Here’s another view on the war in Iraq, written by a guy who has a bit more credibility than one of those Green Zone reporters Michael Fumento goes on about – a US Army intel sergeant with dusty boots, operating outside the wire in the thick of the fray responds to James Taranto’s column yesterday, a column in which Taranto unrepentantly repeats his support for the war in Iraq – it might just be the most authentic thing I’ve read this year:
I wrote heavily in favor of this war before I enlisted myself, and I still maintain that going into Iraq was not only the necessary thing to do, but the right thing to do as well.
There have been distinct failures of policy in Iraq. The vast majority of them fall under the category “failure to adapt.” Basically U.S. policies have been several steps behind the changing conditions ever since we came into the country. I believe this is (in part) due to our plainly obvious desire to extricate ourselves from Iraq. I know President Bush is preaching “stay the course,” but we came over here with a goal of handing over our battlespace to the Iraqis by the end of our tour here.
This is all ineluctably tied up not with military strategy but with the US election cycle of course – how long could politics abide at the water’s edge? Until the first mid-term elections, as it turns out. One party ran on the war and won, and the other party took note, carving out a niche in the opposite camp and then working steadily to enlarge it. There’s really no use apportioning blame between them, this is what partisans do. This is their nature.
How many lives and how much treasure would be spent before the people lost focus and gained resentment? Three thousand more or less of ours, over $300 billion, and both of those figures would make honest people blanch even if they had come with signs of perceptible and continuing progress.
And finally, critically, given the fact that national will is our strategic center of gravity: How much patience would “we” have before deciding that it was all “their” fault? Not quite five years, it now seems – one political party waits with breathless anticipation to reclaim the crown of legislative majority, trembling slightly at the need to not say anything of an affirmative nature that might be turned against them, while the other shambles casually towards the exit sign, whistling tunelessly, hands in their pockets and hoping not to be the last ones out the door as the abandoned house of national policy burns down to the ground behind them.
What next? Well, according to our sergeant:
If we continue on as is in Iraq, we will leave here (sooner or later) with a fractured state, a Rwanda-waiting-to-happen. “Stay the course” and refusing to admit that we’re screwing things up is already killing a lot of people needlessly. Following through with such inane nonstrategy is going to be the death knell for hundreds of thousands of Sunnis.
We need to backtrack. We need to publicly admit we’re backtracking. This is the opening battle of the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We cannot afford to lose it because of political inconveniences. Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000 American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a military that’s fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction. Reassure the Iraqi people that we’re going to provide them security and then follow through. Disarm the nation: Sunnis, Shias, militia groups, everyone. Issue national ID cards to everyone and control the movement of the population…
The short of it is, the situation is salvageable, but not with “stay the course” and certainly not with cut and run. However, the commitment required to save it is something I doubt the American public is willing to swallow. I just don’t see the current administration with the political capital remaining in order to properly motivate and convince the American public (or the West in general) of the necessity of these actions.
At the same time, failure in Iraq would be worse than a dozen Somalias, and would render us as impotent and emasculated as we were in the days after Vietnam. There is a global cultural-ideological struggle being waged, and abdication from Iraq is tantamount to concession.
Every thinking person – or I should say, “every person who can think beyond the next election cycle” – knows that the sergeant is right with respect to consequences. Leaving the field to the jihadis means that they will bring the field to us: It’s not a matter of if, but when, how and where. And as Robert Kagan writes, we broke Iraq and it’s up to us to put it back together again – it is tempting but unfair, having destroyed the former government, to complain about the quality of the current one. So seeing this thing through to victory is both a strategic and moral imperative. Or rather it is if we wish to maintain a position of leadership in the world – we cannot, like the elves of Lothlorien, merely diminish and “go into the west.” We are already there.
But doing what we must do is maddening: The US of the 1940’s – with a population half our current size – spent 400,000 of it’s citizens lives in in the fight against last century’s brand of fascism. And yet I see no practical way that we can muster the half-million living men that our strategic sergeant deems necessary to finally pacify Iraq. It will not be possible without rashly throwing all the chips on the table, leaving nothing behind for other contingencies, and committing an army of volunteers to a brutal theater “for the duration.” The only other alternative would be a draft, and no one wants an army of draftees even if the political will existed to levy them, or the time and infrastructure was available to train them. Neither of which is true, I believe.
And as frustratingly venal and impotent as our political allies and their agents in Iraq seem to be – some of whom keep monstrous company, by the way – merely “replacing” them is also out of the question as it would give the lie to those 14 million empurpled fingers.
We have not yet lost a stand-up fight, it is difficult to even imagine how we might. But neither can we seem to finally win this war. Bored, and tired and shocked at the horror that has been painted for us, we wish it all away. It is a muddle and a mess, and we have no patience for either – we want it over, want them gone, want ours home.
We can try that for a while, but I suspect that the debt we incur in doing so will accrue with terrible interest. But how much longer can we ask our soldiers to fight this way, invincibly unvictorious?
And did you see this?
“U.S. generals call for Democratic takeover — Disgusted with the leadership of the Iraq war, two retired generals say the GOP must go. Plus: More than 100 current military personnel join a campaign to get the U.S. out of Iraq — now.”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/10/25/generals/
I’m sure they honestly believe that. It has the undoubtedly unintended effect of positioning them nicely for positions of greater authority come the revolution. Not to mention book deals.
Which, hey: Sometimes you get lucky!
And other generals feel differently, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Corps General Peter Pace, quoted in the Boston Globe (behind a subscription wall, alas)
It kind of looks like CYA on a grand scale. And perhaps a bit of conscience clearing.
I wonder what his opinions will be when his title eventually becomes “former chairman” of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he, too, has a book to hawk. What will he say then?
And does the general public fully grasp the stakes? If not, what needs to happen?
We could have mustered 400,000 to 500,000 troops in 2003. And had DOD begun systematically enlarging all of the armed forces begining in 2001 we would be in a better position to execute something different now. The Sergeant is right, but he ignores the fact that the administration is commented to opposing ideas-increasing the mission set of all of the services while reducing its number. So we can do nothing but stay the course.
As for the purple fingers, well they only have meaning if they produce a good result for the United States. That requires a better quality of electorate than the Iraqi’s have shown to date.
I believe the public always had little patience for this war and the last year has made it worse. Now some can blame the media, but the media is actually pretty varied but they all are reporting the same facts.
Peter Pace is not exactly a disinterested observer either…………..
According to the PM 8 or 9 provinces will be under Iraqi control by the end of the year, with both GEN Casey and BRIG Moon (Commander Aussie forces Middle East) saying 12-18 till Iraqis can take control of security.
Perhaps rather than drawing down use the troops from quieter provinces like Al Muthanna to flood the trouble spots, if that means building berms Fallujah style and sweeping block by block then so be it.
Lex,
The SGT makes a compelling analysis/plea, from a positiion of knowing what needs to be done, to end the insurgency. He conveys that his commands expectations were to turn over the keys to the Iraqis and that it hasn’t happened. He then offers a suggestion for 1/2 million US troops to bring “decisive action” to end it. That is his only offering. Respectfully, your commentary ties it all back to politics and the Nov election wars raging in the US. Basically you offer (purposefully?) more questions than remedies.
Your statements are key:
“But doing what we must do is maddening”
“We have not yet lost a stand-up fight”
What to do though?
Your correspondent Zane and others often talk about what it will take to prevail. The rest talk around the edges about completing the mission and ending the insurgency but the discussion here always ends when it comes down to use of more force or tactics/techniques the Roman or British Empire may have used to quell the same disturbances centuries ago…
It seems to me, right now, OUR troops are like a police dept in Iraq. Broken up into different units like bunco, larceny, homide and street patrol, they go out in response to potential intell events or in response to something already in progress. When they do leave the fort they are targets…
- Why isn’t there a dusk-dawn curfew enforced by shoot to kill every day?
- Why are vehicle movements seen day/night everywhere in Iraq? It appears, without control?
- Why didn’t we destroy the Mahdi Army and the leadership including al-Sadr years ago?
- Why don’t we arrest and imprison those Mullahs that preach death and violence on Friday?
(if that happened regularly perhaps Mullah bejhavior would be modified…)
- Why isn’t the border with Iran and Syria “leak proof” with shoot to kill enforced for any border incursion NOT through checkpoints?
- Why haven’t any of our Arab State allies provided any peacekeeper troops?
- Why don’t we (Iraqi police-Army) temporarily arrest all 18-60 year old men in each village neighborhood and systematically go house to house and destroy weapons caches?
- Why CAN’T we accomplish all of the above without having to do it constitutionally as per US law?
As an American all I care about is winning this clash. We need to create terror in THEIR hearts and quell any feelings of kinship by the populace with these terrorists ans sympathizers. It is not in my nature to accept anything else when it comes to war. I think our troops feel the same. I say let go and unleash the dogs of war. No 1/2 ass measures…
The American people will not stand in the way. I think that is what they really want. Well..the majority, anyways..
Skippy, in the big scheme of things, all you are is a friggin Plat LSO!
B2
Shakespeare once said that things are bad indeed when only the enemy can save us. Both the Donks and the GOP have failed the vision test, foolishly clinging to the presumption that history is static and that the world revolves only around their partisan bickering. They’re still living in a 9/10 worldview.
As I’ve mentioned before, that conceit will die in this fight. Only then will we really get serious about using ALL aspects of our national power. The tipping point will be when enough Americans personally understand that we are in an existential war, and that Iraq is only one stage of this global conflict. Our enemies already claim as much, and we’ve squandered too much time blaming ourselves to pretend they don’t have a vote. We’re now reacting to them, not the other way around.
The one bright spot in this mess is that the bad guys are NOT confused. Often in error, but never in doubt, they WILL press the issue, and inevitably overreach themselves. They are that confident and arrogant about establishing the global Caliphate. It will be their undoing.
Now we must wait, with tactical patience, for the opening that returns the political initiative to the West. It will most likely be a catastrophic attack in Europe or the CONUS that no one can ignore. The price of unity is still blood. Pay now or pay more later. Looks like we’ve opted to pay more later.
CPTJ-
re “Now we must wait, with tactical patience, for the opening that returns the political initiative to the West”
I ain’t much for waiting CPTJ and I ain’t one for bunkering down in MT to wait for the tide to turn..although you may be right. (If he’s right-I tell you folks, it will be worse than 9-11..all of their attacks have increased exponentially in scope through the last 25 years..)
I still believe the voters will back decisive action, NOW. If somebody hates you enough to kill ya the way those sumbitches do, how much madder can they become if we use proven tactics in occupation? Let’s take the dam gloves off.
B2
Web Reconnaissance for 10/26/2006…
A short recon of what?
Web Reconnaissance for 10/26/2006…
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….
B2, I’m with you on this. Take the gloves off.
Because, as you said, it will be an exponentially worse attack than 9-11. Their doctrine calls for it.
Tactical patience means waiting for an opportunity like a coiled spring, not passively waiting for the initiative to be passed to us. Or worse, waiting for “permission” from the “international community”.
The SGT may be correct that a half million men is what it takes to win immediately (within a year). The resources do not exist in this country. GreyHawk has already analyzed that at his website and I agreed and modified with what I know from the 1997 QDR. Unless we intend to hire Hessians, there are insufficient young men in the country to make that many ground forces appear even in two or three years, not to mention the funding it would take.
Why are we reduced to fighting a long war in Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world? Because we don’t have the resources to fix it immediately. Thus we are reduced to fighting it “on the cheap”, (even though it isn’t cheap), and for the duration with a lower level of effort, (even though the effort seems superhuman). CPT J probably has the accurate and most likely scenario pinned down. Without a huge impelling event, we won’t wake up and we will suffer dramatically higher casualties until we get enough anger to actually defend ourselves by waging total unconditional war, because we aren’t farsighted enough and tough enough to do so now with a larger effort.
The cost will be huge. The price will be drastic. Millions of Muslims, and possibly billions, will die, and thousands or millions of Americans will also. WWII could have been prevented, but too few had the will.
History repeats itself.
And many millions WILL die.
Subsunk
Chester nails it:
“…Yet if America has shown that it can’t be trusted to enforce its commitments and defend its interests elsewhere in the world, a determined and risk-neutral enemy might be more than willing to call the deterrence bluff too.
The missing element, in the end, is willpower, and none should be surprised to learn it. A degree of willpower has already been sacrificed as a “bridge too far” in Mr Koppel’s plan. A system of nuclear deterrence that allows Iran to go ahead and have its regional caliphate, so long as it doesn’t harm those under the US nuclear umbrella, fails at an unusually unspoken goal: preserving American primacy. But how to justify this to a public, or at least elites, that all too often seem to need the most legalistic of justifications for the most basic aspects of self-preservation? Preserving the primacy of one’s own way of life in the world — in this case, classical liberalism — requires a moral willpower much greater than that required to merely guarantee the physical security of one’s homeland, people, and allies. This is a weakness that we emit like a pheromone and that our enemies sense like the animals that they are.”
CPT J-
No gloves. I’m with you. I was just offering a commonsense COA so your scenario doesn’t happen first, because, as we both know, it will…..
I’m asking those questions above not because I’m being rhetorical. I really want to know. Freedom of enemy movement, a porous border and lack of effective house to house search for weps caches all aid the insurgency. Why can’t we remedy those conditions with a little power. I am sure some innocents will be hurt but they are being already on a daily basis.. It’s the bad guys we want to kill, right? Oh wait- negative publicity for the info war might happen? Have some balls, declare war on that, too! Just allow only embeds and throw out all the MSM chains worldwide outta the country (well the Green Zone hotels)! AL Jazeera? Them too. Jam ‘em if you have to.
Did you read Peter’s today? Same theme sorta:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10262006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/kill_muqtada_now_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
B2
B2–yes, I did. Ralph Peters says:
“Oh, Maliki realizes his government wouldn’t last a week if our troops withdrew. He doesn’t want us to leave yet. But he’s looking ahead.
For now, Maliki and his pals are using our troops to buy time while they pocket our money, amass power and build up arms. But they’ve written us off for the long term.”
Cynicism, or just a realistic reflection of how others see us? Probably just as our public wobbly waffling has taught them to do. We expect good faith actions from the Iraqis while ignoring their realistic expectation of the same from us. Who is going to have their illusions dashed first? Our wussy need to be “liked” can be the first to go. Would do us a world of good.
We need to go back to fighting a manuver war on our terms, with aggressive tactics like your COA. Iraq’s future will be what the Iraqi’s make it, for better or worse. As long as our strategic interests coincide, all to the good. If Maliki’s government morphs into a failed state, we’ll still do what needs to be done. Either a bright future for Iraq’s children or just an effective killing ground for jihadis–we probably won’t care much either way.
We are fighting there for ourselves first. To be feared and respected is the beginning of wisdom.
B2,
Even a plat LSO can see a bad pass sometimes and I think my comments about the patience of Americans are right on the mark. The President, I think actually understood that which was why he believed it would all be over by the 2004 election. It was not and the clock started ticking. It’s ticking louder now.
As for the Arab League they should have troops there, but from their standpoint there is no benefit for them. They want Iraq to stay weak and divided. They get to have their cake and eat it too by playing both sides off against each other.