You sound like the village idiot trying to use the big words and ideas he reads in a book. Before one assumes the responsibility of an occupying power, one has to have acheived the authority of an occupying power, which means having achieved the defeat and surrender of the enemy forces. Until the insurgents have been supressed we are merely a combatant in country and not an occupier.
You occupy when you have boots on teh ground not when a formal surrender takes place - what bull on your part. What we waited until Germanyt folded to apply law and order? Until then Germans werelooting left and right?
" Until the insurgents have been supressed we are merely a combatant in country and not an occupier."
What rubbish. Why do so many on this forum have such a problem with distinguishing between a conventional war against a nation state, and a guerilla war. When we launched the invasion against Iraq we were in a conventional war against a soverign government. Saddam's regime was crushed. His army and its command structure is disbanded. The US sponsored administration now owns the instruments of state. Conventional war over. We are now in a guerilla war against a rag bag of many disparate groups, some better organised than others. Broadly they are in three groups; Digruntled Ba'athists (remenants of the old state who cannot stand what they have lost), some islamofascists (bring it on, better they fight there than over here) and some old fashioned good for nothing opportunistic bandits. Maintaining law and order is key to winning a guerilla war. Without law and order there will be no respect for the new instruments of state (Iraqi police, army, courts etc). Clearly, defeating the insurgents is number one priority. However, without helping the new Iraqi administration get the rest of civil society in order on the 'normal law and order' side, the insurgents will thrive and recruit. Loose sight of that, you loose the war.
Historically soldiers and always understood that you have to fight in both types of war, and you fight in two different ways. From before the Romans to Vietnam. I think in the 70s and 80s so much focus was on a military preparing for the big war against the USSR that the thinking about how you fight guerilla wars was put down the list. I imagine it has gone right back up the list now!
We (the UK) had this dillema for many, many years in Northern Ireland. There are no quick solutions.
" Until the insurgents have been supressed we are merely a combatant in country and not an occupier."
What rubbish. Why do so many on this forum have such a problem with distinguishing between a conventional war against a nation state, and a guerilla war. When we launched the invasion against Iraq we were in a conventional war against a soverign government. Saddam's regime was crushed. His army and its command structure is disbanded. The US sponsored administration now owns the instruments of state. Conventional war over. We are now in a guerilla war against a rag bag of many disparate groups, some better organised than others. Broadly they are in three groups; Digruntled Ba'athists (remenants of the old state who cannot stand what they have lost), some islamofascists (bring it on, better they fight there than over here) and some old fashioned good for nothing opportunistic bandits. Maintaining law and order is key to winning a guerilla war. Without law and order there will be no respect for the new instruments of state (Iraqi police, army, courts etc). Clearly, defeating the insurgents is number one priority. However, without helping the new Iraqi administration get the rest of civil society in order on the 'normal law and order' side, the insurgents will thrive and recruit. Loose sight of that, you loose the war.
Historically soldiers and always understood that you have to fight in both types of war, and you fight in two different ways. From before the Romans to Vietnam. I think in the 70s and 80s so much focus was on a military preparing for the big war against the USSR that the thinking about how you fight guerilla wars was put down the list. I imagine it has gone right back up the list now!
We (the UK) had this dillema for many, many years in Northern Ireland. There are no quick solutions.
Mission NOT Accomplished? C'mon...we won 18 months ago. Perhaps the insurgency could have been nipped in the bud if, in the glow of victory, lawlessness was not allowed to make the US soldiers on the ground look weak and indecisive. Where are we now compared to 18 months ago? Are we any happier in Iraq? The right way to use American power is not to let it fly out of your hands like soap in the bath.