Anderson: America is needed on Iraq’s front lines
Chief Tango sends us a link to the Washington Post opinion piece written by retired Marine Corps colonel Gary Anderson who presents the case for returning US troops to Iraq. He discusses the battle in Tikrit and how the Iraqis are having real trouble prying the ISIS troops from their defenses, and he talks about how the US military trained hard and long to become experts at Military Operations in Urban Terrain (that’s what they called it in my days) and he arrives at this conclusion;
Anyone who has seen both real and simulated urban combat knows that only experienced, well-trained troops will be able to oust the Islamic State from the Iraqi and Syrian cities it has infested. This is the hard truth: U.S.-trained Iraqi troops and Syrian rebels may be able to hold those cities once they are cleared, but only Americans are capable of defeating the Islamic State in close urban combat.
I’ll agree with Mr. Anderson that US troops are the best trained, most experienced troops in the world at this type of combat, that ISIS troops have little hope of defeating determined US soldiers and Marines, but I disagree that US troops should be on the front lines of the war against ISIS. It’s not the troops, it’s the politicians- the politicians inside and outside of the halls of government.
ISIS is a brutal enemy that needs to be dealt with in a brutal, take-no-prisoners manner. The soldiers opposing ISIS troops need to kill them all without respect to the laws of land warfare, because that’s the only way that ISIS will ever be defeated. The lawyers and hand-wringers at the Pentagon would never allow US troops to engage in the type of warfare that needs to be inflicted on daesh forces. Those Rules of Engagement (ROE) will never be written.
As it is, we fret some Marines who urinated on dead enemy or pose with the body parts of suicide bombers. We pull Silver Star medals from officers who kill the enemies that bomb and maim our own troops.
The Iranians, the Iraqis, the Jordanians, the Egyptians aren’t hamstrung by public opinion and hand-wringing non-combatants who don’t mind killing our own troops with an overly-restrictive and confusing ROE. The pointy-headed class will never allow US troops fight the war that needs to be fought to defeat ISIS, so keep our troops in a support role, and let our allies deal directly with the enemy.
Category: Terror War
Truth.
Exactly.
Destroy them. Then when it’s done we can all nicey nice with the rebuilding.
Once again politicians have lost thier will to lead and serve. They are more interested in using the “crisis” to take advantage and push thier agendas.
There are some days I think Heinlein was right. Serve and then you have the right to franchise….and further political office.
With respect to Heinlein…I concur.
Jonn: awesome writing.
Agreed.
Either the brutalities of ISIS are recognized and dealt with properly and correctly, or we stay out of it.
As I quoted someone else last night: ‘I see very little difference between them (ISIS) and the Nazis – the unlimited territorial ambitions, the powerful sense of belonging, the extreme brutality, the genocide. They DO NOT at this stage need to be ‘understood’, they need to be opposed and eliminated.’
If a declared pacifist can be this realistic, why can’t the politicians and handwringers? (Rhetorical, no need for response.)
I don’t think we need to abandon the laws of war. Instead, we just need to apply the laws and not be constrained about public opinion and hand-wringing from politicians and pundits unfamiliar with what the laws actually state. For example, the law doesn’t preclude us from killing civilians/human shields. Instead, we are just required to essentially conduct a balancing test of who the target is and value of killing the target compared with the civilian shields. The current climate is such that commanders are afraid, if not prohibited by internal pressure, from conducting a thoughtful balance assessment. So of course the enemy takes advantage of this, and the media will report civilian deaths but not the value of who/why was actually targeted.
I hope you’re right, because it’s not just politicians and handwringers…most of our commanders and trigger pullers will not knowingly violate the Law of War. The idea that they’re conditioned to unquestioning obedience, and are all ready to torture prisoners or pull a My Lai or Baibars at Antioch on the word of a superior…is a myth. As I know you know, but there are a lot of fantasists out there.
It may be that the law needs to be changed. Over the last few centuries the trend has been towards “more protection of civilians and their property.” But even a humane trend like that can be taken too far (for reasons you and Jonn allude to).
Also the trend of paying cash in order to compensate for civilian life and property.
To JAGC’s point about the media, look no further than Israel fighting the Palestinians.
Agree with all of the above, and add this:
Say we DO go into the ME and manage to defeat ISIS. Then what? We do a little rebuilding, and leave. With a people with this different of a mindset and culture, who don’t even conceive of the concept of property and religious rights, then what? One faction will oppress another. One faction will rise up against another. Another “terrorist” (or “freedom fighter”) organization will rise. ANd the cycle will start again, and we’ll have to come in AGAIN, to clean up someone else’s mess.
Best we just stay out, until the ME matures at least out of the 7th century, to something at least approximating the 18th-19th century. Which will be awhile.
The use of the word “NO” can be powerful. But only if it’s used, and meant.
We need bombs, lots of them, napalm and pig entrails. Large caliber sniper rifles dipped in pig’s blood, hollow points lathered lovingly in bacon grease; and on that hallowed day, when we can finally say fuck ROE, we need to be rid of these fuckers, we can bury ’em in mass graves with pigs lining the bottoms. We need to put a fright into our enemies that the world hasn’t known for more than fifty years.
Though I agree completely that we need US Troops on the ground doing the dirty work, we need something else first.
An actual dedicated to victory Commander In Chief. Not President Mom Jeans… He is clueless as to how to go about any of this, and so far out of his depth that we are all drowning in his mistakes.
Laws of war are what get people killed. We pretend to observe some bullshit laws of war, when we deliberately burned tens of thousands during WW2.
War is killing, the winners are usually those willing to kill more and kill longer than their enemies. When one side stops killing it tends to lose the contest over whatever resources were being fought over at the time.
Some civilians will die, sometimes a lot of civilians are going to die.
We need to decide if we can do that and finish this job or not. If the answer is no, with all due respect to the Iraqis, Fuck Them…there is not a single Iraqi on the planet worth the life of any American.
If we’re not willing to unleash the whirlwind and get the job done, there’s no point in getting more young men and women killed or maimed for those useless fuckers in Iraq. They can all be burned in cages or beheaded for all I care…is ISIS can be dealt with as a business resource for the oil what do I care how they treat their citizens? Nobody gave a flying fuck what happened in Rwanda among other places in Africa…we are not some moral compass for the world. We are a nation with self interest like any other. If our interests are compromised by ISIS let’s kill them and let’s not worry about some civilians getting killed along the way.
That doesn’t mean I’m advocating open season on Iraqis.
However, it does mean if you take fire from a building reducing the building to rubble with indirect fire is acceptable to me regardless of the presence of human shields in the building. Nothing more, nothing less.
VOV: have to take exception.
The laws of war, as JAGC stated above, do not preclude military actions that cause civilian casualties. As the man noted, what’s required is a balancing test to see if the military gain is proportionate with the loss of civilian life.
Disregarding of the laws of war was what brought us such things as the Kaytin Forrest, the Malmady Massacre, the summary executions during the Bataan Death March, POW abuses by the Japanese/North Korean/North Vietnamese, and My Lai. Had the belligerent parties all followed the laws of war, those atrocities would not have happened.
In contrast, the German and Allied Bombing campaigns during World War II, though somewhat close to the line, are generally considered to have been IAW the accepted laws of war. And the example you give of shooting back at a building housing civilians when you’re taking fire from same is completely authorized by the laws of war today, provided the military necessity is high enough.
Bottom line: no, I’m not willing to see us throw out the accepted laws of war. I don’t want to see it become accepted practice for US soldiers to commit atrocities such as My Lai – or to be massacred if/when taken POW. That that’s precisely what us “throwing out” the accepted laws of war could bring.
As the man noted, what’s required is a balancing test to see if the military gain is proportionate with the loss of civilian life.
I am not suggesting we round up civilians and machine gune them.
As I said I’m not advocating open season on Iraqi civilians, but that balancing act that you both suggest is better determined by the on scene on the ground commanders instead of some jerkoff in DC far removed from the reality on the ground at the point of contact.
Curtis LeMay has remarked what he did would be a war crime if he lost the war…he was well aware that what he was doing was quite questionable. I applaud his honesty, and I understand that hard times make for hard choices.
Attempting occupy a nation while it continues on about its business gets people killed plain and simple…perhaps this time someone will have the testicular fortitude to initiate and enforce curfews and no business rules in areas we are operating to reduce the risk to both troops and civilians. Pretending the US Army is a police force of occupation constrained by an overwhelming concern over civilian deaths is a poor ROE.
Again to be clear I’m not advocating wholesale slaughter, but if we determine the best course of action is blasting large parts of these cities into uninhabitable rubble and some civilians get popped in the process but it saves US troops then I say who cares about those civilians?
Because I sure as hell don’t.
If you’re suggesting that I prefer dead civilians to dead combat troops you’re right I just don’t find myself caring about the Iraqi people. They don’t seem to be able to fight, defend, or even work with their different tribal groups to unify their nation. They would rather have total fucking chaos and anarchy with death in the streets than work with a Kurd/Sunni/Shia rival. If their deaths result in a stable Iraq and safer conditions for US troops it’s all good for me.
Guess it’s good I don’t make those decisions.
Actually, VOV, by suggesting we get rid of the laws of war you indeed implicitly suggested giving the de facto “green light” to everything you claim not to have approved above. Each of those acts are precluded by the accepted laws of war. Getting rid of the laws of war means we accept them as valid.
Acts such as you suggest in earlier times (using earlier technology, of course) was precisely what led to many of the currently accepted laws of war. For examples, do a bit of research on the Afghan city of Herat, or the Iranian cities of Merv and Nishapur.
I am all for the Hague Convention if both parties mostly follow it. But ISIS is not following the Laws of War and neither are those people in Afghanistan. We get no credit for trying to do the right thing, same as the Israelis will get no credit for “roof knocking” and calling people on the phone and so forth. So we will suck until some Private does something newsworthy then we REALLY suck, all over the news.
I get the part about killing them individually and collectively. And I get the part about not engaging unless we both play by the same rules. A few days ago someone talked about splitting up a baby and here we are. If we do what has to be done, we will be accused of war crimes. If we decide that we won’t play unless it is a fair fight then our enemies will take advantage of our prissiness and take over the middle east or the Ukraine – or something. I think it’s complicated.
I say, do the military minimum we can, the most that we can for the locals, protect our interests, and stay safe. If attacked bring the hard rain. Let or make those assholes fight it out with each other but make it abundantly clear that they should not screw with our people.
Over on Black Five it says “If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn’t plan your mission properly.” – David Hackworth. I think that for current US political reasons we cannot obliterate them so we step back.
With respect to our troops being treated like POWs under the GC you know that won’t happen when taken prisoner by ISIS…pretending otherwise because we are adhering to some specific rule set as a matter of decency is a grand self delusion.
Our troops will be burned in cages or beheaded if ISIS gets them…this will be exactly like fighting the Japs on the islands leading to the Japanese Homeland.
Our troops will have to kill just about every single one of these fuckers to get the job done…
We pretend to observe some bullshit laws of war, when we deliberately burned tens of thousands during WW2.
We don’t “pretend.” Most of the time, we actually do, and the laws based on treaty are not “bullshit.” They’re Supreme Law of the Land under Article VI of the Constitution…until and unless we repudiate the treaties or negotiate new ones.
(There’s an extra problem for longstanding rules because they can become “customary” international law; that could be overcome but not easily.)
It happens that the Law of War changed radically after WWII…particularly with the Geneva Conventions of 1948. Things that were previously lawful no longer are, whether that’s a good or bad thing.
One massive change since WWII is the de-linking of civilians and military. Formerly, it was a recognized part of war-fighting tactics to destroy the enemy supply base and ruin the morale/support of the home populace. If no one at home supported Hans or Tommy, victory followed. Now the civilian population has become sacrosanct and such measures are frowned upon. To be fair, though, in a G type war, that may be a moot point – identifying whose civilians are whose is much more problematic than when X country fought Y and whoever lived in Y was fair game.
I agree 100% with Jonn.
I rarely get in the middle of these discussions, because I have very little to add. However, in this case, I’ll say this: no matter what our ROE, our soldier’s lives are wasted if we don’t have a real reason for being there. If we don’t know what we are trying to accomplish when we go in, then we need to stay out. My opinion is that there is nothing to accomplish in that part of the world except killing an enemy who has sworn to kill us. The Iraqis have nothing we want and nothing to offer, except a way for us to get our soldiers killed and spend our money and military hardware. That’s it. I’ve watched our country struggle to figure out what it is trying to do over there, and so far, it doesn’t appear that we have come to terms with the idea that the whole situation is build on a negative. It’s not like Germany in WWII, it’s not even like Japan. It’s a wild, lawless, fanatical, tribal land, that will always be just as bad as it always was, no matter what we do to it, good or bad. Even if we went in and conquered Iraq, planted the US flag on its soil and declared it the 51st state, we’d have nothing but a nest of vipers to show for our efforts.
And how does one normally deal with a nest of vipers? You burn it out.
Yes. My ONLY concern about using WMDs in the ME is the mental and emotional stress such violent methods would cause our soldiers. I could care less about anyone we thought worth using those weapons on.
Some excellent comments here. As a former NCOES/OCS instructor I had the opportunity to really get to understand the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and Just War Criteria.
Proportionality defines if the damage to the enemy vs. civilian is justified. You can estimate that sort of thing before the SHTF, but during the actual battle, things change. Unfortunately, the REMF’s point to the OPORD and say we didn’t do our job because we didn’t stick to the plan. We are more concerned about protecting sites and creating environmental damage than winning the fight. Of course the enemy follows those rules to the letter.
Just War Criteria has been tossed out the window. Can we win? Is the cost worth it? Will the outcome make a long-term difference? Are the people better off than before?
We still have the greatest country in the world and I am still proud of my military service. However, I am also greatly concerned of where we’re heading. We can only hope for strong and competent civilian and military leadership.
We do make it look easy don’t we?
There have been some excellent posts here. Far beyond my words and wisdom to express better. Yet as I see this the Iraqis were, are and always will be a divided people by families, tribes and religious flavors. Facts are, they have proven their inability, despite untold training and equipping and more often, there lack of desire and courage to fight and die for a better life in their nation for all. The ones who are willing to fight and die for what they want and believe are unfortunately, ISIS, the Taliban and AQ. When an American, Iraqi or any other proponent of U.S. troops doing the fighting and dying to take back an Iraqi city, does so knowing we will be far more hamstrung than we have ever been in the past, I say they are a dangerous fool who is easily and off handedly spending American lives and they know it full well. A dozen ISIS fighters in a building shielded with 50 civilians will be off limits except as a one on one, door to door fight. And which one of the “civilians” now behind you has the bomb strapped to them? Under these conditions I agree completely with VOV. Not ONE American life is worth an Iraqi civilian in those circumstances. Building to building, repeated over and over to retake a city. A retaken city then turned back over to Iraqi forces, as Anderson suggests but chooses to ignores the history, is a loss. When faced again with the same ISIS onslaught they will do as they have proven they have done before. Drop their weapons, run and call the U.S. through diplomatic channels for help AGAIN! To be answered the same, AGAIN, by the notions of Anderson and his ilk. If the President and the Pentagon declare we will help under the condition that we will use ALL force and methods allowed under the current laws of war, then I would say it is worth considering. Only considering. Because the current Administration and Pentagon like Anderson will want to retake cities and provinces and return… Read more »