Disagreeing about Iraq Posted by: McQ
on Monday, August 08, 2005
Disagreement one:
Condi Rice is of the opinion that the insurgency in Iraq is losing steam.
"It's a lot easier to see the violence and suicide bombing than to see the rather quiet political progress that's going on in parallel," Rice said.
"If you think about how to defeat an insurgency, you defeat it not just militarily but politically," she said, adding that she believes the insurgents are "losing steam" politically.
I agree ... partially. But as we've covered a number of times, there are the insurgents and then there are the terrorists, and for whatever reason, they seem to be continually lumped together into this "insurgent" ball.
The insurgents represent those groups, primarily Sunnis, who are dedicated to getting the US out of Iraq. They are not necessarily dedicated to destroying the new and emerging government in Iraq. It is they who may be losing steam politically.
On the other hand, the terrorists, as represented by foreign al Queda operatives and Ba'athist sympathizers, don't care a bit about the politics of the situation. They obviously don't care if they are popularly supported (as evidenced by their habit of blowing up Iraqis) and they'll not stop until they're successful in destroying any emerging democratic instutions in Iraq.
So, while the insurgents may indeed be losing steam politically, that won't necessarily stop the violence or even dampen the level of violence (at least in short bursts). But, should the insurgents see enough progress politically (i.e. the Sunnis are a major part of any government) and feel comfortable enough that US troops are going to withdraw relatively soon, we may see an easing of that insurgency. However, the terrorism will continue unabated and absolutely unconcerned with the politics of the situation. That leaves the US and Iraqi forces with little choice but to root them out and kill them.
Disagreement two:
Pentagon officials have been planning recently for a gradual withdrawal beginning early next year on condition that Iraqi political goals were met and the insurgency was under control. Last week the Defense Department set the number of trained Iraqis at 175,000.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, disputed that number on Sunday, saying fewer than 3,000 Iraqis troops have been trained for all kinds of combat.
Well that's interesting since Biden is quoted as putting the number between 4,000 and 18,000 about a month ago. The Pentagon claims 142,000 are trained and Gen Richard Meyers says 40,000 in the same article. My guess is the real number is between Biden's 18,000 and the Pentagon's 142,000. That's progress, however slow. But as we've pointed out any number of times, you don't develop an army or security force overnight. Non-commissioned officers and senior officers aren't created by declaration, they're created through experience. That takes time, years of time.
But I'm not sure what Biden is talking about when he says only 3,000 Iraqi troops have been trained for "all kinds of combat". I suspect that Douglass K. Daniel, who wrote the article for AP, doesn't either.
As Jon pointed out in his summary of Gen. McCaffery's report on Iraq, McCaffery thinks that much progress has been made, but much more training is still necessary:
The Iraqi Security Forces are now a real and hugely significant factor. LTG Dave Petreaus has done a brilliant job with his supporting trainers. 169,000 Army and Police exist in various stages of readiness. They have uniforms, automatic weapons, body armor, some radios, some armor, light trucks, and battalion-level organization. At least 60,000 are courageous Patriots who are actively fighting. By next summer—250,000 Iraqi troops and 10 division HQS will be the dominant security factor in Iraq.
McCaffery says 60,000 are fighting. That is a number I'd be comfortable with right now as one in which the US could tout as "adequately trained". That would leave 109,000 still in training to reach that level.
Having read the McCaffery summary, I'm inclined to consider Biden's gloomy numbers to be a result of politics instead of reality. For whatever reason, he appears driven to paint the worst political picture he can. Couldn't be tied to his hope to compete in the next presidential sweepstakes could it?
Disagreement three:
A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said Americans should prepare to be involved with Iraq for a long time.
"The insurgents are thinking in terms of years. It took 10 years in Afghanistan to evict the Soviets. We're thinking in terms of months, and that causes problems," Reed said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
"We have to be prepared for a long involvement. We have to do it not just rhetorically. We have to have the resources, we have to expand our army, our Marine Corps, we have to provide them with the best equipment possible," Reed said. "There's lots of things we can do."
My disagreement here has to do with the length of time involved, not the call for an expanded military equipped with the best possible training and equipment.
Let me point out, in fact, that I consider it vital that we expand the active military, because if I had to guess, I'd say our reserve and National Guard forces are going to go through a bit of a melt down over the next few years. Iraq is not the first depoloyment for these folks. Many of them have spent tours in Kosovo as well. Reserve and National Guardsmen signed up to help out in times of national emergency. That really doesn't mean multiple tours of areas which are more security missions than combat missions. So an expansion of the size of the active military is vital in my estimation.
As noted my major disagreement comes is with the predicted length of time involving our presense in Iraq, and I again go back to Gen McCaffery's assessment:
We must continue to level with the American people. We still have a five year fight facing us in Iraq.
Why do I agree with McCaffery and not Reed? For the same reason I essentilly disagree with Condi Rice's lumping of the insurgents and terrorists together. As McCaffery points out:
High Sunni voting turnout and political participation in December will likely set the conditions for the down hill slide of the insurgency.
There is your key. That is what will tell us the status of the insurgency. And it is that bellweather event which determine how long we will be in Iraq. A high turnout will signal high confidence in the political process and essentially no support for the insurgency. Again, let me stress that it will have no effect among the terroists, but it will signal the beginning of the end of our involvement in Iraq. And if that is so, I agree with McCaffery that the time period is about 5 years. And that will not be at the troop level we are presently maintaining there now, but at a much reduced level.
Disagreement four:
Biden repeated his contention that the U.S. has too few troops committed to the war and questioned Defense Department reports of Iraqi troop training. In addition to those trained for all kinds of combat, 25,000 to 30,000 require significant U.S. support, but another 10,000 to 15,000 are incapable of performing military tasks, he said.
"They're still not leveling with us," Biden, appearing on Fox, said. "There's this race against time. Can we get a government up and running — can they get a government up and running that has the capacity to maintain order before we lose the support of the American people?"
Biden, for whatever reason, seems to think he understands the training challenges and requirements better than the generals on the ground doing it, and he seems to also feel that somehow putting more troops on the ground would be better.
What he totally ignores is the primary cause of the insurgency (not the terrorism) is the presence of US troops in Iraq, and putting more in there would work at cross purposes of the goal of taking the political steam out of the insurgency. It would simply be a dumb move.
I lean toward going with the recommendation of the military trainers on the ground as to how many US troops are needed for the mission. As Generals Casey and Vines have said, they've never been refused more troops when they've asked for them, but they've not had the need lately to think they need more.
Note too, Biden's clearly political calculation. He wants "a government up and running that has the capacity to maintain order before we lose the support of the American people." Well, Mr. Biden, when all you issue is "gloom and doom" assessments with questionable factual standing, you hasten that loss of support. What would be refreshing is to see some actual political leadership in which the left joins the right in saying, resolutely, that we're not going anywhere until Iraq has a functioning government which can take care of itself in the security realm.
It would also be refreshing for someone like Biden to acknowledge that armies and security forces aren't built overnight and that there is a minimal length of time in which the experience necessary for leaders to emerge within the ranks must be observed to build a viable force. I think General McCaffery's 5 years is a reasonable estimate of that time.
Not to mention that almost anybody with inititiative either became part of the Baath party or dead. That reduces your available pool of low-level leadership which you’re going to need to build an effective military and police force.
I wonder if the increasing deadliness (but decreasing frequency) of attacks is illustrative of the Sunni insurgents backing down and the terrorist factions stepping up operations. It seems to me that the insurgent forces would be poorly trained and poorly supported and capable of frequent but not particularly strong attacks. Whereas the terrorist groups would be better supported logistically and capable of causing a greater amount of damage per attack.
What is unfortunate is that despite the lower incidence of attacks (likely due to to an insurgency that is slowly being incorporated into the process) the casualty rate is only increasing because of the increased sophistication of the weapons that the terrorist groups seem to be using.
I agree with you that one should be careful not to conflate "terrorist" and "insurgent". However, there is plenty of evidence of collusion between the two groups. It is because of this fact that I have to disagree with your statement: So, while the insurgents may indeed be losing steam politically, that won’t necessarily stop the violence or even dampen the level of violence (at least in short bursts), for the simple fact that the insurgency and the terrorists are linked. To a large extent, the terrorists exist in Iraq and operate under the consent of the (primarily Sunni) insurgency. If the insurgency "loses steam", then to the extent that the terrorists rely on the support of the insurgency the terrorists will be correspondingly damaged.
In my view, in the absence of an insurgency, the terrorist organizations in Iraq will die a "root death". This doesn’t mean there won’t be isolated terrorists attacks post the end of the insurgency, but it does mean it will become "very rare" as opposed to an "almost daily occurrence" in the Sunni triangle.
Note that there are 18 provinces in Iraq, yet in only three provinces (the Sunni dominated ones) + Baghdad is there a high level of either insurgent or terrorist activity. Some provinces have gone months without a terrorist attack. Without the support of local factions, terrorists in those regions have become exposed as the foreign interlopers they truly are.
Yeah, like Biden is really accurate and to be trusted. here are some of his predictions leading up to the Iraqi elections. Remember his dispute with Secy Rice over election security?
McQ, in the disagreement #4 section, don’t you think that Biden stating, "There’s this race against time. Can we get a government up and running - can they get a government up and running that has the capacity to maintain order before we lose the support of the American people?", don’t you think that he was saying it in a sarcastic sense as if that’s what the administration is saying/doing? Like he’s saying that the administration is trying to put up the government by whatever means before the support of the American people is lost? That’s the way I took it when I first read about it but I haven’t heard any audio so I don’t know in what manner he said it.
First, I completely disagree with ceding the term "insurgent" to anyone (especially Secretary Rice!). They are all terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was a "terrorist" in the US. Nobody called him an "insurgent" because he was "fighting" against his own government - so nobody should call the Iraqi Sunni _terrorists_ anything other than what they really are.
Second, I think your analysis of the two forms of terrorists is incredibly simplistic. Terrorists kill for a lot of reasons, but I suspect that the -least- of these is because the US is in Iraq. They kill because they _hate_, and hatred is a powerful force. Certainly the existance of US forces gives them a rally-point, but if the US pulled out their efforts would intesify, not diminish. They are clearly focused on regaining power. And only because the new government is making that less likely, and because they are seeing other avenues to gain power (probably wealth generation and capitalism - moreso than democracy) are they losing their interest in murder. They will become the Iraqi mafia before too long, and they will solidify their power-base through criminal tactics - just like all criminal organizations do.
Third, the idea that foreign terrorists are unimpeded by activities in Iraq is also somewhat naive. Guess what, foreign terrorists are dieing in Iraq day-by-day. Certainly new ones are springing up to replace the fallen, but (as with any military attrition), they are less trained, and less formitable than their predicessors. That being said, as an "organization", they are learning new ways to inflict local damage, so their specific attacks seem to take more lives and cause more havoc - but their _mission_ is falling farther and farther back, and they are losing the most important thing they possess - the power to influence behavior. As the Iraqi population begins to see the fruits of capitalism and freedom bloom, the terrorists will lose their influence, and the Iraqis will slowly squeeze the life out of them. Then they will pack up and move to another location where the population is sufficiently weak, so they can regain their power over people.
Too many American’s see this "war" in the battles. We need to look at the larger picture - that’s where wars are won. Just look at our own American revolution. Washington was chased all over the Northeast by the British troops, and only won a few battles. But in the end, it was the Army of Potomac that won the day. They did it due to Washington’s dogged determination, and the will-power to fight on even though everything was looking pretty bad. Likewise, examine the results of the Vietnam war. The American armed forces won _every_ battle they were in, yet the Communists won the war. The reason, because we lost the _will_ to fight. I have to agree with Senator Biden on this one point - it is a race, and the finish line is when Americans lose their will to win. But Senator Biden is doing his best to move the finish line closer, and trying to make us stumble before we get there - as if he’s rooting for the enemy. The enemy will dry up, but we’ve got to keep the pressure on until he does. Every comment by an American politician that we "ought to quit" essentially gives the terrorists another boost in morale, and that boost keeps them fighting just a little longer.
RWilson, I don’t think Biden is saying that we "ought to quit". If anything, I think he’s saying that we have to keep fighting...a little longer. I don’t think HE’S saying it’s a race, but suggesting that the administration is treating it like a race. For instance, right now the pols say that Americans are losing their support for the war...so before that support dries away completely, the administration is racing to put a government in place. Am I wrong in taking what Biden said in this sense? Again, I have not heard audio so when I read the actual article this is how I took it.
Very good article. Actually it’s a rare example of thoughtful and measured writing on Iraq. A few questions:
1. What percentage of the terror in Iraq is from jihadis? From anecdotal reports it seems very high at this point of the battle. Are there any reliable statistics?
2. Is the Iraqi resolve sufficient to withstand the jihadis? Will they cower or will they continue to step forward, join the government, and fight for their country?
3. Finally, it is clear that rebuilding Iraq is a long-term process but when can we step back and let them finish the process? Are the Kurds and Shiites strong enough to withstand the re-emergence of the Baath or the seizure of power by jihadis?
Washington was chased all over the Northeast by the British troops, and only won a few battles. But in the end, it was the Army of Potomac that won the day.
I think that you’ve mixed up a couple of wars, there.
There is your key. That is what will tell us the status of the insurgency. And it is that bellweather event which determine how long we will be in Iraq. A high turnout will signal high confidence in the political process and essentially no support for the insurgency. Again, let me stress that it will have no effect among the terroists, but it will signal the beginning of the end of our involvement in Iraq. And if that is so, I agree with McCaffery that the time period is about 5 years. And that will not be at the troop level we are presently maintaining there now, but at a much reduced level.
There is zero basis to believe that the main assertion in this paragraph is true. Remember, the next election is not about candidates, it is a vote on the forthcoming constitition. And by all reports, the new constitution will (1) create a federal system wherein there is significant autonomy (and oil revenue) for the Kurds and the Shia and (2) will set up a system whereby it will take only a simple majority(read Shia) to pass the most important pieces of legislation.
So let’s say the Sunnis do turn out in high numbers. And let’s say they vote in high numbers against the constitution (which right now seems far and away the likely outcome). And let’s say the constitution passes anyway. Do you really believe that the Sunnis are simply going to throw up their hands and say, "Well, we lost. Too bad for us. Put your guns down, guys, it’s over. The Kurds and the Shia get the oil money. We get the sand."
A high voter turnout will not signal confidence in the process - the vote is ABOUT the process. And the Sunnis at this point have no reason to vote for the consitution in its current form. Indeed, it might be better in the long run if the Sunnis did not participate in high numbers.
So, here’s the question: What do you think the Sunnis who are fighting us at the moment are doing?
Let’s say your (and their) fondest hope comes true: Tomorrow morning, the US military pulls out of Iraq.
Do they think they’re going to be in charge then? Because the Kurds and the Shi’ites also have guns, and they sure as heck aren’t about to allow themselves to fall to the tender mercies of the Sunnis.
And if they were simply fighting to get us to leave, that still does not resolve the issue of what the resulting country would look like, after we left. Because they’ll still need some system of governance, and one in which the Shi’ites and the Kurds are not going to automatically be under the Sunni minority.
This is what has been so puzzling about the insurgency. What, exactly, is the desired end-state for the insurgents? And is it a fantasy (along the lines of Lee Harris’ Fantasy Ideology piece in Policy Review)?
Without the American support the picture changes. The Kurds have no friends apart from the Americans. The Shia have Iran, but the Shia there are Persian and the Iraqis are Arabs tribes apart that have fought for a couple of millenia.
The Sunni have the wahhabist jihad and the Syrian Baathists to assist them. These backers make them the best bet to take over if Iraq is left as a failed state. Only if Iraq is left with a working security force and government with control over oil revenue will the rebellious Sunni be vulnerable.
Well, that’s what I mean Unaha - solid numbers are hard to come by. Pep talk and expression of aspirations are more forward looking goal posts but not reality. It’s hard to gage the reality especially since these new forces are untested. There’s always been a question in my mind if these people deserve our help.
In answer to Lurking’s question, if we were to abandon plans for Iraqi democracy it wouldn’t mean we would fail to arms the Kurds and Shiites. It’s the Sunni jihadists that are part of the worldwide network that attacked us on 9/11 and attacked our allies in Madrid, Bali, London, etc. We’d back the Shiites against the Sunni jihadists like we back Stalin against Hitler – a horrible choice, no doubt, but let’s hope it’s doesn’t come to that.
And by all reports, the new constitution will (1) create a federal system wherein there is significant autonomy (and oil revenue) for the Kurds and the Shia and (2) will set up a system whereby it will take only a simple majority(read Shia) to pass the most important pieces of legislation.
Do the Shia represent an absolute majority in Iraq or merely a plurality? If the former is the case then what you will likely see is a multi-party system (like in much of the world outside of the US) where ’coalition governments’ need to be formed in order to govern. In which case a Sunni/Kurdish ’coalition’ could easily balance out the power the Shias hold over the new government.
Further questions of importance are what type of federal structure the new Iraqi government will hold. They may decide on a compromise solution (much like the US system) where independent regions are given weight much like the US senate/house splits the difference between sheer population (like the US house) and equal weight (like the US senate).
So it really does depend on what type of system they ultimately agree upon.
...don’t you think that he was saying it in a sarcastic sense as if that’s what the administration is saying/doing? Like he’s saying that the administration is trying to put up the government by whatever means before the support of the American people is lost?
No ... I think he’s saying that’s what must be done, i.e. if the government isn’t up and running before the American people tire of the conflict, then we’ll be unable to get it up and running. I.e. he’s saying the patience of the American people is the determining factor. I’m saying we need leadership to step up and make the decision and not lay it off on the "support (or lack) of the American people".
What percentage of the terror in Iraq is from jihadis?
In terms of suicide bombers, I’d say the majority. In terms of IED attacks against the US, I’d say the majority of those come from Sunni insurgents.
Are there any reliable statistics?
I recall seeing some breakdowns by DoD, but I can’t recall when or where. But I do believe there are some reasonably good statistics available ... just don’t (or haven’t) had the time to search them out.
Is the Iraqi resolve sufficient to withstand the jihadis?
I believe so. Just take a look at available recruiting numbers for the army and police. They’re turning them away in droves.
Will they cower or will they continue to step forward, join the government, and fight for their country?
I think their inclination is to step forward. Polls have indicated majorities in the 70 percentile who trust the emerging government and respect their military.
Finally, it is clear that rebuilding Iraq is a long-term process but when can we step back and let them finish the process?
When they’re able to provide their own security. Per General McCaffery, that’s 5 years.
Are the Kurds and Shiites strong enough to withstand the re-emergence of the Baath or the seizure of power by jihadis?
I think so, if they don’t fall to fighting among themselves (which is a distinct possibility if the government isn’t all inclusive).
I’m asking for leadership, not waiting or banking on the support of the American people.
I see no particular leadership from Biden in that regard. While he may feel his statement reflects "political reality", its hardly the statement of a leader.
