Football Analogies

When suggestions went forth on how to deal with Iraq, they came in the vernacular of football.

Go long.
Go deep.
Go home (aka the cut and run).

Well, here's a PSA to help you figure out who's talking about what positions and some other options that have yet to be suggested:

Go native. This isn't exactly a football expression, but Chester manages to convey things nicely.

Go small. That's the view I'd ascribe to the ISG report. For a more detailed analysis, see my take here.

Go big. That's the view taken by Pelosi's chosen one for the House Intel Committee Chairmanship. That's going to leave a mark among the Lefties who thought that they'd have a stranglehold on the Administration to force them to get out of Iraq ASAP.

Now, here are a few more options that could be on the table (or should be dismissed because they're inpractical).

Corner blitz: Deal with Syria and Iran by sending in covert forces to destabilize both regimes, who are both hellbent on destabilizing the entire region and imposing their will and Islamist visions.

Full package blitz: Deal with Syria and Iran by massing forces at the borders of both countries and demanding cessation of their hostilities or else.

Prevent defense: It's a form of the go-native approach. Drawing down forces combined with setting up bases of operation from which to launch operations against terrorists throughout the region - not just Iraq.

Nickle defense: Go nimble and lighten up forces - not necessarily reducing troops so that they can deal with threats quicker.

Spread offense: Assemble new coalition of willing to deal with Iran and Syria.

Play action pass: Feint that the US will take certain actions (like commiting to troop reductions, and do the opposite - perhaps with special forces. See also free-flicker or reverse.

Hurry up offense: Combined with flood the zone/go big, and you'd have a strong force that acts with determination, force, and rules of engagement that would leave the insurgency gasping for air. The idea would be to eliminate the insurgency or at worst, leave it so degraded that Iraqi forces would be able to mop up.

Now, while we're at it, stop thinking that the UN is going to throw flags for offsides (cross border assistance from Iran or Syria), personal fouls (for IEDs detonated in civilian areas killing Iraqis in significant numbers), or too many men on the field (insurgents dressing in civilian clothes to evade capture). No one is going to throw penalties on anyone except on the US for not getting the job done.

That job is winning. Unlike the ISG members, some in Congress, and many on the Left (along with some waivering on the Right), which thinks that Iraq cannot be won, I disagree.

Now, how do you want to define winning. Well - we could go by body count of jihadis, but they can always make more. Some dumb poor bastard always seems willing to blow themselves up in the name of martyrdom/jihad. If Iraq didn't have enough, Syria and Iran are more than willing to export them to Iraq to help. The US can expedite that by killing more jihadis as they come into the country and to not turn a blind eye to the militias operating in Iraq including Sadr's brigades.

Lowering the number of attacks to some reasonable level might suffice. After all, Thailand is currently dealing with an Islamist insurgency where people are getting killed every few days, but no one thinks the situation there is dire. The same goes for the Philippines. And Indonesia.

If you can think of more analogies or know of folks who have suggested similar solutions, leave them in the comments and I'll update the post accordingly.

Technorati: iraq, isg, iraq study group, bush, baker, terrorism.