true. A casual observer can see that any connections you make are moronic. You serve as a marvelous barometer for what won’t occur.
“What better plan could there be than to have all U.S. troops withdraw to their bases, let this imaginary carnage unfold now, while our troops are still in Iraq, then lash out at the bad guys?”
Just amazing.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I do okay in the prediction department, oldman.
For example, I wrote on my blog three months ago that arming and training the tribes of al-Anbar would turn out to be a bad idea.
Here we are three months later and many military “experts” are now agreeing with me.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
The State Department has an e-journal This month the topic is “Countering The Terrorist Mentality.”
David Kilcullen has an article in the ejournal
“New Paradigms for 21st Century Conflict”
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0507/ijpe/kilcullen.htm
The table of contents is at the right margin (including a short history of Terrorism by Walter Laqueur) and at the bottom of the table of contents is a link for a 4 MB download of the entire 56 page journal in .pdf.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0507/ijpe/ijpe0507.pdf
June 28th, 2007 at 1:34 am
“For example, I wrote on my blog three months ago that arming and training the tribes of al-Anbar would turn out to be a bad idea.
Here we are three months later and many military “experts” are now agreeing with me..”
Baloney. The advances in security in the Anbar province are unassailable. For another, arming and training the tribes there was trivial. They were well armed beforehand and operated in tribal units then and now. The successes there have to do with convincing those tribes to confront AlQ with the promise - kept and delivered on - of support.
For every military ‘expert’ that you find who agrees with you I can find 10 that say your head is up where the sun don’t shine.