Fisk: FM 3-24: America's new masterplan for Iraq

[bigtree]

Robert Fisk: America's plan for Baghdad

Divide and rule. A new counter-insurgency strategy to carve up the city into sealed areas. The tactic failed in Vietnam. So what chance does it have in Iraq?

Published: 11 April 2007

{snip}

The senior generals who constructed the new "security" plan for Baghdad were largely responsible for the seminal - but officially "restricted" - field manual on counter-insurgency produced by the Department of the Army in December of last year, code-numbered FM 3-24. While not specifically advocating the "gated communities" campaign, one of its principles is the unification of civilian and military activities, citing "civil operations and revolutionary development support teams" in South Vietnam, assistance to Kurdish refugees in northern Iraq in 1991 and the "provincial reconstruction teams" in Afghanistan - a project widely condemned for linking military co-operation and humanitarian aid.

FM 3-24 is harsh in its analysis of what counter-insurgency forces must do to eliminate violence in Iraq. "With good intelligence," it says, "counter-insurgents are like surgeons cutting out cancerous tissue while keeping other vital organs intact." But another former senior US officer has produced his own pessimistic conclusions about the "gated" neighbourhood project.

"Once the additional troops are in place the insurrectionists will cut the lines of communication from Kuwait to the greatest extent they are able," he told The Independent. "They will do the same inside Baghdad, forcing more use of helicopters. The helicopters will be vulnerable coming into the patrol bases, and the enemy will destroy as many as they can. The second part of their plan will be to attempt to destroy one of the patrol bases. They will begin that process by utilising their people inside the 'gated communities' to help them enter. They will choose bases where the Iraqi troops either will not fight or will actually support them.

"The American reaction will be to use massive firepower, which will destroy the neighbourhood that is being 'protected'."

The ex-officer's fears for American helicopter crews were re-emphasised yesterday when a military Apache was shot down over central Baghdad . . .

more: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2439530.ece


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[TomInTib]

1. Great read.

Thanks for posting this.

Recommended con mucho gusto.

[bigtree]

4. good stuff as always from RF

[Kagemusha]

2. Hey, this is big news!

This is the first I've heard of, perhaps the first anyone on DU has heard of, regarding Petraeus' new master plan to turn the "surge" into victory. So this is what McCain and Lieberman are counting on working. Lord help us. The Tel Afar plan. I felt in my gut this was coming, but I sure as heck am not betting on it succeeding, especially at this late juncture...

The part about deploying US ground forces strategically to be best able to influence events re: Iran seems to me to be the Army showing Bush, "Hey, look at us, look at us! See, we're relevant too! We're helping your policy, Mr. President! Don't forsake us for the Navy and Air Force and Marines here! We're still around too!" That and it may have uses inside Iraq but... ...still, if the strategy's flawed, a creative deployment within that strategy isn't necessarily going to do any good. Besides, what - they're gonna invade Iran on the ground? Please. Please...

[Bluebear]

3. Oh good heavens, important info here.

Thank you for posting, bigtree. So this is how they are planning "victory" eh?

[Postman]

5. You can't put the Genie back in the bottle....

You can't un-spill the milk once it's out of the carton.

All the Kings men can't put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, he's already a cracked egg.

They f*cked this up from the start. The rest of this is just an exercise in trying to play catch-up, only problem is the train already left the station...

[Kagemusha]

6. I laughed at the end when Lawrence of Arabia was quoted.

(I like Lawrence but he's considered a sad little tool by the Arabs themselves, a historical joke of no consequence... just mentioning for context.)

Lawrence of Arabia could call that "their" (the Arabs') war because... it was against the Turks, for national liberation. The Shiites are not fighting for national liberation. They're fighting for ethnic domination. Same as the others. And helping the US dominate the country isn't really consistent with their ruling it themselves (not for long anyway).

[jody]

7. More BS. I suggest one read FM 3-24, available on the internet, and form their own opinion. n/t

[Donnachaidh]

8. is this the 'super-sekrit plan' Phil Gingrey was honking about?

Nothing new Phil. Now go get those grey roots touched up. :evilgrin: