About Get Alerts Login
November 20, 2009
Browse by Regions and/or Topics

The Limits of the Surge: An Interview with Gian Gentile

Judah Grunstein | Bio | 11 Apr 2008
World Politics Review Exclusive

Login to Discuss EmailEmail | Print IconPrint | Share Icon Share | Reprint IconReprint

Gian P. Gentile is an active duty Army lieutenant colonel who has served two tours in Iraq, most recently as a combat battalion commander in west Baghdad in 2006. Last month, his World Politics Review article, "Misreading the Surge," brought a fierce internal debate over the Army's new emphasis on counterinsurgency operations and its potential impact on conventional capabilities to the attention of the general public. In the context of this week's congressional hearings on the Surge, WPR asked Gentile for a follow up email interview, to which he graciously agreed.

Describe the kinds of "classical" counterinsurgency methods you were applying in Iraq in 2006. Have any operational differences been introduced by the new COIN tactics? If so, why do you discount their impact on improving the security situation in Iraq?

Gian Gentile: In 2006 our primary purpose at the tactical level of platoons, companies, battalions, and brigades was, as it still is today in Iraq, the protection of the people. The cavalry squadron that I commanded, along with the sister battalions in the brigade that I was part of in 4th Infantry Division, did the same, too. We used what the Army calls "lines of operations" (or "loos"), that were focused on things like establishing local governance, improving essential services like garbage pick up, information operations designed to show that our interests were the same as those of the Iraqis, and we were killing and capturing insurgents -- both Shia and Sunni -- who were causing the violence and instability.

The only significant difference between what we did in 2006 (and before) as compared to 2007 onward is the use of combat outposts. We did not use them to the extent that they were being used in 2007. But their role in bringing about the lowered levels of violence in 2007 is vastly overstated. There is not a combat outpost in every Iraqi neighborhood in Baghdad; far from it. One needs to turn, therefore, to other explanations for the recent lowering of violence.



Do you believe the security gains, whether due to the Surge or not, are stable?

Gian Gentile: My assessment when I commanded a combat battalion in 2006 was that Iraq was in a complex, multifaceted civil war. My current assessment is that that fundamental condition has not changed. The basic issues in Iraq have yet to be resolved, namely, who will ultimately hold power: Shia (and as recent weeks have shown a battle is occurring within Shia Iraq over who will hold power over that sect) or Sunni. Sometimes, as fatalistic as this may sound, these kinds of deep-rooted social issues are only solved through fighting and war. The issue of slavery and the American Civil War provides a good historical analogy to think of when considering Iraq today. That issue in American history was not ultimately resolved until a bloody civil war was fought between the North and South.

There are definite limits to what American military power, even when applied by good American combat units executing best practices in counterinsurgency operations, can accomplish in a place like Iraq.

...

subscribe to World Politics Review

WPR

Subscribers receive:

  • Access to in-depth feature articles
  • Regular Strategic Posture Reviews
  • Regular WPR Special Reports
  • Access to our Document Center
  • Access to WPR’s entire archives
  • Enhanced search across the entire site
  • Participation in our discussion section

Click here to subscribe »
Click here to take a free trial »
Already a subscriber? Login here.

Login to Discuss EmailEmail | Print IconPrint | Share Icon Share | Reprint IconReprint