A Dozen Reasons Why More Troops Won’t Work
(1.)
Some 10, 20 or 30 thousand additional troops at so late a date in a war that required three times the 140,000 troops that former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld allocated will have little impact. American troops have become central to the problem; they are no longer central to the solution.
(2.)
An increasing number of Iraqis depend on sectarian militas for protection from the onslaught of kidnappings and killings. More troops aren’t likely to change that.
(3.)
Training of Iraqi army and police recruits to replace U.S. troops continues to fall behind schedule. Many recruits are assigned to units based on their political and religious beliefs. The desertion rate is high. Some units side with and protect sectarian militias.
(4.)
The long-held view that U.S. troops cannot make inroads unless the Iraqis first ease sectarian tensions is now being turned on its head: It is disingenuous to believe that more troops will enable the Iraqis to then ease sectarian tensions.
(5.)
Previous efforts in June and August to restore stability to the worst neighborhoods in Baghdad by injecting more U.S. troops failed because death squads simply adapted to American tactics.
(6.)
U.S. troops do not have the training or language skills to be big-city beat cops. Posting additional troops on Baghdad street corners is an invitation for carnage.
(7.)
It is notable that the Baghdad government has not called for more troops. It almost seems like a bit player at this point, not the full-fledged partner that was going to assure a brighter future for long-suffering Iraqis.
(8.)
No less an authority than the Joint Chiefs of Staff say that it does not make sense to send additional troops without a coherent strategy on how to use them.
(9.)
That said, there is no new strategic ground to be broken. There are only so many ways to skin this particular cat. All have been tried — and failed.
(10.)
The Army already is at the breaking point. Sending additional troops will cause upheaval in deployment schedules, including the further extension of tours that already have been extended and the continued drawing down of dangerously depleted stateside National Guard units. The upshot is a degredation of morale.
(11.)
Military options cannot be considered in isolation from political options. Sending more troops without concomitant initiatives to mend the dysfunctional Baghdad government and reach out to all of Iraq’s neighbors undermine the entire effort.
(12.)
No matter how many troops are sent, they cannot stay indefinitely. Time is on the side of the militias and insurgents, and they will simply wait out the Americans.
26 Responses to “A Dozen Reasons Why More Troops Won’t Work”
(13) How many of these additional 10,000 – 50,000 surge troops are going to be “teeth” and how many are going to form the “tail”? That is, how many of them are actually going to be on the streets and countryside “fighting” insurgency?
ES:
Given that the additional troops would be in the form of combat brigades, we’re talking about “teeth.”
Shuan,
I disagree. There are logistical and operational issues with a BCT placed on the ground – there has to be people placed to make sure the team can do its task. Brigade staff officers and their folks, maintenance, construction (like as if there are current resources for the new units to move into), supply, security for their FOB, LSA items, and so forth. The footprint may be up to 50,000 soldiers, but there are other things to worry about than just getting troops into the countryside.
A madman in the White House disconnected from reality, listining to no one but his inner delusional voice, about to start a mid-east horror and you people talk about logistics. God have mercy!
ES:
There is no disagreement. Of course combat brigades have support personnel. The point is that the additional troops will be from combat units and not, say, MP, PSYOPS, Aviation or Civil Affairs units.
I have to agree that the president is now dangerously divorced from reality. Where once he at least gained a modicum of credibility by maintaining that troop levels were to be determined by his military leadership—Abizaid and the JCS, now he has abandoned even that pretext. The only conclusion that I can come to is that he cannot face the defeat that he must face, and lacks the ability to put into place many of the ISG’s recommendations (at least some of them were worth trying). The time to send more troops was three 1/2 years ago. Gen Shinseki was marginalized and demonized for having the temerity to disagree with Rumsfeld and speak the truth about troop levels.
That time has passed, and Shaun is correct in asserting that a smaller surge of 10-30,0000 is worse than useless now. Casualties will mount, as the new troops that have been rushed over there turn into living targets.
Abizaid thought it was a bad idea, because it would lessen the Iraqi government’s responsibility to maintain security with their own army. He has been one of the voices of sanity and reason coming out of that hellhole. He isn’t worried about his legacy as Bush is, only about the irresponsible waste of human life and taxpayer dollars that doing this would entail.
Bush has not come up with a valid reason to send more troops, and I don’t think he is strategically apt enough to detail how they would be used to regain control over Baghdad. Why should more Americans die for his ego??
Kim said: “Bush has not come up with a valid reason to send more troops, and I don’t think he is strategically apt enough to detail how they would be used to regain control over Baghdad. Why should more Americans die for his ego??”
God help me, I completely agree with Kim and Shaun…which may seem bizarre since I supported the war and Bush.
If one knows one’s military history, the pattern here echoes actions of leaders in the past…when it is evident current strategy isn’t working, but thinking with a “big push” it can still be won. World War I was the classic example of this process (the term the Bush admin has used – the “big push” – originated then).
Abizaid will have taken military history courses as part of officer training. He knows, and most folks at the Pentagon know as well.
You need a plan…not just sending more troops into the grinder.
This is just so sad. Thinking about the young men and women in theatre risking (and losing) their lives for no clear strategy is just heartbreaking.
Marlowe- Thanks for the intellectual honesty! Better late than never. Some of the commenters were criticizing MvdG for his recent conversion, but I commend anyone who has an open mind, and is able to admit that they are now thinking differently.
At least the big push in WWI was actually big. This is just “clap harder.”
I have to wonder if Bush is counting on some behind the scenes negotiations by Al Maliki to allow a break in the violence. Or a breakthrough in Israel…
I am looking for an alternative explanation for this ongoing tragedy and Bush stubbornness.
Kim said: “Thanks for the intellectual honesty! Better late than never. Some of the commenters were criticizing MvdG for his recent conversion, but I commend anyone who has an open mind…”
You’re welcome Kim. No one is more surprised at my finding agreement with liberals on this point than am I.
Hmmm…I was not aware of folks criticizing MvdG (have not been at TMV so much in recent days because of the season).
That is too bad, as this is not a matter of “faith” but a realistic analysis of facts in the light of historical models. As you say, one needs an “open mind”. Believe me, I truly hope that President Bush will somehow prove you and I to be complete idiots.
Carpeicthus said: “At least the big push in WWI was actually big. This is just “clap harder.”"
That was funny. It reminds me of a great line Joe had a few weeks back to describe Bush’s “Policy by Positive Affirmation”. I have used it since (with cited reference, so Joe doesn’t sue my ass
as it seems to accurately embody the administration’s approach.
There needs to be a clear, coherent strategic plan. The insurgents have an improvised plan – hit the Shia, stir civil conflict, create negative images for western media – while the US has had nothing after the elections in the spring.
How can the President go day after day with more dead, with no clear end or even a strategy? I don’t understand.
Paul in Austin:
Yes, it would be nice if there was some sort of nice surprise under the national Christmas tree, but I don’t think either Bush or Al-Maliki are capable of delivering.
Bush is isolated and even his new defense secretary has grave doubts about what purpose upping the ante would serve. In Iraq, it does not behoove any of the warring parties to make nice to Al-Maliki.
There were be no Christmas Surprise. Or January Surprise. Or . . .
Paul in Austin said: “I have to wonder…I am looking for an alternative explanation for this ongoing tragedy and Bush stubbornness.”
Paul reflects my view here. The Iraq policy (or its reasonable facsimile) debate feels like being in “Wonderland” and one keeps hoping for something resembling reality.
Is there an “alternative explanation” that would make sense of it all?
I truly wish I could see one.
Marlowe- I don’t think this is a liberal-conservative issue anymore- especially since only 11% think sending more troops in is a good idea. The 11% must believe that we have to support the president in order for him to succeed. I don’t think they are looking at the issue pragmatically. Liberals were less tied in to loyalty to Bush or the GOP-so they were able to call him out on flaws in his planning earlier-that’s all.
More troops will not work but the Neo-Conservatives will continue to say that the war was not fought the way they wanted. The movement will go on, and that is the real danger. In order to discredit the movement I would send in more troops, but with the firm cut off date of 2008. They have their last chance to “fix� things and we are gone, a firm date set in stone. The Neo-Conservative movement would fail in Iraq and wither away, or at the very least their adventurous and dangerous foreign policy proposals will no longer be taken seriously.
Grognard- I guess my only difference of opinion with what you wrote- is that I think the neocons have already failed- and that we would be crazy to take one of their foreign policy proposals seriously again after what almost everyone has deemed a fiasco in Iraq. I don’t see that we need to send good money after bad—sacrifice more lives for a matter that is pretty much settled. Look at Bush- he is standing alone, and some political pundits are even questioning his mental health.
Ultimately, peace has to come from the Iraqi citizenry, not the American military. Unless, of course, we plan on staying there as a police force indefinitely. That being said, increasing the number of troops makes little sense at this time, unless it can be shown that tactical failures have resulted from a lack of troops.
Kim, I see your point, I too hope that their day is done but I would still like to stomp on them and make absolutely sure. What I am thinking is that a few years down the road we will have to be dealing with China, I want the Neo-Conservative movement to be long dead by then. God only knows what they would want to do in dealing with China, it certainly would not involve diplomacy.
If only we could just but Lieberman and McCain in charge of Iraq policy. They’re moderate centrists, after all.
I think we’d all better hope McCain doesn’t get the nomination and go onto the presidency. That would be a neocon’s dream come true- a staunch ideologue, with brains and no messy family lineage!
Kim:
McCain’s not a neo-con ideologue, he’s closer to being a Colin Powell overwhelming force advocate.
Takhallus- But Colin Powell believes in only using overwhelming force when you’ve exhausted all other options, and then only if the results will justify its use. McCain has moved to the right and is calling for more forces in Iraq- Powell publicly disagreed with that plan on the Sunday chatfests.
Also, Powell is famous for telling Bush “you break it you own it”- meaning they needed an occupation plan– I haven’t seen McCain come out and emphasize this in the last 6 years.
Kim,
The latest neo-con plan,, just published seven days ago, is the one mainly written by Fred Kagan and GEN Jack Keane. AEI paper.
Like you had said earlier, this is just another push to show how right they are. I agree with you that they are a discredited bunch, but they unfortunately have the ears to those who make decisions and influence policy.
As for McCain, he is just sucking up to the Bush supporters to help him get elected. He used to be a light of independence but has transformed himself to be next Dubya since he began constructing his staff and infrastructure to run for the White House.
You could double the number of American troops and it still wouldn’t achieve Bush’s stated goals so long as the Iraqi security forces aren’t really forces dedicated to peace and security for all Iraqis. While large numbers of them are nothing but extensions of sectarian militias there is no hope for anything resembling a peaceful, united Iraq.
“God help me, I completely agree with Kim and Shaun…which may seem bizarre since I supported the war and Bush. ”
Wow, Marlowecan — I think I just felt the world tilt on its axis! ;-D Welcome!
Shaun,
You may not see this response, but I was able to find a document to show the “tail” and “teeth” numbers, other than me uttering them.
Army Times Excel sheet
Historically for the GWOT campaign, the occupation percentages for our army forces fall out as:
Infantry 25.9% (+5.7% for officers)
Admin 10.5% (+0.8% for officers)
Elec/Mech Repair 13.4% (+2.4% for officers)
Svc &Supply 11.8% (+5.7% for officers)
Commo/Intel 9.5% (+1.0% for officers)
The numbers do not add up to 100% because i had not shown all the occupations.
My point is that if 10,000 soldiers were to be sent to Iraq in a surge capacity, we are looking at ~3500 men in “teeth” positions. That means ~6500 men are supporting those who are doing the daily patrols in one form or another.