Posted on 03/15/2007 4:44:15 AM PDT by IrishMike
The verdict on four years of fighting in Iraq hinges on the events of the next few months.
With the U.S. public and many politicians intensely skeptical that a changed military strategy can salvage the war, the U.S.’s new commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, must win them all over — and fast.
Petraeus takes over on the heels of the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the departures from Iraq of Gens. John Abizaid and George Casey, and the electoral gains of anti-war Democrats.
Despite the gloom and doom, he has arrived in Iraq with a surge of more than 20,000 American combat troops, and new theories on how to conduct counterinsurgency — involving ridding terrorists from neighborhoods, and replacing them with Iraqi and American troops to ensure public safety and the restoration of basic services.
Somehow Petraeus has to quell Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence without impinging on the autonomy of the Iraqi government. That means not just winning hearts and minds, but also disarming militias, stopping the policy of arresting and then releasing terrorists, widening the rules of engagement, and preventing jihadists from infiltrating Iraq from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria — and all the while giving the credit to the Iraqi military.
But has a single commander ever made much of a difference in almost instantly turning around an entire theater?
In fact, yes.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
The solution is untieing the hands held behind our back.
Fight, not negotiate.
"NUT's" ...
Ring a bell ?
Patton?
Ping for VDH
There's so many historical examples I don't know where to start.
Not sure, WWII definately, GI's surrounded during the battle of the bulge ?
Asked to surrender by the krauts, the commanding officer responded ..... NUT's.
Eisenhower replaced Fredenhall in North Africa with Patton. Patton got that army in shape before being removed to plan the Sicily invasion. I believe the one who actually led the US N.Africa force against Rommel was NOT Patton, but was Clark who took over when Patton was pulled to prepare for Sicily.
IIRC, that was General McAuliffe of the 101st at Bastogne, when asked to surrender by the attacking German commander.
This may come as a shock to many people, but we were not conducting real counterinsurgency strategies prior to the arrival of General Petraeus. Not in any meaningful sense, and often in halfhearted, counterproductive ways. The lips of the local commanders said "counterinsurgency is the way to go", but their actions still said "find, fix, finish".
Despite the public rhetoric, a lot of behind-the-scenes blame was left at the feet of military intelligence. The mentality of "If you could just find the enemy, we could kill him" was what most commanders operated under. Which is perfectly true in conventional warfare, but not at all the case when it goes unconventional. The HUMINT collection in particular has been completely hamstrung due to obsessive force protection measures, which in turn provides fewer leads for SIGINT and IMINT.
So, hopefully Petraeus is the man who will get into the communities, get the power and water flowing, make people feel safe, and actually hit the insurgents where they live. In public opinion. We don't need a loose, kill-em-all ROE. We also don't need pointless presence patrols and counterproductive mass raids and detentions. We do need to conduct a classical counterinsurgency effort against the Sunnis. Iran does it to great effect with the Shia now. We need patronage established with the Sunni shaykhs for reconstruction, not giant contracting corporations. We need to put people to work, and to build up their army far larger than it is now. A large Iraqi army and an employed population, even doing make-work reconstruction efforts, will do more to create stability than another 10 American divisions. It will make many of those communities give up on al-Qa'ida, which is the only real path to victory.
So far, Petraeus is on the right track. Let's hope he can change the U.S. Army enough to make it effective against this new enemy.
Korea, too, was once thought all but lost. In late November 1950, hundreds of thousands of Red Chinese overwhelmed United Nations troops and nearly drove them off the peninsula. A tired Gen. Douglas MacArthur was stunned, frustrated and, in a few months, relieved of his command.Huh? MacArthur was relieved largely because he wanted to fight China a lot more aggressively than Truman wished.Unfazed, his replacement, Gen. Matthew Ridgeway, restored an offensive spirit, found weaknesses in enemy tactics, and pushed the Chinese and Korean communists back north of the 38th parallel. That turnaround gave newly elected President Dwight Eisenhower leverage, which eventually he used to conclude a peace that recognized an autonomous South Korea.
-Eric
If we end this insurgency, it will be because of Patraeus's leadership and skill.
"We're airborne, we're supposed to be surrounded."
And God Bless them all!
No News Is Good
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=258764538656358
Active-duty troops petition to end withdrawal plans
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800962/posts
Amen...
I think it was actually Bradley who led American forces in North Africa. Clark was already slated for Italy...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.