The Iraq Surrender Group, Iran-Contra and the Path to Victory

In order to cause the enemy to come of their own volition, extend some profit. In order to prevent the enemy from coming forth, show them the potential for harm. Sun Tzu - The Art of War

The Democrat vs Republican Group Think (ISG debate) is really getting annoying.  Here my bottom line - the Iraq Surrender Group report is only a piece of the puzzle.  We need an aggressive strategy to win back the initiative in Iraq, Internationally and Domestically.  Two specific issues come to mind when analyzing the ISG report vis-a-vis grand strategy:

1)  I don’t care how many military guys were consulted on the report; you put a bunch of old school cold war diplomats in a room together and you will end up with a DIPLOMATIC solution.  Not that diplomacy is bad; but its only one tool in the tool box.  You can pound a nail with a caulking gun, but all you get is a big fucking mess. So now lets here what the CJCS working group comes up with.  Bet ya $10 billion it’s more objective and comprehensive that the ISG.

2)  I was thinking about Iran–Contra the other day and stumbled upon a wonderful logic bomb: are the liberals the same ya-hoos who freaked out over Ronnie’s back door deals with Iran to get our hostages back and marginalize the radical components of the Iranian regime?  What the fuck has changed in the last 20 years?  When they invaded our Embassy and kidnapped Americans they wanted to impeach the President for negotiating with terrorists – now Iran is fighting a proxy war against us in Iraq and they want to deal with them?  Whiskey, tango, foxtrot over.

Wanna hear my strategy for victory in Iraq? It’s all about seizing the initiative.

A) Increase troops by 10-20k and send them all to Baghdad. Start a real clear, hold, rebuild mission from the Green Zone by pushing salients into Baghdad proper, clear them, and hold (like a wagon wheel).  Establish a perimeter then clear, hold and rebuild the interior of the wagon wheel until you have a bigger Green Zone.  Eventually, you secure all of Baghdad.  Then you look at the rest of the country.  Point is – by then; you should have an Iraqi Army and Police force ready for the job.  And you tell em – once Baghdad is secure they’re up; we will transition US forces to isolating the interior of Iraq by pushing to the boarders with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and Iran. Turkey will take care of its own boarder.

B)  Fight a proxy war against the Iranian regime utilizing the Kurds.  Once the Kurds start fighting the Iranians in Iran (for unification) chances are the Azerbaijanis and Turkmeni will jump on the bandwagon.  If they don’t we can always give them a push.  If Turkey doesn’t like it – tell those fuckers to get the Iranians to stop funding and supplying the insurgency in Iraq.

3)  Get serious about the relationship between domestic politics and Victory in Iraq.  Stop pussy footing around with the debate.  Either you want us to win or you don’t.   Where is the propaganda machine of WWII?  We need to get this country on a war footing.  Gen Pace must be involved.  We are loosing the information warfare piece here at home.  The only way to get it back is to go on the offensive.

Anyway, I’m just a dumb grunt living in Academia.  What do I know?

Semper Fidelis

Comments

[TJ]

Mike,
Regarding point 3; the MSM/Democrats/Liberals/etc. seem to have a significant advantage in assets on the infowar side. Do you have suggestions on HOW to change that and get Joe American and Jill Westerner into the proper frame of mind?

[Mike Hendrickson]

TJ,
Thanks for the post.

I think it must come from the Dems leadership first. Here's my take - its not that they have an advantage on the infowar side, it’s that they are using partisan politics irresponsibly in a time of war. They are effective because no one is challenging them. Don't get me wrong - healthy debate is good. Questioning strategy in the spirit of attaining victory is perfectly acceptable. However, the derision of defeatism is nothing more than traitorous. I would make the distinction and start calling them on it.

As for the mainstream media - I don't have a solution. I do know that they report the news based on ratings and readership. I don't believe that the MSM is necessarily the "vast [left] wing conspiracy" they have been made out to be. Granted, they have their partisan ideologues and bomb throwers, but in general, they don't look for the good stories because the tenor of the national debate is fueled by blood and guts.

If that is what the editors think people want to read, that is what they will ensure is on page 1.

Therefore, one would think that if the debate became more constructive - the MSM would be reflective. Take a look at the whole embedded process at the outset of the war and recall the rhetoric from the anti-war camp - they accused the MSM of lacking in objectivity and being a propaganda arm for the Bush administration. The bottom line for the MSM is just that; it's a business. When it comes to the MSM, the grand ideology of the "Free Press" is plain bullshit.

Here's my opinion - the endstate in Iraq must be victory. I still believe it's attainable because the insurgency is fragile by nature. There are a number of variables that must go our way in order to win in Iraq. The positive focus of the national will on victory is number 2 on the list. Number 1 is the support of the Iraqi people.