Time to change course in Iraq

The study stated that the Iraqi security forces must be beefed up and become better trained so they can eventually take over the job of providing security against the sectarian violence that has torn the country apart. In addition, the study said the United States should open negotiations with Iran and Syria in an attempt to stop the terrorism these countries are exporting to Iraq. Along with 75 other points, the study said that the United States should give the Iraqi government a mandate to take over control of the country so that American forces can eventually be pulled out of Iraq.

Liberal voices heralded the study as long overdue while conservative voices say that we are basically surrendering and leaving Iraq to the mercy of the terrorists who would take over the country. So who is right? That is hard to say because we are in uncharted waters in the most unstable part of the world.

What is obvious is that a new plan for combating terrorism in general and the insurgency in Iraq in particular must be formulated. An article in the New Yorker last week gave a plausible approach to addressing this problem. The article was written by Australian David Kilcullen who based his recommendations on how Indonesia was able to stop the Darul Islam insurgency in West Java in the 1950's and 60's. Kilcullen did research in that area in the 1990's.

One of the lengthy article's conclusions was that the current Islamic radicalism is not the result of religion doctrine as much as it is due to socio-economic conditions. For example, the current sectarian violence in Iraq between the Shiites and the Sunnis is more a struggle for power and control than for any religious beliefs. People become terrorists not through their ideology but are pulled in by their social network. Kilcullen maintains that the terrorists and the insurgents are gaining the upper hand by fighting an information war rather than a hot war. When the insurgents blow up a Humvee it is not to eliminate one more Humvee. Rather, it is an attempt to demoralize the American troops and send a signal to the Iraqi people that the insurgency is alive and well and can hold their own against the mightiest military power in the world. That gives the insurgency clout with the Iraqis and with future recruits.

The article stated that to gain the upper hand over any insurgency it is necessary to get the people to believe that it is in their best interest to support us rather than the insurgency, which should not be a startling revelation. Nevertheless, we are not addressing that fact. We are still fighting a war like all previous wars, subdue the enemy with bullets and bombs. We try to flush out the enemy with bombs and in the process kill innocent civilians. That is not going to endear the Iraqi people to our side. It goes without saying that there is not enough ammunition in the world to quell terrorism if you can't get the people to come to your side.

Kilcullen pointed out that we need to know and understand the people and the region we are fighting in before we can understand what we need to do to get them to trust us and come over to our side. He maintains that we have failed in that endeavor. Instead of talking to the politicians and leaders who seek power and control in Iraq, our soldiers should be mingling with the local leaders of the communities to not only gain their trust but to obtain invaluable information. This means we need to employ different tactics such as using personnel trained in the social sciences to become integrated with the people of the region. Instead of using satellites to monitor enemy movements, we need to monitor the enemies web sites and infiltrate meetings of the local militia groups.

There is some evidence that the Pentagon is willing to adopt some of the principles put forth by Kilcullen. The army has written a new counterinsurgency field manual that will shape military doctrine. In addition, there is an attempt to restore more social science into our military operations so that we understand the importance of knowing the enemy before you go tromping in, win a 2 day shooting war, and think that constitutes victory.

The article stated that the current Islamic radicalism is another cold war similar to the one we had with the Soviet Union for fifty years. There will be no great battles on a common front. Rather, there will continue to be small skirmishes, periodic bombings and much propaganda. The length of this new cold war will be a function of how well we can fight the information battle being waged by the insurgents as they use the internet to attract recruits and to consolidate their base and use strategic bombings to induce fear in those who resist them.

President Bush has shown no inclination in changing the course in Iraq or of adopting a new approach to fighting the war on terrorism. His overreaction to terrorism by invading Iraq has played into the hands of the terrorists and not only gave them a battleground to exercise their cause, it also gave them an illusion of power greater than what they actually have.

The "go it alone" and "God is on our side" approach taken by President Bush has resulted in one of the biggest foreign policy disasters ever for this country. We must demand that our next president has the courage and the intelligence to adopt a new approach in the war on terrorism and be able to get other countries to help us in the battle.