"There's only one way for the insurgents to win: that's to drive us out before the Iraqis are ready to assume the battle space," General Abizaid said Sunday on the CNN program "Late Edition." "If that's what happens, they could win. But it's very, very clear to me that we're going to stay the course."
I think General Abizaid overstates the degree of certainty we have that we are actually willing to do what it takes to win. Oh, the Bush administration would be willing to stay the course, but I'm not entirely certain that the public will remain willing to tolerate the constant drip-drip of bad news that will necessarily occur in this phase of a regime-change/reconstruction/democracy plan. They want the benefits of winning the war, but they don't like watching the cost, so we're going to see demands to "do something", highlighted by people who claim we don't have an "exit strategy".
Well, that's just wrong. This is the exit strategy:
A - Regime change ->
B - Reconstruction of infrastructure and democratic institutions ->
C - Sustainable, democratic government.
A was easy, B is tough. Perhaps it could have been a bit easier had we kept the Iraqi army intact, brought in more troops, leveled Fallujah early-on, turned over more control to the UN, etc. Perhaps. But that's not necessarily true, and the current insurgents are opposed to the presence of foreign troops and the creation of a democratic Iraqi government. None of the aforementioned changes would have prevented an insurgency based on those factors.
The only way to C—which we can all agree is a laudable goal—is through B. And the way through B is not necessarily entirely military...
"Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency."
It's political. And it's not just political on the Iraqi front; it's also a matter of US political will.
The only way we'll get through B is if the American public is willing to tolerate the painful interregnum between the Saddam regime and the democratic Iraqi government.
The alternative is to follow the advice of those who would have us turn and run—those who are "unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to [our] army" and wish to flee the battlefield. Those who, "[a]fter a few blows" "forgot all about" our goals and would have the US rush "out of [Iraq] in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers".
That's how Osama Bin Laden described our 1990's ennui and eventual retreat from Somalia. At least in that instance we could argue that there was no vital US security interest at stake.
In Iraq, though, everybody—the US, the insurgents, the international world, and Al Qaeda—knows that US credibility is on the line. If we once again rush out because we can't handle casualties, then our reputation as a Paper Tiger will be cemented. Again. With, I suspect, similar results.
Rusmfeld entered into the Congressional Record an article from the Chicago Sun-Times entitled “Why U.S. Viet Policy Lacks Friends—Our Credibility Destroyed” Rumsfeld stated: “I do, however, believe it is important to the future of our Nation to recognize that there is a problem of credibility today.” ... [and later that] "the people of the United States must know not only how their country became involved but where we are heading.”
The administration should be much more upfront about the problems we face, and the probable investment we will have to make. Throwing out conflicting accounts of the "last throes" of an insurgency which "could go on for any number of years" is neither credible nor helpful.
On the other side, merely asserting over and over again that "there's violence so we must be losing" is neither credible, helpful nor serious.
If panty-waist liberals have their way, America will not even be a paper tiger. We will be a fresh-faced 12 year old (who has been raised with “time-outs” being the worst occurrence in life) heading off to school in the ghetto with our brand new Nikes, expensive sports jacket and pocket full of lunch money.
Just as gas prices will never go back down, public support for this disaster will never go back up.
The American government is not in control over events in Iraq and they damn sure can’t fool the American people any more with happy talk about how the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power.
The Bush regime has reached a dead end in Iraq. The war is already lost.
I truly believe that the Abu Graib and Guatanamo prison "issues" have painted the USA in a bad light. The USA has lost much of its moral authority, and that will make progress slower and more difficult. This is coupled by the fact that the war is viewed as illegal, by international standards. While many Iraqi’s may be glad that the Baathist/Hussein regime is gone, any new regime that embraces the USA occupation too enthusiastically will be difficult to sustain.
The Shiite majority is also in a precarious position, especially with the newly elected Iranian (Islamic Shiite) government. War with Iran seems more likely to happen before any end of the Iraqi insurgency. Questions regarding Kurd soveriegnty must also be addressed. This also opens up another regional can of worms.
People who had monitored the complexity of the Iraqi demographic prior to 9/11, and who all but predicted that there would be difficulties with a USA occupation should not be chastised for calling it right. Neocon predictions have mostly been fantasies, to this point.
The volunteer army is being tasked to the limit, as are reserve troops and National Guard forces. Recruitment of new forces is also down.
The USA has fixed itself into a box, that’s for certain. Do we need an exit strategy? I agree that setting a specific end time would be dangerous. However, there needs to be an outline of acheivable goals to mark progress. If the USA public can recognize progress, they may see fit to stay a course.
The current administration has done a poor job, lately, of articulating such goal posts, and making the public generally aware of successes. And support for the war is waning because of this.
I think that it is fair to say that the Iraqi operation is turning out to be much more difficult than it was sold to the American public to be. And this, again, is a failure of the current administration.
Just as gas prices will never go back down, public support for this disaster will never go back up.
Be a real shame if we came so close, only to fail because politicians demanded we scrimp at the end.
The Shiite majority is also in a precarious position, especially with the newly elected Iranian (Islamic Shiite) government. War with Iran seems more likely to happen before any end of the Iraqi insurgency.
I simply don’t see how either Iraq or Iran would be foolish enough to start a war.
People who had monitored the complexity of the Iraqi demographic prior to 9/11, and who all but predicted that there would be difficulties with a USA occupation should not be chastised for calling it right.
No, they should not. I was among them, as McQ may recall from our discussion group days, noting the lack of a natural "Next Government" for Iraq and the intra-Iraq antipathies. Those are problems, but that is all. They have not proven sufficient to declare Iraq a failure.
Those who said Iraq would be difficult after the regime change—including Bush, I might add—were right. But they should not leap from that observation to the assumption that "difficult" means "failed". When they do that, they are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
However, there needs to be an outline of acheivable goals to mark progress. If the USA public can recognize progress, they may see fit to stay a course.
I agree. I tend to think that the progress in the establishment of an Iraqi government is precisely that. I freely admit my disappointment with the progress of Iraqi troops, but—slow as it may be—they are moving in the right direction.
The current administration has done a poor job, lately, of articulating such goal posts, and making the public generally aware of successes. And support for the war is waning because of this.
I have been having this same discussion in a 2 part post that really started our looking at historical war casualities entitled the Softening of America
Even round after round, some people just do not get the logic and reasoning.
The PR problem is simple, and borne out by history. The American people are prepared to accept soldiers dying. They are prepared to accept costs and bad news. But what they want in return is visible progress, and good news. This is why support for the war surged around the elections in January: people could see something good happening.
The difficulty is in finding ways to measure and communicate progress in a way that the media is compelled to acknowledge.
The difficulty is in finding ways to measure and communicate progress in a way that the media is compelled to acknowledge.
Well yeah, to a point, but the media has an obligation in that department too. After all they claim to report the news, and unless I missed something, that doesn’t just mean bad news.
The PR problem is simple, and borne out by history. The American people are prepared to accept soldiers dying. They are prepared to accept costs and bad news. But what they want in return is visible progress, and good news. This is why support for the war surged around the elections in January: people could see something good happening.
The difficulty is in finding ways to measure and communicate progress in a way that the media is compelled to acknowledge.
One of the ways to do this could be to make progress?
The acknowledged threat to stability and democracy in Iraq is the violence. The military (and McQ) reports good news that the Iraqi nationalist and Baathist group (secular groups) are being brought to the table and lessening their attacks. At the same time the level of violence remains the same, this is because Sunni extremist groups both local and international (Al Qaeda) are increasing their attacks, this is the bad news. The really bad news is that if these groups continue to grow at this rate then the insurgency is going to get much worse before it gets better.
Policing inside Iraq and at the border is unlikely to stop these groups by itself. As an example of this I present the Mara Salvatrucha, who are being policed quite heavily inside one country, however they are funded and supported outside of that country and therefore have not been stopped.
SDK: Unfortunately, the last portion of your comment (the part where you [presumably] outline some of the alternate workable strategies you or your political choices are suggesting be pursued at this point) was omitted. Could you please sign back on and complete your comment? As it stands now, your comment appears to be simply the mewling of a Bush political opponent and amounts to pissing and moaning without any constructive suggestions for solving the problems complained of. Pardon me, you do suggest an outline of acheivable (sic) goals. [sarcasm/humor alert] Presumably the DNC would forge this noose with which to hang the administration as unknowable future events transpire? Good suggestion – for the Democratic party! I anxiously await your serious suggestions for alternate strategies in Iraq.
The insurgency/terror campaign wouldn’t last 1/2 hour without a lot of tacit approval by Iraqi civilians (of various sects). Whether from religious bigotry, fear for their safety, nationalism or just plain pissiness, the population seems content to get blown up and blame us for rudeness if we search the wrong house. Generations under Saddam have drained nearly all the initiative and courage from these people. Until they find it in themselves to stand up against their compadres and co-religionists, US soldiers will hold back the tide of anarchy. They will shed the blood and our tax dollars will pay for it.
Yes, I know X millions voted at the risk of their lives. I read Chrenkoff too, and he’s showing us a mosaic. It isn’t a picture yet and won’t be for years.
Saying "Victory is right around the corner" (or "Mission Accomplished"?) is an insult to our intelligence. The only way out is through, no matter how long it takes or how many more graves at Arlington. There won’t be a Waterloo or Appomattox (sp?). We’re just going to wake up one say and realize that Iraq has become normal. If we’re not prepared for that, we should bail out now because that’s the only way to win.
What growth, pinhead? The rate of insurgant death?
Yes - coupled to more Iraq death and more American death.
For several weeks now the right wing media have been reporting success in reducing attacks from Baathists and Iraqi nationalists (political success). At the same time the left wing media have been noting near constant level of violence and trying to use it to discredit the right wing media. For the right wing media to be believable there must be an increase in activity by internationalist (foreign) Sunni islamist terrorism to take up the slack in the terrorism.
This rate of internationalist terrorism will not stop growing when it reaches the levels previously achieved by the nationalist terrorists, therefore things will get worse.
Robert Fulton (though I doubt SDK will agree):
The war on terrorism needs to be escalated by forcing the sponsorship of internationalist Sunni-ism to cease. Only America has the power to do this and only America stands in the way of this happening. The current American policy of fighting a contained, defensive, limited war in Iraq is too weak and feeble to frighten the terrorists.
Honestly, I did not agree with this war’s beginning. I worked with the DoD over 10 years. I wasn’t optimistic about a quick succuss, as outlined by the neocon administration. Losing broad international support for this military action made it a more dubious enterprise. I really did not see how Hussein/Baathist would benefit by using WMDs on the USA.
Now Hussein/Baathist did reward suicide bombers in Isreal. There was a risk and possibility that Hussein/Baathist could supply substantial arms (WMDs) to terrorists. Still, this would have needed to be done with great care. Any determined connection to terrorists would have definately been the end of the Iraq Baathist regime.
It would have also been strange for the Baathist regime of Hussein to cooperate with Al Qaida. Al Qaida is an Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist group. They adhere to a strict interpretation of Islam. Iraq governed by an oppressive secular dictatorship, not a theocracy. In fact, it was for these reasons that the USA/west supported Iraq in the 1980’s in the Iraq-Iran war.
The Iranian revolution replaced an oppressive dictator (Shah) with a theocratic rule. The Shiite state of Iran threatened the Emirate’s/Monarchy’s of the Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca and Medina. So the west supported Iraq’s invasion and war with Iran. During this time, technology and supplies for manufacturing WMDs were supplied by the USA/west to Iraq. Also, use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi’s against Iran and Kurd’s (who have been battling for soveriegnty for years) was common knowledge by the USA (Rumsfeld).
Following the end of the Iran-Iraq war, relations between Iraq and the west. Then there was Iraq’s invasion into Kuwait (and threat to Saudi Arabia) that started Gulf I. Bush I opted against regime change at this time. In fact, after calling opposition the the Hussein/Baathist regime to arms, the USA abandoned Iraq and the opposition was eliminated.
Following Gulf I, and the relaxing of USA/west monitoring of Iraq, especially its weapons programs, many governments (apparently) believed that Hussein/Baathist were pursuing weapons programs. When UN inspectors were reintroduced into Iraq to determine if any weapons programs or WMD stockpiles existed, none were found.
Okay, so this administration doubted the UN inspectors and labled the Hussein/Baathist regime as a direct threat to the USA. (Able to attack the USA in 45 minutes/mushroom cloud, etc.) Of course, Iraq lost its air force after Gulf I. For Iraq to possess a WMD weapon capable of reaching the USA would have been a remarkable accomplishment for such a closely watched regime. (An attack on Isreal would have been more plausible given their technology.)
So, we have an adminstration that was incorrect about Iraq’s ties to Al Qaida and it WMD stockpile/capability, from the get-go. This of course is a loss of technical credibility. The fact that we were so confident in our technical assessment of Iraqi technology, coupled with our judgement of Iraqi/Al Qaida ties, both justifications for pre-emptive war, greatly undermined are ability to succeed in this venture from the beginning.
It is also becoming more clear that many of the lauded certainties about Iraq were not. These intelligence failures are coupled with administrative/leadership failures with regard to Abu Graib/Guatanamo Bay prisons. What is or is not going on there become irrelevant, because the USA affectively has lost it moral credibility, as well.
So, the USA is in a real big fix. I cannot see a road to success without substantive changes in approach and strategy.
What do I think should be done from this point?
Some very visible action regarding Abu Graib/Guatanamo Bay (and other prisons in/for Iraq) improve Arab impressions of the USA. Improving conditions and possibly shutting down some facilities.
End renditions and our ties with regimes such as Uzbekistan (we will probably invade that country in a few years, and "shocked" politician’s will justify it because they torture and boil people alive there(!).
Use less lethal methods to fight the insurgents
I believe the USA is suffering greatly in the PR/propaganda area. This endangers soldiers and makes success more difficult.
Also, reduce the number of USA contractors working in Iraq. The Iraqi people are poor and cannot find jobs. Do not pay expats huge salaries to drive trucks. Hire Iraqi’s. Give would-be insurgents something to do, and the ability to provide for their families.
We are killing too many Iraqi’s—brother’s, sister’s, mother’s, father’s, friends and neighbors—all more closely connected to one another than they are to the USA and the dream of democracy. This is supposed to be a liberation, not a conquest.
Create jobs and improve infrastructure. Iraq is in a shambles months after USA forces arrived. The standard of living, in a physical sense, has gone down.
.... most everything this administration has done has been misguided, from a strategic/military sense, from my view. But, then I am not privy to the resouces and intelligence that the president is. Regardless, for transparency of information would help ease citizen concerns about being deceived by this administration.
Got it SDK. However, that movie has already been made. It was entitled "The Bad Seed". You remember, the dedicated earth mother loved the girl child (who was a monster - the bad seed, get it?) who ended up killing the mom. Anyway, so we can win the Iraq war by getting everyone a job. Well, let’s see...some of the guys would make good butchers and meat cutters (they have their tools, I have seen them on video). And some could be blasters (they know how to set off remote charges). And, let’s see...less lethal methods...STUN GUNS! But then they recover and come at us again. How about time-outs? We already have that at Gitmo. It just occured to me; are you around 12 years old? The time doesn’t show on your comments, but I’ll bet they are all made before 10:00 p.m. (your bedtime).
Honestly, I doubt you get it. You probably never will. If one see’s that every problem is a nail, then they see the one solution is a hammer. But, the world is more complex.
The damage and death that has been caused by the USA invasion will not be forgotten for years. And honestly, do you think this enterprise in Iraq is going well?
This adventure has cost the USA more than we’ll know for some time. I believe that objectives could have been met an alternate way, that’s all. Unfortunately, the damage has been done already.
If one see’s that every problem is a nail, then they see the one solution is a hammer. But, the world is more complex.
The way it goes is: "If your only tool is a hammer, then you tend to view every problem as a nail."
What did you do for the DoD? Run a floor buffer? Maybe you should have been designing all these new, yet unspecified "less lethal" methods of dealing with insurgents.
If panty-waist liberals have their way, America will not even be a paper tiger. We will be a fresh-faced 12 year old (who has been raised with “time-outs” being the worst occurrence in life) heading off to school in the ghetto with our brand new Nikes, expensive sports jacket and pocket full of lunch money.
I think Robert gets it exactly right. If your only tool is a "time out", then you tend to view every problem as a spoiled child of liberal parents. Guess what? Some of these problem children strap on bombs and blow up other people.
Wake the hell up. America is not representative of the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, power and authority flows from the barrel of a gun. Having the bestest and the mostest guns is what protects us from dictatorial rule, and it’s what is going to get the Iraqis over the hump on the way to a democratic government of their choosing.
For Iraq to possess a WMD weapon capable of reaching the USA would have been a remarkable accomplishment for such a closely watched regime.
Amazing.
The requirements for a fission bomb capable of being used in a terror strike are much more lenient than the requirements for a fission bomb capable of being fired out of a cannon or launched in a missile. After all, the basic technology required to create *a* fission bomb is now 60 years old. We already know there are conduits that allow people to bring illegal items into the US (after all, cocaine makes it way here). What would it take to build a "fat man" bomb in a suburban home in any of our major cities? Is it impossible to believe that Iraq wouldn’t sell the component parts of such a beast to the enemy of its enemy?
Iraq was supposed to disarm in accordance with the cease fire terms. It was the Iraqi governments responsibility to actively prove that it had no WMDs rather than a 10 year game of "we know but we aren’t going to tell you." South Africa dismantled its nuclear arms program and proved it to the rest of the world. If Iraq had followed the South African model, Saddam’s goons would still be happily feeding people into wood chippers today.
I would definately think differently if this administration had been correct about its claims. For instance, the uranium from Niger claim, which was lauded to scare the public that nuclear weapons were within his grasps, turned out to be a big fat lie. And it seems that the Bush folks knew it. So, Mark and Mr. Fulton, where has this administration called it right and straight from the beginning?
When the president and his administration skew intelligence information to scare the public into supporting an agenda of pre-emptive war, it doesn’t change the truth of the matter. Basing strategy on false claims and lies is dangerous, for one thing. The goal posts are constantly changing. Now, we justify this Iraq adventure because Hussein was an "evil" guy (who the USA pumped-up and supported during his days of WMD use, by the way).
Another problem is that it was never just about Hussein. He was a leader of a country for years. The power structure and relationships went far beyond a single man. So capturing Sadaam could only have a temporary and minimal impact.
When I speak of less-lethal, I am speaking of investment and progress for improving the daily lives of Iraqi’s. This would include water treatment facilities, energy supplies for cars and electricity, fixing roads. Public works projects that employ average Iraqi’s plus have a notable impact on citizen’s. If Iraqi’s lives were improving, perhaps there would not be so much resentment.
It this such a crazy thought? If you had no job, gas for your car, electricity, wouldn’t you be frustrated? Oh yeah, and liberating forces just killed Uncle X, and your 2-year old neice has no father. Get it now? Of course they are angry.
As for the 10-year game of hide-and-seek, is replacing by a 12-year game of roadside bombs and suicide killings so much better?
Certainly there were policy flaws with Iraq prior to the invasion. But, now we are in a war that many see as not going well. And much of this, I believe, is because this administration has not been done a good job of strategically thinking through a solution. It has spent more time securing oil profits for USA corporations in the future. And so more soldiers and Iraqi’s die, and no end to this occupation can even be predicted by the administration.
Oh, it would take enriched plutonium, for one thing, to build a "Fat Man" bomb. That is why the North Korean’s have WMDs, and why we are working to make certain that Iran doesn’t build a reactor that will produce plutonium. Both of these regimes were/are more of a threat to producing nuclear weapons than Iraq was, or for that matter, providing a suitcase bomb to terrorists.
In fact, the theocracy of Iran was one of two countries that had recognized the Taliban government of Afghanistan as legitimate. You, Osama is an islamic fundamentalist terrorist, and both Afghanistan and Iran are Islamic states. Iraq was a not a theocracy.
I suppose that I am just not getting the “nuances” here. Since sdk probably drives an electric car and heats his home with solar energy, he doesn’t care if US oil corporations do well. When I read that US oil corporations are going to do well in the future, I feel good about that. I want all US corporations to do well in the future – it is MY future (and my children’s, etc.). So sdk chooses to want US oil corporations to do poorly, believes the DNC talking points and chooses to ignore the reports of the infrastructure that we are building in Iraq. He has ventured out of the liberal cocoon (where he has obviously tasted the kool aid) and that is to be admired. He has the makings of a neocon. He just needs to drop the fantasy that he lives in Europe (or go live there).
Except, isn’t the USA in Iraq to help the Iraqi’s? What about their children?
Maybe YOUR children will be fighting in some war someday for oil because some people couldn’t bear to stop driving gas-guzzling SUV’s and their government thought it was better to start wars than invest in renewable resources or fuel efficient vehicles.
Of course, there is not a limitless supply of oil, either. China and India are investing a lot into oil and energy exploration and development to fuel their robust economy’s. China and Japan are presently contesting disputed offshore areas with oil reserves. Offshore reserves are placing Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and China all at odds, too.
Middle Eastern oil will be even a more saught after commodity by all of these nations, unless alternatives to fossil fuels are found.
Make up your mind, sdk, are we in Iraq to secure oil for US corporations or to help Iraqi children? Seems like you move your claims around to suit whatever liberal talking point you are parroting. You and your ilk are trying to turn America into a land of namby-pambys http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20050629.shtml
fi·as·co n…A complete failure. [French… used by the French for linguistic errors committed by Italian actors on the 18th-century French stage…] …GuruNet As in: “Sdk, your repetition of DNC talking points in these comments is a fiasco.”
I can see why you are drawn to use the word “fiasco”, but with regard to U.S. success in Iraq, it is mere political hyperbole.
In fairness, based on the original assessments for Iraq prior to the USA invasion, where has the administration been on the mark and where have they been wrong?
I submit that original assessments made by this administration were wrong. A failure of intelligence, perhaps, or a failure in the use of intelligence. But, wrong (i.e., failure) nonetheless.
Assessments after the invasion have also been incorrect on numerous occasions. So, where are the the successes in context to the initial objectives? Now, we have a sliding scale for objectives, i.e., Saddam was evil, so that’s why we invaded Iraq!
Oh, and before the retort resorts to name-calling, please address some of these concerns in specific terms. The name calling only highlights ignorance the facts.
