US Army Colonel Timothy Reese penned an internal assessment that somehow broke through the firewall and landed in the New York Times. His thrust: We’ve done all that we can do in Iraq, they’re as ready as they’re going to get with us propping them up and the continued presence of our tactical forces there may actually be throttling the strategic gains we’ve achieved so far.
As the old saying goes, “guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.” Since the signing of the 2009 Security Agreement, we are guests in Iraq, and after six years in Iraq, we now smell bad to the Iraqi nose. Today the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are good enough to keep the Government of Iraq (GOI) from being overthrown by the actions of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the Baathists, and the Shia violent extremists that might have toppled it a year or two ago. Iraq may well collapse into chaos of other causes, but we have made the ISF strong enough for the internal security mission. Perhaps it is one of those infamous paradoxes of counterinsurgency that while the ISF is not good in any objective sense, it is good enough for Iraq in 2009. Despite this foreboding disclaimer about an unstable future for Iraq, the United States has achieved our objectives in Iraq. Prime Minister (PM) Maliki hailed June 30th as a “great victory,” implying the victory was over the US. Leaving aside his childish chest pounding, he was more right than he knew. We too ought to declare victory and bring our combat forces home. Due to our tendency to look after the tactical details and miss the proverbial forest for the trees, this critically important strategic realization is in danger of being missed.
The row back from the top was more or less immediate:
Those conclusions are not shared by the senior American commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, and his recommendation for an accelerated troop withdrawal is at odds with the timetable approved by President Obama.
A spokeswoman for General Odierno said that the memo did not reflect the official stance of the United States military and was not intended for a broad audience, and that some of the problems the memo referred to had been solved since its writing in early July.
It’s possible to take this in one of two ways (and perhaps both of them). First, much of what the colonel writes smacks of the truth. Arab armies are notoriously resistant to the kind of NCO and junior officer driven initiatives that make our fighting forces so effective. Nouri al Maliki has relished playing the Salah al Din role in the run-ups to his national election campaign over the negotiated “victory” that led coalition troops largely out of the population centers and into the deserts. Whether or not the government of Iraq and Iraqi army are ready and able to put down the power challenges hiding behind the corner we shall soon learn, but eventually that turtle needs to learn how to fly, if fly it ever will.
But another take – and the timing is interesting here, as a war-weary US news machine consumes itself with health care reform and beery White House conversations about racial profiling – is that Col. Reese has fired an authorized salvo in an information operation meant to wake the GOI up to the fact that, 1) our troops will not long stand having the precepts of the 2008 security agreement flouted, and 2) that the GOI should be careful what they wish for.
The undoubtedly sincere desire of the Iraqi people to be rid of coalition troop cannot be any more profound than the desire of those same troops to leave.
Besides: There are other fights than these.
Or he could just be light years ahead of the rest of the chain of command by pointing out that the US Military has much better things to do than waste its resources on an Arab government that is just going to fail anyway.
Either way-its been long past the time we should have left that God forsaken chunk of real estate.
Hear, hear and an amen to that!!
Lex, the test of your theory, IMHO, will be whether the good Colonel retires in the next month or so.
While it is perfectly alright for soldiers to write opinion pieces that discuss military issues, when they stray into geo-politics it gets messy. Soldiers can disagree politely and professionally about tactics and strategies, while politicians usually take disagreements personally.
As far as the Iraqis are concerned, they are finally able to fend for themselves. The macho Arab ego can finally assert itself, so I think it is natural that they start to be a little condescending to the US troops.
While much of what the good Colonel said holds a handful of hand, somehow I smell another rotten fish in its decay…Vietnam…
Dubbya said this was going to be a long, protracted fight against terrorism and, more so than the wearisome U.S. budget or health care scam, I fear that the war against terror may be the ephiphanous (not a real word, but damned if I care) declaration of a man who saw the longer term requirement of OIF & OEF.
As a nation we’ve never been much good at long term warfighting engagements. Civil War:”Be back by harvest, Pa!”…WWI: 1914-1918, but when did we get in? And why? I fear WWII: ’nuff said. Korea: We hadn’t been out of WW Aye Aye long enough to care. Vietnam: A significantly large number bitched about killing innocent water buffalo and peace in our time, so we withdrew with ‘honor’. Okay…got that…
Jiminy Freaking Christmas, we may never again see peace in our time. There is simply far too much hatrd and discontent out there. You hit it right, Dave, that Soldiers getting into geo-politics is a messy business. Eisenhower had it right that Soldiers (pick your service) make lousy politicians.
Don’t ask me why, but I have been uncomfortable with Gen. Odierno from the start. General/Flag officers from the past would tell you why…including, most recently, the ‘Bear’. Maybe the thinking is too short term or inconclusive. Just sayin’…
Mongo … Eisenhower may have been right that soldiers make lousy politicians, but privately I am making an exception to that rule with General Petraeus. He is a class act, brilliant, thoughtful and with determination and vision. He knows now to handle ‘ugly customers’, without giving an inch. He doesn’t seem to get fussed or distracted. Best of all, he seems to me to be an obviously superior person, character-wise, both privately and publicly, and I would really feel comfortable if he became our President.
Feel free to argue with me, as you gentlemen always, very politely, do.
Marianne
Skippy had it right – party is over, time to go home. Might as well pull out the NatGeo map and label Iraq as Iran West. Once the pull-out is complete and off the front page of the NYT, Iran can start the meddling and interference they so desire. In 10 years the Iraqi-ranian history will proclaim that the US invaders were defeated and forced to withdraw under the ceaseless onslaught of the victorious followers of Allah. Go take a trip to VN and read their version of the Vietnam War – not a lot about their battlefield defeats, the huge human losses, or the economic costs of their “victory”.
The Col is a wise man. Too bad. Don’t think we’ll see him on the BG list.
Blackfive pointed out that just about anybody we deal w/ besides the UK, Canada, and Australia and the like exhibit the same dysfunctional behavior. The PI, any countries in SE Asia, Africa? Take your pick. Where the SF boys force multiply, it is typically an area that looks the same wrt to discipline, grift, and poor education.