Command and control - Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Command and control

I’m going to go out on a limb and recommend a radical move in order to win in Iraq and, subsequently, defeat Islamic terrorists: Turn Iraq into an American protectorate. Iraq as a U.S., protectorate has, I believe, great potential for success. While we Americans tend to loathe anything that smacks of “imperialism,” as this idea clearly does, such measures have met with success in the relatively recent past. Examples are the U.S. experience in the Philippines and the British experience in Malaya.

Our experience in the Philippines during the early 20th century was a combination of guerrilla-style combat mixed with a heavy dose of what we currently refer to as stability-and-support operations. From 1899 to 1902, and sporadically through 1909, U.S. forces engaged Philippine insurgents fighting for independence while working hard to protect the civilian population from those insurgents.

The Army made efforts to separate the civilians from the guerrillas and concentrate them around U.S. garrisons. This had the impact of protecting the civilians and increasing their confidence in the U.S. military. The Army also focused on establishing schools, municipal governments and public works projects.

The British did much the same thing during the Malayan Emergency, though their policy involved the resettlement of people from insurgent-infested areas into fortified villages that had round-the-clock security. These fortified communities provided the locals a higher standard of living and greater security, and increased their stake in the land since the British gave them ownership of it.

While there are differences between our present situation in Iraq and those in the Philippines and Malaya, we may want to consider some of the lessons learned from those campaigns.

But given the highly dynamic situation we find ourselves in, a more extraordinary approach may be necessary.

Turning Iraq into a U.S. protectorate will allow for greater centralized command and control by the military through the establishment of a U.S. military government. By taking direct control of the government and economy, we can make more immediate improvements in both. The military government can expand its training and education of the Iraqi people in the details of the democratic process by employing them alongside U.S. and coalition personnel and demonstrating, through hands-on experience, how a democratic system actually works.

Economic reforms, including an aggressive program to eliminate corruption, can be handled in a similar manner: hands-on demonstration.

The Army can help generate a greater sense of security among our Iraqi allies by moving their families into protected areas where we can ensure their safety. We could use our oversized forward operating bases for this and go from there, perhaps building walled cities (using Iraqi contractors, builders and workers) with modern amenities. As of this writing, walled areas are being established in parts of Baghdad. This will give the locals jobs, decent pay and a higher standard of living.

It may also help establish stable economic zones, which will demonstrate the viability of the plan and allow for its expansion into other areas of the country, albeit slowly.

In an effort to scale back the continued deployment of U.S. forces in the region, we can borrow from the British and establish an Iraqi protectorate force, similar to the British Indian Army of the Imperial Period. Take our Military Transition Teams and place them directly in charge of the Iraqi troops instead of having them act in a purely advisory capacity.

After-action reviews by returning MiTTs point out that many Iraqi soldiers are decent, motivated and eager to learn, but lack the leadership necessary to make them effective. Fine. Put U.S. officers and senior noncommissioned officers in charge, and let us do what we do best: lead by example and grow good leaders.

Clearly, the plan I’ve outlined is highly simplified. Unlike the Coalition Provisional Authority, which appears to have been established with the intent of a “short-term” presence, what I recommend will require a long-term presence in Iraq, not to mention an almost revolutionary shift in collective thinking.

But the long-term investment will pay off, as it did for the Philippines and Malaya, which later became part of modern-day Malaysia. Both the Philippines and Malaysia now have stable governments and fairly strong economies. Both are working with us to fight terrorism.

Our option will look a lot more inviting than what the jihadists constantly promote, and that is exactly what we want.

Extreme situations call for extreme responses. A radical shift from our present course in Iraq — and perhaps in Afghanistan, as well — may be worth considering as we progress towards victory against the global terrorist scourge. Victory is the only option.

..........

The writer is assigned to Fort Riley, Kan., and has had previous assignments at Fort Campbell, Ky., Fort Benning, Ga., Fort Irwin, Calif., and Fort Lewis, Wash. The views expressed are his own.