Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq
This is the plan that most reflects the President’s point of view:
Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq
In the coming weeks, after meeting with top officials, military commanders on the ground in Iraq, and Iraq’s vice president Tariq al-Hashemi, President George W. Bush will address the nation to lay out a new strategy in Iraq. On Thursday, Frederick W. Kagan and Gen. Jack Keane (U.S. Army, ret.) presented a new AEI study, “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq,” which explains how Baghdad and other critical areas can be secured and held with an increase in combat troops and describes the perilous consequences of failure. In this interim report (with the full study to be released in January), Kagan and his colleagues argue that the only acceptable outcome is victory–and that victory is possible in Iraq.Victory is still an option in Iraq. America, a country of 300 million people with a GDP of $12 trillion, and more than one million soldiers and marines can regain control of Iraq, a state the size of California with a population of 25 million and a GDP under $100 billion.
Victory in Iraq is vital to America’s security. Defeat will lead to regional conflict, humanitarian catastrophe, and increased global terrorism.
Iraq has reached a critical point. The strategy of relying on a political process to eliminate the insurgency has failed. Rising sectarian violence threatens to break America’s will to fight. This violence will destroy the Iraqi government, armed forces, and people if it is not rapidly controlled.
Victory in Iraq is still possible at an acceptable level of effort. We must adopt a new approach to the war and implement it quickly and decisively.
Three courses of action have been proposed. All will fail.
Withdraw immediately. This approach will lead to immediate defeat. The Iraqi Security Forces are entirely dependent upon American support to survive and function. If U.S. forces withdraw now, they will collapse and Iraq will descend into total civil war that will rapidly spread throughout the region.
Engage Iraq’s neighbors. This approach will fail. The basic causes of violence and sources of manpower and resources for the warring sides come from within Iraq. Iraq’s neighbors are encouraging the violence, but they cannot stop it.
Increase embedded trainers dramatically. This approach cannot succeed rapidly enough to prevent defeat. Removing U.S. forces from patrolling neighborhoods to embed them as trainers will lead to an immediate rise in violence. This rise in violence will destroy America’s remaining will to fight, and escalate the cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq beyond anything an Iraqi army could bring under control.
We must act now to restore security and stability to Baghdad. We and the enemy have identified it as the decisive point. There is a way to do this.
We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority.
We must send more American combat forces into Iraq and especially into Baghdad to support this operation. A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the Spring of 2007 is necessary, possible, and will be sufficient. These forces, partnered with Iraqi units, will clear critical Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shi’a neighborhoods, primarily on the west side of the city.
After the neighborhoods have been cleared, U.S. soldiers and marines, again partnered with Iraqis, will remain behind to maintain security.
As security is established, reconstruction aid will help to reestablish normal life and, working through Iraqi officials, will strengthen Iraqi local government
This approach requires a national commitment to victory in Iraq:
The ground forces must accept longer tours for several years. National Guard units will have to accept increased deployments during this period.
Equipment shortages must be overcome by transferring equipment from non-deploying active duty, National Guard, and reserve units to those about to deploy. Military industry must be mobilized to provide replacement equipment sets urgently.
The president must request a dramatic increase in reconstruction aid for Iraq. Responsibility and accountability for reconstruction must be assigned to established agencies. The president must insist upon the completion of reconstruction projects. The president should also request a dramatic increase in CERP funds.
The president must request a substantial increase in ground forces end strength. This increase is vital to sustaining the morale of the combat forces by ensuring that relief is on the way. The president must issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this age.
Failure in Iraq today will require far greater sacrifices tomorrow in far more desperate circumstances.
Committing to victory now will demonstrate America’s strength to our friends and enemies around the world.
Without organized bipartisan resistance from Congress, this is the likely plan that will be announced.
I hope the President is right.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq”
What? The president spent the last year telling us we don’t need more troops on Iraq. Is this a reversal of a Bush policy? No doubt!
Thanks to the Bush tax cuts we do not have funding for the troops we have much less more. Will raise taxes be yet another Bush policy reversal?
The Iraqi people are our enemy now! Regardless of whom is supporting the Iraqi people’s insurgency against the United States, coalition forces, and, the set up, (should I dare say puppet), government, we are fighting IRAQIS! They very people we supposedly came to liberate!
Face it. Bush and his administration simply do not know what the hell they are doing. Now he wants a larger regional war?! What is this guy…the anti-Christ?
To give any credence to an AEI reoprt is the ultimate irony. These cheerleaders for W’s folly in Iraq are part of the problem. They are more senile/detached that the Iraq Study Group.
“America, a country of 300 million people with a GDP of $12 trillion, and more than one million soldiers and marines can regain control of Iraq, a state the size of California with a population of 25 million and a GDP under $100 billion.”
Excuse me pls, but I thought the idea was to democratice the nation, giving control to the elected government?
This smells like imperialism. The point doesn’t seem to do the right thing for Iraqi people anymore, but do avoid any perception that the US didn’t achieve its goals. Now, serious, what’s more important, the pride of the US or the freedom and security of the Iraqi people???
“Failure in Iraq today will require far greater sacrifices tomorrow in far more desperate circumstances.”
And that’s the dominoe theory again. Really, why should anyone care for the opinion of those ‘pundits’, they have already been thoroughly debunked by history!
“The ground forces must accept longer tours for several years. National Guard units will have to accept increased deployments during this period.”
Another shameful example of the tyranny of the neocons! “must accept”! “will have”! Why don’t they simply say it in plain english:
‘Let’s screw the troops, we will simply breach the contract we signed with them because we need slaves as cannonfodder in Iraq!’
What is important is if the President agrees with them, and the Congress allows it.
Does anyone know of a different proposal the President would seriouly consider?
Paul in Austin
Resignation? Lets ask….Worth a try.
If you think the Armed Forces are slaves, you need to do some research (starting with a dictionary).
If you believe the troops are cannon fodder, I have no respect for you or your opinions. Sorry.
seven Army brigades and Marine regiments
How many people is that?
And for that matter, how many combat troops do already have stationed in Baghdad?
“If you think the Armed Forces are slaves, you need to do some research (starting with a dictionary).”
They are caught in a job whose rules are constantly changed by the US goverment, blocking their way to get out in the timespan that was originally contracted. For the uncontracted, additional timeframe they are simply slaves, imho. I don’t care if you don’t like my phrasing it.
“If you believe the troops are cannon fodder, I have no respect for you or your opinions. Sorry.”
Hehehe, strong words for a 16 year old! Grow up, son, and then let’s talk again.
Btw, ‘cannon fodder’ should be understood literary. I’m well aware Us troops are killed by IEDs and snipers, not cannons.
Andrew Quinn
Well they are being used as cannon fodder anyway. Or would “bait patrol” work better for you?
Why? Because they are not accomplishing a damn thing. They have achieved no objective and completed no mission.
Forgive me for taking a purely partisan viewpoint on the Moderate Voice, but if Bush chooses this plan with McCain’s backing, McCain can just kiss his 2008 presidential hopes goodbye. Polls are already showing Giuliani ahead among likely GOP voters. McCain is losing ground due to his call to put more troops in Baghdad—soon his numbers will match the president’s.
“(starting with a dictionary)” Well, Im not hostile towards proposals.
From Merriam Webster:
“slave….
1 a person who is considered the property of another person….
2 a person who does very hard or dull work….”
From wikipedia:
“Cannon fodder is an informal term for military personnel who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where soldiers are forced to fight against hopeless odds, such as occurred during trench warfare in World War I. The term may also be used to differentiate infantry from other forces (such as artillery, airforce or the navy), who generally have a much better survival rate.”
I stand by my analogies.
Gray62
During WWII, in the Pacific theater, the Navy lost more lives than any other branch of the military.
Wikipedia: US Marines
“The Department of the Navy, led by the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV), administers both the Marine Corps and the Navy.”
“Nearly 87,000 Marines were killed or wounded during World War II and 82 received the Medal of Honor.”
Yeah, ‘the Navy’…
Gray62,
I stand by your definition of “cannon fodder,” as that was the term we used in the army for infantry. I wasn’t one of those…
The problem with the AEI strategy, like most others, is that it completely ignores the political situation in Iraq. They see the conflict entirely in military terms – Sadr’s group and others are to be cleared from Baghdad. This would be done with the aid of the Iraqi forces. – Unfortunately, Sadr’s group is immensely popular in the neighborhoods it controls. It isn’t like a rogue gang terrorizing the locals. Its highly popular among poor Shiites and terrorizes the Sunnis. Sunni’s, of course, have their own factions which terrorize the Shia.
We’ve seen what happens when American forces begin challenging the leaders of the death squads and the militias. Maliki forced the removal of the cordons around Sadr city and the release of Iraq’s most wanted.
Wow, it took a long time in the comment section before we got anything but a knee-jerk response, eh? I’m new here – is this usual?
Thank you Paul in Austin. (Some others were also sensible) Let’s talk. There are of course dozens of plans on the market, but not many are politically possible. It’s a pity it has to be that way, as the first assessment of a plan should be “will it work?” Among the politically possible answers, which is most likely to result in victory for both us and the Iraqi democracy?
There are many audiences for any statement made, and each audience thinks it is the only one. Conservatives are fond of claiming that the Europeans and the UN are going to complain about anything we suggest other than talking, so screw ‘em. But Europe has a solid history of screaming bloody murder about how unilateral the US is while quietly cooperating with us. The various governments know that Iraq can and must be won and that terrorism must be stopped, but they won’t get elected saying that. So right off the bat, we need a plan that provides enough cover for sensible Europeans to stay on board. Ditto sensible Democrats and wavering Republicans. There have been large majorities in favor of previous war resolutions not because the legislators were tricked or didn’t know that the major posers were going to attack them, but because when the facts are laid out before them, most genuinely want to protect Americans and saw the sense of it.
You next.
If Bush had followed such a plan three years ago, we might have had a chance. It was called the Powell Doctrine. Remember that? Remember Eric Shinseki, who said we’d need about 500,000 troops to secure the country? Three years later and the apologists for Bush are calling for a do-over. That’s rich.
If Bush can conjure up 350,000 more troops then I say great. But absent a draft, those troops will not come. A surge of 20,000 – or even 40,000 – troops will make no difference in Baghdad. Think about this: if those troops go after the Sadrists, the Shi’ites will start attacking US troops the same way the Sunni insurgents do. We have shown no ability to control Anbar. What makes people think we can control Sadr City or the Shi’ite South?
What AEI and Kagan propose is not a proposal for victory. It’s a proposal for face-saving and nothing else. Iraq is lost. It no longer exists as a coherent political identity. It is only held together by weakened strands that get weaker every day.
Suppose we really did have 500,000 troops, would that be enough? It might help in the short term in some neighborhoods. But without a deeper political settlement, the violence would swell up again as soon as we drew down. Why? Because there is no Iraq anymore. There is no common basis upon which “Iraqis” form a political community.
Bush might push for the AEI approach, but it will fail, miserably. And it will fail within about two months. When it does, John McCain’s Presidential ambitions will be shot. The American people have given up on this war. They no longer respond to “calls for victory” or “the perils of defeat.” Americans have disengaged from this war and there is nothing that Bush can do to reverse the trend, short of a miracle. Those who “still believe we can win” say that because of their personal reputations which look to receive a generational drubbing. Nobody will ever take the Weekly Standard or AEI seriously ever again if Bush himself gives in to reality. This is about face saving, not victory.
Your priorities and mine are a bit different. You see the problem as one of victory in Iraq, I see our main problem as victory against Al Qaeda. I’m worried that, by focusing all our resources on reviving the Iraqi government, we’re on the verge of losing our original fight in Afghanistan.
We’ve sunk most of our resources into a fight for an abstraction – Success in Iraq was never defined, and mistake after mistake has now made the entire effort dependent on the good will of the Iraqi factions. Our best hopes now are that any stable government will be able to control the chaos – even one ruled by the pro-Iranian Sadr.
Meanwhile, the Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan and our leaders are begging NATO for more troops. Losing that battle – allowing the Taliban to take root and again provide bin Laden with a base of support, would be disastrous. Far more disastrous than the collapse of Iraq.
That Sun article is hilarious. I’ve had personal dealings with their reporters, and they are profoundly uninterested in facts that go against their preconceived notions/
At the most what you get from this plan is a temporary reprieve from the violence. The report states that “the most likely outcome“ of an increase in troop strength is that the militias will “go to ground”. The trouble is for how long? Even if violence could be reduced for two years that does not mean that there will be no resurgence as soon as we leave, or reduce deployment. The idea is that with a reduction in violence increased economic activity will reduce militia recruitment, but the popularity of Hezzbollah in Lebanon makes me believe that this is not true. The other problem with this report is that it does not address the militia involvement with security, military , and government. A ministry of transportation run by a Sadr affiliate will not be doing much work in Sunni areas. The minority groups will never feel safe with a security force that is seen as part of the sectarian problem and as soon as we leave the fighting begins again. There are a lot of bullet points but the devil is in the details and that is the part that is missing.
I do not agree with Kagan for a variety of reasons, but this plan is probably the most well thought out military only plan out there. It is a total focus of what needs to be done, but unfortunately there are pitfalls:
1. Should the administration give the controls to the active army over the guard and reserve units, it will just decimate these units and their families. Granted they are part of the military, and all facets of the military is sucking it up, but this places extra burdens and strains on the whole military when average public family is not sacrificing one iota.
2. We are now not only asking for deployments to happen more often, but now expect longer than 12 month deployments. In 2002 while in Afghanistan, the deployments for US Army were six months. A friend today in Iraq, recently rotated in, will be there fourteen months. Now we are expecting to have the soldiers to spend even longer durations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
3. The administration will not call a draft. Expect 1960’s type backlash against the administration and military if the draft were to be called. Does the White House want another problem to worry about?
4. Though the AEI document does not come out to say it, should this plan be given the go ahead, then expect either taxes to be raised or the deficit to increase. You cannot pay for butter and guns at the same time.
5. This plan should have been thrown out there three or four years ago. The problem is one where the success will not be achieved in the short-term. This plan has a lag time problem with training troops and getting equipment constructed. This really goes back to the Tennessee National Guard question where Rumsfeld retorted, “You have to go to war with the military you have.� That happened what two years ago and our strategic thinkers are now coming up with this plan?!?
6. It is very vague to what the goals are other than “winning�. No benchmarks to determine what our success or failure are.