Fallujah - Sunni Triangle

[NousDefionsDoc]

So, ideas and the words used to express them matter?

The "grammar" of conflict and strategy is important?

[shadowflyer]

That man D9 is one smart dude.

Scott I always learn so much ( not afraid to admit I learn something everyday) by reading your posts. I am honored to be serving with ya bro. I am glad you are on our side.


Jason

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
So, ideas and the words used to express them matter?

As I've been saying since the beginning, I think ideas are ultimately of paramount importance. And I think our floundering effort there, in spite of our obvious military superiority, is certainly evidence of this.

Sticking to the carrot and the stick analogy, I don't think the realization that we need to use the stick eventually is some kind of incredible insight. I think the majority of Americans, as exemplified by the commentary on the matter posted on this website, realize that a more forceful approach is needed. But why don't we see these ideas come to fruition? Because there is a contradiction in the ideas that form the basis of our policy.

When we watch the evening news, we feel frustration that our people are dying and Iraq is not turning into the kind of place that America would like it to be - a free, peaceful, friendly nation. But Iraq is turning into the kind of place that the Iraqis choose for it to be. It is breaking up along tribal lines, the citizens are lining up behind their respective tribal or religious authorities, and the stage is being set for a showdown as to who will rise to become the next autocrat as soon as America is far enough withdrawn. This is what the Iraqis are choosing on their own. And why is this taking shape? Why are we failing in our attempt to prevent it? Because the primary justification we offered up to the world for going in the first place was to make Iraqis happy.

We dressed the situation up in a cloak of selflessness because we thought that would make the mission more sexy when presented at the UN and to the world. The price we are paying is that it is impossible to claim to be acting as the selfless servant of the Iraqi people, while you forcefully change the culture in a process that, in the short term, will be painful and unpopular. When you tell somebody, "I'm only doing this for you," and they say, "go to hell, I don't want your help," you've got a serious problem. When you say, "this may hurt a little, but we're doing this for ourselves, and if you go along you will benefit from this also," then the moral force of your argument is not undercut by their, "go to hell."

So we have a contradiction. The American people want Iraq to turn into the kind of place that is going to help secure our rights: a free, peaceful, rights respecting nation. And Iraqis want to see whatever tribal or religious affiliation they subscribe to seize power and dictate. In a conest of ideas like that, the one that will win is the one supported by policy, and the one supported by policy will be the one given ideological and moral validity in that policy's justification. Our Iraq policy has been justified at home and abroad on the basis of the happiness of Iraqis. Our popularity with Iraqis is the foremost barometer in the media and in many people's minds of our success. If the primary basis for us being there was explicitly named and our policies justified in terms of American security interests, then I think forcing that region by whatever means necessary into becoming free and peaceful is the policy that would emerge.

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The "grammar" of conflict and strategy is important?

I don't think "grammar" emphasizes the right points. It is the content of one's statements, IMO, that make the difference, rather than their particular form. Eloquence, while nice, is entirely secondary to content. That is why I have to roll my eyes at those who criticize George Bush's style and lack of "polish." I always ask these people how, in the context of all that has happened since September 10th 2001, they can conceivably focus on something as insignificant as style as the central reason for liking or disliking our President.

[NousDefionsDoc]

When I say the grammar of the conflict, I am not referring to the

2 a : the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language b : a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language

but rather the

4 : the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>

definition I think. Hence the quotation marks.

I agree with what you say about their manner of speaking. I can remember, for example, the news casts of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, etc. in the 1960's-70s. They never said "Huh" "Ah" etc. We seem to have left that era. A shame, but not overly important to the content, I agree

I'll give you an example of what I mean - the current lull in the operations against Sadr. We now have actions and reactions practically in real time. We have propaganda from all sides. We are bombarded by Al Jeerzera, Fox, CNN, the networks with what is happening. We are also bombarded with "experts" offering opinions as to why and what is next, but:
1. Are they truly experts? Fox has a retired Air Force Colonel offering opinion on the ground war and counter-terrorism.
2. Do the recipients of the information - Joe and Jane - have the "grammar" of conflict in their backgrounds that allows them to decipher these opinions and make judgements - voting for President for example - that are informed and valid?

I think not. Most of the "experts" are decrying the lull. "Smash them! "Don't stop"! "Quagmire!' "Vietnam - Part II!

I think the days of "Do it because I said so" are pretty much over, even with the troops.

Has the USG done a good job of explaining to the public the reasons for being and staying in this conflict? For the lull? To the average Muslim or Iraqi? To the troops? To the currrent and potential coalition partners? In other words, have they achieved the "buying in" of the stakeholders?

I am all for protecting sources and methods - but are the definitions of "sources and methods" classified as well? Do Joe and Jane understand, truly, what sources and methods are and why we need to protect them? Or have they been left to conjecture and end with the opinion that it is merely CYA by politicians?

We have yet to define terrorism in our security community, yet we are in the Global War on Terrorism and wondering why there are doubters and nay sayers?

The grammar of conflict. Not the public speaking ability of the current administration.

[Roguish Lawyer]

NDD:

Interesting points. What are the solutions to the problems you identify?

That Air Force colonel always has annoyed me. I'd like to see them talk only to Hunt and Bevilaqua. They've been my favorite Fox analysts.

[QRQ 30]

I hear on the news that equipment and personnel are being smuggled into Fallujah. The USMC commander says he doesn't have enough personnel to check each and every vehicle. I say that is a crock. Even if there is only one inspector, nothing needs to pass unchecked. If the traffic is backed up to Kuwait or Syria or Turkey SO WHAT??

[NousDefionsDoc]

Solutions
1. Be right. If you're going to say WMD, produce WMD. If there's a doubt, don't bring it up. Let it be a bonus. If you're going to spend billions to set up the DHS, show results (feedback) on a regular basis. Justify the cost, let people know the good things.

2. Act, don't react.

3. Stay on message. I think the Bush team does a fairly good job of this actually. They need to reinforce this amongst the minions.

4. Tailor the talk to the audience. The 9/11 commission is not about the commissioners, its about the people watching on C-Span. The Alert system is another good bad example. They didn't test it with a smaller audience or anything to see if it would convey the message. I would have rolled it out to McDonald's register employees. If they can get it, anybody can.

5. Don't assume the audience knows what you know, cares about what you care about, etc. I would like to do a survey of those responsible to getting the message out to the Iraqis and others in the region in Arabic to see how many dfferent answers I would get to "What is the message?" LOL

6. Give them as much information as you can without compromising classified. And explain as much as you can about why you can't give what you can't give.

7. Don't worry so much about offending people. The attitude has changed since 9/11 IMO, PC is less important now days.

8. Mix up styles according to the situation. People get board with the same style. Example - Rumsfield way of dealing with reporters was a breath of fresh air when he first started - now its lost its charm I think. Have to keep the interest up. He's does a great job overall of dealing with them though I think. They did a walk through of his office on Fox the other day. he explained about the piece of the 9/11 plane etc. Showed a very human side. Good stuff.

Basically, it is the speaker's (presenter's) responsibility to ensure the audience gets the message and comes on board - not the listener's. Many people forget that, then wonder why they don't get the results they want.

Just my 2 pesos.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
I hear on the news that equipment and personnel are being smuggled into Fallujah. The USMC commander says he doesn't have enough personnel to check each and every vehicle. I say that is a crock. Even if there is only one inspector, nothing needs to pass unchecked. If the traffic is backed up to Kuwait or Syria or Turkey SO WHAT??

Good example QRQ. I'm with you. Don't tell me you have a problem. Tell me what you did to solve it. Better to have the question of "Why are those trucks backed up to Damascus?" than "Where did that bomb that killed 100 people come from and how did it get here?"

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
If the traffic is backed up to Kuwait or Syria or Turkey SO WHAT??

A perfect example. I'm sure that the commanders on the ground, if they did not fear political repercussions, would prefer to shut all traffic in and out of the city down. But that would be inhumane , and would make the Iraqis angry, and the news would produce lots of human interest stories about how Abdul can't bring his tomatoes to market while people are hungry b/c the big mean Marines have shut down the roads. Unfortunately, since we've taken on to win a popularity contest among the Iraqi people, we won't do that kind of thing. I'd bet my last dollar that almost every Marine on the ground there would love nothing more than to bring fire and destruction down on Fallujah. Their restraint, in this example and others I have to believe, is a result of the overall policy.

I agree with you NDD. But do you see the need to change the context of the discussion? To reforge our policy on the anvil of self-interest?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Just my 2 pesos.

No, those were good. Easier in theory than practice, but I like them.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
No, those were good. Easier in theory than practice, but I like them.

Why easier in theory than practice? Like Nike says...

[D9 (RIP)]

Now a "leading human rights" group wants our actions in Fallujah probed to see if we used excessive force.

Excerpt:
A U.S. military offensive in Falluja last week in which 600 Iraqis may have died has raised concerns about excessive use of force and needs immediate investigation, a leading human rights group said Tuesday. Civilians who fled the fighting described the streets of Falluja as being littered with bodies, including women and children, and Iraqi politicians have accused U.S. forces of meting out collective punishment on the city's residents....

Article here.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Now a "leading human rights" group wants our actions in Fallujah probed to see if we used excessive force.

NDD response - "Feel free to go right on in to Fallujah and start interviewing people, your security is your responsibility. If you are kidnapped or any other calamity should befall you, the USG is in no way responsible. Nor will we risk the life or limb of one trooper to rescue you. Due to OPSEC concerns, unfortunately, we will be unable to advise you prior to any operations we may be conducting or planning to conduct in the AO. If you find anything you feel is of substance, we will be more than happy to assign 2nd LT. Dufus Can'tReadAMap here as an LNO to assist you. Have a very SF Day."

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Why easier in theory than practice? Like Nike says...

I agree with the Nike approach, but you have oversimplified things a little in order to make your point. For example, with respect to picking the right audience, there almost always are multiple audiences with different needs. Target your message to one, and you may piss off another.

But this is fine-tuning. When I am elected Leader of the Free World, you will be SecState. LOL

[Roguish Lawyer]

From http://OpinionJournal.com

Best of the Web Today - April 13, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
One Cheer for Kerry http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr12.html

In today's Washington Post, John Kerry weighs in with an article titled "A Strategy for Iraq." Our cheer is for this passage:

*** QUOTE ***

While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.

*** END QUOTE ***

We'll increase it to two cheers if Kerry criticizes by name the domestic extremists who are trying to divide America, sap American resolve and force the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops--most notably Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd.

Not everyone is persuaded of Kerry's resolve. A United Press International http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...2-031514-2639r dispatch from Baghdad quotes Ahmed, a pseudonymous member of the Army of Mohammad, a Fallujah-based Sunni group:

*** QUOTE ***

"God willing Bush will fall down by the hands of Fallujah," he says, combining military and political rhetoric. "If John Kerry wins the election and withdraws the Americans troops from Iraq, and maybe just leaves a few in bases, then we will not fight. But Bush we will always fight."

*** END QUOTE ***

And while Kerry's statement of determination is welcome, his "strategy" shows that he remains out of touch with reality. Its linchpin: "Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government."

No dice, says Secretary-General Kofi Annan http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...0&Cr=iraq&Cr1= in a statement today: "For the foreseeable future, insecurity is going to be a major constraint for us and so I cannot say right now that I'm going to be sending in a large UN team."

What Would We Do Without Kerry? http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...041208798.html

"Kerry: U.S. Must Lead Iraq Military Effort"--headline, Associated Press, April 12

Florida Dems: Murder Rumsfeld, Give Money to Kerry http://www.drudgereport.com/rc7r.htm

Matt Drudge reports on an ad the St. Petersburg Democratic Club http://www.drudgereport.com/stp.gif has taken out in the Gabber, a local weekly newspaper in the Gulf Coast city:

*** QUOTE ***

Senator Edward Kennedy is absolutely right when he called Iraq "Bush's Vietnam." But it's not only Bush. It's his whole damn Bunch: Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Ridge.

They've tried to blame the Iraq war on bad intelligence, on Al

Qaida, on terrorists, on foreigners from Iraq and Syria. Bush doesn't even know who in the hell we're fighting. The Bush Bunch calls the Iraqis insurgents. Did you know that Britain called the American revolutionaries insurgents and traitors? The Iraqis aren't insurgents. They're Iraqi patriates [sic] who want us the hell out of their country, and we should get the hell out of their country now!

We have Marines and soldiers being killed by the dozens with many more wounded. How many have to be killed before the Bush Bunch is satisfied? How many burial services of our Iraq dead has Bush attended? Any? How many military hospitals has Bush visited to talk to our wounded who have lost arms, or legs, or their eye sight, or combinations of these--how many?

And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq "We have our good days and our bad days." We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say "This is one of our bad days" and pull the trigger. Do you want t salvage our country? Be a savior of our country? Then vote for John Kerry and get rid of the whole Bush Bunch!

Please make a donation of ANY amount of money you can afford and send it to John Kerry for President, Inc. . . . Do it NOW. Thank you.

*** END QUOTE ***

Suppose a local Republican club placed a newspaper ad soliciting donations for President Bush and urging the assassination of a prominent Democratic official. Would it not be national news? Why have we heard nothing about this ad--which appeared last Thursday--until now, and only from the Drudge Report?

Weasel Watch http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/200...D81TVH3G1.html

There's a joke going around the Internet that France has increased its terror alert level from "run" to "hide." Perhaps in response, the French government is making clear that the level is still at "run," as the Associated Press reports from Paris:

*** QUOTE ***

France urged its citizens Tuesday to leave Iraq, calling a series of abductions of foreigners there "totally unacceptable." . . . France first issued its warning on Friday. In a statement, the foreign ministry said that the "risk is high that French citizens would be confused with those of member countries of the coalition."

*** END QUOTE ***

Actually, plenty of noncoalition countries' citizens have been kidnapped in Iraq, including Chinese, Germans and Russians. But the terrorists seem to be especially eager to grab people from countries whose governments joined the coalition amid widespread popular opposition: Italy, Japan, South Korea. It's a reasonable surmise that the terrorists in Iraq were inspired by the apparent success of the March 11 Madrid attacks in changing Spain's government.