Iraq Metric #4: Hearts and Minds Won

Iraq Metric #4: Hearts & Minds Won:

This latest post exploring ways to judge success in Iraq build upon:

1. The 3 levels of our war on terror
2. An overview of how to measure success in Iraq
3. Metric #1: Combatant Eradicated
4. Metric #2: Accelerants to Violence Seized
5. Metric #3: Populations Freed

The basest assumption upon which the Global Long War on Terrorism is executed is that every human heart yearns for liberty, opportunity and self-determination. Yet, in Iraq we have encountered not a population welcoming Coalition troops with open arms, but an insurgency lead by mostly foreigners, but very much trooped by Iraqi people. To the average American, this reality has been perplexing, frustrating and frightening. If they don’t love us, WHO in the world DO they love? And what are the implications?

The Question:

After 9/11, most Americans (though not, it seems, the current Democratic leadership, the Liberal Bogs and much of the left leaning media) have no trouble understanding that Al Qaeda is committed to global Jihad and will stop at nothing to see America and other Western/free nations lose popularity, power, prestige and people. So, why is it that average Iraqi’s seem to distrust us and resist actively supporting our efforts to stabilize THEIR country?

Siding with Winners:

The answer is simultaneously simple and deeply profound. It’s implications cut to the heart of both our military strategy and our domestic politics.

Embattled Iraqi citizens aren’t stupid and Al Qaeda isn’t lazy.

The core to terrorism’s effectiveness is its ability to cower an entire population before relatively few oppressors. In this sense, terrorism can be a powerful force multiplier. The Jihadists in Iraq know this and are very vigilant in maintaining the necessary rhythm of attacks to imprison Iraqi mothers and fathers within stockades of internalized fear. These terrorist Overlords wickedly seek control through making examples out of the irreligious, rebellious and “traitorous”.

Iraqis have watched America establish a pattern of stirring up a mess and leaving the locals to clean it up. This is what happened during the US-encouraged Shiite uprising in the 1990’s which Saddam brutally suppressed while America watched. This is what occurred for 3 years across Iraq as Coalition forces cleared cities from terrorists but retreated back to their heavily fortified bases and watched as terror leaders filtered back into the population and meted out vengeance.

Iraqi’s aren’t stupid. They are not going to continue to stand with America if America isn’t going to stand firm with them. The price for our fickleness is paid in blood by them and their families.

This is why the Surge strategy was so important. It marked a change in our troop deployment from entrenchment within fortified bases to distributed neighborhood presence. It changed our focus from clearing territory to holding local populations. As we proved our determination to this strategy in the Spring, local Iraqi leaders started to warily assent that we had finally determined to win. These Iraqi’s decided they want to side with the winners. Slowly, in freed population after freed population, Tribe Amerikani is finally being embraced as liberators and “arbiters of Justice” – because we finally demonstrated some resolve to be more determined, more vigilant and more powerful than the terrorists.

The Alternative:

The alternative to demonstrating commitment to our cause is to look for ways to cut our investment, lessen our exposure and leave Iraq to the Iraqis. There is much about this notion that is indeed tempting. Yet, the stronger these voices become, the stronger Iraqi leaders must question our commitment and the riskier it becomes for them to support us by pointing out terrorists, taking up arms themselves, notifying us of IED’s and booby trapped buildings, etc.

Iraqis know the terrible price which they and their families will pay if we retreat. They have lived through the Hellish death squads Al Qaeda unleashes on recalcitrant villages.

Some American thought leaders (from both the Left and the Right) are starting to recognize this difficult truth. While Americans are being killed and are killing (both are horrible and ugly), the stronger is their presence on the ground, the safer are 25 million Iraqis. The liberal-leaning Brookings Institution concludes:

"The only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into a Lebanon- or Bosnia-like maelstrom," a new report from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution concludes, "is 135,000 American troops." Rapid withdrawal, the report says, could bring "a humanitarian nightmare" in which we should expect "hundreds of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die." (emphasis mine)

Love Breeds Hope:

Iraqis have been hunkered in battle, resistant to starvation, imperiled by a police state, confronted by chemical weapons and terrorized by tyrants. All of these villains have demonstrated a commitment and constancy to their cause. So while changing our tactics and our dialogue to convey commitment is key, we must also continue to demonstrate the vitality and constancy of American charity.

The list of ways in which our troops are serving the Iraqi people is too lengthy to summarize and doesn’t do justice to the personalized outpouring of care and concern from our troops to each freed population. These acts of servant leadership rebuild the desolate hopes of Iraqis and hasten the turning of their hearts to assisting our cause.

Moreover, this support is very practical in nature. Left completely devoid of savings, economy, education and the like – Iraqis need our assistance to meet their basic needs. This is Maslow’s Hierarchy in action. Only after the ability for their families to subsist and rest at peace has been confirmed, can a responsible Iraqi father even think of accepting the risk of assisting Coalition troops. Thus, the faster we supply these needs, the faster we open new doors of insight into the terrorists, garner new sources of critical intelligence and join with new allies in our fight.

Hope Breeds Resolve:

Once hope is rekindled in these hearts darkened by terror, Iraqis grasp the resolve to fan these first warming flames. The last 4 months have been filled with stories of Iraqi’s taking up arms to protect them selves, encouraging young men to join in the Iraqi Police Force, mobilizing neighborhood watch units, informing on the terrorists, etc. At latest estimate, as many as 30,000 former insurgents are now siding with the Coalition, turning on Al Qaeda and submitting to the direction of the central Iraqi government.

These actions stem directly from our demonstration of both power and resolve. In response, freed populations are demonstrating the resolve to both hold their area and assist in the freeing of other populations.

This is how critical mass turns the tide. This is how lowly, imprecise metrics of combatants eradicated and accelerants to violence seized multiply into Iraqi hearts and minds won and united in the fight for freedom.

Each heart emboldened behind a mind united with us is a ratio multiplier. It means fewer suppliers of accelerants to violence. It means fewer recruits. It mean more eyes, ears, experience and support for freedom. It means former insurgents turning from violence to supporting the central government and Coalition efforts.

Locals Protect Themselves:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13216&Itemid=128

Al Qeda informing on themselves. . .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2121006.ece

Anatomy of the Tribal Revolt Against Al Qaida:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/

Tribe Amerikani:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGRmYWI2Njk5MWFkYzYzYWY4OWY5NzJjMGRkZTlhY2Q=

American Arbitors of Justice:

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

Brookings = Millions die If US Leaves:

Pasted from <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg24jul24,0,5797195.story?coll=la-opinion-center>

On Principle,

Cbass

Our Faitfhful Friend, Japan

Japan has a new Prime Minister and, perhaps more importantly, the Free World is reminded it has a faithful friend.

The results are in. Yasuo Fukuda has won a very lopsided win over his rival Taro Aso. The two men both represent the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which in Japan is actually a group closely aligned with George W. Bush conservatism.

Most Americans would remember the LDP's most colorful leader, Junichiro Koizumi; the Elvis loving, staunch ally of the US and personal friend of President Bush.

What's important about this election is definitely something about who won, but it's more about their shared position on policies which most American's would assume to separate the two rivals - Japan's continued support for coalition efforts in the Middle East.

After a full week of campaigning, there were few policy differences between the two candidates on many important issues. . . both have also inherited Abe's insistence on continuing Japan's support of coalition forces in Afghanistan through its refueling operations in the Indian Ocean.

Students of history will remember that Japan acquiesced to a humiliating surrender in the face of America's nuclear arsenal. Since those days, Japan's constitution, both its written document of governance and its wounded national psyche, has forbidden the nation to raise and launch an offensive military force for over 60 years. In this light, it was amazing to see Japanese soldiers involved in the coalition of nations who fought to overthrow Saddam and wrest control in Iraq. After several years of struggle, Japanese soldiers left the theater of Iraq, but the Japanese military has been continuously supporting the Coalition forces in the Middle East theater ever since.

Say what we will about how Pres. Bush has "supposedly" lost all international support, Japan will be a key player in a world of power which is shifting the Pacific.

It's nice to have faithful friends.

On Principle,

CBass

Burn it Like Beckham

You've gotta love this. . .

Discovery Channel :: News - Health :: Soccer Burns More Fat Than Jogging: "Sept. 20, 2007 — There's a new slogan for weight-watchers: Burn it like Beckham.

A friendly game of soccer, a new study has found, works off more fat and builds up more muscle than jogging.

Danish scientists, who conducted their research on 37 men, also found the soccer players felt less tired after exercising than the joggers because they were having more fun."

Why '08 is a GOP Victory

I know many folks on the electoral front lines who are dispirited about Republican chances in the 2008 election cycle. Whenever we discuss their ennui, I always share my high spirits, optimism and expectation toward 2008. After one such conversation, a wise friend challenged me to give her 5 bulleted talking points as to why I think a Republican probably will win the Presidency of the United States in 2008. Here are those talking points:

1. The Democratic Line-up: The GOP's greatest strength in the general election will be the Democratic opposition. No matter who the Dem's select, they will be no match in terms of experience for the Republican selection. Further, some Dem's carry even more baggage than others. I look forward to seeing the GOP draw those comparisons.

2. The Republican Line-up: By any standard, the Republican field is impressive. Especially when compared to the utter lack of experience of the Democratic field. The Republicans all have high Executive or Legislative experience and none of them carry any baggage from the current Administration. They are in a great position to constantly contrast themselves with the Democrats on important issues.

3. Mobilizing a Wider Base: In a tight election cycle, there are two keys to winning: 1) Draw in moderate centrist voters and 2) mobilize the base. Two of the GOP front runners (Mitt Romney and Giuliani) and very well positioned to draw in moderates. Fred Thompson is riding a wave of Base excitement and has high name recognition among moderates. When compared to the likely Dem nominee (Hillary), all 3 should be able to excite the base and capitalize on the moderates' displeasure with the Dem.

4. It's the Economy: By all measures, this economy is fantastic. It is hitting some hiccups now, but some action from the current Administration and the Fed will likely keep it on the growth track. Even moderate growth over the next 12 months will result in a reduced deficit, high wages, an enlarged GDP, record highs in stocks, historic lows in unemployment and interest rates and a stabilized housing sector. Any decent candidate should do well with this message.

5. The War on Terrorism: It's hard to say which direction this war will go, but Iraq is clearly on the right military track and we know the Surge will be drawing down next Spring. Thus, the GOP candidate can probably point to some positive signs in Iraq, praise the draw down in troops and constantly focus on the real threats of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. If the electorate sees some success in Iraq and understands the threat from other quarters, the GOP should do well.

Now, in a bit more detail:

1. The Democratic Line-up:

Possibly the greatest strength for the GOP this election cycle is the Democratic field of candidates and their complete dearth of true experience (Executive, International or even Legislative):

1. There is no serious candidate with any real depth of experience in Government or in running a large, competitive organization. This will be an easy contrast to make in the general election. Hillary can reference her years in the White House, but not without making the Clinton years fair game for the campaign. This was the saving grace for the GOP in John Kerry's "Reporting for Duty" speech at the Democratic National Convention; once he introduced it into the campaign, his military service and political activities just afterward became the championed target of conservative activists.

2. Hillary is far and away the most likely contender for the position of lead Donkey. Her negatives are among the highest of any candidate to enter the Presidential race (not necessarily the absolute highest). Most candidates with Negatives in the upper 40's have "earned" them through making the tough decisions inherent in leadership. Hillary, by contrast, has earned them by being Hillary. Remember, she's not a new face to most Americans. She's been a household name and media personality for 16 years. If 49% of likely voters dislike her, having known her for 16 years, it's difficult to move those numbers. Possible, but extremely difficult.

3. And what if Obama is selected as the Dem nominee? Well, first, that would be Barack HUSSEIN Obama. The man who has held a serious, elected Federal office for all of 2 years. The man who has attended an Islamic school, bears an Islamic name and who has stated he would love to meet - without condition - the worse human rights abusers on the planet. While he could run a perfect campaign from this point forward, surprisingly sweep the Dem nomination and run tightly with the GOP - if he does all of this, his seriously erratic statements regarding national security (civil liberties in Iraq aren't worth defending, willingness to unconditionally meet with tyrants, desire to bomb an nuclear-armed ally, etc) will make for excruciating footage in the general election.

2. The Republican Line-up:

Any comparison of the GOP candidates, whomever wins the nomination nod, is a favorable one to the Dems. They are all polling highly, have impressive experience and don't fit the mold of the current Administration.:

1. All Republican candidates can boast of leadership experience which runs rings any of the leading Dems about 10 times. The least experienced lead GOP contender has 10 years in the summit and makes the Dem's look like kids. In an age of Terrorism, the distinction between maturity and juvenility should make for easy positioning. Further, none of the current front runners is a shill for the current Administration. This allows all of the front runners to distance themselves from all the perceived weaknesses of the current Administration while embracing the popular attributes.

2. If Giuliani wins the nomination, he can cash in national name recognition, storied success in leading one of the World's leading cities (a city larger than many countries), respected performance in a time of national crisis, and historic experience prosecuting terrorists. Now, let's compare that with the Dem's above. To top it off, he has the moderate social values to win the middle and some Dems (ala Reagan Democrats) and the national security chops to probably maintain the base in an age of conflict.

3. If Romney wins the nomination, he can cash in on being the newest "Come back kid", storied success in business and international Olympics and arguably impressive performance in Governing a tough, liberal state. His "flips" on social policy should enable him to snag some Dems. If Hillary is the opposing candidate, his solidly conservative policy pronouncements are likely to enable him to count on an active base, if not for excitement, then due to her negatives.

4. Fred Thompson, if he were to win the GOP nomination, can cash in his household face and experience delivering before a camera, 10 years of senate experience, an impressive performance moving Chief Justice John Roberts through a stubbornly opposed Congress and a ground swell of base support. If communicated correctly, Thompson's commitment to Federalism, keeping government out of legislating coercive morality, may just keep the moderates at home on election day - if not turning up to vote for him.

3. Mobilizing a Wider Base:

In a close election, there are two factors to victory, drawing in moderates and mobilizing the base. And the base can always be mobilized in greater numbers than the moderates can be drawn in.

1. In a contest against Hillary, her negatives (49%) are higher than the percentage of self-identified Republicans (31.9%). In such a contest, she may actually manage help the GOP contender do both, rally the base and draw in moderates.

2. With a highly mobilized base, as Hillary's entrenched negatives may yield, GOP candidates would reap unusually high support down the ticket - in Senate and House races and in volatile State races.

4. It’s the Economy:

It's hard to lose an election with a strong economy. Al Gore proved it could happen, but in this election cycle, the GOP has some powerful messages to clearly parlay.

1. When Bush's tax cuts were first passed through Congress, powerful Dems insisted they be limited to 2010, after which they expire. Bush and his advisers agreed to this because the expiration of the tax cuts would allow for an incredibly clear and easy political battle 2008. Normally, conservatives run against the unclear (and thus somewhat uncertain) specter of a numberless possible tax hike by the Dem's. In 2008, the GOP nominee will be able to clearly communicate the EXACT amount of the tax increase in 2011 and EXACTLY what that will mean to families. This is the clearest economic message I've ever seen in an election cycle.

2. The stock market has hit new record highs, home ownership is at all time highs, salaries are increasing, unemployment is at historical lows, interest rates are at historical lows, job creation is very high and GDP growth is impressive, the Federal deficit is being cut quicker than originally forecasted. No one knows how the economy will fair 12 months from now, but it is likely the Fed will cut rates even lower, the housing market will at least stabilize (if not rise), the stock market is showing really strong core strength and is likely to continue to rise, jobs will continue to increase, salaries will probably continue to increase, inflation will probably stay low. If all projections hold,

5. The War on Terrorism:

No one knows how the long, global War on Terrorism will trend in the next year. But there is much to commend the GOP in this conflict:

1. There is virtually no one who doesn't agree that the military progress in Iraq is trending favorably for stability and US interests. The surge will end, by necessity, in the Spring. So during the heat of the general election, troop levels will be reducing, violence in general may be down and political progress may be moving forward. Suddenly, the Iraq anchor may actually be a selling point. Not definitely, but very possibly.

2. No matter what happens in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Russia, Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan and possibly even Venezuela may be hot security topics. Who among the Democrats is a serious contender on national security issues? Of them all, Hillary is the only candidate who even sounds serious in terms of national security. In light of all the negatives she brings to the race, most observers see this topic as a GOP advantage - especially, again, if Iraq continues to stabilize.

A Brief Note of Some Humility:

All of these prognostications are just that - they are educated guesses based upon current events and trends. In politics, one (1) week can feel like a eternity of news, breaking scandals and international events. In addition, each of these points is built from a substrate of assumptions regarding who is selected from each campaign. For example, if the GOP nominee is Mitt Romney, a small-state Governor with no military experience, I may assume the "War on Terrorism" to be less of an asset than if the nominee is Giuliani. These projections also don't take into account the "Newt" factor in the GOP race - which could be a seismic change in the current field.

Why Won't a Republican Win:

Just as I outline above the reasons I foresee a serious advantage for the GOP in the Presidential cycle, there are other developments which could spell the ruin of the GOP:

1. Immigration Reform
2. Ethic Scandals
3. Housing and Stock Turmoil
4. Collapse of Stability in Iraq
5. Oil Inflation which Cripples the Economy

On Principle,

CBass

Fred!: Right on Time

Somehow, the same commentators who bemoaned the unprecedented length of our current Presidential Primary process are also condemning Fred! Thompson for not officially entering the fray in July or August. I would like to quickly examine these propositions.

July:

I, like most conservatives, was keenly interested in seeing Fred! Thompson officially throw his hat in the ring of GOP contenders. Thus, when I heard rumors swilling about in June that Fred! would announce the launch of his campaign in around July 4th - with $5 million in June donations, I was excited. It quickly occurred to me, however:

1. How has Fred had the time to assemble a viable national campaign? Romney invested 6 months developing a network of support which would yield $6 million in "overnight" donations to his campaign in January. Both Romney and Giuliani have sunk more than 1 year in building campaign operations which are only now starting to roll out substantive policy positions. Fred was going to do this in 2 or 3 months???
2. He's already getting so much media attention (at least from the few folks who pay attention to these things in the summer months), why would he need to rush #1?
3. As long as he's getting free media and can quietly focus on prepping a campaign, why would Fred! risk ruining all this for the sake of an early announcement?

For these and probable other reasons, Fred! Refrained from announcing in early July.

August:

Conventional wisdom then commanded an early August announcement. Still I questioned this:

1. August certainly gave Fred! more time to organize, but this time was filled with attracting new leaders and restructuring his not-a-campaign. Why announce while there's still important work to be done?
   
2. Despite the summer doldrums, Fred! was polling in a solid second place nationally and near the top in two of the early primary states. Why announce early when you don't need the name recognition?
   
3. Fred! Is almost guaranteed to get a boost in the polls for several weeks after announcing. Why do this just 2 weeks before the largest event prior to the primaries - the Ames, Iowa straw poll? The poll was certain to garner media attention, again - what good that does in the summer - and would automatically severe whatever boost he would get from announcing.

In fact, Romney invested heavily in Iowa with the expectation that a win there would be necessary to get his name into the "living rooms" of Americans who know nothing of him. Similarly, Mike Huckabee, the "dark horse" of Ames was hoping to ride media accolades right into the company of first tier candidates. Rasumssen Reports has found that media coverage of these men's commendable performances has been missed by most Americans.

This simply goes to reinforce that Fred's! announcement of candidacy in August would have done very little for him above what his free media coverage is already winning.

September:

Announcing in September allows Fred! to take advantage of the following:

1. Time to build a message and a campaign structure, which has clearly been undergoing drastic change during the summer.
2. Time to raise more funds, but cover (hey, Fred's not even a candidate yet) if funds come in short of expectations.
   
3. Free media coverage and a predictable bounce in the polls without any other major campaign news to distract from it until eyes turn to Newt at the end of September.

In all, the only folks who would benefit from Fred having announced earlier would be:

• The news media, who would do anything to create excitement and viewership during the ratings slump that is July and August.
  
• Rival campaigns who know candidate Thompson can't possibly live up to expectations. So the early he enters, the earlier he fails and the earlier they can reclaim support which has been stored up for him.

On Principle,

CBass

Iraq Metric #3: Populations Freed

This latest post exploring ways to judge success in Iraq build upon:
1. The 3 levels of our war on terror
2. An overview of how to measure success in Iraq
3. Metric #1
4. Metric #2



The Distinction of Terror:
In our efforts to understand our Long War on Terrorism, it is absolutely crucial to understand the core difference between acts of terror which wage war against the human heart, groups who perpetrate acts of terror and the entirely different nature of terror groups backed, financed and equipped by nation-states. This distinction defines the very heart of how progress in Iraq must be measured.


Gangs and Mafia groups pursue their own ends through acts of terror. In Gangs, these ends are often the provision of illusory power over lowly circumstances, acceptance in a respected peer group and addiction to adrenaline. Eventually these ends mature to quests similar to those of the Mafia: control of territory, pursuit of illicit profit, expansion of influence through a sub-culture of hierarchical structures and thuggish armies. These groups are normally best addressed through police action which disrupts their operations, imprisons leaders and bridges the legions of followers into legitimate pursuits.


State-sponsored terrorism, by contrast, while using the same tactics and desiring the same ends as those sought by Gangs and Mafia groups, is specifically focused on achieving political ends. One of the latest UN definitions of Terrorism states:

criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism" (emphasis mine)

Thus, by its very nature, state-sponsored terrorism is intrinsically about winning control over population groups to achieve a political purpose.



Politics and Population:
Politics is an animal which can only exist where there are people. Without a population, there is no political agenda to be pushed or political purpose to be gained. Terror groups need safe havens in the backwater towns of Somalia, the elevated crags of Afghanistan and Pakistan and the barren expanses of Western Iraq. But as a mater of necessity their single focus is to move from the training ground of obscurity to the operational imperative of population centers. These centers provide both the "raison d'etre" for their purpose and the accelerants (money, support, housing, munitions, transportation, industry, and the unique leverage of human life) to violence which multiple their capacity to kill human hope.


All the time, these terrorists who are pursuing their own political agendas are being safely animated from a distance by nation-state puppeteers. These masters of manipulation are then quick to realize the gains of population dominance - the furtherance of national influence, ambition and, in many cases, profiteering (black gold anyone?).


I think Charles Krauthammer illustrates this point brilliantly:

Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein's rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

Our State-sponsored terrorist enemies crave the power, prestige and positional leverage the gain through control of Iraqi populations centers.



Freeing a People:
If economic and political pressure don’t cause these cords of control to be retracted, then military force must cause them to be to cut. Once separated from, or limited in access to, the channels through which accelerants to violence can be imported, the shock troops of terror must seek to maintain their grip on the population through increasingly desperate terrorist atrocities. Only skillful and persistent pursuit will drive these carcinogenic agents from the life-giving nutrition of population centers.


This is why Coalition Counterinsurgency Advisor Kilcullen describes the purpose of the surge as being to:

"When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation."

"The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on."

"The enemy needs the people to act in certain ways (sympathy, acquiescence, silence, reaction to provocation) in order to survive and further his strategy. Unless the population acts in these ways, both insurgents and terrorists will wither, and the cycle of provocation and backlash that drives the sectarian conflict in Iraq will fail."

The Fulcrum of Force:
Freeing population centers carries a "force multiplication" factor with it. It weakens the terrorists by separating them from their rallying point of purpose and from the industrial base which supplies them with new accelerants to violence. Such action also communicates powerfully to other populations currently suffering from oppression that if they will join with us, they too can taste the sweet air of security. Thus, Metrics #'s 1 and 2 (Combatants Eradicated and Accelerants to Violence Seized) serve to indicate our success in freeing initial population centers. As Metric #3 (Populations freed) reaches a critical mass, the tide of war begins to turn from desperate struggle to optimistically hopeful persistence.



A Moral Choice:
When confronted by such ugly realities and hopeful opportunities, people of faith have two basic choices. Individuals in positions of political power can quietly maneuver as missional agents of change. Intercessors can pray, churches can support and missionaries can outreach to the terrorist, perhaps to the point of laying down their own lives. This road is certainly the higher one. It is also the only road likely to yield lasting results. Terrorists are immersed in a cult of death which has prepared them since the inception of their mission to die in the pursuit of a cause they view to be noble. To change their persuasion, their hearts must be turned to the God who is the "God of the living", the "Resurrection and the life", the God who taunts, "Oh Death, where is your victory".


Secular leaders, however, must also confront this stubborn truth: this first choice is the longer road. It must be pursued if there is to be lasting change and lasting hope for peace. But in the pursuing, untold numbers of innocents are being subjected to a literal hell on Earth. In such a situation, despite if one supported the initial US invasion of Iraq or not, is it the position of a moral government to let the Middle East work out its own solution? Is this the lesson of history's concentration camps, killing fields, gulags, ghettos, torture rooms and ethnic cleansings? Is this the appropriate response for a nation who views its calling to be a nation set on a hill?


Is it possible the troops of our government should pursue the immediate release of populations from their earthbound oppressors while armies of compassion walk the longer road toward eternal peace for both captured/surrendered oppressors and the now-formerly oppressed?



How then do we define success?:

• First, we must question if our politicians are taking into account the draconian evil which will be given full reign in Iraq should the terrorist be permitted unrestrained domination of the population centers and beyond Iraq as they exploit the accelerants to violence found in those population centers?

• Second, do our elected representatives seriously address the successes won in freeing people from the prison of terrorist tyranny?

Here are some possible measure of success and examples of these measure:

• % of population under law & order (Coalition, then Local)
• 50% of Baghdad was secured as of July
• 7 of 18 provinces currently under total Iraqi control - 9 of 18 planned by year's end.
  

• % of GDP within these areas

• % of key industries within these areas (oil, electricity, food distribution)

On Principle,
CBass

An Amazing Measure - The Pres. at VFW

I'm extremely excited to see the White House stepping up their seriousness in communicating the vision for our struggle in the Long War on Terrorism - especially its currently central battle ground in Iraq. More importantly, it's extremely gratifying to see the President personally promoting meaningful measures of our success in the surge of operations in the Iraq theater.

In his much maligned speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) gathering in Kansas City, the President supplied one of the measures for which I have been advocating: Combatant Eradicated.

From the Speech:

In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year.

That's between 10,000 - 12,000 combatants removed from the battle field - since January!

As I proposed in a former post, this particular metric, while superior to Vietnam era measures of enemy "kills", is still orphaned of interpretive context without being paired with some additional metrics.

I hope that that this new surge of communication from the President will further embrace a full-throated, hearty display of defense which makes use of a full arsenal measures. Perhaps the upcoming surge of support from candidates, media savvy supporters and political leaders will also present the American people with a substantive sense of our progress by referencing success factors which stretch beyond the obvious stale examples for which opponents are well prepared to refute.

On Principle,

CBass