Ed , very well said - straight shooting and from the heart - thanks
I am working these issues and will carry these words with me - thanks again

Ski




"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 21:07:03 GMT, "Ski"
wrote:

Hit it right on the head Ed - the situation is unique and it got that way
because we went in blind on the wishes of the politicals and not with a
good
plan - hence we are backed into a wall and bleeding for it. You caught on
also that there is no doctrine for this, hardly any proper terms and as
CAS
was evolving to use the UAV's and the links the real situation on the
ground
just up and ran over the thinking and then again the split between the
USAF
and Army has not helped.

How would you tackle this - seriously with all respect - how would you put
this fire out or in the least what role would you see air power

First, recognize that asking a fighter pilot for an opinion is always
dangerous. Second, if the fighter pilot also teaches political science
and international relations, you're going to get nuance (i.e.
gobbledegook) and bias (i.e. bias.)

I'm a long distance outside of the area of operations and my picture
is provided by the left-stream media. I get some very positive
feedback through back-channel links to folks still in the business to
gain a bit of balance.

Let's start by stating my impression that the current hostilities are
predominantly sectarian between Shia and Sunni, with the US getting
nailed in the cross-fire and offering a convenient scapegoat for each
side to point at as the cause. Not a good situation.

Essential to the discussion is recognition of the need to acknowledge
majority rule--that means mostly Shia, unfortunately. Balance and
stability don't come without some compromise that guarantees input
from the Kurds and Sunni, but they want sovereignty in their
regions,not just a voice. Won't come easy, if at all.

Our role is to get security forces trained (to whatever minimum
standard is achievable) and then get out of the way. The underlying
principle is that eventually the population will tire of the fighting
and determine that their self-interest is better served by stability.
Don't know if that is possible given the Arab mentality.

For US operations model, I'd look to the Israeli. Build a strong intel
system, both national tech (i.e. hardware) and HUMINT (i.e. wetware).
Then stand off and apply the intel when required at points of
decision. That allows selective application of firepower without
getting your troops into indefensible and high vulnerability
situations like house-to-house urban fighting.

I'd get out of the patrolling business as much as possible and get
into the conflict response mode. Wait for a 911 call from the local
authorities before intervening. When major scale operations are
required, do it with precision and supported by a well-managed PR
campaign that clearly spells out that folks who allow insurgents to
live next door, hide in the basement or shoot from their roofs will be
subject to instant response. "We will not lie, cheat or steal--or
support jihadists, or TOLERATE AMONG US those who do..."

The important distinction is to mark that the military didn't lose any
war here--they went in, cleaned house and kicked ass. The current
"mission" is untraditional to say the least. If it fails, it isn't
because of DOD, but because of using the wrong tools for a
nation-building job. Yet, it is very much in our national interest to
try to establish stability and if possible a republican form of
government in the region.

See what you get when you ask?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com