Bloodless Coup

Is the War Going Well?

Basic counterinsurgency strategy (best discussed about forty years ago in Galula's counterinsurgency bible, written after Galula served in Algeria, and observing France's failing attempts to win in Vietnam) argues that counterinsurgency is fundamentally political. On one side is the government, trying to keep order and reduce violence; on the other are the insurgents, trying to change the government or it's policies. In the middle are the vast majority of actors: the regular people. Insurgents target their attacks at whatever targets (political, commercial, religious, cultural, whatever) that will best show to the mass of people that the government is weak/disorganized/failing. When enough people believe that (through the success of those attacks), the insurgency wins (or, at least, is on the way to winning). The government tries to prevent the insurgency from getting the mass of people to believe this. The entire conflict, while fought with guns and bombs, is inherently political (and fundamentally political).

The insurgents don't actually want to fight the counterinsurgency troops. Fighting other people with guns is difficult and deadly; far better to attack "softer" targets (buildings, politicians, bridges - you'll note that another bridge got blown up in Iraq yesterday for example). Insurgents only attack counterinsurgent forces when (A) they are so clearly winning that they can and want to attack the government directly, or (B) when the counterinsurgency is so effective at preventing the insurgents from attacking "soft" targets that the insurgency must fight back directly.

Thus, this WaPo story today could be seen as some good news:

As U.S. troops push more deeply into Baghdad and its volatile outskirts, Iraqi insurgents are using increasingly sophisticated and lethal means of attack, including bigger roadside bombs that are resulting in greater numbers of American fatalities relative to the number of wounded.

Insurgents are deploying huge, deeply buried munitions set up to protect their territory and mounting complex ambushes that demonstrate their ability to respond rapidly to U.S. tactics. A new counterinsurgency strategy has resulted in decreased civilian deaths in Baghdad but has placed thousands of additional American troops at greater risk in small outposts in the capital and other parts of the country.

"It is very clear that the number of attacks against U.S. forces is up" and that they have grown more effective in Baghdad, especially in recent weeks, said Maj. Gen. James E. Simmons, deputy commander for operations in Iraq. At the same time, he said, attacks on Iraqi security forces have declined slightly, citing figures that compare the period of mid-February to mid-May to the preceding three months. "The attacks are being directed at us and not against other people," he said.

The key phrases in those paragraphs are "to protect their territory" and "attacks are being directed at us and not against other people." For counterinsurgency, those are exactly the responses you want: insurgents that are busy attacking you are not busy attacking the people, and the government has a greater chance of restoring political stability.

The "surge" might actually be working at opening up a window of opportunity. The much more important question, at this point, is whether the Iraqi politicians are able (or capable) of driving through that opening...