Yes I was surprised to see this kind of article in the Times, but even they can run from the truth for only so long.
This article contains direct testimony from a Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch about the effectiveness of the surge strategy and the increasing cooperation of the local Iraqis. As stated at the end of the article, the fear of our commanders in Iraq is not whether we will win or lose but rather the threat that political fickleness in Washington poses to our troops. By demanding a change in policy according to weekend casualty numbers, Congress demonstrates that they can be intimidated into demanding retreat. Our generals fear a concentrated attack by the terrorists because Al Queda knows that if they can make the situation look worse than it is, they can repeat Vietnam: a pullout after victory.
Our politicians need to shut up and listen to actual military commanders, who are professionally capable of correctly evaluating combat situations, determing how many soldiers are necessary for a particular mission (ie securing a country), and whose end goal is complete victory. Those are the only people that should be making decisions. Not a bunch of suits with an agenda and an upcoming election year to worry about.
The effects of the outcome in Iraq are simple, two possible scenarios:
1) We retreat and lose: American credibility tanks, our military is demoralized, Iraq crumbles into a terrorist cesspool and becomes fodder for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey. Iran scores against the great satan. Republicans look really bad and lose the next election.
2) By some miracle, Congress cedes to reality, allows the surge to work, terrorists are routed out of Iraq by the already revolting population, and Iraqi army brigades and security forces permanently maintain control of previous Al Queda redoubts, allowing American forces to be drawn down without creating a vacuum. This is the picture of victory. When a secure nation is coupled with political gains and compromises, a free Iraq becomes possible. Ideally, this would begin to occur next spring and into the summer, painting a successful future for Iraq and spurring Republicans to victory in the fall elections because the Democrats were revealed to be the cheerleaders of American defeat that they are.
Peter Brookes sums it up well here:
So, let me get this right: Al Qaeda’s reaching into the United Kingdom, centering us in the crosshairs, reconstituting in Pakistan, and fighting us tooth and nail in Iraq — and some in Congress are sounding the trumpet for retreat?
Yup, pretty much.
4 comments:
Isn't the premise of this entire arguement that the "surge" of troops (I put it in quotes because it's not like we really added that many troops) is somehow going to win the peace? I don't see how that possible. I don't really see how any number of US troops on the ground in Iraq could form a peace.
I agree that Washington ought not micromanage wars. But it is, in fact, the responsibility of government to make overarching policy about war. Ultimately, civilians send soldiers to combat. And thank God, we're not a military state. I think that's all pretty obvious.
I have no faith in our executive branch to make sound decisions anymore, but even without that bias, we do need to have some sort of cut off date where we look at what's happening on the ground and decide we have to try something completely new. The dramatics about what Iraq becomes after we leave are probably warranted, but lets face it, our foreign policy towards terrorism hasn't been terrific the last six years anyway. It's been a mixed bag of successes and failures. Frankly, the failures really stick out.
For every general you can find saying that they need more time, I can give you a general, retired or active, or an expert, or just an average American who disagrees.
I see it quite differently from you. Either we bring troops home now and all hell breaks loose or we leave them there to die another five years before withdrawing and all hell breaks loose.
We just need to re angle how we're approaching this broader war. Because we're not doing as well as we ought to be, by any stretch.
James, I relished reading your comment, as it is the first counter to my posts :)
And I disagree with you on several points, of course, but the first of which is your statement that you see it differently then me. I really think we are on the same page in some respects. At least, there are some things that we (and all rational Americans) should agree on.
Those being: You call for a new strategy. This is the same call that was made last year, and rightly so. This new strategy was announced by Bush in January (a mistake, we should have announced it when the troops were there. telegraphing strategic moves is stupid). The strategy is a surge of 30k troops, not a huge number, but what do we know, maybe it's enough. This new strategy should not be evaluated completely until it is allowed to follow its course. It would be like ordering a charge and then a retreat 30 seconds into it because a couple guys got shot.
Ok so first point: Allow the new strategy to follow through before throwing up our hands (ie wait to here the generals report to Congress in September)
Second point: an American failure in Iraq would have disastrous consequences. You mention our lackluster performance as far as "foreign policy towards terrorism" (also called the War on Terror) and I can agree, it has been prosecuted poorly. The things we are finally beginning to accomplish in Iraq should have occurred years ago. But the fact is this: Al Queda realizes the front is in Iraq and is acting accordingly by fighting to the death and taking Iraq very seriously. Defeating terrorism is vital to our security, and this can be and is being accomplished in Iraq.
So on to where we disagree:
-find all the disagreement you want, we do not make policy on the viewpoints of retired generals commenting from the comfort of their Colorado ranch, or from the opinion of an average Joe. We make policy off of solid reccomendations from commanders in the field, fighting the war. That is the only opinion that matters. When Gen. Petraeus says we need 50k more men and 6 more months, or we need to be in Iraq with 100k troops for another 3 years to ensure stability, then we had better do it. The sentiments of Democrats with an election in mind should be ignored, and we should do what is best for America's national security and that is simple: WIN in Iraq.
-your second to last paragraph assumes that our troops are sitting around waiting to be blown up. But the opposite is true: they are routing the enemy, winning the support of the local populace (who is turning on Al Queda extremists they formerly supported), and steadily working towards completing their assigned mission. To pull out would be to yet again demonstrate American betrayal like we did to Iraqis in the past. The result would be similar to Vietnam: slaughter, genocide, chaos.
-why re-angle the broader war? I imagine you support a "redeployment" of troops to Afghanistan where the real threat is. That idea could not be further from the truth: terrorists are abounding in Iraq and that is where we need to make our stand. To surrender that country (the result of premature withdrawal) would hand Al Queda a much needed psychological and military victory. It would create far worse problems then we are currently dealing with.
Nothing is acceptable short of victory. Our military is the finest history has ever seen, and can win decisive victories if it is under proper leadership and allowed to do its job without interference. The president has made the leadership adjustments, heeded the requests for more troops, and we are poised to win with the support of the people. So let them win.
Jon,
I see your points but I think you read more into my comments than you ought.
Sure, lets let the strategy run it's course. But by September, if we can't see whether it's working, making it worse, or doing nothing, than it's taking too long for my tastes.
We make policy by a democratic process. Retired generals are one source of authoritative military strategy, but clearly we should listen to many other people (and to ourselves). The opinions of the commanders in the field IS NOT the only opinion that matters. The opinions of the entire country matter. If through our democratic process we decide to pull out of Iraq, General Petraeus better damn well do his best to bring us home or we would relieve him of his duties. And that's the way it ought to be.
I made no comparisons to Vietnam and I absolutely do not believe they're sitting around being canon fodder. I just don't think that the troops are capable of winning the peace.
Yes we have the greatest military ever known to man. But that doesn't mean that it's equipped to solve every problem the world throws at us. It doesn't mean that there are good solutions to every problem the world throws at us. And a betrayal to the Iraqi's? I'm not so sure. We've spent four hundred billion dollars and cost us unfathomable intellectual energy and of course the lives and health of many of our soldiers. We need to know when to cut our losses. If we don't know when to retreat, we're sure to fail because of our lack of judgment.
I would like to finish the job in Afghanistan. Part of the reason is because I think Afghanistan is a place where we can actually win the peace using the military.
Actually, I'd like to see us spend less time talking about the war on terror and more time on other issues. I think terrorism is very serious business, but I think it takes up 70% of our political time when it deserve more like 30%.
Nothing is acceptable short of victory? What kind of statement is that? At what cost do we win? And furthermore, how the hell do we win? Nobody has provided a good answer yet. The surge doesn't look promising. If I was a policy maker, I'd be saying "In the September report, I just want to see a bit of progress, I want to be able to see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel". If there is no light, then why waste our time any longer?
Oh and Iraq's government should not be on recess this summer. That is unprecedented bullshit.
I don't think the military should have a blank political, social, or military check whenever they want it. That seems to be your position. There's a difference between not micro-managing, which we clearly learned is a bad idea in Vietnam, and choosing how to deploy the military in our countries best interest.
For every time you blog about the war on terrorism, I dare you to blog 10 times as often about literacy and education, healthcare, legal liability, other foreign policy issues, disease in the developing world, trade policy, immigration, racism and other inequality, federalism, and all the other hot button and otherwise extremely important issues facing our country. Put terrorism in it's place in the context of what our social priorities ought to be.
Alright, I dont have time to address everything there but I want to leave something.
First on the Democratic process. The people elect the President, who in turn commands the military, at the consent of Congress and general approval of the people. But in wartime (now) the President makes the call, with reccomendations from field commanders in mind, not the whims of armchair pundits. Doesn't the idea of a WWII era general opining about what should be done in a theatre in which he has never served scare you?? And then the idea of following that opinion? Ridiculous.
I made the comparison to Vietnam. We had victory in our hands (the peace treaty was signed) until a Democrat Congress forced total withdrawal and cut off all support to south Vietnam and the result was a bloody absorption of that fledgling nation into communism. The same will happen in Iraq: the lack of US troops will create a vacuum that will be filled. The only debate is about who will fill it: Al Queda or Iran...
I think you need to read further into the issue. From everything I have read (at least an intelligent perspective from someone who has been there) the situation on the ground in Iraq is improving steadily, with our troops making great strides. To ignore that and "cut our losses" would be the real folly.
And we WILL betray the Iraqis if we leave a vacuum into which chaos will reign. Nothing we have done to date will matter if we do not leave that country in stable condition with a well-trained army and security force in place.
I find your repulsion of victory incredible, why else would we fight a war?
The peace in Iraq is able to be achieved using the military and improvements have already been made with the surge.
No the military does not get a blank check. The check has been filled out: seek out and kill Al Queda, establish a stable, sovereign country in Iraq, don't quit until this is accomplished. Seems straightforward to me, and it is that simple: the terrorists are in Iraq, so our troops need to be there to combat them.
THAT is in our countries best interests. Or should we leave Iraq, go to the worthless caves of Afghanistan, and run from where Al Queda is to where it was? Where's the logic in that?
Other way around: 70% terror, 30% everything else. What does literacy matter if a car bomb goes off outside the school?
Terrorism is the preeminent foreign policy issue and is a direct threat to our very way of life. Have you not read about the attacks in Britain? There have been numerous attempts to strike at Americans even, and you want to discuss trade?
I have put terrorism where it belongs in our list of social priorities: on the top. Our enemies have dedicated their very lives to killing us, and we want to treat it like a minor annoyance. With that approach we are doomed to failure.
I dont want this blog to be purely about Iraq, but that is what Congress is moaning about right now and it is going to be the largest issue in the elections next year. How Congressmen and candidates deal with Iraq is indicative of how they will deal with all threats, and foreign policy issues.
by the way we're due for some drinks. sansforeignpolicy drinks ;)
Post a Comment