A New Doctrine To Handle Iraqi Insurgency?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, WarWell, we need to be doing something new, and this strategy seems less “shock and awe” and more “hearts and minds.”
The doctrine warns against some of the practices used early in the war, when the military operated without an effective counterinsurgency playbook. It cautions against overly aggressive raids and mistreatment of detainees. Instead it emphasizes the importance of safeguarding civilians and restoring essential services, and the rapid development of local security forces.
However, the success of these ideas seems to go back to what I’ve been saying time and time again: more troops.
The current military leadership in Iraq has already embraced many of the ideas in the doctrine. But some military experts question whether the Army and the Marines have sufficient troops to carry out the doctrine effectively while also preparing for other threats. [...]“The Army will use this manual to change its entire culture as it transitions to irregular warfare,� said Jack Keane, a retired four-star general who served in 2003 as the acting chief of staff of the Army. “But the Army does not have nearly enough resources, particularly in terms of people, to meet its global responsibilities while making such a significant commitment to irregular warfare.�
Still, just hearing that this could be implemented is encouraging. This is a war of ideas and the only way we’re going to win it is by convincing people that we’re better than them.
Key quote:
“The more force used, the less effective it is,�
We can no longer do “boot on neck” democracy. A different reality is upon us and being quick to respond is essential.
Let’s hope we have the time, patience and resources to get it done.
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 5th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 5th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Mr. Gardner,
Thank you for your encouraging words. I have been listening to many different media outlets talking about the war in Iraq. Apparently, besides the elite Saddam supporters, people in general are some-what happy without him in power.
However, I am having a hard time getting to the reasons why there is civilian strife between the different ethnic/religious groups. What are their wants/demands? Now that the Iraqis do not have a common villian, what are they fighting about?
It would be highly appreciated if someone was to shed more light on this subject matter instead of the political fall-outs in the US caused by this war. I believe that once we get to know the causes/concerns of the people in strife (knowing the problem), we may be able to find common grounds (solving the problem).
Thank you for your time and I hope you can offer some insight.
Sincerely,
Waqas
October 5th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
These tensions existed way before Saddam and way, way before us. Religious is cited as a reason. Money/Oil is another. The answer is all of these things are part of why Iraq is so dysfunctional.