Do We Have The Appetite For ‘The Surge’?
Jack Keane and Fred Kagan argue that the much-discussed troop infusion must be big and lengthy, or it will fail:
Reports on the Bush administration’s efforts to craft a new strategy in Iraq often use the term “surge” but rarely define it. Estimates of the number of troops to be added in Baghdad range from fewer than 10,000 to more than 30,000. Some “surges” would last a few months, others a few years.
We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad — the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development — is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.
The key to the success is to change the military mission — instead of preparing for transition to Iraqi control, that mission should be to bring security to the Iraqi population. Surges aimed at accelerating the training of Iraqi forces will fail, because rising sectarian violence will destroy Iraq before the new forces can bring it under control.
Any military strategy must of course be accompanied by a range of diplomatic, political, economic and reconciliation initiatives, but those alone will not contain the violence either. Success in Iraq today requires a well-thought-out military operation aimed at bringing security to the people of Baghdad as quickly as possible — a traditional counterinsurgency mission.
Of all the “surge” options out there, short ones are the most dangerous. Increasing troop levels in Baghdad for three or six months would virtually ensure defeat. It takes that long for newly arrived soldiers to begin to understand the areas where they operate. Short surges would redeploy them just as they began to be effective.
In addition, a short surge would play into the enemy’s hands. Both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias expect the U.S. presence to fade away over the course of 2007, and they expect any surge to be brief. They will naturally go to ground in the face of a short surge and wait until we have left. They will then attack the civilian population and whatever Iraqi security forces remain, knowing them to be easier targets than U.S. soldiers and Marines. They will work hard to raise the level of sectarian violence in order to prove that our efforts have failed.
We have seen this pattern so many times before that we can be virtually certain the enemy will follow it in the face of a short surge. The only cure is to maintain our presence long enough either to root out the hiding enemy or to defeat him when he becomes impatient. A surge that lasted at least 18 months would achieve that aim. It would also provide time to bring Iraqi forces up to the level needed to fight whatever enemy remains.
But 30,000 troops over 18 months is a tall order in this environment, particularly when prominent Democrats are already throwing up roadblocks:
Incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, said Tuesday he would oppose any effort by President Bush to increase U.S troops in Iraq as part of a new war strategy.
Biden also announced he has summoned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify before his committee next month to discuss the administration’s new plan for Iraq as soon as it is made public.
The President is going to have to use every bit of whatever power and credibility he has left to sell this to the Democrats and the public. I’m not sure enough of either remains…
An enemy is only defeated when he knows and acknowledges it, that is, surrenders. Any surge that has less than the defeat of the enemy as its objective is bound to fail.
Democrats, if not all then in large measure, have given up. This is not to say they are cowards, perhaps not even defeatist, just that they are not convinced of the strategic value of defeating al Qaeda in Iraq and are unwilling to accept victory there as the objective. Now that they control the Congress is there any doubt that they will force, either directly or indirectly, a retreat from the conflict in Iraq?
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq to any substantial degree when we invaded, so Bush will have a hard time convincing people that we should stay in a war to defeat an enemy which we have created.
If we were serious about defeating Al Qaeda, we would concentrate our military resources in the parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where they and the Taliban operate with impunity.
However, according to the military, Al Qaeda is responsible for only a small fraction of the violence in Iraq. The vast majority of the death toll in Iraq is because of the ethnic cleansing going on between Sunni and Shia. I believe that history’s verdict on George Bush will be very clear: he invaded a country based on cherry-picked intelligence to find non-existent weapons, which destabilized the country and resulted in a civil war among combatants who have been adversaries for centuries. When Sunnis and Shia started butchering each other, he refused to get American troops out of the way. The war will be seen as not only a distraction from the war on terror, but a recruiting device for those who would harm us.
It’s not just the Democrats who have given up on Iraq – enough Republicans and independents have realized that this misbegotten war should never have been started and can never be won that the electorate spoke with shocking clarity. If Bush decides to thumb his nose at the will of the American people and escalate instead of withdraw, there is nothing short of impeachment which will stop him. He has already lost the support of the electorate, and the verdict of history will be even more unforgiving.
Peter, while you have clearly and consistently stood by your opinion that the war was a mistake, I’ve stubbornly held to the view that it was the way the war that was conducted that was the mistake – and I still hang on to that view.
I’m in favor of the surge, but only if – and it’s a big if – the political movement to isolate Sadr proceeds apace…
I’m sympathetic to your view because I originally supported the war. I felt that some regimes are so odious that they should not enjoy the protection of sovereignty, and the Iraqi regime fits in this category. I also felt that in a post-9/11 world, the standards of proof should be lower than they would otherwise be.
However, I supported the war with the expectation that there would at least be a minimal level of competence in planning for the post-war period (or indeed any plan at all outside of Iraqis greeting our troops with flowers). I thought that this was the A-Team – Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell have been through this before – and I was truly shocked at the ineptitude and partisanship in managing the occupation. I also supported the war because I took the administration’s (and especially Powell’s) explanation of our intelligence at face value.
So it is certainly possible that we would view the war very differently if, for example, it was Douglas MacArthur and not Paul Bremer running the show. We’ll never know. I think that the results of our invasion were so disastrous that (rightly or wrongly) the concept of pre-emptive attack will be discredited for a very long time. The Iraqi experience was so bad that I doubt the neo-con’s hypothesis will be tested again within our lifetimes.
So if we leave Iraq to concentrate on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan will that increase or decrease the value of our actions as a recruiting device for al Qaeda?
True enough that quitting Iraq is a view held by those in both parties, I didn’t mean to disparage, just wanted to point out that quitting Iraq will happen on the Democrats’ watch and so they will be responsible for it and any resulting effects.
I think it worthwhile, as an exercise, to think about what might have happened in the time since 9/11 had we followed the international community, as headed up by Koffi Annan, France, and Russia, and the approach preferred by Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, et al, and, even, elected John Kerry in ’04. We’ve seen how effective their preferred approach has been with another belicose regime, Iran, so I think we can speculate that the world would have a third rogue regime freely pursuing nuclear weapons. Imagine the destabilization possibilities were Iraq and Iran to be nuclear.
Even knowing all the mistakes and missteps I’d still vote for George W. Bush in 2004. For the record, I think we should have left after we toppled Saddam and once we were convinced there were no (stockpiles) of WMD in Iraq.
We can win, and I define winning as the establishment of a relatively safe, democratic, and functioning, Iraq. I just don’t believe the Democrats, and those Republicans that agree with them, are willing to make the commitment to do so. Clearly they don’t agree that it is worthwhile.
As for history’s verdict on Bush – that is for historians to decide 25 or 30 years from now. And how can you impeach a President for doing what the Constitution and the oath of office requires?
Peter, every Democrat of any stature supported deposing Saddam,and shouted loudly for everyone to hear, how dangerous he was and that he continued to develop and stockpile WMD’s.
Had you been President, would you have ignored these wanings from prominent Democrats, world-wide intelligence agencies, and your own intelligence apparatus, and done nothing? Especially after 9-11? Our major mistake was getting the useless UN involved. Ethiopia’s approach to Somalia’s Islamist threat got immediate results. They scattered like the cowards they are. We are WAY too damn PC in trying to fight a war.
We could have wrapped up Iraq in a much more efficient manner, had Bush gotten the backing from politicians and the media to help us win. The “insurgents”, no matter their stripe heard the discord and Bush-bashing here in America and figured all they had to do was hang on a while longer. Zawahiri told us so in his last message. Believe him, and get on our side and ssupport the effort so we can win.
It is not true that “every Democrat of any stature supported deposing Saddam.” Among those opposing the invasion were the 21 Senators and 128 Congressmen who voted against the war resolution. Lots of other observers – including Hans Blix and his group – also voiced doubts about the existence of WMD.
The Bush administration has all of the available intelligence about Iraq, while you and I only have access to what they chose to reveal to the public and what has leaked out. Based on what we now know about pre-war intelligence, the level of certainty did not approach a reasonable standard to invade, even in a post 9/11 world. The informants were unreliable (Curveball), self-interested (Chalabi), and their credibility should not have been relied upon in matters of life and death.
We could possibly have “wrapped up Iraq” had we sent in a large enough force after the invasion, kept some Baathists in the government, gave Iraqis decision-making power, etc. Or possibly not, we’ll never know. However, the idea that once the insurrection took hold we would have won had it not been for “the politicians and the media” is ridiculous. The Shia who are taking revenge against the Sunnis for their mistreatment under Saddam couldn’t care less what American politicians and media spokesmen say, not could the Sunnis who are resorting to violence to avoid being dominated by the Shia. The war was lost because of the copious displays of incompetence we have demonstrated following the invasion. Blaming the media is like having your team down 45-0 and blaming the scorekeeper for posting the score.
If we put two or three HUNDRED thousand for a period of twenty to thirty years, I believe we would prevail at a cost of probably less than six trillion dollars. Anything less just postpones the chaos that follows our withdrawal.
OK, how many of you have been to Iraq? I’m here now, with the military…..not one day goes by, that both, Sunnis, and Shia tell me things where better under Sadam than they are now.
What I see day to day, is an administration that refused to listen to the people with the know-how. Why do you think Powell quit after the first term. He told them what would happen, and Rummy and George refused to listen. You cant fight a religious war, on the terms that we are trying to do it on.
Almost every one in position of authority I dill with here…..police, army, nat. guard….are all corrupt. They refuse to mix shia, and sunnies in a unit…every unit I dill wit is one or the other. Naturally they are going to be racist towards each other.
A week ago, Gates came to visit, and sat with solders in a very large charade…any one of you that thinks those solders talk what was on there mine, need never vote again. That hole show was rehearsed. And to top that off, those where support people, who don’t go out and fight the insurgents. A hard day for them, is when the internet goes down.
I’ve been here 6 months, lost one solder, and sent 6 more home with injuries. 3 of witch, will never walk, or see out of one eye again.
I am a disgruntled employ. Right now we are fighting on rules as to not offend any on at home. The rules need to change, and let us do what we do best. We can stop the violence, but a lot of people will die, and it won’t be Americans. But we won’t do that. Some bleeding heart might get offended, because a school, hospital, or religious center was destroyed because its used to store weapons, and house insurgents. The use these places because they know we damage them, some American would tell we are bad for doing that.
Don’t believe most of what the government tells you, (hi, I’m from the government, where here to help……) and dames sure don’t believe the press.
Well, Patrick, we appreciate your service, God knows, but I’m not sure what your point is – in my view, the ‘surge’ is all about taking the fight to the militias, which seems to be something you’d agree we need to do…
Actuall no, a surge wouldnt help any thing…..they wont let us do what is needed, so we will just have a bunch of extra troops doing nothing as we are now.
Well, I hope you’re wrong – my support for the ‘surge’ is predicated on a willingness to take on Sadr’s militias…
What Patrick is saying is we don’t need no stinking surge. We need to unsheath our swords. Note the routing the Somali Islamofascists are taking at the hands of a 3rd world military. We could’a done twice as well with even 1/2 the forces, if and only if the military can fight w/o regards to nuanced political considerations.
If our legislators would only say; we want the region pacified in 3 months and we understand there will be abuses and excesses which we will deal with after the fact. For now concentrate on routing the insurgency. It’d be done.
Of course stuff like Haditha would happen, but on the whole, is even a 5% bad apple rate of 100K soldiers really that bad?
Here’s a thot exercise. Rewind back to the fall of Bagdad and word came down, impose martial law, tamp out any insurgency. If in doubt, shoot first, ask questions later.
Let’s say 5K soldiers overreacted or whatever and on average causing 10 collateral casualities.
That’ll be 50K Iraqis that were ‘victimized’ at US hands, but Iraq ‘d be pacified and the 5K soldiers can look forward to their day in court. The upside is we wouldn’t be looking at 3K dead US soldiers and thousands more maimed. Now the rebuilding can start in earnest and any would be insurgent knows there’s no point in hanging around. If the US don’t get him, the locals will. And this is all before 2004.
Pathetically, we’re so concerned about collateral damages and appearances, that we don’t mind sacrificing more Iraqis needlessly, as long as it didn’t happen directly at our hands. Political deniability trumps the actual consequences. Unfortunately, that might work at the upper strata inhabited by Jim Baker et al. To the man on Arab street, it doesn’t matter who pulled the trigger, it’s the US’s fault. So why piddle around with nuances and measured target plotting/strategizing by the politicals, when we can just do the job and get it over with ASAP. Then you’ll see the accolades from the masses in homage to the strong. Witness Somalia vis a vis Ethiopia.