.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Friday, May 26, 2006

More on "inkblots" vs. "superbases" in Iraq

This first got put into my head in the William Lind column at SFTT.org where he discussed the shift from "inkspot" to "superbase" strategy for dealing with the Iraqi insurgency. I find I keep thinking about this. The US is undergoing a major strategic shift in Iraq right now.

Very briefly, the inkblot strategy for defeating an insurgency is the dispersal of forces in small units out into the towns and communities to build very local areas of control. The soldiers stay in these areas for long periods and build up relationships with the locals thus undermining the insurgency. The descriptor "inkblot" is a visual metaphor for how those "safe" areas are intended to grow and spread taking more territory, more resources, and more population from the insurgents. The theory is that as these "inkblots" spread they will join up eventually defeating an insurgency from a huge number of local points.

The alternative, and the apparent current strategy, is to pull forces out of local areas to "superbases." The main draw of superbases is that with fewer points of deployment, those fewer points, and their access roads, etc., can be better defended leading to fewer casualties. The issue with "superbases" is that while they allow fewer casualties, they also put more distance between US forces and the local populations. Raids and force maneuvers can still be conducted, but there is little effort to hold ground. In theory, the US could act as the leading edge, clearing an area for Iraqi forces to then hold it, but that's not happening.

I write all of this because there is a major shift going on right now in US tactical strategy in Iraq. Again, this was discussed in the Lind piece, and this post was prompted by a post by a guestblogger at Americablog dicussing the same thing.

The reason all of this is significant is because at at tactical level, the inkblot strategy is the only way the Iraqi insurgency might be defeated, and yet the current motion is away from it, towards superbases. In theory, this could be a proper response if the Iraqi army is ready to hold territory, but all reasonable estimates, even those out of the administration, say that will not be the case for at least another year. (probably much longer. - mike)

So, realistically, somebody up the decision chain has made an evaluation that involves one or a combination of these three possibilities.

1) that defeating the Iraqi insurgency is not worth a cost they are willing to pay. In other words politics won't allow the casualties to implement the strategy most likely to quell the insurgency.

2) that the US can't successfully implement the inkblot strategy with the current number of troops.

3) that, for whatever reason, the military leaders no longer believe the insurgency can be beaten, merely beaten back.

I don't know which of these is right, although I would honestly bet that all three have figured into the shift in strategy. The bottom line is that the US is shifting on a tactical level away from defeating the insurgency and more towards responding to it. (watch for the word "containment.")

(I'm working outside my expertise here, so any comments or corrections would be appreciated.)

5 Comments:

  • I had forgotten about this issue a bit. Thanks for bringing it back up.

    Interestingly enough, U.S. forces are still sustaining losses of about 2 per day, even with the new strategy. Further pullback will become politically urgent.

    Your analysis of effective counter-insurgecy is spot on. This is now the case study in what happens when you create a power vacuum. Losses for US troops might start to go down, but as they do, chaos will probably increase.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 3:22 PM  

  • LOL. I love the trolls. They're quite amusing.

    Anyway, I think Bush's total focus is on having military bases regardless of what happens to the Iraqi people. Suppressing the insurgency is secondary to having a presence. Thus I think they're willing to "declare victory" now that a permanent government is in place and withdraw to bases. I think they figure that the permanent "government" can hold out until Bush's term is up.

    As is usually the case I don't think they're are thinking out the consequences, intended or unintended, of the strategy. Plus I think Bush is checking out ..... leave the problem to the next administration while maintaining a presence just long enough to get out of office. That political strategy then allows the GOP to pin "failure" in Iraq on a likely Democratic President.

    Bush's life pattern is to burn hot on an endeavor, then to check out on the follow through. Why would something like being President, or presiding over a war, be any different?

    By Blogger Greyhair, at 3:57 PM  

  • That troll is making the rounds, thats for sure..he needs a job...something.

    This post just rings true of the mess they can't figure out..if they pull back, all hell is gonna break loose, they are damned if they do, damned if they dont..its a cluster-fuck of their own making..good luck in figuring it out you asshats.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 4:03 PM  

  • Sorry anonymous, personal attacks. Deleted.

    And I did offer my solution for Iraq back in November.

    Praguetwin, I tried to present this neutrally, I really don't like either option. It's really a question of whether you think we can defeat the insurgency. For awhile, I have favored a modified Murtha plan which involves pulling back into these superbases, however I would do it region by region on a strict timetable rather than the slow thinning across the board we're seeing now.

    I would do a region or two a month, massively reduce forces intheater and leave a reaction force to act as a backstop for the Iraqis. But in the end, they have to solve the insurgency. Anysolution we offer will likely only be temporary until we pull out.

    Greyhair, I agree that their goal is 99 year leased military bases. After we were thrown out of Saudi, Iraq became the logical choice. I personally believe that that is the real motivation of the war, bases on top of Iraq's oil, and next door to Saudi and Iran.

    I also agree with the "passing on the problem analysis. Bush said is much a press conference ago.

    And, Dusty, I don't really have the ultimate answer here. We could commit another 150,000 troops and inkspot and take casualties seriously supress the insurgency, but what happens when we turn it over to the Iraqis? Or we could pull back now, and just let the problem go now. I don't think there is a right answer. That's the blind canyon we've been led into in this war of Bush's folly. They weren't properly planned for it and now we're lost.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 4:18 PM  

  • By Blogger Unknown, at 3:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home