Monday, December 04, 2006
Where the hell are we going in Iraq? (Stand by for heavy weather, I'm going to dash this off as a stream of consciousness.)
I buddy of mine has a brother and sister-in-law in the Army. His brother just rotated back from Iraq and is now on his way to the DMZ in Korea. He volunteered for DMZ duty in order to avoid going back to Iraq.
Get that. He's volunteered to face down the little troll in Pyongyang, rather than go back to Iraq. He's really quite disgusted with the whole Iraq affair, indicating, among other things, more then a passing interest in citizenship of some country other than the USA.
He was embedded in an Iraqi unit and his evaluation of the Iraqis is less than stellar. Among other things, he learned very quickly that letting any Iraqi troop know the area of operations for a given patrol was a quick ticket to an ambush. The charitable evaluation was flaws in Iraqi communications security coupled with stellar insurgent electronic intelligence. The alternative was a unit flush with insurgent informers. when he was getting ready to rotate out, he evaluated his successor as someone too green to last. Sure enough, his successor was medevaced with a missing arm soon after he was left to his own devices.
This is not good. This officer is prior-enlisted, so we're not talking about the bitchings of a 90-day wonder. Among other things, I'm taking it as given that
- Morale *is* a serious problem
- The Iraqi army needs *a lot* of work
- We're pushing *green troops* into the battle.
The Democrat story so far has been get the hell out. The Republican story is hold the line. I think that if we do what the Democrats want we'll cement our reputation as being harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend (watch all the purple thumbs get cut off). On the other hand, the Republican position is not politically tenable.
I've been trying to figure out how we got to this point, and I've formed a theory.
Back in 2003, when all this started, the Army Chief of Staff was a certan General Shinseki. His solution to any American engagement was 500,000+ troops on the ground, and a clear set of goals. In other words, overwhelming force directed towards limited goals, or no force at all. Hence Kosovo, where we had almost nobody on the ground, and did all our work from USAF aircraft out of Aviano, Italy, flying above 12,000 feet.
Shinseki could feel happy doing this, given the "lessons" of Vietnam, as confirmed in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. And to hell with the Marsh Arabs.
I'm sure that when Runsfeld went to Shinseki for Operation Iraqi Freedom, he got the 500,000+ troops/limited goals story. This is why Shinseki quickly found himself out of a job (Rumsfeld did not attent Shinseki's retirement ceremony), and free to criticise from the sidelines.
I've often wondered why Rumsfeld was so sure he could succeed with such a small force. Matt Lauer recently put it all together for me.
If you'll recall, Matt Lauer recently announced that NBC would henceforth be calling the war in Iraq a civil war. NBC had examined the legal definition of civil war, and in its opinion Iraq was in a state of civil war.
That's not what struck me. What struck me was the press reaction, and especially the characterization of this as the "Walter Cronkite moment", harking back to the moment when Walter Cronkite declared the Vietnam was "unwinnable".
Thinking back on the Vietnam war, American involvement can roughly be divided into two phases. From 1965 to 1968 there was a buildup. From 1968 to 1972 there was a policy of "Vietnamization". (There was a final stage from 1972 to 1975 which involved a Democratic Congress refusing to provide material support to the Vietnamese in the field. This was followed by collapse, communist voctory, re-education camps, slaughter, boat people. But that all happened to brown, squinty-eyed people, and is therefore easily forgotten. But I digress.)
I'm convinvced that Rumsfeld decided that the best policy in Iraq was to avoid the buildup, and go straight to "Iraqification". What did he miss? I think he failed to appreciate the lidless gaze of al Jazeera, Peter Jennings, Associated Press, et al. He also failed to appreciate the hysteria and passion of Democrats 12 years out of power. Finally, he failed to appreciate the ADHD of the American people.
For Peter Jennings, et al., every American war is stuck in 1968. Every American war is immoral. All American enlisted soldiers are morons and war criminals, while all officers are bumbling fools and war criminals. Rumsfeld failed to counter this information war with an information war of his own.
Democrats, with two rich-boy Presidential failures behind them, and lusting after the power they'd had for forty years and lost for twelve, were willing to do anything necessary to win. Including undermining the troops at home. The Kerry/Rangel 1968 view of the US military - that the working-class morons had to be brought home now - prevailed.
Incidentally, al Qaeda, the Ba'athists, and sundry other factions in Iraq have been watching the news, and acting on it. There's a reason October 2006 was so bloody: November 7, 2006.
Finally, the American people seem to have about a two-year time limit for wars that aren't moving along. Japan attacked at the end of 1941. By the end of 1943 WWI was going well enough that the public was willing to support it a little longer. Korea (1950 - present, but with an armistice in 1953) was poison for Harry Truman when it turned into a slog after he fired MacArthur in mid-1951. Vietnam became a long withdrawal after 1968, about two-and-a-half years after Americans began arriving in force. After the Gulf War - the Nintendo shoot-em-up war - Iraq at three-and-a-half years and nothing good in sight is waaaaaaaaay past its shelf life.
Is there any way out of this? Well, Kurdistan is a case in point. The Kurds have been doing their own thing since 1991. Under an RAF/USAF no fly zone for 12 years they were able to start their own country, attract foreign (ironically, mainly Turkish) investment, keep the oil going, and keep peace. Given the provisions of the new Iraqi Constitution, Kurdistan is well on the way to withdrawing from this loose federation and starting its own country.
In other words, given a decade or so, it may be possible to eradicate the scourge of Ba'athism and have a normal country.
Isn't that sad to say? "It *may* be possible". The USA is responsibile for 40% of the world's military spending. The USA spends more on its military than the next 40+ nations combined. What the USA appears to lack is not the means, but the will.
Do we really want to be seen as being harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend? If that's how it goes, I'll probably be heading for Australia or New Zealand myself.
I buddy of mine has a brother and sister-in-law in the Army. His brother just rotated back from Iraq and is now on his way to the DMZ in Korea. He volunteered for DMZ duty in order to avoid going back to Iraq.
Get that. He's volunteered to face down the little troll in Pyongyang, rather than go back to Iraq. He's really quite disgusted with the whole Iraq affair, indicating, among other things, more then a passing interest in citizenship of some country other than the USA.
He was embedded in an Iraqi unit and his evaluation of the Iraqis is less than stellar. Among other things, he learned very quickly that letting any Iraqi troop know the area of operations for a given patrol was a quick ticket to an ambush. The charitable evaluation was flaws in Iraqi communications security coupled with stellar insurgent electronic intelligence. The alternative was a unit flush with insurgent informers. when he was getting ready to rotate out, he evaluated his successor as someone too green to last. Sure enough, his successor was medevaced with a missing arm soon after he was left to his own devices.
This is not good. This officer is prior-enlisted, so we're not talking about the bitchings of a 90-day wonder. Among other things, I'm taking it as given that
- Morale *is* a serious problem
- The Iraqi army needs *a lot* of work
- We're pushing *green troops* into the battle.
The Democrat story so far has been get the hell out. The Republican story is hold the line. I think that if we do what the Democrats want we'll cement our reputation as being harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend (watch all the purple thumbs get cut off). On the other hand, the Republican position is not politically tenable.
I've been trying to figure out how we got to this point, and I've formed a theory.
Back in 2003, when all this started, the Army Chief of Staff was a certan General Shinseki. His solution to any American engagement was 500,000+ troops on the ground, and a clear set of goals. In other words, overwhelming force directed towards limited goals, or no force at all. Hence Kosovo, where we had almost nobody on the ground, and did all our work from USAF aircraft out of Aviano, Italy, flying above 12,000 feet.
Shinseki could feel happy doing this, given the "lessons" of Vietnam, as confirmed in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. And to hell with the Marsh Arabs.
I'm sure that when Runsfeld went to Shinseki for Operation Iraqi Freedom, he got the 500,000+ troops/limited goals story. This is why Shinseki quickly found himself out of a job (Rumsfeld did not attent Shinseki's retirement ceremony), and free to criticise from the sidelines.
I've often wondered why Rumsfeld was so sure he could succeed with such a small force. Matt Lauer recently put it all together for me.
If you'll recall, Matt Lauer recently announced that NBC would henceforth be calling the war in Iraq a civil war. NBC had examined the legal definition of civil war, and in its opinion Iraq was in a state of civil war.
That's not what struck me. What struck me was the press reaction, and especially the characterization of this as the "Walter Cronkite moment", harking back to the moment when Walter Cronkite declared the Vietnam was "unwinnable".
Thinking back on the Vietnam war, American involvement can roughly be divided into two phases. From 1965 to 1968 there was a buildup. From 1968 to 1972 there was a policy of "Vietnamization". (There was a final stage from 1972 to 1975 which involved a Democratic Congress refusing to provide material support to the Vietnamese in the field. This was followed by collapse, communist voctory, re-education camps, slaughter, boat people. But that all happened to brown, squinty-eyed people, and is therefore easily forgotten. But I digress.)
I'm convinvced that Rumsfeld decided that the best policy in Iraq was to avoid the buildup, and go straight to "Iraqification". What did he miss? I think he failed to appreciate the lidless gaze of al Jazeera, Peter Jennings, Associated Press, et al. He also failed to appreciate the hysteria and passion of Democrats 12 years out of power. Finally, he failed to appreciate the ADHD of the American people.
For Peter Jennings, et al., every American war is stuck in 1968. Every American war is immoral. All American enlisted soldiers are morons and war criminals, while all officers are bumbling fools and war criminals. Rumsfeld failed to counter this information war with an information war of his own.
Democrats, with two rich-boy Presidential failures behind them, and lusting after the power they'd had for forty years and lost for twelve, were willing to do anything necessary to win. Including undermining the troops at home. The Kerry/Rangel 1968 view of the US military - that the working-class morons had to be brought home now - prevailed.
Incidentally, al Qaeda, the Ba'athists, and sundry other factions in Iraq have been watching the news, and acting on it. There's a reason October 2006 was so bloody: November 7, 2006.
Finally, the American people seem to have about a two-year time limit for wars that aren't moving along. Japan attacked at the end of 1941. By the end of 1943 WWI was going well enough that the public was willing to support it a little longer. Korea (1950 - present, but with an armistice in 1953) was poison for Harry Truman when it turned into a slog after he fired MacArthur in mid-1951. Vietnam became a long withdrawal after 1968, about two-and-a-half years after Americans began arriving in force. After the Gulf War - the Nintendo shoot-em-up war - Iraq at three-and-a-half years and nothing good in sight is waaaaaaaaay past its shelf life.
Is there any way out of this? Well, Kurdistan is a case in point. The Kurds have been doing their own thing since 1991. Under an RAF/USAF no fly zone for 12 years they were able to start their own country, attract foreign (ironically, mainly Turkish) investment, keep the oil going, and keep peace. Given the provisions of the new Iraqi Constitution, Kurdistan is well on the way to withdrawing from this loose federation and starting its own country.
In other words, given a decade or so, it may be possible to eradicate the scourge of Ba'athism and have a normal country.
Isn't that sad to say? "It *may* be possible". The USA is responsibile for 40% of the world's military spending. The USA spends more on its military than the next 40+ nations combined. What the USA appears to lack is not the means, but the will.
Do we really want to be seen as being harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend? If that's how it goes, I'll probably be heading for Australia or New Zealand myself.
Comments:
>> The USA is responsibile for 40% of the world's military spending. The USA spends more on its military than the next 40+ nations combined. What the USA appears to lack is not the means, but the will.
---
It boggles my mind that you put up the above. Even if the solar system was collapsing around you, you would be stupid enough to use the above statistics and blame it on the will of the Americans. Here is a stat – no matter how much money we spend, we have a fixed population and fixed 1.4 million active-duty uniformed personnel, unless you want to enlist the illegal Mexicans too.
What “means” are you talking about above? You should elaborate, because otherwise it means nothing. . “Means” to do what? “Means” to kill every Sunni whose father might have been killed by a Shiite and who may be out for revenge? “Means” to kill every muslim who thinks he would go to heaven for a killing an infidel on his land? “Means” of getting a job for every Iraqi who wants a job, because the true problems is that the economy is in shambles and there is an unemployment rate is 70%? We know an empty mind is the devil’s workshop? “Means” of getting 4 million people who have left the country back and reviving the economy? The population of Iraq was 27 million people. That’s 15% of the population. The educated, talented, economically prosperous people are now gone. What “means” is the US military going to use to fix that? Imagine 45 million people leaving the US. What “means” would the US military use to revive wall street or our home values or prevent anarchy on our streets?
---
It boggles my mind that you put up the above. Even if the solar system was collapsing around you, you would be stupid enough to use the above statistics and blame it on the will of the Americans. Here is a stat – no matter how much money we spend, we have a fixed population and fixed 1.4 million active-duty uniformed personnel, unless you want to enlist the illegal Mexicans too.
What “means” are you talking about above? You should elaborate, because otherwise it means nothing. . “Means” to do what? “Means” to kill every Sunni whose father might have been killed by a Shiite and who may be out for revenge? “Means” to kill every muslim who thinks he would go to heaven for a killing an infidel on his land? “Means” of getting a job for every Iraqi who wants a job, because the true problems is that the economy is in shambles and there is an unemployment rate is 70%? We know an empty mind is the devil’s workshop? “Means” of getting 4 million people who have left the country back and reviving the economy? The population of Iraq was 27 million people. That’s 15% of the population. The educated, talented, economically prosperous people are now gone. What “means” is the US military going to use to fix that? Imagine 45 million people leaving the US. What “means” would the US military use to revive wall street or our home values or prevent anarchy on our streets?
# posted by 
: 12:25 AM
: 12:25 AM
>>I'm convinvced that Rumsfeld decided that the best policy in Iraq was to avoid the buildup, and go straight to "Iraqification". What did he miss? I think he failed to appreciate the lidless gaze of al Jazeera, Peter Jennings, Associated Press, et al. He also failed to appreciate the hysteria and passion of Democrats 12 years out of power. Finally, he failed to appreciate the ADHD of the American people.
----
Put yourself in an Iraqi man’s shoes who attends Mosque every Friday and is being given orders by the local Imam to get rid of the infidels out of their land. Then think about the above paragraph you wrote and draw the connections. Which has the greater cause and effect? - The Iraqi insurgents or all the secondary factors you wrote (Press, Democrats and American people)
----
Put yourself in an Iraqi man’s shoes who attends Mosque every Friday and is being given orders by the local Imam to get rid of the infidels out of their land. Then think about the above paragraph you wrote and draw the connections. Which has the greater cause and effect? - The Iraqi insurgents or all the secondary factors you wrote (Press, Democrats and American people)
# posted by : 12:30 AM
: 12:30 AM
>> On the other hand, the Republican position is not politically tenable.
----
Remove the word “politically” and you got yourself a true statement.
----
Remove the word “politically” and you got yourself a true statement.
# posted by : 12:32 AM
: 12:32 AM
I've been trying to figure out how we got to this point, and I've formed a theory.
You heard the truth from your friend who is going to Korea and yet your theory does not take into account:
1. There are 60% Shia and 32% Sunni in Iraq and Sunni’s used be in power
2. Iranian involvement in Iraq
3. Iraqi military and police are staying loyal to their ethnic groups and local Imams.
You heard the truth from your friend who is going to Korea and yet your theory does not take into account:
1. There are 60% Shia and 32% Sunni in Iraq and Sunni’s used be in power
2. Iranian involvement in Iraq
3. Iraqi military and police are staying loyal to their ethnic groups and local Imams.
# posted by : 12:33 AM
: 12:33 AM
Hi anonymous. I'm currently on a turkey-based high, so I'm not able to comment. I will however, consider your comments and remark at some point.
Quick observation, nonetheless: I really think the scope of your view is a little narrow.
I'll have more later. In the meantime, thanks.
Post a Comment
Quick observation, nonetheless: I really think the scope of your view is a little narrow.
I'll have more later. In the meantime, thanks.
