Victor Davis Hanson at National Review online presents an article which contains eight points that he considers necessary for a successful outcome in Iraq. They mostly sound good to me, but IMO too theoretical. He is basing it on ideology. He emphasizes it on his fifth point which is:
5) The highest American administration officials — Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Gates — must all explain seriatim the new gambit in terms of democratic idealism, the only way to ensure that the millions of brave Iraqis who voted for a constitutional government are given the support necessary to stabilize their achievement. The war will not just be judged in Baghdad, but also in New York, Washington, Cairo, London, and Paris. Fierce antiwar critics, here and abroad, have staked their prestige and careers on American failure, and will not wish to see Iraqi and American troops, Ethiopian style, routing the Islamists. Their arguments must be countered hourly.
He is not giving enough weight to the huge number of people in the US who have non-ideological concerns. Those concerns are basic to the US commitment.
- Who is the enemy in Iraq that we are fighting? Are they Iraqi nationalists who do not want a foreign military in their country for any reason? There clearly must be many. There sure would be if they were in the US. Vengeance is a large part of the culture in the Middle East. Many insurgents may have no more motivation than revenge for a killed grandmother, a victim of collateral damage. Are we on the Sunni side or the Shiite side? Do we care which side wins? Throw in the criminal element and add international jihadis and you have one hell of a lethal cocktail of adversaries. Then we have the militias and with and against them all those that just hate and fight each other, many of them so motivated to kill that they will commit suicide doing it. Every American GI is a nice living target for anyone belonging to any of those groups and many more that I have not mentioned.
- The US by some estimates has spent $400 billion so far. That is almost $5000 for each American family. That is more money than most families have cash in the bank. What is the right amount to spend on Iraq for any reason good or not?
- 3000 dead and 20,000 wounded is either too many or not, depending on your point of view. People are always comparing the casualties to other American wars. Americans would sacrifice 20 million if the cause required it. That is survival. Is this Administration capable of articulating to the American people an argument for Iraq that will convince them that additional casualties are worthy and necessary? Would 55,000, as in Viet Nam be acceptable?
...So what might we do to ensure the success of this troop surge, the greatest gamble thus far in the war to secure the Iraqi postbellum democracy?
1) Provide a clear definition of victory as the establishment of a stable Iraqi democratic government, free from sectarian and terrorist violence. While there may be a sick appeal in allowing Sunni and Shiite jihadists to kill each other off, such endemic violence will only wreck the country. The role of the U.S. military, then, must be to ensure a monopoly on violence for the Iraqi government, itself free of militia infiltration, fighting to put down insurrection and factional strife.
2) Establish in advance new protocols with the Iraqi government that offensives and operations must be allowed to culminate. It will be a disaster if heads of militias are captured only to be let off, as happened once in the past when Moqtada Sadr was surrounded.
3) Ensure that an Iraqi veneer covers all of our operations. The aim of these operations is not just the disarming of militias and the killing of terrorists, but fostering confidence in the Iraqi people that their own soldiers were responsible for such successes. As much as possible, we should keep American generals off the air and avoid the public-relations disasters of the summer of 2003 when Americans, not Iraqis, were televised in daily press conferences.
4) Supporters of the surge may call it a "bump," or suggest that it really does not mark much of a change. But like it or not, it will be seen as an escalation with all the attendant risks. So warn the American public that there is going to be a new level of violence, a storm before the calm, as American and Iraqi forces hunt down the terrorists, kill them, and disarm the militias — and that this is as necessary as it is going to be ugly, especially when the rules of engagement must expand.
5) The highest American administration officials — Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Gates — must all explain seriatim the new gambit in terms of democratic idealism, the only way to ensure that the millions of brave Iraqis who voted for a constitutional government are given the support necessary to stabilize their achievement. The war will not just be judged in Baghdad, but also in New York, Washington, Cairo, London, and Paris. Fierce antiwar critics, here and abroad, have staked their prestige and careers on American failure, and will not wish to see Iraqi and American troops, Ethiopian style, routing the Islamists. Their arguments must be countered hourly.
6) Emphasize offense. Our new forces are not going to “patrol” or “stabilize” things by their “presence” or “reassurance,” but rather are being sent to Iraq for one purpose: to hunt down and kill or capture terrorists to ensure public confidence that the Americans and the new Iraqi government are going to win. And fence-sitters should make the necessary adjustments.
7) Close the borders with Syria, and, as far as possible, with Iran. Assume that there will be more supposed “wedding parties” bombed and various other propaganda victories for the enemy once we begin hitting trans-border incursions — it is a necessary price to be paid in this final push for victory.
8) Prepare regionally for the unexpected with more troops and air wings on alert. If more coalition troops begin to arrest and kill terrorists, expect Syria and Iran to foment trouble elsewhere, or to move on fronts in Lebanon, Israel, or to accelerate nuclear acquisition. We should assume that a surge will raise the stakes in the Middle East at large, and that our enemies cannot afford to see us prevail.
read it all here.
VDH seems to think victory requires more of the same, only with cleverer execution.
ReplyDeleteOptimistic fella that VDH.
VDH's last two points state what should have been done from day one. It is good that at least one pundit understands the region:
ReplyDelete7) Close the borders with Syria, and, as far as possible, with Iran. Assume that there will be more supposed “wedding parties” bombed and various other propaganda victories for the enemy once we begin hitting trans-border incursions — it is a necessary price to be paid in this final push for victory.
8) Prepare regionally for the unexpected with more troops and air wings on alert. If more coalition troops begin to arrest and kill terrorists, expect Syria and Iran to foment trouble elsewhere, or to move on fronts in Lebanon, Israel, or to accelerate nuclear acquisition. We should assume that a surge will raise the stakes in the Middle East at large, and that our enemies cannot afford to see us prevail.
This is a regional WAR (not conflict) that will spread to Syria, Iran and others (Somalia anyone?). To continue to ignore this is pure stupidity. If we think the American people don't want war now, then too "effing" bad - they're going to get it sooner or later.
Do we want it on their terms or ours?
An excellent post by Bob W. on the condition of the US Army at Wilsonizer. Bob is a good analyst, thinker and fine writer.
ReplyDeleteLC, the "tar baby" is coming for you anyway. Let's melt him down now!
ReplyDeleteYou can't always get what you want,
ReplyDeleteno you can't ...
We have been at the point where the US "could declare victory and leave" for three years.
Have done neither, yet.
We will not be doing so soon.
If some of you had joined the "reevalute" or "change course" crew a couple of years ago, we may have had a greaer effect on Policy.
But it is humorous to see all the "Johnnies came later", all that now "know" that the winks and nods have "new & improved" meanings.
VDH says the problems will be solved with expanded Rules of Engagement. Who is he kidding?
The US prosecutes those that de facto expanded the Rules on the ground in Haditha. There willl be no "loosening" of the noose our troops have been placed in.
For most of the VDH recomendations no more troops are needed, just a change of tactial policies.
But the Bush Team will play to politics and create a 'conflict' with the Ms Pelosi and Mr Murtha.
More troops, with more of the same tactical policies in Iraq.
The Enemy has only to "hang on", there is a deadline for the US, one year, two, four at the most.
The Iraqi have a lifetime, more.
As fathers dream of their sons Victories aginst US, yet to come, and decide that the sacrifices that they make, today, worthy of posterity.
Sacrificing today for a better tomorrow, and the blessings of allah.
re: the vilsonizer.
ReplyDeleteOf course we should have exended the incountry tour lengths.
An 18 month minimum, with 24 months or Victory as an even better option.
The Marines concept of a 7 month rotation, fine for real combat, is counterproductive to achieving any kind of long term success in an occupation operation action like Iraq.
But the wives & mothers like the shorter rotations.
Trish is correct. You have to have cooperation in one form or another from Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as well as the different Iraqi factions in order to make a real political settlement.
ReplyDeleteArmed Mexicans Attack Unarmed National Guard Troops on US Soil
ReplyDelete“[T]he news story received scant coverage by the mainstream news media…It's a story that should outrage all Americans including President George W. Bush.”
“US National Guard troops are prohibited from carrying any type of weapon and have been ordered not to confront lawbreakers coming across the border. The Guard troops are not allowed to apprehend illegal entrants, as well.”
“‘Basically, the National Guard troops are doing what private groups such as the Minuteman Project have done at US borders -- observe and report,’ said a Homeland Security Department official.”
“‘This is one of the most expensive dog-and-pony shows dreamed up by the Washington establishment in recent history. Imagine using trained troops on the US border unarmed and prohibited from taking action. It's a scam,’ says Mike Baker, a political analyst.”
Could such circumstances have motivated the Founders to establish the process of Impeachment and Trial?
The administration should strive to gain the same sort of cooperation it has so successfully garnered from the government of Mexico.
ReplyDeleteA problem is that many Americans (and even many posters here) see war and politics as seperate. One goes off and the other on and vice versa. So insisting on a "political solution" sounds as if it also means the war must end first, when in reality, both are intertwined.
ReplyDelete"This is one of the most expensive dog-and-pony shows dreamed up by the Washington establishment in recent history."
ReplyDelete---
Symmetry, my man, symmetry:
As we educate our young, so should we employ our young adults. Conservative George EXPANDED the Federal role in education.
Many graduates from such Federalized institutions have no idea which is the business end of a weapon, thus best to have such weapons locked and unloaded.
To think that in '94 the achievable dream was ENDING the DOE.
But then, in '94, expecting presidents to generally follow the laws of the country was a reasonable notion.
Bubba and W feel no such constraints when their personal passions are involved, and G_d knows W is passionate about NOT enforcing immigration law or securing the border.
A Fine Example of a President he is.
Nancy Reagan had her Crsytal Ball.
ReplyDeletePerhaps W secretly consults with Mrs. Arnold for tips on becoming a better compassionate conservative.
...and how to pass out more goodies to criminals and revolutionaries who choose to make the USA their place for conducting business.