You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
U.S. military changing battle plan
2006-10-06
WASHINGTON — Drawing on its successes and failures in Iraq, the military is completing a new counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes working with and protecting civilians, U.S. defence officials said Thursday.

The U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps have jointly written a new field manual that is to provide commanders with a framework for thinking about counterinsurgency missions — explaining what they are, what to expect and how to operate in such environments. The new doctrine is scheduled to be completed this month and released next month, senior defence officials said Thursday.

A draft of the manual stresses the importance of work that troops are already trying to do, with mixed success, in Iraq. It emphasizes the importance of nonmilitary solutions, such as promoting economic development and making sure basic services are restored, as a way to deprive insurgents of support. It also urges interaction with the population and standing up local security forces as quickly as possible.

“What we are learning is that counterinsurgency requires a comprehensive approach,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Lance McDaniel, the main Marine Corps writer of the manual. “Protecting the people may be the ultimate priority, but you have to do other things, too.”

Criticism of the Iraq campaign has included that it has cost thousands of civilians their lives and alienated many Iraqis by using heavy-handed tactics against the population, as well as failing to sufficiently get water, electricity and other basic services back in order. “We want our soldiers and Marines to be savvy in going into these complicated environments ... see what the problem is first ... recognize that it might not always be a kinetic (combat) approach that's most valuable,” Col. McDaniel said, adding that many of the ideas in the manual have come from troops coming out of Iraq.

The New York Times, which first reported in Thursday editions that the manual is near completion, did its usual hand-wringing quoted experts who question whether the Army and Marines have enough troops to carry out the new doctrine effectively while also preparing for other threats. “The Army will use this manual to change its entire culture as it transitions to irregular warfare,” retired General Jack Keane, a former acting Army chief staff, told the Times. “But the Army does not have nearly enough resources, particularly in terms of people, to meet its global responsibilities while making such a significant commitment to irregular warfare.”
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#8  As I said, now at least a year or two ago, there is and will be a normal evolution of Iraq from a war zone to a police action. As things get more and more peaceful, our soldiers have to respond with less and less force. One terrorist no longer justifies destroying the houses of several friendly families.

This evolution is never pleasant, and always looks like our soldiers are being "pussyfied".

But grit your teeth and accept it as a very good sign that Iraq is becoming peaceful.

Eventually, unarmed US soldiers will walk down the street of most Iraqi cities, and if they hear a gunshot, they will call an Iraqi cop.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-10-06 16:53  

#7  Mike. Using civilians as shields (and even arranging "attrocities") is an integral part of Muzzi tactics. Thus, if you really want to save their civilians lives, you should make it known that you'll not play along.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-10-06 16:39  

#6  Sounds like an update of the Marines' Small War Manual

dittos
Posted by: RD   2006-10-06 15:03  

#5  working with and protecting civilians

I don't understand the objection to this. The moral duty of armed forces is to protect innocent life--and that one goes back at least as far as St. Augustine's City of God.


Our civilians. Not theirs. And these civilians are theirs. These guys can't be hiding among just the reeds down by the river.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats   2006-10-06 15:01  

#4  working with and protecting civilians

I don't understand the objection to this. The moral duty of armed forces is to protect innocent life--and that one goes back at least as far as St. Augustine's City of God.
Posted by: Mike   2006-10-06 12:20  

#3  Sounds like an update of the Marines' Small War Manual. Nothing to see here. Just more grist for the pre-election mill.
Posted by: RWV   2006-10-06 12:08  

#2  Why not just give up & convert

Hey, that's basically my plan, to be implemented sometime in the coming couple of decades!
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-10-06 11:34  

#1  working with and protecting civilians

Why not just give up & convert.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-10-06 11:27  

00:00