Three Years & Nine Months Into the War . . .
This damaged tank, with armor plate and turret rearranged and one set of tracks off, is an apt metaphor for where the U.S. is in Iraq as we slouch toward the New Year.
Three years and nine months into the war, attacks against U.S. troops are at a record high, which is all the more extraordinary because many units are staying in barracks except for occasional forays out among the locals.
Three years and nine months into the war, the Pentagon acknowledges that Anti-American cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr’s sectarian militia is more dangerous than Al Qaeda which, despite President Bush’s fulminations, always has been a bit player in the insurgency.
Three years and nine months into the war, another grim milestone has been passed with the 25,000th American casualty. At the present rate, the U.S. death toll will exceed 3,000 early in January.
Three years and nine months into the war, the effort to win the hearts and minds of Baghdad residents by restoring and keeping crucial municipal services is an unmitigated disaster. Some neighborhoods in the capital are the equivalent of the South Bronx in the 1970s and both police and coalition troops dare not tread there. Most of the city is in perpetual darkness because insurgents control the power grid. There’s also a shortage of drinkable water.
Three years and nine months into the war, the government of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki totters on the verge of collapse. When he convened a reconciliation conference over the weekend to discuss how to stem the unrelenting bloodshed, no representatives of Shiite or Sunni extremist groups attended. No representatives of insurgent groups attended. No new ideas were presented.
Three years and nine months into the war, there is a paucity of ideas about how to attain President Bush’s goal of “victory” because that goal is no longer attainable. From the outset, goodwill was a much more precious asset than bullets, but that commodity was long ago squandered. Now no amount of bullets will win the day, which the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledge by unanimously agreeing that no more troops should be committed because the White House continues to fail to define the mission.
Three years and nine months into the war . . .
16 Responses to “Three Years & Nine Months Into the War . . .”
If the choice is made to send in more troops, against the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backers of this plan will have to live with the blood of more servicemen and women on their heads. All along Bush has claimed that he doesn’t make decisions based on public opinion polls, but instead listens to his generals on the ground. Well, now even the generals think this is a pointless gesture, that will attract more jihadists and insurgents to Baghdad. It will not be successful in ridding Iraq of the Mahdi Army, which is too large and integrated into the population. If we have a surge, they can just choose to wait us out, knowing full well that we can’t maintain the larger level of troop strength for very long.
My guess is that Bush has listened to all sides, and has no idea what to do next. He is the wrong man for the times, which demand an FDR, a Reagan or a Churchill- and not a cheap imitation. It will be interesting to see if Gates can function independently or is forced to stifle his own judgements and become another administration mouthpiece, talking endlessly about a victory that is no longer possible to achieve.
Kim:
What a great post! I was especially struck by your sage mention that whether the U.S. sends in five or 10 or 15 brigades, the militias and insurgents can wait them out.
This is all so bloody tragic that I continue to gasp with every passing “development” like the fact that much of Baghdad now has no electricity. Ever.
Thanks, Shaun. I think the sum total damage done by this war is too mind-boggling for us to grasp. I really have never in my life seen our government operate at such cross-purposes. How do you create lasting peace by destroying the very societal structures that you purport to want to protect?? I read yesterday about an Iraqi woman who no longer feels safe visiting relatives with her kids. Why? Because the south has turned into an oppressive theocracy, where women are subject to the constraints of Islamic law, and no longer feel safe driving. They are trapped in their houses—unable to enjoy even the freedoms that they once had under Sadaam. Only recourse is to leave the country.
Kim,
Are you saying that it is best to leave the country no matter what happens afterwards?
That is possible but what about that part of the world after the west has to leave? What about countries like Kuwait and Qatar that have been allies to the US. Do we throw them under the bus along with the Kurds in northern Iraq?
Maybe everyone should start analyzing the issue like they want President Bush to do: Define the problem, define what success would be and define the cut off point for failure.
SuperDestroyer:
“Victory,” “success” and similar terms are no longer in the vocabulary of virtually all close observers of the war. That now includes the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Your playbook is outdated, and it may be time for you to get the new reality-based edition. Just don’t try to buy one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
“armor plate and turret rearranged”
“Rearranged”! Hehehe, great understatment.
But, seriously, let’s hope that the crew got out unharmed.
Shaun,
If Democrats like Senator Obama should also apply the concept of defining the problem and benchmarks. Without them many Democrats are left talking about “over the horizon,” “gradual drawn down.” and “negotiations.”
If the United States decides that it is not worth losing one more life over and that is most important then the U.S. should pull everybody out today. If lessening the suffering and preventing deathcamps weighs as heavily as preventing the loss of America life then the U.S. should start planning for refugees, evacuations, and protecting those who have aided the U.S. should be considered.
The Kurds should also be addressed since it is now obvious that the Shia and Sunni cannot get along with the Kurds.
Gray62:
Although I cannot say so with certainty, it is probable that the crew got out because the armor plate and turret took the brunt of the hit.
To my knowledge, there have been very few instances of tank crews being seriously harmed, and most of them came during the early days of the war when a tank was hit and the crew had to abandon ship in an isolated area where they were at the mercy of the enemy, usually the Saddam Fedayeen.
There is no way for us to influence what happens once we leave. It’s just too late for that. superdestroyer’s argument will have us staying there for decades. Is that really where we want to be? There’s nothing in any plan saying that we couldn’t have troops stationed in the Kurdish area to make certain that the chaos in the rest of Iraq doesn’t spill over into their area if they would want us to do so.
SuperDestroyer is caught between Iraq and a Hard Place.
I agree, Jim S. What we should concentrate on is whatever damage control is still achievable, and elect a candidate who is serious about developing alternative fuels, so that we are no longer so dependent on this region. I have no problem with us supporting our allies, but the decision-making up until now has not been rational.
We are so worried about creating an impression of weakness to our enemies, that we have made decisions that have fulfilled that prophecy on our own. The Soviet Union exhausted its military by fighting a decade-long war in Afghanistan. We are doing the same thing.
The JCS can warn Bush that a surge won’t help the situation,that it will weaken our military further, and might even make things worse, but they can’t force him to listen. If he’s hell-bent on do or die self-destruction because he can’t face the consequences of what he’s done, there’s not much they can do about it. Unfortunately, he’s still Commander-in-Chief for two more years.
Those whose opinions I respect are calling for a regional solution. Its a lot harder than just doing more of the same when that’s not working, but that’s because our ME policy has been so one-sided for the last 6 years.
I agree with your first post. However, the neo-con thinkers are passing the buck to others – Rumsfeld specifically. If we have lost this many KIA and WIA over the last three plus years years, then what is there for these supporters to accept the responsibility of additional killed and wounded?
Shaun,
The Democrats are now in control. The can get the U.S. out of Iraq almost immediate (or at least starting by the end of January. Yet, they have decided to putt and wait at least nine months.
The Democrats need to get over their nitpicking tendencies and actually make a proposal based on some sort of rational. I have yet to see anything that is substansive. The present path cannot be continued by the Democrats seem to much more interested in scoring political points instead of offering alternatives.
If the Democrats want the U.S. out of Iraq but what I have not heard is how to do it. Are they willing to throw those that have helped the U.S. under the bus and leave them to die. Are the Democrats willing to leave the Kurds vulnerable to being massacred. Are they willing to leave Kuwait, Qatar, and Bharain open to relgious fanatics?
I believe that many of the Kos types would want to stab anyone who has helped the U.S. in the back if it helped the U.S. to get out faster.
SuperDestroyer:
Gee, and to think we made it this far in the discussion without resorting to the usual partisan back biting. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
Shaun,
You made the first partisan attack and you never addressed the issues. What do the Democrats want other than leaving as fast as possible.
Superdestroyer-
they would have to refuse appropriations for the troops, and by doing so would have the loss thrown at their heads, as the GOP is still doing with regards to Viet Nam. In reality it is the decisions that are made before and during a war that are most important, not the decision to recognize a lost cause for what it is.