Lean Left

« Previous | Next »

Going Backwards
Posted by Kevin

George W. Bush, from last night’s speech:

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.

Michale Leeden:

it sounded like our soldiers will get Rules of Engagement that haven’t been neutered, that are not PC, but ROEs that are appropriate to winning a war rather than avoiding casualties. Maybe…

Army manual on counter-insurgency(pdf link), written by Bush’s choice to lead the Army in Iraq:

Though firmness by security forces is often necessary to establish a secure environment, a government that exceeds accepted local norms and abuses its people or is tyrannical generates resistance to its rule. People who have been maltreated or have had close friends or relatives killed by the government, particularly by its security forces, may strike back at their attackers. Security force abuses and the social upheaval caused by collateral damage from combat can be major escalating factors for insurgencies.

…

Any use of force generates a series of reactions. There may be times when an overwhelming effort is necessary to destroy or intimidate an opponent and reassure the populace. Extremist insurgent combatants often have to be killed. In any case, however, counterinsurgents should calculate carefully the type and amount of force to be applied and who wields it for any operation. An operation that kills five insurgents is counterproductive if collateral damage leads to the recruitment of fifty more insurgents. 1-142. In a COIN environment, it is vital for commanders to adopt appropriate and measured levels of force and apply that force precisely so that it accomplishes the mission without causing unnecessary loss of life or suffering. Normally, counterinsurgents can use escalation of force/force continuum procedures to minimize potential loss of life. These procedures are especially appropriate during convoy operations and at checkpoints and roadblocks. Escalation of force (Army)/force continuum (Marine Corps) refers to using lesser means of force when such use is likely to achieve the desired effects and Soldiers and Marines can do so without endangering themselves, others, or mission accomplishment. Escalation of force/force continuum procedures do not limit the right of self-defense, including the use of deadly force when such force is necessary to defend against a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. Commanders ensure that their Soldiers and Marines are properly trained in such procedures and, more importantly, in methods of shaping situations so that small-unit leaders have to make fewer split-second, life-or-death decisions.

So if Leeden thinks that Bush’s plan to now worry less about civilian casualties is a good one, then what does he think of Bush putting the man who wrote those words in charge of Iraq? Why, after reading those words, does anyone think less discriminate use of force is going to lesson the insurgency? Why is Bush, if Leeden’s interpretation correct, turning is back on the preferred strategy of his chosen commander before that man has had a chance to implement it? And why, after the destruction of Fallujah, the use of American air power in the cities of Iraq, innumerable tales of innocents killed at checkpoints and anti-insurgent sweeps, and the resulting rise in the size, effectiveness, and intensity of the insurgency does anyone think that the problem is that the US has been too careful in its use of force? Leeden and Bush appear to be drifting dangerously close to “Exterminate the brutes”. Do they understand that loose rules of engagements means that more innocents are going to be killed, and thus more and more people will have cause to think the US is interested not in democracy or freedom or self defense but in the conquest of the Muslim world? Do they understand that killing people — especially innocents — makes Bin Laden’s attacks on the US look accurate? Do they remember that there is a world outside of Iraq and that there are terrorists who would love to use the pictures of dead Iraqi civilians to encourage more people to support and conduct terrorist activities? Doe they understand that once you stop carrying about killing the very people you are supposed to be protecting that you have already lost the war of ideas?

UPDATE Formatting on the Army panel excerpt fixed by reader Justin.

January 11th, 2007 Politics, Iraq, Terrorism | one comment