Dr. Buzz0's 7 steps to Iraq Victory

[Loss Leader]

Well...I disagree, the situation is bad, but I don't think it's necessarily impossible to have a postivie outcome. It'll be expensive, and hard and probably there will be more casualties, but I don't think it's impossible.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of two important facts:

1. Iraq is HUGE. It's 170,000 square miles of land with 29 million people. It's about the size and population of California. Could you end all crime in the state of California? Could you post enough cameras in enough places to even monitor just one city? Could you install enough robosnipers to actually cover an area (without opening your robots up to being stolen by vandals)? Could you close California's borders wih all of its neighboring states?

2. The people in Iraq generally want war. Most of them hate each other. Shi'ites, Sunis, Kurds and small sects within each group want the other groups to go away and die. And all of these people hate us. The Iraqis aren't being terrorized by insurgents; the Iraquis ARE the insurgents. No amount of propaganda will change that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

OK, your other points, since you seem to disappointed that I gave them the short shrift they deserved.

#1. Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda – No Iraqi should be able to turn on a TV, pick up a newspaper or listen to the radio without seeing 100% well-crafted news, information and entertainment designed to reinforce the ideas that Iraq is improving, the insurgents are losing and the people are uniting against them. Infringing on freedom of the press? Perhaps. But although the free press is important in a democracy, what exists now is more of anarchy. Hold rallies, post signs, gloss things over. As much as we want to believe that people are too smart to be fooled by that, it’s actually scary what you can get a large population to do with enough propaganda. Get some advertising people in here. If we have propaganda, we don’t have enough. And you can never have too much!

Uh, that's already in place. I note that the deliberate paying for favorable news stories was not well received, in the US nor in Europe.

So, you want more and better propaganda. I want a pony. If you are pointing out that the US propaganda campaign is not doing well, we agree. It's been the weakest part of the US Operation since late 2002.

So, it's already there, and if anyone can come up with a better one, good. Of course, now that credibility is shot, the PsOps guys have some harder work to do, but that does not stop them from working. Did you know that most of our PsyOps guys are reservists, and many of them work in advertising in their civilian lives?

So, what was your point? It's already part of the Op Plan.

#2. Provide Entertainment – People will be somewhat thankful if you give them freedoms and equality, but give them consumer products and they will love you. Iraq must be inundated with candy, soda, televisions, video games, movie theaters, concerts. Porn is already selling like crazy…but that may not be the best thing, given the culture. Why do you think the Romans built theaters and coliseums wherever they conquered?

OK, bread and circuses when electric power is iffy.

By the way, this is related to CA (Garrette's area of expertise) and propaganda. See point one.

Suppose they gave a film and no one came to the theater? PS: Iraqi's are not Americans, but one could take your suggestion and tailor it to Iraqi cultural tastes.

#3. Cameras…EVERYWHERE – Every In Iraq should have thousands of video cameras, located on every rooftop, ally, streetcornor. Furthermore, there should be a huge team of actual humans, switching from camera to camera, looking for anything suspicious. This can be added with AI patern-reconition software. The cameras could range from armored pan-tilt-zoon night vision cameras to simple low-cost stationary cameras which are almost disposable.

With electrical power in Baghdad iffy, this is a good idea how? Cameras can the disconneceted, broken, found, and disabled. How does this solve anything if you don't have in place a societal / political stability that enables this horde of cameras to be installed without having to be reinstalled once a week?

What makes you think there aren't cameras where they can be used effectively?

Every major highway in Iraq should have small solar or infrastructure powered hidden cameras with simple packet modems which can send time laps pictures every second to every couple of minutes. If a convoy is moving down a road, they can connect to the cameras ahead and view the past day of cached images looking for suspicious activity or view a live medium-quality feed.

Yeah, sure, you can keep them all hidden. Again, what makes you think that isn't being done where it can be effective?

Additionally, there should always be a large number of UAV’s flying all over the country. Ranging from Global Hawk and Predator aircraft to simple, inexpensive UAV’s, which lack the high quality thermal and high resolution radars of the predator, but can be manufactured in huge numbers. Even high altitude balloons can come into play. Given the current troop number, it would not be a huge manpower effort to have several hundred troops scanning around video feeds.

UAV's are on task every day in Iraq. You are asking for what is already in place.

#4. My own invention (unless it’s already been done) – The ROBOSNIPE – With a hand free of muscle tremor and the ability to fire rounds with enough power to knock any human’s arm out of the socket, the Robosnipe can be placed on rooftops or other strategic locations, especially within cities. It’s operator can aim the gun remotely using high prevision optics and range finding.

See remote camera discussion. See RoE. You idea is dead on arrival, unless the RoE are liberalized, except in a few select locations. Have you made any sales to DoD of Robosnipe?

The result: Somebody is being kidnapped. The incident is detected by software or by the scream of the person. The response center zooms in via cameras and verifies what is happening. And as the assailants begin to get into the car, they all fall within one second, as blood pours from their temples. The shots coming from several robotic snipers in different directions. Nobody can even tell what direction they came from. That’d be scary in an almost god-like way.

How many of these installed in Baghdad alone? How do you prevent sabotage of the installation?

Also can be modified with hellfire missiles.

Yes, nice idea, I like it, RoE keeps the engagement ratio to small values.

#5. Train Iraqi Troops…Elsewhere – Before the Iraqi army can fight in the streets, they have to work together. It is important to continue recruiting troops, but take them to a controlled environment, such as an isolated base in the desert, or even to Fort Knox Kentucky, if you have to. Put them through basic training, drilling, some simulated combat and learning the military way of working. ONLY then, can they begin to undergo in-battle training. Hopefully it can be done in a couple of months with the help of more experienced Iraqis, interpreters and US officers.

It takes a long time to train a professional army. This has been in the mission since day one. Why do you think this isn't being done? It's one of the major efforts underway, still.

#6. Iraqi Officers in Command of Troops – Having Iraqi troops keeping order is good, but if they’re answering to American commanders that can only do so much. A better and easier way of putting an “Iraqi Face” on operation is to have very visible Iraqi officers calling the shots of troops, even American troops. Obviously such officers would be the more trusted ones and would be, in reality, puppets, who’s command would be immediately annulled if their calls are not wanted. However, the important thing is the image it creates. If people see situations being commanded by confident local officers and American troops obeying the orders it creates a powerful message. “Iraqis are in charge. The Americans in this unit are working for Iraqis.” The more Iraqi officers and commanders people see, and the more authority appears in them, the more confidence they will have in their government.

Uh, that's how it works now. Some Iraq officers are corrupt, and some clean. It's a mixed bag. I got an email from a Marine buddy about Iraqi forces he worked with. I'll post it if I can find it.

DR

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Alright. Well I see no need to take this any further. Obviously I am talking to the wall. Despite my urge to refute the past three posts, I realize this is getting nowhere.


I will only say the following:

- Video cameras are cheap and durable. Very cheap compared to many of the systems deployed now. Also, batteries and solar cells and other auxilary power sources exist. UAV's are in use. But doubtless not enough. UAV's have proven in the past few years to have the one of the highest cost to benifit ratios. We need more. A real lot more.

- Robotic guns are not a be-all end-all to keeping order. Doubtless their locations would be limited to locations which are relatively secure and high value, such as taller buildings in cities. However, the idea of having omni-present precision firepower, especially over areas where there are crowds or important targets is important. If your average soldier faces street violence, I have no doubt that he would love to be able to call in a precision strike with a hand steady enough to pick out one head in a crowed.

The RoE's are not necessarly much different than now, except for the fact that there is better cover. You can't have humans on several roofs all the time.


- Yes I am aware the Iraq is big and with many people. I also know they hate each other. See above posts: I am very aware that the insurgents are Iraqis and have even addressed that many insurgents are not full time, but just iraqi citizens who feel the need to fight for their side.



ug....now I've done what I said I wouldn't

 

[SezMe]

Buzz, looks like your phone call to the President got through:

US President George W Bush intends to reveal a new Iraq strategy within days, the BBC has learnt. The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces.

My emphasis. From here.

If this really is his plan, I predict the fit will hit the shan here in the States, even from the Elephants. Bush pretty much cost them Congress in '06 and they will see this as the first nail in their coffin for '08. Hmmm, maybe this should be in my own Soothsaying tread.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

My best guess is that it's prolly too little too late

 

[SezMe]

Yep.

 

[a_unique_person]

Buzz, looks like your phone call to the President got through:


My emphasis. From here.

If this really is his plan, I predict the fit will hit the shan here in the States, even from the Elephants. Bush pretty much cost them Congress in '06 and they will see this as the first nail in their coffin for '08. Hmmm, maybe this should be in my own Soothsaying tread.

The ISG would have been their polite way of letting him know what he had to do, I expect some more serious arm twisting to follow.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Alright. Well I see no need to take this any further. Obviously I am talking to the wall.

How so? You approach the topic from a position of ignorance, and someone who is better informed is "a wall."

What color is the sky in your world?

DR

 

[davefoc]

The ISG would have been their polite way of letting him know what he had to do, I expect some more serious arm twisting to follow.

The reason I am so pessimistic about the next two years is that I think the key recommendation of the ISG was the talk to people idea. And I expect no amount of arm twisting is going to get this administration to do that.

There are now millions of refugees in the surrounding countries. The surrounding countries now have tremendous influence in Iraq. The road to peace runs at least partially through dealing with the reality of the situation which is that the surrounding countries are deeply involved either as havens for insurgents, as sources of funds for insurgents, as religious leaders for various factions and even as arms suppliers. There is nothing the US can do to change the reality of all this. With every passing day it becomes more, not less true.

I happen to be reading Carter's last book right now, and if there is one thing that stands out it is that Bushco has been unwilling to meet with the leaders of surrounding countries. Perhaps there could have been a rational for this when Bushco had a strategy of undermining the regimes in those countries and it wanted to put them on notice that unless they cooperated they were going to be overthrown or some such idea. But there is nothing left of that strategy. It failed. Now there is a huge human disaster underway and convincing people that it is in there interest to prevent the escalation of that may be the most important step necessary to begin to move towards some kind of stable solution. Bushco will not take it.

 

[sickstan]

Poison gas, mass killings, torture, and large statues and paintings of a strongman may also be effective ways to keep the population in line.

I must point out that before the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was one of the most prosperous, well educated states (ok well at least the Sunni parts) in the Middle East. Although Saddam already had his secret police in place and had already cemented his place as a particularly cruel and dangerous dictator, it wasn't until the deprivations and the sedition of disaffected minorities during and after the Iran-Iraq war that Saddam resorted to gassing his own populace and large scale mass executions. During the post-war Iraq, a semblance of civil society decayed into tribalism centering around the cult of Saddam.

 

[davefoc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/w...7287f579368&hp&ex=1167714000&partner=homepage
A couple of quotes from a recent article on Iraq:
from the last paragraph on the first page:

“What I want to hear from you is how we’re going to win,” he quoted the president as warning his commanders, “not how we’re going to leave.”

from the last paragraph:

Mr. Bush still insists on talking about victory, even if his own advisers differ about how to define it. “It’s a word the American people understand,” he told members of the Iraq Study Group who came to see him at the White House in November, according to two commission members who attended. “And if I start to change it, it will look like I’m beginning to change my policy.”

At what point does Bush realize that the victory he had originally fantasized about is not going to happen and begin to deal with the situation as it is and not as he wishes it was? My guess is that he won't. Look for another few thousand American soldiers to die. Look for tens of thousands more Iraqis to die. Look for the massive migration and increase in sectarian isolation to continue. Look for Bush to do anything except what is necessary to begin to bring this disaster to an end.

 

[Solitaire]

This it seems to me is just about as close to a smoking gun as it gets when one is looking at how Bushco is blinded by corruption. It would have taken a complete moron to not understand that a whole lot of Iraqis were not going to be happy sitting on their asses while highly paid foreigners "fixed" their country. Even if one was so stupid so as to not have figured this out initially, it was really obvious right away that this was the case. But Bushco didn't slow down for years. Part of the point of this war seems to have been to reward corporate chronies and even if the lives of American soldiers and Iraqis in general were to be risked the corporate chronies were to get their money. On the surface, it seems like evidence of the most corrupt behavior by any American administration in my life. But there is also the possibility that Bushco is led by people who are just incredibly stupid.

You've almost got it. When Clinton was in office a report appeared stating that about 1/3 of the money spent on the cold war disappeared, about $2.3 trillion dollars. Since Clinton went into office the two million man army shrank down to a one million man army, meanwhile spending broke the 300 billion dollars a year mark, upward as in not downward. Needless to say, spending has increased tremendously since he has left office, but strength hasn't increased. If we don't fight the Iraq war then we must find another war - it's just that simple.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/w...7287f579368&hp&ex=1167714000&partner=homepage
A couple of quotes from a recent article on Iraq:
from the last paragraph on the first page:


from the last paragraph:


At what point does Bush realize that the victory he had originally fantasized about is not going to happen and begin to deal with the situation as it is and not as he wishes it was? My guess is that he won't. Look for another few thousand American soldiers to die. Look for tens of thousands more Iraqis to die. Look for the massive migration and increase in sectarian isolation to continue. Look for Bush to do anything except what is necessary to begin to bring this disaster to an end.

I believe that they will follow the example of Saddam after the Iran war and the Kuwait war, and define whatever the outcome is as victory.

 

[SezMe]

I believe that they will follow the example of Saddam after the Iran war and the Kuwait war, and define whatever the outcome is as victory.

Geez, AUP, you don't even have to refer back to those precedents to know that ANY outcome of the Iraq action will be DEFINED as victory by the Bush Administration. He has essentially defined himself and his administration by the Iraq war ("I am a war President") and, more importantly, by our (USA) having achieved "victory" there. Any other outcome is simply unspeakable.

 

[Garrette]

You've almost got it. When Clinton was in office a report appeared stating that about 1/3 of the money spent on the cold war disappeared, about $2.3 trillion dollars. Since Clinton went into office the two million man army shrank down to a one million man army, meanwhile spending broke the 300 billion dollars a year mark, upward as in not downward. Needless to say, spending has increased tremendously since he has left office, but strength hasn't increased. If we don't fight the Iraq war then we must find another war - it's just that simple.

Ike's military-industrial complex is not a chimera.

The Pentagon does not always get the funding it requests. Usually it gets more, but the extra is tied to expensive weapons systems and/or bases of questionable military value but definite economic value to legislators and constituents.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ike's military-industrial complex is not a chimera.

The Pentagon does not always get the funding it requests. Usually it gets more, but the extra is tied to expensive weapons systems and/or bases of questionable military value but definite economic value to legislators and constituents.

A couple of points. Ike's M-I-C was related to about 14% of the GDP, the current 4%, or thereabouts. (Then again, with the sloppy accounting on Iraq reconstruction, it may well be in the 5% range, given the questions on GAAP that don't stop cropping up.)

I've been calling it the C-I-C for some years: the Congressional-Industrial Complex, thanks to the first BRAC, and some of the strange things I saw in an acquisition job.

DR

 

[Garrette]

A couple of points. Ike's M-I-C was related to about 14% of the GDP, the current4%, or thereabouts. (Then again, with the sloppy accounting on Iraq reconstruction, it may well be in the 5% range.)

I've been calling it the C-I-C for some years: the Congressional-Industrial Complex, thanks to the first BRAC, and some of the strange things I saw in an acquisition job.

DR

No argument on the numbers, but some argument on the interpretation.

If I demand 14% of your income one year and you know a good portion of that is wasted, then I only demand 4% when your income is fifty times as much as previously, the waste has not decreased. In other words, there may be newer and bigger rats in the house but I'm still a nasty rat.

More to the point, I don't the the GDP comparison is as relevant as the percentage-of-budget comparison. The military makes up about half of discretionary spending now.

Edit: I like the C-I-C term. I think it fits both our interpretations.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No argument on the numbers, but some argument on the interpretation.

If I demand 14% of your income one year and you know a good portion of that is wasted, then I only demand 4% when your income is fifty times as much as previously, the waste has not decreased. In other words, there may be newer and bigger rats in the house but I'm still a nasty rat.

More to the point, I don't the the GDP comparison is as relevant as the percentage-of-budget comparison. The military makes up about half of discretionary spending now.

Edit: I like the C-I-C term. I think it fits both our interpretations.

Percent of budget is a more practical way to look at it, sure.

DR