Insurgents target Strykers in Iraq

[M1A1TC]

Insurgents target Strykers in Iraq

Here is the article

News

[Apocalypse 31]

Here's a better headline

'Insurgents Target Everything In Iraq'

[Battlefront.com]

To paraphrase Terminator...

"That's what an Insurgent does, that's all he ever does. And he will not stop until you are dead!"

They'll attack anything from an Abrams to a bunch of school kids in a playground. Whatever they think they can do to further their "cause" (which seems to be killing for the sake of killing) they will do it.

We actually discussed this article already in the "Too Many Strykers" thread. I doubt there would have been much differences if those vehicles had been Bradleys or Abrams. Certainly not if they were Humvees. That was a well planned ambush and it could have trapped anything that came into it.

The problem with Insurgents is that the rules of Darwin apply. The general rule is the weak and the clumsy die, the smart and capable ones survive to get smarter and more capable. Military force can do an endrun around this equation for individuals, but not for the entire movement. That's why any COIN policy that relies completely on a military solution will ultimately fail. Fortunately, it appears some people at the top are finally getting a clue about that.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Here at work we have done psychological profiles of the insurgancy

One of the problems is that America and its soldiers continue to cast the insurgancy in the light of a criminal enterprise and terrorism.

The average insurgent in normal life would probably not be a criminal nor a terroist.

Most of them have the profile of ultra nationalists (in this case replace nationalist with ethnic) akin to revoloutionaries.

These people are not fighting to kill just for the sake of killing.

They are fighting because they believe they are in a civil war and want whatever religious and ethnic faction they come from to come out on top.

Sun Tzu said you have to know your enemy, but the army and its leadership does not know their enemy from a hole in the ground.

Until that happens, the conflict is a lost cause Hell it maybe already is, anyone with who is not beholden to political interests already has declared it a open civil war.

But the idea is so alien to Americans.

Despite your massice ethnic and religious divides, your nationalist interests are above all else.

Despite all the racial and some religious strife, you still think of yourselves as Americans.

But imagine a America where a foriegn power disposed of your goverment and only had limited control of a few major cities.

Now imagine that instead of rising up as one people against the foreign power that the conflict broke down into a mixture of petty power struggles.

Blacks formed their own army and want power for themselves

Catholics took to the streets against protestents

Hispanics formed an army while asians formed another

Then they proceded to wage war against the foreign power and agaisnt people who are trying to keep their heads down.

Once that foreign power is weak enough, they will begin a bloody war against one another.

The foreign power will pack up and leave and then you will see the last few climatic months of a bloodbath as one by one the groups collaspe and eventualy one has the power and has inflicted a big enough bodycount to hold together some sort of peace.

Maybe it has a powerful figurehead that rises to the top (like Saddam) or every few years a new war breaks out and its a endless cycle of poverty war and death.

Iraq is headed in that direction and im afraid all America can do is slap a bandaid on a shotgun wound.

[Battlefront.com]

I think that many in America "get it". The problem is very few of them are in positions of responsibility for how the war is fought. If you remember, initially the Administration said all attacks were being carried out by "regime loyalists". People who know more about the ME argued, from the beginning, that this was not true. I remember watching the press conferences and shaking my head and hoping the disinformation was not believed by the Administration. But 4 years later it is very clear they did believe their own bad info.

What Americans "don't get" is how lobbing mortar rounds into a girl's school playground can be anything but murder. Yet to the people that did the mortaring, they were carrying out "God's Will" (probably against Western influenced notions of educating women).

Anyway, the point LT Mike makes is a good one. No matter who you are in Iraq, no matter what you drive or don't drive, what form or religion you do or do not believe in, how much money you have or don't have, what your tribal origns are or aren't... there is SOME group looking for a chance to kill you. What a happy place to be.

Steve

[Apocalypse 31]

Good book to read on this topic is 'The Closed Circle'

Explains alot and breaks it down nicely..I had no idea what the breakdown was only a few weeks ago, but even after only a few chapters of reading this book it brought things together for me.

The basic thing you need to understand about the insurgency is that there are no rules.

It is a FIGHT for power in a situation where there is no true leader to unite anyone.

This also leads to the main problem Iraq faces; it is a front for multiple groups within the middle east (Shia, Sunni, Kurd, etc)

I'm not going to get into it..I'm not a politician, just a fighter.

However, remember this.

Gang->Village->Tribe->Sect->Religion

Right now Iraq is at war on EACH of these levels.

[rudel.dietrich]

Lobbing a mortar into a crowd of schoolgirls is most definitly murder

But no civil war was ever won without some blood spilt.

America needs to put away its moral qualms, pick a group and do everything in its power to help that group ruthlessly crush its enemies.

Fighting a Vietnam type war (which this war is eeriely close to being, a report landed on my desk the other day claiming some units were relying on body counts to measure success...sound familiar?)

In which America tries to fight everyone and fight brush fires is never going to win.

They need to stand on the outside and use some local firefighters to douse the entire country.

Its not right, its not moral, but its how it has to be.

The group they back is going to kill schoolgirls, by the dozens.

But its either a few girls now or tens of thousands down the road for decades to come.

Either being raped and slauthered in civil war or dying of famine and poverty and disease.

Democracy is not going to work. Its not meant to work in a place like Iraq.

At least not yet.

But neither will letting the chips fall where they may.

Pick a horse and ride it all the way to the finish, however violent and bloody and immoral it might be.

In the long run the nation will be better off for it.

[Londoner]

Solutions gentlemen? However attractive "getting out of dodge" maybe, I don't feel particularly comfortable about washing our hands of it and letting the country fall from semi to complete anarchy.

[Peter Cairns]

This isn't anything new really, I am just old enough to remember politicains in the US still believing that there was a monolithic communist threat even though by 1969 the russians and chinese were lobbing shells at each other over the line of the border in Manchuria.

I must have been only eight or so at the time, but my late father who had been a conscript in the Paras and who had been a child in the war let me read his encyclopedias of WW2 from the time I went to school and let us watch reports from Vietnam on the News.

He reckoned it was important that we learned early what real war was like. I suppose I owe him a lot for that including my interest in politics and wargames.

I've often felt that in the USin order to motivate the population to get involved in non domestic issues politicians both simplify and exaggerate, so that a situation like Iraq is put in to nice simple boxes and the complexity on the ground glossed over.

So Saddam is seen as a "Nutter" who could strike at any moment and who has oppressed his people and all the domestic tribal, political and religious divisions that lie underneath aren't given enough importance.

You'd have thought having watched the Soviet Unions collapse and the ethnic conflicts that emerged, and the chaos that erupted after Tito's death when Yugoslavia fell apart they would have thought about it at least.

I sometimes get worried that the more the PR people have takenover politics the more we get leaders who don't just connect with middle income swing voters, but who actually ythink like them too.

I look at the way Bush and Blair have acted since 9/11 is as if they were shocked and paniced. thats fine for the public but you like to think our leaders would show retraint and calm, as opposed to panicing with the masses.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Rudel,

Lobbing a mortar into a crowd of schoolgirls is most definitly murder

Unfortunately, I think the creatures that fired those mortars would disagree with you strongly on this point. There are far too many groups in Iraq that think Allah has given them a complete free hand to decide who is worthy of living. To them they were doing God's will by purging the pure of the impure. The methodology is not an issue since it is, afterall, God's will. And I say "creature" because a Human Being that has lost his ability to be rational and values life as he would a small insect ceases to be Human. But that is just my opinion

But no civil war was ever won without some blood spilt.

America needs to put away its moral qualms, pick a group and do everything in its power to help that group ruthlessly crush its enemies.

One would argue it started to do this and then that group broke up into its own infighting. The only clear group to pick is the Kurds, and they aren't strong enough or even interested in subduing the rest of Iraq.

Democracy is not going to work. Its not meant to work in a place like Iraq.

That's the key problem. The people that got us into this mess still don't understand that. And the population would never have supported a war to replace one dictatorship with another. We're supposedly done with doing that.

Londoner,

Solutions gentlemen?

The only possible one... get out of the way and let them sort it out. All we are doing is delaying their self chosen destiny. Withdraw back into the Kurdish north, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Pick one Sunni and one Shia group each, keep diplomatic ties with them, and then do our best to incentivize (i.e. bribe) Syria and Iran to recognize the same two groups and collectively pressure them to at least moderate the blood bath.

Overly simplistic? Probably. But I bet it has a better chance of working than what is going on now, especially since it can't continue for much longer. At the very least we won't be the primary target of their attacks and will be able to rebuild our forces for the larger security issues that are coming down the pike.

Steve

[Leeo]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The only possible one... get out of the way and let them sort it out. All we are doing is delaying their self chosen destiny. Withdraw back into the Kurdish north, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Pick one Sunni and one Shia group each, keep diplomatic ties with them, and then do our best to incentivize (i.e. bribe) Syria and Iran to recognize the same two groups and collectively pressure them to at least moderate the blood bath.

Overly simplistic? Probably. But I bet it has a better chance of working than what is going on now, especially since it can't continue for much longer. At the very least we won't be the primary target of their attacks and will be able to rebuild our forces for the larger security issues that are coming down the pike.

Steve

Steve for President!

Not going to happen, but we need a bit of realpolitik in positions of power. Please tell me there are at least some of the folks vying for power in the US that understand this.

I'm very much pro-troops; However, I'd like to see more government servants who pay that idea more than mere lip-service.

I really don't intend that to be a political statement (though of course it is); more just a desire on my part for our people in power to find a way out of a "forever war."

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The only possible one... get out of the way and let them sort it out.

It may have to come to this. Indeed, in all probability it will come to this, as the situation is getting worse each day whilst at the same time support for the war is falling each day.

However, no-one should be fooled into thinking that this will be the end of the problem. As soon as there are no western forces left in Iraq, the terrorists will come looking for western targets elsewhere. Iraq will become the new Afghanistan, a failed state that is a breeding ground for anti-western terrorists. With the help of neighbouring Syria and Iran, such groups could plan atrosities that would dwarf 9/11. Walking away might actually prove to be just as painful as staying, even if it is inevitable.

[Moronic Max]

I have a hard time imagining Syria or Iran aiding and abetting atrocities 'dwarfing' 9/11; they're not suicidal, political rhetoric aside.

After all, if they were, they'd have provoked Israel into using its nukes already.

[Battlefront.com]

I might as well run for President... everybody else is

Cpl Steiner,

However, no-one should be fooled into thinking that this will be the end of the problem.

Nope, it surely will not end with pulling out. However, staying there won't make the problem end either. It's a screw job either way. But I would rather we choose what happens than the enemy. The Jihadists want us there, so I'd be more than happy to disappoint them.

For those who think things would be rosey if we hadn't gone into Iraq, well... their living in as much of a dream world as the neo-cons. If we had not gone into Iraq the confrontation with militant Islam would simply happened in some other guise in some other time in the very near future. Like Saudi Arabia. And tht conflict might have had WORSE impllications for national security than Iraq. Or not, who really can say?

As the pragmatic, realpolitk guy that I am... get out, get rid of all the morons in charge, regroup, rebuild, retrain, rethink national defense policy, and get proactive before the next one flares up. That means learning from our mistakes and hope that we have better quality leadership in place when the next round of the fight comes up.

Good thing I am a tiny bit of an idealist or I wouldn't think even this plan would work Unfortunately, I am too much of a realist to have any faith that our political leadership will get it right. They're too busy arguing about what to argue about to do anything useful.

Steve

[Sixxkiller]

Steve,

Thats a good idea, but if we hadnt gone we wouldnt know what mistakes to make again later.

But one thing that is perfectly clear from the experience is that if we say invaded France, we wouldnt have all of the same complexities as we have in the ME. I mean someone from say Lyon may not like a Parisian, but I have a had time believing he would send his kid strapped with a bomb to go blow the guy up.

But the ME people hate almost just because its something to do. The tribe conflicts in Afghanistan in particular is staggering in why they want to war with eachother. Hell most of them cant even give a difinitive answer as to why. You are most likely just to hear, "Thats the way its always been" as opposed to "I hate them because they are swine or something like that." Its almost just a matter of fact to not even think as to why they hate eachother...

The worst thing is they throw us in there w/o more than a rudimentary understanding of thier culture let alone trying to fathom the differences of people from village to village. And lets face it, most Americans are not the most worldly as far as differing cultures go as we as a people think we are the superpower.

Now take the bigwigs who are calling the shots that are isolated by 7,000 miles, so this magnifies the problem.

But even with all this as soon as we leave they will go right back to before we got there. But maybe the plan was to go in and do all these good things, pitty it didnt work out that way.

[Tarquelne]

Thats a good idea, but if we hadnt gone we wouldnt know what mistakes to make again later.

To avoid later?

I wish I were as confident about that. Too many of the mistakes were things "we" already knew about.

History - and experience - may be great teachers. But even the greatest teachers cannot teach a student who refuses to learn.

Now take the bigwigs who are calling the shots that are isolated by 7,000 miles, so this magnifies the problem.

Isolated by distance, by wishful thinking, stubbornness. It may be the root of the problem.

And not just with the bigwigs, too.

[Rat]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

So true. And pulling out might not be the solution, it however might prevent a further escalation pulling Iran into the conflict of which the consequences will be devastating I'm afraid. An escalation polluting the entire middle-east even further including the Asian region (Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan etc etc ...) and resulting in a genuine global conflict with extended force...

It is not just stuborness, but as well a too high fixated level of pride not willing to give up and admit faillure mixed with uther ignorance and stupidity of the highest level. And the ones who are victimized by all this are in first place those defendinding their country colors (God Bless), local population (Bless them too) and in case of further escalation (in that case...God bless us all )...

[Bigduke6]

Knowledge is a weapon. The US government has done a bang-up job equipping its soldiers with things that shoot and armor and communications and MREs and e-mail and bases with air conditioning and so forth. I think it is not a coincidence that every one of these items was purchased with taxpayer money, and quite likely obtained votes for elected officials currently in office.

As Sixkiller points out, the US government has done a much worse job giving its soldiers knowledge about the enemy, and the realities of what is and is not possible in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In my personal opinion, this happened because the decision-makers were ignorant to start out with, and then willfully deluded themselves. Also, defense contracts translate to votes, while foreign studies and language classes certainly do not. Finally, most US citizens are ignorant about things beyond the borders of the US, usually because of laziness. It is hard to get mad at the government for failing to provide information, when you yourself have little idea the information exists, or how it might be useful.

I take the following as truths that must drive any discussion on what the US should do now:

1. The US public is unwilling to sacrifice in any meaningful way for any objective in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Further, the US public will punish any US government that demands sacrifice. Clearly, the death of a few thousand volunteer servicemen can be shoved down the US public's throat. If spread over time, the great majority of voters could really care less if some volunteers get themselves killed someplace foreign.

But the US civilian standard of living cannot be threatened. The moment that it is, the government responsible will get tossed out on its ear. The two main tools to a true US war effort - a draft and mobilization to a war economy - would of course gut the US standard of living.

Heck, even if too many of the soldiers whose lives the public really doesn't care much about, get killed in one week or month, the public will get mad about that. The public's understanding of a proper standard of living includes the idea, that the US is a international good guy, its wars are for good reasons, and its soldiers are winners. If a politician's actions tamper with any aspect of that belief, to include creating evidence to the contrary, the public will punt him.

2. The US government, because of the US public's unwillingness to sacrifice, is unable to field enough force to pacify either Iraq or Afghanistan, never mind both.

True, were the US public willing to sacrifice its belief its country's foreign policy is driven by morals not national self interest, pacification might just be possible. If you are willing to kill enough people, theoretically, pacification is easy.

However, see point one.

3. Afghanistan and Iraq are ungovernable.

Both countries are split along pretty much every fracture you can name: clan, sect, ethnicity, region, and social class. Perhaps worse, both countries are deeply corrupt, meaning most public officials could give a hoot about any national goal, they just will exploit their jobs to put more money in their pockets. Neither society has any tradition of keeping public officials honest.

4. The US lacks the resources, due to lack of US public will, and several millenia of Middle Eastern history, to change the nature of the Iraqi and Afghan societies.

5. The standard arguement for the retention of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, that if they leave then there will be chaos, is silly. There already is chaos.

Further, with the possible exception of the twenty years or so Saddam ruled Iraq, and if you scratch the surface not even then, those places have always been in something very similar to chaos. We're talking pretty much since the beginning of recorded hisory, in the case of Afghanistan.

If that sounds pessimistic, that good, it's supposed to.

I recommend immediate removal all troops, full stop, no ifs ands or buts. Anything else is a waste.

The money saved should go to mandantory, and more and better lessons on foreign cultures and languages, in US high schools.

[MikeyD]

"But no civil war was ever won without some blood spilt.

America needs to put away its moral qualms, pick a group and do everything in its power to help that group ruthlessly crush its enemies."

I'm reminded of an old political cartoon from the Spanish-American war about 110 years ago. A giant Uncle Sam is picking up U.S. soldiers and flinging then at a grinning stereotype Phillipino 'native' head sticking out of a big bullseye. The caption read "Is the game worth the penny?" Is there a consensus in this country that this present game is worth America putting aside its moral values?

[ March 23, 2007, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Leeo]

It is not just stuborness, but as well a too high fixated level of pride not willing to give up and admit faillure mixed with uther ignorance and stupidity of the highest level.

"Pull out? Doesn't sound manly to me."

---"General" George Carlin

[Battlefront.com]

Tarquelene,

I wish I were as confident about that. Too many of the mistakes were things "we" already knew about.

Sadly true. Heck, even I knew that we were making a big mistake. Yet so many people that tried to raise warnings were either sidelined (Powell, Zinni, Shinseki, etc), smeared, or called traitors (or all three, as was often the case with people like me). Some people just don't like being challenged, even when our national interests and lives hang in the balance.

Now these same people are trying to claim that the critics are Monday Morning Quarterbacking (i.e. using hindsight). That's BS. Even on Battlefront's own Forums you can see posts by myself, and others, prior to the invasion expressing great reservations about the difficulties and possible negative ramifications. And we're just a bunch of idiots, so imagine what smart people said at the time Fortunately for the world, the Internet can not be purged of the truth:

Zinni a full half year BEFORE the invasion

Zinni speaking some 3 years ago about the screwups that continue to this day

And this is from just one person that should have been listened to. There is no excuse for this other than pure incompetency.

Steve

[civdiv]

Put this guy in charge;

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49341

[civdiv]

Afghanistan is still savable, Iraq may not be. Give the latter 6 more months and if things haven't improved significantly, get the heck out. The biggest problem for Afghanistan is Iraq; division of effort, division of resources. the US could have done Afghanistan on our own if it weren't for Iraq. We certainly can't rely on the EU/NATO for much.

civdiv

[Splinty]

Guys, I'm here in Baghdad and in the last six weeks or so, things HAVE improved significantly.

I'm at FOB Rustamiyah, between this FOB and FOB Loyalty, which is about two miles away, we went back and forth as the two most mortared bases in Iraq. Neither FOB has been hit since the beginning of February. Death squad related killings have gone down 85% and attacks on Coalition have declined by 50%. These are the numbers our S2 is giving us, not media relations numbers. More importantly as an MP one of the places I work is the JSS (Joint Security Station). An IP station set up as a clearing house for information recieved from tip lines and informants. You wouldn't beleive the number of tips we get from Iraqis who are sick of the violence and the threats and paying "protection money" to the militias. There ARE lots of people here who want to lead normal lives and are starting to realize that get those lives, they have to take a chance and stand up for them. Also we're doing fine, we're not near as streched as the politicians and media would have you beleive. I guarentee a Viet Nam or WWII vet would kill to live as well or work the schedual that I do. It ain't home and we do patrol and go out of the wire alot, but all in all it isn't so bad for a war zone. BTW this is my third tour, so I do know of what I speak.

[civdiv]

But Splinty,

Why should I pay attention to you when I have that font of knowledge Richard Belzer to keep me informed? You are just some 18 or 19 year old who couldn't find a job, so you joined the military. It was either sell crack, work at McDonalds, or join the military. And you never go anywhere over there and are so worried about getting killed that you don't know ANYTHING about what is happening in Iraq. I mean, Belzer reads 20 newspapers a day; he knows much more about the situation in Iraq than you do.

civdiv

[ March 23, 2007, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]