Popular Press Now Covering Counterinsurgency History

From Slate, David Silbey writes a short history of the Phillipines insurgency under Theodore Roosevelt:

What does this tell us about today? Interestingly, many of the same issues that have dogged the current American campaign in Iraq dogged American efforts in the Philippines. These include the inability to recognize that the war was not over simply because we thought it should be over, the difficulty in adjusting to a new kind of war, the constant interaction of domestic politics and military affairs, and the divided command structure in the Philippines. And yet, the United States in the Philippines won not only the conventional war but the insurgency. Why?

Bush may find that pretzel was nothing to swallow compare to this

THE RACE FOR CONTROL

Iraq has always been a race for control on the ground. Evidence of the U.S. not thinking in those terms, let alone actively keeping one-step ahead on the curve in this race, goes back to 2003 (I'm thinking now of the grab of the religious Awqaf, the endowment funds, in the South that was widely reported ...).

"Forced withdrawal" has long seemed a remote possibility, it would seem, given the capabilities of the troops on the ground. However, it has been a looming consideration here, especially juxtaposed with those commentators who seem to think that a contained, limited-scale civil war are the worst outcomes for the U.S., in some ways.

A NEW ASSESSMENT - ESTIMATING THE INESTIMABLE

And here is the rub: some violence can unleash geometrically expanding forces, while economic stability steps are weakly self-reinforcing, and often slow, linear or episodic ...

Now comes this assessment, that maybe, after a long, long string of "stay the course", the situation may actually be on the brink of really coming down to ... leave or escalate. In other words, "go long", once thought to be a viable strategy, is losing it's ... event horizon.

Alarmist or not? Hard to say with any certainty - even in reverse key turning points are hard to identify in similarly typed conficts, but I could never take it off the table, the way some folks seem to have done ...

Simon Tisdall - The Guardian
Wednesday February 28, 2007

An elite team of officers advising US commander General David Petraeus in Baghdad has concluded the US has six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.

Part of the trouble with "stability operations" is that you don't get a lot of re-tries. There is a cumulative aspect to the impact of them. What's more, terrorism has powerful tools, force multipliers. And here is the rub: some violence can unleash geometrically expanding forces, while economic stability steps are weakly self-reinforcing, and often slow, linear or episodic in implementation.

ISF Deployment

The guys at the Fourth Rail are indispensable for understanding what is really going on in Iraq.

They've compiled and collated a lot of open-source material about the development and deployment of the ISF. I've been trying to get information on the Iraq 6th Division, who have responsibility in Baghdad.

Anyway, at least someone is trying to provide some systematic information, at least enough so that folks have a sense of forward or backward motion on some metrics, a step that can only help, IMO. The concerns about sharing too much info with 'the enemy' are slim, in my estimation. It's their country and they appear to know quite well who is where and doing what already, judging by the effectiveness of some of their attacks.

link: Order of Battle

Private Sector Slow on Uptake ...

The economic "re-revolution" - third time through is a charm. Apparently, jobs are more important this time through than GOP ideology or economic shock therapy:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5, 2007 – A team of 25 industrial leaders and business analysts is headed to Iraq today to join 35 others already there working to get almost 200 idle Iraqi factories up and running.

The industrial revitalization initiative is part of a sweeping plan to get Iraqis back to work, restore their livelihoods and jump-start Iraq’s economic base, Paul Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business transformation, told Pentagon reporters yesterday.
...
These businesses, which have sat idle since Saddam Hussein’s fall in 2003, once employed 10 percent of the Iraqi population, Brinkley said. But their impact on the Iraqi economy was even greater, because private-sector companies provided goods and services to the government-run factories. So when the factories closed their doors, the private companies’ customer bases dried up and they, too, were forced to close.

The U.S. government's economic effort in Iraq initially focused on reconstruction, with an assumption that Iraq’s private sector would eventually take over the idle government-owned businesses, Brinkley explained. But that never happened.

So the Task Force for Improved Business and Stability Operations in Iraq, which was working to improve DoD contracting operations in Iraq, shifted its focus in May to stepping up the process.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2608

50 years on from the Battle of Algiers, the "Battle of Baghdad"?

Charlie Rose put on his first program on counterinsurgency (that I know of) tonight, with Alastair Horne, author of the classic text on the French experience in Algeria, "A Savage Peace".

Alastair listed five similarities that he sees with the effort in Iraq:

1. US is fighting with a regular army
2. There are porous borders
3. Insurgents targeting local police, judges, administration
4. Torture
5. Difficulty to extricate [took DeGaulle 4 years]

My comments are as follows:

1. The army has changed, I believe, at the fighting level. They are ahead of the pundits on what needs to be done, in my estimation.
   
   What has not occurred is broad changes in incentives and commitment that is needed at the most senior levels, like longer tours of duty (especially for advisers), revamping of financial/career incentives in the officer corps, and true co-integration of effort (i.e. bring civilians outside the chain into the 'circle of classified secrecy'). I'm at a great distance from these issues, but that is how the field looks from afar.
   
   
2. There are hundreds of people in Iraq without jobs. Everyone has their own gun. Why not send them to do border security and kill two birds with one stone? They don't even have to do a great job, but many willing workers will at least have an income and a respectable position.
   
   The problem here, as viewed from afar, is that the US never saw itself in Iraq for a long period, and therefore did not take the long-term issues of border security upon itself.
   
   What's more, it is not clear how much of the border insecurity is a problem and how much is positioning related to whose fault the violence is attributed.
   
   Last, census and other methods are ways to forestall the impact of loose borders. There are smugglers that handle the borders, too. It's not clear that they cannot be co-opted or whether it has been tried.
   
   The Saudis are building fence to help close their border, physically. The Syrians, despite their bad press, have had a closed border with Iraq for a long, long time (at one point, they even allowed their border to be violated as the US chased, in hot pursuit, what turned out to be gas-smugglers). The Iranian borders in the South ... I don't know enough about.
   
   
3. This is very, very grave and few early on understood the importance of it (did Rumsfeld, et. al?). Even today, many seem to think it is just one issue among many, but it is not. Charlie Rose himself skips over it, even though his second guest, former Head of Research for the Iraqi National Museum, points out the consequences, softly and plainly.
   
   
4. This is a truly a problem, because the domestic politics of the war have been badly handled, in part. The conception of the war as the US bringing something, rather than enabling a chance for something, has permeated enough to have deleterious effects (or, as Noah Feldman wrote, the risks of old school patrician attitudes toward nation building).
   
   The original mission to "set the conditions for democracy to emerge" was open-ended and, as we can plainly see, a political, not primarily military endeavor. Both the politics and the military have had setbacks, even failure, and there is no domestic consensus about how to re-set, if at all.
   
   With luck, this consensus will emerge if enough people start to get behind a proper conceptualization of the Iraqi effort and start to manage the politics of it properly.
   
   The idea that only "success" will dispel the critics is more bad planning, as seductive as that may be. For what the Army is calling the "Long War", we have to transition from notions of "control", fantasies about the "glory" of America, and the promise of Victory, and settle in to a quiet, steadfast, abiding confidence in process.

Just to close, I'll add that the sectarian violence in Baghdad may not have the same motivations as an Algerian-style insurgency. Therefore, at least on that score, the "Battle for Baghdad" is quite unlike counterinsurgency, although it might be linked to it in important ways.

The Intangible Benchmarks - How Progress will Really be Measured

Negroponte, on the eve of surprisingly leaving the DNI post (confirmed just in April of 2005), lays out some ideas on what National Intelligence is using for benchmarks of cricital progress in Iraq:

• Foremost is the ability of the Iraqi gov't to establish and nurture effective national institutions that are based on national rather than religious or ethnic interests; and within this context, the willingness of the security forces to pursue extremist elements of all kinds.
• The extent to which the Shia feel sufficiently secure in their political position: despite their recent electoral victories and overall political ascendancy, the Shia at present remain deeply insecure about their hold on power. This insecurity is manifested in the Shia's refusal to make real concessions to the Sunnis on a range of issues...
• The extent to which Arab Sunnis develop trust and participate in the new political order ...
• The extent to divisions within the Shia and Sunni are addressed: profound intra-group divisions among the Shia and Sunnis complicate the situation, because no single leader can speak for or exert control over these groups.
• The extent to which extremists - most notably al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI) - are suppressed...
• And lastly, the extent to which Iraq's neighbors can be persuaded to stop the flow of militants and munitions across their borders.

link

Bush: Ahead or Behind the Curve?

Tonight the President rehearsed the now well worn dire warnings of "failure" in Iraq (a.k.a. "the quagmire"), but didn't add much to assist in an ongoing assessment of progress or retreat in the overall project.

The general tenor has moved from "Victory is certain" to "there is no magic bullet for Iraq".

Yet, there continue to be conflicts (necessary ones?), within the overall thinking. "America stands for freedom" and Iraq is "critical" in the "war on terror" (yes, they are still using that hapless phrase). However, such things are conditional in a somewhat unspecified way:

I [President Bush] have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people ...
[and]
From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

I say 'necessary' because such contradictions seem to be part of trying to deliver steadfast message than can only help in a war-of-attrition and trying to manage the politics of shifting burdens.

NEW APPROACH DOESN'T INCLUDE WARTIME METRICS, AMERICAN PUBLIC STILL OUT OF THE 'CLASSIFIED WAR' LOOP

Among the critical things not supplied are any new metrics to give the average American a sense of how the "coalition" is doing, in any systematic way, although gone are the blanket trust-me statements that plagued past public assessments (unless one is rigorous enough similarly to fault the blanket assessment, "the situation in Iraq is not acceptable").

We are told we are at a critical juncture. It seems to me that almost all military campaigns are constantly at a critical juncture, so one must take this statement as a patch, a way to warm over a change by 'seeing' future tactical opportunity rather than prior tactical misstep.

If this critical juncture is brought about by a realization that we don't have enough troops to "hold" areas that have been cleared, that insight has been on the table in a very high profile way for months now. It suggests incompetence to only be realizing that the 'whack-a-mole' approach is a loser in terms of fighting insurgency.

Besides, if the security strategy is still clear-hold-build, then calling it all a "new strategy" is slight of hand.

A STRATEGY FOR SECTARIAN VIOLENCE?

I noted a while back that the emergence of induced sectarian strife probably violated some of the given assumptions in the old "Strategy for Victory in Iraq".
There seems to be no good idea about how to stem the cycle of violence, apart from more troops while getting the Iraqi government to actually try a rule-of-law approach, rather than a eye-for-eye approach.

This background briefing suggests that there is an Iraqi-inspired plan to handle the sectarian violence around the capital. It does NOT offer a strategic outline of what the plan amounts to, therefore obviates later assessment, nor does it suggest why prior efforts didn't meet their objectives, precisely. The hope is that better organization and more resources will do what could not be done before:

The good news is that the Iraqi government has -- they have come forward with a plan. This was first given to the President when he was in Amman, Jordan, and met with Prime Minister Maliki's security people, the government security people, and our commanders have been working on that plan. The good news is that they believe that the plan fixes the problems that plagued our earlier efforts to bring security to Baghdad and is a plan that will work. And he'll describe it in some detail. - Senior White House Official

The details, from President Bush:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations -- conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

What we don't have good information on is what is driving the sectarian violence, with some suggesting that it is reprisal and some suggesting that it is Shia trying to consolidate power inside Baghdad.

NO CONCEPTUAL TIMEFRAME, NO COST

In terms of any broad understanding of how long or how far the insurgency might yet wear on (some average estimates of similar conflicts run to nine years), nothing is given. "Sacrifice" is called for, but no cost and no CURRENT cost is mentioned, other than the lives of the brave soldiers who follow orders.

NO DIPLOMACY, PLEASE, MR. BAKER

There will be no grand diplomatic initiative as recommended by the Baker report. Iran and Syria are complicit in destabilization, an assessment, so far, offered time and again, recklessly, without any Karine-A like evidence.

This go-it-alone mentality continues to suggest that the militarists, despite Rumsfeld's departure are still in control of the government or that President Bush has yet to learn how to do diplomacy - true diplomacy - after all these years. "America must win" is still the operating belief - there is no sharing of risks and no sharing of glory, no prepping for passing the political baton to others who also have a stake in stability.

What Secretary Rice's announced visit to the mideast will specifically attempt to achieve is unknown. However, W. Patrick Lang offers up a clear perspective on how failure to adequately prep a regional engagement leaves the US without one, good political exit strategy.

PERSONNEL CHANGES

Notes that Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Generals Casey and Abizaid are slated to leave stand in stark contrast to evidence from Vietnam that short tours of "advisers" greatly contributed to an inability to be effective on the ground. Perhaps it is time for them to move onward, but shifting of personnel in a complex, long, and phased campaign weakens the effort, rather then re-enforcing it.

The notion of doubling the number of transition teams is great. Perhaps that will help to create information flow that will keep corruption and incompetence in a new Iraqi central government from getting as far out of hand as it seems to have done in Afghanistan. All the same, what is paramount is coordination between the political efforts (reconstruction) and military efforts, and no assurances were given that organizational changes that improve integration of effort are on the way.

However, the problem that this type of effort (counter-insurgency) might need to be planned in chunks of time of 2-3 years seems to escape the people for all parts of the political spectrum.

WALK THE LINE?

These are the few commitments we get for the upcoming year:

To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

Elections "later this year". Reform of Baathification has been on the table for how long now? At least since last fall. Amend the constitution ... for pity's sake, the country barely has a functioning central government and the chief worry is how to amend the constitution?

Bush appears to make 'show' out of Rumsfeld's firing, buys time...

That's the only thing that one can conclude, so far, from the series of events, from November to December's end, 2006. Why would you fire a SecDef in the middle of conflict, unless you had a sense that there was something better at hand?

FOREVER YOUNG

The whole "New Policy" meme is starting to look ridiculous. Abjectly so.

The Iraq Study Group was convened nine months ago, now. Hitler's entire campaign into Soviet Russia had its decisiveness judged in a matter of three or four months, practically speaking, if my memory of military history serves. How can it be that the CIC is still "studying" the problem? I'm all for time-outs for re-evaluation, but the NIE estimate from last April was that things would be getting worse - who had the contingency plan?

"STAY THE COURSE", STILL OPERATIVE

One cannot help but feel that stay-the-course is still operative, because Bush is either waiting for al-Malaki to prove himself as the right guy for Iraq on some unknown measure(s) or for facts on the ground to shift in his favor, somehow. Last, he may be waiting for the new Congress in order to stick-it-to-ém with some controversial proposal - who knows, it's hard to believe anything he says, any longer (for me).

'GENERIC NEED' FOR MORE TROOPS - WHAT THE HECK IS THAT!?

Last, but hardly least, the one bit that we are given, without any broader strategy revealed for aligning the government institutions in a grand way to combat and win the fight against extremism, is that the Marines need a larger permanent force-structure.

For more invasions?

I mean seriously, shouldn't one try to win the "war" that is in front of them, before worrying about the "harder choices" of the next generations? Good grief!

BACKGROUND:

President Bush's 'Stay the Course on Policy Change'
Nov 8th, Fires Rumsfeld
Nov 11th, Meets with Israeli PM Olmert
Nov 30th - Meets with Malaki
Dec 6th - Iraq Study group
Dec 11th - Meets with State Department Officials
Dec 12th - Meets with Iraqi VP Hashemi
Dec 13th - Meets with Pentagon Brass
- Quips, "I won't be rushed"
Dec 18th - Swears in Gates

Dec 20th - Announces that large Army is required

"Let me wait and gather all the recommendations from Bob Gates, from our military, from diplomats on the ground; I'm interested in the Iraqis' point of view; and then I'll report back to you as to whether or not I support a surge or not. Nice try."

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't made up my mind yet about more troops. I'm [STILL?] listening to our commanders; I'm listening to the Joint Chiefs, of course; I'm listening to people in and out of government; I'm listening to the folks on the Baker-Hamilton commission about coming up with a strategy that helps us achieve our objective."

More Troops - generically, I mean:

Q Good morning, Mr. President. Your former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, advocated for a lighter, more agile military force. Have you now concluded that that approach was wrong?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I strongly support a lighter, agile army that can move quickly to meet the threats of the 21st century. I also supported his force posture review and recommendations to move forces out of previous bases that were there for the Soviet threat, for example, in Europe. So he's introduced some substantive changes to the Pentagon, and I support them strongly.

However, that doesn't necessarily preclude increasing end strength for the army and the Marines. And the reason why I'm inclined to believe this is a good idea is because I understand that we're going to be in a long struggle against radicals and extremists, and we must make sure that our military has the capability to stay in the fight for a long period of time. I'm not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that it's going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate

Indian Treaty Room, Press Conference

---

UPDATE:
Dec 28th - Meets with National Security Staff
Jan 10th - Notifies Congressional Leaders, Meets with Press, National TV Speech, Falcon Brigade from 82nd Airborne arrives Baghdad following week

Bush appears to make 'show' out of Rumsfeld's firing, buys time...

That's the only thing that one can conclude, so far, from the series of events, from November to December's end, 2006. Why would you fire a SecDef in the middle of conflict, unless you had a sense that there was something better at hand?

FOREVER YOUNG

The whole "New Policy" meme is starting to look ridiculous. Abjectly so.

The Iraq Study Group was convened nine months ago, now. Hitler's entire campaign into Soviet Russia had its decisiveness judged in a matter of three or four months, practically speaking, if my memory of military history serves. How can it be that the CIC is still "studying" the problem? I'm all for time-outs for re-evaluation, but the NIE estimate from last April was that things would be getting worse - who had the contingency plan?

"STAY THE COURSE", STILL OPERATIVE

One cannot help but feel that stay-the-course is still operative, because Bush is either waiting for al-Malaki to prove himself as the right guy for Iraq on some unknown measure(s) or for facts on the ground to shift in his favor, somehow. Last, he may be waiting for the new Congress in order to stick-it-to-ém with some controversial proposal - who knows, it's hard to believe anything he says, any longer (for me).

'GENERIC NEED' FOR MORE TROOPS - WHAT THE HECK IS THAT!?

Last, but hardly least, the one bit that we are given, without any broader strategy revealed for aligning the government institutions in a grand way to combat and win the fight against extremism, is that the Marines need a larger permanent force-structure.

For more invasions?

I mean seriously, shouldn't one try to win the "war" that is in front of them, before worrying about the "harder choices" of the next generations? Good grief!

BACKGROUND:

President Bush's 'Stay the Course on Policy Change'
Nov 8th, Fires Rumsfeld
Nov 11th, Meets with Israeli PM Olmert
Nov 30th - Meets with Malaki
Dec 6th - Iraq Study group
Dec 11th - Meets with State Department Officials
Dec 12th - Meets with Iraqi VP Hashemi
Dec 13th - Meets with Pentagon Brass
- Quips, "I won't be rushed"
Dec 18th - Swears in Gates

Dec 20th - Announces that large Army is required

"Let me wait and gather all the recommendations from Bob Gates, from our military, from diplomats on the ground; I'm interested in the Iraqis' point of view; and then I'll report back to you as to whether or not I support a surge or not. Nice try."

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't made up my mind yet about more troops. I'm [still?] listening to our commanders; I'm listening to the Joint Chiefs, of course; I'm listening to people in and out of government; I'm listening to the folks on the Baker-Hamilton commission about coming up with a strategy that helps us achieve our objective."

More Troops - generically, I mean:

Q Good morning, Mr. President. Your former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, advocated for a lighter, more agile military force. Have you now concluded that that approach was wrong?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I strongly support a lighter, agile army that can move quickly to meet the threats of the 21st century. I also supported his force posture review and recommendations to move forces out of previous bases that were there for the Soviet threat, for example, in Europe. So he's introduced some substantive changes to the Pentagon, and I support them strongly.

However, that doesn't necessarily preclude increasing end strength for the army and the Marines. And the reason why I'm inclined to believe this is a good idea is because I understand that we're going to be in a long struggle against radicals and extremists, and we must make sure that our military has the capability to stay in the fight for a long period of time. I'm not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that it's going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate

Indian Treaty Room, Press Conference

All Sectarian Violence is NOT created equally ...

Counter-terrorism quote for the day:

The alternative formulation of why sectarian violence is fomented has much to do with stirring up old and ancient rivalries for the sake of creating a base of operations.

"Mixed" neighborhoods make it hard to consolidate power.

Such bases cannot be left to fester, if history is any guide. It is for this reason that counter-terror strategies must also deal with sectarian violence and not think of them solely as a matter that is unrelated *intrinsically* to overall objectives.

The General Guidelines for Al-Jemaah Islamiah Struggle - otherwise known as the PUPJI - outlines the three phases of jihad: iman (faith of individuals), hijrah (building a base of operations) and then jihad qital (fighting the enemies of Islam). Right now, JI is focusing on the iman and hijrah until it has the capability for jihad qital. To that end, it is employing a three-tined strategy: recruitment and proliferation of cells, engaging in sectarian conflict and engaging in social welfare.

Top wrote an 82-page tract based on the theoretical model espoused by Abu Musab al-Suri, al-Qa'ida's leading theorist, on how to establish loosely affiliated jihadi cells. With a secure base in MILF camps in Mindanao, JI can effectively regroup.

JI is also redoubling its "uhud project" of fomenting sectarian violence in Central Sulawesi and the Malukus in order to create a pure Islamic zone from which it can emanate. Since 2004, bombings, targeted assassinations, and raids on military-police facilities have become regular. Attacks, including the beheading of three schoolgirls, are meant to undermine confidence in the state and give members a sense of defending their religion. JI is out to undermine the Malino Accords and engage in Islamist vigilantism.

Finally, JI is adopting a Hamas-style model, focusing on social work and charity - what I refer to as the "inverse triangle" - to build up its popular support and forge greater links to Islamist parties and organisations. link

The Fallacy of "Emboldening Terrorists"

We want the people of Iraq to live in a free society. It's in our interests. In my judgment, if we were to leave before the job is done, it would only embolden terrorists, it would only embolden the extremists. It would dash the hopes of millions of people who want to live in a free society, just like the 12 million people who voted in the Iraqi election. They want to live in a free society. And we support this government, because the government understands it was elected by the people. And Prime Minister Maliki is working hard to overcome the many obstacles in the way to a peaceful Iraq, and we want to help him. - President Bush, al-Malki visit, 2006 11 30

I would like to argue that this judgement about emboldening the terrorists is partly misdirected, as much as those who wanted so passionately to "send the terrorists a message" after 9/11.

We may not be able to "win" every battle with terrorists. It may be arrogance to suggest that we can. Terrorist methods are powerful.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WARFARE

Managing psychology of warfare is important, even key sometimes. However, one has to be careful in elevating it to a strategic goal, rather than a tactic. For sure, to fight the perverse messages of 'global jihad', it is important to at least stand up for those values indicted and greatly jeopardized by the false 'religious' callings of militant jihad.

But, to shape strategic choices because of how they might impact the psychology of terrorists is either to plainly put tactics ahead of strategy (usually a poor choice, a confusion) or to get the wrong balance among strategic imperatives.

SOME PRESSURE CAN ALSO BE STAGED, TIMED OR SCALED, NOT JUST CONTINUOUS, MONOTONE

We might do better to think in terms of putting degrees of pressure on jihadi groups, from any number of angles, and in terms of choices or tactics that allow for our freedom of action, action that is not drawn into a straightjacket because of perceived psychological impacts.

Besides, what could be better than duping an enemy into a false sense of security, than "emboldening" them?

What is important is that, whatever gains they might try to consolidate from a cessation or tactics retreat, stand in continuous jeopardy of being pushed over or pushed back. We ought not to think of 'losing face' over the kinds of smart, tactical shifts that would make a time-phased strategy in certain circumstances smart.

MORE ON THE EFFORT TO CONFRONT RADICAL, MILITANT 'JIHAD'

There is a question about whether to continuously engage in the political debate that militant jihad puts forward, as well as any number of other messages or to attack annointed leaders, lest one confer a kind of legitimacy and free press to their aims.

Ideas are still forming on precisely what the appropriate countermeasures are at each stage of militant jihad, as it is envisioned by its own theorists.

One way is to apply "medicine" (choice countermeasures) in various doses and then to measure how they are working. This is how governments in the Arab world effectively work now, quite arguably - they make statements and wait to see how 'the Street" responds. ('The Street' is nothing more than the long-term educational challenge, the literacy problem/dimension, in some respects.)

WRONG TO WITHDRAW, RIGHT TO REPOSITION

Accordingly, I think that abject calls for withdrawal ought to be met with derision, except as part of a broder plan to reposition the pressure campaign.

It might be possible to fashion a long-term strategy to confront radical Islam by denying it its next steps, by picking an choosing which issues on which to engage insofar as they have direct impact on achieving the next goals of the jihad (I'm thinking of the three phases mentioned below, iman, hijrah, and then jihad).

If one worries that the removal of military pressure in one situation might lead to greater recruitment, one has to re-position against recruitment, suggesting that the 'withdrawal' is a way to trap new recruits, who will be confronted/captured shortly.

In sum, there ought to be a continuous engagement, in my view, a pressure campaign, and it can include periods of repositioning in which certain confrontations are conceded as no longer productive and for which we do not have to worry about 'emboldening' some enemy today, if that is just a set-up for them to be neutralized or marginalized tomorrow.

Rummy Accepts Medal, Schedules Town Meeting, Farewell Set for 15th

Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld accepted the Union League's Gold Medal a week ago or so. According to Defenselink, Gates will assume responsibility on the 18th and Rummy's farewell party is the 15th.

One last chance to soak up Rummyspeak:

---

(AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

In a surprise move, Sec Def Rumsfeld takes a ... quasi-victory lap, visiting troops in Iraq on Dec. 9th ...

The Second "Thumpin'" - Comments on ISG Report

Presidential Historian, Michael Beschloss, in Newsweek:

History suggests that Baker-Hamilton’s ultimate contribution may be whatever outside pressure it generates on President Bush and Congress to achieve a bipartisan solution in Iraq.

The times in history when such panels have had the greatest impact have been when they provided a president with the mechanics and bipartisan blessing to do what he probably wanted to do anyway. The best two examples are both from the Reagan years. In 1981, President Reagan appointed an expert commission led by Alan Greenspan (not yet Fed chairman) to suggest how to fix that generation’s Social Security problems.

Six years later, besieged by the Iran-contra scandal, Reagan appointed a bipartisan group headed by Texas Republican Sen. John Tower to suggest how to revise White House management to exclude the future possibility of unauthorized covert operations. By promptly accepting the Tower Commission’s wise recommendations and admitting his mistakes, Reagan helped to save his presidency.

One reason the Tower findings were so briskly accepted was the expertise of the commission’s staff director, who knew how important it was for the president to take its report seriously. This was a young lawyer named Stephen Hadley, who has gone on to become President Bush’s national-security adviser.

George F. Will, in WaPo:

The Iraq Study Group, like the policy it was created to critique, was overtaken by the unexpectedly rapid crumbling of the U.S. position in Iraq since the ISG was formed in March.
...
Also in the week before the ISG's report, the leaked Donald Rumsfeld memo urged policy to "go minimalist." That is generally good advice to government, but much of the rest of the memo, with its 21 "illustrative new courses of action" -- a large number, and evidence that none is especially promising -- echoed the 1960s Great Society confidence in government-engineered behavior modification...

The ISG's central conclusion, important to say with the group's imprimatur even though the conclusion is obvious, is that the problem with Iraq is the Iraqis, a semi-nation of peoples who are very difficult to help.

Syria weighs in, again, on Iraq

Vice President weighs in here, with Syrian perspective and demands that include a fixed timetable under the 'excuse' of fighting 'occupiers'.

In reference to a Syrian worry about a widening conflagration coming out of a deteriorating Iraq, he either directly calls the Baker-Hamilton bluff or opens public negotiations by mitigating it:

As for the notion of an international conference on Iraq, many European countries have recommended it to us. We support the formula but only if we know what the intended outcome of such a conference is. It has to have reasonable objectives that we can agree to work for.

We will not support just any political process in Iraq, we will support it only when it takes into account the interests of all the different groups in Iraq, when the Unity of the country is preserved, and when there is a time table for withdrawal (of US troops)

The US has failed terribly in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton Report is an indication that the American people are waking up to the fact that they have been badly deceived by their government in Iraq. Some say that through dialogue with Syria and Iran, Iraq can be stabilized. We are not so arrogant as to believe that Syria can single-handedly solve the Iraq problem, which will have repercussions throughout the world. Perhaps not even all countries working together can help solve Iraq's problem, but it is incumbent on us to have the modesty to listen to each other and to try what we can.

We will not help any Iraqi leader who isn't against the occupation of Iraq or trying to end it. We told this to Allawi, to Jafari and to Maliki. We are against foreign occupation.

We do not expect much change in the American position. Some minor change, or a cosmetic change, or a tactical change. Although the public opinion in the United States is against the war, there are powerful groups in the US saying: "we will not leave empty handed after the 450 Billions we spent in Iraq." [translation thanks to Joshua Landis & friends

And on the re-emergence of Sharaa, this nugget in the early evolution of Syrian thinking on Iraq:

Sharaa also argued for the hard Syrian line on Iraq (Jihad) and resistance) in contrast to Khaddam. He probably believing that Saddam would put up more resistance than he did in opposing the American invasion. When this didn't happen and the US went on its Syria offensive, accusing Syria of aiding Iraq's Baathist deadeners, taking in Saddam's WMD, and opening a Ho Chi Min trail, Khaddam was given the Iraq portfolio. Khaddam tried to organize the Sunni tribal leaders in order to deliver them to the Americans and reopen a dialogue with Washington on the basis of delivering Iraqi Sunni cooperation for Lebanon. This strategy failed because Washington would not talk to its enemies, use diplomacy with the Syrians, or pay blackmail (whichever description you prefer). [Landis]

---

UPDATE: December 10th
al-jazeerah poll:

Will Hezbollah protests bring down the Lebanese government?

Yes : 44.2 % ; No : 38.7 % ; I don't know : 17.1 %

Number of pollers:12779

$1.3 million Report of Iraq Study Group

Below is a quick outline of the seventy-nine (79) recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton, Iraq Study Group Report.

Observations:

• Parts of the document are not well organized. In particular, some of the last parts about Intelligence gathering, budgeting, and so forth should be in a section more aptly title, "Helping the U.S. to help itself, before helping Iraqis to help themselves".




• There is a prima facie tension between injunctions to withdraw support, in favor of good behavior (diplomatic quid pro quo), and imperatives to help or assist, on certain things (like bolstering the judiciary, reforming the Interior Ministry, building Iraqi counter-terror investigative abilities).




• The timeframe(s) carved out by the document are not always clear. Things like the wider regional conflict (the Arab-Israeli issues), perhaps parts of national reconciliation, and provincial (or municipal) elections are not going to be orchestrated in the short or mid term, most likely. Meanwhile, longer-term tasks are envisioned with U.S. support and participation, which may or may not occur, on the document's own calculus.




• Apart from funding refugee relief (R66), the document makes no recommendations about what to do in the event that sectarian violence is not stalled, except that it does not recommend larger force structure imperatives, which might prove short-sighted in this other context.




• For a hands-off Administrator or President, this is a daunting list ...

A SHIFT IN POLITICAL EMPHASIS, TACTICS

The document can be read as a shift in emphasis and politics, now that the Iraqis have a sovereign, central government, to putting the onus to Iraqi-led responsibility. Personally, I think that this shift ought to have been anticipated by the government in regular course and not required "fresh eyes". It's obvious that, as political control shifts, political positioning must shift to reflect a changed polity.

I believe, reading through the tea-leaves, the military has put its full support behind this shift, because they no longer want to be in Iraq a day more than necessary and have a sober view of the limits of their political influence (and, in some cases, their own dis-utility).

Still, cynics will read this necessary shift as a move toward blame-and-run. Whether it turns out that way will be a matter of watching what happens in the details, which is the only place that sincerity and good-faith can be judged, ultimately.

TOO MANY CRITICS, NOT ENOUGH ACTORS

One main thrust is that not enough people are working on Iraq, especially in the area of producing political reconciliation, forestalling catastrophe, and giving local combatants a larger local context in which to view their actions. Will 'more and diverse' attention attend resolution or just draw more parties into conflict? I suspect that risk is worth taking up.

THE RIGHT KIND OF EXTERNAL PRESSURE

Some things, like comments on the oil sector, look like sound external pressure for important change.

IF YOU DON'T LAUGH, ...

There was a bit of humor in the document, as well. In one section on setting milestones, it is noted that things that couldn't be done in 4Q06 should be done by 1Q07 (cf. R24). It is a bit ironic to be firm about milestones for others, but to be so generous with yourself.

IN THE BIG PICTURE

There is very little 'big picture' in the document. There are no sweeping recommendations or policy statements for combatting extremism, mid-term or longer-term, in the Muslim world (apart from the Arab-Israeli conflict and the nascent Persion-Israeli conflict). No view of what the US role is or what influence the US should seek to exert in the longer-term or how.

In some ways, this kind of 'big think' might be a distraction to getting some action on diplomatic efforts like an "Iraq Support Group". In the end, however, it may not be avoided, as it seems that the nation needs to come behind a common understanding of the threat and the short, mid, and long-term ways that the government is going to set about addressing that, which is the larger context for Iraq, to some extent.

Apart from language skills, not much on remaking the government's institutions to track an al-qa'ida threat longer-term.

Very little was given from a pure counter-insurgency perspective perspective, except a need to try to engage all groups politically.

---

MY SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The External Approach



The New Diplomatic Offensive



R1: The offensive
R2: Goals of the offsensive
R3: Meeting in Baghdad of OIC or Arab League

The International Support Group



R4: Create ‘Tool’ of Iraq Group,
R5: Members of the ISG among neighbors, Arab League, 5 UNSC, the EU, others (S. Korea)
R6: Who should lead group: President or Sec of State
R7: Call on the U.N. and a U.N. Special Envoy
R8: ISG to tailor approaches to specific neighbors needs

Dealing with Syria and Iran



R9: Via ISG, engage Iran/Syria, using incentives and disincentives
“Although Iran sees as in its interest to have the US bogged down in Iraq, …”
R10: Iran’s nuclear program to be dealt with via UNSC, still
R11: ISG influence Iran



i. “Iran should stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq.”
ii. “Iran should make clear its support for the territorial integrity of Iraq as a unified State, as well as respect for the sovereignty of Iraq and its government.”
iii. “Iran can use its influence, especially over Shia groups in Iraq, to encourage national reconciliation.”
iv. “Iran can also, in the right circumstances, help in the economic reconstruction of Iraq.”

R12: US and ISG to “encourage and persuade” Syria



i. “Syria can control its border with Iraq to the maximum extent possible…”
ii. Establish hotlines to exchange information with the Iraqis
iii. Increase political and economic cooperation with Iraq

The Wider Regional Context



“The US does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. For several reasons, we should act boldly.” p. 54
R13: A “renewed and sustained commitment” to A-I conflict on all “fronts”.
R14: Talks on two tracks, Syria/Lebanon, Palestinians (“who recognize Israel”)
R15 The Elements of a negotiated peace with Syria, enumerated
R16: Israelis should return the Golan, with U.S. Security Guarantee …
R17: The Elements of a negotiated peace with the Palestinians, enumerated
R18 Political, Economic, and Military support for Afghanistan




2. The Internal Approaches




Performance on Milestones



R19: Close contacts with Iraqis with “a message” of meeting milestones; public diplomacy effort to keep all relevant publics apprised.
R20: Quid pro quo: For progress in National reconciliation, security, governance, the US can make clear its continuance of efforts to train, equip, and build.
R21: Quid pro quo: Without progress, withdraw support
R22: President should “make clear” (to whom?, how?) that US does not seek permanent bases in Iraq
R23: President should “restate” that US does not seek to control Iraqi Oil

Milestones for Iraq



i. National Reconciliation related, p. 62
ii. Security, p. 63
iii. Governance, p. 63
R24: 1Q07 for anything that cannot be done in 4Q06 [!!!]
R25: Work with Iraqis to develop additional milestones

National Reconciliation



Iraqi Steps to Take



R26: Constitutional review on an urgent basis – UN has expertise to share.
R27: De de-Baathification: US “should encourage return of qualified Iraqi professionals … into the government”
R28: Oil revenue should be central gov’t and shared on the basis of population
R29: Provincial elections should have been held already
R30: “International arbitration is necessary to avert communal violence in Kirkuk”
R31 “Amnesty proposals must be far-reaching”
R32 Minority rights protected
R33 Iraqi gov’t should stop “registering” NGOs as a means of censorship of excluding certain groups

US Steps to take



R34 The future of U.S. force “on the table” to lubricate talks. UN to facilitate talks with power-brokers, not just elected officials
R35 Find a way to talk to Sistani, al-Sadr, and militia or insurgent leaders
R36 Encourage dialogue between Iraqi communities, religious leaders to offer messages of peace/reconciliation
R37 Amnesty proposals not to be undercut in Washington

The militias and national reconciliation



R38 Support the presence of international experts as advisors on disarmament, demobilization, and re-integration
R39 US to provide financial and technical expertise and legal expertise.

Security and Military Forces



For Iraq



R40: No open-ended commitment
R41: US forces should not be hostage to Iraqi gov’t inaction
R42: Training and equipping by 1Q2008
R43: Military priorities shift to train and equip
R44: Embed US forces [to accelerate] and give personnel consideration to soldiers who do
R45: More and Better Equipment

For the US (“Restoring the US Military)



R46: “Every effort” to build healthy civil-military relations, as envision by Goldwater-Nichols Act
R47: As part of redeployment, training and education programs …
R48: As equipment returns, Congress appropriate full funds to “restore the equipment to full functionality over the next five years”
R49: Budget review to assess the “full future budgetary impact of the war”

Police and Criminal Justice



Poor reforms, poor organization allows infiltration



For Iraqi government



R50: Consolidate National Police (“counterinsurgency mission”) in Ministry of Defense, not Interior
R51: Transfer Border Police to Ministry of Defense (current role resembles little of ordinary border policing)“Accomplishing these goals will not be easy, and the presence of American advisors will be required to help Iraqis …”
R52: Iraqi Police Service more authority to conduct investigations and integrate with judicial prosecution
R53: Reform Ministry of Interior – expanded role in criminal pursuit, sole authority to pay Police
R54: Ministry of Interior – control the Facilities Protection Services and/or demobilize it

For US



R55: Continue Mission to train National police and Border police
R56: US DOJ should “direct” the training of forces in reformed Interior Ministry
R57: Expand police training and training force
R58: FBI to expand forensic facilities, equipment, training in Iraq (Iraqi Police Services)
R59: Iraqi gov’t spend money to upgrade communications/equipment of Iraqi Police Services
R60: US DOJ to work alongside Iraqi Ministry of Interior to transform its practices and procedures
R61: Fully fund and vigorously support DOJ efforts to build Iraqi judiciary, harden Iraqi judicial facilities, and build out services.

The Oil Sector
“Even if Iraq were peaceful tomorrow, oil production would decline unless current problems in the oil sector were addressed.”



Short-term: R62 [five parts]: Legal Clarity; South to work-over at own expense; calibrate local tribe payments to throughput to protect oil infrastructure; immediate metering to raise accountability; “in conjunction with the IMF” to stop subsidizing energy sector/energy consumption
Long-term: R63 [five-parts]: Encourage external investment; reorganize oil industry as a commercial enterprise’ combat corruption (use transparency); use World Bank’s best practices on contracting; improve management

US Economic and Reconstruction Assistance



R64: Econ assistance should increase to a level of $5 billion, not be permitted to decline
R65: More involvement of others, beyond just funding
R66: Fund relief of refugee problem (UN High Commissioner)
Coordination of Econ Assistance



R67: President should create a Senior Advisor for Economic Reconstruction

Effectiveness



R68: Chief of Mission should have discretion over funds and de-funding projects in which Iraqi partnership is lacking
R69: Renew Special IG for Iraq
R70: Improve inter-agency (“flexibility”)
R71: End whatever US-only funding of projects

Budget Preparation, Presentation, and Review



R72: On-budget for FY2008

US Personnel



R73: Develop professional language skills
R74: Directed assignments, if not enough volunteers
R75: “longer term” rethink inter-agency along the lines of Goldwater-Nichols
R76: State Department, Treasury, Justice, Agriculture – all need to tool for long-term stability operations

Intelligence Services p. 93



R77: More resources to understanding the threats and sources of violence inside Iraq
R78: Immediate changes to data collection to get a more accurate picture of violence and its perpetrators




Iraqi Actions



R79: CIA to add personnel to train an Iraqi counter-terror effort

Stepping up to Step Down by Fareed Zakaria

Zakaria has started to flesh out what I will call a "stand aside" exit strategy from Iraq, by redfining the goals there. His article is here.

There is a lot to disagree with in his article, so I just want to focus on what I see as one key strategic point.

I wondered aloud in one of my comments whether the Shia groups were ready yet to "buy off" the Sunni insurgency, with money and temporary political advantages that might cover a strategic 'political transition period' of say 10 years, maybe 3-5 years for 'reconciliation commissions' and the like.

Zakaria has this to observe, to the contrary:

What is equally obvious is that such a deal does not seem to be at hand. The Shia leadership remains extremely resistant to any
concessions to its former Sunni overlords. The Shia politicians I met when in Baghdad, even the most urbane and educated, seemed dead set against sharing power in any real sense. In an interview with reuters last week, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki also said he believed that if Iraqi troops were left to their own devices, they could establish order in six months in Iraq.

Now, I think it would be worth testing the thesis that the Shia really do know how to bring order, and we can argue about whether it is by force or whether they really do have some ideas on how to 'buy off the Sunni insurgency' politically.

The point is that the Shia can think strategically too, even though they are fractious. From their perspective, by already having political majority and also a more organized set of 'official' and 'unofficial' troops, to date, it is the US that is their strategic concern, arguably, not the Sunni. They might be concerned, for instance, that the US will do something like disarm them, or worse, turn back the clock on the gains that they have consolidated so far. This is why the focus on disarming the Shia militias by Baker et al., while completely rational based on experiences such as Lebanon, is a non-starter politiclaly with the Shia.

Their appropriate strategic move is to keep the status quo. The Sunni violence works to weaken the US as does time. Later on, they can make a pact with the Sunni, maybe in six months, as suggested.

In sum, the observation that even the most erudite Shia are against settling, that the opinion is so univocal, may not be related to sectarian animosity. It may be that it is so plain to everyone that continuing to drag the US along is the best strategy to weaken their main strategic opponent, the US.

We'll see if that is too much of a bad-faith characterization. The U.S. says it has worked on benchmarks with the new government, but Rummy insists from the DoD podium that their are no penalties contemplated for missing them. Is that too tempting a blank check? I suspect so.

Of course, they could get the US out by making a gambit on the Sunni insurgency now, but one wonders if they are spiteful enough to deny the US (Bush?) a 'victory' of that kind. I suspect the odds are at least 50/50.

Straight talk on "Strategy" Generates Administration Accountability

"Accountability" is in the air in Washington, at least in prospect.

A TEMPLATE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND CITIZEN-LED EVALUATION

One way forward is to start insisting in clear thinking. Not just smart-talk about counterterrorism, but also demand that the Administration (especially Scty Rumsfeld and the DoD Press Corps) clearly separate goals from strategy, and that they be fully accountable for the strategy -- for clearly articulating it, responsibly communicating it, and for sharing evaluations of it.

Some tactical choices may prove insufficient to an adopted strategy. This doesn't negate the strategy, per se. However, if there are no or few tactics that can be or have been used to execute the strategy, then the strategy may not be executable or adoptable. Something else is needed.

STRATEGIC EVALUATION

If the results of a strategy turn out to be insufficiently complete or show themselves too costly (measured in time or treasure or both), and if there are indications that other factors that make the effectiveness of a strategy remote or increasingly remote, then the achiveability of the stated goals starts to come into question.

SAMPLES

These are examples of goals (and they can be disputed):

• Neutralize the insurgency (Woodward quotes Rumsfeld)
• An Iraq that can defend and sustain itself and be an ally in the "War on terror" (not my phrase). (Bush in Stephanopolous interview)

These are slogans, mostly useless (boo! ug!):

• Stay the course
• Cut and Run
• Until the job is finished
• Peace with Dignity
• The Only Exit Strategy is Victory

Here is one counter-insurgency strategy: CLEAR-HOLD-BUILD ( clear /limit each area of those with hostile intent and capability; hold ground against backsliding; and build out political, security, and infrastructure until overall objective is achieved).

Within the strategy there could be various tactics:

• Perimiter operations, US only troops
• Police training, Army involvement (US, Iraqi, other national)
• Psy-ops
• Political negotiations/bargaining - even payoffs for information and cooperation
• Support from Scorpion Brigades

Trust Me, the Iraqi ‘War’ is Going as Well as Expected

SAY WHAAAAT?

`We are making progress everyday in Iraq', is what we heard this week and last from the WH press secretary and from the DOD podium.

Do you feel like you have enough information to know whether OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) is going well or not? I don't.

I'm talking about decision-quality information.

By that, I mean sufficiently comprehensive, systematic, accurate information, not just ad-hoc reporting of this particular area of sectarian violence, this-or-that town, or the latest backward-looking body count?

YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO GET IT

It is time to start challenging the notion that the remainder of this struggle in Iraq needs to be classified "secret" in order to win it. I've put together a potential starting point at the end of this post for what I have in mind. Everyone should consider what is on their own list, however. This is not dogma!

---

Here is what I want from my government, for the sake of my Army and for the sake of a government by The People, not by The Experts. I hope you do was well.

REQUIRED WAR REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT, bi-weekly

OIF Strategy: CLEAR - HOLD - BUILD

PROGRESS REPORTING, Percent completed

• Five metrics of progress for each segment of "Clear", "Hold" and "Build".
• An overall % completed guesstimate
• Breakdown for each Province, 18 in all. Breakdown by other, smaller groups (by sheik, by jurisdiction, by sharia court if one has been set up for a local area, by any group with significant influence in an area).
• Requested field resourcing.
• Breakdown of the assessment of what materials, equipment, and political support are needed at each stage, for example:
  
  CLEAR - troop levels and skills unique to `Clear', weaponry, intelligence, time-phased troop levels and skills, required Iraqi expertise (troop levels, cooperation/coordination, equipment, etc.); Foreign cooperation and expertise;
  
  HOLD - troop levels and skills and levels unique to `Hold', buildup of army forces, alliances, political certainty on issues, Iraqi expertise (build-out of army and police units, vertical and horizontal political consolidation of power/influence, short-term economic improvements); Foreign support (material and nonmaterial);
  
  BUILD - troop levels and skills, maintenance of political alliances/cooperation, electricity, water, all things USAID; U.N.

ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN IN THE MILITARY

1. A disclosure on the what personnel design strategy has been chosen to ensure that cross-functional teams that are meant to solve the problems that are known to exits at each stage of clear-hold-build. Some of these tasks require long-term commitments; others, short-term.
   
   This may imply different incentives, longer tours and commitments for advisers, different training needs - the list is very, very long.
   
   
2. We ought to significantly challenge the notion that all coordinated effort (and information) be limited to the military chain of command, Period.
   
   This may involve a redefinition of the unit level to include civilians of one type or another, including State Department or USAID people or others who need to be part of competent, cross-functional teams.
   
   
3. Metrics on the processing of requests and a top-Brass accountability `track' that ensures that important field-requests and information are not slipping through the cracks of the bureaucracy.
   
   This may mean that the military has to get more publicly `exposed' than they are used to in peacetime. If we need to elect one of their own in 2008 to get them to do, so be it.

REFOCUS THE OLD DEBATES IN A NEW LIGHT

We ought to be able to end or attenuate the exhausting debate about `troop levels' in this way.

Field-level raw requests for troops will give a bottom-up range, low to high, of the requested troop levels. How the Brass chooses to `modify 'those requests and the rational can also be laid bare. At least this decision process will finally be made plain enough that we can stop saying "trust me" and start arguing tactics, which may not result in agreement, but at least it will end radical doubt and maybe even create some buy-in.

INFORMED CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

Without a fact-based sense of retreat or advance, a policy of `hope' cannot be sustained, even if aptly put. No amount of repeating the threats, the so-called lessons of 9-11, or harping on "the stakes" (that were not initially laid plain or made clear), is going to be ultimately sufficient.

During World War II, people knew of grave dangers, they knew when the Germans were advancing and when there was a battlefield retreat or difficulty. They had Roosevelt and Churchill to offer words to help keep the faith.

Today, instead, we have an amorphous war with threats of failure keeping us going rather than a calm, technical approach to counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency on which we can publically debate.

It is time to demand better for the Republic, don't you think?