The Surge – Last Charge of the Neocons
There are several problems with the last gasp proposal of military historian Frederick Kagan, to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq. The biggest, however, is that it comes three and a half years too late. It cannot succeed.
Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a leading conservative think tank. His brother, Robert Kagan, is one of those neo-conservatives who loudly advocated and then applauded the invasion of Iraq. He and other neo-cons such as William Kristol and Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, David Brooks of The New York Times, joined inexplicably by Senator John McCain, refuse to acknowledge that the removal of Saddam Hussein through invasion has resulted in perhaps the worst foreign policy debacle in American history. They would have us believe that there was nothing wrong with the idea itself; no, it was the incompetent execution by Donald Rumsfeld that has mired us in this mess. An insufficient number of troops combined with an incomprehensible failure to plan for the invasion’s aftermath – that is why we have failed.
With those points, of course, it’s impossible to argue. Their mistake is in believing that by belatedly increasing troop levels now we can overcome the consequences of those colossal blunders.
The plan calls for a “surge” of up to 50,000 more soldiers and marines, thereby raising the ground force level to between 175,000 and 190,000. The extra troops would be deployed primarily in Baghdad, to quell sectarian violence and pacify the city’s neighbourhoods block by block, and in Anbar province to once and for all defeat the Sunni insurgency there. The provision of security for the people would be followed by infrastructure repair and economic development. The premise is that no political solution in Iraq is possible until the security situation is under some semblance of control and people see the reality of improvement in their day-to-day lives. The premise is fine; the timing is way off.
This is nothing more than the counterinsurgency strategy that the United States forces should have planned, prepared for and implemented from day one of the occupation. It should have been combined with seizure and control of all Iraqi army ammunition and arms depots; the imposition immediately of law and order on the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere; a plan for keeping as many Iraqis employed as possible; and the force that accomplished this should have been sufficient in size to suppress any attempt to organize resistance – say, several hundred thousand troops to use the estimate of then Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki. All of this should have been done; none of it was.
With the toothpaste already out of the tube, Kagan, former Vice-Chief of Staff of the Army Jack Keane and the neo-cons seek to mount an effort to stuff it back in again. And with a force that is probably half what was needed even at the beginning of this folly of an invasion and occupation.
The icing on the cake is that the man who will be in charge in Iraq soon will be Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno who commanded the 4th Infantry Division during the initial phase of operations in Iraq. Anyone who has read the outstanding book Fiasco by Thomas Ricks, defence correspondent for the Washington Post, will recognize Odierno’s unit as having done more to stoke than extinguish the nascent flames of the insurgency by rounding up thousands of young Iraqi men and shipping them off, unscreened, to Abu Ghraib prison. His heavy-handed use of military force at a time when winning the trust and support of the population was of paramount importance was the antithesis of sound counter-insurgency warfare. And this is the guy who will be in charge and who the army hopes will turn things around? Good luck with that.
The sectarian militias, the Sunni insurgents and the al-Qaida terrorists are too well established, too well armed and financed, and have proved themselves to be far too adaptable to enable us to secure the country with a surge of just 50,000 troops for a year or two. In fact, the plan implicitly requires a commitment of troops at this higher level for considerably more than two years, not to mention of financial resources that are already being expended at the rate of $2 billion a week, with little assurance of ultimate success.
This is folly writ large. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and the neo-cons have set our country up for a humiliating defeat but stubbornly refuse to adopt a sane strategy that will cut our losses in Iraq, restore our armed forces to their former state of efficiency and effectiveness, and reinforce our military commitment to Afghanistan to confront and defeat our true enemies – the Taliban and al-Qaida.
On at least one occasion, the White House mouthpiece, Tony Snow, ridiculed Democrats and other opponents of the Iraq mess as defeatists and asked how it would have been if Americans at home had clamoured for an end to World War II in the middle of the Battle of the Bulge. The analogy was beyond fatuous but, since he mentioned it, the 1944 Ardennes offensive is a reminder of the desperate lengths to which leaders will go to avoid having to face the reality of defeat. The offensive was Hitler’s desperate last ditch effort, against the advice of his senior generals it should be noted, to turn the tables on the Allies as they closed in on Germany from the west and east by employing his panzer reserve against the American forces spread thinly in the Ardennes forest – the scene of a German triumph against a different opponent in 1940. The later battle ended in a crushing defeat for the Wehrmacht and the loss of 100,000 men and perhaps a 1000 tanks; arguably, it hastened Germany’s defeat in the war.
The stakes for America are not quite that high as Bush contemplates his own desperate gamble in Iraq, against the better judgement of most of his senior generals, the Congress and the majority of the American people.
Still, the expenditure of lives limbs and resources that a long-term continuation of the war at an even higher level of intensity will entail, promises to be awful enough.
A small aside to a great post, well argued and informative. I’m a little bothered by a thought that’s been plaguing me for months.
“With those points, of course, it’s impossible to argue. “
Is it, really? I’m discomforted. My liberal, human rights, core beliefs tell me deposing Saddam was the right thing to do, even if those liberal ideals weren’t the core reasons for doing so. But, to my extreme discomfort, as I watch the trial and the conviction for the deaths of 148 Shia Iraqis 25 years ago, with the chaos in Iraq as a backdrop, I find myself wondering if it was the only way to govern a society so split by sectarian strife, people so angry with each other. Saddam ruled with an iron fist. And millions of people lived oppressed lives while thousands died unjust deaths. Is it better in Iran? Syria? Libya? Is the future Iraq has in store better than the past from which we liberated it? In China the iron fist of Communism keeps the dissidence low and the human rights violations high. America’s war on drugs is considered a misguided oppression of the poor, a barbaric and pointless exercise of arbitrary line drawing by most civilized, national standards. Would you choose your current level of oppression over the oppression of chaotic, anarchic violence? Saddam had a handle on the situation. A hard and unjust handle, to be sure. But more than anybody has now. Yes, as evidenced by my current level of self doubt, it’s hard to argue. But impossible? I don’t understand, when asked “would you rather have Saddam still in power?” my answer seems invariably, “Yes.”
One of the biggest problems I have with the vocal minority (such as yourself) is that you sit on the sidelines, pissing and moaning about the “neo-cons” agenda and lamenting the war in Iraq as wasteful and unnecessary.
Other than writing inane little columns like this one, are you doing anything to fix a situation you think is horribly broken? If you’re so positive that everything was handled wrong, how about providing some constructive alternatives. How would YOU have handled the situation? What would YOU do to fix it?
What you people don’t seem to understand is that the war in Iraq isn’t just about Iraq. Extremeist Islam is a global threat and somebody needs to stand up and fight back. President Bush told us up front that the war on terrorism would be long and difficult.
Instead of simply bashing everything you don’t agree with, try giving your life a little meaning by offering some level-headed ideas for improvement.
I agree with you 100%. Unlike many, I have no problem holding the view that overthrowing Saddam Hussein the way we did was a mistake and that both we and the Iraqis are almost certainly worse off as a result. Saddam may go to the gallows with a smile on his face knowing how much his overthrow has cost us.
My “impossible to argue” comment referred not to the wisdom or morality of the invasion - which I believe was unwise, immoral and almost certainly illegal - but to the nuts and bolts of the planning and execution of the occupation once it became inevitable.
The whole premise behind the attack on and occupation of Iraq was flawed. It was done in a haze of ignorance and hubris which failed to take account of the realities of a society riddled with religious, ethnic, tribal and other divisions and that was traumatized by years of oppression. The notion that we could simply go in, dismantle the established order in the nation and then declare: “OK people let freedom and democracy reign” highlights just how lousy our own electoral choices were in this country in 2000 and 2002. How did we end up with such wilfully blind and ignorant people running our country?
That one I still puzzle over! Thanks a lot for the interesting post.
NJB
LONG LIVE SADDAM!
Just kidding…
But I tend to agree with Tony. Saddam was a tyrant, and he had no qualms about killing his enemies, but he was not a threat to the outside world. Bush knew it and Blair knew it.
Had they not started this stupid war, our national coffers would be at least $500,000,000,000 richer, we’d have 3,000 more live American soldiers, and tens of thousands fewer wounded and maimed soldiers in our hospitals.
Have we accomplished any goals in Iraq aside from ousting Saddam? NO. Will more troops fix the problem? NO. Was it worth it? No.
I can think of hundreds of better ways to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, and many better ways to use our military.
“What you people don’t seem to understand is that the war in Iraq isn’t just about Iraq. Extremeist Islam is a global threat and somebody needs to stand up and fight back.” - Jon
Iraq was not an Islamic state, let alone an extremist problem for the rest of us.
I can’t come up with a way to fix it. But I was shouting from the rooftops before we went in, “This is a big mistake. Contain Saddam, keep the international cooperation we’ve already got, and continue to watch him.” Find a flaw in that plan.
For Jon:
I think the piece I wrote pretty much laid it out. Number 1: I wouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place. It was stupid. The country was no threat to us, Saddam was no friend of the Islamic terrorists who are our real enemy, and we already had sanctions, overflights and in the end UN inspectors scouring the country for WMD. Invading Iraq was and is not part of the broader “war on terrorism” which we should not even call a “war” to begin with - as though terrorists are warriors.
Number 2: I would fix it by getting the hell out of Iraq and re-deploying our military and financial assets in more productive ways to fight al-Qaida. I believe that was mentioned also in the piece. We have a real war to win in Afghanistan and thanks to Bush’s inattention we could end up losing that one also. How would that look as part of his legacy - losing two wars in one presidency?
Face facts, Jon: Occupying Iraq was never worth the price we have paid for it - and that would be true even if by some miracle peace and order descended on the country tomorrow. As it is, this is Bush’s war and he lost it. The only question now is how many more people we lose before we admit it and get out.
Thanks for your post.
NJB
“My “impossible to argue” comment referred not to the wisdom or morality of the invasion - which I believe was unwise, immoral and almost certainly illegal - but to the nuts and bolts of the planning and execution of the occupation once it became inevitable.” - NJB
Ah, perfectly clear now and I agree with you 100%. Thanks for the clarification.
To Jon, what do you expect Barnes to do? You’re accusing him of doing nothing but offering words, but I don’t see a lot of other choices for him. The administration doesn’t appear to listen to people with different or controversial points of view.
As far as the threat that extremist Islam presents, I don’t see the United States fighting that struggle. Iraq was one of the most secular mid-Eastern nations, but by invading we touched off both sectarian animosity and hatred toward the U.S. by the general Islamic population.
Personally, I have a brother that will be returning to Iraq in February. The danger inherent in his return to a war-zone far outweighs the political gain of removing a dictator from power in a foreign country, but beyond that I still can’t see how NJ is wrong. Is killing Saddam Hussein such a positive thing? My answer is no.
The problem is, if we really felt that his crimes were so serious, why didn’t we try to stop him while he was killing all those people? Why are we allowing the genocide in Darfur to continue unhindered?
Just a question I have.
Have any of you ever actually been to Iraq?
Daniel-
Have you been? If so, we would love to hear your take on Iraq and the people of Iraq? I hear it used to be a beautiful place with great people who liked Americans (as a people) even if they didn’t like the U.S. government. I doubt it is like that any more…
To answer your question though, I imagine that the answer from most, if not everyone, who posted here would be “no, I have not been to Iraq”. Does that really matter? How does that relate to the original post or ongoing discussion?
After all, if you were to ask President Bush, Dick Cheney and Bush’s cabinet the same question back in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq, who would have raised their hands?
Bush? Nope. Cheney? Nope. Anyone????
Donald Rumsfeld would have sheepishly raised his hand and acknowledged that back on December 20, 1983, he met Saddam Hussein and others in Baghdad to show the U.S.’s support of Iraq and to discuss our “common interests”.
Colin Powell would raise his hand, lean back and recount how he kicked some Iraqi ass back in 1991. Knowing that he is among friends, he may even go on to discuss how he got some sex with the locals (probably for cash or at gunpoint).
Is there anyone else in the cabinet who I missed?
So, ultimately if it isn’t necessary to first visit a country before totally messing it up, it sure as hell doesn’t take a trip there to discuss how messed up it is now.
“he may even go on to discuss how he got some sex with the locals (probably for cash or at gunpoint).” - Cory
HAHAHA…what!? Either you’re kidding or you failed to post a link to this story.
You know, a few days ago I would have been inclined to agree with you. At first I thought “Oh, great. Let’s send 20,000 more targets to shoot at.” There didn’t seem to be any real plan, just a “more has got to be better” philosophy. But I’ve been thinking about it and reading that the current insurgent strategy is a kind of modified “Zap Brannagen” approach. Throw wave after wave of young, untrained jihadists from outside the country at American and Iraqi Security forces. They lose something like twenty insurgents for every American casualty. But in fourth generation warfare, those are pretty good numbers. They don’t have to win in a traditional sense, they just have to inflict enough losses to make the public lose it’s will to fight. What (I hope) the idea behind increasing the troop presence would be to use the new troops to “hold down the fort” in Baghdad and free up the seasoned, experienced forces stop the flow of jihadists and weapons into the country. I agree that we should never have gone in, but we’re stuck there now. We’ve just provided a ring in which various nation states and non state players can pound the crap out of us. We’re faced with the prospect of withdrawing and setting the stage for a veritable genocide, or really taking the gloves off. It looks like we’re pulling at the laces right now. I’d like to think that next time there’s ten million people protesting in the streets all over the world, the leadership will listen. Unfortunately, they won’t.
Dan
Well this is why we need a thorough duscussion of the issue. Sure there’s an argument for modifying and even intensifying the military strategy we’re following in Iraq. I just don’t happen to agree with it for the reasons I laid out. I’m not saying with absolute certainty that a new strategy couldn’t possibly work; I’m saying that it is at best uncertain and probably won’t work unless the Iraqis themselves help to make it work.
More importantly, I’m against a “surge” because it will mean getting in deeper than we already are and making it virtually impossible to get out inside of five years if the strategy change is taken to its logical conclusion. Let’s not be under any illusions about that.
We lose about 800 American soldiers, marines and sailors every year in Iraq, give or take. That rate may go up at least in the first two years of a “surge”. The ratio of wounded to dead in this war is roughly 7-1. We currently spend about $7-8 billion a month on Iraq operations a year and that could go up under any new plan.
Is the country really prepared for the expenditure over a five year period of blood and treasure on the magnitude of 4000 more Americans killed, 28,000 more wounded (and the nature of those wounds from improvised explosive devices often result in lost limbs and brain damage) and $500 billion?
Maybe it is. Maybe in the end I will be in the minority. But for goodness sake let us as a nation at least go into this with our eyes open and not closed as they were when this misguided and unnecessary war was launched.
Thanks a lot for your comments, Dan.
NJB
Dan:
I have been to Iraq and I can tell you there are no experts. Some reporters or Congressmen drop in or take a “combat circulation” tour with a commander and feel free to make a pronouncement. Few really understand the complex nature of the conflict.
I can tell you that top military commanders “get it”. They know there have been so many bad choices that there not any good ones left.
I have some empathy with your instincts although I might be reading too much into your short comment. Here’s my take on understanding “Operation Iraqi Freedom”:
There is no victory. We can’t win the war and we can’t loose it. “Are we winning?” is the wrong question. If you had a chance to sit down with the generals in charge you’d hear much of the same.
The politics and culture of Iraq have evolved a bit more than ours. Right now there is a fierce battle to gather both political and military power. It’s not just Sunni and Shia or North and South. It’s tribal and clan and city. Many rivalries are based purely on personality cults. One Colonel summed it up well, “it’s like playing three dimensional chess”. Unfortunately we’re playing checkers. It’s in no one factions best interest to stop the power plays. It will continue. The US allows this by protecting the government. We are paying billions and loosing about 2 or 3 soldiers a day. The Iraqis aren’t in any hurry and, if you could sit down and talk with any one of the leaders, they’d tell you just that.
The theory behind the draw down is to put pressure on Iraqi leaders to reach agreements on sharing power, oil revenue and the nature of the federal system. No one benefits from a US withdrawal and the inevitable de-evolution of Iraqi society. So the gamble here is that the leadership will step up and find a political solution that will marginalize the radical minority.
The arguement behind the surge is to secure more of Baghdad and make the transition to Iraqi rule less uncertain. That means protect Sunni neighborhoods and cleanse the hopelessly corrupt National Police force from militia influence. That’s a noble goal but there’s no evidence that another 30,000 troops will be able to accomplish more than the 40,000 who are already there. It also gives time for leaders to position themselves—not to mention giving “insurgents” 30,000 more targets.
There are regional powers at play as well—Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Any one of which can interfere with either plan.
My prediction? The surge will accomplish little. We’ll start withdrawal by the end of the year. The Iraqi government will undergo upheaveal and radical change. Those in power now are transition players. There will be an inevitable battle between the Shia powers of Abdul Aziz Hakim (The Supreme Council for the Islamic Republic of Iraq and the Badr Brigade) and the Sadr movement (Moktada and the Mehdi Army). The best hope is a relative benign dictator that allows some influence from an elected Parliament. Putin comes to mind. The worse is civil war and the displacement of millions of Iraqis.
The irony is that ten years from now our allies will be the Sunni’s and Baathists’ that are now killing American soldiers. The US and Saudi’s will use them as a buffer between Shia Persia and the Sunni Arab world.
Finally I can tell you that the brave Americans in uniform are doing an incredible job. There is much good being done that you don’t see. There are also many brave Iraqis who are fighting for their country and taking enormous risks. When a policeman goes to work he puts his entire family at risk. There’s not many of us who would do that. It’s in this that our effort in Iraq may be salvaged–by the small acts of kindness that will remain in the memories of Iraqis in the decades to come.
They are just like us. They want to provide for their families and leave the world a little better for their children. They are, for the most part, wonderful, tough people who are doing what they need to do to adapt to a very uncertain and violent world.
Mike
ABCNEWS
Good points all. It’s just so horrifying. For background purposes I’m a visual journalism student and I see allot of the images that don’t run in the papers. Not super decoder ring images, just work from people who have given presentations. You can say what you want about precision weapons, 500 pounds of explosives is still 500 pounds of explosives. I remember one particular instance where a Bradley fighting vehicle was hit by an IED and disabled on Haifa street. People gathered around and some jumped on the burning wreckage. Minutes after the photographer left, a helicopter hit the wreckage with a hellfire, killing who knows how many civilians. The electronics and communications equipment couldn’t be allowed to fall into the hands of the insurgents. That being said, at least US military forces go as far out of their way as one can in a war to avoid collateral damage. I’ve heard reports of various groups randomly mortaring whole towns as a means of driving out the suni/shiia population.
I guess what I’m afraid of is that if we leave, we’ll have no choice but to back one group or the other, fighting a de-facto proxy war. I assume that what ever group that is will have much less regard for the civilian population. I’m the first to admit that I don’t have a very clear picture of what is going on, much less what to do about it. I know Mike’s right. There is no winning or losing here. We’re left with choosing a succession of lesser evils. Though, these images leave me with my palms pressed to my forehead thinking: “There’s GOT to be a way out of this…”