February 16, 2006
EVOLUTION IN ACTION:
The Lessons of Counterinsurgency: U.S. Unit Praised for Tactics Against Iraqi Fighters, Treatment of Detainees (Thomas E. Ricks, February 16, 2006, Washington Post)
The last time the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment served in Iraq, in 2003-04, its performance was judged mediocre, with a series of abuse cases growing out of its tour of duty in Anbar province.But its second tour in Iraq has been very different, according to specialists in the difficult art of conducting a counterinsurgency campaign -- fighting a guerrilla war but also trying to win over the population and elements of the enemy. Such campaigns are distinct from the kind of war most U.S. commanders have spent decades preparing to fight.
In the last nine months, the regiment has focused on breaking the insurgents' hold on Tall Afar, a town of 290,000. Their operations here "will serve as a case study in classic counterinsurgency, the way it is supposed to be done," said Terry Daly, a retired intelligence officer specializing in the subject.
U.S. military experts conducting an internal review of the three dozen major U.S. brigades, battalions and similar units operating in Iraq in 2005 privately concluded that of all those units, the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment performed the best at counterinsurgency, according to a source familiar with the review's findings.
The regiment's campaign began in Colorado in June 2004, when Col. H. R. McMaster took command and began to train the unit to return to Iraq. As he described it, his approach was like that of a football coach who knows he has a group of able and dedicated athletes, but needs to retrain them to play soccer.
Can't have been that easy. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 16, 2006 9:22 AM
Did we really want them to be able to fake injuries?
Posted by: jeff at February 16, 2006 9:59 AM"As he described it, his approach was like that of a football coach who knows he has a group of able and dedicated athletes, but needs to retrain them to play soccer"
Ah. They had to start using their own brains.
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at February 16, 2006 10:11 AMby definition, sports do not require "brains". if you have to think about something, you are going to be way too slow.
Posted by: toe at February 16, 2006 12:26 PMThe key is thinking on the fly.
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at February 16, 2006 12:52 PMHere's a letter from the mayor of Tal Afar. Colonel McMaster is a significant figure, an example of the latest breed of Army officer: PhD in history, author of a critical study of decision-making in Vietnam: Dereliction of Duty : Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam .
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 16, 2006 2:19 PMThe danger is that small-wars doctrine--the hearts and minds business--may take over from the priciples of war, mass, offensive, objective and all the rest.
When we step off across the FEBA into Iran, anything other than swift, overwhelming brutal force is a presciption for American casulties.
For benefit of the Clausewitz one-liner crowd, this means political defeat, as we squander our own national will to fight. Our own elan is an asset of war, surely as fuel or ammunition. It must not frittered away out of squeamishness.
This is one of the lessons of Vietnam.
The maxim, "klotzen, nicht kleckern," applies to will no less than it does to material warfighting power.
________________________
The Soccer/North American Football analogy may illustrate the point. The troops trained and equipped for small wars are then like a Football team trained and equipped for soccer. That team will be seriously disadvantaged when taking the field against a team playing North American Football for keeps.
All we need to do is hit the nuke sites. There'll be some collateral damage but any casualties will be incidental.
Posted by: oj at February 16, 2006 5:47 PM