Saturday, May 26, 2007

To Survive or To Win?

There is a pervasive lack of understanding concerning the type of conflict we’re in among the junior leaders and soldiers fighting the war on the front lines, and this is absolutely not their fault. You can’t even put the onus on the chain of command or even the highest leaders of the military; though as time passes, pressure should mount on our senior military leaders for allowing ignorance and misconception to exist in our junior leaders, those on the ground calling the shots. This pervasive sentiment typically takes two forms: ignorance of the nature of counterinsurgency warfare, and a mistaken pessimism that certain Arabic cultural traits render all our idealistic efforts into a costly, pointless death grind. This mindset causes the majority of junior leaders and the Soldiers or Marines under them to care about only one thing: survival—not winning; maybe at best doing some good where they can, but not making lasting transitional changes. The issue is simply that junior leaders across the military are not prepared or properly trained for the type of war they are fighting.


In a recent mass-email home, a Lieutenant on the front lines wrote eloquently of the Ranger Creed, applying this tried and true Army maxim to his current situation, and yet it doesn't seem to fit: “We have no ‘Ranger objective.’” he wrote. “We have no hill to take, no terrain to dominate, no land which, once captured, will be safe haven for us.” He’s exactly right: there is no land to take. Enemy centers of gravity are not terrain, as they are in conventional, linear battle—they are rather complex and amorphous networks of people and information that mitigate our overwhelming firepower, and they are the nebulous, abstract mist of human attitudes and perceptions in the people. Of course there’s an objective, only it takes more than intestinal fortitude to conquer—it requires historical perspective, cultural understanding, patience, and cunning. And it will not be taken in battle; it will gradually, imperceptibly be achieved over the course of years. While it is one thing to talk glibly of the “nature of counterinsurgency,” it is an entirely different matter to train a soldier or marine how to fight one, to equip a leader with a contextual framework and cultural understanding to truly offensively prosecute a counterinsurgency. You don’t necessarily win in this war by firing your tank and taking a bunker, like every soldier and marine has been trained superbly to do—though those skills are important and do play a role. Instead, we are relying on junior leaders to figure it out without the rigorous training in this other type of warfare. What did my unit do immediately prior to deployment? Ship out Grafenwoehr Training Area for two weeks to fire our tanks, artillery cannons, and Bradley fighting vehicles at the range. What do we really need? A few Staff Sergeants who can de-escalate a situation with some cultural savvy and knowledge of a few key Arabic phrases, and a Lieutenant armed with some nuanced negotiating skills.

Many junior leaders (and others) believe that Iraq is hopeless because of various cultural, tribal, or religious traits. Can democracy succeed where “…forgiveness brings shame, and personal vengeance is justice?” as one Lieutenant put it. Maybe so, but I think what he’s describing is the human condition without the rule of law, not a tragic character flaw peculiar to the Arabs. This is a poverty and war stricken land—the people display a normal level of pathological victimization for a people crushed by a dictator whose oppressive yet relatively stable society and infrastructure was devastated by years of sanctions and an invasion of 70-ton tanks and unnumbered explosives. But the people thirst for justice, too, and rule of law is something they yearn for. It will take years, of course, but we're not helping by throwing our hands up and saying it can’t be done, denying it’s our problem, or harping about how this whole debacle was a mistake to begin with. Is each death of a US Servicemember an embarrassment to our nation's collective shortsightedness? That really remains to be seen. I suppose these deaths could very well become an embarrassment: not necessarily because the decision to invade was based on faulty intelligence, but probably due to our nation's insatiable fast-food desire to see success in terms of 2-4 year political intervals and an unwillingness to witness democracy at its bloody, turmoiled roots. We’re the 20th century looking back 200 years ago at ourselves, expecting them to catch up right now to where we’re at, and if they won’t, then let’s get out of dodge, because it’s no longer our responsibility.


To the military’s credit, leaders at all echelons are trying hard to fight this war the right way. Senior leaders have established a counterinsurgency academy in Iraq, and the latest enemy tactics and current tactical scenarios have made their way into the military’s training centers; the Army has recently published a field manual for counterinsurgency, and the Marines have republished their classic Small Wars Manual that went forgotten during Vietnam. It may be too little too late. The counterinsurgency academy is focused at the battalion staff and company commander level and above, and does not yet integrate NCOs and junior leaders—those paying the toll every day. Scenario training is good for decisive tactical decision making, but doesn't equip a leader with the contextual understanding they need to be proactive prosecutors of this complex war, and to recognize the political significance of tactical decisions. Since the beginning of the war, leaders at all echelons have had one goal constantly in mind: bring their Soldiers home safely. Survival mode is easy—especially when confronted with the unknown. The tragedy is that survival mode is often counterproductive and not focused on facilitating an end to this interminable conflect.
Historically renowned for creativity and intrepidity in battle, hundreds of brave young leaders are figuring out on their own how to fight this war the right way. Unfortunately, relying on the creativity of insufficiently trained leaders is somewhat of a crapshoot. Some units get it, and see incredible success, such as the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division in Ramadi; all too often others don’t because they're too busy treading water, simply trying to survive.

10 comments:

David Broadus said...

David:
I am an old friend of your father-in-law, Jerry Fine. We shared an apartment when he was a student at Rice U and I was best man at Jerry and Julie's wedding.

Jerry just told me of your Blog, and I find it very interesting. I even appreciated the links to the articles in the first post, although I agree with your critic that the main thing we look for in Bloggers is their personal take on the situation on the ground.

I ran a political blog a couple years back and kept up with several milboggers, but stopped reading any blogs about a year ago. I am happy to see yours and get your take.

I emailed Jerry the following:
"It occurred to me as I was reading David's Blog what an incredibly revolutionary thing the Internet is. This is the first war with Bloggers, where any person with unrestricted access to the Internet can read first-hand reports from soldiers in the field, some supportive of the war, some strongly opposed, and some on the fence. Not only soldiers, but first-hand reports from various different people from the country where the war is being fought.

"It is pure Democracy in action. I think that schools should require students from Jr High on to find a minimum of four Bloggers--two active duty military, one giving positive reports and one negative, and a couple of Iraqi Bloggers, and follow them and give regular reports. Then, perhaps in High School and above, one of the assignments should be to write an essay comparing the perception of the war they have from the Bloggers compared to the mainstream media and the official government statements."

Stay safe and keep the good reports coming in. We all need constant enlightenment.

Cheers

David Broadus
Houston, TX
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Abram and Sarah said...

David--

You are awesome. Though I think (and I say this with respect to you for all you're doing) you may have oversimplified the idea of the war as being democracy-forming for Iraq and that you may have slightly overstated the case against "washing our hands of it". I suppose we should have considered that question (of washing our hands of it) more deeply before getting involved. Why, for instance, are we not concerned about bringing democracy and freedom to Darfur? Iran? Korea? (Perhaps we are, but the proof is in the pudding, or more specifically, where the soldiers go.)

That is not to say that what you and your people are doing isn't empowering--to the contrary, I am prouder of you than you can imagine. It's just to say that forming a democracy in Iraq was NOT the stated objective of the government higher-ups when this war was started. It was only when the pre-war intelligence was proved to be faulty at best (and manipulated and pressured at worst) and no WMDs found that the raison d'etat became "democracy-forming."

That said I hope that your solid and wise grasp of the situation and the work in front of you can rub off one those around you, below you, above you.

Finally, in response to Junior Leaders not knowing how to proceed... you and every other person in the military should read _Leadership without Easy Answers_ by Ron Heifetz. It was very tough to get through, but upon reflection, it's by far the best book I've ever read on leadership (and I've read more than a few). And certainly the one that's had the most impact on my own leadership. Totally applicable for what you're talking about, especially what Heifetz describes as the leader's role in getting his or her people to do "adaptive work."

If it's not easy for you to get a copy, let me know and I'll mail you one.

Love you, brother. Hang in there. I think of you often.

Peace,
Abram

David Broadus said...

Abram:

Last time I checked there was no oil in Darfur or Korea. The jury is still out on meddling in Iran.

David Bradley said...

Hey Abram,

Thanks for your spirited post. I do admit I opened myself up to the should-we-or-shouldn't-we-have debate with my tangent on democracy-forming to support my argument. But your criticism is something I'm really not very interested in, and misses the point of my argument, which is about junior military leaders not being properly trained to fight this war. The bottom line is that any discussion of should we or shouldn't we have is moot. We now have a moral obligation to try to win this war, not only for ourselves, but to the society and people we have disrupted. Not to mention the serious pragmatic implications for national security if we pull out early. I am not so naive to think that the real reason we came to Iraq was to bring democracy, and it's obvious that the gravest tragedy of this war is the pitiful lack of planning and specious intelligence regarding post-combat operations, compounded by the bungling of the public's expectations for this conflict.

My argument was focused on the military's inability to quickly change focus to properly train its junior leaders fighting the war. But my second point does beg the question of the possibility of (some kind of) democracy in Iraq, which sounds like fodder for a future post. I will say this: The easy way out would have been to install a pro-US dictator who could have easily crushed this petty sectarian violence under the jackboots of menace and thuggery. But we didn't...

As far as leadership goes, the Army is pretty good at it--especially at West Point, which in my experience generates the fewest bad apples. Sorely lacking, however, is certain cultural, historical, and tactical training to accomplish the unique challenges of the mission in Iraq. Unless your book recommendation deals acutely with counterinsurgency tactics and military-historical examples for junior leaders, its utility in this specific context will be limited. I'm sure it's outstanding though, as I take any book recommendation from you very seriously, and look forward to reading it sometime.

I miss you guys a lot. Wish I could make the party.

David.

David Bradley said...

David,

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure if I'll continue this after I redeploy or not, but I figured that there are a few out there who may be interested in a more personal perspective on the war.

Also, I do not think we went to Iraq for oil, even partially--Iraqi petrol does not slake thirsty Ford F-150s. I believe it's going to China, but I need a fact checker on that. Bosnia didn't have any oil, and we sent troops there.

David.

David Broadus said...

David

I do not think we went to Iraq solely for oil, either, but it does figure into the equation. I was being a bit facitious there.

Be assured I do not buy the arguments of the whacko left that it is all about oil and Halliburton. I think it was more about stability in the region and getting rid of a Stalinist megalamaniac who was funding terrorists and was a genuine threat to the region.

In addition, I truly believe Saddam and his agents planned and executed the Murrah Federal Building attack in Oklahoma City. There is overwhelming evidence of Iraqi complicity and government cover-up. Whether or not that was considered in the invasion plans I don't know, but it should have been.

I think there are many reasons we went into Iraq, some noble and some not, but, as one of the architects of the war stated, "we did it because we could." That may sound cynical, but it is real.

Since the days of Thomas Jefferson going after the Barbary Pirates off the coast of North Africa, this nation has been imperialistic and expansionist, never hesitant to act in whatever way needed to protect our interests and expand our influence. I for one, applaud that.

I hope you keep blogging. You are a good writer and provide a needed perspective.

Be well and stay safe.

Cheers

David Broadus

Unknown said...

David-
I just saw that the current Newsweek has a prominent article on the situation in Ramadi ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881803/site/newsweek/ ). Though the only individuals they quote are Marines, it seems they are part of the new strategy you referenced in your earlier post, right?

David Bradley said...

Andrew,

I coordinated Melinda Liu's (Newsweek correspondent) visit through my unit's sector, and she was great to work with. Some of the anecdotes in the article are from one of our neighborhoods (the White Apartments). The Marines are doing a great job in downtown Ramadi of not being too much like Marines, and downtown Ramadi has had the same remarkable success. It is due, as you say, to the new strategy we've adopted in the city, although we're only seeing the mediaworthy results now--it started nearly a year ago with the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division I mention in the first post. I also want to stress that tribal leaders assuredly deserve the lion's share of the credit for the success here. It's their influence that provided the Iraqi police force to hold the city.

Abram and Sarah said...

Hey, David--

Thanks for your reply. I don't think I missed the point of your argument--I understood the post to be largely about junior leadership, but by talking about democracy-forming you did (whether intentionally or not) use some very strong language that has been used as rhetoric by various politicians... so of course that will bring up pre-war conditions and issues.

And to say that any discussion of should we or shouldn't we is moot is nearly tantamount to saying that we shouldn't bother teaching and learning history in schools because it, too, is moot (i.e., it already happened, we can't change it, etc.). I'm exaggerating a bit, because of course I know you don't think that, but that kind of thinking can lead there.... I hope that every person in this country is interested in the run-up to the war, its causes, etc., so that if a future scenario like this arises in the future, we will be better equipped by what we have learned along the way (which is only possible if we are continually reflecting). If you meant that the discussion is moot insofar as it relates to our moral obligations now (which is probably more likely your meaning), I agree. And I can see how it wouldn't be the best use of mental-reflective space for military in Iraq, since that is not really the stated mission and objectives that you are called to right now.

Heifetz's book doesn't deal specifically with counterinsurgency tactics, though (speaking of managing the public's expectations for a conflict) he does have a nifty example of LBJ and Vietnam and how LBJ led the public there. It doesn't have any youth ministry examples either (I've had to work to adapt it to my situation), yet it's probably had more impact on my ministry leadership than any other book besides the Bible. So I think in terms of learning larger principles of interpersonal leadership it could be very helpful to junior leaders.

I'm praying for you. Keep posting--I enjoy this.

Abram

David Bradley said...

Hey Abram,

I'm actually quite interested in the run-up to the war, and some friends and I here have had a number of in depth discussions about it. In fact, I just finished The Imperial Life in the Emeral City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, about the CPA's initial flailings in Baghdad. However, my general feeling is that I think the idea of invading Iraq was ok from a strategic national security mindset, but the execution of it was totally bungled in every sense. I think the Army is gradually figuring it out, and finally the State Department is getting involved--so I honestly think there is better chance for success here than in Vietnam, should the political will hold out. Unfortunately, the administration came clean about the war a little late in the game.

David.