Charles Sheehan-Miles

Home | Media/Speaking Events | Order | Blog | About Charles | Activism | MySpace | Subscribe

Why there may still be hope in Iraq

For me, the war in Iraq has never been about domestic politics.  It's been about the incredible damage we did in 1991 by encouraging the Kurds and Shia to rebel against Saddam Hussein, then abandoning them to be massacred by their own government.  For me the question about the war always centers around: how do we get to a viable end-state in Iraq where the people have a chance at a decent life.  Dave Kilcullen over at Small Wars Journal has written an excellent piece which gives some hope to that possibility.

Kilcullen's blog entry is a simple explanation of what the intent of the surge operation is all about.  This is important, because a lot of folks are running around saying "the surge has failed!"  According to Kilcullen, and most of the other military folks I've been reading, the surge is only now starting. Everything up to now has only been preparation.

“I know some people in the media are already starting to sort of write off the “surge” and say ‘Hey, hang on: we’ve been going since January, we haven’t seen a massive turnaround; it mustn’t be working’. What we’ve been doing to date is putting forces into position. We haven’t actually started what I would call the “surge” yet. All we’ve been doing is building up forces and trying to secure the population. And what I would say to people who say that it’s already failed is “watch this space”. Because you’re going to see, in fairly short order, some changes in the way we’re operating that will make what’s been happening over the past few months look like what it is—just a preliminary build up.”
 

This makes sense to me -- all I have to do is consider how many months it took to get US forces in place during the '91 Gulf War.  You can't turn an operation that size on like a light bulb.

Here's the point that gives me hope, however.  I was writing more than two years ago that the focus needs to shift from killing the enemy to protecting the population, because the only way to help Iraq back on the path to a viable state is for the population to be able to work, go to school, and live their lives without fear of being blown up by either terrorists or errant artillery from our side.  That shift in emphasis is critical, and it is the key point I've seen developing in recent months:

 When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don't get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that's OK. The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain – as has happened in Al Anbar Province and can happen elsewhere in Iraq as well.

For me this isn't academic. Given that my nephew just joined the Marine Corps, I'd say the odds of his going to Iraq are pretty much certain.  I'm hoping that when he does go, the plan makes sense.

Related entries

• Plan B In Iraq - A recommendation for the way forward
• Domestic spying details revealed
• OpSec trumps information operations
• Prayer At Rumayla Podcast: Chapter Six, Part One
• America and shared sacrifice