Why the Petraeus Strategy Works
Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 02:16PM “Getting close to the people” of Iraq is the simple brilliance that turned the corner from sustaining a violent and volatile environment for Iraqis to emboldening them to participate in their own security and turn their backs on al-Qaeda. U.S. troops working and living among Iraqis rather than retreating into the super-military compounds at the end of the day (which left Iraqis vulnerable to terrorists who brutalized them when U.S. troops retreated) and meeting with clerics and sheiks to hear their concerns helped provide security necessary to win Iraqis over.
GEN Petraeus’ philosophy is that some bad guys can be won over, even converted, to participating in the “new Iraq” rather than fighting against it. These he calls “reconcilables”. Then there are those who are bent on destruction and violence, torture and terrorism who will not turn from their evil ways. These he calls “irreconcilables”.
Iraqis play an instrumental part in helping Coalition Forces differentiate between the two. The importance of their role cannot be overstated in this counterinsurgency strategy. The U.S. and Iraqis are truly partners for peace.
This strategy is a double-edged sword in that Petraeus’ predecessors utilized the Super FOB mentality (Forward Operating Base or military compounds); that is, to save more American lives, soldiers retreated to a fortified compound. The end result was, however, the “whack-a-mole” game that we saw for 2 years in Iraq. U.S. troops would retreat to the FOB, the insurgents and al-Qaeda reappear to terrorize Iraqis, putting citizens in the position to sacrifice the lives of their families if they cooperated with Coalition Forces. No security, no peace.
The “whack-a-mole” problem was in part a result, in my opinion, of pressure from politicians in Washington DC who don’t understand military operations or the complex nature of the war in Iraq or what is needed to win it.
The Petraeus strategy exposes troops to attack but results in a dramatically improved security situation that is seen in Iraq today. This security now allows for economic growth, national reconciliation and bottom-up political progress. Democrats liked saying that 2007 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq, but the truth is that there was no other way..the surge had to be more dangerous because we were finally taking on the enemy head to head, mingling with with a population that the eye couldn’t distinguish good from bad. The option became withdrawing and leaving Iraq in a desperate situation and humanitarian crisis or hammering the enemy, living among Iraqis and taking additional casualties.
With improved security, Iraqis feel safe ratting out the bad guys from their communities.
Those who support Petraeus don’t do so because they idolize him, but because they appreciate the genius nestled in the intricacies of this plan.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1677638
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
Look the false assumption all along, and one still being pushed by many democrats is that the close presence of US troops causes antagonism. Why though? Most US troops are pretty decent guys and girls and americans just being themselves tend to make the world a better place. Dumb ideas like those floated by Joe Biden among others of penning up US soldiers in one or two massive bases does lead to that hatred. The United States and the Iraqi people are in this together. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans are risking life and limb for 10'of millions of Muslims is either ignored or not even factored in, they always miss that point.
I was in Baghdad two weeks ago. The idea that our presence in the streets causes antagonism is empty rhetoric. It facilitates safety. What the video didn't show was the thousands of Iraqi police and Iraqi Army Soldiers that we are joined with at the hip. The people see us as one security force - Iraqi and Coalition Forces - and they welcome the firepower and the security.
There are still a lot of people who when polled will say we should leave, but the government of Iraq still believes we should be there, so we will. The worst possible scenario envisioned by the Iraqis is the implementation of any plan resembling the shrill rhetoric coming from the democratic presidential primary campaign about immediate withdrawals. That is also AQ's best-case-scenario.
Counterinsurgency is about protecting the population and winning their confidence. The story most people probably don't know is that GEN Petraeus' task is even more daunting because he had to try to win a population that endured a terrifying level of vulnerability from 2004-2006 partly due to our pre-counterinsurgency strategy. Winning the people is hard; winning them back after the squandered euphoria and wasted goodwill gained from the 2003 toppling of Saddam's Baathist terror regime is even harder.
This kind of warfare will be with us for at least a generation. GEN Petraeus calls counterinsurgency "graduate level warfare". Today's Soldier is called to be a Pentathlete: Critical and Creative Thinker; Warrior Leader, Leader Developer, Ambassador, and Resource Manager.
"Irregular warfare is about people, not platforms. IW depends not just on our military prowess, but also our understanding of such social dynamics as tribal politics, social networks, religious influences, and cultural mores. People, not platforms and advanced technology, will be the key to IW success. The joint force will need patient, persistent, and culturally savvy people to build the local relationships and partnerships essential to executing IW."
Irregular Warfare Joint Operating Concept, September 11 2007
"The key element of the plan is to concentrate security forces within Baghdad, to secure the local people where they live. Troops will operate in small, local groups closely partnered with Iraqi military and police units, with each unit permanently assigned to an area and working its “beat”.
This is different from early strategies which were enemy-centric (focusing on killing insurgents), or more recent approaches that relied on training and supporting Iraqi forces and expected them to secure the population.
The new strategy reflects counterinsurgency best practice as demonstrated over dozens of campaigns in the last several decades: enemy-centric approaches that focus on the enemy, assuming that killing insurgents is the key task, rarely succeed. Population-centric approaches, that center on protecting local people and gaining their support, succeed more often."
- Dr. David Kilkullen, Counterinsurgency advisor to GEN Petraeus, MNF-I Commanding General
Johny,
One of my biggest gripes about the "surge" and its coverage was the idea that it was only about adding more troops and not a change in doctrine. as usual our media lets us down and insead focused on the grisly and on bodycounts, but its just starting to filter in what the surge actualy means and what it has accomplished.
Don't be shocked, but the media is using the recent uptick in violence to cast doubt on the military. Of course the fact that whole swaths of the country are now being stabilized is left out.
RV:
Astute observation. As GEN Petraeus put it, the "surge" wasn't just about more troops but [more importantly] how they are being deployed. The MSM have almost taken the role of explicit support for the enemy in Iraq. Sad.
I believe the COIN strategy was absolutely brilliant as Mike Yon documented on his last embed by quoting parts of the manuel to back up what he was observing on the ground at the beginning of the surge. Great post Amy and I may snag that video.
Good to see you here Johnny, Thank You, you make Amy's platoon members proud. Keep up the good work and lets WIN this thing for the Iraqi people!
Johnny,
Once again the media coverage is lacking, a couple of years ago you would of thought Fallujah and Ramadi were the most important cities on the planet, now they dropped of the face of the earth? Of course there is still violence in Iraq, but the vast majority of the fighting is North of Baghdad, with an occasional teror attack on Civilians in the capital. By any account its a remarkable turnaround, yet body counts not reporting are the story.
Apparently support for victory is starting to increase:
"According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.
The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today."
The media, the democrats, and the left are now going to go into crisis mode.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9016.html
I have to mention msnbc and the ap are furious and ignoring the increase in support. Instead they are focusing on the body count (shocking). You wait and see, they are going to redouble their efforts over the next couple weeks. The only news in Iraq will come out of the capital and the handfull of provices where Al Qaeda is making its stand. The 90,000 Iraqis in awakening councils who along with the hundreds of thousands in the Iraqi government will barely be mentioned, and if they are only in context of the negative. If the mdeia storyline is defeated in Iraq, the media as an instution will be dealt a major blow in its ability to influence a situation, and remeber influence is power and people are less likley to listen to those with reduced influence.
"The idea that our presence in the streets causes antagonism is empty rhetoric."
In Nor Cal, the anti-war crowd still talks about "Iraq as hell on earth."
"I have to mention msnbc and the ap are furious and ignoring the increase in support."
Probably explains a little as to why they have this perception?
Only in the Bat, oops Bay area CalPatriot, I am up by Beale AFB and that is not the sentiment around here.
Support for Iraq War Up; Awareness Falls
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/support-for-iraq-war-up-awareness-falls/20080313103109990001
Does anything typify some journalists view of Iraq better then that headline. Americans are increasing their support for the war, so it must be based on ignorance. I cannot tell if its sheer elite arrogance, or just plain contempt for their fellow americans that leads to the thought process that would put this as a headline.
Wait....Petraeus said what?
Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.
Uh oh. See, while the military's in there kicking ass, the Iraqi leaders aren't. So I'd like to know why this part of the surge's failure isn't addressed here. Or is it taboo to question Patraeus' genius?
Punchy,
nice to see you aknowldge the success of the us military.
I believe GEN Petraeus. I don't doubt that the progress at the national level isn't sufficient. You could say the same for the U.S. Congress and Senate.
But I don't think it can be overstated the problems Iraqis face with the conception of a new government after the thrown dictator. They've virtually started from scratch.
Punchy, that is taken out of context and doesn't work with folks here that have read the ENTIRE press conference transcript. Get lost loser, seminar moonbats are not welcome here and will be exposed as the losers you are. Reversing the years of infrastructure and social decline under Saddam will take years not overnight by waving the Obama magic wand/tongue.
Goat,
I disagree with you, I think its better to have people like punchy post then not. I like discussion and alternate points of view can be used to sharpen ones own.
you know, i never understood the idea of benchmarks when it comes to governmental decisions. Iraq is not a dictatorship where decisions are made by a single person or a small group of persons of the same mindset. when you have a government where a large number of people make a decision it, by its very nature, is a slow process and should not be rushed. rushing a bill through always results in a bad bill.
in our government there are only two factions that must come up with an idea that enough would find a majority to pass. and if one of those factions have a big enough majority it can dictate what gets passed. and even then a bill takes time to go through the process before it is passed
Iraq has more factions to deal with. and no single faction enjoy a majority. would someone like to tell me how they are going to get enough votes to pass bills within the time allowed by those benchmarks when there so many factions that must find agreement?
i really would like an answer to this, please, punchy.
Johnny;
Another revolutionary COIN concept Gen. P. pushed is the "strategic corporal", the NCO on the ground who makes moment-to-moment decisions with the overall situation and goals in mind, making executive-level judgment calls on a daily basis. And promoting and giving maximal de facto authority to the ones who show aptitude for the role.
US NCOs are hugely empowered anyway, compared to the deep contempt for them in Arab tradition; this is a whole 'nother level, though.
robert;
FYI, the proper title for the "media storyline" is The Narrative™. ;)
Amy;
Actually, I DO idolize Petraeus' genius.
Don't you just love it when a plan comes together? :-D