The Iraqi War Conundrum: Version 3.8
John McCain says that the Pentagon is considering sending up to 10 Army combat brigades to Iraq, or about 35,000 more troops at most, although he acknowledges that only a small minority of Americans now support such a move.
The Army and Army Reserve are stretched so thin that some units are being rotated back to Iraq for a third time, although observers say that this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue without long-term repercussions in the U.S.’s ability to meet global military challenges.
There is a growing consensus that the presence of U.S. troops is fueling the civil war and insurgency, although the Iraqi government acknowledges that the country would be further destabilized if they withdrew.
The Iraqi army will assume primary responsibility for security in Baghdad beginning early next year and most U.S. troops will be withdrawn to the periphery, although it is widely understood that the Iraqi army has difficulty tying its own boots, let alone playing a major role in anything.
President Bush continues to declare that “victory� is the U.S.’s goal, although most close observers of the war acknowledge that winning it in the traditional sense is no longer possible.
14 Responses to “The Iraqi War Conundrum: Version 3.8”
When are they going to deploy the top secret magic pony division, which will win the war in Iraq once and for all?!?!?!?
A non-partisan reading of Pentagon plans shows that any increase in troop levels is intended only as a short-term measure to allow the creation of a situation where much larger troop reductions would be possible. Even the Iraq Study Group (which the right wing condemns as the “Iraq Surrender Group” so these guys are tough to fit for the standard “neocon” black hats) recommends a temporary increase to deal with the short term problems in Baghdad as a necessary precursor to a draw-down.
“John McCain says that the Pentagon is considering sending up to 10 Army combat brigades to Iraq, or about 35,000 more troops at most”
And what’s the plan behind this? Retaking Anbar province? The problem isn’t that the US isn’t able to pacify any Iraqi province for some time, it’s that it’s lacking the manpower to do this for the whole of Iraq. 35000 troops aren’t enough for this, the insurgents will simply evade them and move elsewhere – thwere have learned some lessons in Falujah.
You can’t gain peace by force, you need a broad consensus of the population for this. The current administration hasn’t this kind of support, it’s unlikely it will ever gain it, and there isn’t an election coming. Where is the silver lining at the horizon?
No. The aim is much more limited — try to secure the Baghdad area sufficiently to allow a more stable government and training program for Iraqi forces. After that, Iraqi forces would be used to “retake” Anbar province and address other internal security threats.
And of course a change in political strategy will also be necessary, including expanding the breadth of the governing coalition in include greater Sunni representation and, yes, to include talking to Iran and Syria.
This says nothing about what they intend to do about al Sadr and the Mahdi army and their influence over Maliki. Or how they would force the Shiite majority to agree to share power with the Sunnis.Or how they would weed out militia members who have infiltrated the police and existing army Or if they have enough translators to train the army effectively. These are all obstacles that we have failed to overcome in the past-so its fair to ask about them.
We need to know if this has been well thought out, of if it is just political grandstanding by McCain and the Pentagon, to solidify support for the ’08 nomination.
Hahahahhahahahahha. Thank you for this wonderful joke.
These are all necessary elements to a national change in strategy. They are not, however, elements relevant to the Pentagon’s plan. The question of political coalition building and cooptation of Shi’ite as well as Sunni extremists will require State stepping up (and being allowed by the President to negotiated with other states in the region), not the Defense Department. Increasing translators is a multi-agency requirement, not within the realm of the Defense Department (except perhaps as a reason to reexamine “don’t ask, don’t tell”).
Let’s try to avoid falling into either of two mental traps.
Trap #1: Assuming that any element of a plan is worthless unless it includes all elements of all plans. To say, “your plan sucks because it only talks about X and doesn’t plan for Y, Z, A, B, C, and D through M” is to set a bar that no single plan could ever meet. Like anything else, changing course in Iraq will require breaking down planning into smaller pieces.
Trap #2: Assuming that any plan for the next 2 years automatically should be rejected because the Bush administration is still in power. Some on this comments thread think it is more important to concentrate on hating Bush than on actually doing anything to try to change strategy. Those people prioritize their personal emotional satisfaction over the lives of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers. It is better to take the pragmatic approach and work with the political situation we have to try to minimize damage than to hope that the damage will get even worse so that we can have the emotional benefit of being proven right about Bush.
Jason-Well, you can’t blame some on this comment thread if they lack confidence in the Bush administration or the Pentagon after what the country has been through in the last 4 years! If there is a lack of trust and credibility for their planning and execution, it is because they have failed so far to do anything successfully in Iraq past the invasion and regime change stage.
BTW, I think we do need to ask for an integrated, comprehensive plan that includes those elements. We went into this without asking the hard questions, so no one wants to exit without an honest debate on all aspects. I’m not suggesting that anything that comes out of the WH or Pentagon be summarily rejected, just viewed with some healthy skepticism because of past performance.
I don’t blame anyone for having a lack of confidence. Hardly anyone has confidence in the key players in the Bush administration any more. I do blame someone who indulges in the expression of that lack of confidence to the extreme extent of actively cheering for everything to be rejected until Bush is gone.
I think the right way to react to a lack of confidence is (like you suggest and most TMV readers do) to ask more questions, press for more complete answers and try to make our own suggestions, not (like Andrew) to reject everything and just watch Iraqis and U.S. soldiers die for two more years while gleefully posting snarky hate-mail about Bush directed at everyone who is trying to do something productive.
Given recent history, why should we trust the troop increase to be either temporary or successful?
I feel as if I go along with this plan that I will be the battered woman returning to her abusive boyfriend because, once again, he promised to stop drinking.
The iron law of waning public support makes it inevitable that it will be temporary. Even the Iraqi government would have no interest in seeing it made permanent. I don’t see any way that the administration could make it permanent — no matter what you think of their motives, their political capital will be zero’d out after this one last move.
Whether it would be successful is questionable, I grant, but it is worth a try. More troops, even if temporary, can translate into all-important leverage to get the Sunnis and Shi’ites to play ball, or at least to pick up the ball.
Temporary can mean many different time periods, and there is -no- guarantee at all this will be limited.
In that statement alone you offer thousands to their death. I would like to believe we have more reasonable expectations for success in this plan than “it is worth a try” before sending off 35,000 in desperation.
egrubs-you are right to be asking a lot of questions. Why should anyone’s son or daughter be sent off into this mess, unless someone has a clearcut strategy for-and I hate to use the word-here —victory, LOL
I’m sorry, but this president is so laughably stupid its unbearable. he spent the last year telling us that we don’t need more troops. Now this revelation. What the hell is it with this administration? How is it possible that somebody this stupid could be elected twice? There is something seriously wrong with our election process when somebody like this can become president.