The next Battle of Baghdad
It looks like the Iraq War could take another dramatic turn later this year. The Times has reported this:
THE American military is planning a “second liberation of Baghdadâ€? to be carried out with the Iraqi army when a new government is installed…
The battle for Baghdad is expected to entail a “carrot-and-stick� approach, offering the beleaguered population protection from sectarian violence in exchange for rooting out insurgent groups and Al-Qaeda.
Sources close to the Pentagon said Iraqi forces would take the lead, supported by American air power, special operations, intelligence, embedded officers and back-up troops.
If at first you don’t succeed, try again. But at what cost? With the loss of how many more lives? The invasion of Iraq was swift, but the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq has been — let’s be blunt about it — a failure. And now there’s this, which smacks of desperation. Of course, there will be endless spin about how the Iraqis are taking charge and establishing order, about how the new government is finally ready to govern on its own, about how the U.S.-trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead, allowing the U.S. to pull back, about how the job has been done, mission accomplished.
And we know what this is really about: “[Bush and Rumsfeld] are under intense pressure to prove to the American public that Iraq is not slipping into anarchy and civil war. An effective military campaign could provide the White House with a bounce in the polls before the mid-term congressional elections in November. With Bush’s approval ratings below 40%, the vote is shaping up to be a Republican rout.”
Regardless, this is all far too little far too late. Baghdad isn’t Fallujah or some remote Iraqi town, and it won’t be pacified easily (not that Fallujah was or even has been). Given both Bush’s personal unpopularity and the unpopularity of the Iraq War generally, Americans won’t stand for a prolonged, agonizing battle that could go terribly wrong, a battle that will have to be fought neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood, house-by-house, a battle that would likely be extremely bloody.
A full-out Battle of Baghdad could work. Repeat: could. But a lot would have to go right, and I’m just not sure that it can or will. Do we have any reason to have so much confidence in the Iraqi forces? Do we have any reason to believe that U.S. forces will be able to conduct such an extensive campaign with public and political support at home? Given all that’s happened thus far, do we have any reason to believe that Baghdad can be pacified at all? The U.S. may try to hide behind the Iraqis, but no one will be so delusional as to think that the U.S. isn’t calling the shots. So couldn’t a U.S.-propelled campaign to pacify Baghdad only stir up even more opposition?
How much is Bush willing to sacrifice, how many lives is he willing to risk, both American and Iraqi, for the sake of his own political life, for the sake of his own popularity and legacy? Is he willing to wage a full-out Battle of Baghdad as a last-ditch effort to resurrect his presidency and to prevent massive Republican losses this fall?
Consider that political calculus.
24 Responses to “The next Battle of Baghdad”
jesus christ. SO… liberation of Baghdad II. Is this so in a few months we can have “misson accomplished part duex” as well? Maybe the president can drive a tank and park it this time and announce missin accomplished, again, in time for elections.
…last throes… everything going fine… grumble grumble….
Aah, So. Bribery because we know desperate people would never lie about someone being an aid to insurgents for cash.
Micheal – What do you suggest as an alternative? Cut and run? The reality is no matter what the Bush administration proposes at this point, you will say it is wrong, as you suffer from BDS.
I agree that much of the post-liberation phase has been handled very poorly, but much has been done right as well; it just doesn’t make for news ratings (as, quite frankly, almost no good news of any type does).
But even if you want to take the position that it was wrong for us to invade Iraq, and you also feel that we have botched the occupation/rebuilding in every way, at least give them credit for continuing to try and find solutions to stablize Iraq.
The problem is that this strategy has been tried before. Perhaps nobody remembers but in the summer of 2005, Iraqi forces led a major operation to cordone of Baghdad neighborhood by neighborhood. There was a lot of fanfare over it, but then we never heard about it again.
Austin,
What has been done right in Iraq since April 9, 2003? I’m not talking about the decision for war. I’m talking about the occupation. “Continuing to try and find solutions to stablize Iraq” doesn’t count as doing things “right.” Results matter. So what’s gone right?
“A full-out Battle of Baghdad could work. Repeat: could. But a lot would have to go right.”
An awful lot would have to go right, and it would have to do so right out of the starting gate and progress rapidly. However, war being what it is, does not have a good track record for playing out the ideal scenario. The reality is that the potential for things to get real ugly is much higher than the potential for everything going just swimingly.
If it were just al Quida and the insurgents that had to be considered in the equation there would probably be a fair chance of some degree of success from such a campaign. It would be brutal, but some success could be achieved. But if you have to start factoring in all the sectarian violence that has come into play over the past months, things get a whole lot more complicated. Once started the thing has a high potential of unfolding in very unpredictable ways. If it did spin out of control into a full blown urban warfare slugfest that lasted for weeks or months the American public could witness some very very ugly stuff.
All in all it sure seems like a pretty stupid gamble to take.
Ah, and the reat timing of being later in the year towards the election.
All ’bout the hearts and minds.
im confused. Suppose we withdrew, and turned the war over to the Iraqi forces. WOuldnt they have to fight the battle of Baghdad? Recall this is to be done AFTER a new Iraqi govt, presumably including the sunnis, is formed. The assumption being AQ and some hardliners will keep fighting anyway. Are you suggesting that they never be taken on, by us OR by the Iraqis? Dont they HAVE to be dealt with at some point? or are you suggesting writing Iraq off and handing it to AQ?
It seems odd to complain about the lack of security in Baghdad and its contribution to sectarian strife, and at the same time oppose steps to deal with that lack of security.
If this is going to work we need many more troops on the ground, and not just hiding in ‘green zones’. We need people on every street corner and within every earshot, and yes there will MANY more caualties but that is the only way to stabalize and police a place like that. Then after 3 or 4 more years the place will finally start to calm down, and then you can start replacing you troops with Iraqi ones and only use the new generation that will arise. People that are acustomed to peace and justice.
The Iraqis have beaten the doom and gloom pundits in most cases so far. I’m figuring they will pull this one off, as well. It’ll be interesting to see how much of the heavy lifting the Iraqi Army does this time. They outperformed pretty much everybody’s expectations in their baptism of fire after the Al-Askariya Mosque bombing. This is their opportunity for an encore.
One of the parts that bothrs me most though is the buying off of the people, I just don’t think that’s well thought out. Selling out the neighbors for the almighty dollar and gaining (supposedly) the security of the green zone, that plan just seems to have developed from a bubble.
SOMETHING needs to be done, and it won’t be pretty. Either Iraqs army will be doing most of it, or our Army will depending on how the years goes, but using the last 3 as an example….
Maybe I missed something, but the “carrot and stick” approach is described as offering protection from violence and setting up SWEAT teams, a clear, hold and build strategy. I can’t find any mention of bribery or money, except for the storiy of a man killed by another who was paid $10 and a ransom for $250,000.
Again, I might have missed the point, but I don’t see where some are getting the “buying off” thing.
The important thing to remember is that Bagdad v2.0 doesn’t have to succeed to produce positive results in November.
If properly choreographed, the battle can be ongoing during the election. This is just the kind of thing that will rally the base and get them to the polls to “support the troops”.
Even if it has no long term effect on the insurgency, just shooting the heck out of the city will make everyone keep their head down till after the November election. If you use Iraqi troop the American casualty count won’t even rise.
I fail to see what this will accomplish. It seems like a pre-election PR stunt. The Iraqis need security and a strong national government that will protect and represent minority sects as well as the majority Shia. They need to disband the militias responsible for so much sectorian violence. Because Rumsfeld planned only for the invasion, instead of planning for the occupation, hearts and minds have not been won over. How does this plan accomplish what we have been unable to in three years of occupation?
I am sick of the tired “cut and run” line people use to egg this disaster on longer. We won the war in 2003, all we’ve been doing since is policing a country, which our military isn’t designed to do. Time to draw down the size of the forces there to about 40k, and move them out of the towns letting the Iraqi’s handle their own country again. 40k troops would give the Iraqi gov. some assurances they would have some cover if needed, and save american lives wasted policing a FOREIGN COUNTRY. Next you’ll hear the “you just want to do cut and run” types say we need to police somehwere else, then another place untill we are incapable of protecting THIS COUNTRY.
Brian,
That’s just delusional. The Iraqi army did absolutely nothing while the sectarian murders carried on. 30,000 Iraqis have been forced from their homes over the last month. At least 1,000 people were murdered for sectarian reasons in Baghdad alone in March. Dozens of dead bodies show up every day around the country, and the Iraqi army handled it well?
Liberalhawk,
The problem is your assumption that Iraq still looks like it did before 2006. Back then there was “the government” and there were “the insurgents”, who included AQ. Now the picture is much more muddled. “The government” includes Shi’ite death squads. “The government”, such as it exists, is part of the problem. What exactly does a clear-and-hold strategy mean for Baghdad now? If the Iraqi “government” looks anything like it does now, clearing out the “insurgents” in Baghdad can only mean massive ethnic cleansing of Sunnis.
I certainly think something must be done. Iraq cannot and should not fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. Nor should it fall into the hands of Moqtada al-Sadr. Nor should it be run by the Badr Corps. Nor should it be run by neo-Ba’athists. Nor should it be dismembered. Nor should it be run by incompetent fools like Jaafari. Nor should it be run directly by the Americans. Any ideas on how we can avoid any or all of these pitfalls? Treating the political situation like it’s some minor hurdle to overcome before the government can “take on” the insurgents is a bit behind the times. This is communal war, not a classic insurgency.
Just curious, guys. Why is everything Bush does, especially with regard to Iraq, atrributed to some political calculus? Is it possible that he’s just trying to do the right thing, regardless of whether it’s popular?
Sort of reminds me of when Clinton sent troops into Serbia. Pundits said he was doing it for political reasons — to distract attention from the Lewinski scandal. I’m no fan of Clinton, but why not give him the benefit of the doubt as well? Why not exchange cynicism for the reasonable hope that neither Cinton nor Bush would put our troops in harm’s way for political gain? That way maybe we can pull together as a country and get behind our leaders, whether they’re Democrat or Republican, kick the bad guys’ asses, and get out.
Elrod, 30,000 people is a little over 1/1000th of the total population of Iraq. That’s a pretty small percentage given what could have happened if the country had descended into full blown civil war. Yes, the Iraqi military, along with their political and religious leaders, handled it well. Not perfectly, but well above expectations.
So Pyst, it appears you advocate not only cut and run, but burying our heads in the sand as well.
Give it a little more time, and you will be joining the ranks of Buchananites.
At this point, when GWB does the right thing I consider it to be purely accidental.
Brian,
30,000 is just the beginning. And it’s happened over the last month alone. The Iraqi army is virtually useless as a counterinsurgency force. Without the US in the fight, the Iraqi army is incapable of keeping order. How many mixed Sunni-Shi’ite-Kurdish units are there in the Iraqi army capable of fighting on their own? Zero.
I guess Austin doesn’t think we’ve lost enough troops policing Iraq. That’s what this is Austin policing, not battling the enemy because they make up maybe 10% of the people fighting us there at best. That means the other 90% are Iraqi’s that freaking hate our guts, and means we are WASTING OUR DANM TIME, TAXPAYER MONEY, AND MILITARY CAPABILITY. Go ahead Austin believe the ‘we must win at all costs’ tripe they feed you, because a good many of them are getting rich off of it. We are witnessing generals for the first time in US history publically call out an administration, and you think all is well? I’m starting to believe GWB has formented a cult, for people to be so blind to the obvious and continue to defend his cabinet officials, and by virtue Bush himself as gods of some sort.
Btw, as much as I disagree with Buchanan, I damn well do agree with him about Bush, and Bush’s war of choice. And one other thing, atleast Buchanan is an actual conservative unlike the church of neo-con.
Yes, 30,000 is just the beginning. Iraq is ready any moment now to descend into chaos, just like it was during the last 3 elections, and innumerable other times in the past year or so. What’s the score, now? Juan Cole and the other doomsayers maybe 1, and the Iraqi people 10 or more?
What cosmic forces are keeping those fickle Iraqi Shiites from defecting to Iran and/or killing Sunnis by the thousands, and the Sunnis from defecting to Al Qaeda and/or killing Shiites by the thousands, and the Kurds from seceding? Weren’t they supposed to do all this months ago? They need to get with the program, here. Before you know it, they may just have a stable country and then it may be too late.
This continued insistence that Iraq is descending into chaos any moment now, despite all evidence to the contrary, is troubling. One might get the impression that certain people think Iraqis are inherently incapable of governing themselves. You know, because they’re just dirty Arabs.
Well, I think from all reports (except official ones from the White House press office) Iraq is pretty chaotic. Over 100,000 Iraqis have died in this endeavor, which was supposed to be a quick operation—march into Bagdad, remove Saddam Hussein, and the forces of democracy would flourish. The U.S. then has a solid ally in the Middle East, and a base to fight terrorism. Of course we were never greeted as liberators-except in the early days. Rummy never had much of a plan to keep the peace, and was opposed to nation building.
Yes, Iraqis flocked to the polls to participate in elections, but that was four months ago. While chaos reigns, they have been unable to form a government. Our troops are stuck there during this stalemate, and there’s no telling how long it will last. The American public is wearying of the cost of this operation, and doesn’t see any concrete signs of progress.
I believe that the invasion was a huge, costly mistake that will take many years to recover from. Our nation is still torn apart over our experience in Viet Nam. I am not antiwar, but this war seems to have been incredibly mismanaged by this administration-not the initial invasion, but the occupation that followed. Our military should be fighting Al Queda in other parts of the world. At the same time, my heart goes out to the Iraqis-we have destroyed their country.
elrod
I agree with you on the centrality of the political process, which is why i think the current negotiations about the new Iraqi govt are at least as important as the situation on the ground in Baghdad.
Ideally that will result in either Mahdi or Sharistani as PM of Iraq, and a new Interior Minister. The Sadrists will be on the outside, and the battle of Baghdad may well be aimed at the Sadrists as well.
If Jaafari is still PM thats probably not possible.
If another Dawa pol is PM, well I dont know.
But it was Mr. Strickling who chose to post about the battle of baghdad, rather than about the political process, so that is what I addressed.
It would certainly be foolish to promote a political process, and not to plan for what to do next IF that process meets its immediate goals.