Should the U.S. apply lessons from "the Surge" in 2006-2008 in Iraq to countering ISIS?

2015-05-22T07:51:54-04:00

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.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 22 at 2015 8:03 AM

2015-05-22T08:03:04-04:00

No ... personally, I am against committing any more resources to this UNLESS we are going to have a totally different endgame in mind. I see no reason why we should keep going back into Iraq to unscrew the situation there and then turn around and leave again ... just to do it again all over again somewhere down the road. This can easily turn into an endless cycle.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 8:05 AM

2015-05-22T08:05:26-04:00

I believe this is a war that cannot be won without going against most Americans beliefs and totally destroying the entire country with lots of collateral damage. As said in the article this region has been at war for century so this is there way of life and you will not change that with our tactics it will take something much more extreme.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 22 at 2015 8:20 AM

2015-05-22T08:20:02-04:00

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 8:52 AM

2015-05-22T08:52:30-04:00

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.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 9:52 AM

2015-05-22T09:52:04-04:00

Ironically MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, 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.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made May 23 at 2015 1:57 PM

2015-05-23T13:57:09-04:00

Maj Jager I did answer no to the question about the 2006-8 surge; however I think this war is not designed for Americans to be victorious. To many rules for engagement. The U.S. military knows what needs to be done to win there, the military won the Vietnam war; the politicians lost it. Same game, same tactics, same loses, and costs because of political games and corruption just new technology and techniques to kill and die.. same bloody mess after battle whether ancient hachets or today's war toys

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 12 at 2019 3:12 PM

2019-04-12T15:12:43-04:00

Some thoughts regarding the surge:
-It was facilitated by the Sunni Awakening and the Sons of Iraq (SOI). The Sunnis decided they would rather fight AQI than the Shiites and the Americans. Thus it was proof positive of one of Clausewitz theory of his trinity; the passion of the people prevailed.
-It enhanced security which is one of the base building blocks of stabilizing a country.
-The Shiite government disbanded the SOI which often led them to be unemployed and bitter with the government.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2019 7:11 PM

2019-04-12T19:11:58-04:00

I've never been there, but I suspect that dividing Iraq up into three different countries, based on ethnicity/religion (shia Arab, sunni Arab, and Kurds) would have made things much more workable. I also think Iran's government has been overdue for a good kick in the teeth since watching the Iran hostage crisis on TV as a boy, and I think Iran has stirred up some of the problems in Iraq.