Posted on May 22, 2015
Should the U.S. apply lessons from "the Surge" in 2006-2008 in Iraq to countering ISIS?
3.92K
18
16
1
1
0
http://www.stripes.com/we-are-in-fact-losing-this-war-senate-hears-case-for-new-iraq-surge-1.347616
It is not clear that "the Surge" actually worked; it surely helped stabilize Baghdad for a short period of time, but beyond that, given subsequent developments in Iraq and lingering questions regarding the appropriateness of applying counterinsurgency tactics as strategy, it seems a cause for concern that similar concepts are again being discussed.
The U.S. has essentially been in continuous conflict in Iraq since 1991, and in the Middle East for about a century. To this point, the U.S. Has not found a strategy (or tactic applied as a strategy) that has "worked." Is it perhaps time to reassess basic approaches and assumptions, or are has the U.S. simply accepted a future of continuing conflict in the region?
One thing strikes me here. It is unfortunate perhaps that counterinsurgency wasn't stressed as a tactic two or three decades ago. Most blame the failure of COIN to produced desired results on the fact that COIN takes decades to implement successfully (if such a thing as success exists in COIN). The U.S. Has now been in Iraq for about 25 years and in Afghanistan for almost 15; it's a shame, perhaps, that the U.S. Did not pursue COIN from the outset--it may have had a chance to work.
But folks asserting that something that didn't work before is going to work now is, frankly, insane, by the classical definition of that word (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results).
The other point I'll make is that although the U.S. is Not very good at winning wars in the Middle East, it is very used to fighting them there. It may be this historical inertia that is the problem.
It is not clear that "the Surge" actually worked; it surely helped stabilize Baghdad for a short period of time, but beyond that, given subsequent developments in Iraq and lingering questions regarding the appropriateness of applying counterinsurgency tactics as strategy, it seems a cause for concern that similar concepts are again being discussed.
The U.S. has essentially been in continuous conflict in Iraq since 1991, and in the Middle East for about a century. To this point, the U.S. Has not found a strategy (or tactic applied as a strategy) that has "worked." Is it perhaps time to reassess basic approaches and assumptions, or are has the U.S. simply accepted a future of continuing conflict in the region?
One thing strikes me here. It is unfortunate perhaps that counterinsurgency wasn't stressed as a tactic two or three decades ago. Most blame the failure of COIN to produced desired results on the fact that COIN takes decades to implement successfully (if such a thing as success exists in COIN). The U.S. Has now been in Iraq for about 25 years and in Afghanistan for almost 15; it's a shame, perhaps, that the U.S. Did not pursue COIN from the outset--it may have had a chance to work.
But folks asserting that something that didn't work before is going to work now is, frankly, insane, by the classical definition of that word (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results).
The other point I'll make is that although the U.S. is Not very good at winning wars in the Middle East, it is very used to fighting them there. It may be this historical inertia that is the problem.
Posted in these groups: 
COIN (Counterinsurgency)
ISIS
COIN (Counterinsurgency) ISIS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
2
2
0
Ironically MAJ (Join to see), I think the lesson to be taken from this is from a different part of the war.
ISIS is repeating the mistake we made in 2003 - attempting to secure a vast area with too few troops. They are roadbound. They are attempting to impose an unpopular occupational government that is seen as illigitimate by the population. They are ruthlessly hunting people that are perceived to represent the old order of things.
If it wasn't so tragic, the irony would be delicious.
I think the insurgents handed us the template to defeat them. Harrassment operations along key lines of communication using small elements (SF in our case), sapping the occupier's will to fight and denying needed resources making them defensive and reactive instead of agressive and proactive.
A surge-like effort would play right into their hands. They would message it as proof the crusaders want to oppress the muslims and rally people to their cause.
Don't do it, America. They are baiting us. They WANT us to be so foolish.
I don't want to just "do something". I want to win.
ISIS is repeating the mistake we made in 2003 - attempting to secure a vast area with too few troops. They are roadbound. They are attempting to impose an unpopular occupational government that is seen as illigitimate by the population. They are ruthlessly hunting people that are perceived to represent the old order of things.
If it wasn't so tragic, the irony would be delicious.
I think the insurgents handed us the template to defeat them. Harrassment operations along key lines of communication using small elements (SF in our case), sapping the occupier's will to fight and denying needed resources making them defensive and reactive instead of agressive and proactive.
A surge-like effort would play right into their hands. They would message it as proof the crusaders want to oppress the muslims and rally people to their cause.
Don't do it, America. They are baiting us. They WANT us to be so foolish.
I don't want to just "do something". I want to win.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see) very astute observation! your message is a great counter argument to the one presented to Congress as covered in this article. Hopefully, someone out there is listening!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
We never lost the war. We QUIT. HUGE difference. Seriously? Strategy? WHAT strategy has something been going on that NO ONE knows about? Putting a couple Brigades on the border at a time and a few A&A inside is NOT a strategy, it is some stupid Vietnam shit. Call it quits, if you are going to quit. When we walked out, we didn't lock the door I got it, we turned off most of the lights and left the 2 year olds in charge of the store but HEY it's what they wanted. It was NOT a strategy. WHAT are they TALKING about? They will never do what we did in the surge again, the pat everyone on the butt, rub their back Army of today is too soft to handle the rigors of the Surge. We have grown significantly weaker which is what the current administration wanted, there is NO way that the Army could HANDLE rapid deployment cycles at it's current levels.
Bottom line though is don't get QUITTING confused with LOSING.
Bottom line though is don't get QUITTING confused with LOSING.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
So, your answer to my question was what, exactly? Yes? No?
Note I agree with your point on strategy. The U.S. Has not had a definable strategy in Iraq specifically or the Middle East in general for quite some time. There's no alignment of ends, ways, and means, mostly because the ends have never been identified or have shifted drastically back and forth over time.
Note I agree with your point on strategy. The U.S. Has not had a definable strategy in Iraq specifically or the Middle East in general for quite some time. There's no alignment of ends, ways, and means, mostly because the ends have never been identified or have shifted drastically back and forth over time.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
MSgt Manuel Diaz
No, go back a little farther and use the methods of General Blackjack Pershing. I believe he made a bloody good decision
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad the comic you posted is a bit unfair to the current Administration (perhaps not inaccurate, but unfair), in that the U.S. hasn't had a strategy with aligned ends, ways, and means in some time. You didn't answer the question Imposed, though. Nor did MSgt Manuel Diaz
(0)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Nice try MAJ (Join to see) --- the current Administration has "owned" this for several years now. It is this Administration that decided to "hurry up" and get us out of Iraq against the advice of some very intelligent people. No, sir, this Administration can't blame the previous one(s) for the current mess.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Actually, the Bush Administration signed the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that led to the U.S. Departure under the current administration. Yes, the Obama Administration did not renegotiate the Bush Administration's agreement with Iraq, but absolving the Bush Administration completely is revisionist history at its best/worst. Things factually happened, and were done by the Bush Administration. One can blame the current administration for all that has gone wrong since 2009, but one can't just say the Bush Administration didn't do things that it did do. What will you revisionists argue next, that Bush didn't invade Iraq and that this too is the fault of the current Administration?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google