What Part of Asymmetric Are You Not Getting?

I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that a force that relies primarily on a tactic of blowing itself up, and a force we hope to have performing up to certain standards of professionalim -- including on such measures as human rights and civil-military relations -- have different burdens on them, most particularly in terms of training.

I mean, I think Tom Friedman has written a lot of smart things in his day, but this is just wrong:

Yes, yes, I know we are training Iraqi soldiers by the battalions, but I don't think this is the key. Who is training the insurgent-fascists? Nobody. And yet they are doing daily damage to U.S. and Iraqi forces. Training is overrated, in my book. Where you have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching above its weight. Where you don't have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching a clock.

Yes, when we're talking about a force of suicide bombers, you're quite right, motivation is a pretty big factor. (Although, increasingly, there are reports of even that being a cheat. Car dealers wiring the cars they sell so they can be detonated on unsuspecting buyers by remote control, drivers being forced to drive when their families are taken hostage. Etc.) But that isn't producing an "army" fighting about its weight in the sense that one would usually use that phrase.

It produces a group of fanatics being manipulated into an ultimate act of self-erasure, taking as many innocents as possible along with them. Of course they're doing damage without being trained. As long as the bombmakers are trained, all the bombers need is a driver's license -- or less than that, the ability to pick out where the crowd is densest and the nerve to walk right into it before pulling the cord on their vest.

Compare that to what it is we demand and desire of the Iraqi army. It's the Iraqi forces we want to have "punching about their weight" by putting them into the field against an enemy this brutal and this profligate with human life before they've had sufficient training. Hell, they have to prove their motivation under fire just to line up at the recruiting stations. Given what these men have gone through just to sign up, it's insulting to imply that they're just "punching a clock."

Comments

[Lurking Observer]

The Left often argues that the "proper" approach to the War on Terror is the law-enforcement, not the war, model.

Yet, by those standards, Friedman's argument (and I'm not arguing Friedman necessarily is a Leftist, per se) would become even more incoherent.

After all, there is quite a bit of training that goes into producing police officers, whereas few people "train" criminals. Yet, murders, robberies, rape, etc., continue. There is a huge degree of difference between a motivated criminal (even if solely motivated by crack) than between a cop who, by Friedman's standard, is merely "punching a clock." (Indeed, a police officer, unlike a soldier, and especially an Iraqi soldier in Iraq, comes far closer to "punching a clock.")

Moreover, Friedman's article is implicitly insulting to the soldier. Does he really think that conducting patrols, operating weapons and radios, and doing all of it right while under fire is all that simple? Who was it who said that any rational army would run away?

Not to mention the persistent failure among academic critics of the military: failure to understand what militaries are for. The Iraqi army must be trained, not only to conduct internal security operations, but also to engage in pitched battles. And it must, given its location, be able to fight not only militants and insurgents, but potentially regular armies. After all, if Syria is prepared to extend aid to insurgents now, who is to say that it would not be prepared to engage in an invasion? Ditto for Iran.

No, this isn't suggesting that this is going to happen tomorrow---but if it were to occur, it would be the same Iraqi military that would have to fend off such attacks.

[Rick]

Friedman becomes more hysterical and increasingly silly with each changing news cycle.

Yes, he was able to put together a couple of books on geoeconomics and globalization. Is his analysis prescient? Not hardly, but his points on those occasions were good enough for a Pulitzer. His latest book, however, is a disaster in many peoples opinion, certainly mine.

Friedman is not a serious geopolitical analyst and is not, by any standard, a credible observer or even a student of military affairs. If you don't know what it takes to create a competent, sophisticated military, let alone how one is employed and in what capacity it is employed - then these discussions should be best left to those who do.

Once the 'real' Iraqi soldiers - those with motivation, a warrior ethos, and a sincere love of their homeland and fellow countrymen - meet up with a motivated, loyal and skilled officer cadre - then, we'll see how long the lone or isolated cell terrorist Jihadis, fare in face-to-face combat. It's a matter of time.

[old maltese]

Respectfully, to answer your headline: the spelling. Asymmetric [having no symmetry] should have 1 's' and 2 'm's, not vice versa.

[dauber]

Corrected, thank you.