Winning

[Annie]

Contrary to what a few have been saying, 'occupation' can work. It does take determination, which the troops had and the administration didn't. Now perhaps things are changing:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/02/degrees-of-freedom.html

Degrees of Freedom

The Small Wars Council has an interesting set of comments on the counterinsurgency campaign in Anbar. It raises several questions without quite answering them, but the questions themselves are valuable to consider, whether or not we know the answers. First: apparently the Anbar tribes have quit "playing both sides" and come down on the side of the US. What does that suggest about who tribes think is going to win? And why do they think that? Another commenter at Small Wars Council shrewdly understands, from the apparent progress in Anbar, that the correct interpretation of "changing the rules of engagement" doesn't mean "taking the gloves off" but increasing the degrees of freedom that the commanders in the field are allowed to exercise. Mandatory severity may be just as damaging as compulsory leniency. Perhaps the real lesson of Anbar is to let men on the ground do what they think is right. But the real gem is buried in a link to the blog Talisman Gate, which relates how a Jihadi satellite TV station has gone from broadcasting Islamic Internet attack video to criticizing al-Qaeda. Talisman gates says:

...

 

[Gurdari]

As long as people are comfortable oppressing another people in their native country, the possibilities and the rewards are unlimited.
Occupation... how long before you would capitulate to an inavding army?
Hours? Weeks? Years? Never?