Bean counters in the Pentagon tell us that Army recruitment and retention are in good shape. Problem is, our cumbersome readiness reporting system only informs leaders in Washington of conditions on the ground many months after the force begins to break. Today, anecdotal evidence of collapse is all around. Past history makes some of us sensitive to anecdotes and distrustful of Pentagon statistics. The Army’s collapse after Vietnam was presaged by a desertion of mid-grade officers (captains) and non-commissioned officers. Many were killed or wounded. Most left because they and their families were tired and didn’t want to serve in units unprepared for war.
If we lose our sergeants and captains, the Army breaks again. It’s just that simple. That’s why these soldiers are still the canaries in the readiness coal-mine. And, again, if you look closely, you will see that these canaries are fleeing their cages in frightening numbers.
The lesson from this sad story is simple: When you fight a long war with a long-service professional Army, the force you begin with will not get any larger or better over the duration of the conflict. For that reason, today’s conditions are pretty much irreversible. There’s not much that money, goodwill or professed support for the troops can do. Another strange consequence is that the current political catfight over withdrawal dates is made moot by the above facts. We’re running out of soldiers faster than we’re running out of warfighting missions. The troops will be coming home soon. There simply are too few to sustain the surge for very much longer.

The major problem in with Arab nations is the population boom they’re experiencing. Youth bubbles have historically generated instability and that’s a lot of what we’re seeing in the middle east now. Huntingdon’s “Clash of Civilizations” talks about this in some detail. Additional food for thought:

In economic terms we have already commented that the combined weight of the Arab states is less than that of Spain. Strip oil out of Mideast exports and the entire region exports less than Finland. According to the transnational Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), regional economic growth is burdened by declining rates of investment in fixed capital structure, an inability to attract substantial foreign direct investment, and declining productivity — the economic trinity of disaster.

Economic stagnation coupled with rapid population growth is reducing living standards throughout the region, both comparatively and in real terms. In the heady days of the late 1970s oil boom, annual per-capita GDP growth of over 5% fueled high levels of expectations. GDP per-capita grew from $1,845 to $2,300. Today, after adjusting for inflation, it stands at $1,500, reflecting an overall decline in living standards over 30 years. Only sub-Saharan Africa has done worse. If oil wealth is subtracted from the calculations the economic picture for the mass of Arab citizens becomes dire.

Things are indeed bad in the Arab world and will get much worse.

These are obstacles not faced in Latin America in the past two decades. BTW, that quote is from this article.

There certainly are downsides to the “strongman” route or a military coup and it may be true that any benefit may not be long-lasting, but such tactics have worked in Latin America in some cases, notably El Salvador and Chile. In both those countries the US supported coups by dictators which eventually morphed into free states (both countries are rated “free” by freedom house).

It is the very presence of U.S. troops that is the major reason that chaos has continued through every change in tactics and strategies.

That is commonly assumed but is incorrect. The implication of such a statement is that if US troops completely withdrawal, then violence will go down because US troops are the cause or catalyst for the violence. If US troops leave there will be a period of significantly increased violence, ethnic cleansing, etc. The vast majority of violence in Iraq today is Iraqi-on-Iraqi or Foreign fighter-on-Iraqi. I don’t see how anyone can reasonably argue that the presence of American troops is causing Iraqi’s to kidnap and lop off each other’s heads or drive car-bombs into markets full of Iraqi’s. Does anyone seriously believe that will stop if American troops were gone tomorrow?

But having said all that — and in the absence of “acceptable compromises� to which you allude but do not articulate — the U.S. commitment cannot be indefinite.

I did provide one alternative in the link in my previous comment (see the link). My main point, however, is that very few are discussing even the possibility of alternatives, much less actual alternative strategies, to say nothing of what our goals and interests are in the region. The left is obsessed with “Bush lied” and “get out now” while the right is obsessed with “fight them there or fight them here” and other nonsense. We need to identify our national interests in Iraq and the region as a whole and then pursue the policy and action that is most likely to protect those interests.

Whatever happens, US troops levels will go down significantly early-to-mid next year. To conduct the surge the military in essence took a high-interest payday loan on future readiness to gain a temporary increase in troop levels. That loan comes due early next year and units will have to leave Iraq to refit and troop levels will probably have to drop to around 100k.

For my money (and it is my money, damnit!), the deadlines set in the House and Senate bills make sense.

Once again, it is time to go — and sooner than later.

I believe the so-called deadlines are unconstitutional. If you read the bills they in essence order the Secretary of Defense to withdraw all troops from Iraq. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to “order” the military to do anything. They can pull funding or de-authorize the war or both, but Congress has no Constitutional authority to directly order a cabinet officer of the executive to deploy, not deploy, or redeploy forces.

Not that it matters, because that bill will never see the light of day.

I think Bush is right, our policy of supporting proxies is responsible for a lot of the problems (not necessarily direct Anti-Americanism but radicalism in general) and going back to that model won’t solve anything in the long run. I dunno, I think the best solution is to not worry about having our hands in every cookie jar. I personally think we should disengage. Instead of trying to micromanage everything and get it to go in our favor, we should remain external and try to convince the region to modernize through our progress. Small groups of terrorists will exist of course, but they should be hunted on a law enforcement/intelligence level. It’s hard to say that we should leave when we don’t know what will happen, but the chances of dictating what will happen is very small considering the amount of resources we are willing to put in. The end result is the same.

It’s a lot like Palestine where few people are radical but all of the political players are and the people vote based on loyalty instead of confronting their “leaders” and definitely Afghanistan.

Still it’s not all lost but as you’ve said it will take decades to develop these things even in the best case scenario. You recognize this but all the pro-staying debate is disingenuous by pretending that all will be better in a year or two. If the debate was about whether we could up our commitment to what’s needed or withdrawal because the cost is too much then that would be a good debate to have…but instead the cost to win is obscured.

I think abandoning Iraq is probably the worst choice for many reasons.

This is why I — as an early supporter of the war who has turned against it and now concedes that it is unwinnable in the traditional sense — find it difficult to speak in absolutes.

Yes, the U.S. created the nightmare that Iraqis have lived under because of an utterly botched occupation. Yes, historic enmities between sectarian groups were bound to flare into the open and make matter worse. Yes, a consequence of the botched occupation was bound to be a new front for Islamic terrorists. Yes, there is a very real concern that by “abandoning” Iraq, the war will spill over its borders.

But having said all that — and in the absence of “acceptable compromises” to which you allude but do not articulate — the U.S. commitment cannot be indefinite. It is the very presence of U.S. troops that is the major reason that chaos has continued through every change in tactics and strategies.

For my money (and it is my money, damnit!), the deadlines set in the House and Senate bills make sense.

Once again, it is time to go — and sooner than later.

This is my rationale. It’s hardly from an anti-war person. And (even though I haven’t read it) views from a man that has had much experience dealing with how to respond to situations where there is no “good� solution.

Great links! Thanks. Most cogent arguments I have seen for quick withdrawal. Its going to take me a while to think about the General’s comments in particular.

Please, I’m begging you or anyone to point out not the dangers of leaving (which I fully agree) but how staying can possibly help. At this point we are completely impotent on a strategic level, which is why I favor helping our friends stay stable and leaving to see what happens. Why destroy all our power trying to plug the dam with our finger when it’d be better off to let it break and then rebuild after the water has stopped flowing?

That’s a good debate to have. If a “stable, independent, democratic Iraqi friendly to the US” is not possible, then what is the best course of action?

I think abandoning Iraq is probably the worst choice for many reasons. First of all, we have a moral and legal obligation to the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. Secondly, abandoning Iraq largely means abandoning all our strategic interests and simply hoping for the best. One possibility is to withdraw the majority of troops and pick a proxy to support which would defend our interests, allow the US to influence events for the better, and hopefully, over the long run, bring some measure of stability to Iraq. Here is an example and some detail of that strategy laid out.

I’d also like to point out that the kind of war we’re in in Iraq is a marathon fight. No one with any knowledge of the history of counterinsurgency believes the surge will work miracles in a year. A quick look at similar conflicts over the last century shows that conflicts like Iraq tend to last for a decade or more no matter what happens. A primary failing of the Bush administration was not preparing the American people for the commitment Iraq would require. They were ignorant of history, of the region, the people of Iraq, etc. and as a result of that and the mismanagement of the war, American political support will not meet the required timeframe to see this war through to success. And yes, it could still be successful over the long run if political support could be maintained. Those who claim the war is “lost” and that there is no chance of winning have not examined the many historic examples to the contrary. But that’s all academic at this point.

The left’s mindless obsession with the dubious origins of this war and the right’s with “winning” are making discussion of rational alternatives to abandoning Iraq or staying in strength impossible. There are alternatives to explore, but few seem interested in that discussion on either side of the political spectrum. It’s clear that given waning political support for the war that Bush’s objectives cannot be met, so we must consider acceptable compromises that help guard American interests and promote stability in Iraq and the region.

Thanks for the kind words. Your points are well taken.

Some thoughts: In Anbar we have tribes turning against al qaeda because of its brutality. There are now pitched battles between the tribes (working with US troops as backup, I might ad) and al qaida – as they try to drive the Jihadists out of their territories.

We currently have some of Sadr’s militia coming into line (I think as a result Malaki’s statements before the surge that no one would be immune and because we are working the Iranian part of the insurgency directly by arresting the Iranian agents in Iraq). Also, I have read that Iraqi’s in Bagdad are quite relieved to now be able to move around through many checkpoints without having to show if they are Sunni or Shia. The average man on the street does not trust the militias or the Iraqi police (yet). The Iraqi army, they trust more, and the Americans. If, over time, we can supply security … the average person in Iraq is not a religious fanatic. There are deep divisions in the society, yes. And they will take decades to repair totally (look at the issue of race relations in the US). But, once we have reliable, non-partisan, Iraqi security forces. And once security for the average person is in place. I think we will see the Iraqi moderates running the country (no one will want to return to the chaos of today except the extremists and I suspect that they are no more than 10% of the population). Is this likely in 2 years, in 5 years? I don’t know. But I have hope and believe that it is possible.

Reliable, non-partisan Iraqi security forces are the key. They are coming along. Not as fast as the Bush admin would have you believe and not as slowly as some of the Democrats in congress would imply. My current best guess is that 2 years from now, if we keep working it, things will look a lot better.

And the primary reason will be adequate numbers of reliable Iraqi Army units IMO. Police that are not corrupt or involved in sectarian issues will take longer. The sooner the US can draw back and draw down the better, of course.

Not a very good answer. But this is the “toughest nut” in Iraq.

A stable, moderate Iraq changes the equation much for the better in the Middle East, if it can be achieved. Big if, but we are stuck with that task now it seems to me.

I honestly think I am going to stop debating about the war. The opposing positions are very polarized and I don’t think anyone’s mind will be changed by a different point of view. They’ll have to come to a new position based on events on the ground. But I think its a straw man to say that the Dems no longer want to fight al queda in Iraq- they want more flexibility to put limited resources where it will best help the fight- they’re not denying that terrorism is a problem.

The popular power structures in Iraq are connected to Iran (to the point that the major political party has the same name, save the country) so if we do stabilize the country those will be in charge. Unless of course a nationalist Al Sadr type gains power and then it’d be extremely unstable again. Of course we could just give up and suppress the populace but then we’re back under the Saddam situation.

I’ve heard people argue that we can defeat the insurgency and restore order (something I disagree but let’s assume it is right) but I’ve never heard anyone even attempt to explain how this would let us achieve our strategic goals. We have few friends in the region (personally I think the list is as short as Israel, Jordan, Hezbollah excluded Lebanon, Kuwait and Kurdistan) and none of them are major players in Iraq at all. Any player that can potentially win will hurt the situation even more.

Please, I’m begging you or anyone to point out not the dangers of leaving (which I fully agree) but how staying can possibly help. At this point we are completely impotent on a strategic level, which is why I favor helping our friends stay stable and leaving to see what happens. Why destroy all our power trying to plug the dam with our finger when it’d be better off to let it break and then rebuild after the water has stopped flowing?

It appears to me that you are so busy being mad at the way we got into this mess, that now you wear blinders that prevent you from being able to see what is really happening.

You demean the people who fought and died in World War II and their families back home by insisting on comparing that world war against the spread of fascism with a war in Iraq that is nothing more than some neocons who needed to scratch their Saddam Hussein itch and saw the 9/11 attacks as perfect cover to do so. And of course has spiraled wildly out of control.