Forcing The Issue In Iraq May Have Made Things Worse
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On Terrorism, WarI think there are a couple things that are pretty obvious about the aftermath of the Iraq war. One being we didn’t have nearly enough troops to secure the peace. That’s obvious. Another being the fact that Iraqis aren’t ready to handle their own security. And we’ve been rushing it. And it’s now backfiring…big time.
From the NY Times:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 5 � Over the past year, as American commanders pushed Iraqi forces to take over responsibility for this violent capital, Baghdad became a markedly more dangerous place.Now the Americans are being forced to call in more of their own troops to bring the city under control.
The failure of the Iraqis to halt the slide into chaos in Baghdad undercuts the central premise of the American project here: that Iraqi forces can be trained and equipped to secure their own country, allowing the Americans to go home.
And then we have amazing statements like this from our people over there:
“I don’t think we moved too quickly,� General Caldwell said of putting the Iraqis in charge of Baghdad. “I don’t think anyone could have anticipated the sectarian violence.�
He doesn’t think anyone could have anticipated? Well, excuse me but do these people understand Iraqi’s history? We were talking on this blog at the beginning of the year about civil war. For all intents and purporse, these sectarian tensions have existed for as long as Iraq has existed and I’m frankly very tired of hearing things like “I don’t think anyone could have antcipated ________.”
People did anticipate, they warned the administration and they were ignored. And that’s why securing the peace has been so unsuccessful.
Let’s hope this latest infusion of troops will bring about a more realistic view of what it’s going to take to make Iraq a safer place for it citizens. And for their sake, let’s hope it’s not too late.
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 5th, 2006 and is filed under The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 5th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Honestly, Justin, you fling “this could happens” like panamanian monkeys fling poo.
It’s just typical I’m-the-smartest-guy-in-the-room bullshit, to be expected from your average Donk…because they’re always the smartest guy in the room, on every topic (just ask them!)
You fling enough different “it could happens” around, and soon enough, one of them is bound to be right.
So lets hear your “this is what’s GOING to happen”, no bullshit, Mr. Prescient.
And then after that, Mr. Smartypants, let’s hear what you’d do differently.
Great, more troops. Hell, I can agree with that…and have for some time. But what kind of troops? Marines? Army MPs? Civil Affairs? Infantry? Armored Cav? How many? And where do you put them? In Baghdad? The provinces? Which ones? How many? Do we have that many? Active duty? Do we have that many active? If so, do we dare deploy them all? If not, how many? Call up Reserves/Guard? If so, how long to deploy? Train new ones? Great, how many? You don’t just make whole new units from the ground up, they need to be trained and then grown, or else you end up with a bunch of Privates and 2nd Lieutenants, which are good for shit.
So let’s hear your answers. Concrete answers, none of that pansy “this could…” bullshit.
August 5th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Oh Snap!
August 5th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
The flawed planning and execution of the Iraq war has resulted in thousands of US and Iraqi deaths. Think back to Vietnam; over half the names on the wall were added after we knew the war could not be won. Failure in Iraq can not be avoided and we should not sacrifice any more lives on fool’s errand.
August 5th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
when a hurricaine passes through a city, American protocol is to split people up into groups of nine. each group elects a leader who provides security and represents his group politically. That whole town needs to be treated like a hurricaine just passed over. it probably looks the part anyway. all automobiles have to be confiscated if not removed immediately. Communication needs to be cut and the city surrounded and isolated. everyone needs to be searched and block by block secured and reorganized. if it is done in a rapid, grassroots way it will work. Also, foreigners need to be brought in by the busload. africans, asians, caucasians, the whole gamut so that locals are outnumbered by ‘outsiders’. this will have the effect of ‘new yorkifying’ the city, making racism and religious prejudice among the locals less possible. finally, certain names give away if someone is a shiite or sunni. names must be changed so that roadblocks cannot be used to murder people with a flash of id. One in 9 speak for the rest, one in 9 has a weapon. the leaders form groups of nine until a proper chain of command is established with total control from the top. then command passes to the interim government and the infrastructure in place becomes legislative and becomes federalized like washington DC. that way, when someone needs representation, they can tell someone close that they elected. someone they know and trust from next door. ideas get passed up and the better ones make life liveable again. I call this ‘collaborative politics’.
August 5th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Lonely Federalist,
Before I start in earnest, leave the name calling at home. It’s ridiculous and not welcome here. Sorry my post angered you, but you can deal with it in a much more adult way than that comment.
I have consistently said on this blog and on the radio show Subject2Discussion that I think we need to send more troops into Iraq and secure the peace. I’m not in the military, but it seems to me that our military leaders have been consistently saying to the Administration, “We need more troops,” and then backing down when Washington says, “Hey, shut up about the more troops thing.”
Also, I’ve never been for a timetable because it doesn’t make any sense. I know most of my fellow Dems think we should pull out now, but I completely disagree. More troops are the answer and have always been the answer. And yes, I think in order for things to calm down, we’ll have to be in there a better part of a decade. But as Powell said, we broke it.
So to answer your questions, let’s start with some numbers. These are as accurate as I can find.
Total active duty military personnel: 1,400,000
Total active Army: 500,000
Total active Marines: 180,000
Total military personnel in Iraq: 263,000
Obviously, securing the peace is being fought by Army and Marines, so I’m going to stick with those two groups instead of your subsets.
To my mind, it’s obvious we need forces of closer to 400,000 in Iraq. That’s more than half of our Army and Marines. I know, impossible you say. Well, forgive me if I think that many of our bases around the world could work just fine with a skeleton crew for the time being. I also completely disagree with you about the new recruits bring worthless. How else did we win World Wars? They should be good enough to win this one too. We have plenty of money to incentivize more recruits. We just have to offer more money, more bonuses, etc. These promises I’ve heard of 4K to re-enlist…that’s ridiculous. Promise these people real healthcare for the rest of their lives and 10K, and then you’ll see the re-enlistment numbers go up. And we’ve got the money to do it.
But, of course, it’s not that easy. We didn’t make enough armor and we don’t have enough vehicles. So we siphon off money for the super high-tech stuff from the monstrous defense budget to make more sensible weaponry for a ground war. That means we forget Rumsfeld innane notion that these wars are going to be shorter and faster, and we instead accept the reality that people are still going to have to secure the peace in these tinderboxes, and they’re going to need the same stuff they’ve always needed in every war since the beginning of time: food, shelter, protection, weapons and ammo. And lots of it.
Where should they go? Well, Baghdad needs more additional troops than 7,000. We need double that, at least.
Where else should they go? More troop support all around to the worst regions, but with these numbers we’ll also be able to truly secure the borders around Iraq so fewer foreign fighters and munitions can get in. That’s one of the biggest problems right now, and we’re not doing enough to stop it.
Will this take some time? Yes. Will more American lives be lost in Iraq? Yes. But I suspect that if we keep going in this direction, we’ll not only show the Iraqi people that we stick it out, come hell or high water. And we do it in a way that doesn’t threaten their sovereignty.
So onto the “Here’s what’s gonna happen” part.
1) We’re not going to committ enough troops because it’s seen as political poison. So while things may get better in Baghdad, the insurgents will spread out into the other bad spots and make those worse. Then what’ll happen? The troops who went to Baghdad will spread out to those places because Baghdad has gotten a little better and then the insurgents will flood back into Baghdad.
2) There will be ever increasing tensions about the oil revenue in Iraq and how it will be split among the three factions. This will lead to the religious power brokers in Iraq creating more sectarian violence and eventually you will have a full fledged civil war that the US must escape from. There will be no quelling it.
3) Eventually the civil war will stop, but Iraq will not be divided into threes. However, the country’s politics will be run by one party. In other words, this will not be a democracy, since the Shi’ite are the overwhelming majority in the country. Their policy and views will shape the future of the country and the Sunnis will never regain any type of majority status in the country’s politics. Saddam ruined it for him. Given this majority status, the Shi’ite parts of the country will be built up with the oil revenues, while Sunni parts are ignored.
Is this enough or would you like more?
August 5th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Hi,
I can’t believe you are crowing for more troops after
three years! Do you really think an influx of
400,000 troops would not be viewed as a threat
to Iraqi sovereignty? And, even if you did manage
to make the country secure, how are you going to
change the fact the the United States invasion has
handed Iraq to the majority Shi’ites and their allies
in Iran. As you say, they are the largest group, and
with or without 400,000 troops they WILL control
Iraq.
In reality, attempting to bring so-called democracy
to middle eastern states, plays right into the hands
of Islamic militants, and their political parties. Often,
the common people in those states vote on mass for
whoever their religious leaders want them to vote.
This is the reality.
Unfortunately, U.S., neo-conservative policies has
made the West so unpopular, that the Arab and
Islamic people will do anything but vote for west leaning
politicians. In reality, Saddam Hussein was the best
ally the West had against Islamic fundamentalisim.
He was the barrier between the Iranians and the
Shi’ite religious leaders in Iraq. Now, Iraq is a hot bed
of militant fundamentalism — thank you George Bush!
Thank you for nothing!
In reality, if the U.S. had stuck with Afghanistan, and
spent some of the billions it’s wasted in Iraq, then today,
Afghanistan might be a shining example of success.
Imagine what could have been done there with only a
quarter of the money wasted in Iraq! How many American
soldiers must die before Bush and his advisors realize
this is the most disastrous and stupid war in the past
100 years. President Bush should have listened to his
father, and kept his nose out of Iraq, in the first place.
All the best,
Laurie
August 5th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
What are the Las Vegas odds for reimposing the millitary draft in 2007? Do I hear the sound of tiny feet scurrying to Toronto or Stockholm? Is the next big boom you hear that of the Isralis dropping the Big One on Iraq? What will your dollar buy when China stops buying our debt bonds for a few months? Will Ann Coulter be the next Secretary of Defense? Argh! Let’s stop the bullshit and get on to what really matters. Mel Gibson nailed to his own cross! Peace, paix, pax, paz r.h.davignon
August 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
@Laurie
Yes, you nailed it. Refreshing to hear that said, we’ve been thinking all this from the beginning haven’t we?
This is the problem with Iraq: the real solution was never going there, and we all knew that – but now all these hard “realists” will call us wimps for not coming up with solutions to the tar baby THEY picked up.
Sad. What foolish Americans we’ve been, and how we will pay the price for this over the next 30 years.
We are seeing the eclipse of America, and we’ve been dumb enough to stand in our own light and show the whole world the shrinking limits of our power, even before we really knew it ourselves. The sooner we get with our own humility the sooner we can become strong again.
Ross
August 6th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Listen all, I never thought we should go in there either. You all are new, so I figure I should make sure you know that. I was against the invasion for many different reasons, not the least of which is I didn’t think they made the case for war given the WMD argument. Sure, Saddam was a muderous bastard and I don’t know of anybody who didn’t think so be they Dem or Repub, but was this the right time to go in? For me, the answer is no.
But here’s my dilemma, now that we’re there I really think we have to have the troops to make sure Iraq is safe, and right now the troop level is simply not enough. And let’s be honest, we owe it to the Iraqi people to make sure their country doesn’t get any worse. And I don’t buy that violence is going to be diminished if we leave, and I think this story is at least an indication that this prediction could be horribly correct. Listen, I could be wrong, but logically it doesn’t make sense for us to pull out now. We’re too frightened by the spectre of Vietnam, and not resolute enough to realize that a smarter war can be fought if we commit to it.
Thanks for reading everybody.
August 6th, 2006 at 2:46 am
The Coalition of The Willing invaded Iraq looking for WMD. Then (2003) none was found. Now, the Iraqi invented one of their own WMD (War of Moslems Divided). Shiites killing Sunnis. What is left of the Coalition has to send in more troops to prevent this latest WMD blowing up in their face.
August 6th, 2006 at 3:47 am
First a little History:
The Hashemite royal family is interwoven into the life of Jordan, having established the modern state in 1921. It is impossible, therefore, to understand the fabric of Jordan’s modern history without some knowledge of the royal family. The Hashemites, or “Bani Hashem,� are descendants of the Arab chieftain Quraysh, a descendant of the Prophet Ismail, himself the son of the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham). Quraysh first came to the holy city of Mecca during the second century CE. The first generation of Quraysh to rule the city came six generations later, when Qusayy bin Kilab ascended to the leadership of Mecca in the year 480 CE. The name “Hashem� is actually that of Qusayy’s grandson, who was the great-grandfather of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Hashemites are thus the direct descendants of the Prophet through his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali bin Abi Talib, who was also the Prophet’s paternal first cousin and the fourth caliph of Islam.Ali and Fatima had two sons: Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein. The direct descendants of their eldest son, Hassan, are known as “Sharifs� (nobles), while the descendants of Hussein are called “Sayyids� (lords). The royal family of Jordan, the Hashemites, is descended through the Sharifian branch of lineage.Various Sharifian families ruled over the Hijaz region in Western Arabia between 967 and 1201 CE. Moreover, King Hussein’s branch of the Hashemite family ruled the holy city of Mecca from 1201 CE until 1925 CE, although they recognized the sovereignty of the Ottoman sultan in 1517. This makes King Hussein the head of the Hashemite family which, in addition to being directly descended from the Prophet, also represents over one thousand years of rule in the area, and almost two thousand years of recorded presence in the holy city of Mecca.
During the Great Arab Revolt of 1916, King Hussein’s great-grandfather, Al-Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca and King of the Arabs (later he also became known as King of the Hijaz),(Alec Guiness part in Lawrence of Arabia, the Movie) led the liberation of Arab lands from their domination by the Ottoman Turks. After freeing the lands of Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Syria and the Hijaz, Sharif Hussein’s son Abdullah assumed the throne of Transjordan and his second son Faisal assumed the throne of Syria and later Iraq. The Emirate of Transjordan was founded on April 11, 1921, and became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan upon formal independence from Britain in 1946.During his thirty-year reign, King Abdullah presided over the forging of a viable and durable state out of a tribal, nomadic society. He developed the institutional foundations of modern Jordan, establishing democratic legitimacy by promulgating Jordan’s first Organic Law in 1928 (the basis for today’s Constitution), and holding elections for its first assembly in 1929. While guiding Jordan’s development into a modern state, King Abdullah negotiated a series of treaties with Britain which earned increasing freedom for Jordan. King Abdullah achieved full independence from Britain on May 25, 1946. After successfully defending Arab East Jerusalem and the “West Bankâ€Â? during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, King Abdullah regularly traveled to al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem to participate in the Friday prayers. On July 20, 1951, King Abdullah was assassinated by a lone gunman while attending the Friday prayers there with his grandson Hussein, who was saved from a bullet by a medal his grandfather had recently awarded him.After King Abdullah’s martyrdom, King Talal, his eldest son, ruled for a brief period. Due to King Talal’s illness, his eldest son, Hussein, was proclaimed King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on August 11, 1952. He assumed his constitutional powers on May 2, 1953, after reaching the age of eighteen according to the Muslim calendar. The passing away of His Majesty King Hussein on February 7, 1999 marks the end of an era in Jordan’s history. While the country, and indeed much of the world, mourns the death of King Hussein, Jordanians look with optimism and pride to a future under the reign of King Abdullah, eldest son of the late King Hussein and current bearer of the Hashemite torch.
My thinking is now to help foster a broad solution to both the Iraqi question and the Isreali/Palestinian question and now the problems of Palestine is a bold new approach in thinking.As you can see the current Royal Family of Jordan and the former Royal Family of Iraq are from the same family.I suggest that the Arab world join behind a solution that envisions the merging of Iraq, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, the Golan Heights and Lebanon into one new Kingdom of Jordan.Before you dismiss the idea out of hand consider:Jordan would be a democratic constitutional monarchy. Israel works well with Jordan and King Abdullah II. Jordan under King Abdullah is a secular country. All countries and areas mentioned above would get to vote on the idea.
The New Jordan would have a population of 40 million plus. The Purchasing Power Parity GNP of the combined countries would be $147 Billion in it’s current condition. If the idea brings long term peace oil production could climb from 2.3 million barrels a day to 5 million over perhaps a decade. King Abdullah II’s ancestors could be a common bond between all the factions. Consider a 360 member Majlis Watari or House of Representatives for the New Jordan. Election would be by universal sufferage.It would have the following breakdown by population:
Iraq 243
Jordan 54
Lebanon 35
Palestine 28
And by religion:
Sunni 130
Shia 160
Sunni/Kurds 45
Christian 25
The Majlis al-Ayan or Senate would have 120 members appointed by the King for 10 years then elections from the 40 districts.or States, 3 from each.
What does Iraq get? A neutral head of state with impeccable Islamic credentials and lineage. A combined Jordanian and Arab peacekeeping force and the US coalition gone. The Iraqi Sunnis get a more balanced population percentage with Shias. The Iraqi Shias get peace, a guarantee of religious freedom and continued political clout. The Kurds also get peace, a guarantee of religious freedom and continued political say. They all get the US and coalition forces out.
Jordan gets oil revenue, much greater political clout in the Middle East and the World and the capital at Amman.
Lebanon gets the political and military might to disarm Hezbollah, returned economic stability in a much expanded economic country and counter balance from the threat of Syria. It also gets secular head of state with freedom for Shias and Christians alike.
Palestine gets peace with Israel under the protection of Jordan.
For peace Israel gives up land claims back to 1967 borders and Palestine gives up land rights before 1967. Israel grants unlimited access to Muslim holy sites in Jerusulem Jordan builds 20 mile underground electric rail line from West Bank to Gaza using cut and bury technique.
Hamas and Hezbollah become political parties in New Jordan and give up claim to destroy Israel. Palestine is now part of a much larger oil rich nation. It can begin to rebuild and move on.
Saudi Arabia gets peace on northern border, stable and much improved buffer between it and Iran.
Syria gives up Golan Heights but not to Israel and has buffer between it and Israel. Syria looks good in eyes of Arab world for allowing peace.
Turkey is glad Kurds are not independent.
Israel gets Jordan and it’s secular King as only neighbor in the West and North and the politcal entity that it deals with in peace negotiations. Long term peace possible for first time in it’s history.
Middle East gets a true oil rich democratic secular country.
So consider a Bagdad Jordan, a Beruit Jordan, a Mosul Jordan, a Ramalah Jordan. A peaceful Israel.
Or 135,000 US troops off to Afghanistan where they should have gone in the first place. Just a pragmatic solution that will never get a hearing.
My idea is based upon some basic assumptions.
Iraq is currently 60% Shia, 20% Sunni and 20% Kurd. Although Kurds are also Sunni it was the Sunni under Saddam who inflicted so much pain on Kurds. However, ALL of the oil is in Shia and Kurdish territory. If Iraq breaks up in civil war Sunnis get sand to pound. No oil revenue. They are also a minority and out of power. All sides don’t trust the other to govern fairly and to divide economic and political benefits fairly.
In the early 1920s Iraq elected a king by a margin of 95%. He was actually from Saudi Arabia and brother to the King elected in Jordan. The people of Jordan also elected a Saudi Arabian King. Abdullah II is his great grandson. Both royal houses were direct descendants of the Prophet.
By joining Jordan Iraqs Sunnis get a greater percentage of the whole. Jordan’s King is a Sunni. He is however a secular King. But he has dealt firmly and some would say harshly with insurgance in his own country. His leadership and mediating manner both within his country, the Arab World and with Israel are universally recognized.
The Shia’a of Iraq have close religious ties to Iran. However they are Arabs and the Iranians are Persian. A big difference in that part of the world. I think that they just want peace and to be allowed to have influence in their political and economic lives based upon their numbers and the fact that the oil lies in their sector and the shipping point is their major city.
Combine this with the fact that by also combining with Palestine this could go a long long way towards diffusing tensions in this area. Jordan alone does not have the economic werewithall to revive Palestine on it’s own.
By the same token, Israel has had little luck in negotiating with first the PLO and then Hamas over the years but I think that they could deal well with King Abdullah to find solutions to many of the current problems.
A Greater Jordan offers the means to finally make substantial economic improvements in the lives of Palestians. Also in the lives of Jordanians, Iraqi’s (Sunni , Kurd and Shia alike)
I originally said that Jordan would do it for the oil…but I think that in the end….the King would consider doing it just because it is the right thing to do. The oil revenue just makes it possible.
Some might remember when Egypt and Syria combined to form the United Arab Republic. Although it did not succeed it was that kind of thinking that again might be needed for long lasting peace in the Middle East.
August 6th, 2006 at 8:25 am
This will go down as the mistake of century and I am a Republican. The sad reality is this was Sadam’s worse nightmare and $1.4 trillion, 1000s of Iraqi lives and worse 2500 brave soldier lives later it is ours. What a mistake. I lived through Vietnam and this repeat and the moron in the White House lived through the same war, only he avoided serving (maybe that is the issue on this war). It is time to get out now. point. Let the Iraqis take over now they are better killers than us and are motivated because the difference it is there country. Our soldiers are low payed contractors who are paid to protect the high paid contractors from halliburton they are now seeing the reality, this war is outsourced like our jobs to China. What the morons don’t realize is that the US public is fed up with and we will be out by 2008 elections no matter what. Either the Republicans must move before the election and get out or they will loose the election like no other and Hillary will get us out. The nightmare needs to end now.
August 6th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Laurie nailed it. I’d vote for her in a heartbeat!
Like Steve LA I too was a Republican, but broke with them 10 years or so ago. I think Iraq will go down in history as the biggest strategic foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.
Having said that, I think that we either need to put enough troops in there to secure the country or get out. I really think Bush is playing politics now, knowing that beefing up the troop levels would result in increased casualties, which would bode ill for the November elections.
August 6th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
In addition to being insulting, Lonerly Federalist’s post is ridiculous. Where is it written that the only those with an in-depth knowledge of military logistics are allowed to offer an opinion about our presence in Iraq? It’s perfectly legitimate to voice the opinion that we need more troops in Iraq without detailing which division should be sent and how they’ll be supplied. As we have seen from Rumsfeld’s performance, you can have all of that information at your fingertips and still screw the pooch.
Which brings us to a larger issue: the demand that the Democrats present a “plan.” You know what? The Democrats didn’t get us into this mess. The Republicans pride themselves on operating with corporate efficiency. In what corporation would a CEO be able to completely screw up product development, destroy the stock price and demoralize the workforce, but be allowed to keep his job because know one else can present a plan that magically cures all of his screwups? The reason the Democrats don’t have a plan is because Bush has created a situation with no acceptable way out. Send more troops, stay the course, set a timetable, withdraw immediately; all of these approaches can be criticized. But the fact remains that it’s the Republicans who got us here, the Republicans who don’t have a plan, and the Republicans who have to step aside and let someone else do their best to clean up the mess.
August 6th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
@Justin
The unthinkable is being thrown on the table here: we’re losing in the Middle East, we never could win, but this wasn’t clear even to nations like Iran until we showed it so graphically. No matter what botched compromises we stitch together in Iraq, under it all we’re losing.
One soldier in Iraq asked about civil war came back with how hard it is to contemplate the possibility of losing the country because as America we’ve never really lost anything, we don’t lose, that’s not who we are, etc.
This belief, I submit is inaccurate – wrong – and will get us in big trouble until we drop it. We lost Vietnam, and still didn’t learn the lesson, which is that some things in this world are bigger even than us. And it’s very important to know which battles we can win and which we cannot.
I mourned to see us reveal our shape by invading Iraq – this is unforgivable in war. We had a certain battle mystique, partly earned and partly inherited from the fortuitous melting away of the enemy (before both our soldiers and those of the warlords) in Afghanistan. But we showed the limits of our power to every general in the world.
As Laurie said so well, we could have thrown all our true American greatness at Afghanistan, and won the war globally for the hearts and minds of the Islamist world – creating a fortress democracy in the Caucasus, perhaps secular, perhaps republican, perhaps even with sovereignty vested in the people, but almost inevitably friendly to the West.
In fact we could have responded to 9/11 with our greatness and thrown ourselves into the cause of world peace – and fair and final borders between Israel and Palestine. Instead we fell into this mean-spirited manifestation of cowardice that characterizes all the tightening and domestic spying and the covering up of mediocrity – not to mention, I suppose, the business-as-usual for Texas oil money, while the soldiers are dying.
And if all this seems like a distraction from the main point of civil war in Iraq, I have to say that it’s Iraq itself that is the distraction from the real issues that came to face us this century. And these are some of those real issues, and they remain to be addressed, Iraq is just an American-made tragedy obscuring this.
The point is we are losing, we lost before we started, we threw away our power, and no amount of hardball can get it back. Haven’t these people studied Sun Tsu?
I have read that there is a Chinese saying: sometimes, when you lose your face down a well, all you can do is dive in after it.
Well, we have to pay. America must become humble, sooner or later, one way or another. We have lost our great virtue, and we have to reunite with the ground floor in order to build ourselves back up. We have to start understanding this world we live in, and stop being so parochial. If we don’t do this voluntarily, life will do it to us, as is happening now.
If not Iraq, somewhere else. If not at home, then abroad. If not today, tomorrow. Hold back the floodwaters election by election, but eventually America will run out of cards to play at home and abroad, and we will have to face our destiny. It begins with humility, and we can start by admitting we don’t have a clue what we’re doing right now.
As for staying in Iraq, if you want my answer, I say cut losses now, let the inevitable new power balance happen, get out as humanely to the innocents as we can. If we admit our incompetence to handle the situation we can bring in the UN with a mandate from the world to save innocent lives and force the changes to happen slowly. Any other course is further denial, and further massacre of the innocents.
August 6th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Justin how do you think more troops will help? I agree that for the first year to year and a half they would have been essential and we might have been in a completely different situation today. I base this mostly on the CIA report that came out a few months before the war warning that Iraq would fall into civil war unless we had an enormous troop presence for many years — and the assessment that the political will to do this wasn’t there so we shouldn’t invade. This paralleled the original Army plan to have 500,000 troops for invasion/post-invasion stage and up to 250,000 troops for at least 5 years. Of course Rumsfeld convinced Bush this was absurd and it led to the isolation of Gen. Shinseki (then Army Chief of Staff) until his retirement a few months into the Iraq War.
Anyway, the problem as I see it is that for a while after the invasion was over, the bulk of insurgent violence was either committed by Baathists or islamic terrorists. The general wisdom is that the Baathists focused mostly on US forces and the terrorists mostly on spreading strife by targeting civilians. In that atmosphere most of the perpertrators were isolated from society as a whole except in a few towns. This is when troops levels hurt us a lot. But now, from both media reports and when you read Iraqi bloggers, it’s very clear that the vast majority of violence is ethnic/religious tit-for-tat. The Shiite part of the government is mostly either Al-Sadr or Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (which I thought odd they don’t even hide their connection to Iran in the name) the Sunni part seems to have almost no influence over the Sunni death squads and the Kurdish part is interested in keeping Iraq together only so they can show how they are mature and become independent down the line when things fail — the New Republic had an interesting article about this.
I guess my question is how we can do anything when a large portion of the violence is being committed by militias that are controlled by people in the government and the government as a whole is a loose assortment of sectarian minded leaders. The best part of the government for unification is led by Allawi and he earned the nickname of Little Saddam when he was PM because of how he acted.
I agree that we owe it to the Iraqi people (and our status) to get things right, but I have yet to hear one honest answer on how this will happen. “When they stand up, we’ll stand down” or “we’ll send more troops to secure the country” makes no sense except in the concept of dealing with Al Qaeda — and they aren’t providing the bulk of the violence anymore. I am convinced that the problem facing Iraq no longer has a military solution.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:06 am
If we put in more troops we should throw out the bullshit democracy-in-Iraq meme of the neocons. Forget about democracy, if we have to put one more soldier in Iraq, we should declare that WE OWN IT (above ground and below ground), Iraq is no longer sovereign, but a U.S. territory. We should then commence to run it like we own it and move Gitmo to its logical location, Baghdad. We owe it to the Iraqis and to ourselves to either 1) leave or 2) stay and control it. There is so part-way, moderate ground that doesn’t continue to get our soldiers killed.
August 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
A followup question, Justin…
If we’re going to be doing all this army-raising and new-troop-makin’…then why are we doing this with Americans? If we can build brand new capable units from the ground up, why not do it with Iraqis instead, since that’s where we are going to be stationing them anyway?
September 17th, 2006 at 2:03 am
LF,
Well, that would certainly be nice, but I just don’t think that’s possible. And since we do have the troops around the world, isn’t this war important enough to commit them to it so we can truly win the peace? You saw those numbers. We can get more people in there.
Obviously, I don’t have firsthand knowledge of the realities on the ground, but if those numbers are real, we have the people available to make it happen.
So my question to you is…why aren’t we doing it?
September 17th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
“So my question to you is…why aren’t we doing it? “
The answer to that one is pretty simple. We aren’t, because we can’t
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002772.html
Also check out this link called “Where are the Legions? [SPQR] Global Deployments of US Forces�
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm
Don’t forget transit times to and from deployments if your going to add up whats available. It’s relatively easy to move people, but their equipment is a big bulky bureaucratic nightmare. As a general rule of thumb you need about three time the number you currently have in the field. 1/3 in the field, 1/3 returning from deployment and 1/3 deploying. You can’t just leave people on the front line for the duration. They are human beings not machines. Besides even machine wear out in the desert environment. It’s a pretty harsh place to do daily patrols in.