Aussie brigadier: "so-called war on terrorism does not exist"

[joaquim]

[ Article ]

A clear and blunt opinion and, therefore, a welcomed opinion. However, truth is not simple; an opinion can be simple or accurate, not both. Some quotes:

Terrorism is merely a tactic.

True for the big boss. However, for the young muslim blowing himself up, this represents the highest goal in his spiritual quest. Therefore, it is the end, not a tactic.

the "proposition you can bomb someone into thinking as we do has been found to be untrue".

Indeed, it did not work in Vietnam, but it worked marvelously in Germany, Japan and half of Korea.

While success in battle was critical, it would not of itself deliver victory - that would come by winning over the hearts and minds of the local people.

True, in theory. In practice, an Iraqi car bomber's heart & mind is not opened to christians, no matter what you try. Battle is all that is left.

Brigadier Kelly said modern war could be defined as "conflict, using violent and non-violent means, between multiple actors and influences, competing for control over the perceptions, behaviour and allegiances of human population groups". "If you take violence out of the first line, it's a description of politics".

There are dozens of young men being brainwashed today into random walking bombs. This is no time for philosophy. On the other hand, I agree that non-violent means have been underutilized. For example, there is an urgent need for a theological debate amongst muslims regarding the definition of a martyr and the killing of civilians. Also, we should evaluate the use of theological warfare. It has been used in the past, sometimes with success.
Joaquim R

 

[Blue Max]

Well said Joaquim.

 

[a_majoor]

The "hearts and minds" is vastly under reported, but there is a lot going on in Iraq and Afghanistan to lay the groundwork for a functioning civil society. This effort is likely to take decades, but it took a long time to bring Germany and Japan into the fold as well.

As for the Jihadis and others who employ terrorist tactics; it is well and good to drain away their support base in the civil population, but you also have to neutralize them in the meantime. As one military wag said "Get them by their short and curlys, and their hearts and minds will follow".

 

[enfield]

Haven't read the article, don't want to register for the site.

However, I'd have to agree that the 'War on Terror' is something of a farce. Certainly there is an enemy, but defining it as 'terror' - which is an action, a tactic, or a methodology - is inappropriate and misleading. The 'War on Terror' has more to do with the tendency to over simplify concepts meant for public consumption in a mass democracy, than with a military campaign.

I believe we are engaged in a drawn out asymmetrical conflict with the extreme fringes of a vast culture, a movement that manifests many common grievances and problems of their home culture. The enemy is clearly Islamic Radicals - not Islam, or Arabs, but not 'terror' either.

The War on Terror seems a big far fetched at times. Terrorism has killed very few people in recent history. If you exclude 9/11, it has killed an almost preposterously small number of people - fewer than are killed by most highways. But, we still invest billions of dollars and massive resources to fight it. This is partly justified, I think, by the threat of a cataclysmic attack - another 9/11, a WMD attack, etc - and also by the need to eliminate the radical Islamic militants.

"Grab their balls and their hearts and minds will follow" seems to me the wrong approach - its not working in Iraq, it didn't work in Vietnam, and short of genocide, it never will work. I think it creates more enemies, foments new grievances, creates new causes that didn't exist before, and to a degree legitimizes the militant extremists. I would argue for a balance of development, diplomatic engagement, social, culture, and political pressure, and restrained use of force.
Joaquim is right, by the time the guy decides to be a suicide bomber, its too late, and he has to be killed. But, the idea is to eliminate the conditions (not just economic, but ideological) that let him make that choice, and to eliminate Johnny Martyr and his buddies in a way that doesn't create new enemies. As an example of this, I would say the the failure of the world to properly invest in the rebuilding of Afghanistan prevents a long-term solution.

I disagree that "we can bomb someone into thinking like we do" and that this worked in Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Japan and Germany both had highly effective, structured systems and a long tradition and personal experience of rule of law, political authority, constitutional authority, law and order, and other hallmarks of civilization. Germany even had experience with democracy. And, we did more than bomb them a lot - in all three cases most of the old structure - everything from the political apparatus to the means to support life - were wiped clean by years of Total War. Germany needed six years of absolute conflict, most of its cities destroyed, its previous administration completely discredited, its population starving, 20 million pissed-off Russian soldiers, 10 years of occupation, and massive foreign aid.

Anyways, Iraq and the "War on Terror" were separate issues until Bush made them one, and I still don't think the Iraqi insurgency is necessarily tied to Al Qaeda all the time. I would say that many of the insurgents and suicide bombers, while displaying similar tactics and ideology, are still substantially different in their motivation and mission than Al Qaeda in general. I think, Joaquim, you've made a mistake by combining the War on Terror with the Iraqi conflict. They're certainly related, but not the same.

 

[Infanteer]

However, I'd have to agree that the 'War on Terror' is something of a farce. Certainly there is an enemy, but defining it as 'terror' - which is an action, a tactic, or a methodology - is inappropriate and misleading. The 'War on Terror' has more to do with the tendency to over simplify concepts meant for public consumption in a mass democracy, than with a military campaign.

Agree here.  War on Terrorism is a silly phrase - it is like saying War on Operatonal Envelopment or War on Carpet Bombing.

I believe we are engaged in a drawn out asymmetrical conflict with the extreme fringes of a vast culture, a movement that manifests many common grievances and problems of their home culture. The enemy is clearly Islamic Radicals - not Islam, or Arabs, but not 'terror' either.

Agree here as well, but in part.  I'm not so sure it is a conflict with an "extreme fringe" of Islamic (Arab?  Middle Eastern?) culture.

Having just finished Through Our Enemies' Eyes by "Anonymous", the author makes a point that I think is very important in that the conflict we are engaged in is a fight against a guerrilla insurgency rather then a terrorist campaign.  This is supported by the fact that violence that occurs in the Middle East against the West is not monopolized by Al Qaeda, but that it almost always is supported by its mission, goals, and statements.

"Anonymous" argues that we are foolhardy to view Al Qaeda as a traditional terrorist organization.  In pigeonholing it with Hizballah, Abu Nidal, and the slew of other Cold War groups who were basically extentions of surrogate state policies, we lose sight of the fact that Al Qaeda is a much more an insurgent organization that is as much a "facilitator/inciter" as a "doer".  Anonymous lists off pages of attacks against Western and Western-backed (or perceived to be Western-backed) targets both inside and outside of the Middle East in the last decade or so and despite the fact that Al Qaeda was not directly responsible for them, they were committed to goals that were within the Islamic insurgent context that Osama bin Laden has become the figurehead for.  There is no difference between Al Qaeda operatives blowing something up or the message of Al Qaeda convincing some Filipino/Indonesian/Pakistani/Egyptian group or individual to do the same.

The message of this insurgency is clearly anti-Western and grounded upon traditional Islamist thought.  Why is it appealing to many?  I think "Anonymous is onto something when he states that:

"There is a perception in the Muslim world - which bin Laden has fed - that the Christian West is always ready to use economic coercion and military force if proselytizing does not work, or does not work quickly.  The latter is an intense irritant in the Islamic world and is, as Professor Samuel Huntington noted, grounded in fact: from 1980 to 1995 "the United States engaged in seventeen military operations in the Middle East, all of them directed at Muslims.  No comparable pattern of U.S. military operations occurred against the people of any other civilization."  Tough economic sanctions have been simultaneously enforced by the West against several Muslim states.  As noted, bin Laden has been outspoken in condemning the Crusaders' eagerness to put sanctions on Sudan, Iraq, and Libya; to tolerate prolonged military aggression against Muslim Bosnians, Somalis, Kashmiris, and Kosovars; and to conspire to divide Muslim states such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.  In voicing these views, bin Laden is more virulent than most Muslims, but he is not the lone voice."

Anonymous, Through Our Enemies' Eyes; pg 244.

What does the previous stuff say (to me, at least):

1)  That the enemy is a varied one that is driven to fight us for both Who we Are and/or What we Do.  Fundamentalists (both Shia and Sunni) abhor Western secularism and see it as an immoral evil (Religious).  Many Palestinians will fight because of the ongoing dispute with Israel (ethnic).  Pashtun Taliban forces will fight us because they see us as Allied with their traditional Tajik foes who occupy the Karzai government in Kabul (tribal).  Egyptians will bomb Americans as a way to fight against a Mubarak government they oppose (civil war).  Ba'athist or other organizations in Iraq will attack Westerners because they oppose Western presence in their homeland (nationalists).  All of these motives exist and they can often be combined and mixed.  The Insurgency that Bin Laden spearheads is focusing this animosity on the West by pointing to it as the root of the problem.

2)  Further to this, not all our enemies are rabid, Koran-toting fundmentalists.  This is where the definition "War on Terror" falls short, as it puts all the possible enemies we may fight into a single box that does not do their motivations or their outlook justice.   Don't paint the insurgent opponent with a broad brush.

3)  As pointed out above, opposing forces have wide and disparate interests.  They are tied togeather in their actions by the message that bin Laden has constantly preached of Pan-Islamic Defence of the Faith.  However, this does not distract them from settling differences with eachother.  Dar al Islam is a large and vibrant part of the world, and there is a gamut of interests (old and new) clashing - Matt Fisher pointed out to me that while in Iraq, he noticed that Muslim on Muslim violence was as common as attacks on Americans.  Expect to see various intercine Islamic conflict based on ethnicity (Kurd/Arab/Turkish, etc), Tribal (Pashtun/Tajik/Hazara, etc) and Religious (Shia/Sunni) lines.

4)  If this is an insurgency being driven by the notion that the West is a crusading boogey-man, then "grab them by the balls and hearts and minds will follow" is the absolute worst approach to take as it will only serve to further the belief that we are marauding Crusaders bent on destroying Islam.  This is very much a war of perception.

5)  Finally, as this is a war of perception, we must consider how we are to fight it.  There will always be the 10% who hate us for who we are; the only solution for them is a JDAM or a Hellfire.  However, the main effort should lie with those Muslims who are angry at us for what we do.  This is why I am generally supportive of going into Afghanistan and especially Iraq, which is at the center of Dar al Islam.  From these places, if we play our cards right, we can do much to attack the Insurgent message that we are marauding extentions of the Crusades.  Much of the situation today has come about due to the unintended consequences of Cold War policies - oh well, no point lamenting them, now we must address them and the West is now strategically engaged in the Middle East in a manner that should facilitate this.

 

[Glorified Ape]

 This is why I am generally supportive of going into Afghanistan and especially Iraq, which is at the center of Dar al Islam.  From these places, if we play our cards right, we can do much to attack the Insurgent message that we are marauding extentions of the Crusades.  Much of the situation today has come about due to the unintended consequences of Cold War policies - oh well, no point lamenting them, now we must address them and the West is now strategically engaged in the Middle East in a manner that should facilitate this.

You don't believe that any positive PR built while there is severely overshadowed by the effect of the West militarily bludgeoning its way into Iraq? I'm actually asking the question, not making a rhetorical point.  ;D

 

[Infanteer]

You don't believe that any positive PR built while there is severely overshadowed by the effect of the West militarily bludgeoning its way into Iraq? I'm actually asking the question, not making a rhetorical point.   ;D

I knew this is the point that would gather your attention.    

I don't believe that Iraq is a lost cause.   Iraq is a complex situation - as I said above, someone who was there for 6 months pointed out that there is as much violence amongst Iraqi Muslims as there is attacks on Americans and those perceived to be American puppets.   There is as much as a civil war going on there as there is insurgency against the West.

Avoiding a bludgeoning was not an option in my opinion.   We couldn't sit back and hope to contain the problem as long our interests tied us so heavily to the Middle East.   Strategic engagement within the Middle East that has come with OIF is needed.   As well, I believe that it is better (and easier) to bludgeon our way into Iraq (with a tin-pot dictator who wasn't liked very much by anybody) then it was to bludgeon our way into Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iran.  

The PR of the military engagement Iraq is a small factor in a 4th Generation Conflict compared to the PR of the political battle between the West and the opposing Islamic Insurgency.   Truly a hearts and minds affair - I'm going to have to go back to some stuff on the Malayan Emergency....

In any case, I agree with Col Thomas Hammes' ideas presented in The Sling and the Stone.   In a war of perception, the real battles will be long, drawn out political ones - all the military forces of the West can do is set the initial conditions for the political battle by getting the foot in the door and by routinely holding off the 10% that cannot be swayed (as witnessed with the battles in An Najaf and Fallujah).   Two years is too early to call it.

In reference to the original article, I like the term "Islamic Insurgency" better - to me, it seems much more fitting to what is happening then "War on Terror".

 

[Glorified Ape]

I knew this is the point that would gather your attention.    

I don't believe that Iraq is a lost cause.   Iraq is a complex situation - as I said above, someone who was there for 6 months pointed out that there is as much violence amongst Iraqi Muslims as there is attacks on Americans and those perceived to be American puppets.   There is as much as a civil war going on there as there is insurgency against the West.

Avoiding a bludgeoning was not an option in my opinion.   We couldn't sit back and hope to contain the problem as long our interests tied us so heavily to the Middle East.   Strategic engagement within the Middle East that has come with OIF is needed.   As well, I believe that it is better (and easier) to bludgeon our way into Iraq (with a tin-pot dictator who wasn't liked very much by anybody) then it was to bludgeon our way into Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iran.  

The PR of the military engagement Iraq is a small factor in a 4th Generation Conflict compared to the PR of the political battle between the West and the opposing Islamic Insurgency.   Truly a hearts and minds affair - I'm going to have to go back to some stuff on the Malayan Emergency....

In any case, I agree with Col Thomas Hammes' ideas presented in The Sling and the Stone.   In a war of perception, the real battles will be long, drawn out political ones - all the military forces of the West can do is set the initial conditions for the political battle by getting the foot in the door and by routinely holding off the 10% that cannot be swayed (as witnessed with the battles in An Najaf and Fallujah).   Two years is too early to call it.

In reference to the original article, I like the term "Islamic Insurgency" better - to me, it seems much more fitting to what is happening then "War on Terror".

I agree with it being too early to call and, admittedly, the reversals by Syria in Lebanon and Libya would suggest your argument has truth to it. One of the primary problems I have is with precedent, namely the one that Iraq set. I don't view security as best achieved, in the long run, by invading countries without sufficient cause. I think we can agree that the whole "democracy/liberty/freedom" tripe was more rhetoric than true motivation but if it's going to be used it has to be used across the board - that means no more playing patty cake with Indonesian dictators, backing South American despots, or orchestrating anti-democratic coups in the Middle East.

I'm not sure that the effect of military action can really be as comparably insignificant as you suggest. After all, actions speak louder than words and while you can say all sorts of pretty things to people, your actions against them are likely to have more of a lasting effect. You can't club them with one hand and feed them with another and expect them to ignore the clubbing, even a long time after the clubbing was administered. I understand that there are major conflicts between Muslims in Iraq, likely the result of Shi'ite subjugation by Saddam in favour of the Sunni minority. It reminds me of Africa to some extent - inappropriate borders make for alot of civil strife.

I don't know what to think anymore - there are pros and cons to both sides, I just tend towards a preference for resolution through nonviolent means. Don't get me wrong, sometimes violence is necessary, I just think we're far too lax with what we construe to be "necessary". After all, I'd say Sudan is more "necessary" than Iraq but no one asked me. 

 

[Infanteer]

I don't know what to think anymore

Nor I - I'm just going with my gut instinct here.

there are pros and cons to both sides, I just tend towards a preference for resolution through nonviolent means.

So do I.   But I think that recourse was thrown out the window on September 11, 2001 - I don't view Iraq as separate and distinct from the general campaign against an Islamic Insurgency.   Infact, judging from the list of attacks prior to 9/11 by groups of an Islamic Insurgency (which bin Laden supports/represents) that Anonymous presents in his book, I'd say that it went out the window even earlier.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes violence is necessary, I just think we're far too lax with what we construe to be "necessary". After all, I'd say Sudan is more "necessary" than Iraq but no one asked me.  

Consider this.   Osama bin Laden has ties to Sudan and actually based himself there before moving to Afghanistan.   Now, what happens if a Western force moves into Sudan under the auspices of the UN and intervenes?   We have a body of politicians centered in New York that sends Christian armies to interfere in a Muslim state (well, one usurped by a Muslim gang) and promotes Darfur and (more importantly) Sudanese Christians to the South at the expense of Muslim Arabs to the North.

This is exactly what happened in Somalia - Al Qaeda is very strongly linked to the Aideed militia and the attacks that killed 18 US Soldiers in the Blackhawk Down event.   The withdrawal of the Americans from Somalia was viewed as a "victory" for Al Qaeda and the Islamic Insurgency.   Just like Somalia, Sudan is a humanitarian crisis - however, despite the fact intervening in Sudan may or may not be necessary and/or the right thing to do, I can see the very real possibility of it turning into another propaganda victory for Islamic Insurgent groups who continue to believe and portray the West as Crusaders intent on destroying Muslim states and Islam.

A war of perception indeed....

 

[Glorified Ape]

Nor I - I'm just going with my gut instinct here.

Yeah, well yours is wrong and mine is right. My instincts were tempered in the fires of down-and-dirty Lytton Park in Toronto - a place where neglecting your gardening could get you maliciously discussed by unimpressed neighbours. Where I come from, you've got no time in!!  :threat:

So do I.   But I think that recourse was thrown out the window on September 11, 2001 - I don't view Iraq as separate and distinct from the general campaign against an Islamic Insurgency.   Infact, judging from the list of attacks prior to 9/11 by groups of an Islamic Insurgency (which bin Laden supports/represents) that Anonymous presents in his book, I'd say that it went out the window even earlier.

Well it's certainly not separate now. You'd probably have more of an effect invading Saudi Arabia or Iran - Iraq was a non-sequitur. You may be right about it starting earlier, but I'm not sure that continuing the same kind of foreign policy that spawned the problem is likely to solve it.

Consider this.   Osama bin Laden has ties to Sudan and actually based himself there before moving to Afghanistan.   Now, what happens if a Western force moves into Sudan under the auspices of the UN and intervenes?   We have a body of politicians centered in New York that sends Christian armies to interfere in a Muslim state (well, one usurped by a Muslim gang) and promotes Darfur and (more importantly) Sudanese Christians to the South at the expense of Muslim Arabs to the North.

Good point. This is where I become the "who cares about their feelings" neo-con type. I believe there's a medium between absolutism and relativism, with genocide falling safely within the "grounds for imposition" part of my grey area, along with aggressive war. You're right about how they'd interpret it, though they scream just as loudly that someone should do something when it's Muslims getting wiped out. I don't advocate invading another person's country to impose our norms of governance, but I believe it's justifiable to invade someone's country to stop them from wiping out an entire people or to stop them from attacking someone else's country unjustifiably (US being a prime candidate, but only in a dream world).

This is exactly what happened in Somalia - Al Qaeda is very strongly linked to the Aideed militia and the attacks that killed 18 US Soldiers in the Blackhawk Down event.   The withdrawal of the Americans from Somalia was viewed as a "victory" for Al Qaeda and the Islamic Insurgency.   Just like Somalia, Sudan is a humanitarian crisis - however, despite the fact intervening in Sudan may or may not be necessary and/or the right thing to do, I can see the very real possibility of it turning into another propaganda victory for Islamic Insurgent groups who continue to believe and portray the West as Crusaders intent on destroying Muslim states and Islam.

While invading Iraq isn't? I'm all for intervening, where necessary (see previous paragraph), and saying "damn the critics" but as you said, it's a war of perception and invading countries with virtually no casus belli does absolutely nothing for the effort.

A war of perception indeed....

You're really in love with this Anonymous guy. Of course, from what I've read thus far, so am I. You can't have him, he's mine.

 

[Infanteer]

This is where I become the "who cares about their feelings" neo-con type. I believe there's a medium between absolutism and relativism, with genocide falling safely within the "grounds for imposition" part of my grey area, along with aggressive war. You're right about how they'd interpret it, though they scream just as loudly that someone should do something when it's Muslims getting wiped out. I don't advocate invading another person's country to impose our norms of governance, but I believe it's justifiable to invade someone's country to stop them from wiping out an entire people or to stop them from attacking someone else's country unjustifiably (US being a prime candidate, but only in a dream world).

While invading Iraq isn't? I'm all for intervening, where necessary (see previous paragraph), and saying "damn the critics" but as you said, it's a war of perception and invading countries with virtually no casus belli does absolutely nothing for the effort.

Isn't it easy to tag Saddam Hussein, and thus in your eyes justify a casus belli, with the same accusations that you are tagging the Sudanese regime with (perhaps not in scale, but definitely n scope)?  I can see the treatment of Shia and Kurds (along with aggressive war in Kuwait) as being as much as a justification as Darfur and the Black Christians in the Sudan.

Anyways, my point was to show that there is never a black and white case for intervention.  Iraq has bad consequences just as Sudan would.  Oh well, FIDO I guess.

 

[enfield]

S_Baker- Thank-you. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the subject, and what you see missing in my post. I certainly agree that the tactics of terrorism and the grievances of the Muslims are not new at all.

I was trying to explain that
(a) there cannot be a 'War on Terror', but there is a very real war against Islamic Radicalism
(b) For a variety of reasons, the War on Terror has received too much attention for its actual current scale
(c) The War in Iraq was originally seperate from the War on Terror, and is still only loosely linked to Al Qaeda
(d) Military force is very limited in what it can accomplish in this conflict, and can often be counter-productive

Too add to this, I see Al Qaeda as almost a 'bogey man'. Certainly a real threat, but I think its a lot looser and evolving than it appears, and is best seen as a common ideology (anti-Western Islamic Radicalism) and methodology (terrorism) shared between many groups. More of a network than a hierarchical organization.

Infanteer/Glorified Ape- I'm afraid I don't really know what your arguing/talking about anymore, I'm afraid you lost me with all the quoting and counter-quoting. And all that agreeing.  :

 

[Dare]

S_Baker- Thank-you. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the subject, and what you see missing in my post. I certainly agree that the tactics of terrorism and the grievances of the Muslims are not new at all.

I was trying to explain that
(a) there cannot be a 'War on Terror', but there is a very real war against Islamic Radicalism

There is a war against terrorism, because not all terrorists we are fighting are Islamic radicals.

(b) For a variety of reasons, the War on Terror has received too much attention for its actual current scale

How many countries are engaged in the war against terrorism? How many countries are currently fighting the same terrorist groups? There isn't a bigger conflict in the world right now.

(c) The War in Iraq was originally seperate from the War on Terror, and is still only loosely linked to Al Qaeda

Iraq was a state sponsor of terror. Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization.

(d) Military force is very limited in what it can accomplish in this conflict, and can often be counter-productive

Military force is not the only method being applied in the war against terrorism.

Too add to this, I see Al Qaeda as almost a 'bogey man'. Certainly a real threat, but I think its a lot looser and evolving than it appears, and is best seen as a common ideology (anti-Western Islamic Radicalism) and methodology (terrorism) shared between many groups. More of a network than a hierarchical organization.

I think that you'll find that while it is amorphous, it is not a 'boogeyman'. It's a very serious national security threat. I also think you'll find that the US administration have been mentioning cell based operations for some time. Al Qaeda does not embody all Islamic radicalism. I haven't heard anyone with any credibility say that Al Qaeda is a static target.

 

[a_majoor]

An exerpt from an NRO article:

What Went Right
How the U.S. began to quell the insurgency in Iraq

EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece appears in the May 9th, 2005, issue
of National Review.

    "Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them." â ” T. E. Lawrence

It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq.

If current trends continue, our counter-insurgent campaign in Iraq will be fit to be mentioned in
the same breath as the British victory over a Communist insurgency in Malaysia in the 1950s, a
textbook example of this form of war. Our counterinsurgency has gone through the same stages as
that of the Brits five decades ago: confusion in the initial reaction to the insurgency, followed by a
long period of adjustment, and finally the slow but steady erosion of the insurgency's military and
political base. Even as there has been a steady diet of bad news about Iraq in the media over the last
year, even as some hawks have bailed on the war in despair, even as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
has become everyone's whipping boy, the U.S. military has been regaining the strategic upper hand.

This doesn't mean the war couldn't still go wrong. "It's not over," says a top officer in Iraq. A key
assassination, continued Sunni rejectionism, an inter-sectarian explosion, or something unforeseen â ”
all could still derail us in Iraq. Nor does it mean that our effort is perfect. "I give us a B minus," says
an administration official, a tough grader who is nonetheless an optimist. But it does mean that as of
mid-April 2005 we are winning, just as surely as we were losing in the darkest days of the dual
radical-Shia and radical-Sunni uprisings a year ago.

The basic approach of the Pentagon to the insurgency was right from the beginning. "The strategy
was always political as well as military," says a Pentagon official. A counterinsurgency is never
about simply killing enemy fighters the way it is â ” or at least seems â ” on a conventional battlefield.
Insurgents have an endless capacity to replicate themselves, unless political conditions are created
that drain them of support. If top policymakers always knew that intellectually, we have had to
stumble our way to finding the correct ways to act on the insight.

The remark about "get them by the short and curleys..." was actually directed at the insurgents. In recorded history, only the Romans even came close to completing counter insurgency operations successfully in this fasion, and I am a bit dubious as to the ability of any armed force in todays world being able to kill all the men, enslave all the women and devastate the infrastructure with impunity the way the Legions could in Spain, Syria or any place else rebellion raised its ugly head. The Russians tried in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and was not very successful, and I don't believe any "civilized" nation would attempt such a thing today.