If the president decides to "go big" in Iraq early next year, then the campaign will be as violent as the initial invasion, though limited in scope. The report of the mostly-dilettante Iraq Study Group, released Dec. 6, has all deservedly but dropped out of sight. Like a bowling ball thrown into a swimming pool, it made a big splash, sank like a brick and left few ripples. Not even the Democrati-majority Congress is screeching for it to be implemented by the executive. (Gerard Baker, writing in the UK's Times, said the ISG's report was met with "a drenching chorus of raspberries.")
Last Monday Bush was, at last, briefed on an actual plan for victory in Iraq, one that is likely to be implemented. Retired General Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army, gave him a thumbnail sketch of it during a meeting of five outside experts at the White House. The president's reaction, according to a senior adviser, was "very positive." Authored by Keane and military expert Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, the plan (which can be read at aei.org/publication25292) is well thought-out and detailed, but fundamentally quite simple. It is based on the idea--all but indisputable at this point--that no political solution is possible in Iraq until security is established, starting in Baghdad. The reverse--a bid to forge reconciliation between majority Shia and minority Sunni--is a nonstarter in a political environment drenched in the blood of sectarian killings. Why would the Keane-Kagan plan succeed where earlier efforts failed? It envisions a temporary addition of 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. The initial mission would be to secure and hold the mixed Baghdad neighborhoods of Shia and Sunni residents where most of the violence occurs
The link in the cited text is to Kagan's executive summary. The full, PDF report is really a PowerPoint-style slide show that makes it clear that tens of thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines will be required to decide the issue on the ground in Iraq. In Baghdad:
We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority.
We must send more American combat forces into Iraq and especially into Baghdad to support this operation. A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the Spring of 2007 is necessary, possible, and will be sufficient.
These forces, partnered with Iraqi units, will clear critical Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shi’a neighborhoods, primarily on the west side of the city.
There's more; I am trying to keep this post reasonably short. Al Anbar province gets similar treatment. The focus is exactly where it should be, pithily summed up by Richard Brookhiser's reaction to the ISG report: "An Alternative to Baker: Kill Our Enemies, Quickly." One of Kagan's points is that the size of the Army must increase. Some of us have been urging this for a long time, but since the main military figure of this alternative plan to the ISG was a retired Army vice chief of staff, Jack Keane, perhaps it is no coincidence that the serving chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, warned the House Armed Service Committee two days ago,
... that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations, the nation's top Army general yesterday called for expanding the force by 7,000 or more soldiers a year and lifting Pentagon restrictions on involuntary call-ups of Army National Guard and Army Reserve troops.
Why only 7,000 troops per year? Perhaps because since before the end of the Cold War the Base Realignment and Closure commissions have been recommending shutting down bases at home and abroad. From 1988-1995, the Army closed 112 installations and realigned (mainly meaning combined) 26 others as well as numerous lab sites. But if the 7,000 per year increase is all the Army can manage effectively, then we are in a very precarious position. Victor Davis Hanson writes,
Could we not raise two more Marine Divisions and four more Army divisions (e.g., about 100,00 addition combat troops), costing per annum perhaps about 6-8 billion dollars—to be paid without more borrowing but by cutting farm subsidies and putting a 10-cent per gallon tax on gasoline?
I don't agree with the gas-tax idea, since average working stiffs use their cars and trucks a lot for business and therefore would bear the brunt of increasing the military. I'd be inclined toward an income-tax surcharge of X percent; for filers due refunds the refund would be decreased by the same percentage.
Back to Baghdad. A perpetual peril for military planners is forgetting that the enemy plans, too, and reacts to what we do. This is what the ISG's reports evinces little evidence that the ISG understood. The ISG simply seemed to assume that all Iraq's neighbors had a common interest (which it seemed to think was the same interest) in a pacified, stable Iraq. Therefore the ISG believed its recommended diplomatic initiatives would be met with good faith, leading to success (but pointedly, not victory, a concept James Baker said they deliberately dismissed) or just rejected. And then what? The ISG does not say.
The Keane-Kagan concept, though, explicitly recognizes that the various enemies of democratic order in Iraq certainly will react and to our going big there, and Kagan recommends counters to the enemies' most likely responses.
Make no mistake, though: if this concept is put into action, it will be done whether the Iraqi government agrees to it or not. It will be war the old way, not seen since the Army and Marines conquered Fallujah in November 2004, but likely with less restraint on our part. As Diana West observed last week,The fact is, the United States has an arsenal that could obliterate any jihad threat in the region once and for all, whether that threat is bands of IED-exploding "insurgents" in Ramadi, the deadly so-called Mahdi Army in Sadr City, or genocidal maniacs in Tehran. ... It could be over in two weeks if we cared enough to blast our way off the list of endangered civilizations.
We won't go quite that Pattonesque, but all hands, from the president on down understand that if we go big, it will be the final roll of the dice in Iraq for this administration, or the next, can make there. Either we crush the enemy, various as they are, or we lose the war.
Crossposted at DonaldSensing.com
The Kean-Kagen plan is insane.
What it calls for is US troops to
other than placing some nice division insignias on a map, this proposal never actually explain what it means by "clearing" a neighborhood.
How did we clear fallujah of "insurgents"? We let the women and children leave -- then we effectively the city, and tried to kill anything that moved there. Is that the plan? To level half of Baghdad where the Sunni now live? And to do it one neighborhood at a time?
I mean, would someone explain precisely what this is going to be about -- or how it CAN work?
My concern is more with the "what" than the "how". If we're planning to really fight this time, as in the second battle of Fallujah but not the first, the "how" should be fine.
What is the political change which the military operation is intended to bring about?
If the aim is to "secure Baghdad", for whom will Baghdad be secure, and when it is, why will those for whom we have (momentarily) secured it do what we want, and more to the point what is it that we want them to do?
It has been said that security in Baghdad is a necessary preliminary for any political solution. OK, but I'm looking for something a little more specific than "any political solution".
Situation - Mission - Execution
I think most folks are agreed on the situation. It breaks down at the level of mission, so we can't yet dicide on execution.
Some want the situation to unfold into an American defeat so that we will (finally) recognise that the only "viable" path is transnational. So the mission is admission of failure.
Why? Because so much of the Left's agenda cannot be achieved legislatively, or even through the courts. The hope is that a transnational "government" will impose on us ignorant ones a form of governance we would never accept voluntarily. The key ingredient for this is an American defeat in the Middle East.
Others, and I include myself, seek a permanent removal of the threat. Frankly, I don't care how they do it. The more decisively the better. There's a reason the Japanese and (more or less) the Germans are now our friends.
Time to double-tap the tangoes an moveon.org.
I think John Hinderaker over at Powerline has it closet to right.
Let's stop nipping at the tail and go for the =u<King head.
Weird auto delete.
Let's stop nipping at the tail and go for the =u<|<ing head.
go for the F'ing head
My concern is more with the "what" than the "how". If we're planning to really fight this time, as in the second battle of Fallujah but not the first, the "how" should be fine.
the problem, of course, is that we "secured" Fallujah by besieging it and destroying it. Literally.
Is that the plan for Baghdad? to besiege the "sunni half" of it, and destroy it? And then bounce on over to Sadr City and say "hey, you can turn over your weapons now. We pretty much killed everybody on the sunni side of the city..."
because that is how the Kagen plan reads....
Luka -- the plan is quite brilliant.
US forces have better logistics, their fighters can get water when the enemy cannot. US forces need better small arms, that outrange the AK though. But yeah US forces CAN and DO fight in the summer heat in full body armor. Particularly if most of the initial fighters are killed by heavy arty and air support. I would imagine cutting off the water supply would be the first order of business.
"How did we clear fallujah of "insurgents"? We let the women and children leave -- then we effectively the city, and tried to kill anything that moved there. Is that the plan? To level half of Baghdad where the Sunni now live? And to do it one neighborhood at a time?"
YES and that's part of the brilliance. The main problem in Iraq is Sunni provocations in the doomed attempt to intimidate the Shia into surrendering political power. Saddam redux without Saddam's army.
KILL massive great amounts, of military age Sunni men, and the problem disappears. It's how Stalin dealt with the Third Reich's "Werewolf" problem, whole villages and towns would simply be leveled. With the people in them.
Luka you want the impossible: for war to be won by not killing anyone. It's infantile and magical thinking at best. Leveling the Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad would be excellent and a pre-requisite to victory. Particularly if done ala Fallujah.
It shows in unmistakable terms that Sunni resistance is stupid and futile. It aligns the US with the winners. It also gives Sunnis a way to "surrender" since the US won't be sticking around and running things, Sunnis ending the doomed intimidation effort (analogous to the KKK post-Civil War) and asking for US protection in exchange for surrender is very probable.
Of course this must mean the end of the ridiculous PC rules of engagement for US troops and not troubling too much in how they accomplish the mission.
Decisive defeats by the US of Sunni forces is required to bring peace to Iraq; it accelerates the ethnic/religious cleansing going on, gets the pain over all at once, and demonstrates once again to nations in the area that the US can defeat anyone in the area, has the will. And that against Iran only the US defense shield will do.
Like I said, brilliant.
Leveling the Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad would be excellent and a pre-requisite to victory. Particularly if done ala Fallujah.
Shorter Rockford.
It obviously doesn't matter how many Iraqis we slaughter, as long as we never have to say "we screwed up."
Personally, I'd rather nuke all 26 million of them, and get it over with, rather than this drawn out, sadistic, and pointless genocide.
Pat Lang critiques the plan as Stalingrad on the Tigris.
It won't work. Write it on the wall, and call me on it afterward.
It won't work because it does not address the root cause of the problem: the assumption by Shi'ia that everybody, including the West, is against them except Moqtada al-Sadr and the Iranian mullahs. Attacking the Shi'ia militias, which must be done if the concept of this plan is followed, will only confirm the suspicion of Shi'ia that the West is in league with their Sunni torturers and murderers.
One major source of that suspicion is what might be termed the Mooreon Hypothesis, which is also the Received Wisdom of the international pseudoLeft and Press: that the Sunni are "freedom fighters", "Minute Men" patriotically resisting the foreign invader to protect all Iraqis. In order to make that lie stand, it has been necessary to sweep the suffering of Shi'ia under the rug, to disappear it from history. It is statistically unlikely that there is a Shi'ia in Baghdad who has not been a guest of the Ba'ath, or had a father, brother, or son tortured, mutilated, or killed, at Abu Ghraib prison. American soldiers were punished for being unkind to Sunni Ba'athists there. No one has been punished, or even criticized, for the suffering of Shi'ia there before the invasion; the suffering itself is downplayed, minimized, or even denied.
So long as that remains the case, and the international press continues to laud the incredible heroism of the Ba'ath resistance, the Shi'ia will continue to assume that the West is in league with their torturers, and will resist as they can, including providing themselves with whatever length of spoon they feel necessary for dining at the table of the Persian hegemonists so as to obtain their aid. Attempts to suppress the Shi'ia death squads will make matters worse regardless of any putative suffering of Sunni at the same time. And since, as Luka demonstrates, the plan itself, whether or not executed, is decreed by the pseudoLeft and international Press to be further persecution of the brave Sunni insurgents, and will be presented that way in all public venues, it is doomed from the start.
Regards,
Ric
Luka, stop reacting emotionally and think. The Shia/Sunni thing is ideological, not ethnic, and in this case the maximum preservation of innocent life is achieved by decisive violence in the short term, not half measures carried on indefinitely.
If we leave, full-bore ideological cleansing will result amid regional chaos, probably including regional war.
If we fail to change our current policy, the innocent will continue to be murdered, leading eventually to our withdrawal, with all of the horrific consequences that would entail.
Given the nature of the conflict, the best humanitarian result is achieved through a decisive US victory, even though that appears to require greater use of deadly force. Like it or not. Our goal is to win by killing as few as we have to, but our goal still must be to win.
Luka, stop reacting emotionally and think. The Shia/Sunni thing is ideological, not ethnic, and in this case the maximum preservation of innocent life is achieved by decisive violence in the short term, not half measures carried on indefinitely.
If we leave, full-bore ideological cleansing will result amid regional chaos, probably including regional war and death on a truly massive scale. You ain't seen nothin' yet.
If we fail to change our current policy, the innocent will continue to be murdered, leading eventually to our withdrawal, with all of the horrific consequences that would entail.
Given the nature of the conflict, the best humanitarian result is achieved through a decisive US victory, even though that appears to require greater use of deadly force. Like it or not. Our goal is to win by killing as few as we have to, but our goal still must be to win.
Whoops--sorry for the double post, folks. Clean-up in aisle six!
Before we get to "this won't work" I think we should try to get a clear idea of what "this" is.
Is the goal that Sunnis and Shi'ites be reconciled? And if so how is this supposed to come about?
I think Sunni and Shi'ite reconciliation is impossible and undesirable anyway. We need Muslims to defocus on fighting us, and given the violence of the culture their religion promotes, the only way that is going to happen is if they turn their guns on each other for a while. I think anything that gets in the way of that is harmful.
But I still want to understand what our idea is, if only so I can know how far our doctrine has advanced or how it is not advancing.
What on Earth is this mission supposed to do? How is the political landscape and the negotiating environment supposed to be different after it is done than before it? Is there supposed to be a deal? Between who and who, on what topic, and what makes us think that such a deal would be respected or in our best interests anyway?
I am not entirely confident that we have an idea at all.
If we leave, full-bore ideological cleansing will result amid regional chaos, probably including regional war.
sorry, but nature abhors a vacuum... and that includes power vacuum.
If we leave, Iran and Syria will take over the shia and sunni parts of Iraq respectively. They will restore order, and respect each other's sphere of influence--- in other words, unlike this insane Kagen plan, if Iran wipes out the Sunnis in Baghdad, they'll stay wiped out, because Iran won't try to then disarm the Shia militias in order to create a "central" government.
That is the CENTRAL flaw in the Kagen plan. We can't take out both Sunni insurgents and Shia militias at once to create a non-partitioned Iraq. If we do it "one at a time", we have to commit genocide against the Sunnis --- because unless we wipe them out completely, they'll just regroup while we're trying to "disarm" the Shia militias....
If it makes you feel better, don't say we "lost the War in Iraq" or "we failed in Iraq"....just say "we are engaged in a tactical redeployment of our troops in the War on Terror." But STOP THE FREAKING MADNESS -- BECAUSE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY WE WENT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
Uh, bowling balls float.
Piercello: "Given the nature of the conflict, the best humanitarian result is achieved through a decisive US victory..."
I think at this stage those who care about the ummah including Iraqis are all for the success of the American war effort.
Those who want the Americans to bug out are focusing more on America, and there is a basic split on that.
Most of those who want a bugout see an American defeat as desirable, and whatever happens to Iraqis and the Middle East is acceptable to them. (I see the massive Muslim demand for an American withdrawal - effectively an American defeat - as a characteristic victory of religious hatred over self-interest. If people in Iraq had done what was in their best interest rather than acting on a culture of bigotry and violent domination, there would not have been a war after the fall of Saddam.)
For a tiny number of those who want a bugout, what seems likely to happen to the Middle East is desirable, and an American defeat, however repulsive, is seen as acceptable collateral damage. (I am in this camp, though not fervently because I don't want us or our allies to lose. But I don't think we can win anyway, given that victory is defined as democracy and Iraqis are what they are.)
The choice now is between benevolent war and deadly peace.
Whether the dagger of peace is aimed more for America or the Middle East will be obvious in a few years, since the Americans are hitting the limits of their political endurance.
If we dont do something soon we will go down the shit shoot.........
I am an ex Aussie "GRUNT". I am proud of my country and our best friend America. I have served with US Forces and I have never met a better bunch of blokes anywhere.
We certainly know how to hit the piss together after a shit fight. Anyway I stumbled accoss your website and I was very impressed by it. I share the same view. We need to speak out. NOW.........I am sick and tired of these left wing bastards destroying the sacrifices made so far. To me this is paramount to treason. We have them here to in Australia. Unless we stick together and fight it out until victory we are all in trouble and our kids will suffer in the future. What part of WW3 don't people understand. Shit some people are dumb.
Anyway I have written two hard rocking songs dedicated to the Allied Soldiers in the Middle East and their ensuring victory. I want to help boost the spirits and morale of my American, Australian and British mates who made a sacrifice for freedom and liberty. We must also never forget sacrifces made by men before us. That is what this war is about.
1. Confidential Information
2. Pre-Emptive Strike
http://www.myspace.com/jimmyhellfire
I am offering these two songs for free download until 26th December 2006. I am sure the troops in the AO HELLFIRE would love them. Have a listen yourself. All my "Digger" mates think they are shit hot.
HOT METAL PSYOPS. We are gonna win this war.
Cheers and All the best
KERNAL JIMMY HELLFIRE
MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA
http://www.myspace.com/jimmyhellfire
Victory through two finger fifths!
I love it!
The choice now is between benevolent war and deadly peace.
how utterly Orwellian of you.
a 'benevolent war'? Is that like 'we had to destroy the villiage in order to save it?'
It is the presence of the US military in Iraq that is the catalyst for continued violence there. No one in Iraq is certain of what US intentions are precisely -- but they all know that the welfare of the Iraqi people is a very low priority for the Bush regime. It doesn't matter to Bush (and most of the commenters here) how many Iraqis are slaughtered, how many children are orphaned, how many are forced into refugee camps -- all that matters are the US priorities
1) The US has to stay, otherwise al Qaeda will win a 'propaganda' victory that it can use to recruit new members. (of course, it is the continued US occupation of Iraq -- an occupation force that sits back and does nothing as Iraqis slaughter each other -- that provides al Qaeda with its most effective recruitment message. If the US leaves Iraq, the rationale for leaving home to battle "the great Satan" is signficantly reduced. And, of course, al Qaeda won't be the only one claiming credit...the Baathists, the Shia militias, Syria, Iran... everyone is going to be claiming credit. )
2a) If the US leaves, Iraq will become a terrorist haven
2b) If the US leaves, the terrorist will follow us back to the US
(Of course these can't both be true... and in fact, the odds are that "the terrorists" won't stay in Iraq, because they have no natural base of support. The foreign fighters will probably migrate to Afghanistan, to continue to harrass our troops there. The easiest way to prevent this from happening, of course, is to work with Iran to get it to seal its border with Iraq (and Afghanistan)....because the fastest way from Iraq to afghanistan is through Iran. But since we can't do that according to the pro-dead-Iraqi crowd see below Iran will probably just turn a blind eye to the al Qeada types who want to go and kill Americans in Afghanistan....
3) If we leave, Iran will become more powerful, and that's not good.
(of course, the unspoken part of this sentence is "for Israel"; a more powerful Iran does not impact America's national security interests -- Iran isn't a threat to the USA. )
4) If we leave, the Iraqis will slaughter each other. There will be ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
(of course, iraqis are already slaughtering each other at quite a clip, and ethnic cleansing is going on right now --- and the US is the catalyst for this. A US withdraw is far more likely to reduce Iraqi v Iraqi violence (after perhaps a short spike) because its in the interest of none of Iraq's neighbors for that country to be a failed state. If our goal were to prevent inter-Iraqi violence, we would be working with Syria and Iran on a partition plan for Iraq.)
None of the reasons why we remain in Iraq (let alone would want to increase our troop presence) pass the smell test. We're there, and we're staying there, because we are too WEAK to admit failure (a strong nation can afford to admit failure because one failure doesn't impact its security interests --- its only a WEAK nation that can't afford to admit that it makes mistakes). And we're there to prevent a complete loss of control of Gulf oil resources.
It is the presence of the US military in Iraq that is the catalyst for continued violence there.
What an incredibly obtuse statement. You do realize Iraq was much more violent under Saddam?
Is that like 'we had to destroy the villiage in order to save it?'
"It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it," a U.S. officer was quoted as saying in Vietnam.
The officer in question was referring to an incident in which the locals demanded the U.S. bomb their village because it had been seized by VC, as they knew the Americans would pay to rebuild everything. The Americans at first declined, but eventually did as the locals requested, and planes zoomed in and bombed the position; a reporter wandered by, saw the weeping locals, and assumed the U.S. had bombed them. The quote was widely used as a demonstration of the senselessness and brutality of war, when in fact it demonstrates the exceptional American commitment to morality in war.
2a) If the US leaves, Iraq will become a terrorist haven
2b) If the US leaves, the terrorist will follow us back to the US
(Of course these can't both be true...
"Can't both be true"?!?
You mean like terrorists couln't use Afghanistan for a haven AND attack the US at the same time? If anything, having a secure haven INCREASES the ability of the terrorists to attack the US.
Not only could both your 2a and 2b be true, but 2a is also happening in Somalia as we speak. Last time al Qaeda had a national haven we ended up having to go in and stir things up. But not until after a major attack on us.
"The easiest way to prevent this[terrorist migration] from happening, of course, is to work with Iran to get it to seal its border with Iraq (and Afghanistan)..."
This is absurd. Perhaps you could define 'work with Iran'? Their stated goal is the destruction of Israel, and their hopeful goal is the destruction of the UK and US. But they'd no doubt be open to working with us, right?