NYP: GETTING COUNTERINSURGENCY RIGHT

New York Post ^ | December 20, 2006 | Ralph Peters

[OESY]

If a prize were awarded for the most-improved government publication of the decade, we could choose the winner now: "Army Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency" (MCWP 3-33.5 for the Marine Corps). Rising above abysmal earlier drafts, the Army and Marines have come through with doctrine that will truly help our troops....

A huge gap remaining in the doctrine is that, except for a few careful mentions, it ignores the role of the media. Generals have told me frankly that it was just too loaded an issue - any suggestion that the media are complicit in shaping outcomes excites punitive media outrage.

To be fair, the generals are right. Had the manual described the media's irresponsible, partisan and too-often-destructive roles, it would have ignited a firestorm. Yet, in an age when media lies and partisan spin can overturn the verdict of the battlefield, embolden our enemies and decide the outcome of an entire war, pretending the media aren't active participants in a conflict cripples any efforts that we make.

The media are now combatants - even if we're not allowed to shoot back. Our enemies are explicit in describing the importance of winning through the media. Without factoring in media effects, any counterinsurgency plan will go forward at a limp.

Finally, the new manual fails to ask a question that no one in our military or government has yet had the common sense to ask about insurgencies: What if they just don't want what we want? That, indeed, has become the crucial question in Iraq.

Despite these criticisms, our latest cut at shaping a counterinsurgency doctrine looks like a noteworthy success. It's overwhelmingly honest, honorable and useful.

Now we need to put that doctrine to use.

[RedRover]

The media are now combatants - even if we're not allowed to shoot back.

Bump and ping.

[wastedyears]

I know an easy counter-insurgency doctrine: M203 grenade launcher.

[68skylark]

In a counter-insurgency, it's difficult to kill your way to victory with a lot of indiscriminate violence.

Our best counter-insurgency troops have always been Army Special Forces, and one of their bedrock principles is to "engage the threat discriminately."

I think that's something that the rest of the Army and USMC are trying to learn.

[68skylark]

Anyone who is interested in this topic should click the link and read the whole article.

Peters has a lot to say -- mostly red-meat stuff about the need for more violence, which most freepers will surely enjoy (although personally I'm not convinced Peters is right about that).

I like his take on the media (excerpted above) -- I agree with him completely on that part.

I have a copy of this manual but haven't read it yet -- I'd love to hear from others who have had a chance to look it over.

[Mojave Mark]

We need to disallow reporters on the battlefield. They are the enemy now and we need to recognize that.

[68skylark]

People can always write about what they see -- I don't think we can stop that, nor do we want to stop that.

[Alberta's Child]

I would make the case that counter-insurgency is damn near impossible if the "insurgency" in question is organized and perpetrated by people who have lived in the place for years, and the "counter" part of the operation is being carried out by a foreign military force.

This may sound harsh, but I have a hard time understanding how a guy living in Iraq his entire life who sets up IEDs in Fallujah or Baghdad to attack American and British troops is an "insurgent" in any sense of the word.

[68skylark]

I would make the case that counter-insurgency is damn near impossible if the "insurgency" in question is organized and perpetrated by people who have lived in the place for years, and the "counter" part of the operation is being carried out by a foreign military force.

You make good points. If I understand correctly, the best counter-insurgencies always involve getting local allies to join us in the battle. The classic mission of Army Special Forces is to link up with local fighters to defeat the bad guys -- connecting their local knowledge with our expertise, money and weapons.

[freema]

THIS article is

[VOA]

bump

[RedRover]

Love it!

[Marine_Uncle]

Nice shooting mom.
Peters as usual is not afraid to call a spade a spade concerning his less then honorable associates.
Things really have not change that much on this issue. One can read books on how say the Marines and Army conducted the bananna wars, the manhandling in the Philipines etc..
Call them small wars, insurgencies, whatever.
The scenarios really do not deviate that much. One can be fighting a really crazed Communist group in Central America that beheads people, puts fear in the populations hearts, and in every other way would display to the tee what one sees happening in the muslim world.
Probably much of what these new manuals contain is a rehash of what had been written on many years ago. But I just have a hunch I am not far off the mark. It will be interesting to eventually obtain a copy of the new manual.

[Just A Nobody]

I have a hard time understanding how a guy living in Iraq his entire life who sets up IEDs in Fallujah or Baghdad to attack American and British troops is an "insurgent" in any sense of the word.

Well, let's start with a definition of the word since you clearly have no idea what it means.

Quick definitions (insurgent)
noun: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)

noun: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment

adjective: in opposition to a civil authority or government

Please keep in mind that Coalition forces remain in Iraq at the behest of the duly elected, constitutional Iraqi government. With that matter cleared up, let's discuss your other premise.

a guy living in Iraq his entire life

What makes you think that only life long residents of Iraq are the ones, or the only ones, setting IEDs etc?

For instance, there is this story from last March.

BAGHDAD: Iraqi tribesmen have captured 1,700 alleged terrorists of different Arab nationalities in recent days as part of a drive to hunt down gunmen in Ramadi area.....1,700 terrorists of Syrian, Jordanian, Yemeni and Algerian nationalities.

Or this one:
BAGHDAD, Aug 21 (KUNA) -- Up to 281 people have been arrested around Iraq for being implicated in terror-related attacks, said spokesman for the Iraqi government ..... he said that among those arrested were 80 Egyptians, 64 Syrians, 41 Sudanese, 22 Saudis, 17 Jordanians, 10 Palestinians, seven Libyans, six Tunisians, as well as 12 Iranians, four Turks and one British national.

Assuming the balance were Iraqis, that would mean that 17 out of 281 were actually Iraqi insurgents. The other 264 were terrorists. Not that the enemedia ever make the distinction.

IF there were 260,000 Iraqi "insurgents" and NO foreign terrorists, that would still only represent one percent (1%) of the total population of Iraq.

Do you advocate leaving nearly 26 million people to their fate at the hands of 260,000 barbarians? That is how Iraq was ruled under the last tyrant.

[freema]

LOL! Where do you think my lil' boy got it from, his Pop? LOL! (Qualified Expert twice. Mama can get a bullseye without the glasses. Probably dumb luck on my part, but I'm not tellin').

I just saw somebody on one of these threads who already has a copy of the manual. Do you think I can remember who? Nope.

[freema]

Duh. Right here, Post #5

[freema]

; )

[freema]

Dumb luck my heinie. What WAS I thinking. It must be a gift.
; )

[freema]

Yo, darlin'. I told smooth you was out bustin caps and he said to give youse a hug.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{JUSTA)))))))))))))))))))))))

[Just A Nobody]

Ahhhhhh gee, thanks ma!!! And back at ya! I'm sure you could use many of them by now.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{FREEMA}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}