The "Big Ideas" of Gen. Petraeus (Diana West zings Petraeus of Arabia)

The Death of the Grown-Up ^ | Monday, May 10, 2010 | Diana West

[Mister Ghost]

He did discuss COIN principles, which begin with "securing and serving the people." Not the American people, mind you; but local populations within and of the Islamic world. It is the disastrous vacuousness of COIN doctrine that it ignores the existence of Islamic culture, Islamic law, as I've written many, many times, but it is the disastrous vacuousness of COIN doctrine that now, by the general's telling, influences all US military thinking. Worse than thinking, however, is how COIN doctrine manifests itself in unconscionable rules of engagement predicated on "courageous restraint" as a means, COIN theory goes, to make them like us. Petraeus didn't talk about any of that, though.

Of course, the addled, PC attempt to make "them" like us -- which inspires these disagraceful ROEs -- is the other fatal flaw in COIN doctrine. In a COIN world, American military success rests on actions beyond American military control: namely, on a chain of hoped-for reactions to American actions by that all-important local "population." (This is why the surge failed in Iraq. US forces were successful in restoring security -- Part 1 of the surge strategy -- but the Iraqis failed, in Part 2, to react as the see-no-Islam strategy promised, with national reconciliation, becoming an ally in war on terror, etc.) COINdinistas, as Petraeis called them, see the world as a series of societies peopled by Gumbys who will bend to COIN will according to bulleted, flow-charted COIN plan.

[hinckley buzzard]

"This is why the surge failed in Iraq."

First I've heard of it.

[marron]

"This is why the surge failed in Iraq..." First I've heard of it.

Really. Me too.

[Sherman Logan]

I do not think your argument is historically accurate. When the Arabs/Muslims first conquered the more advanced societies of portions of the Roman Empire and all of the Persian Empire, they set themselves up as a ruling class living in garrison cities off the taxation paid by non-Muslims.

This required a large and productive class of non-Muslims, for which massacres would have been counter-productive. The first and probably second generation were completely incapable of maintaining an advanced civilization, yet such was maintained, indicating most of the population was not only not killed, but also were not severely demoralized by massive atrocities.

There is excellent evidence that the subject peoples of the former Roman provinces of Syria, Egypt and North Africa saw the Muslims as the lesser of two evils as compared to their previous rulers, which of course would not have been the case had they been killing everybody. While we have less evidence, it is likely a similar situation obtained in the former Persian Empire.

The first century after Mohammed's death largely consists of the reaction to the financial crisis produced when the subjects began converting to Islam in large numbers in order to avoid taxation.