Iraq Update

Wretchard has a must read post at the Belmont Club on the military and strategic effectiveness of the assymetric IED (Improvised Explosive Device). Read his post for the specifics, but the overall aim of the post is to show that during this war, the United States has been able to build very effective counter-measures against this symbolic device. The natural tendency of some in the face of weapons of such nuasance has been to back down, but thankfully our military has, with tenacity and patience, come up with solutions to regain the upper hand:

Just as the enemy has resorted to bigger bombs to defeat better armor, so too will they seek ways to defeat the new American countermeasures. Yet it seems clear that the IED, like the submarine and bombing airplane before it, is not some mystically invincible device, but simply a weapon like any other caught up in a technological race with countermeasures arrayed against it. One consequence of this development is that while the enemy may employ larger numbers of IEDs against Americans, the number of effective IEDs -- the bigger and better ones -- available to them may actually have declined. The penalty for raising weaponry to a higher standard is making existing stock somewhat obsolete.

Yet a more fundamental problem may be in store for the enemy. By engaging America in a technological arms race of sorts they are playing to its strengths. The relative decline in IED effectivity suggests the enemy, while improving, has not kept up. The move to bigger bombs may temporarily restore his lost combat power, but the advent of new American countermeasures plus increasing pressure on the bombmakers, means he must improve yet again. It is far from clear whether the insurgents can stay in the battle for innovation indefinitely. The logic of asymmetric warfare suggests the enemy will at some point abandon the direct technological weapons race and find a new paradigm of attack entirely. That is essentially what they did when they abandoned the Republican Guard tank formation in favor of the roadside bomb in the first place.

I am only speculating, but this, in combination with the chokehold that the U.S. and Iraqi Security Forces are applying along the Euphrates, suggest that militarily we not only have the initiative, but may also be heading towards a major strategic victory. I'm not implying an "end" to the Baathist/al-Qaeda insurgency, but I am implying a severely diminished ability these terror-makers will have within the creation of this new democracy.

Then we can move to fry another fish after this--like Iran's proxy war. There are those who believe we are "ignoring" the Iranian infiltration, but the United States and Iraqi Security Forces have been currently dealing with this more through information warfare than direct hostilities. This is not the type of stuff that makes the news, and there is an ebb and flow to it, but it will eventually pay off in the long run. Then, and I am only speculating, the military may shift and take a more direct approach after mopping up in Western Iraq. The key is to focus and to remember that even though many our people back home have taken their eye of the ball, the military has yet to do so. The day-to-day situation is very fluid, but all accounts show that we are still in a very good, but not inevitable, position to pull this off.

The new Iraqi democracy is but a mere infant, and I am unconvinced that the United States has made any strategic policy moves that would allow her enemies to commit infanticide. Our military has proven time and time again that they are able to make rapid adjustments in the face of a bright spotlight shone by those that fervently hope they will fail. My worry isn't whether our people over there will be successful, its whether our people here at home will allow them to be.