News from the Front

[paladin2019]

So, if noone's missed me, don't respond.

If you have been wondering, I'm in this little corner of the world called the Diyala Province. Yeah, that thing you keep seeing on CNN. So, I'll try to keep you updated, if you care and all that.

[Crazy Elf]

What in fuck's name are you doing there?! Doesn't matter, I'm assuming military.

As such, I'm wondering how people are interacting with the local population while on the ground. Are they taking a new approach to the situation, the whole Twenty-Eight Articles way of doing things, or is it otherwise? Is any of it actually working?

Also, what's the perception of the conflict from the people on the ground? Does it look at all positive, or is it just a huge fucking mess?

[paladin2019]

The Sunnis we interact with are sick of Al Qaeda and willing to help; ID'ing "bad guys" and IEDs, joining the various ISF, etc. Basically, where we were once seen as the occupier, I guess the common perception is that we will leave. AQI wants us to stay, to sap our economy and defeat us in a war of attrition. And AQI has been a considerably more boorish guest than we have.

Now, if we can get the country back to its secular, Saddam-era tendencies, we might head off any civil war that's set to start when we leave. (insert wishful thinking smiley)

[Crazy Elf]

Any talk about diving the country up into three on the ground? It seems to be the most agreed upon solution to many of the issues in the area, from the sane outside observers. Not so good for Turkey, but okay for the others. Any talk of this, or is there really a target of getting everyone to play nice with one another?

[Serious Paul]

Of course we care,didn't you see your name in the dead pool? You have to hold out ntil October so I makes me some kizzash!

[FlakJacket]

You'll have to forgive me since I'm hopeless at remembering this kind of thing, but are you out there as part of the regular military or the National Guard?

[Serious Paul]

I'm going to guess Regular Army, as I recall based out of Bragg right?

[Salvation122]

The Sunnis we interact with are sick of Al Qaeda and willing to help; ID'ing "bad guys" and IEDs, joining the various ISF, etc.

Precisely how scared shitless of the Shiites are they, out of sheer curiosity?

[Johnny the Bull]

So, if noone's missed me, don't respond.

If you have been wondering, I'm in this little corner of the world called the Diyala Province. Yeah, that thing you keep seeing on CNN. So, I'll try to keep you updated, if you care and all that.

Take care mate. This region can get pretty hairy even in the safe countries, can't quite imagine how bad it would be right in the thick of things.

Welcome back to Bulldrek. *smacks paladin in the scrotum with a spade.*

[Cain]

And let us not forget that the Shi'ites are the majority in the country.

[Daki]

Holy hells. Do you think there is any way to actually get them back to a secular set-up?

[FlakJacket]

I'm not sure it really is. Whilst the individual guy on the street just wants to get things back under control and how it was under Saddam but with democracy and capitalism, the religious nutters control the largest established political parties and roving armed goon squads which gives them a stranglehold on things. The only way I could see it happening is either some sort of secular party, and attendant armed militia, gets founded or a benign dictator of some sorts takes over and cleans house. Both of which seem pretty remote possibilities. Hell, I can only think of a few real benign dictatorships in history.

[paladin2019]

To catch up, a single country is the goal. Anything else also hurts Iraq.

As for the Sunnis afraid of Shia, ehhhh. The bigger problem is expectation control. My limited read is that "they" expect that because they were in power under Saddam, they will be again in the new regime. So a lot of them are boycotting the government, and currently, a bill concerning distribution of mineral (you know, oil) rights.

As far as who, secular Sunni militias are involved in helping vs AQIZ.

Secular vs religious, I think it's possible. Some folks in power are pushing for it, but I don't know how much support it really has.

Active duty armor officer. Based in Ft Lewis.

Oh, yeah, it looks like a good thing the brass says we gotta keep our nut guards on our vests.

And I plan to come back with my shield, thank you very much. (Sorry, just saw Anti-Persian Propaganda Fest, er, 300[/].)

[Crazy Elf]

To catch up, a single country is the goal. Anything else also hurts Iraq.

How exactly?

[paladin2019]

To catch up, a single country is the goal. Anything else also hurts Iraq.

How exactly?

Loss of prestige, tradition, economic base, cultural identity, ability to mass combat power, resources, communications, interagency cooperation....

Increase in factional distance, not just physical but cultural, philosophical and bureaucratic.

Establishment of demilitarized zones, a la the Koreas or the Iron Curtain?

How does "Kurdistan," for example, defeat cross border incursions of Sunni-land criminals hiding from the Sunni-land authorities with their current forces spread across what will potentially be 5 times the current border they are now responsible for? How do the Sunni-land authorities communicate to the Kurdistani authorities the potential situation? Will these governments cooperate on this level or will a Sunni-land border patrol be attacked when it attempts to make contact with its Kurdistan counterpart to exchange information?

[Cash]

...and what's to stop Turkey from sweeping into the Kurdish lands (I mean more than they do now)?

[Johnny the Bull]

Paladin, do you guys get rotated onto any of the other bases in the region? If you end up in Abu Dhabi or Dubai, even for a few days, let me know. Good place to let your hair down.

[Crazy Elf]

Loss of prestige, tradition, economic base, cultural identity, ability to mass combat power, resources, communications, interagency cooperation....

Hmm, well this all sounds like problems for the US. Cultural identity and tradition go back a lot further in the Middle East than after WW2, when Iraq was created.

How does "Kurdistan," for example, defeat cross border incursions of Sunni-land criminals hiding from the Sunni-land authorities with their current forces spread across what will potentially be 5 times the current border they are now responsible for? How do the Sunni-land authorities communicate to the Kurdistani authorities the potential situation? Will these governments cooperate on this level or will a Sunni-land border patrol be attacked when it attempts to make contact with its Kurdistan counterpart to exchange information?

Well naturally if such a thing were to occur, Kurdistan would require an awful lot of help to begin with. However, if the US were supporting people that actually, for the most part, wanted them there, things would be a great deal easier. Currently the majority of the people don't want them there, from all that I've read and all that I've heard from the people of the area.

It would be a much easier job if the only people trying to kill the occupiers were from outside of the territory being occupied. Granted, not everyone in Kurdistan would be happy about it, but I think more would be happy about than currently are.

Less people would die, at least.

[paladin2019]

The United States is currently in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq. (wait for it......)

That said, a large number (don't even think about asking for specifics) of Iraqis who were actively trying to remove our occupying force are now assisting us in removing al Qaeda's. Why? We'll eventually leave, al Qaeda won't.

[Crazy Elf]

Um... you surely understand that the US's continued presence in Iraq is one of the main reasons that "Al Qaeda" is able to recruit as many as it is able to recruit now? The US military being in the Middle East is something that they've been arguing against since the first Gulf War, and the current occupation is proving them right.

Do you really honestly think that the US military is going to be able to stop a movement that gains more momentum with each day they spend in the area?

[paladin2019]

Do you really honestly think that the US military is going to be able to stop a movement that gains more momentum with each day they spend in the area?

If the whole gaining momentum thing was true, maybe you're right. But that's not what I see on the ground. I see folks deciding the "guests" who will leave are better than the ones who won't.

[Crazy Elf]

Yes, but the US has been saying that it was leaving for a very long time, and has stayed. This is one of the main gripes that Islamic Jihad has against the US. When US troops were in Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war, bin Ladin stated that the Mujahadin should defend Muslim holy sites rather than infidels. The Saudi government said, "No, they'll go after the war anyway." However, the US <i>didn't leave</i>. This was one of the points in which bin Ladins actions against the US increased.

How is the current occupation going to stop that? The longer the US are there, the more Islamic Jihad is given validity. The people on the ground may not be saying this to you, but you have a gun. People will often say to the face of someone with a gun that they are correct.

[Bethyaga]

I'm surprised at you Elf. You seem eager for news from the front... something authentic, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. But when it disagrees with your established belief system, you seem so eager to discredit or wave away first hand news rather than examine the implications of what it might mean if it's correct.

[Crazy Elf]

1) I've many sources on happenings in Iraq.
2) I'm intrigued by what Paladin believes to be going on down there.
3) Points I want clarification on are presented, and points that are in opposition to what is being stated are presented. If I'm completely wrong, I could be shown something new that would show me to be as such.
4) Most of what Paladin has presented are very official sounding perspectives. It could be that these posts are being monitored as they go out. Alternatively, Paladin could actually believe the hype. Either way, I'm doing much more good by presenting other sides. Either I'm countering the government spin, or I'm informing Paladin of alternate perspectives. Were I to simply smile and nod at everything, nothing would be gained here.

[paladin2019]

I don't know, considering the guys who want to work with us have guns and bombs and mortars and stuff, I think the fact that I have a gun isn't really a factor in what they're saying to me. I think cultural norms about honor and face and manners have more to do with those decisions.

The big question about all the help is how much will the Shia and Sunni locals tolerate us once AQI is gone, and how long will they make nice? I'm kinda curious about this one.

And if you care, I work in a battalion headquarters and ride with the command team. I see a lot of stuff first hand, not a lot I want to talk about.

[Cain]

Elf's point is that your views sound suspiciously like Bush's position, which is contradicted by the NIE, other reports from the front, and basically every other source I have access to. Which makes me wonder exactly what they're telling you, or if you're just stuck in a microcosm.

Don't get me wrong, your views have credence. But I'm seeing an awful lot of government documents that aren't painting such a rosy picture of the war.

[FlameBlade]

meh, there's a huge difference between people in action as opposed to people looking in from outside.

[Cain]

Yeah, but militaries always lie to the troops in action, in order to keep their morale up. Telling the troops: "We're getting our butts kicked" isn't a recipe for victory.

I'm not discounting what Paladin says. But I am saying that he's pretty much the *only* positive report I've recieved on the war, and that includes reports from other front-line soldiers. I'm sure he's telling the truth as he sees it; I just want to figure out why there's such a discrepancy.

[Roger Arneault]

That's your view from all your military experiences is it?

[DV8]

C'mon, Paul. You're probably as biased at the other end of the spectrum as Caine is.

[Jeff Hauze]

He may be, Deev. But Caine is still full of shit. It's good to see some things haven't changed.

[Roger Arneault]

C'mon, Paul. You're probably as biased at the other end of the spectrum as Caine is.

Maybe, but I'm not on a soap box preaching.

[paladin2019]

Sorry, I just call it like I see it. IED attacks go down when we talk to and enlist the aid of the local populace to police themselves. Tips have gone up. I can't point to specific instances yet, or possibly here. Events are too recent and we're still in the follow-up phase.

oh, yeah, Pally, throw the OPSEC card....

Sorry, but I gotta do it. Ask me for details if I ever make to a gathering.

[Cain]

C'mon, Paul. You're probably as biased at the other end of the spectrum as Caine is.

Maybe, but I'm not on a soap box preaching.

Neither am I. I'm asking what the discrepancy is.

And I think I see one. A lot of the violence I hear about on the news focuses on suicide bombings against other Iraqis. It's good to know that attacks on US soldiers has gone down, but that doesn't equal a stable country.

Edit: And if you want an example of the negative reports I've been seeing, This report by the BBC hits some of the major points. THe GAO and NIE reports are both pessimistic in the Iraq situation.

[Roger Arneault]

Yeah, but militaries always lie to the troops in action, in order to keep their morale up.

Yep, you're not preaching at all. Strictly sticking to the facts, and hard questions. No opinions there.

[Cain]

Nope, none at all. Unless you have evidence that every army in hisotry has been absolutely forthright and completely honest with their troops?

No? Didn't think so. So sit down and shut up.

[Roger Arneault]

Because you have evidence to the opposite? Ha! Laughable in every way, as usual Cain you argue by extremes and expect to be taken seriously as an authority, while offering no reasonable evidence of any real world experience.

Why don't you go back to your community college night course on how to be a CNA, and worry about not knocking your girlfriend up again Dazed and Confused?

[Cain]

You mean the RN I passed about a year and a half ago?

And while I don't know the "dazed and COnfused" reference, at least that means I'm getting some. How's your love life?

[Roger Arneault]

Luckily you pretending you don't get the joke doesn't mean it isn't true. But yeah you're right-you should be out there wiping asses right now! You go girl!

[DV8]

Yeah, but militaries always lie to the troops in action, in order to keep their morale up.

Yep, you're not preaching at all. Strictly sticking to the facts, and hard questions. No opinions there.

He might be putting it rather abrasively, but in essence it's not so far from the truth. It's pretty common knowledge that military censorship has been used in order to keep morale up. I remember a very lively debate about embedded journalists with MooCow who was a big proponent of censorship in order to keep morale up and not give away strategic information. Is it the same as lying, I don't think so. But you are the guy who considers hiding your online status as dishonest, so I would've thought that you'd consider censorship similar, if not the same as lying. But I guess it's about the military, and you always get a little defensive when it comes to the military, which is very understandable.

[Roger Arneault]

He's making an argument by extreme-he could no more prove that all military commanders lie than I could prove they all tell the truth-something I'm not suggesting. I freely admit that at times there are times where the military censors what it tells it troops, let alone civilians.

That is vastly different than his blanket, and bullshit statement.

But you know that.

[3278]

Yeah, but militaries always lie to the troops in action, in order to keep their morale up.

Yep, you're not preaching at all. Strictly sticking to the facts, and hard questions. No opinions there.

Nope, none at all. Unless you have evidence that every army in hisotry has been absolutely forthright and completely honest with their troops?

There are two problems with this last assertion [notwithstanding the obvious problem that something doesn't become "not an opinion" simply because someone has contradictory evidence, which I consider rhetorical].

Firstly, evidentiary contradiction of your original assertion would not require proof that every army has been asbolutely forthright, since your original statement was itself an absolute: "militaries always lie to their troops in action." Evidentiary contradiction would only require proof of any single given military action in which troops were not lied-to.

Secondly, you have made the initial assertion: "militaries always lie to their troops in action." Therefore, if you desire to "win" the point, you must provide evidence. At this point, you and Paul are at a draw [in terms of evidence, anyway]. If you desire the win, you will need evidence to prove your assertion; if Paul desires the win, he can always find evidence to disprove yours, although he's under no real obligation to do so, since the burden of initial proof lies on you. If you provide evidence to prove your assertion, and Paul provides none to disprove it, you "win." If you provide evidence to prove your assertion, and Paul provides superior evidence to disprove it, Paul "wins." [And so on back and forth, obviously; "wins" are often temporary.] Nevertheless, at this point, the burden of evidence is clearly on you, with the argument a "draw" unless and until you provide some support.

How's your love life?

He's married to a highly intelligent and beautiful woman who likes sex almost as much as he does. I'd say his sex life is probably "better" - whatever that means - than most of ours combined, injury notwithstanding.

[3278]

He might be putting it rather abrasively, but in essence it's not so far from the truth. It's pretty common knowledge that military censorship has been used in order to keep morale up.

That is a completely different statement than the one Cain made, which is that "militaries always lie to the troops in action."

For that matter, I haven't seen any evidence that the the reason militaries lie to their troops in action is always for morale reasons, but that's another, more semantic, issue. Unless, of course, Cain doesn't mean always, but rather "often," which he could certainly clarify if he desired, rather than responding to Paul's barbed baiting.

[Iantha]

How's your love life?

He's married to a highly intelligent and beautiful woman who likes sex almost as much as he does. I'd say his sex life is probably "better" - whatever that means - than most of ours combined, injury notwithstanding.

32, you are too kind.

[DV8]

He might be putting it rather abrasively, but in essence it's not so far from the truth. It's pretty common knowledge that military censorship has been used in order to keep morale up.

That is a completely different statement than the one Cain made, which is that "militaries always lie to the troops in action."

Well, mine would be the more political correct, watered down, less exaggerated version, but they're cut from the same cloth. But far be it from me to defend Cain from you bloodhounds, please concentrate your vitriol on him.

[FlameBlade]

Is it entirely possible that media are not exactly telling entire truth of what is going on in Iraq, and painting whole war negatively, rather than in neutral light?

[Roger Arneault]

...

[Salvation122]

Is it entirely possible that media are not exactly telling entire truth of what is going on in Iraq, and painting whole war negatively, rather than in neutral light?

Neither the brave nor bold will write as the story's told, and we won't give pause until the blood is flowing. 'Cause I need to watch things die... from a good safe distance. Vicariously I live, while the whole world dies.

[Cain]

He might be putting it rather abrasively, but in essence it's not so far from the truth. It's pretty common knowledge that military censorship has been used in order to keep morale up.

That is a completely different statement than the one Cain made, which is that "militaries always lie to the troops in action."

For that matter, I haven't seen any evidence that the the reason militaries lie to their troops in action is always for morale reasons, but that's another, more semantic, issue. Unless, of course, Cain doesn't mean always, but rather "often," which he could certainly clarify if he desired, rather than responding to Paul's barbed baiting.

I'll clarify, in less inflammatory language.

It's axiomatic that military censorship always spins events to keep morale up. For example, there's never such a thing as a humiliating defeat, there's "strategic withdrawals" instead. Solid victories are spun into overwhelming ones. The actual difference between this level of exaggeration and flat-out lying is pretty much semantic, so saying that militaries lie isn't much of a stretch.

So, to bring things back on topic, I question how much of Paladin's views is a result of being fed an official line. I mean, some report that Gen. Petraeus says we may be there for up to ten more years! That's quite the discrepancy, and I for one am curious to see why Paladni's and Petraeus's views are so different.

[paladin2019]

It's axiomatic that military censorship always spins events to keep morale up. For example, there's never such a thing as a humiliating defeat, there's "strategic withdrawals" instead. Solid victories are spun into overwhelming ones. The actual difference between this level of exaggeration and flat-out lying is pretty much semantic, so saying that militaries lie isn't much of a stretch.

Ummm, no. It is extremely counter-productive to do this. We After Action Review everything, to get an honest self-assessment of what worked and what didn't. This way, the system, the profession, gets better. Soldiers to the lowest level are involved in the process; as an officer, I can't be at every door they kick in, on watch in every foxhole. I also can't assess the undestanding of an order or plan I've issued without feedback from the soldier. To blatantly paint just the picture i want to see destroys the process.

For example, Mogadishu. (I can use this as an example, it's declassified.) Intel sucked. Mission planning sucked. Individual soldier skills were outstanding. The mission, siezing several of Aidid's aides, was successful. Media spin sucked; the incident was the basis for our withdrawal and an inspiration for "Worldwide Islamic Jihad/Islamic Extremism/Re-establishing the Caliphate." I can get much more specific, but this is the AAR and evolving understanding of the fallout in a nutshell.

So, to bring things back on topic, I question how much of Paladin's views is a result of being fed an official line. I mean, some report that Gen. Petraeus says we may be there for up to ten more years! That's quite the discrepancy, and I for one am curious to see why Paladni's and Petraeus's views are so different.

I am reporting what I see. The CFLCC Cdr reports what he sees. There a difference of a half dozen levels of command between us, and just his troop strength is about 40 times that of my commander's. Plus the contracts/contractors his has supervision of, his strategic concerns, and the rest.

And i never said anything to contradict his statement "traditionally, counter-insurgency operations have taken 9 or 10 years." Yeah, I saw the Daily Show skit, too. Well, we're in the middle of year 5 in Iraq, and the local populace is actively fighting AQI. I never said anything like the fight will be over by Christmas.