Courtesy of SWJ, this from the San Francisco Chronicle:

In the first and second years after the U.S. invasion, critics say, American troops were focused on kicking in doors and looking for bad guys, when they needed to take a softer approach to the local population. The military brought along civil affairs units to help Iraqis build schools and hospitals, but those efforts were often overshadowed by the damage done by air strikes and artillery bombardments.

That’s not to say those methods were not necessary at the time, but analysts say the insurgency was strengthened because the soldiers and Marines used too much force too often. And they didn’t simultaneously work closely enough with Iraqi leaders to provide security and to get the local population on their side…

I have gone on record favoring the approach used in Fallujah as opposed to the approach currently in use in Ramadi in my post “The Debate over Diminished Force Projection.”  The difference is in how the enemy is identified and defeated.  There are reports of Marines and Soldiers running — even within the protected government compounds — to avoid sniper fire in Ramadi, hoping to cover the government officials who want to make it to the next building without being shot.

The Strategy Page has this today:

September 8, 2006: In Iraq, the rate of attacks remains very high compared to this time last year. Over the past three months, attacks have average 800-1000 a week. Curiously, during the same period, attacks that are identified as “sectarian” have declined from about 20 percent of all incidents to about 10-12 percent. Incidents in Baghdad are also down, by about 10 percent, due to the concerted government/Coalition effort to get more personnel into difficult neighborhoods. Most attacks are still against civilians, with attacks on Government troops and police in second place, and Coalition forces a rather distant third. But in Anbar province, Al-Qaeda, which has come to dominate the insurgency in region, seems to be focusing on U.S. Forces, which have take (sic) some 75-85 percent of the attacks. 

Al Qaeda have made Ramadi their home, and even if we (or the Iraqis) win in Ramadi, it is likely that the next phase is Al Haqlaniyah.  So we need to deal now with how we will attack the issue of Al Qaeda in and among the population.  Even after Ramadi, the deal is not done.  There is more to go nearer to the Syrian border.

In Fallujah we essentially caused the evacuation of the city of the civilian population, and hence, could use hard techniques and overwhelming force to kill or capture the enemy.  While this may not work to our advantage in Ramadi or other parts of the Sunni triangle, we don’t have to send mortar shells or JDAMs in to kill the enemy.  When Marines are running from building to building trying to protect government officials from being shot by sniper fire in the Ramadi protected zones, we have a problem.

Once again … and I feel like I am rewinding, play again, rewind, play again … “winning the heart and mind of the population” does not require us to leave the enemy alive and killing us or the Iraqis.  We will only win the cities and the people by killing Al Qaeda in the Sunni triangle.

This might involve Marine snipers, or it might involve more patrols, or it might involve a sweep of the city, or three-block strategy, or a series of mini-sweeps, or other tactics.  And I understand that Marines and Soldiers need to be on the ground, talking to the population, keeping the power grid functional, smoking with the men on the street corner, working with the locals to get people medical treatment, etc.

But you would have a hard time convincing me that business is operating properly with snipers shooting at “safe-zones.”  The way to win the population is to kill their enemy.  The Sunnis will not see Al Qaeda as their allies.  They are foreigners who are preventing the practice of business, worship, and a return to normalcy.