Thread: For Veterans and Military personnel only.[W:651]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

You watched it through the lense of your own bias and world view. I know you don't understand this, but many watched it, and we still have differences of opinion among those who watched it. And no one said you didn't work with the Awakening. In fact, I gave credit to the General for being smart enough to take advantage. I said, it wasn't part of the plan of the surge because it happened independent of the surge and not at our prodding. You seek to take credit where it isn't due.

Have you ever read counterinsurgency doctrine?

Originally Posted by MarineTpartier

What I find especially funny is the fact that then Senator Obama railed against the surge yet used one of his own no more than 2 years later.

That's the ticket, right there. If the man really didn't believe in the success of the strategy, then he wouldn't have used it.

Unless, Boo, you want to argue that Obama is deliberately sending more American men in uniform than necessary to their death in order to knowingly put into place a failed strategy?

Originally Posted by cpwill

Have you ever read counterinsurgency doctrine?

Actually, yes. But that doesn't change fact CP. The fact is it wasn't our idea. They did it completely on their own. You're merely letting your ideology color your perception. Facts are what they are.

Originally Posted by mac

I was there also, and I also agree with CP.

Where you in Iraq, Boo?

As I told them, there are not enough on this thread to represent all who were there. But you and they miss the point. As there are differences of opinon, someone is wrong. The fact remains, regardless of what you think, the events are recorded and we did not start the awakening. This is an undisputed fact. Sorry, but you and they are wrong.

Originally Posted by MarineTpartier

Once again Boo, I will say that I side with CP. Further, I will show you where we executed our doctrine to the T. The surge provided the atmosphere to allow people such as Sheikh Satar to be brave enough to stand up to AQI. If not for the security provided by us, and especially the surge, he would not have been able to do that. Examples of the COIN doctrine are below. This manual was written before the surge, yet, is eerily similar to what happened in Anbar Province.
2-2. The integration of civilian and military efforts is crucial to successful COIN operations. All efforts
focus on supporting the local populace and HN government. Political, social, and economic programs are
usually more valuable than conventional military operations in addressing the root causes of conflict and
undermining an insurgency. COIN participants come from many backgrounds. They may include military
personnel, diplomats, police, politicians, humanitarian aid workers, contractors, and local leaders. All must
make decisions and solve problems in a complex and extremely challenging environment.
2-3. Controlling the level of violence is a key aspect of the struggle. A high level of violence often benefits
insurgents. The societal insecurity that violence brings discourages or precludes nonmilitary organizations,
particularly external agencies, from helping the local populace. A more benign security environment
allows civilian agencies greater opportunity to provide their resources and expertise. It thereby relieves
military forces of this burden.
2-6. COIN is fought among the populace. Counterinsurgents take upon themselves responsibility for the
people’s well-being in all its manifestations. These include the following:
�� Security from insurgent intimidation and coercion, as well as from nonpolitical violence and
crime.
�� Provision for basic economic needs.
�� Provision of essential services, such as water, electricity, sanitation, and medical care.
�� Sustainment of key social and cultural institutions.
�� Other aspects that contribute to a society’s basic quality of life.
Effective COIN programs address all aspects of the local populace’s concerns in a unified fashion. Insurgents
succeed by maintaining turbulence and highlighting local grievances the COIN effort fails to address.
COIN forces succeed by eliminating turbulence and helping the host nation meet the populace’s basic needs.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
I could keep going and going posting portions of this manual. As CP said before, the policy to go into Iraq may have been wrong (I believe it was). But that doesn't mean we should lose too. You seem to be unwilling or unable to differentiate between the two. The surge was lauded by politicians, especially Dems. What I find especially funny is the fact that then Senator Obama railed against the surge yet used one of his own no more than 2 years later.

That doesn't address the point. The Awakening happened on it's own and largely away form where we were targeting. They did that on their own. There is not doubt on that point.

Originally Posted by cpwill

That's the ticket, right there. If the man really didn't believe in the success of the strategy, then he wouldn't have used it.

Unless, Boo, you want to argue that Obama is deliberately sending more American men in uniform than necessary to their death in order to knowingly put into place a failed strategy?

No, you miss much. Obama was not sold. There was vigorous debate. The Generals, whoo argued strongly for it, were clear that even if they got everything they wanted, it might fail anyway. At the end of the day, with a lot of hesitation, he allowed them to try. This is not the same as him seeing success and pushing for the strartegy. I know context and nuance isn't for ideologues. But again, it is best that we be truthful.

The Anbar Awakening was largely a grassroots Iraqi initiative to replace the provincial government with an emergency government led by the Awakening leadership. Police recruitment and partnering with the United States were means to that end.

(Snip)

As Sheikh Sattar was successful in gaining U.S. support in police recruitment, his popularity and influence grew. And as the Anbar Awakening in Ramadi was successful and gained more U.S. support, his vision of the Awakening also grew. He started talking about expanding the Awakening beyond Anbar and even Iraq, envisioning it as a way of changing the Sunni world.

(snip)

If the Awakening leadership were able to tap into that power and use it to expel al Qaeda from Anbar, they would be able to claim that they had conquered an enemy the strongest military in the world could not defeat—negating the argument that they were collaborating with the Americans.

(snip)

U.S. support for the Awakening changed, though, in February 2007, when General Petraeus replaced General George Casey and first heard about tribal movement. In an effort to expand the influence of the Awakening, General Petraeus started the Sons of Iraq program for operations in Diyala and Baghdad, usually paying Sunni tribesmen in al Qaeda– infested areas to work as paramilitaries with the hope that someday they would be integrated into the Ministry of the Interior. Initially, the ethnosectarian parties in the government agreed to integrate the Anbar Awakening fighters into the ministry because they were from a homogeneous Sunni province that was a former al Qaeda sanctuary. (My note: It had already started, now we take advantage)

(Snip)

The surge did not have a role in the Anbar Awakening. Surge troops that came to Anbar in 2007 were not seen as useful, other than on the eastern border with Baghdad where the ISF acted as a sectarian militia. In fact, U.S. troops in general were not seen as useful even before the surge.

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/...uri_Jensen.pdf

This is a no-brainer - OBAMA, hands down.

A check of both WhiteHouse.gov under "Defense" and "Veterans" clearly shows President Obama is doing and has DONE so much more for our Defense Department, active duty service personnel and their families and veterans. A review of MittRomney.com, however, only covers information on "National Defense" where he details (loosely, I might ad) how he'd appropriate funds to add more ships to our Navy or increase the size of our Air Force fighter squadrons. In short, Mitt Romney would rekindle the military industrial complex. Thing is, most of his information is WRONG! Such as the following line from his website:

The Obama administration’s cuts have left us with a military inventory largely composed of weapons designed forty to fifty years ago.

Oh, really, Mr. Romney? Care to explain how the latest smart bombs, advanced weapons capable of shooting around corners, or the latest in snipper riffle technolog such as the Army's XM2010 with an effective range greater than 2,000 meters has found its way into combat action in Afghanistan? Or how he used Stealth Helicopters in concert with SealTeam 6 using the most advanced weaponry to kill OBL?

I mean, c'mon, people. Some things are just clear cut! There's no argument as to which person is doing and HAS DONE MORE or will do for our military. One clue as to who it's not: MITT ROMNEY! But don't take my word for it. Just go to the aforementioned web sites and check out the facts for yourself.

Originally Posted by MarineTpartier

What I find especially funny is the fact that then Senator Obama railed against the surge yet used one of his own no more than 2 years later.

Originally Posted by cpwill

That's the ticket, right there. If the man really didn't believe in the success of the strategy, then he wouldn't have used it.

Unless, Boo, you want to argue that Obama is deliberately sending more American men in uniform than necessary to their death in order to knowingly put into place a failed strategy?

This is one of those, "Eat alittle crow/if it ain't broke, don't fix it" moments.

Granted, President Obama did implement an increase in troop force similar to the surge that was used in Iraq, but let's get a few things straight about that.

1. It took GW Bush nearly a year to finally decide to switch tactics and go with the surge long after Gen. Petraeus recommended a new "counter-insurgency" strategy over the "counter-terrorism" strategy that was in place. Source: The War Within by Bod Woodward and The Gamble by Thomas E. Ricks

2. It took President Obama a mere 6 months to make a similar decision concerning Afghanistan. Source: Obama's Wars by Bod Woodward

Now, granted, President Obama had the advantage of hindsight in his favor - his ability to review the mistakes made concerning implenting the Iraq surge and the military leaders at his disposal. There's also the fact the w/Petraeus' military acumen at his disposal, President Obama and his defense team combined facets of counter-terrorism w/counter-insurancy to tackle the AfPak problem. So, it's the same as the surge but different. (See "Memorandum for the Principals: President Obama's Final Orders for Afghanistan/Pakistan Strategy or Terms Sheet" at the end of the book, "Obama's Wars" for details)

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

As I told them, there are not enough on this thread to represent all who were there. But you and they miss the point. As there are differences of opinon, someone is wrong. The fact remains, regardless of what you think, the events are recorded and we did not start the awakening. This is an undisputed fact. Sorry, but you and they are wrong.

I guess I see a different point. It seems that all who where there, and in this thread, disagree with you (who wasn't). I'm sure you'll catch up on the interweb, though.

Interesting.