Deteriorating security in Iraq

[Royal]

This letter was printed in the (London) Times today.



Deteriorating security in Iraq

From Professor Sir Timothy Garden and others

Sir, we watch the deteriorating security situation in Iraq with deep sadness.

The coalition forces should have only one purpose: to promote the rule of law in a chaotic post-conflict environment. The military must not themselves be above the law; we learned that lesson in our own prolonged counter-insurgency operation in Northern Ireland. British soldiers are not naturally more restrained than their American cousins. Hard training and discipline have instilled into them the importance of working within the constraints of normal civilian law when trying to build trust within the community.

If we seek to bring democracy to Iraq, the rule of law should come first; and coalition forces must be just as subject to it as are the ordinary citizens. This means that often a direct military response will be disallowed in favour of a more peaceable solution of a police nature.

This is always a hard lesson for the military to learn. The Northern Ireland peace process would not have been helped by the use of attack helicopters against IRA strongholds. Israel degrades its security with each use of excessive force in Gaza. Likewise bombing mosques or strafing houses makes any settlement in Iraq more difficult to achieve.

We strongly believe that all forces in Iraq should be required forthwith to act within the confines of normal civil legal rules. After power is transferred on June 30, any agreement on the status of foreign forces with the new transitional government must require that the military operate within the law.

Yours,

TIMOTHY GARDEN
(Assistant Chief of Defence Staff, 1992-94),
JOHN STAINER
(Chief of Defence Staff, 1982-85),
BRYAN THWAITES,
HAROLD WALKER
(Ambassador to Iraq, 1990-91),
Centre for Defence Studies,
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS


The emphasis in the second paragraph is mine.

While I freely admit that some events in Iraq have elscalated well above the level that things reached even in the 1970's and 1980's in Northern Ireland, we are still nowhere near the overall level of SF (Security Forces) casualties there (thank God).

I'm not sure if I agree totally with Sir Timothy Garden and co, but IMHO their argument has some merit.

[Javehn]

This is always a hard lesson for the military to learn. The Northern Ireland peace process would not have been helped by the use of attack helicopters against IRA strongholds. Israel degrades its security with each use of excessive force in Gaza. Likewise bombing mosques or strafing houses makes any settlement in Iraq more difficult to achieve.

I am most surtainly not agree with that paragraph , and i have the right as one that served there , and knows more then the writter of this letter (and i am very regret , that those people that signed the letter , have that opinion on them , based on action of US troops in Iraq ) . But i do agree with the basic idea of that letter , like i said before in several threads . The Tactics that American soldiers tooke from us (and i must say they use it wrong way , from my impression ) , are not implementable there , and i would say that the British model is more correct .

That article offcorse want help **** now , because Faluja must be hell on earth . And contacts with local population aren't exactly what's on minds of US soldiers .

But i said it from the begining , wrong wrong wrong implementation . Wrong tactic in wrong place , and wrong use of it . I personnally think that private security or Police units (with represantation of Arabic countries from the region ) would fit better there .

And please , all the security experts over here , don't try to proove otherwise , and think you know better . I know very well what tactics U.S troops learned from our Army , and what sceptical voices it had from the begining .

Ah , and something else : When the really hard **** would hit the fans in Basra , like in Faluja , i would see what kinda letter would be sent this time , and how much interaction with local population would be there . And it would come to British also this way , perhaps later , but it would come .

[Royal]

Another thought.

I had a conversation with an officer with more years in the middle east (admitedly mostly in the Oman) than I hope I'll ever have last over coffee.

His view (which with my much more limited experience I tend to share) is that there are two options:

a. Turkey
b. Iran

a. Turkey was secularised by Attaturk following WWI by brutal use of force and semi-dictatorship. While hardly a democratic uptopia, particularly for the Kurds. It has since evolved to the point where the EU is prepared to consider it for future membership.

b. Iran. Now this will not go down well with the Yanks (his words not mine). Iran is a theocracy with a limited degree of democracy - if the candidates are acceptable to the theocrats.

Both are relatively stable and peacefull (and baring the Kurdistan issue - which could be resolved with independance) have been for nearly 30 years.

Are the Iraqis as a people capable/willing to embrace secular democarcy as we see it and if not, should we force it on them?

[Javehn]

Are the Iraqis as a people capable/willing to embrace secular democarcy as we see it and if not, should we force it on them?

The culture in middle east are pretty much intollarable to "incursions"for their way of life. So, indeed , if you would like to change their way of life , it would need hard and brutal way , something like Kamal Ataturk tried (and he succeded in making Turkey what it's today , just because there were no Amnesty international those days ) .

The question is not if you ready to do it or not , the question is if really the word opinion (and it does counts) allows to do it .

And also , i would take Jordan as good example . It was changed by British (with force) to the good side .

[ibstolidude]

This letter was printed in the (London) Times today.

British soldiers are not naturally more restrained than their American cousins. Hard training and discipline have instilled into them the importance of working within the constraints of normal civilian law when trying to build trust within the community.
- although I have a great deal of respect for the British soldiers, especially in built up areas, I beleive this is a mis-statement. If a soldier is told to shoot that building with the MK19 and he does; he used proper discipline (maint, position, security, accountability etc); that does not however mean he was given decent guidance from his leadership. I also feel the comparision from Fallujah to Basra is like apples and oranges. As a whole, (always exceptions) I do feel the British Army forces experiences in NI and other locations have made them more sensitive to the political and civil-military implications.

What we see now are units that have not traditionally been aligned with the types of mission in which CMO, nation building and ******* building have been a large factor. The comprission is 2 of different types of tools. I believe a critique on the application of the right tool for the job would be much better suited.

[M_S]

The culture in middle east are pretty much intollarable to "incursions"for their way of life.


REALLY? :cantbeli:

Can you tell which culture would allow others to change their way of life? :roll:

[Javehn]

The culture in middle east are pretty much intollarable to "incursions"for their way of life.


REALLY? :cantbeli:

Can you tell which culture would allow others to change their way of life? :roll:

Master of the obvious , i wasn't directing my answers to you .
If you have problems understand what i said , then don't read it . You know perfectly well what i ment.

[MEGR]

I agree, that the Brits are certainly one of the leading experts on occupations; however, I've read an article a while back in the NY Post that kind of i think contradicts what he said. This article discussed the rotation of Marines and the US 82nd airborne in Fallujah. The Marine commander discussed how he and his marines were training to get along with the people more.. This means, knowing their customs, respecting their laws etc. Well, it seems that is not working. It seems that softhanded tactics like this didn't seem to do much in terms of Fallujah. I think comparing cities in the Sunni Triangle, and places like Basra (where the Brits occupy) are kind of comparing apples and oranges.. More resistnace seems to be obviously located in US held towns rather than in Basra. I wish i could get the article for you, but i'm not sure if they've posted it online.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

b. Iran. Now this will not go down well with the Yanks (his words not mine). Iran is a theocracy with a limited degree of democracy - if the candidates are acceptable to the theocrats.
I do know a guy Royal who is a native of Northern Iran and spends about 4-6 months of each of the last two years in Iran and he reckons that the place is coming on in leaps and bounds. He says there is a lot of progress in communications and the media, the education system has had a shake up and he now feels confident enough to put his kid in school when he visits for any longer than a month.

[gilgoul]

This letter was printed in the (London) Times today.

[quote=The Times]
Deteriorating security in Iraq

From Professor Sir Timothy Garden and others

. Israel degrades its security with each use of excessive force in Gaza. Likewise bombing mosques or strafing houses makes any settlement in Iraq more difficult to achieve.





Too bad we re not facing irish independentists, that as far as i know controlled from within the most extremists of their elements.
They might have been terrorists, but knew that blowing up buses and shoping malls as they did in the 80 (?) didn`t make thier popularity climb.
As for the use of non lethal crowd dispertion weaponry by the Ulster constabulary and british army, when facing serious rioting the results have been devastating, as of the beginning 1997, 17 people have been killed by plastic bullet and 40mm ruber bullet, le last being Seamus Duffy, 15 years old, in the 1989 New lodge riot.
The british approach might be sometimes more :light handed" than the american or israeli one, the fact is that so far they have faced completely different threat.

[Javehn]

"Bloody Sunday" comes to mind . Everybody did it's share of mistakes .

[California Joe]

I agree, that the Brits are certainly one of the leading experts on occupations; however, I've read an article a while back in the NY Post that kind of i think contradicts what he said. This article discussed the rotation of Marines and the US 82nd airborne in Fallujah. The Marine commander discussed how he and his marines were training to get along with the people more.. This means, knowing their customs, respecting their laws etc. Well, it seems that is not working. It seems that softhanded tactics like this didn't seem to do much in terms of Fallujah. I think comparing cities in the Sunni Triangle, and places like Basra (where the Brits occupy) are kind of comparing apples and oranges.. More resistance seems to be obviously located in US held towns rather than in Basra. I wish i could get the article for you, but i'm not sure if they've posted it online.

I read that article too Dev. It was written during a period of relative calm a few months back. The point was valid. It was an attempt by the Marines to learn from the mistakes the Army had made. The Army recognized that they had been heavy handed at times but believed they were doing what was necessary for pacification. The Marines were going to try a less intrusive style. Great in theory untill the "contractor incident" and all hell broke loose. Now they've reverted to Marine SOP, If it is a threat, kill it.

The interesting point is, what does one do if it is impossible to actually win "hearts and minds"?

[Trident-za]

The Army recognized that they had been heavy handed at times but believed they were doing what was necessary for pacification. The Marines were going to try a less intrusive style. Great in theory untill the "contractor incident" and all hell broke loose. Now they've reverted to Marine SOP, If it is a threat, kill it.



Very good points Joe. The theory of "de-escalation" all went out the window after that contractor incident. The thing which troubles me a bit is that although that incident was f***ing terrible (and the culprits deserve to be caught and punished) it was of extremely limited tactical or strategic importance. To completely abandon the de-escalation approach because of a non-issue is somewhat puzzling. It was an emotive response, in my opinion, rather than a logical one.

It should be remembered, though, that the Falluja people themselves went somewhat ballistic over the closing of that newspaper etc etc. The "escalation" was definitely not down to the Marines alone.



The interesting point is, what does one do if it is impossible to actually win "hearts and minds"?

This is a good question too. However.... I don't think it's impossible, just bloody difficult. Does that mean everyone gives up trying? Just because it's the easier solution to ignore the difficult task? I don't know... and I'm glad its not my call.

[TALOS]

The Army recognized that they had been heavy handed at times but believed they were doing what was necessary for pacification. The Marines were going to try a less intrusive style. Great in theory untill the "contractor incident" and all hell broke loose. Now they've reverted to Marine SOP, If it is a threat, kill it.



Very good points Joe. The theory of "de-escalation" all went out the window after that contractor incident. The thing which troubles me a bit is that although that incident was f***ing terrible (and the culprits deserve to be caught and punished) it was of extremely limited tactical or strategic importance. To completely abandon the de-escalation approach because of a non-issue is somewhat puzzling. It was an emotive response, in my opinion, rather than a logical one. >TALOS<What would be logical Trident? try and arrest the suspects? you have to get to them first, they locked the city down hoping to trap the people to blame inside and interestingly enough it appears to be drawing the enemy to the field as it were. I agree de-escalation sounds nicer but cost in soldiers lives and lack of effectiveness are things I would personally wonder about.

It should be remembered, though, that the Falluja people themselves went somewhat ballistic over the closing of that newspaper etc etc. >TALOS<I believe that that was sadr city peeps The "escalation" was definitely not down to the Marines alone.



The interesting point is, what does one do if it is impossible to actually win "hearts and minds"?

This is a good question too. However.... I don't think it's impossible, just bloody difficult. Does that mean everyone gives up trying? Just because it's the easier solution to ignore the difficult task? I don't know... and I'm glad its not my call.

[Trident-za]

Good points, Talos - it remains to be seen, however, what the long-term costs of the current tactics will be.

Logic, to my mind, is : don't piss off half of the Iraqi Shias because 4 guys got mutilated. I agree, getting those responsible would be pratically impossible, but declaring war on an entire city because you can't get the culprits is hardly a clever response either.

For the record... I am not being anti-US. I just don't agree with the tactics that were being used in Falluja. Matter of opinion, I guess, but I still believe the strategic goals of the US have been harmed by recent events.

[California Joe]

From what I understand, Fallujah was largely bypassed during the initial invasion. There may be no way to pacify a city where all the inhabitants hate you.

[Fox2]

Good discussion, guys, and I agree with much of what has been said. Now forgive me as a roll a frag grenade into the mix. :D


a. Turkey was secularised by Attaturk following WWI by brutal use of force and semi-dictatorship. While hardly a democratic uptopia, particularly for the Kurds. It has since evolved to the point where the EU is prepared to consider it for future membership.

b. Iran. Now this will not go down well with the Yanks (his words not mine). Iran is a theocracy with a limited degree of democracy - if the candidates are acceptable to the theocrats.

Both are relatively stable and peacefull (and baring the Kurdistan issue - which could be resolved with independance) have been for nearly 30 years.

Are the Iraqis as a people capable/willing to embrace secular democarcy as we see it and if not, should we force it on them?

Good points. I have to ask myself, though, what about Iraq, which has had 30 years of violence and genocide under a cruel dictator? Will they still object to change? I mean, if they lived for nearly 30 years under one type of government and life style, and it brought them violence and problems, would they still be unwilling to change?

[Trident-za]

I doubt they will object to "change"... whether they are prepared to change to what the West wants is a different story :(

[Fox2]

I doubt they will object to "change"... whether they are prepared to change to what the West wants is a different story :(

Well, what I meant was, that the examples listed kindly by Royal were a bit different than Iraq. He was saying (I think), these people (Iranians and Turkish) have lived in relative peace without real democracy for 30 years, and whether the Iraqis would embrace secular democracy.

I was just asking, seeing as how Iraq has a different history than those two countries (one of violence and genocide rather than peace), would it be different? I mean, if they can see that they suffered under one type of government, would that make them more willing to embrace secular democracy, a form of government which has served the West well for a good while?

Just some food for thought.

[Royal]

This letter was printed in the (London) Times today.

British soldiers are not naturally more restrained than their American cousins. Hard training and discipline have instilled into them the importance of working within the constraints of normal civilian law when trying to build trust within the community.

although I have a great deal of respect for the British soldiers, especially in built up areas, I beleive this is a mis-statement. If a soldier is told to shoot that building with the MK19 and he does; he used proper discipline (maint, position, security, accountability etc); [/quote]

I agree 100%


I also feel the comparision from Fallujah to Basra is like apples and oranges.

I didn't mention either place, and neither did the writers of the letter I quoted, and I agree with you 100%.


- What we see now are units that have not traditionally been aligned with the types of mission in which CMO, nation building and ******* building have been a large factor.

I'd dispute that in the case of the Italians and Brits in particular, but otherwise I agree.


- The comprission is 2 of different types of tools. I believe a critique on the application of the right tool for the job would be much better suited.

That was what I was trying to do...

My point being that no matter how strong the urge, it is counter productive to bomb the **** of civilian areas (unless your goal is genocide/ethnic cleansing) with the aim of defeating an insurgency force.

As I'm sure I've said before, I believe that PsyOps, InfoOps, IntOps and limited raids are off use (as IMHO are targetted assasinations - if they fit withing your ROE/ethical standards). On the other hand, I agree with the letter's writers that the use of arty/mortars and certainly air/aviation power against urban areas is counter productive and (IMO) wrong.

I'm sure someone will raise the argument of Free Fire zones - an excellent tool in CI Ops if there is security for the CivPop. In the case of Fallujah I remain to be convinced that the CivPop had either realistic means or opportunity to make the necessary place of safety.


Good points. I have to ask myself, though, what about Iraq, which has had 30 years of violence and genocide under a cruel dictator? Will they still object to change? I mean, if they lived for nearly 30 years under one type of government and life style, and it brought them violence and problems, would they still be unwilling to change?

It seems to me (and many others that are/have been on the ground there) that a good many of them are.

I've spent very little time in Basrah (more further north), but from what I've seen (and from the views of others who've been down there) the Shi'a are less than happy about being occupied, but are also less likely to express that view through violence.

From what I've seen, a good proportion of the problems in the South are sponsored by (or through proxys by) the Iranians. The Syrians are also less than helpfull, but there is no way, in the forseable future, that we can fully control the borders.

To paraphrase Tane - just my thoughts...

[Trident-za]

Good post, Royal.

[TALOS]

I've spent very little time in Basrah (more further north), but from what I've seen (and from the views of others who've been down there) the Shi'a are less than happy about being occupied, but are also less likely to express that view through violence.

From what I've seen, a good proportion of the problems in the South are sposnored by (or through proxys by) the Iranians. The Syrians are also less than helpfull, but there is no way, in the forseable future, that we can fully control the borders.

To paraphrase Tane - just my thoughts...
Just curious tho, have not the Iranians been moving to a more moderate stance on the US lately? I dont think an Iranian backed government would be great but some influence to counter the sunni?... Just wondering what you think of that!

edit: to clear up messiness :oops:

[Trident-za]

Royal, as someone who has experience on the ground... what are your thoughts on the issue of journalist accessto Falluja? (see http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12659 for reference). It relates, vaguely I guess, to the ideas behind the stuff you posted. There seem to be several different media opinions on what the US is doing, most of which could be cleared up pretty simply by allowing the media access to the hotspots.

In this modern world, "public perception" and "propoganda" are serious concerns. The thread I pointed to has received not a single serious reply, although I would think it's relevant. Note that I'm asking for your opinion, not for you to agree/disagree with what I wrote (i.e. no flame war BS).

[Fox2]

Good points. I have to ask myself, though, what about Iraq, which has had 30 years of violence and genocide under a cruel dictator? Will they still object to change? I mean, if they lived for nearly 30 years under one type of government and life style, and it brought them violence and problems, would they still be unwilling to change?

It seems to me (and many others that are/have been on the ground there) that a good many of them are.

I've spent very little time in Basrah (more further north), but from what I've seen (and from the views of others who've been down there) the Shi'a are less than happy about being occupied, but are also less likely to express that view through violence.

From what I've seen, a good proportion of the problems in the South are sponsored by (or through proxys by) the Iranians. The Syrians are also less than helpfull, but there is no way, in the forseable future, that we can fully control the borders.

To paraphrase Tane - just my thoughts...

Thanks very much for your response, Royal.

I think human beings in general are very afraid of change. I just wanted to know if Iraq's bloody history might have enough of an effect on that. Thanks for your answer.

Have a good one.

[Royal]

Trident - Firstly I have a distinctly ambivalent view of the press. On one hand I am a consumer of their product, on the other I happen to think that they're a bunch of self serving vultures, with the morals of an alley cat, who will stop at nothing to get their story.

The occasions where journalists have breached the OpSec of their own countries, often resulting in casualties for their 'own' side are legion. In the past we accepted military censorship 'for our own good', but with the advent of satellite communications that is now all but impossible, except with 'imbedded journalists' (who are a monumental pain in the arse to baby sit).

On the other hand in a free society there seems to be a view that we have a right to 'know' what is happening. US forces have prevented jounalists from entering Fallujah (as far as I know) In line with their Free-Fire policy (see my post above). I can understand why, and my gut reaction is that it was the right policy, but such actions do not help to win the information war.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's a Catch 22, and I don't know the right answer.

[Trident-za]

Thanks Royal. Nice to actually have an opinion from someone :).

For the record... I tend to agree with you. I've never had to "deal with" media on the ground but I think they'd probably irritate me :) It has, unfortunately, cost the US in terms of the "information war" though... which is worrying. Terrorism is, to some extent, all about media coverage...