as i've said, the change in strategy is far more important than the number of troops involved in the surge. http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2007/02/whackamole_and.html [rquoter]Whack-a-Mole and Seal-a-Hole Redux Bureaucratic Bullroar Hatched by Dafydd I already used this analogy before; but there's nothing wrong with it and no reason not to trot it out again for another spin around the park. So there. Defeatists often portray the Iraq war as an elaborate game of Whack-a-Mole: we drive the terrorists (Sunni or Shiite) out of one spot; they pop up somewhere else. But in reality, we have been playing a different game for a long time now... and the president's new strategic change of course has just made that game a lot more likely to succeed. I quote myself... and heavens, is there anything we of the chattering class like better? If you see somebody playing a game where he keeps whacking plastic moles on the head with a mallet over and over again for hours, it would be easy to conclude he's playing Whack-a-Mole. In that game, the moles pop up again and again from the same holes; every time you whack one, it goes down, only to be resurrected moments later. But when you look closer, you discovered that every time the player whacks a mole, the mallet stays stuck in the hole, permanently blocking it. The player grabs a new mallet and whacks the next one, sealing off another hole. You notice that the moles never come popping up through the sealed holes, only through the holes that are still open... and you also notice that there are a finite number of holes -- and the player is rapidly sealing them up. This is a new game called Seal-a-Hole, and it has a very different dynamic from Whack-a-Mole: the normal game is one of futility; the game continues until the player gets tired and quits or he runs out of money. But Seal-a-Hole actually has a victory point: when all the holes are sealed, the game is over -- and the player, America, has won. Even though Seal-a-Hole is not futile, it nevertheless requires a great deal of patience; there are many, many holes, and each hole has a mole who must be whacked. Some of the holes, such as Sadr City, are very big and will require many mallets to properly seal. But if we have the courage and fortitude of our American forebears, we will seal those holes... and we will win. It's interesting to note that murders in Baghdad have dropped markedly, and attacks are drifting outwards, as Baghdad proper becomes a harder and harder target. StrategyPage notes that, despite all the hullaballoo about suicide car bombings, the actual murder rate in Baghdad has plummeted by more than 70% since the president's strategic change of course began. (Hat tip to the Victory Caucus): Despite the jump in terrorist bombings in the last few days, the death toll in Baghdad, since the security operations began two weeks ago, has declined by over 70 percent.... American intelligence analysts have also used predictive software to analyze terrorist attacks and movements, and determined the best places to put the new checkpoints, and what to look for.... It will take several months before it is known who won the Battle of Baghdad. It's all a matter of crime rates. If the murder rate comes down, you've won. Actually, the murder rate has come down over the last year, but not enough to become news. Eliminating the suicide car bombings would be a real victory, as these operations are largely for the media. Militarily they mean much less than the gun battles between police and terrorist (Sunni or Shia) gangs, or the raids on terrorist safe houses. At this point, the Sunni Arabs are fighting a media war. On the ground, they have lost. But until the media confirms this, they can keep it up. Remember -- we're only a couple of weeks into the plan, and we have only augmented our forces by a single brigade (with four more to enter March through May). Besides sending in more troops, we have: Changed the rules of engagement (ROEs); Redeployed our forces into a more aggressive posture; Buddied-up with both Iraqi Army and Iraqi National Police units; Ended "catch and release"; And secured political backing from Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (authorization to go after Sunni and Shia with equal fervor). We've already whacked a number of moles: we killed quite a few, captured others, and drove a lot of very big moles right out of the country (such as Muqtada Sadr, Iranian puppet, and his top lieutenants). Now we're busily sealing the holes. Let's give the new strategy some time, for goodness' sake.[/rquoter] and some evidence here the new strategy is having some effect: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickRuffini/2007/02/24/shhhh_the_surge_is_working [rquoter]Shhhh... The Surge is Working By Patrick Ruffini Saturday, February 24, 2007 A gloomy haze has settled over the nation's prosecution of the War on Terror as of late. It seems like we can only watch helplessly as Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha size up new angles of attack for undermining the war effort. The media is chomping at the bit the tell the story of an America, bruised and humbled and exhausted, heading for the exits in Iraq. But something interesting is happening on the way to the "new direction." Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory. In Iraq, there's a sense that change is in the air -- literally. Omar of Iraq the Model spots a B-1 Bomber in the skies of Baghdad for the first time since the end of the major combat. On the ground, Omar writes that the signs that Iraqis are getting serious about security are more palbable. With the help of Compstat-like technology, security forces are cracking down at checkpoints (even ambulances are getting stopped) and getting nimbler about locating them strategically so the terrorists don't know what to expect. This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media's near-deafening silence. If it seems like you've heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what's happening. Time magazine worries that it's "Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet." That's right -- a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news. It's too early to claim victory just yet; the operation is just two weeks old. But U.S. troops have been able to accomplish all of this with just one more brigade in-country, with four more on the way by May. These encouraging early returns show the potential for success when we apply concentrated military force to the security problem. When the Army and Marine Corps are on offense, carrying out combat operations and clearing out insurgent strongholds, we win. When we lay back, carrying out routine patrols and playing Baghdad beat cop, we lose. The key to success is staying power. The always incisive Daffyd ab-Hugh has a good read on this dynamic. Counterinsurgency in Iraq has often been compared to a game of whack-a-mole -- secure an area, only to have the insurgents pop up somewhere else. But if we slammed a mallet into the hole, and kept it there, then picked up a new one... and did the same? This is a new game called Seal-a-Hole , and it has a very different dynamic from Whack-a-Mole: the normal game is one of futility; the game continues until the player gets tired and quits or he runs out of money. But Seal-a-Hole actually has a victory point: when all the holes are sealed, the game is over -- and the player, America, has won. Even though Seal-a-Hole is not futile, it nevertheless requires a great deal of patience; there are many, many holes, and each hole has a mole who must be whacked. Some of the holes, such as Sadr City, are very big and will require many mallets to properly seal. But if we have the courage and fortitude of our American forebears, we will seal those holes... and we will win. On the political front, the White House also seems to have dislodged a major roadblock to victory: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's reluctance to allow U.S. troops to take the fight to Sadr and his militias. Returning American troops have expressed their frustration at having to walk on eggshells when it came to came to entering Shi'ite areas, a backbone of support for the government. Thankfully, the rules of engagement are changing. American troops are now freer to take on all comers, and the results are clear in both Sunni and Shi'ite areas. In the coming days and weeks, these rules of engagement will face their ultimate test with the decision to enter Sadr City, the Mahdi Army's key stronghold. And enter we must. Those intent on turning Iraq into a breeding ground for al-Qaeda won't be convinced of our seriousness until we confront the key sources of violence on both sides of the sectarian divide. When things don't go well in Iraq, we see the endless B-roll of chaos and carnage. When things are on the upswing, we tend to hear more about Anna Nicole Smith. The media will never acknowledge victories in Iraq, so we'll have to settle for an absence of bad coverage. But even in this relative lull in Iraq, it's important to understand and appreciate the short-term victories so we can create more of them. And finish the job.[/rquoter]
basso, it would help if your war supporters agreed with each other. Here is the quote from the second article. Now in fairness the first quote goes on to talk about how deaths have gone down despite the number of bombings. But an increase in bombings certainly doesn't equate to things being quiet in baghdad as teh second article implies. I have a question basso, and this a serious one. Do you actually believe the articles you post like this? Do you think the reporters are telling the truth as it is on the ground there?
If you read carefully, you would have noticed this from the first "article": The increase in bombings is happening outside of Baghdad. So, there can be both an increase in bombings and a quiet Baghdad. Are both of these written by the same person, because the Whack-A-Mole part is almost exactly the same in both, including a paragraph that is word for word identical. Either the same guy wrote both pieces, or one is copying the other. One is written by Patrick Ruffini but the other is credited to a pseudonym (Dafydd).
It is interesting to note that both articles don't mention the concurent increase in attacks just outside the zones. If you want to talk about 'biased media coverage', talking about a decrese in violence in Baghdad and not talking about a concurent increase nearby seems to me pretty much like the type of biased, political coverage that the Supercilious Right seem to be so fond of yelling about.
i rather think this is the point of the seal-a-mole analogy/strategy. let's plug the holes in baghdad first and build a security zone outwards from that point. if that's in fact the case, the scenario cited above would be exactly what one would expect to see. it's not a bug, it's a feature.
I don't think we have the resources available to expand it out from Baghdad. I don't even think we have the resources available to sustain it in Baghdad. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding. I would feel better about it if I believed that you were correct, but every discussion that I have heard to this point makes me believe otherwise.
this has been accomplished w/o benefit of the surge troops, or at least the better part of them. 4/5ths of the troops outlined in the surge have yet to arrive on iraq.
It is my understanding that they have been borrowing against that surge. People have been working more often than is normal, with the intent that they will be relieved and get down time when the surge arrives. In that way this effort is dependent on the surge, even though the surge hasn’t happened yet. I suppose you could just eliminate rotations and make troops work nonstop until the war is over. I guess that would give you the bodies needed, but personally I think they've gone well past where they should in terms of overworking soldiers, increasing rotations, etc. When they push the force too hard they get incidents like the troops who just were convicted of killing and raping. Over pressured soldiers sometimes find unacceptable outlets for their stress. My point here is not to try and blame something else (overworked troops) on the administration, but just to state the fact that they don't have much wiggle room anymore with trying to get more out of the same troops. Greater efforts need at this point need to be associated with more soldiers.
Military chiefs give US six months to win Iraq war · Violence expected to rise after UK withdrawal · Troop numbers too low · Coalition is 'disintegrating' Simon Tisdall Wednesday February 28, 2007 Guardian Unlimited An elite team of officers advising US commander General David Petraeus in Baghdad has concluded the US has six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat. The officers - combat veterans who are leading experts in counter-insurgency - are charged with implementing the "new way forward" strategy announced by president George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial "surge" of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province. But the team, known as the "Baghdad brains trust" and ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone around the US embassy, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, said a former senior administration official familiar with their deliberations. "They know they are operating under a clock. They know they are going to hear a lot more talk in Washington about 'Plan B' by the autumn - meaning withdrawal. They know the next six-month period is their opportunity. And they say it's getting harder every day," the former official said. By improving security, the plan's short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation, us officials say. If that works within the stipulated timeframe, longer-term schemes for rebuilding Iraq under the so-called "go long" strategy will be set in motion. But the next six months are make-or-break for both the US military and the Iraqi government. The main obstacles confronting Gen Petraeus's team are: · Insufficent numbers of troops on the ground · A "disintegrating" international coalition · An anticipated upsurge in violence in the south as the British leave · Morale problems as casualties rise · A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad "The scene is very tense. They are working round the clock. Endless cups of tea with the Iraqis," the former senior administration official said. "But they're still trying to figure out what's the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they're thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do." The team comprises an unusual mix of combat experience and high academic achievement. It includes Colonel Peter Mansoor, Gen Petraeus's executive officer and a former armoured division commander who holds a PhD in the history of infantry; Col H R McMaster, author of a well-known critique of Vietnam and a seasoned counter-insurgency operations chief; Lt-Col David Kilcullen, a seconded Australian army officer and expert on Islamism; and Col Michael Meese, son of the former US attorney-general, Edwin Meese, who was a member of the ill-fated Iraq Study Group. Their biggest headache was insufficient numbers of troops on the ground despite the increase ordered by Mr Bush, the former official said. "We don't have the numbers for the counter-insurgency job even with the surge. The word 'surge' is a misnomer. Strategically, tactically, it's not a surge," an American officer said. According to the US military's revised counter-insurgency field manual, FM 3-24, authored by Gen Petraeus, the optimum "troop-to-task" ratio for Baghdad requires 120,000 US and allied troops in the city alone. Current totals, even including often unreliable Iraqi units, fall short of that number. The deficit is even greater in conflict areas outside Baghdad. "Additional troops are essential if we are to win," said Lt-Col John Nagel, another Petraeus confidant and co-author of the manual, in an address at the US Naval Institute in San Diego last month. One soldier for every 50 civilians in the most intense conflict areas was key to successful counter-insurgency work. Compounding the manpower problems is an apparently insurmountable shortage of civilian volunteers from the Pentagon, state department and treasury. They are needed to staff the additional provincial reconstruction teams and other aid projects promised by Mr Bush. The recent British decision to reduced troop levels in southern Iraq, coupled with the actual or anticipated departure of other allies, has heightened the Petraeus team's worries that the international coalition is "disintegrating" even as the US strives to regain the initiative in Iraq, the former official said. Increased violence in the south is now expected, caused in part by the "displacement" of Shia militias forced out of Baghdad by the US crackdown. American and Iraqi forces entered the militant Shia stronghold of Sadr City today for the first time since the surge began. No more major operation have yet been attempted there but "we or the Iraqis are going to have to fight them", one American officer said. According to a British source, plans are in hand for the possible southwards deployment of 6,000 US troops to compensate for Britain's phased withdrawal and any concomitant upsurge in unrest. Morale is another key concern in the Green Zone headquarters as US forces prepare for a rise in casualties as the security crackdown gathers pace. In a message to the troops after he assumed overall command last month, Gen Petraeus heaped praise on their sacrifices while warning of more "difficult times" in the months to come. "We serve in Iraq at a critical time... A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder to shoulder with our Iraqi comrades we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher," Gen Petraeus said. "It's amazing how well morale has held up so far," the former official said. "But the guys know what's being said back home. There is no question morale is gradually being sapped by political debates in Washington." The advisers are also said to be struggling to prevent the "politicisation" of the surge by the Shia-dominiated government of Nuri al-Maliki. The fear is that any security advances may be exploited to further weaken the position of Baghdad's Sunni minority. Despite progress this week on a new law sharing Iraq's oil wealth, continuing Shia and Kurdish opposition to measures to ease the post-invasion de-Ba'athification policy that excludes Sunnis from many senior posts is proving intractable. The Petraeus team believes the government is failing to work hard enough to meet other national reconciliation "benchmarks" set by Mr Bush. Yet it is accepted that the US is asking the Iraqi prime minister to do what most politicians in normal circumstances would refuse to contemplate. "What we're doing is asking Maliki to confront his own powerbase," one officer said. Possibly the biggest longer-term concern of Gen Petraeus's team is that political will in Washington may collapse just as the military is on the point of making a decisive counter-insurgency breakthrough. According to a senior administration official, speaking this week, this is precisely what happened in the final year of the Vietnam war. Steven Simon, the national security council's senior director for transnational threats during the Clinton administration, said a final meltdown in political and public backing was likely if the new strategy was not quickly seen to be working. "The implosion of domestic support for the war will compel the disengagement of US forces. It is now just a matter of time," Mr Simon said in a paper written for the Council on Foreign Relations. "Better to withdraw as a coherent and at least somewhat volitional act than withdraw later in hectic response to public opposition... or to a series of unexpectedly sharp reverses on the ground," he said. "If it gets really tough in the next few months, it will throw fuel on the fire in Washington," the former official said. "Congress will be emboldened in direct proportion to the trouble in Iraq." If the policy was not judged to be working by Labour Day (the first Monday in September, which marks the start of the new political year), Mr Bush could lose control of the policy to Congress and be forced to begin a phased pull-out, he suggested. Despite the problems identified by Gen Petraeus and his advisers, a senior Pentagon official said this week that it was too early to gauge the strategy's chances of success - but that preliminary reports were encouraging. "There are some promising signs. There is a new overall Iraqi commander in Baghdad. A number of joint operations have just begun. The number of political murders has fallen. Iraqi forces are showing up as promised, admittedly a little bit under strength, and are taking up some of the responsibilities that Maliki said he would," the Pentagon official said. "We have to be realistic. We're not going to stop the suicide bombers and the roadside explosive devices for some time. And the military alone are certainly not going to solve the problem. Maliki has to meet the benchmarks. A civilian surge is needed, too. The Iraqis have to do it themselves." American officials say they also have rising hopes of a breakthrough in Sunni-dominated Anbar province where tribal chiefs are increasingly hostile to al-Qaida terrorists and foreign jihadis - and are looking for ways to build bridges to moderate Shias. But this week's US decision to join a dialogue on Iraq with Iran and Syria, after previously refusing to do so, is neverhteless seen as an indication of growing administration alarm over the possibility of an historic strategic failure. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2023542,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
seal-a-mole eh? very cute...except that its going to cost xx trillion dollars when it could have cost x million dollars. talk about self delusion.
