[lit-ideas] Re: Arthur Herman on Iraq

Interesting article, Brian -- almost makes me want to read Galula -- at least 
his Pacification in Algeria -- 1956-1958.    Why then was Algeria not truly 
pacified?  Herman doesn't get into that in much detail -- nothing beyond saying 
that the pacification was nearly complete when De Gaulle decided to call the 
whole thing off.  Politics trumped military victory.  I read De Gaulle's three 
(?) volume autobiography years ago, but can't recall that he believed he was 
backing away from victory.  

Lawrence


------------Original Message------------
From: Brian <cabrian@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, Mar-30-2007 8:32 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Arthur Herman on Iraq
Arthur Herman, author of the excellent piece "Getting Serious About Iran: A 
Military Option," has a new article called "How To Win In Iraq, And How To 
Lose" in the April issue of Commentary.  It has been posted to OpinionJournal 
and is well worth reading.  He argues that 


...the historical record is clear. The roots of failure in fighting 
insurgencies like the one in Iraq are not military. To the contrary, Western 
militaries have shown remarkable skill in learning and relearning the crucial 
lessons of how to prevail against unconventional foes, and tremendous bravery 
in fighting difficult and unfamiliar battles. If Iraq fails, the cause will 
have to be sought elsewhere.


He goes on to liken our present experience with the one the French had in in 
Algeria, where a mobile insurgency caused chaos and loss of face over and over 
until the French changed their tactics and put the insurgents on the defensive. 
 He cites David Galula with the tactics that eventually broke the back of the 
insurgents and notes that while Galula's book Counterinsurgency Warfare was 
virtually unknown two years ago, it is now "the bible of American 
counterinsurgency thinkers like Gen. Petraeus, whose field manual it largely 
informs."


Good stuff.  Read it.


Brian
Birmingham, AL

Other related posts: