Will Iraq’s Great Awakening Lead to a Nightmare?

Retired US Army COL Doug Macgregor has just published a critical look at this issue.

While the arrangement reached by U.S. military commanders and dubbed the “Great Awakening” has allowed the administration and its allies to declare the surge a success, it carries long-term consequences that are worrisome, if not perilous. The reduction in U.S. casualties is good news. But transforming thousands of anti-American Sunni insurgents into U.S.-funded Sunni militias is not without cost. In fact, the much-touted progress in Iraq could lead to a situation in which American foreign-policy interests are profoundly harmed and the Middle East is plunged into even a larger crisis than currently exists.

I’m at a total loss to explain why this brilliant piece didn’t run in the New York Times or one of the other national mainstream publications.

Doug Macgregor, for those of you that don’t know him, is a highly decorated officer, veteran of the Battle of 73 Easting, and author of two influential studies on the future of the Army:  Breaking the Phalanx and Transformation Under Fire.

Be Sociable, Share!

Filed in Uncategorized | 5 responses so far

5 Responses to “Will Iraq’s Great Awakening Lead to a Nightmare?”

  1. gracaton 12 Dec 2007 at 9:06 pm 1

    Hi all,
    I’ve smelled a rat for the last month. The casualty figures have plummeted. I think it is because they have pulled in most of the patrols and started handing out cash and favors to all takers. In lieu of a major operation I think it will stay this way until after the election unless Iran makes some sort of move which I think unlikely.

    If things are so good I guess it’s time to leave but that’s too easy.

    I’m afraid I’ve lost faith in our political system.


  2. rogelio007on 12 Dec 2007 at 11:51 pm 2

    If the next president does not draw down United States forces in Iraq they will be a one-term president. Nixon drew down United States forces in Viet Nam in 1972 not because wanted to but because he knew that if he did not he would not be re-elected.

  3. maximilliangcon 13 Dec 2007 at 1:09 am 3

    I identify with Doug’s commentary.

    Also a very interesting article. William Lind also recently
    speculatively warned about a calm, before the storm.
    Lind has gone so far previously as to warn of the potential for grevious
    losses, or practical forfieghture of the US army based there,
    if a larger scale conflicts boils over with Iran, and Syria.
    Getting cutoff and isolated from supply routs, and being practically
    surrounded and outnumbered, ven out gunned by a thourghly hostile
    population, ala the German & French experiences in retreat from Russia.

    Our esteemed host Chet Richards may have been the first at least
    that I’ve read who declared the invasion a failure, in a DNI
    power point.

    Sitting at my desk earlier today it occoured to me the analyse the
    Iraq campain rather as a largely successfull occupation of conquest.

    The US destroyed much of the commerical infrstucture by bombing, particuarly
    the electric distribution grid. This had the effect of depriving millions
    of thier livelyhood for a period of years. Durring wich anarchy and mayhem
    prevailed, turning group against group, balkanised and desperate, dividing along secular lines, Sunni Vs Shite, family against family, city VS country, elites and the affluent against the poor and unrepresented. etc,,etc.

    Exactly the old Napolionic divide and Conquor stratigy. With US forces
    sitting by as safely as possible while Iraqis slaughtered each other on a wholesale basis for months then years on end.

    With a lot of the bloodshed now running it’s course, America re-enters
    as the dominant player, and declares “The Surge” to be a big success.

    It’s true also that in comparision with pervious major conflicts, US casualties, if not wounded and maimed have been reletively light.

    And interesting alternative perspective, where the US rather than the bumbling ignorant if not well intentioned oaf, is instead the plotting,
    plodding, deliberate and malignant and malicious evil empire.

    Recalling the old cliche,
    If the shoe fits,,.

    a few years ago.

  4. jason1300on 13 Dec 2007 at 1:00 pm 4

    “I’m at a total loss to explain why this brilliant piece didn’t run in the New York Times or one of the other national mainstream publications.”

    1) because Iraq’s no longer the main issue, since The Surge(TM) worked.

    2) because he’s only a former colonel, and the big newspapers only let retired generals write opeds.

    3) because it’s too long and didn’t offer a prediction like “the next six months are extremely important for…”

    Other than that, yes, it is a great article. Thanks for pointing it out.

  5. Cheton 13 Dec 2007 at 6:26 pm 5

    jason1300 —

    “because it’s too long and didn’t offer a prediction like “the next six months are extremely important for…”

    Yeah, I know. We’re going to have to work with Doug some more. Maybe we could just incorporate this phrase into the standard template.