In commonts on my thoughts regarding Risk and Terrorism, IanG said that, “Your list of tactics lacks one: to Understand the Risk.”

This started as just a comment, but then took on a life of its own. That happens to me a lot…

Unfortunately, I think that the real issue here is the gap between reality and what too many people think is The Risk: The likelihood that people will blow things up on trains and buses, crash airplanes into buildings and eventually figure out how to either blow up an LNG terminal or set off a nuclear weapon in a Major Metropolitan Area is currently at or approaching one.

In general, though, given the number of people who die annually due to terrorism compared to cigarette smoking or travelling by automobile in the US and Western Europe, we are dramatically overreacting to the real scope of the problem. It’s like my favorite Schneier quote says, “You are more likely to be eaten by a pig than by a shark, but how much thought have you ever given to avoiding being eaten by a pig?”

Thus, it’s not so much that we don’t Understand the Risk as that it’s not suitably satisfying to the Fox News-fed masses who think that this problem should be no more complex than a First-, Second-, or Third-Generation war where Might Makes Right and the only things blowing up are Their tanks when being shot at by Our tanks (and helicopters, and airplanes, and artillery, etc.). This is probably because everyone agrees that in a conflict between State Actors, the United States Military would pretty much dominate everyone except Mainland China. Unfortunately, to steal a line from someone who’s Part of the Problem, You go to war against the enemy you have, not the enemy you want.

Which brings us back to where this whole discussion started. What we don’t understand, which is what to do from here. I include the current administration, their political base, the anti-war movement and myself in this list. I think that the questions that haven’t yet been asked, in part because they’re too scary and in part because it’s too easy to attack anyone who’s this honest about it is, Is it even possible at this point to de-escalate the current situation in Iraq? What strategy has the best chance of de-escalating the current high level of global violence the US has fuelled by invading Iraq?

I don’t think that most of us have a clue because we’re outsiders looking in. Anyone who has the cultural background which might allow them to Have a Clue on the subject is automatically disqualified by the current US regime under the assumption that they’re One of Them. Well, duh. That’s why their opinion might matter.

While I agree that de-escalation back to the realm of propaganda and rhetoric is really the only way to “win” a Fourth Generation War. What the US has done at this point is play completely into the hands of the non-state actors and do our best to live up the low expectations of the most fiery rhetoric regarding US dreams of dominating or destroying the Arab/Islamic World.

What we do know, though, is that the key to winning a conflict against Non-State Actors and other extra-legal entities is de-escalation and conflict avoidance. Less fancily put, to figure out how to make people not hate strongly enough to take up arms. The timeline for getting to that point is indeterminate but can be summed up as, Before “The Terrorists” either get their hands on a working nuclear weapon or put “liquid natural gas terminal” into maps.google.com and take a little road trip.

Something like that. Klauswitz said know yourself and win half your battles. Know your enemy and win 99 of 100. The American/British forces know themselves. My guess is that Iraq II is the one they lose.

How to de-escalate from here is fairly clear; it means US out of Iraq, and to some extent the Brits too. That could be done for example by handing over to another force. Like, a UN peace keeping force filled with the Indian, Australian, Japanese or whoever - those nations that aren’t totally compromised in the eyes of the locals. It could be paid for by the US if that’s what they want…

Or, just leave. Let the locals sort out the mess that the US has created. The problem with this is for the US it will simply stamp the process as exactly like Vietnam, and that might be too much to handle.

Although be careful when talking about terrorism and Iraq. The link is complicated and schitzophrenic, and one needs to establish ones goals clearly before deciding what to do.

I think that PeaceKeepers are going to be required, but also seriously question what chance they would have given the size, skill, and arsenals of the various factions now fighintg in Iraq. I don’t recall who said it first, but I personally agree with the assessment that Iraq is already in a civil war, it just looks like an insurgency because the US is still there.

I think that to really have a chance, the peacekeepers would also need to have a strong Middle Eastern/Islamic component. I don’t know if Pakistanis would be any good. They have proven themselves to be unreliable allies in past peacekeeping adventures and their loyalties are suspect. I suspect that Egypt could provide troops who have both enough professionalism and cultural overlap to be effective.

The Japanese already came and left and the Australians are considered to be Part of the Problem, too. Jaun Cole is a much better person than I to consult for wisdom in this area.

Calling it an insurgency is just politeness, and the economic desire not to fight the overwhelming weight of propaganda. In practice, Irag’s situation is more in common with ‘resistance warfare’ than anything else - the nation has been invaded, and a whole bunch of ragtag armies have arisen to fight the invader. Recall that the WWII Resistance in France was often at each other’s throats as much as the invader’s throats and you get the picture.

For peacekeepers - the objective is not that they be successful, but that they clear the way for the ‘problem’ to be removed. That is, if the US can hand over to the peacekeepers and then exit, keeping face and declaring victory, then objective is accomplished. What happens afterwards is not at issue in the large (although we can probably be fairly confident that the peacekeepers will last between 1-2 years before themselves exiting, amid much bad news).